MEETING

CABINET

DATE AND TIME

MONDAY 8 JUNE 2009 AT 7.00PM

VENUE

BARNET HOUSE, 1255 HIGH ROAD, WHETSTONE, N20 0EJ

TO: MEMBERS OF CABINET (Quorum 5)

Chairman: Councillor Mike Freer

Councillors:

Fiona Bulmer Andrew Harper Robert Rams

Melvin Cohen Helena Hart Daniel Thomas

Richard Cornelius Lynne Hillan Matthew Offord

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached.

Democratic Services Manager: David Seabrooke Democratic Services contact Nick Musgrove 020 8359 2024

i

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Barnet House has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting please telephone Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.

To view agenda papers on the website: http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE

ii

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracyhttp://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Item No. Title of Report Page Nos.

1. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 22 APRIL 2009 -

2. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS -

3. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

-

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME -

Reports of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

5. Sheltered Housing Services 1 – 53

6. Temporary Accommodation and Non-Secure Tenancies on Regeneration Estates

54 – 60

Report of the Hendon Area Environment Sub-Committee 11 March 2009

7. Outcomes of the Uphill Road Speed Humps Review 61 – 66

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services 8. Expansion of Colindale Primary School 67 – 72

Report of the Cabinet Member for Planning & Environmental Protection

9. Colindale Area Action Plan Submission Document 73 – 81

REFERENCES FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

10. Reports of Cleaner, Greener Transport & Development OSC (a) Signature Street Cleaning Service

(b) Open Spaces in Barnet

82 – 99

100 – 145

11. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT

-

iii

iv

Item No. Title of Report Page Nos.

12. MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE PRESS AND PUBLIC:- -

That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended):

X1. Exempt Information relating to agenda item 5 in Public Session: Sheltered Housing Services

1 – 3

X2. ANY OTHER EXEMPT ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT

-

Fire/Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed staff. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lifts. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so.

AGENDA ITEM: 5 Page nos. 1 – 53

Meeting eting Cabinet Cabinet Date Date 8 June 2009 8 June 2009 Subject Subject Sheltered Housing Services Sheltered Housing Services Report of Report of Cabinet Member for Community Services Cabinet Member for Community Services Summary Summary This report sets out the outcomes from the public consultation on the

future for Sheltered Housing in Barnet. It makes a recommendation concerning the budget proposals in terms of support staff, alarm systems and the alarm response service for consideration by Cabinet.

This report sets out the outcomes from the public consultation on the future for Sheltered Housing in Barnet. It makes a recommendation concerning the budget proposals in terms of support staff, alarm systems and the alarm response service for consideration by Cabinet.

Officer Contributors

Irene Findlay, Director of Adult Social Services Kate Kennally, Deputy Director of Adult Social Services

Status (public or exempt) Public with exempt part

Wards affected All

Enclosures Appendix 1: Schedule of Services affected Appendix 2: Summary report from SMSR Appendix 3: Sheltered meetings summary report Appendix 4: Summary of non-standard responses Appendix 5: Barnet Sheltered Housing Strategy Appendix 6: Equalities Impact Assessment

For decision by Cabinet

Function of Executive

Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate)

Not applicable

Contact for further information: Caroline Chant, Joint Commissioner – Older Adults & Physical and Sensory Impairment, Adult Social Services

1

1 RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That Cabinet notes the emerging Sheltered Housing Strategy set out in

appendix 5 which will be revised and agreed as part of the overall Housing Strategy

1.2 That Cabinet do not agree a budget reduction of £950,000 in respect of sheltered housing

1.3 That Cabinet following extensive consultation give consideration to implement the Cabinet Member’s preferred option as set out in para 11.4, option 3 to remodel sheltered housing services to provide support to those in need and deliver efficiencies of up to £400,000 in 2010/11.

2 RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Social Affairs Policy Development Committee – Housing Strategy for Older

People - 25 January 2001 – endorsed the reshaping of sheltered housing stock

2.2 Cabinet – Social Affairs Bill Modernising Supported Housing Services for Vulnerable People – 16 July 2001 – agreed plans to reshape and modernise housing for older people

2.3 Cabinet decision 3 April 2006: decision item 9: Living Longer, Living Better in Barnet – A joint plan for older people and their carers - 2006 to 2009

2.4 Cabinet decision 12 December 2007 Independence Choice and Control: Services for Older People. An Integrated Commissioning Strategy for Barnet 2007 – 2017

2.5 Cabinet decision 6 January 2009 Agreed budget headlines subject to the normal consultation processes. This included a proposal to restructure and replace existing services operated by sheltered housing landlords with new services that will target support to tenants who need it. Proposal includes a budget reduction of £950,000.

3 CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The recommendations of this report support the corporate priorities of

‘Supporting the Vulnerable in our community’ and ‘Strong and Healthy Communities’.

3.2 The proposed service provision is intended to support better outcomes for older people such as promoting independence, improved quality of life and better targeted and more flexible support.

4 RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 Sheltered Housing has been used as an option for supporting vulnerable

older people to remain in the community. The options considered in this report would result in significant changes to how support is provided and for some could result in increased need for services.

4.2 The key risks identified in the consultation are those relating to tenants’ health and welfare, in particular, the most vulnerable tenants, and the related key

2

4.3 The Supporting People Commissioning Board have received the feedback from the public consultation and considered how the proposals link to the sheltered housing strategy developed through the Supporting People programme. The Supporting People Commissioning Board support the preferred option set out in this paper.

4.4 We are aware of one legal case to prevent wardens’ removal. 5 EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 The Equality Impact Assessment indicates that the preferred service option

would promote greater diversity in provision as support will be available to people living in their own homes. The council’s 2006 review of sheltered housing in the borough found BME groups represented only 7% of sheltered housing tenants, just half the census rate. In contrast, analysis of floating support usage in Barnet shows 19% of older people entering services were from BME groups. This inequality is reinforced by the current distribution of expenditure on Supporting People services for older people with over 60% of investment directed to services for sheltered housing tenants who make up less than 3% of the borough’s older residents. The proposal is to commission services that are needs-led and available to all, unlike current sheltered housing provision that discriminates against those populations who are less likely to wish to choose this housing tenure.

6 USE OF RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS (Finance, Procurement,

Performance & Value for Money, Staffing, IT, Property, Sustainability) 6.1 It was recognised as part of the 2009/10 budget that it would not be possible

to realise the full year effect of any savings related to sheltered housing in year and a contingency was created to cover the possible eventuality that no savings were realised through the budget proposal related to Sheltered Housing.

6.2 The preferred service option would achieve sustainable budgetary efficiencies of £400,000 from 2010/11. However no savings can be generated during 2009/10 from implementation of any proposal relating to sheltered housing due to:

the requirement to issue of six-months notice of termination for existing contracts with 18 provider organisations and the negotiation of replacement contracts for alarm-only provision. Five existing contracts for alarm-only services would be continued.

Securing project management capacity. 6.3 The proposal concerns staffing and not buildings. However, cessation of

residential warden services could be expected to generate up to 31 staff flats

3

6.4 The proposal will lead to staffing reductions among external contractors including Barnet Homes. Human Resources and Legal services will advise adult social services when the proposals are being finalised as to whether TUPE applies, although we do not believe it does apply, and it will primarily be a matter for the contractors.

6.5 The following considerations apply to the procurement of alternative services proposed under the Options set out in this report

6.5.1 Where the Council is seeking offers in relation to a public supplies or services contract and the contract value exceeds £139,893, the Council must comply with The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/5) (“the Regulations”) by undertaking a full European procurement or, where the contract is a contract for services and falls within ‘Part B’ of Schedule 3 to the Regulations, complying with the relevant parts of the Regulations. Where the contract value is below £139,893, or is a Part B service, the Council must comply with the requirements of transparency, fairness and equality in selecting a contractor to supply the goods or to provide the services.

