1
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q1. How well do you think the housing support currently provided in your sheltered housing /
extra care housing / floating support service meets individual needs?
Options
Very Well
%
54%
Count
14
Fairly Well
42%
11
Not Very Well
4%
1
Not At All
0%
0
Don't Know
0%
0
Q2. How can we increase the choice available to older people wishing to access housing
support/sheltered housing/extra care and make services more personalised?
Comment
Menu of services / increased choice / support
Flexibility of services / menu with clear charging
More flexible services / hub and spoke / floating
support
Integrated services / links / partnerships
Access to Information / central point
Direct route for referrals / more referrals
Increased funding required
Increase accessibility of support services
Regular consultation with tenants
Plenty of choice / comprehensive services already
provided
Tenure free choices – include people in privately
owned homes
Keep costs down
Consider wants as well as needs
Needs led not one size fits all
Increase supply of suitable rented housing
1
Count
8
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q3. How would offering more personalised services affect your organisation?
Comment
Staffing implications – increased service demand –
increased staffing / restructure / staffing hrs / roles
/ staff training
Staffing implications – reduction in staff /
redundancies
Financial implications – income and budgeting
difficulties /
Increased admin time / costs / organisational cost
Benefit service through more partnership working /
needs led service
Already offering choices / partnership with
specialists
Need to retain core level of service to retain
sheltered status for schemes
Financial implications – additional cost for
individuals, self funders
Could not make it work – capacity / inflexibility of
current system
Not sure / no effect
Count
9
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
Q4. Do you think we need to provide older people who wish to access sheltered housing/extra
care housing with a choice of tenure (e.g. privately owned, shared ownership, rented)?
2
3
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q5. What action is required to increase the opportunity for older people to own their sheltered
housing or extra care housing?
Comment
New build best option
Include conversion of existing stock
Difficult to convert or can't convert
Shared ownership best tenure option
More market analysis needed
Provision of financial incentive more funding
availability
Already provide options on tenure
Don't offer options, customers prefer rent
Count
10
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
Q6. Should Supporting People funding pay for housing support services for older people who don't
live in sheltered accommodation/extra care housing?
Q7. Given that there are limited resources available, how should we decide who will receive a
service and the type of service provided?
Comment
Based on income (means testing) and need
(structured assessment / support plan)
Based on needs assessment
Review core services / levels of service / menu of
options
Factor in support networks / family support
3
Count
19
11
3
2
4
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Use set criteria
Ensure choice of service and tenure – floating
support
Research Report September 2010
2
2
Q8. What are your views on the following possible options?
Option 1 - Allocate a specific percentage of the Supporting People budget to services for older
people who are not living in sheltered housing/extra care housing
Comment
Good idea / support the option
Assessment of need required
Agree with option – base the budget on fair
allocation - needs within area / proportional
representation
Unfair as could exclude people in need / limit
numbers by budget availability
How could this be done?
Should provide certainty on budgets
Reduction in funding would have a negative impact
on sheltered residents / reduction in services
Would dep[end on model of support adopted –
would be at odds with tenure free nonaccommodation based support
Apply to sheltered residents only
Combination of options 1&2 required
Count
6
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
Option 2 – Set a target for the number of older people supported who are not living in sheltered
housing/extra care housing
Comment
Need to have a profile/assessment of current &
future need – otherwise difficult to set
Generally support this option – feel it is workable
Unfair system limiting numbers of older people
receiving support
Who would be responsible for hitting target
provider or SP? / who would monitor?
No
Apply to sheltered residents only
Setting budget more effective than target setting
4
Count
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q9. How could your organisation help to deliver a service to older people who do not live in
sheltered accommodation?
Comment
Through a floating support model
Already got some capacity to deliver / already
deliver this service in some areas
Through a hub and spoke model
Use scheme communal facilities as a community
resource & encourage involvement
Through telecare
Need more staff resources / flexibility in staff team
/ assessment of staff work load & capacity
Count
10
9
6
6
3
4
Q10. Are local people who are not sheltered housing tenants invited to attend activities which
take place within your sheltered housing schemes?
Q11. How can we promote links between sheltered housing schemes and the local community?
Comment
More local advertising and publicity to local
community
Organised community events / social events /
evening events
Allow use by local community
Allow use by advice agencies and as surgeries
Hold community fun days / scheme open days
More support staff / encourage volunteers /
5
Count
9
7
5
5
5
2
6
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
volunteer transport
Improve image and perception of sheltered /
change name
More intergenerational work schools / churches /
voluntary groups
Research Report September 2010
2
1
Q12. What issues need to be considered in relation to “concessionary TV licences” as part of this
review?
