Search results

This article reports on a recent study carried out by Sitra on behalf of the Yorkshire & Humber Housing Related Support Group, which resulted in the publication of Prevention and Personalisation ‐ the case for Housing Related Support (Sitra, 2010). The study demonstrated that a wide range of relatively inexpensive housing‐related support services across the region were cost‐effective and worked in accordance with choice and control, showing that the principles of prevention and personalisation can complement one another.

This article is based on a briefing paper originally issued by the National Housing Federation and Sitra as an update to their members on Supporting People and the future of housing‐related support. The article considers the current issues in providing housing‐related support and offers a range of measures to help connect housing, health and social care more effectively and ultimately to offer improved services and better commissioning. The article ends in a summary of the actions that the two organisations will be taking to help protect and preserve local Supporting People services and to make sure that Supporting People will develop, adapt and respond to future needs.

Housing‐related support funded by Supporting People has developed in line with traditional service areas relating to criminal justice, health and social care. This means that opportunities for developing integrated services geared to meeting the needs of mentally disordered offenders have been limited. Using a case study to explore service needs, a rethink of commissioning and support roles is recommended for forensic mental health services.

Housing and support are essential if people misusing drugs and alcohol are to address their substance misuse and their other physical, mental and emotional health needs. If their housing and related support needs are not addressed at each stage of the treatment journey, they are much less likely to enter or remain in treatment. This article outlines the policy context, discusses barriers in service development, explores the role of housing with support for substance users and gives examples of imaginative commissioning and provision. It is based on recent work for the Department of Health Care Services Improvement Partnership.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of housing and housing support services in working with systems of self-directed support (SDS). The paper draws upon findings from an evaluation and follow up study of three SDS Test Sites in Scotland and wider research.

The evaluation of the SDS Test Sites took place in 2009-2011 with a follow up study in 2011-2012. Methods included a literature review; an analysis of secondary data on the use of SDS in Scotland; interviews with key stakeholders; learning sets in the three areas; 30 depth individual case studies and a large-scale stakeholder event prior to finalising the report. These data are drawn upon to reflect on the implications for housing providers and practitioners.

The interviews revealed that some SDS users had housing and related support needs, such as to prevent or resolve homelessness, to facilitate resettlement, to prevent hospital admissions, to access supported accommodation or to move from shared to independent housing. For some people flexible housing support seemed to enhance community living, also well-informed independent advocacy could make a difference to outcomes. While there was policy support for the Test Sites, it was notable that linkages between agencies at strategic level were limited, with neither housing nor health services greatly involved in strategic planning. Training, alongside liaison and partnerships, may help to broaden SDS.

While housing and related support needs and services were not specifically investigated in this evaluation, data suggest that the contribution of housing services may be both under-developed and under-researched in the context of SDS. There are indications that SDS may act as a catalyst for improving housing opportunities provided that collaboration between housing and care services is maximised.

This paper suggests approaches that may improve and consolidate the role of housing in achieving SDS objectives of maximising user control and choice, improving outcomes and sustaining ordinary living.

This paper considers the less charted territory of the implications of SDS for the role of housing services. While drawing primarily on recent research in Scotland the themes raised will have wider relevance to housing and care services generally.

Social inclusion means ensuring that all individuals, despite any particular perceived ‘differentness’ (Sayce, 2000; Harrison & Davis, 2001) or disadvantage in life, may nevertheless feel at home in the world and find a sense of belonging in their local community. But the most important place to feel at home is at home.

This paper is an extended review and expert commentary on a recently published study by the Centre for Housing Policy (CHP) which discusses the complexities of research in “housing related support” in the UK context, and proposes further work. This review aims to explore the strengths and limitations of the study; and the potential wider relevance outside the UK research context.

The review methodology is traditionally that of expert opinion. The reviewer draws upon previous evaluation studies of mental health and housing, commissioned by the UK Dept of Health, the (Dept of) Communities and Local Government, the National Institute for Mental Health in England, and the Care Services Improvement Partnership, including additional material on the Mental Health Minimum Dataset.

The CHP report reviewed raises important questions over the complexities of evidencing innovative services. Despite some omissions, it should be helpful to health local commissioners in assessing the value of services; and the further research the report proposes is to be welcomed. The report also provides a useful introduction to “housing related support” for an international research audience, less familiar with the UK social policy and funding context.

The review introduces and recommends the CHP study – which is itself a valuable contribution to future research on housing‐related support – to a wider audience. The review also includes additional material never before published on the potential research value in the context of the Mental Health Minimum Dataset.

This article highlights the links between housing and health and suggests that the health sector has much to benefit from joined‐up working with the housing and support sector. There are advantages to both sectors of working in this way, particularly in the area of commissioning services. By working creatively together at key points along the care pathway, local partners can support each other in the delivery of services. Many housing associations are uniquely placed to deliver services that offer key solutions to person‐centred working and can help to build healthier communities.

The Audit Commission has produced a review of the Supporting People programme covering the period 2005‐2009. This article summarises the review, which covers the impact of the Supporting People programme, a review of the Government's response to the Audit Commission's 2005 report, an assessment of ongoing and new challenges and options for overcoming identified barriers. Although there is evidence of poor understanding and implementation in some areas, overall the benefits of good housing‐related support services and their preventative value remain important.

Following the Communities and Local Government (CLG) pilot exercise, all sites remain committed to the concept of individual budgets. There are many positive stories of how individual budgets (IBs) have made a real difference to people's lives, enabling true person‐centred support and informed choices about integrated packages of care and support. There were also impressive examples of creative joint working at site level, where sites adopted pragmatic solutions and worked round obstacles wherever possible. Based on experiences to date, all the pilot sites feel that IBs have a key role to play, but that they should not be considered as the only option for personalising housing‐ related support services and increasing choice. Commissioned Supporting People (SP) services can be responsive and person‐centred, as well as providing consistent coverage over large geographical areas, and some authorities consider that commissioned SP services can work alongside IBs and promoted this model as a viable alternative. More work is needed to understand better how IBs can work together with commissioned services to deliver a seamless service.