6.5.2 Option 1: In the event that the Council is seeking a provider for an alarm system and there is any risk that the contract value will be more than the £125,000 indicated in the report as the maximum estimated cost, careful consideration should be given to conducting an EU procurement. This would guard against any challenge for breach of the Regulations in the event that bids received, in response to an invitation from the Council to provide an alarm system, actually exceed the £139,893 threshold.

6.5.3 Option 2: If the contract for the alarm system is tendered separately to the contract for the locally-based Rapid Response service then (subject to compliance with the, relevant, dis-aggregation rules) the alarm system contract value will be below the £139,893 threshold and will, therefore not be subject to the full European procurement regime. In this event, the Council will need to meet the requirements as to transparency, fairness and equality.

6.5.4 The contract for the locally-based Rapid Response service would fall to be dealt with as a Part B Services contract. As such, it would be subject to, only, parts of the EU regime and to the requirements for transparency, fairness and equality.

6.5.5 In the event that the provision of the alarm system and the locally-based Rapid Response were to be tendered as one contract, this would constitute a mixed contract for supplies and services. In this case and on the basis that the locally-based Rapid Response service part carries the greater value, the contract would fall to be dealt with under Part B of Schedule 3 to the Regulations and the contents of the preceding paragraph would apply.

6.5.6 A contract for activity coordination to facilitate social activities and tenant-led communal support within sheltered housing blocks, with a value of £150,000

4

would need to be tendered in accordance with the Regulations as a Part B service and meet the requirements of transparency, fairness and equality.

6.5.7 Option 3: In the event that this option is chosen and the contract value for the ‘hub based floating support and sheltered plus units’ exceeds the EU threshold for supplies and/or services, the Regulations will apply

7 LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 As with most decisions of the Council there is a risk of challenge by way of

judicial review. As the decision being taken has the potential to affect many residents of sheltered housing the risk of challenge is higher.

7.2 As a matter of public law the Council is required to put out the proposals for changes to the sheltered housing provision to consultation to groups affected by those changes and to consider the results of the consultation process. The Council is also required by equalities and discrimination legislation to have ‘due regard’ to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity.

7.3 Challenge may be brought on usual judicial review grounds. 8 CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution Part 3, Responsibility for Functions, section 3, Responsibilities of

the Executive 9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 The council currently commissions support services for 1500 sheltered housing

tenants provided under contract by 24 separate organisations, including housing associations, charities and the council’s ALMO. 19 of the 24 organisations provide support staff and an alarm service, and the remaining five organisations provide an alarm-only service. A list of the organisations and services is at Appendix 1

9.2 Sheltered housing enables older people to remain independent in specially adapted community settings. Typically sheltered schemes consist of a group of self contained flats or bungalows for rent, with either a resident warden or visiting service, 24 hour emergency call out facilities and in many schemes, communal areas and facilities. Two-thirds of Barnet’s tenants receive support from resident staff with remaining services provided by non-resident staff based at sheltered housing locations during the day or based off-site but operating regular scheduled visits. The staffing services offer low support, in most cases providing an indicative input of around one hour or less per week per tenant, but there is significant variation between services as shown in the data at Appendix 1.

9.3 Within Barnet, changes to the provision of sheltered housing provided by the Council have been undertaken since 2001 with a reduction of one-third in the number of units from 673 to 445. This has been as a response to: reducing the oversupply of sheltered accommodation; improving the standard of the retained stock and to make provision for extra care schemes. Data shown in the draft

5

9.4 However the reduction in the sheltered housing stock has not led so far to any change in the principle that schemes should provide fixed warden based service available to all tenants regardless of levels of need.

9.5 Work has been undertaken through the Supporting People programme to develop an updated sheltered housing strategy. The work was informed by Barnet’s Integrated Commissioning Strategy for OP, The Supporting People Strategy, and the Government’s National Strategy – Housing for an Ageing Society. Essentially the draft strategy proposes to remove the link between accommodation and support, enabling a needs-led service to older people in the community who do not live in sheltered accommodation. Specifically the following is proposed:

Replace the resident sheltered housing officer service with a visiting service through geographically arranged ‘community teams’ based at sheltered housing schemes.

Develop sheltered ‘plus’, using the schemes with the best facilities to accommodate those with highest support needs. The community teams could be located at these sites to meet the needs of the residents as well as providing outreach.

9.6 This debate at a local level on the future of sheltered housing is reflected elsewhere. Nationally, one of the key changes being debated in the role of sheltered housing is the move to floating support models providing visiting support responsive to the individual needs of the tenants and not tied to the accommodation, and the consequent removal of dedicated scheme managers who may or may not be resident in the scheme. This is seen by local authority commissioners as a more effective use of resources. Indeed ‘Inside Housing’s’ survey of 51 local authorities (17 October 2008) found: that in 75% of the local authority areas surveyed warden services have been reduced or are under review.

9.7 ERoSH (The Emerging Role of Sheltered Housing), a national charity working with and on behalf of older people, and the sheltered/retirement sector, has published a position statement which recognises the need for change to the traditional model (i.e. the practice by some providers of delivering routine 5 times weekly visiting/intercom call of all tenants in a sheltered housing scheme (“one-size-fits-all”) without regard to need, choice, outcome or service suitability). ERoSH promotes the development of small multi-skilled teams of staff to deliver needs led, outcome-focused support services to people living in sheltered housing and in the wider community.

9.8 Funding for sheltered housing since 2003 has formed part of the Supporting People programme with a dedicated ring–fenced grant. Since 2009, Supporting People funding is no longer ring-fenced and should be directed towards priorities set out in Local Area Agreements. As part of the development of the 2009/10 budget, the Supporting People programme expenditure was analysed against the Barnet LAA. This identified sheltered housing as not directly contributing towards the achievement of the Barnet LAA. In December 2008 Cabinet published budget headlines that included a proposed budget saving of

6

9.9 The council therefore consulted on the budget proposal and how the residual budget should be deployed specifically in respect of:- Support staff – site based services to be replaced by floating support,

including a small specialist service as well as access to mainstream generic services

Charges for emergency alarm services – financial help to be subject to in future to FACS qualification

10 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON SHELTERED HOUSING PROPOSALS 10.1 Extensive public consultation was undertaken in respect of the sheltered

housing budget proposal and ran for six weeks from 16 February until 31 March 2009. In order to ensure that this was a genuine consultation exercise, independent consultants were engaged to facilitate public meetings and to analyse the written questionnaires completed in response to the public consultation document. The consultation response comprised five elements each summarised below

Consultation Questionnaires 10.2 The consultant’s report is at Appendix 2. Key data is as follows:

833 completed questionnaires were received, with 73.7% of respondents being residents of sheltered housing and 17.3% of respondents a relative, carer of friend of a resident.

The majority (88%) disagreed to some extent with the proposed budget reduction, with 81% strongly disagreeing; just 8% overall agreed to some extent. The main reasons given were that people would have difficulties without the level of support provided (65.6%) and that without support people in sheltered housing would be isolated / feel unsafe (29.3%)

The majority (70%) tended to disagree to some extent with the replacement of warden services by floating support, with 63% of respondents strongly disagreeing. The majority (88%) felt that sheltered housing tenants would be disadvantaged if this proposal were implemented with the most frequently given reason that residents would not be supported sufficiently (33.1%). 14.4% of respondents cited that people on site (wardens) were necessary to ensure security and safety.

59% agreed to some extent that support services should be provided to anyone who needs support, whatever type of housing they happen to live in; with almost a third (32%) strongly agreeing.

59% disagreed to some extent with the proposal to reduce financial help with charges for alarm services, with 50% strongly disagreeing. 27% agreed to some extent with this proposal, with 11% strongly agreeing.

7

Meetings at Sheltered Housing Schemes 10.3 In summary, 47 sheltered scheme meetings took place plus 19 follow up

meetings. A report on the meetings is at Appendix 3. Generally there was widespread opposition to the proposals; the view is that sheltered housing provides a highly valued, cost effective service and that the proposals signal the end of sheltered housing. Tenants are worried about the risks of this on their safety and security, particularly for older frailer tenants.

