Search results

Supporting People, in conjunction with Best Value, creates an urgent requirement for those who manage sheltered housing to review the services they provide. Both the wider strategic, financial and logistical framework within which sheltered housing operates and the quality of service provided to service users must be appraised by all providers in order to be prepared for these two key regimes. The CSHS Code of Practice for Sheltered Housing and Related Services for Older People in the Community, and Starfish Consulting's Appraisal Toolkit for Sheltered Housing have been designed to be used by sheltered housing providers to prepare themselves fully for Supporting People day ‐ 1st April 2003.

The National Consortium for Sheltered Housing (ERoSH) is responsible for promoting the benefits of sheltered, or as some providers say, retirement housing as a main component of community care. It's also responsible for raising awareness of the work of those working in sheltered housing, increasing joint working between sheltered housing, health and social services professionals, and identifying and promoting working practice. This article looks at how the practitioners involved are developing the new role for sheltered housing which has a broader scope and purpose to suit the national agenda.

Sheltered housing schemes for older people took a new turn in the UK with the community care policy of the early 1990s giving care provision for people living in such schemes. There is relatively little research on what sheltered housing schemes provide and what makes them work well. Data was gathered in relation to sheltered housing provision for older people in the north Antrim area of Northern Ireland through 10 focus groups with tenants and 16 questionnaires administered with managers of schemes. Tenants valued the independence and choice of sheltered housing in comparison with institutional care. They also highly valued the social interaction with other tenants, fostered by activities such as coffee mornings, regular lunches and social events. Tenants often helped each other with transport and when sick. Tenants of schemes in small towns were generally satisfied, because of access to shops, churches and other services. Transport was an issue for many, particularly in more rural areas and in relation to attending hospital appointments. Scheme managers were often available to tenants for long and anti‐social hours. The home care arrangements were generally regarded as satisfactory although there were criticisms of the limited hours for tasks and the skills of some care workers. Some scheme managers thought that the publicly‐funded homecare service would be more efficient if the staff were managed from the housing scheme. Appropriate social activities and effective care arrangements are an important aspect of supported housing, as well as the independence it offers. Consideration needs to be given to access to services in locating new schemes.

Extra care housing has developed from sheltered housing and has increasingly been seen as a popular option by policy‐makers for a number of reasons. These include the inability of conventional sheltered housing to be an adequate solution for a growing population of very old people, the decline in popularity and high costs of residential care and perceived problems with older people staying in mainstream housing. There is, however, no agreed definition of extra care housing, even though a growing number of government grants are becoming available for this type of housing. This is causing confusion for providers and for older people and their families who are not sure exactly what is provided. This lack of clarity means that this form of housing has become an erratic and piecemeal form of provision.

Sheltered housing for older people will have to change, as the principles of a ‘home for life’ and the indivisibility of housing and care take hold. ‘Remodelling’ accommodation can be the basis of an approach that can ensure that sheltered housing continues to be an asset, not a liability, well into the next century, as part of the social care framework.

Discusses the background to the management of sheltered housing for sale, the main problems of management identified, the solutions proposed, the issues for management organizations, and the main points of the code of practice for the management of sheltered housing for sale introduced in 1989. Concludes that while the cost of implementing the code′s proposals will be passed on to lessees, cheap management is not appreciated so the image of residential property management should be improved: if not, more radical solutions will be called for.

This paper aims to give guidance on the level of service charges that can be claimed by residents in sheltered housing as part of their housing benefit claims.

The paper reviews the relevant legislation and recent opinions and rulings of both the Upper Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

A broad based non arithmetical approach must be taken, particularly as many key words are not statutorily defined.

Claimants, advocates and decision makers should use the guidance outlined when considering housing benefit claims by sheltered housing residents.

This paper aims to explore residents' perceptions of a refurbishment programme to sheltered housing schemes and its impact on their well-being.

The methodology draws upon a realist evaluation framework. Four participatory appraisals (PAs) and 19 interviews with residents were conducted in the sheltered housing schemes. Ages of participants ranged from 50 to 99 years.

Two categories of residents were identified: healthy active older adults and older frail adults (or over 85+). Residents said their social and emotional well-being improved from the provision of indoor and outdoor communal areas. Older frail residents only accessed the new communal spaces when staff took them in their wheelchairs. The physical changes increased opportunities for social connections for residents. Conservatories and sensory gardens were most popular. Residents felt that structured activities in the new spaces and digital training would improve their social activities.

The participatory methods spanned over an hour, and some residents felt too tired to complete the full session.

A practical limitation was that some sensory rooms were not fully completed at the time of the evaluation.

This paper adds the following: Perceptions of residents of a refurbishment programme in sheltered housing and the impact on their well-being. Perceptions of residents about social activities after a refurbishment programme. Perceptions of residents about the impact of physical changes to their sheltered housing schemes and impact on their internal accessibility to the improvements.