ERoSH responds to Supporting People consultation

ERoSH has submitted a robust response to the ODPM consultation document on the future strategy for the Supporting People programme. Our ten key points are:

The existence and/or benefits of sheltered housing are ignored, misunderstood or denied by some health and social services agencies.  Directors of adult services, senior health managers and Supporting People commissioning bodies must address the unmet potential of 'ordinary' sheltered housing (Audit Commission, 2005) and not focus solely on extra care, assistive technology and floating support models.

There is no mention in the consultation paper of the role that sheltered housing provides in promoting better health by preventing social isolation, promoting health education, falls prevention, early intervention, information and advice about technology. The two recent government reports, 'A Sure Start to Later Life – ending inequalities in later life' (SEU 2006) and 'Our health, our care, our say – a new direction for community services', (DH White Paper 2006) endorse a model of sheltered housing as part of the infrastructure for the delivery of healthy living services. This follows on from last year's Audit Commission report on Supporting People which stated that "Sheltered housing, associated wardens and alarm schemes are a major resource, but in too many areas there is no clear strategy about how best to use either the buildings and equipment or the associated staff to meet current and future needs."

We urge the ODPM to require local authorities to avoid the use of inappropriate outcome tools and to continue to endorse the ERoSH outcome tool for prospective and current users of sheltered housing.

We support the model proposed in the paper of separating services into basic groups but want to see incorporated into the model recognition of the difference between short-term and long-term support and no radical changes in the administration of funding of Supporting People at least for three years.  ERoSH is planning to develop with the NHF, a range of models for the sheltered housing support service.  Each model would have corresponding levels of SP payment and would have defined outcomes.

We support the continuation of the Quality Assessment Framework and mandatory passporting for those providers accredited with the CSHS Code of Practice.

We support the principle of the extension of older people's choice via the proposal for individual budgets but we think this is likely to be most effective in floating support services. We have  these concerns regarding the implications for building based sheltered housing services:

• Will vulnerable service users be adequately protected from abuse?
• Threats to service viability – continued funding for dedicated scheme manager? – dedicated care service threat?
• Limit potential for community development and health related service improvements?
• Is there a market of alternative support providers able to offer quality, meaningful choice and value for money?
• Current flexibility of scheme manager service – ie service users able to tap into  help when they need it – will be reduced with new system of assessments to entitlement
• Administrative costs may outweigh the benefits.

We have very grave concerns about the current cuts to some sheltered housing services (eg. Durham, Suffolk as reported in Inside Housing on 10 February 2006).  Therefore, given this climate we believe that now is not the time to end ring-fencing.  Social services focus resources on those with high needs ('Critical and Substantial cases') and we have concerns that there would therefore be a limited focus on low level support and the preventative agenda. We would welcome a statutory local authority duty to provide preventative support (as with housing advice) or an individual’s 'right to support' (as with right to a GP service).

We do not share the ODPM's confidence (paragraph 84, second bullet, page 32) that "there is little risk around continuing investment in long-term low level support". The current cuts in Durham and Suffolk provide evidence for our lack of confidence. In addition, the emphasis on floating support may be at the expense of automatic funding of sheltered housing tenants. There is insufficient attention to the need for investment in stock and remodelling. Local Area Agreements may be a 'red herring' – good authorities know how to work together, putting in yet another structure is unlikely to improve poor performing authorities.  Recent research on their effectiveness has not been encouraging.

The ODPM and local authorities must acknowledge the tension between enhancing user choice (eg via choice based lettings) and allocations / lettings policies which prioritise older people in greatest need. There are extensive problems nationally for providers trying to reconcile these opposing views.

There is insufficient recognition of the supportive community aspect of sheltered housing about which the Audit Commission wrote (Home Alone, 1998). Sheltered housing tenants provide each other with a great deal of unpaid and invisible support, particularly when allocations to a wide range of people (with high, medium, low and no support needs) is present, ie enabling the 'balanced (and inclusive) community'. Sheltered housing is a tenant's own home – a point that is not always understood by administering authorities and social services.