Comment
Nothing / Not sure / None
Changes to scheme managers hours to below 30
main issue
'Younger' service users (under 75) main issue
Current concessions under New Preserved Rights
discriminatory against new residents
If over 55 and classed as vulnerable and disabled
then still eligible
New customers under 75 have to pay
Count
5
4
4
3
2
2
Q13. What implications would a move to dispersed alarms have for your organisation?
a) In housing for older people (purpose built flats or groups of bungalows/flats) with hardwired
community alarm and regular visiting support?
Comment
N/A / No significant implications
Cost – of removing hardwired alarms / loss of
recent investment / of investing in dispersed
equipment
Will require additional staffing levels
Count
6
7
3
b) In housing for older people with hardwired community alarm, but no regular visiting support?
Comment
N/A / no implications
Small cost implication to install dispersed
Perceived reduction in service, customer value and
reliability not good
Already provide this model in full
6
Count
11
4
4
2
7
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q14. In your experience, does the cost of telephone line rental stop older people taking up a
dispersed alarm?
Q15. Do you think Supporting People should fund (in part or fully) the cost of telephone line rental
for dispersed alarms?
Options
Yes, cover the
full cost
Yes, cover part
of the cost
No
Don't Know
Missing
7
%
27%
Count
7
19%
5
38%
10
12%
3
4%
1
8
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q16. Do you think people with physical or learning disabilities or who have mental health related
issues and are below the eligible age for older people’s services, should be given access to
sheltered schemes?
Q17. What is your current practice? What are the benefits and disadvantages of your current
approach?
Comment
Criteria
Assessment of need
Over 60
Over 55
Over 50
Only take older people
Advantages of approach
Allowing integration
Diverse and cohesive community that mix well and
meet equality & diversity
Imposing age restrictions
Keeping like minded / similar aged people together
Disadvantages of approach
Allowing integration - Could change profile of
scheme – and perception of scheme to residents &
family
Allowing integration - Need to deal with chaotic or
complex needs and lifestyle differences
Allowing integration - Can lead to 'hiding' demand
for more appropriate housing
8
Count
15
4
7
1
1
7
4
3
3
1
9
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q18. If you do not currently allow access, how would introducing this affect your organisation?
Comment
N/A, Blank
Would upset residents / cause problems with
different lifestyles
Already allow younger access
Could lead to a reduction in properties for older
people
Need for full consultation with residents before
implementing
Issues around management of scheme, TV licenses,
staff training / need more staff training
Conflict of interest - Detrimental effect on
referrals/admissions to specialist supported
schemes
Count
12
4
3
2
2
2
1
Q19. Do you think that Supporting People should continue to pay only for those tasks?
Q20. What additional services should the Supporting People grant pay for?
Comment
Provide help with specific tasks shopping / cleaning
/ handyman / gardening / visits to GP
More social activities
Community involvement and social activity
More flexibility in support and personalisation
More crossover between care and support / joint
support / care plan
More overlap provision / transitional services
9
Count
6
4
4
3
2
1
10
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q21. Should older people be able to choose from a menu of support options with varying costs?
Q22. What options for the provision of this plan should we include?
Option 1
Visits
Daily Visit
%
54%
Count
14
Weekly Visit
46%
12
Monthly Visit
23%
6
Quarterly Visit
23%
6
Flexible
frequency of
visits in
response to
need
No Visit
69%
18
23%
6
10
11
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Option 2
Calls
Daily Call
%
54%
Count
14
Weekly Call
38%
10
Monthly Call
19%
5
Quarterly Call
19%
5
Flexible
frequency of
Calls in
response to
need
62%
16
No Call
19%
5
%
58%
Count
15
Option 3
Alarm
Community
Alarm
Q23. If providers of housing support services were to deliver a menu of support options with
variable costs, how would this affect your organisation?
Comment
Increased costs admin, staffing, management &
business risks
Uncertainty over income and budget and forecasts /
viability of schemes
Could compromise service, role of scheme manager
Could make option work, free up staff time and
offset with numbers in wider community
Would increase complexity of subsidy claiming and
charging
Not sure / Couldn't administer option
Would need to safeguard customer choice – need
not cost
Would lead to loss of revenue / reduced income
Issues around staff training and retention
11
Count
8
7
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
12
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q24. What additional action can be taken to ensure that extra care is a realistic alternative to
residential care?
