ERoSH responds to Panorama programme 'Gimme Shelter'

No doubt many of you watched Panorama's 'Gimme Shelter' on Monday 24 August, in which our Director of Policy, Imogen Parry, was featured. Imogen had been asked to contribute to the Panorama programme by giving advice about potential places to film and through a recorded interview for the programme. We had been assured by the producers that the programme was genuinely seeking a balanced view but ERoSH has had to write to Panorama's producers expressing our disappointment at the biased, one-sided nature of the programme - a view expressed by many people who have contacted us with their feedback. We have set out our reasons for this view below.

Unrealistic portrayal
On the premise of 'old people behaving badly', the programme sensationalised the lives of older tenants who genuinely fear life without their resident warden. In telling the story, the programme idealised the role of the warden, being available 24/7. There was an assumption in one case study that the resident warden replaced the family - which is totally wrong - wardens, resident or otherwise, have always supplemented not replaced families. A further two case studies implied that the resident warden was previously performing the equivalent of a hands-on carer - a role for which wardens have never been paid, insured or trained for.

Its portrayal was unrealistic and did not show how tenants can have genuine peace of mind, a sense of safety etc with a combination of support, telecare, call monitoring services.

Its portrayal of people dying alone without a resident warden was also sensational. With alarm cords, pendants, fall detectors, fridge monitors etc, a resident who falls or who ceases moving in the flat can call up or be identified immediately at a call monitoring centre. We believe this was not explained adequately. As our members will know, having a resident warden does not guarantee an immediate response, unless they are awake and on duty 24/7, which is unrealistic and illegal.

One significant area which was swept over - and which we believe would have strengthened Panorama's story - was the explanation why resident staff have been withdrawn by many sheltered housing providers: there was insufficient weight given to one of the main reasons - the European Working Time Directive. Imogen had been interviewed on this and other pertinent reasons - recruitment difficulties, unmet needs in the community etc - for over an hour, but none of this was included.

The ‘case for change'
ERoSH was introduced as a 'case for change', but we believe that where change is happening, tenants need to be told clearly what are all the different local and national drivers for change and should be given meaningful opportunity to be involved in the actual changes made and their implementation. This approach can safeguard tenants' interests and lead to the best use of and outcome for public resources (a message that Panorama would surely understand). We would not support any authority or organisation that forces through changes without proper regard to tenants' wishes.

The interview with Joe Oldman and the references in Help the Aged's report, ‘Nobody's Listening', did not reflect what the report actually said about resident wardens: "Changes are complex and multifaceted and ... it is unrealistic to argue for a return of the resident warden model ... our recommendations are based on the conclusions that changes may need to take place but that they need to be carried out with regard to due process, managed sensitively and over an appropriate timeframe, following effective information and consultation".

This added to the inadequate unravelling of the differences between changes to services to save money, to redirect money and to improve quality. Sometimes changes are made to address all three issues, sometimes only one or two. Indeed, many changes to resident warden services have led to increased provision of service to those most in need - this was not covered in the programme.

Furthermore, ERoSH's messages about the unmet potential of sheltered housing as a resource to the community were not broadcast. ERoSH's whole ‘raison d'etre' is the promotion of the health, social and financial benefits of sheltered housing and viewers of the programme who were not involved in the sector would have no idea that this is the case, through the selective and biased editing of Imogen's interview.

Conclusion
ERoSH is disappointed with the BBC for misleading us into thinking that a balanced programme would be transmitted and we have requested that we are given an opportunity to put our views on air in the very near future.

This response to the Panorama programme should be read in conjunction with the ERoSH position statement on resident wardens and their alternatives.  Read more ...