Petitions 10.4 The council has received petitions as follows: 10.5 "Barnet Council proposes a drastic cut in the budget for the provision of

sheltered housing. This will mean that the highly effective, popular and professional resident warden service will be ended. It will be replaced by an ad hoc floating service which threatens the health and wellbeing our borough's elderly and most vulnerable citizens. We, the undersigned, call upon the Council to reject this proposal."

10.6 The petition bears approximately 470 signatures, accompanied in the

majority of cases by addresses within the Borough. Some out-borough signatories are understood be carers or relatives of affected residents.

10.7 A further petition supporting the above, bearing 1148 signatures, has been

received. 10.8 "The Council is making changes to sheltered housing wardens and the

following Chand House Residents are against this" (translated from Gujarati)

10.9 The petition is signed by 29 residents of Chand House, Grange Avenue,

N12 10.10 "As you may have read in the local press, Barnet Council is proposing

significant financial cuts which will effectively see the end of sheltered housing within the Borough. The service is currently provided to 1500 vulnerable, often isolated individuals who rely on their Scheme Manager and emergency alarm system to live safely. The end of this invaluable service will result in significantly increased admissions to residential homes and hospitals. Such a move will definitely not lead to a reduction in spending but to an increase in costs. Please join us in saying NO to these proposals and register your opposition by signing below."

10.11 The petition bears approximately 420 signatures. Addresses are not quoted.

Areas of residence are given, most of which appear to relate to the Borough

8

10.12 "Do you agree that Barnet Sheltered Housing should keep its existing warden and alarm service and that proposals for change should be dropped? (the "yes" option being ticked in all cases).

10.13 The petition bears 268 signatures. No addresses are given. In most cases

the signatures are accompanied by an indication that the signatory is a resident, or a friend or relative of a resident

10.14 ‘Save our sheltered housing wardens! I support the campaign to keep on

site wardens in sheltered housing residences in Barnet’. 10.15 This petition bears 227 signatures. Addresses are given. 10.16 We the undersigned deplore the proposal by Barnet Council to scrap on site

wardens for elderly residents living in sheltered housing. The wardens and the support they provide are vital for the well being of elderly residents in sheltered housing. These residents should not have to depend on ad hoc and charitable support. Therefore we believe this proposal must be withdrawn, and on site wardens kept in place.

10.17 This petition, also handed in at the Annual Council meeting, bears 69

signatures. Addresses are given. Non-standard Representations 10.18 These are listed at Appendix 4. In all 106 non standard responses were

received directly by the council. Of these responses, 2 people were in favour of the proposals. The following reasons were given as being the most prevalent reason for opposing the proposals: response to personal medical or other emergency 58%; security of the building 46%; non urgent support tasks 41% and non urgent social care tasks 27%. Other reasons were cited in 42% of responses. It is interesting to note that only 15% cited social event organisation and 17% personal isolation as the reason why they did not support the proposals.

Consultation with Support Providers 10.19 This element comprised technical questionnaires issued by the council to

each of the current providers requesting their assessment of the impact of the proposals on their organisations and on their service users.

10.20 Whilst the data should be treated with caution, providers felt that if the budget

proposal was implemented as proposed in the council’s Budget Headlines then an additional 346 people would need extra support (additional floating support or a care package), 26% of the sheltered housing population. Initial social services sample analysis supports a cost estimate in the region of an average of 2 hours of floating support / home care per week, representing a cost pressure of £539,760 per year based on unit cost of £15 per hour.

11 OPTIONS APPRAISAL

9

11.1 Barnet Council has considered the results from the consultation and developed

options for consideration by the Cabinet arising from this in respect of Sheltered Housing. In formulating the options, a number of assumptions have been made as follows:

that the options should support the implementation of the draft sheltered

housing strategy to ensure that resources are better targeted to needs and to break the connection between accommodation and fixed levels of support

that the options should address the concerns of residents and their families as expressed through the public consultation

that the options should mitigate risks of increased expenditure on statutory care interventions

that the options must be affordable for the Council in the longer term. that the options should support the prevention agenda

11.2 Option One – Implement budget proposal of £950,000 saving 11.2.1 Option Summary

This option will see the termination of all contracts for warden based services and renegotiation of contracts for alarm services. This will provide an alarm system provision for tenants who reach the thresholds set out in the Fair Access to Care eligibility criteria for Adult Social Services (FACs) at an estimated cost of £105,000-£125,000. It will provide a centrally based rapid response service to respond to alarm calls and other urgent situations which previously would have been provided through wardens.

11.2.2 Pros of option

Will allow for the most vulnerable to continue to have an alarm system with a rapid response

Breaks the connection between accommodation and support as set out in the draft Sheltered Housing Strategy. Will achieve full budget saving for sheltered housing identified in the budget proposals

Is consistent with the policy agenda for Choice and Independence and the roll-out of Personal Budgets and resource is explicitly linked to levels of need

11.2.3 Cons of option

Will result in the withdrawal of financial assistance toward weekly charges for alarm services for Sheltered Housing residents not considered to be FACs eligible. This is estimated to be half or less of the total number of residents, and this loss of income places at risk the viability of alarm services provided by sheltered housing organisations.

Significant risk of incurring additional support costs which would have to be met through reductions to other elements of the supporting people programme which are linked to LAA priorities or cost pressure for Adult Social Services purchasing budgets

Significant impact resulting from the restriction of financial assistance with alarm charges and the replacement of existing staffing services by a basic

10

Limits the range of preventative services available for older people within the Borough and risk in future of increased number of people opting for residential care in absence of alternatives for example extra care developments take time to come on stream

11.3 Option Two – Implement budget proposal of £600,000 saving 11.3.1 Option Summary

This option will see the termination of all contracts for warden based services and renegotiation of contracts for alarm services. This will provide an alarm system provision for tenants who reach the thresholds set out in the Fair Access to Care eligibility criteria for Adult Social Services at an estimated cost of £105,000-£125,000. It will also provide a locally-based Rapid Response service operating from 2 to 3 geographical dispersed locations to provide a rapid assessment and referral service to tenants at risk and to respond to alarms. In addition it would provide a version of the ‘daily call’ that tenants value so much. This service to respond to alarm calls is estimated as costing in the region of £297,000-£317,000. In addition, there will be some earmarked resources for activity coordination to facilitate social activities and tenant-led communal support within sheltered housing blocks. This is estimated at £150,000.

11.3.2 Pros of option

Will allow for the most vulnerable to continue to have an alarm system with a rapid response

Breaks the connection between accommodation and support as set out in the draft Sheltered Housing Strategy.

Will achieve significant budget saving for sheltered housing Enables retention of the daily call to sheltered housing units Enables retention of social activities being co-ordinated in sheltered housing

units Is consistent with the policy agenda for Choice and Independence and the

roll-out of Personal Budgets and resource is explicitly linked to levels of need

11.3.3 Cons of option

Will result in the withdrawal of a funded alarm service for 50% of current Sheltered Housing residents and places at risk viability of other alarm schemes

Risk of incurring additional support costs Significant impact resulting from the restriction of financial assistance with

alarm charges and the replacement of existing staffing services by a basic visiting support service does not address the issues raised in the public consultation, particularly the risks to residents’ safety and security.

Limits the range of preventative services available for older people within the Borough and risk in future of increased number of people opting for

11

Investment being made in area not identified as biggest area of concern – social activities

11.4 Option Three - Implement proposal to achieve £400,000 efficiencies

11.4.1 Option Summary

This option would support the implementation of the Barnet Sheltered Housing strategy more effectively than the preceding options and provides for the development of ‘hub based floating support and sheltered plus units. It assumes the retention of the alarm service provision for all tenants. It will require the termination of all contracts for warden based services however contracts for alarm services with existing providers will be maintained but subject to re-negotiation to accord with the Sheltered Housing Strategy.

11.4.2 Pros of option

Addresses the points raised in the consultation and retains sufficient support capacity to meet needs of current sheltered housing residents.

