Resident v Non-Resident Wardens

RESIDENT v NON-RESIDENT SCHEME MANAGERS

MANAGING A CHANGE

A WORKSHOP

University of Sussex, Brighton

Thursday 29th March 2001, 10am - 4.30pm

Sheltered housing exists to provide support for its residents; this must be of good quality, efficiently delivered and appreciated by residents. But ideas about how such a service might be delivered are changing.

The untrained, 'good neighbour', resident scheme manager/warden, typical hitherto in Category 2 schemes is rapidly being replaced by the professional, trained both in care delivery and housing management. Schemes now tend to have a higher proportion of frail older people. Government legislation and policies are creating a different housing environment and culture.

Many new solutions are currently being introduced or mooted: the scheme manager may continue to manage a single scheme but lives off‑site; a small team of three or four may manage two or three nearby schemes; a much larger team may manage more schemes, providing more comprehensive cover. Co‑ordination of services is much easier within a local authority with, say, twenty sheltered schemes, than for instance by a national RSL, whose properties are ten or more miles distant from each other.

But suggested changes in service delivery generally, at the outset, cause apprehension and alarm.

In this workshop we sought not to prescribe what changes are most desirable or effective there are so many variations in local conditions ‑ but to indicate how change should be managed.

The Workshop began with the one hundred participants meeting in five small groups ‑ one of residents, two each of scheme managers and line managers. Each group was asked to identify the services expected of the scheme manager and then to discuss, from their own perspectives, the advantages or disadvantages of resident scheme management. The groups presented their findings to a plenary session, thus setting the scene for the three afternoon presentations on the management of change.

The five groups, each in its own way, set out their interpretation of the varied tasks performed by scheme managers, resident or non‑resident. There was, not unnaturally, substantial congruence. Tasks fell in several broad categories ‑ listed here not in order of importance or time consumed. Property maintenance: repairs and the supervision of contractors, supervising domestic staff, ensuring security and adherence to health and safety regulations, managing communal facilities and space; Involvement in allocation and rent collection; Creating a harmonious atmosphere in the scheme and facilitating social activities; Facilitating and monitoring packages of care received by residents, providing information and advocacy and creating links between residents and care professionals; Promote the independence of residents; In listing these tasks there was repeated mention of:

The residents saw themselves as customers, in receipt of a service; the scheme manager is a resource, to be accessible to residents.

The residents admitted that they did not 'own' their scheme manager, expecting 24 hour support in return for their rent/service charge. But they insisted that they had a right to a specific service, which should be clearly set out in service standards. These standards should be well understood by all residents and to all considering entry to a scheme; (too often insufficient information and guidance has been given).

Residents valued highly the personal support role of their scheme manager: in providing information about and advocacy in respect of services available, in being the point of contact with a wide range of professionals, in helping residents to make choices about services needed and received, in mediating between professionals to create a seamless service of care provision.

They valued too the scheme manager's role in creating a harmonious atmosphere, in facilitating but not managing social activities. They suggested that scheme managers and residents should have a formal, structured, meeting once a month; the scheme manager should facilitate resident participation in the scheme's management and social life.

Initial reaction to a proposed change usually consisted of fears for physical safety ‑ would the scheme manager be available in the event of a sudden acute illness, of a burst pipe? The psychological security of a resident scheme manager was important.

But the resident scheme manager on‑site and on duty for 24 hours a day is recognised to be an illusion; for much of the day the residents do not know if their scheme manager is on‑site or not. Residents, therefore, want to know precisely when their scheme manager is on‑site or 'on duty' and when they are accessible. They want to know precisely what cover, via central alarm control etc. is provided at all other times. they want specified response times for emergency and non-emergency calls.

Scheme managers expressed concerns both for their own quality of life and for the care and support of their residents.

Thus they valued highly the feeling of security that they could engender within the scheme, the rapidity with which they could respond to calls for help. They enjoyed the high level of personal contact with residents, learning of their life histories and problems and being able to use this knowledge in facilitating solutions. (Thus, while most would see the collection of rent arrears as an invidious and unwelcome task, they felt that their knowledge of the individual's personal financial problems could well be used to obviate too heavy‑handed official measures). They enjoyed too the social life of the scheme and their own part in creating it; (one participant thought that, in moving to a home off‑site, she actually spent more time at the culturally rich evening events organised with residents).