Comment
Improved knowledge, understanding and
awareness, better information, promotion and
marketing
Build more extra care based schemes
Utilise/improve existing sheltered –more
accessible, 'Homes for life', provision for carers &
family, dementia, 'virtual extra care', core & cluster
model
Multi agency approach / partnerships with housing
and care providers
Support in other tenures / floating support / wider
geographical areas
Staff training / more qualified staff / staffing levels
More intelligence needed – clarify demand for
extra care
More intelligence needed – definition of extra care
Additional funding required
More financial help for residents
Keep core service – housing model not care model
Need balanced client group – extra care and low
level need – to deliver cost effective service
Count
8
6
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Q25. How well do you think the sector meets the diverse needs of all older people receiving
support?
Options
%
15%
Count
4
46%
12
35%
9
0%
0
4%
1
Very Well
Fairly Well
Not Very Well
Not at All
Don't Know
12
13
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q26. How can we better meet the needs of a diverse community?
Comment
More / better consultation with BME communities
Better information available for and marketing to
customers
Better links with / research into BME needs / needs
analysis
Better intelligence into BME take up currently
Need BME schemes / with choice of tenures for
private sheltered ownership
More support to BME in own homes and
communities
Positive action to recruit staff for schemes /
diverse, multi-lingual
Need single assessment process – less red tape
Should be more services for older people with
disabilities
Should be better partnership and communication
between sectors – housing, health, social services,
education, voluntary sector
Issues of isolation and mental illness highest
priority
Strategy needed to support increase in accessible
housing and adaptations
Count
5
5
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Q27. If in some circumstances these functions were to be split between different organisations
would you be in favour?
13
14
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q28. What would be the implications, if any, of splitting the landlord function from the support
provision for your organisation?
Comment
Negative Impact leading to staff redundancies
Negative impact leading to loss of continuity of
service / conflicts of interest / confusion
Increased resources, admin costs would be
required
Loss of funding, revenue, income
Lack of / loss of communication
Tenancy agreements may need revision
Already in operation
Problems for Scheme Manager / warden role
Business planning may need revision
Little or no effect
Count
10
9
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
Q29. If in some circumstances, the contracting of support and community alarms were to be split
between different organisations, would you be in favour?
14
15
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q30. How, if at all, would this split affect your organisation?
Comment
Would result in two sets of service standards and
loss of continuity
Staff redundancy / reduction
Increased resource required
Loss of funding
Little or no impact
Loss of business / negative impact on customer
satisfaction
Need separate billing for customers
Could lead to confusion for residents
Could lead to conflict of interests
Against the ethos of the organisation
None Blank N/A
Count
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
Q31. Are there issues around any of the following in your area?
Assisting residents to access social care for the first time
Comment
Issues
Main issue delays
Main issue contact with 'the hub' by phone social work
Main issue eligibility rules
Scheme managers are trained to liaise with social
workers
Confusion over responsibilities
Communication
Suggested improvements
Referrals by email
Sharing of information / referral forms
Quicker responses and assessment process
Link officer
Service directory
Single access / referral point
15
Count
5
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
16
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Communication regarding residents who receive ongoing care
Comment
Issues
Frequent changes of staff / processes
Exclusion of scheme managers
Staff trained in liaison and communication
Difficulty contacting individuals
Cases are closed too quickly
Issue with social workers not scheme managers
Suggested improvements
Formalised communication / regular meetings
Joint working / joint training / joint reviews / joint
support planning
Inform schemes of staff / agency changes
Service level agreement
Count
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Discharge from hospital
Comment
Issues
Lack of communication / not being informed of
needs on discharge and care
Lack of understanding of role of Scheme
Managers – don't provide care
No care package in place
Yes
Residents need to be independent before they
return home
Suggested improvements
Better communication needed from hospital and
care staff
Better knowledge of schemes / education of
hospital and care staff
Better discharge procedures
Care packages should be in place
Better joint working / involvement / inclusion of
scheme managers
16
Count
13
7
5
2
1
10
6
4
4
4
17
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Local General Practitioner
Comment
Issues
Lack of GP cooperation with scheme managers
GP not always understand role of scheme
managers
GP's only speak to patients rarely to Scheme
managers
Lack of follow up visits from GP's
Mental health / residents reluctance to consult
GP's
Suggested improvements
Training of GP to understand and accept
'professional' scheme manager role
Scheme manager to visit and request follow up
GP visits
Address confidentiality as a barrier
GP or practice nurse 'basic assessments'
Better joint working / involvement / inclusion of
scheme managers
Count
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Local Nursing Service
Comment
Issues
Not always enough district nurses
Suggested improvements
Set protocols / more information sharing
17
Count
1
1
18
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Other please comment
Comment
Issues
Recognise role of scheme manager and accept
referrals
More joint working / protocols / information
sharing
Lack of communication and delays
Awareness of roles both ways – housing support
and health care
Community matron very good and valued by
Scheme Managers
Establishing and maintaining links with PCT
Lack of support from health professionals at low
level
Suggested improvements
Better joint working / involvement / inclusion of
scheme managers
Better understanding of roles through improved
communication and training
Count
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
Q32. Five outcomes are identified in Lancashire’s Strategy for an Ageing Population. What actions
do you think need to be taken so that housing related support services (sheltered housing/extra
care/floating support) for older people are better able to meet these strategic outcomes?