Less likelihood of additional budget exposure for Adult Social Services Alarm services continue to be available for all tenants Support is based on individually assessed needs, and would be available to

the wider community of older people, achieving one of our strategic objectives. It will be better targeted. This model would replace the somewhat institutional ‘daily call’ service and encourage independence. This is consistent with feedback from the consultation in which 59% of respondents agreed to some extent that support services should be provided to anyone who needs support, whatever type of housing they happen to live in; with almost a third (32%) strongly agreeing.

It will capitalise on the potential of the best sheltered housing schemes as a resource to the community, creating hubs where other neighbourhood services, e.g. supporting the prevention agenda can be delivered.

Less contentious option and has greater consistency with the ERoSH model

Is consistent with the policy agenda for Choice and Independence and the roll-out of Personal Budgets

11.4.3 Cons of option

Does not address the prevailing views expressed in the consultation in support of existing service provision, particularly the retention of staff working within each scheme.

Does not include specific provision for activities coordination including supporting the development of resident-led activities within each scheme as set out in the draft sheltered housing strategy.

11.5 Option Four – No Change 11.5.1 Option Summary

12

13

This option would see the maintenance of the current provision of Sheltered Housing and no budget saving achieved.

11.5.2 Pros of option

Reflects the majority of the responses to the Public Consultation 11.5.3 Cons of option

Does not fit with the draft sheltered housing strategy for Barnet Retains the link between accommodation and support which is not responsive

to individual levels of need Is not affordable to the Council in the longer term given the increase in the

elderly frail population and could necessitate savings to be made in other priority services

Is not consistent with the policy agenda for Choice and Independence and the roll-out of Personal Budgets and resource allocation is not linked to levels of need

12 Option Appraisal 12.2 The preferred option is option 3 for the following reasons:

It is informed by the majority views expressed during the consultation: it recognises the social and financial risks involved in the very substantial

contraction in the level of staffing support available to sheltered housing tenants that would occur if Options 1 or 2 were adopted

it offers a model that would allow the support service to be locally based and ring-fenced to sheltered housing tenants in need

it prioritises support concerned with responding quickly to urgent or emergency situations

it offers an option to re-deploy a proportion of existing warden staff subject to an assessment of the competencies required for the proposed floating support service.

it recognises the high value that tenants and others place on continuation of the existing alarm service provision

it provides for the extension of support to people living in their own homes, and thereby achieves better value for money and addresses key inequities identified with the current resource allocation profile

13 Option Implementation 13.2 If Cabinet decides to accept the preferred option, notice will be issued to

terminate all contracts, to expire in 6 months. It is expected that efficiencies will be realised in 2010/2011.

13.3 A detailed implementation plan compliant with Barnet’s Project Management standards will be produced led by Adult Social Services working in partnership with Housing.

14. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 14.1 None Legal: LAC CFO:CM

APPENDIX 1 SCHEDULE OF SHELTERED HOUSING SERVICES

Provider Service Ward No of Tenancies

Total Staff Hours per

week

Staff Hours per tenancy

per week

Abbeyfield UK Abbeyfield House, Homesfield Garden Suburb 12 44 4Abbeyfield UK Woodside Park Road Totteridge 11 34 3ASRA Greater London HA Chand House West Finchley 29 39 1Barnet Homes Cheshir House Hendon 27Barnet Homes Christchurch Close Woodhouse 17Barnet Homes Derby House Hendon 16Barnet Homes Drummond House East Finchley 33Barnet Homes Gadsbury Close West Hendon 38Barnet Homes Hanshawe Drive Burnt Oak 40Barnet Homes Little Larkins Underhill 23Barnet Homes Moreton Close Mill Hill 32Barnet Homes Prospect Place East Finchley 26Barnet Homes Rectory Close Finchley Church End 22Barnet Homes Rosa Freedman Childs Hill 24Barnet Homes Sarnes Court Brunswick Park 20Barnet Homes St Johnstone Hse Totteridge 24Barnet Homes The Potteries Underhill 38Barnet Homes Vale Court High Barnet 14Barnet Homes Wimbush House West Finchley 30Barnet Homes Market Place East Finchley 13Barnet Homes St John's Close Totteridge 17Christian Action HA Hydon Court Coppetts 16 28 2Christian Action HA Palmer Gardens Underhill 9 alarm only n/aChristian Action HA Rebecca House Totteridge 12 alarm only n/aDay's & Atkinsons' Almhouse Charities Day's & Atkinsons' Almshouses Edgware 14 3 0.2Eleanor Palmer Trust Byford House UnderhillEleanor Palmer Trust Cantelowes House UnderhillEleanor Palmer Trust Eleanor & Palmer Gardens UnderhillEleanor Palmer Trust Wood Street High BarnetHanover HA Hanover Court Colindale 36 9 0.2Hanover HA Hanover Mead Golders Green 47 9 0.2Home Group Homestead Court High Barnet 35 34 1Jewish Community HA Daniel Court Burnt Oak 28 27 1Jewish Community HA Meta Worms and Harmony Close Golders Green 82 41 0.5Jewish Community HA Lionel Leighton Court Golders Green 27 31 1Jewish Community HA Shine House West Finchley 22 27 1Jewish Community HA Wohl Lodge Golders Green 20 27 1Jewish Community HA Wolfson Court Golders Green 10 11 1Lewis W. Hammerson Memorial Home Hammerson House Garden Suburb 20 60 3Livability (formerly John Grooms HA) Ash Close Edgware 32Livability The Firs Edgware 9Livability Roseway Edgware 30Livability Ross Court Colindale 14 alarm only n/aMetropolitan Support Trust Deborah Lodge Burnt Oak 36 34 1Metropolitan Support Trust Nurse Close & Ellis Close Burnt Oak 6 alarm only n/aOrbit Housing Association Douglas Bader House Woodhouse 11 alarm only n/aOrchard Housing Society Orchard Housing Society Garden Suburb 59 37 1Retail Trust Sheltered Housing Service Mill Hill 84 229 3Sanctuary Housing Association Nightingale & Tanglewood Lodges Hale 16 alarm only n/aSanctuary Housing Association St Giles House High Barnet 18 10 1ScotsCare Bruce Gardens & St Ninians Court Oakleigh 28 64 2Servite Houses Paul Byrne House East Finchley 26 26 1Servite Houses Thomas More Estate East Finchley 32 alarm only n/aSPH Housing Association Speedwell Court/Speedwell House Totteridge 38 17 0.4The Abbeyfield Camden Society Ltd Lily Montague House Hale 8 63 8The Thomas Watson Cottage Homes Colgate Court & The Cottages Underhill 22 39 2Westlon Housing Association Deborah Rayne House Hendon 31 151 5Westlon Housing Association Annette White Lodge East Finchley 34 151 4Willow Housing & Care Kingsley Court Edgware 71 37 1

648 hours across all services

1

74 126 2

currently being

remodelled

APPENDIX 2

Sheltered Housing Support Services

Consultation on behalf of Barnet Borough Council

Summary Report v2 April 2009

16

Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................. 17

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 17

2.0 Methodology/Sample ............................................... 17 3.0 Summary.................................................................. 18 4.0 Results ..................................................................... 18

4.1 Background information of respondent.................................................. 18

4.2 Proposal 1 .................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Proposal 2 .................................................................................................. 20

4.4 Proposal 3 .................................................................................................. 24

17

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background This report sets out a summary of the results of public consultation concerning proposals published by the council concerning support services for sheltered housing tenants. The proposals are as follows:

Proposal 1: To reduce the amount of funding paid at present for services in sheltered housing and similar locations. This would contribute toward reductions in expenditure that are necessary for Barnet Council to set a balanced budget for next year.

Proposal 2: To provide new visiting support services for older people in Barnet, including a specialist service for people living in sheltered housing. The new services are intended to replace services provided at present by supported staff in sheltered housing.

Proposal 3: To provide a single system of financial help for Barnet people who need a community alarm service. This would bring to an end the different system available at present for people living in sheltered housing.

2.0 Methodology/Sample 2.1 A survey was designed by council officers which was used to ask residents of Barnet their

opinions on the three proposals set out in section1 2.2 The survey was carried out postal methodology and online; and residents were given until

Tuesday 31st March 2009 to complete the survey. A total of 833 surveys were completed of which 47 were completed online.

