IMPROVING ADAPTATION SERVICES

Local Adaptation Agreements

Sheila MackintoshMackintosh O’Connor Associates

Background• National study of adaptation protocols – ‘Making it work

smoothly’1

• Local partnership agreement in Bristol• Local partnership agreement in Devon2

• Report on protocol for Westminster City Council2

• Review of aids and adaptations service in Dorset2

• Redesign of adaptations service for Bristol City Council

1. With Frances Heywood2. With The Housing Consultancy Partnership

What are partners looking for?

Residents Housing associations Local authorities

•One point of contact • See benefit from protocol •Control expenditure

•Quick decisions / rapid service • Increase tenant satisfaction •Bring in more resources

•Good communication • Reduce risk •Speed up service delivery

•Able to wash • Value for money •Better communication

•Be safe • Control work done •Equitable service

•Be independent/have dignity • Make better use of stock • Make better use of stock

Key issue - funding

• Loss of housing association direct funding (£29m pa versus one-off payment into DFG pot in 2007 of £1.5m)

• Increased take-up of DFG by HA tenants

• Funding challenges: LAs, HAs

• Not enough in DFG pot

• No responsibility for HAs to report on adaptation budgets / expenditure

• No national guidance - localism

Should HAs contribute ?YES NO

Adaptations a core function - high proportion of disabled tenants

They do not have sufficient reserves or Recycled Capital Grant

Should not leave tenants to navigate complex pathways / long queues

No legal requirement

Joint working / shared intelligence / better procurement will lower prices and give better solutions

The poorest in society should not subsidise the most vulnerable

Council tenants pay for adaptations through HRA

Tenants pay for adaptations twice – through Council tax and through rent

Need more involvement in what is done to their stock and joined up thinking about adaptations/development/ downsizing/SH/ECH

Nationals cannot manage different policies in different areas

HA contributions essential

• In some areas HAs dominate DFG spending • HA lack of engagement lengthens queues for everyone• Core function – need proper budgets• Issues of fairness/equality (consistency for tenants,

Council tenants v HAs, between HAs themselves)• No input of resources leads to insufficient training, no

planning or strategic thinking - ‘just a maintenance thing’ • Need joined up policies for accessible homes• Agreements very time consuming to set up and to monitor• Hard for LAs to enforce compliance

HA use of the DFG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

E Devon Exeter Mid Devon N Devon Plymouth Teignbridge Torbay

% DFG budget to HA tenants 2010/11 Devon

HA budgets – Devon and Bristol

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Local

Regional

Transfer

National

Council stock

Spend per property 2011/12

The smallest associations are missing as the focus was on the housing associations with the most stock.In Bristol by 2011/12 many HAs had already increased their budgets as a result of the protocol

Local agreements – can one size fit all?

• Number and diversity of housing associations – local, regional, national, LSVTs

• Bristol/Devon = over 40 HAs

@ 15 hold most of the stock

• Westminster = 12 HAs own 90% of the stock

Different funding models

MODEL DETAIL

1.HA pays up to a threshold

e.g. Up to £1,000 or £2,500Anything above referred for DFG

2. Two tier approachHA pays 100% up to a threshold - share costs above the threshold e.g. 50% over £1,000

3. HA pays 100%No limit - or cap on budget and once budget committed referred for DFG

4. Type of worke.g. HA does all level access showers without DFG

5. Variable rates Each HA negotiates its own rate

Changes in HA budgets after agreement Bristol

Launch of local agreement April 2010

Benefits of agreements• Bristol 12 out of 15 HAs signed up • Devon 13 HAs, 9 LHAs and DCC signed up• HA budgets increase / DFG demands decrease • Communication/sharing intelligence/trust • Consistency and fast-track for minor works – reduced demand on OTs

• Tenants - direct route and support • Better maintenance/recycling• Better procurement/VFM• More use of housing options/rehousing

Problems that remain• Agreements take time and effort to set up• Sign-up only the start – need on-going management

• Easier in smaller unitary authorities• Non-compliance – LSVTs and nationals• Staff changes mean benefits lost• Budgets not secure• Monitoring data hard to obtain• Tenant input vital – scrutiny groups

“Everyone at the Bristol Housing Partnership Management sub group thought it had been a really good project - good outcomes for tenants as well as staff, due to better communication with Bristol City Council and OTs.”

A WAY FORWARD?

A customer focused approach that brings services together

What people want

• Comprehensive, accessible information about solutions

• Help to understand and evaluate the options• Ability to see and try solutions• Help to assess how they might resolve personal needs

• Quick and appropriate service once preferred option chosen

What is needed?

•Simpler processes•Quicker service•Breakdown of silos / professional boundaries

•End to end service

Examples

•Dorset•Knowlsey•Bristol

Dorset proposed structure

Customer

adviser-facilitat

or

The healthy

living zoneThe aids

and adaptations

zone

The safety zone

The transport

zone

The leisure and

connections zone

The financial and benefits

zone

The meeting room and

consultation room

The skills training and education

zone

The guest agency’s

zone

The café and hire a café bar

zone

CIL ServicesKnowlsey

Centre forIndependent

Living

SensoryImpairment

CommunityLoan StoreIntegrated

AdaptationsTeamEquipment

Showroom

WheelchairServices

HomeImprovement

Agency

Children’sServices

3rd SectorAge Concern

Princess RoyalCarers Trust

Advocacy Hub Older Peoples

Voice

User LedOrganisation

https://vimeo.com/41341525

Getting the message out

Bristol - Home Design Centre

Barriers to change

• Defence - positional power, continued employment, budgetary control and professional barriers

• Inertia - ossified systems, procedures and people

• Pressure - unable to resource – people and money, day job difficult enough

• Issue invisible - or relegated by corporate priorities

Looking forward• Need to meet the needs of people with disabilities in all

tenures

• DFGs are only the tip of the iceberg

• Inclusive approach vital – including needs of those not entitled to financial support

• Need for multi agency working and planning

• Centre of excellence / learning for professionals

• One stop shop

• Not a hidden service

• Scope to involve other partners

• Mainstream

Contact details

Sheila Mackintosh

Mackintosh O’Connor Associates

Mob: 07920-260616

Sheila@mackintoshoconnor.co.uk