Those scheme managers living on‑site were spared any lengthy and tedious travel to work. But in so many other respects a home off‑site was to be preferred. Living 'over the shop' creates stress and tension; it is difficult to say 'no' to calls for help, many of which may be inappropriate; one feels emotionally blackmailed; one's expected duties may well conflict with working time directives. One seeks privacy, to have a life beyond the residents' curious gaze.

Living rent free within the scheme has its attractions; but if one ceases employment, either by retirement, dismissal etc., one has no home to go to; losing both home and job is traumatic. Redundancy or dismissal are potent threats to ones livelihood. One's total net remuneration can be ambiguous ‑ is one paying tax on the assumed value of one's rent, does it affect the calculation of one's pension?

Residence on‑site may help to perpetuate the popular image of the untrained 'good neighbour' warden, lacking formal skills and career; living off‑site promotes the image of the trained professional.

Many of the participant line managers had risen from the ranks of scheme managers and so appreciated their feelings; but wearing their current hats they tended to express their own concerns in terms of 'efficiency'. Their comments suggested that they tended to think of teams of scheme managers servicing several schemes, rather than the scheme manager of a single scheme living off‑site.

They too saw off‑site residence as promoting the professional image of their staff of scheme managers; this enhanced the image of the whole service.

Several claimed that off‑site residence was cheaper presumably because one paid only for hours actually worked; (scheme managers would challenge the implication that they were fairly remunerated for services provided when 'off duty'.)

The line managers felt that the staff of mobile or off‑site scheme managers were a happier work force. Their individual career aspirations benefited the entire organisation. Scheme managers were less isolated from each other and able to share problems with other team members. Problems within the scheme manager's own family, which might affect harmony enjoyed by residents, could now be isolated from the scheme.

Line managers felt too that off‑‑‑site residence benefited recruitment. Applications for an on‑site post often came from those interested more in the rent‑free accommodation provided than in the service to be provided. Conversely highly qualified potential candidates might not want the type or location of accommodation provided. There would be no issue of rehousing a scheme manager at the termination of employment. Line managers felt quite strongly that, in selecting off‑site scheme managers they were attracting much better qualified staff and so enhancing the services provided to residents.

Management of a staff of off‑site scheme managers is easier; for instance, one knows where and when to find them; (on‑site scheme managers sometimes claim that the 'inappropriate' out of hours calls are from their line managers!) With a team of scheme managers it is easier to cover for individual scheme managers' holidays, illness etc.; (with resident scheme managers a scheme is often left without, or with minimal, support at such times). With small teams covering a few schemes, the personal links between residents and managers are not lost ‑ one knows the three or four scheme managers covering one's own scheme; in out of hours periods, absence, sick or on holiday, one is not faced with covering by a complete stranger.

The quality of life experienced by residents is often attributed to the attributes of the individual scheme manager; the outcome is considerable variation between schemes with invidious comparisons made by residents: "their scheme manager does for them; why doesn't ours do likewise?" Line managers perceive the opportunity to create a more uniform set of standards, which are recognised by both residents and scheme managers. (Scheme managers, in consequence, fear that they will be 'strait‑jacketed'; on the one hand they find it difficult to refuse residents' requests and on the other they lose the satisfaction from a job, which they have created for themselves). Whilst aspiring to uniformity of service standards, line managers argued, too, that service standards should reflect their customers wishes ‑ in the last resort it is the residents who should say what services they want, what they are willing to pay for.

The afternoon session was introduced by Ray Sawyer‑James, once a scheme manager, rising progressively through housing management posts and now Director of The Sheltered Housing Network.

Sometimes we need to take a different approach to the ways we do things. But mention of change creates apprehension and resistance; change will be hard or difficult, its outcomes are uncertain; we should not be asked to leave our routines.

Ray introduced his theme by citing nine products, household names, of two or more decades ago that had almost passed into oblivion ‑‑why? Thus:

Thus, nothing is permanent. We should be continually seeking to improve the services provided by sheltered housing. Today people have greater choice of housing options.

Much change is being created by Government legislation and policies ‑ of Best Value, Supporting People and the Homes for Life Green Paper. Sheltered housing has suffered in the past from poor images ‑ that it provides a ghetto like environment promoting dependency and the control over its frail residents. We now have, however, an opportunity to consider better ways of providing services both to those in sheltered housing and to attract those considering entry.

Ray cited two small surveys of residents that he had recently carried out. In one, residents were asked whether they preferred a scheme manager living on‑site or off‑site. A quarter chose the on‑site manager and a small proportion an off‑site manager; but nearly one‑half said they had no preference ‑ they were concerned with the service provided, its stable cost and the familiarity of service providers. In the second survey over two thirds of the residents wished to have an effective voice in the management of the scheme and services provided; they wanted the opportunity to challenge ongoing practice.