2.3 The breakdown of the sample is as follows:

Gender Number %

Male 249 35.1%

Female 461 64.9%

Age Number %

16-20 4 0.5%

21-25 3 0.4%

26-35 6 0.7%

36-45 31 3.8%

46-55 44 5.4%

56-59 37 4.6%

60-64 61 7.5%

65+ 621 76.7%

Disability Number %

Yes 359 51. % 2

18

2.4 Where relevant and statistically valid, sections will describe the similarities and

differences by demographic data. Due to small number of respondents in the age groups under 65 years of age, these have been groups for analysis and reporting purposes.

2.5 Due to rounding and multiple responses to some questions, figures may not always add

up to 100%. 2.6 The data in this report has NOT been weighted. 2.7 Health Warning: In terms of reporting on responses, the base numbers for analysis in

some demographic areas are low and therefore this factor should be taken into account when looking at the results.

3.0 Summary Respondents were most likely to agree overall with the implementation of proposal three, regarding alarm services, when comparing all three proposals. Respondents were most likely to oppose proposal one, with just 8% agreeing some extent overall with the proposal. The majority (88%) disagreed to some extent with proposal 1, with 81% strongly disagreeing; just 8% overall agreed to some extent. 55% had suggestions on how the Council could make savings over the coming year; the most common suggested saving was to ‘Stop giving pay rises/bonuses/allowing expenses/creating jobs which aren’t there’ (49%). The majority (70%) tended to disagree to some extent with proposal 2, with 63% of respondents strongly disagreeing. 59% agreed to some extent that support services should be provided to anyone who needs support, whatever type of housing they happen to live in;, with almost a third (32%) strongly agreeing. The majority (88%) felt that sheltered housing tenants would be disadvantaged if current services were replaced by the new proposed floating support services. 59% disagreed to some extent with proposal 3, with 50% strongly disagreeing. Over a quarter agreed to some extent with this proposal, with 11% strongly agreeing. 48% of respondents felt that it is right for the Council to provide more help with alarm service charges for people in sheltered housing than it provides for other people who use alarm services. 4.0 Results

4.1 Background information of respondent

No

340

48.5%

19

Respondents were initially asked to inform the Council of the capacity in which they were completing the questionnaire. Respondents were most likely to be a resident living in sheltered housing.

Can you tell us in what capacity you are completing this questionnaire? Number %

As a resident living in sheltered housing in Barnet 597 73.7% As a relative, carer or friend of someone in

sheltered housing in Barnet 140 17.3%

As a person whose job involves work with older people in Barnet 37 4.6%

As a person who carries out voluntary work with older people in Barnet 15 1.9%

I am interested in sheltered housing for other reasons 21 2.6%

4.2 Proposal 1: To reduce the amount of funding paid at present for services in sheltered housing and similar locations. This would contribute toward reductions in expenditure that are necessary for Barnet Council to set a balanced budget for next year. When asked to what extent they agreed or disagree with proposal 1, the majority (88%) disagreed to some extent, with 81% strongly disagreeing; just 8% overall agreed to some extent.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

Don't know

3.4% 4.1% 2.9% 6.5%

81.3%

1.8%

To what extent do you agree or disagree with proposal 1?

Male respondents were slightly more likely (+2%) to agree to some extent with this proposal. Respondents from a non white background were slightly more likely than those from a white background (+6%) to agree to some extent with this proposal. The five main reasons for disagreement with regards to the proposal are shown below, a full list can be found in the appendix.

Reasons for disagreement with Proposal 1 Number %

People in sheltered housing need this kind of 372 65.6%

20

support/people would have difficulties without it

Without support, people in sheltered housing would be isolated/feel unsafe 166 29.3%

People in sheltered housing are more needy so therefore more should be spent on them 51 9.0%

It would cost more in the long run 49 8.6% Without support people would have a poorer quality

of life 49 8.6%

Those that disagreed with proposal 1, were asked if they had any alternative suggestions for how Barnet Council can find savings over the coming year; over half (55%) did have suggestions for savings.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%

Yes No

54.6%45.4%

Do you have any alternative suggestions for how Barnet Council can find savings over the coming

year?

Respondents under the age of 65 were slightly more likely than those over the age of 65 (+3%) to have an alternative suggestion for Council savings. Female respondents were slightly more likely than male respondents (+3%) to have a suggestion on how the Council can make savings. Respondents from a white background (58%) were much more likely than those from a non white background (39%) to have a suggestion. Of those that did have a suggestion on how the Council could make savings, respondents were most likely to think that the Council should stop giving staff pay rises and bonuses. The five main responses are given below. Alternative suggestions on how Barnet Council can

find savings over the coming year Number %

Stop giving pay rises/bonuses/allowing expenses/creating jobs which aren’t there 156 49.2%

Reconsider how the council invests its money 41 12.9%

Become more green (waste less 38 12.0%

21

paper/electricity/heating)

Try not to give grants to less deserving people 33 10.4% Look at administration and make changes from

there 31 9.8%

Respondents were finally asked if they had any other comments that they would like to make about proposal 1. The five most common comments are shown below.

Additional comments about Proposal 1 Number %

It is causing distress and worry 57 22.1%

A Warden is needed all of the time 53 20.5% Vulnerable people should not be penalised for poor

financial decisions made by Barnet Council 39 15.1%

This is a money saving strategy that doesn’t consider elderly peoples security or happiness 37 14.3%

It currently functions well and this should not be changed 31 12.0%

4.3 Proposal 2: To provide new visiting support services for older people in Barnet, including a specialist service for people living in sheltered housing. The new services are intended to replace services provided at present by supported staff in sheltered housing. Again, the majority (70%) tended to disagree to some extent with proposal 2, with 63% of respondents strongly disagreeing. There were however slightly more who agreed with this proposal, than proposal 1, with 17% either strongly or tending to agree.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

Don't know

6.5% 10.3% 7.6% 7.6%

62.6%

5.4%

To what extent do you agree or disagree with proposal 2?

22

Respondents under the age of 65 were slightly more likely than those over the age of 65 (+5%) to agree to some extent with proposal 2. Male respondents were also slightly more likely than female respondents (+3%) to agree to some extent; while respondents from a white background were more likely than those from a non white background (+5%) to agree to some extent with proposal 2. When asked to give reasons for their level of agreement or disagreement, respondents were most likely to state that proposal 2 would not support residents in sheltered housing sufficiently (33%). The most frequently given reasons are shown below.

Reasons or agreement or disagreement with Proposal 2 Number %

It would not support residents in sheltered housing sufficiently 184 33.1%

Sheltered housing residents should have Wardens 141 25.4%

Residents need some-one there all of the time 80 14.4% People are needed on site to ensure security and

safety 64 11.5%

Residents need different levels of care 57 10.3%

When asked to what extent they agreed or disagree that support services should be provided to anyone who needs support, whatever type of housing they happen to live in; almost six tenths (59%) agreed to some extent, with almost a third (32%) strongly agreeing. Just over a fifth (21%) disagreed to some extent, with 16% strongly disagreeing.

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

Don't know

31.6%27.1%

13.4%

4.8%

16.3%

6.8%

To what extent do you agree or disagree that support services should be provided to anyone who

needs the support, whatever type of housing they happen to live in?

Respondents under the age of 65 were slightly more likely than those over the age of 65 (+3%) to agree that support services should be provided to anyone who needs support. Female respondents were more likely than males (+6%) to also agree with this statement; while respondents (62%) from a white background were much more likely than those from a non white background (47%) to agree to some extent.

23

When asked to give reasons for their level of agreement or disagreement that supported services should be provided to anyone who needs support, the most frequently made comment was that ‘adequate support should be available to all Barnet residents’ (44%). The five most frequent comments are shown below.

