Search results

This article reports the findings of research which examined the impact that the Supporting People programme has had on housing and support for adults with learning disabilities. The issue was explored from the perspectives of local Supporting People teams, commissioners and providers of specialist learning disability social care services, and people with learning disabilities themselves.

This review for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been carried out while government departments, local statutory authorities, provider organisations and voluntary and service user groups are still working up to the introduction of Supporting People in 2003. There is concern that the involvement of social services and health agencies in planning and service commissioning could lead to resources going into mainstream community care and health programmes, leaving less available to support those who come into Supporting People by a homelessness, housing or probation/prison route.

Supporting People was originally promoted as a way of shifting resources out of the confines of ‘special’ housing towards a more flexible approach focused on people. As far as older people were concerned, it spoke of the desirability of giving more, low‐intensity support and of the opportunity for health services to become involved in the commissioning. But detailed proposals have so far been more concerned with protecting the status quo than with innovation, and have emphasised ‘assessment’ rather than the empowerment of service users. Change could still happen through Supporting People, and the practical housing support services older people need could be provided through the agency of primary care groups or through an extension of Attendance Allowance. The article concludes by addressing the problem of finding a suitable labour force to give older people support in their homes, and the need for joined‐up thinking on earnings restrictions for families living on benefits.

Supporting People is arguably the most comprehensive and radical overhaul of housing‐related support services to date. Much of its success will depend on how providers take the policy forward in practice.

This article contrasts the practice of implementation with the initial principles set out for the Supporting People programme. Key questions remain unanswered about long‐term funding, tenure, choice and regulation. There are fundamental issues to be addressed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and local authorities with the introduction of Supporting People Grant in April 2003.

This article takes up the issue of the relationship between Supporting People and neighbourhood renewal. It attempts a non‐partisan debate about how Supporting People can play a positive role in helping to achieve one of the Government's wider social policy objectives through community development.

Supporting People All the Way, a review for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by Steve Griffiths, examines the Supporting People programme in the context of other government plans. Looking at the boundary between residential care and the Supporting People programme, the review finds arbitrary divisions which undermine the programme's objectives, and argues for a redrawing of the boundary with a more coherent relationship between the Government's commitments to foster independent living and to provide personal care.

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.

The purpose of this paper is report on a study exploring the views of service providers, both within disability service sectors and in mainstream violence response sectors, about ways of effectively supporting people with intellectual disability who may be experiencing abuse and violence.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven participants and analysed both thematically and in more depth from a socio-ecological perspective.

Participants highlighted five key factors facilitating or hindering professionals working with individuals with intellectual disability who may be experiencing abuse and violence: connecting clients with services and establishing a rapport; access to information about histories of trauma; policy context; inaccessibility and unavailability of mainstream violence response services; client understanding of what happens “next” after identification of harm.

Overall the study indicates a strong need for the development of resources, information and tools designed to educate and enhance the understanding of professionals supporting people with ID and to better facilitate learning and understanding for people with ID regarding what happens “after” disclosure of sexual violence or other experiences of harm.

Relatively few people with learning disabilities have their own homes. To achieve a wider range of housing and support options, we have to ensure that there are consistent financial incentives. For strategies to be successful in introducing significant change, some of the financial and administrative inconsistencies in benefits, ILF, out of area placements and Supporting People will have to be addressed.