Outcome 1: Older people should have sufficient financial security to maintain their quality of life
and wellbeing
Comment
Easy access to full info on benefits and
entitlement / more financial services
Provide welfare rights service through providers
Improve benefit take up rates
Supported People for all not just Housing Benefit
Simplify benefit system for users
Already provide Welfare Benefits Manager /
Income Team
Ensure fair and reasonable charges for care, rent
& support
Already achieved through support plans and
training
18
Count
6
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
19
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Outcome 2: Older people should have access to mainstream services
Comment
Improve awareness / understanding of
services
Support plan leading to signposting /
consistent referrals from scheme manager
Local advice / signposting to services – 'one
stop shop'
Contact listings / information and help should
be easy to access
Better marketing to public and other agencies
Tailor information and services to older
people
Access to an appeals / complaints procedure
Count
8
7
4
4
2
1
1
Outcome 3: Older people should be healthy and well
Comment
Prevention through healthy activities and
addressing isolation
Health information / advice / campaigns partnership with health agencies
Through support planning process
Prevention through healthy eating - meals /
safe and warm environment
Monitor outcome / include as PI
Ensure daily contact with all clients
Address access to services
Count
7
5
5
4
2
2
2
Outcome 4: Older people should feel safe and supported
Comment
Presence of Scheme Managers / House Keepers
Access to 24 hr monitoring
Good security and design of scheme
Assessment of need
Better local information / awareness
Outcome should be on support plan and
monitored as PI
24 hr Care Services
19
Count
6
6
4
2
2
1
1
20
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Outcome 5: Older people should have the opportunity to make a positive contribution
Comment
Regular contact & consultation – forums /
residents groups
Policy / strategy in place for participation
Support planning – delivery through scheme
manager
Community activity / volunteering /
intergenerational work
Fewer questionnaires
Count
8
5
4
4
1
Q33. Please list any local resident/user organisations within your schemes we can contact.
Q34. Do you have any reports detailing the findings from consultation exercises with older people
conducted during the last two years?
20
21
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q35. Have you any general comments which you would like to make about the review of housing
related support services for older people? These could relate to opportunities or concerns or
particular comments about the way in which the review is being undertaken.
Comment
Negative impact of removal of scheme managers
and not providing VFM
Concerns about further splitting of housing and
support services
Change name – sheltered housing diversity of
provision – definition of 'sheltered' needs to be
consistent
Danger of review being undermined by spending
cuts – Concerns around reduced funding
Review should address differential between small
and large 'multi-national' organisations
Leaflet as information source on SP would be
beneficial
SP has circulated too many questionnaires and
lessened its impact
Offer services to vulnerable older people not just
sheltered
Count
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Q36. Does your organisation have any plans to develop or change any existing accommodation
based services?
21
22
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
Research Report September 2010
Q37. What do you plan to change?
Comment
Undergoing internal review / restructure
Reviewing design & designation of accommodation
/ assessing options
Review level of need / demand in the future
Deliver a menu of service options
Count
4
3
2
2
Q38. Do you have any other comments regarding future developments?
Comment
Already providing low cost services / VFM
Future developments to allow for integration and
inclusion of older people
Older people increasingly concerned about the
future
Two bed properties to be provided as standard in
new build
Schemes need to be more cost effective / tenant
driven
Strategy based on demographic projections and
increased levels of dementia
How will the sector react to change?
Reservations about separating service and being
asked to reduce costs
Looking as support charge & splitting off intensive
22
Count
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
Provider Engagement Questionnaire
housing management
We deliver needs led services & have made
significant steps forward
Review to provide clarity and direction and
recognise strategic contribution of providers
Offering flexible support offered through Claimar
Care
23
Research Report September 2010
1
1
1