Reasons as to why residents agreed or disagreed that support services should be provided to anyone

who needs them Number %

Adequate support should be available to all Barnet residents 177 43.5%

People in sheltered housing are there because they need more support 74 18.2%

Situation and needs should be taken into account 46 44.3%

All elderly need to be helped with support 44 10.8% Support for people in sheltered housing should not

be stopped 38 9.3%

The majority (88%) felt that sheltered housing tenants would be disadvantaged if current services were replaced by the new proposed floating support services. Just 5% felt that tenants would not be disadvantaged, while 7% were unsure.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Yes No Don't know

88.3%

4.5% 7.3%

Do you think that sheltered Housing tenants would be disadvantaged if current services were replaced

by new proposed floating services?

Respondents under the age of 65 were slightly more likely than those over the age of 65 (+2%) to think that residents would be disadvantaged; females were also more likely than males (+2%) to think that residents would be disadvantaged. Respondents from a white background were more likely than those from a non white background (+8%0 to agree that residents would be disadvantaged. When asked to give reasons as to why they felt that residents may or may not be disadvantaged if current services were replaced, respondents were most likely to state that it was because ‘floating support would not be sufficient or need the needs of residents’ (37%). The five most frequently made reasons for answers are shown below.

24

Reasons as to why residents may or may not be disadvantaged is current services were replaced Number %

Floating support would not be sufficient/meet the needs of residents 171 36.9%

This would reduce current levels of services and support residents receive 157 33.8%

People move into sheltered housing for shelter and peace of mind which this would not provide 77 16.6%

Support would not be available as and when needed 69 14.9%

Different people would attend/impersonal service 66 14.2% Respondents were finally asked if there were any additional comments that they would like to make about proposal 2, respondents were most likely to state that an ‘onsite warden is needed to look after the old and vulnerable’ (44%). The five most frequently made comments are shown below.

Additional comments about proposal 2 Number % Residents need an onsite warden to look after the

old and vulnerable 69 43.9%

Residents chose to move away from their home and into sheltered accommodation for security and

safety whilst still living independently 36 22.9%

The Council need to look elsewhere to raise money 24 15.3% It would be more expensive overall/in the long run

as many would go into residential homes 18 11.5%

Services should be increased not decreased 17 10.8%

4.4 Proposal 3: To provide a single system of financial help for Barnet people who need a community alarm service. This would bring to an end the different system available at present for people living in sheltered housing.

Over half (59%) disagreed to some extent with proposal 3, with 50% strongly disagreeing. Over a quarter agreed to some extent with this proposal, with 11% strongly agreeing.

25

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Strongly agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

Don't know

10.9%15.8%

9.0% 9.0%

50.3%

5.0%

To what extent do you agree or disagree with proposal 3?

Respondents under the age of 65 were much more likely than those over the age of 65 to agree to some extent with proposal 3 (+9%). Respondents from a white background were this time only slightly more likely than those from a non white background (+2%) to agree to some extent with this proposal. When asked for reasons for their agreement or disagreement with this proposal, the most frequently given reason was the unawareness of the council of how they will know when residents will need an alarm (28%). The five most frequently given reasons are shown below.

Reasons or agreement or disagreement with Proposal 3 Number %

How will you know when you will need an alarm 129 27.9% Alarm services are very important in sheltered

housing 89 19.2%

Alarm services should be available all of the time 55 11.9% People who need the alarm service the most

should get it 50 10.8%

Alarms should be available to all regardless of finances 48 10.4%

When asked if they think that it is right for the Council to provide more help with alarm service charges for people in sheltered housing than it provides for other people who use alarm services, 48% of respondents felt that the Council should provide more help; while 25% were unsure.

26

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%

Yes No Don't know

48.2%

27.0% 24.8%

Do you think that it is right for the Council to provide more help with alarm service charges for people in sheltered housing than it provides for other people

who use alarm services?

Respondents over the age of 65 were this time more likely than those under the age of 65 (+8%) to think that it is right for the Council to provide more help with service charges for people in sheltered housing than it provides for other people who use alarm services. Males were slightly more likely than females (+4%) to also agree with this. When asked to give reasons for the above answer, respondents were most likely to state that ‘people move into sheltered housing because of the extras it provides’ (47%). The five most frequently given responses are shown below.

Reasons or agreement or disagreement that the Council should provide more help with alarm

service charges for people in sheltered housing Number %

People move into sheltered housing because of the extras it provides 96 46.6%

The alarm service is very important in sheltered housing 56 27.2%

Anybody who needs help should get it 36 17.5%

Alarms are very necessary and important 22 10.7%

Some people need this service more than others 18 8.7% Respondents were finally asked if there were any additional comments that they would like to make about proposal three. The most frequently made comment was that ‘people in sheltered housing need more alarms and scheme managers as without them, housing areas would be less secure than people in private homes’ (30%). As with all other open response questions, the five most frequently made comments are shown below.

Additional comments about proposal 3 Number % people in sheltered housing need more alarms and scheme managers as without them, housing areas would be less secure than people in private homes

37 29.8%

Alarms are the one item that helps all vulnerable 30 24.2%

27

people feel supported physically and emotionally

The cuts discriminate against older people 18 14.5%

I feel much safer knowing that there is an alarm 13 10.5%

Elderly are not wealthy or privileged 11 8.9%

When looking at all three proposals and which residents tended to feel was the most ‘acceptable’ of the three, respondents tended to find proposal three, regarding the alarm service to be the one they would agree with being implemented.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

7.5%

16.8%

26.7%

Overall agreement with the three proposals

28

APPENDIX 3 SHELTERED HOUSING TENANTS MEETINGS REPORT Introduction Hasler Training Associates (HTA) were contracted by Barnet Council to carry out face to face consultation with tenants in sheltered housing schemes which receive funding from the Council to provide housing related support. A formal consultation document and questionnaire to elicit individuals’ views was published by the Council distributed to all sheltered housing schemes on 17th February 2009, the first week of the six week consultation period which ended on 31st March 2009. The analysis of the questionnaires was not undertaken by HTA so is not included in this report. Consultation Meetings and Other Activities A programme of 47 consultation meetings was organised by the Council through liaison with all the sheltered housing providers to take place during the six week consultation period. One or two providers with low level support schemes opted not to hold the meetings as the proposal will have little impact on their residents. HTA consultants attended all the consultation meetings except one where a facilitated follow up meeting was held instead following on from a consultation meeting led by Council officers. This was to accommodate interpretation needs. The practical arrangements and invitations were made by the providers; residents were encouraged to invite relatives or carers. Some residents or providers invited other interested parties such as local police or Ward councillors. It was agreed that all the consultation meetings would follow the same pattern as shown below. However they varied considerably in tone reflecting the variety of the schemes and approach of individuals attending. Part 1 Council officers explain the proposals and respond to questions then withdraw to allow free discussion. Part 2 The HTA consultant to facilitate discussion of the proposals, summarise and record the main points raised on flipchart for inclusion in the report of the meeting and record the number of residents opposed to or in favour of the proposals. Follow up session offered A total of 17 follow up sessions were held following the consultation meetings. The main aim of the follow up sessions was to enable all residents to have an opportunity to state their views. This could take the form of another meeting for those unable to attend the consultation meeting, an informal drop in session or visits and other one to one discussions. If required the follow up sessions were arranged by the provider in liaison with HTA. Residents Views of the Consultation Activities and Documents Overall views Many residents wanted to put their views to the Councillors who will make the decisions and felt this should have been included in the consultation. Residents frequently expressed the view that the decisions had already been made and that the consultation was a waste of time and money. The cost of the consultation was queried.