Linda Mothersole, Community Services Manager, Testway Housing, described the changes effected by Test Valley D.C. Housing services before stock transfer. In the local authority situation there are political considerations ‑ proximity to elections, council politics, housing strategy differences between district councils and unitary authorities, and financial issues ‑ the funding and subsidy of sheltered housing.

Test Valley is a long, narrow, largely rural area between Andover and Romsey, Hampshire. In the mid '90s the D. C. had 260 units of Category 2 sheltered housing with a further 3 50 supported units, largely in rural areas. many of these were bedsits. In all the D.C. managed 5000 housing units.

Many properties were difficult to let ‑ either because of poor structure or serviceless environments The service charges covered only 60% of the costs of service ‑ the balance was subsidised by tenants of general needs housing There were inconsistencies between services provided in sheltered schemes; staff skills were varied; many well trained scheme managers felt let down by less skilled colleagues; how could other professionals or the residents be expected to know what services to expect? Scheme managers were paid according to the size of their scheme; some had very few residents needing support It was difficult to recruit good scheme managers when the accommodation provided was poor; many quickly left Staff close to retirement were reluctant to embrace change

Linda joined Test Valley DC a decade before the changes, specifically to develop a mobile warden service ‑ to plug gaps caused by leaves, sickness, vacant posts etc. The conditions of work proved so attractive that many resident scheme managers transferred to the mobile service. Gradually deputy scheme managers in rural areas in Category 2 schemes and scheme managers of small groups of bungalows were not replaced.

In 1995, 45 pre‑fabs were demolished and the site was rebuilt with 2 bed bungalows, designated as sheltered. They were highly popular ‑ but many of the residents either did not want warden services or did not understand them. Thus began a project in which residents could choose the level of service received, with an opportunity to change as their circumstances changed.

Services are now provided by a team ‑ some may be fully mobile or resident off-site; others may live in accommodation in a sheltered scheme but do not have sole responsibility for that scheme, Teams provide a 24 hour service, 365 days a year. A key feature is the provision of an efficient out‑of‑hours service. The Control Centre was managed by Test Valley DC and works as an integral part of the team.

A project team of 4, committed to change, managed the project. They contributed influence, impact and knowledge, facilitated change and challenged assumptions. Explaining the project to newly trained team members provide an excellent opportunity to review assumptions.

One must know the real reason for wanting change ‑ one gets into habits of not telling the truth! Know what is to be achieved in the end; be cautious of timescales (and lengthen them) and stages. Work out in advance the risk factors involved

What information should one collect ‑ both to facilitate the project and to respond to questions from e.g. local councillors?

What are 'the holes in the bucket'? Where does it leak ‑ funds vanishing, complaints registered

The most essential ingredient to the project is communication. Linda consulted 119 external agencies in preparing her reports but that was not enough. Groups to be consulted include ‑ clients, customers and relatives. statutory and voluntary agencies; hospitals and GPs; Parish and District Councillors; voluntary support groups. church associations; the control centre; the media; general needs tenants. Communicate by providing supporting information from one's research data. Survey clients by questionnaire, interview or telephone. A help line was opened for a month. Tapes were produced of questionnaires and information. Staff were an important source of information as were tenants newsletters. Formal and informal meetings were arranged.

In spite of all this effort there were still those who claimed that the reports advocating the project represented the views of management rather than the residents!

One must communicate as soon and as often as possible. update changes and brief staff. And above all one must listen e.g. to the feedback from tenant satisfaction‑surveys. Be honest and be flexible in developing new approaches. One must involve others.

To conclude, Debbie Cripps, a Testway Housing team leader (and former Category 2 scheme manager) described her own experiences.

At first her residents felt insecure without a resident manager, but they have gained more confident in talking to the Control Centre, assured by a friendly voice and the arrival of help in a reasonable time

The residents now feel more independent and have developed a community spirit; they look after each other more and have set up a neighbourhood watch scheme. Residents now feel in control as they suggest the services they want.

Debbie herself feels more motivated and less exhausted; visits to residents, at specified times, have become more structured; residents plan in advance their questions.

Christine Thompson, Elderly Services Manager, Family Housing Association has had varied experiences of sheltered housing; two grandmothers were residents, her mother a resident warden. Professionally, her experience includes allocation of new‑build and sheltered schemes, being en route both a student and trainer for the Centre for Sheltered Housing Studies and an associate consultant of The Sheltered Housing Network.