29

The basis for the consultation was questioned, residents wanted to know what the Council will do if the proposals are rejected by residents and what evidence they have to support the statements made about sheltered housing currently. Several requests were made for the consultation period to be extended, particularly to allow family involvement, or re run and the questionnaire and documents withdrawn. Meetings The lack of notice given for some of the meetings held at the beginning of the consultation period was criticised. A few residents did not agree with the two part structure and one meeting overturned it so the Council officer was present for the whole meeting. Many complaints were made that the Councillors making the decision should be present to hear residents’ views. Documents Some residents were unable to read the documents; they found the print too small and indistinct. It was felt that the way the questions were posed was slanted and the questions on diversity unnecessary and offensive to some residents. It was noted that the only age range given for older people was 65 + so the views of the oldest residents cannot be analysed separately. There was some criticism that the documents were too long and not clear; as stated elsewhere the statistics and assumptions used were questioned. Residents Views of the Proposals General Views There was widespread opposition to the proposals, the overwhelming view was that the current service, although clearly delivered differently by the various providers, is highly valued and serves a growing need well in a cost effective way. Many residents thought the Council has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the nature of sheltered housing and the level of need it supports by making such drastic proposals. They questioned whether sheltered housing would continue to exist as the removal of the scheme manager destroys the essence of the service. Residents viewed the removal of the choice to live in sheltered housing as detrimental to themselves and younger people who may have wished to take up that choice in future years. Whilst sheltered housing was seen as well established it was feared that once the infrastructure is dismantled the damage cannot be reversed. A very small minority of schemes receiving a lower level of service, usually alarm only, expressed less opposition although there was still some concern about removing the option of sheltered housing offering more support. Residents expressed a range of emotions on the amount of funding to be reduced from disappointment to anger; many highlighted the unfairness of targeting older people’s services as they had often served this country in the Second World War and paid national and local taxes. They felt they had contributed in the past and are now entitled to continue to receive the service they had chosen and planned their later years around. The general view was that this is an essential service which should not be reduced to the extent proposed. Leading on from this there was a common view that both contractual obligations would be broken and reasonable expectations not met. The tenancy

30

agreement and what was described as the social contract the Council has with all Barnet residents were given as examples. An aspect of this was expressed forcefully by residents who had given up large properties that the Council could then use for families in return for what they had anticipated would be a permanent service. Similarly the overall proposals were criticised on moral grounds and the issue of the Councils level of responsibility if the new arrangement did not work was raised frequently. Many opinions were expressed on the financial aspects, frequently residents assumed that the need to make savings was related to financial mismanagement, in particular investing in the Icelandic Bank. Some residents thought savings should be made elsewhere whilst other felt they did not have the information or think it right to make suggestions. Residents frequently criticised the high level of the reduction especially as despite the arguments made about equalising services the savings would not benefit other older people. They also raised the financial impact on residents who pay their own charges particularly as the interest rates which they rely on to provide their incomes are so low. A very small minority of residents stated they are paying for services they do not use or want currently. Some residents stated they would be prepared to pay more to keep the service. Many felt that essential services would be cut for purely financial reasons and this is not acceptable. Generally residents viewed the proposals as vague and speculative with a lack of clarity about how the new service would operate. The vast majority of comments were that the new service would not meet needs and sounded totally inappropriate. A few residents expressed an interest in being able to opt out of the current service. Several groups of residents expressed strong concerns that their cultural and religious needs cannot be met by the new system, some residents with severe disabilities including sight and hearing ones, were of the opinion that they would not be able to remain in their home without the current level of support. The importance of not overlooking less visible disabilities and mental health needs was viewed as essential. The preventative role Scheme Managers play in their regular monitoring and promoting community and social life would be absent from the new system. Even the younger, fitter residents agreed with expressions of concern about the impact of the proposals on the older, frailer residents. Generally residents felt the amount of support the older or frailer members of their community receive is not recognised. It was stated that this should have been assessed before the proposals were drawn up. Some older or frailer residents feared becoming a burden on younger ones and there was a general belief that inappropriate responsibilities would fall on residents themselves. Similarly residents noted that many did not have family at all or if they did they often lived far away and the current service reassured them about their relatives well being and safety. The impact on other services in terms of both cost and demand was frequently raised. Again the preventative role sheltered housing plays in keeping residents living independently was stressed and predictions made that many would have to go into more expensive residential care. There were particular arguments put by and on behalf of the Abbeyfield residents that the high level and unique nature of service they provide to residents in the oldest age group means they should be excluded from the new system. Residents Views on the Three Proposals and the Case for Change As the three proposals are linked the more general views are reflected above it has not always been possible to allocate them to a specific proposal.

31

Proposal 1 Residents found the level of the reduction unacceptable and some argued that it would be better to retain a reduced service on the current basis of site based staff but on a part time basis. The cost effectiveness of implementing the proposals and whether the level of savings aimed for would be achieved were challenged. The targeting of services for older, vulnerable people was heavily criticised. It was noted that the savings made would not be spent on more services for older people in the community just a different distribution of the current funding. There was criticism that the choice to move into sheltered housing would be removed as it was overwhelmingly viewed that this signalled the end of sheltered housing. The reference to the number of older people in sheltered housing and the comparison made in the service offered to both groups was both criticised and challenged. The funding for the new service was also perceived to be inadequate and residents questioned why the assessment of those likely to need it had not been carried out in advance. There were many criticisms of the tone of the proposal when the need to reduce services to older people in the community is inferred; some comments were made that the additional council tax increase is preferable. Proposal 2 The overwhelming majority of residents viewed the short term service proposed as unable to meet the individual needs of residents particularly those with long term chronic conditions, disabilities especially those that make communication or mobility difficult and those in the oldest age groups or who have no family or friends. Residents feared access to the service will be difficult, especially for those who need it most. Even those who accepted a move to this type of service is likely believed there should still be regular, routine visits without the need for reassessments. Some suggestions were made about offering residents a two tier service, i.e. residents could opt for a higher level service with regular visits and more continuous support. The points about loosing the continuity of the Scheme Manager Service and the knowledge of individuals that go with it were emphasised. Many concerns and issues were raised about how the service will run, who it will be run by and the predicted demand and costs. Proposal 3 This proposal was often viewed as complex and unnecessary as it is unlikely to make a substantial difference in financial terms. Points were raised about removing the alarm service from communal areas, especially as it acts as an emergency system to help prevent crime and protect the building. In many schemes the alarm is linked to smoke detectors, the practical difficulty removing them was raised adding to the view that this is not a realistic proposal. Most residents view the alarm service as essential as even those who are healthy and currently do not need it may do so in future. A few residents expressed the view that a £5 charge is not value for money and welcomed the opportunity to opt out. The assessment process of both needs and finances was viewed with concern, it was feared there would be delays and it was questioned whether the staff would be suitably qualified to carry them out.

32

The Council’s Case for Change There was widespread disagreement with many of the statements made and the assumptions they are based on. The examples given and case studies used were widely criticised. It was felt the case for change is based on financial issues and political belief not to improve services for all older people. Residents expressed a strong view that they had been assessed as needing the support of sheltered housing, often backed up by medical evidence. They saw little evidence to support the statements about low support needs but quoted many examples at the opposite end of the scale. In one instance there was a debate about whether residents who come into sheltered housing with no support needs should accept paying the support charges as it had been made clear to them that it is part of their tenancy. The opposing argument was that there was effectively no choice but to accept sheltered accommodation or remain as homeless. Generally residents blamed the Councils approach of allocating the accommodation to those without support needs. No residents expressed agreement with housing and support services being run by separate organisations but several expressed the opposite view based on their own positive experience of current providers. The point was made that older people in the community will not benefit directly from more services and the arguments comparing the services are irrelevant and unfair. It was pointed out that residents make a choice to come into sheltered housing emphasising they may also be giving up much when they do so. Many residents argued that as the oldest, most vulnerable and needy residents are living in sheltered housing it is right to allocate resources proportionately. It was felt that generally older people in the community are likely to be fitter and more able to access the other forms of support and services available. The divisive nature of some of the arguments was disliked by many residents and dismissed as unfair. The Main Issues and Concerns Raised Loss of Scheme Manager Service

Security Safety Having to rely on alarm service Community and social life Individual emotional support and pastoral care Loss of Scheme Managers knowledge of residents and their situations Support planning Health emergencies Disabled, older or frail residents need consistent support by someone they know

and trust No monitoring or preventative work carried out Maintenance and repairs – support in reporting/chasing up/allowing access Practical problems – lost keys, residents stuck in lifts etc Health and safety issues Liaising with and monitoring other services Will lead to strain on residents if younger/fitter have to help others, inappropriate

as not trained

33

Floating Support

Lack of operational detail, unconvinced it will work Inappropriate – adds to security concerns No social or community aspect – isolation will increase Difficulty accessing by phone Cannot cope with high levels of need/chronic conditions/dementia Is the funding enough to cover all needs?

Alarm Service

What will happen about communal areas if assessed individually? Cannot respond as promptly as on site staff Slow response

No longer Sheltered Housing

Younger people moving in Potential for ASB and other crime – less secure and easily identified as scheme

housing some vulnerable older people

Effect on Other Services

Increased demand so longer waiting times and higher costs More bed blocking and demand for residential and nursing homes

Longer Term

Planned move into sheltered as long term solution, needs will not be met Older people in community will have no incentive to give up larger properties Funding for Floating support being cut

Reasons for and Context of Residents Views Many of the reasons for and justifications of residents’ views are reflected elsewhere in the report but can be summarised as follows.

Sheltered housing currently provides a cost effective service that is highly valued, the proposals would effectively end that.

The security and safety of a vulnerable group will be compromised. The assessment process meant the vast majority of residents had identified

support needs when they entered sheltered housing, these have not reduced but rather have grown so sheltered housing is sustaining the oldest and frailest people partly as a result of this, there is no evidence the support is not wanted or needed.

Sheltered housing meets both general and specific needs e.g. language, cultural and religious, disability and ill health.

Staff have invaluable knowledge of residents and are trusted by them, cannot be replicated by Floating Support.

34

Many examples of a responsive on site service assisting promptly with illness, falls and other emergencies whereas delays were anticipated re alarm service response.

The preventative role will be lost, the social and community life will suffer and this is often important in maintaining health and well being. Daily checks help pick up signs of ill health or deterioration that residents themselves may not be aware of.

Services can be delivered/monitored effectively as there is a concentration of older people

Lack of evidence that Floating Support works, those whose needs are too great currently referred by Floating Support to sheltered housing

Independence can be maintained with low level but consistent support and prevents the use of more expensive residential care

Reasonable expectations and contractual obligations to continue the service will be broken. This point was emphasised by residents who had freed up large accommodation to move into sheltered accommodation for support.

APPENDIX 4 SUMMARY OF NON-STANDARD RESPONSES

Organisation Name / Respondent Type

Agr

ee w

ith th

e pr

opos

als

Dis

agre

e w

ith th

e pr

opos

als

Sec

urity

of B

uild

ing

Ris

k of

med

ical

or

othe

r per

sona

l em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

to fi

re fl

ood

impa

ct o

n so

cial

car

e se

rvic

es

pers

onal

isol

atio

n

loss

of s

ocia

l eve

nts

non-

urge

nt s

uppo

rt ta

sks

the

mon

ey c

ould

be

foun

d in

oth

er w

ays

unfa

ir or

inad

equa

te

cons

ulta

tion

brea

ch o

f ten

ants

' le

gitim

ate

expe

ctat

ion

conc

erns

for s

taff

redu

ndan

cy /

hom

eles

snes

s

inco

nsis

tent

with

pr

even

tion

stra

tegi

es

Res

iden

ts h

ave

chan

ging

nee

ds

Oth

er re

ason

s

Andrew Dismore MP 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Association of Jewish Ex-Servicement and Women 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Barnet Labour Group 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Barrnet Housing Association Liaison Group 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0Board of Deputies of British Jews 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Jewish Care 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1National Housing Federation 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Tenant Involvement Committee, Jewish Community Housing Association Ltd 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

The Puddenecks Club 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0The Sheltered Housing Assocation (Barnet) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1Sheltered housing residents 2 33 16 23 9 0 2 3 14 4 5 7 1 0 2 9Relatives/Carers/Friends of sheltered housing residents 0 38 16 19 6 6 9 8 13 5 9 11 3 3 3 18Other members of the public 0 18 8 10 7 7 1 0 4 4 3 3 1 2 2 9Sheltered housing provider organisations 0 5 3 3 3 4 1 2 4 2 4 3 1 2 2 3

Totals 2 104 49 61 31 24 18 16 43 18 26 27 6 8 11 45

Reasons for Opposing the Proposals

35

APPENDIX 5

DRAFT SHELTERED HOUSING STRATEGY Summary

This paper describes proposals for a new strategy for sheltered housing in the context of recent strategic decisions1 and potential impact of the revenue budget review on the broader older persons housing strategy.

Our assessment of the amount and type of housing required for older people in Barnet up to 2025 shows that what is required is re-balancing of the sheltered housing stock to provide some higher support schemes (sheltered plus) and more extra care housing. The main proposal is to end the link between accommodation and support by replacing existing sheltered housing officer services and providing a visiting service through ‘community teams’. Support services would be on a short-term basis and therefore free of charge to tenants.

A number of sheltered schemes will be developed for tenants with highest support needs. These sheltered ‘plus’ schemes would be those whose physical design and location are most suited to provide on site facilities2 and services for the wider community and residents with higher support and care needs. The service provided to people who require longer-term support services is likely to remain chargeable3.

Background The Council’s 2001 Sheltered Housing Strategy has been largely implemented, with the reduction in Council run sheltered housing from 715 to 445 properties, and the commissioning of 2 extra care sheltered housing schemes, which are now open. The March 2007 Housing Strategy update and the integrated commissioning strategy for older people identify the need to continue to ensure a supply of high quality accommodation that meets the needs and aspirations of older people, and to provide a range of support options to older people in their own homes.This paper considers whether the existing model of sheltered housing (which attracts the majority of housing support funding for older people) meets the aspirations and needs of older people, and whether the support that is provided as an integral part of the service is the fairest and most effective way of providing housing related support to older people in the borough.

1 Older People Integrated Commissioning Strategy (2007), Housing Strategy Update (2006) & the review of the Supporting People Strategy (2007). 2 Local hubs - neighbourhood services easily accessible through one gateway. Services (ranging from personal care, telecare and home repairs to information about local leisure, community or employment opportunities) might be based within the sheltered scheme or be delivered in older people's own properties. 3 Freedom from SP grant conditions means that this could become a free service.

36

Strategic Context for Sheltered Housing

National Strategy – Housing for an ageing society Proposals to develop a new model fit with the national strategy, published in 2008. Its focus is on the triangle of interdependence of health, housing and social care, as well as the future of specialist housing although it contains little guidance on the future of sheltered housing. More work is being undertaken on this by the DCLG particularly guidance on increasing the pull factors of specialist housing e.g. better locations, security, excellent accommodation specification, wider tenure options and opportunities for social life, employment and learning. The strategy promotes the importance of ‘ageing in place’ and long-term security through inclusive design, ease of maintenance, option of full spectrum of care needs met, choice and control.

Barnet Integrated commissioning strategy for older people & housing strategy objectives One of the key outcomes of the joint commissioning strategy is for older people in Barnet to feel safe and secure; to help people feel more in control of their lives and avoid dependency. The strategy commits to more flexible service provision, and different responses from health, housing and social care systems. Developing a range of appropriate, modern and accessible housing for older people is fundamental to this objective. Agreed joint commissioning intentions:

Creating a continuum model of housing and support in Barnet for older people Increasing choice for older people to remain in their own home Improve access to housing related support for older people, regardless of

tenure Ensure that a range of high-quality accommodation is available for older

people and that design and facilities match with aspirations.* Ensure that older people have access to appropriate information helping them

to make informed choices regarding their housing options.* Provide a range of support options to older people in their own homes

(longer-term accommodation-based and short-term floating support services).* *(also included in the Housing Strategy).

The current Housing strategy sets out a commitment to continue to provide accommodation and support for older people. The draft Sheltered Housing Strategy affirms this commitment and sets out a framework for re-modelling existing provision in response to the demography of local needs.

Barnet Supporting People strategy Sheltered housing provides a home for less than 3% of Barnet’s older residents but receives over 60% of Supporting People (SP) funding for older people. These services mainly operate a traditional sheltered housing support model, generally providing a ‘warden’, sheltered housing officer or support worker