Family HA has two schemes in Chelsea/Earls Court (112 units) and three small schemes on the other side of the city in Forest Gate/Woodford (75 units); these were located in three London Boroughs; Family HA's head office is in Clapham. The five schemes vary in accommodation type ‑ bedsits to 2 bed; some were new built, others refurbished; they were managed by three resident managers and two non-resident Supported Housing Workers (services delivered in each scheme varied). In none of the schemes was there regular meetings of residents; no newsletter existed.

Change was initiated with the transfer of sheltered housing staff to a Special Initiatives Team to which Christine was appointed.

The first task was to specify all the duties carried out by staff and to calculate the time spent on each; this took a month. Training needs and events were then organised. Christine held one‑to‑one meetings with staff and regular team meetings. 'Team spirit' was developed through a three‑day training event. Policies and procedures needed were identified.

Throughout this period communication was established with all stake holders ‑ HA Committee and Board members, Family HA's internal departments, local authorities, social services, staff and line managers, control centres, health authority. In the course of the year sixteen meetings were held with residents; some of these provoked an angry response perhaps due to events in the past; successive meetings were necessary to gain confidence. Christine spent a week working in each scheme to get the feel of its problems and atmosphere. She held meetings with other service providers. Draft service standards were discussed with residents. Staff were consulted about their job descriptions, competencies and personal specifications.

The five schemes are now managed by two teams (one in each area) each with three 'sheltered housing officers'. Some of these still live in the sheltered schemes, but as ordinary tenants. Each works a 35 hour week, flexitime. In each scheme the office is open for two hours daily, Monday to Friday and excluding bank holidays and the Staff Conference period, at times agreed with the residents. 24 hour cover is provided by the Control Centre; as members of the team cover for each other continuity of service is provided.

When residents move in an agreement is made with them about the hour and frequency of morning calls and other contacts. This is reviewed annually or if their circumstances change.

Attempts have been made to set up a Sheltered Housing forum, but the location of the schemes has made this difficult. Each team holds a monthly meeting with residents and they are brought up to date through the quarterly newsletter produced by the teams. Residents have access to scheme log books and to copies of invoices and contracts.

Support for the Sheltered Housing Officers includes quarterly training events for all staff in the Special Initiatives Team and eight programmed meetings of all Sheltered Housing Officers. Up‑dates are provided through team briefs and weekly meetings of area teams.

Staff have regular one‑to‑one meetings with their line manager and an annual appraisal. Social events include Family HA's annual conference, an end of year party and scheme barbeques, all of which aid identification with the organisation.

To conclude: Michele and Haroon Jogee jointly manage Abyssinia Court a multicultural scheme of Hornsey Housing Trust. Over and above normal duties, they need to provide close support for the residents whose first language is not English; they also organise, rather than facilitate, a very rich programme of cultural events which residents could not run unaided. At first they lived in the scheme ‑ but with three children they outgrew their flat and felt that they needed their own space. Their management was with difficulty convinced ‑ it adhered to the traditional image of resident manager; but conversations with residents raised no obstacles. Residents have not expressed any feelings of being short-changed. In fact, being away from the scheme for even a short period gives Michele and Haroon the energy to participate more fully in the social events. With their children they are one big extended family.

Finally Irene Radford, formerly a resident scheme manager with another employer but now with Family HA as one of the sheltered housing officers, gave a graphic description of the conflicting feelings of the scheme manager: of the desire to work professionally but also to provide compassion and care; of the frustrations of unnecessary calls for help; of the new opportunities for career advancement; of obligations to partner and children. of the feelings of loss and bereavement in leaving a scheme where one has been a resident manager.

careful risk assessment training residents in procedures to be adopted setting standards for and monitoring of response effectiveness

Residents fear that change will mean a reduction in services provided they must be allowed to discuss the services they wish to receive, balancing comfort with costs they must be encouraged to be better neighbours to each other they must be encouraged to see resident participation as giving them a greater control over the management of their scheme and the services which it provides

In general scheme managers have felt a sense of loss in moving out of a scheme, but this has been compensated by their increased privacy. changes in working routines are inevitable changes in net remuneration may be involved Both must be fully discussed with scheme managers (and where appropriate their trade union representatives)

The initiative for change will almost invariably come from line management goaded variously by financial constraints, Best Value, Supporting People and the like; success will depend on the degree to which they COMMUNICATE, NEGOTIATE and LISTEN