Sheltered residents: ‘bring wardens back’

Readers' comments (25)

• Vernony | 05/02/2010 9:30 am

  Sorry Imogen but 'in my opinion' ERoSH is out of touch, out of synch and out of its depth with the residents.
  
  One must differentiate in their mind the difference between not needing a daily call and not needing a warden, they are not the same thing. It is impossible to live in Sheltered Housing and not utilise the services of site-specific Warden.
  
  Our survey shows that more than 90% only moved into Sheltered Housing on the expectation that there would be a Warden, why therefore pick out a minority and try to present it as a significant number,
  
  Confided to me once by an organisation that has close links with this subject was the fact that where some residents wish to get rid of their Warden it is often at a personal level and they have had 'issues' with the Warden. These are personality problems, and are hopefully not confused with the provision of a Warden.
  
  I wonder about ERoSH (Essential Role Of Sheltered Housing) because, if you remove the Warden from Sheltered Housing it is no longer Sheltered Housing it is general purpose housing for the elderly. To me their name v/v their apparent stance seem incompatible I wonder too because I have been told, from the East of London, of an Imogen Parry who used to take courses of instruction for Wardens as part of a consultancy service to housing providers,
  
  Sincerely
  
  Vernon J Yarker
  Chairman
  The Sheltered Housing UK Association
  www.shelteredhousinguk.com
  mailbox@shelteredhousinguk.com
  twitter.com/SHUKAssociation

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• 

  Joe Halewood | 05/02/2010 10:37 am

  "..if you remove the (resident) Warden .... it is no longer Sheltered Housing, it is general purpose housing for the elderly.."
  
  That statement while i see the point is misleading. Sheltered Housing has always been classified into bands with Category 1 being an off-site warden, Category 2 being a resident warden service, and (bizarrely) Category 2.5 that is now rebranded as 'extra care.'
  
  The above is hopefully for clarification in the debate that follows.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• DavidJ | 05/02/2010 11:45 am

  Imogen is missing the mark here by a mile - Her comment "between a quarter and a third of tenants did not need a warden when they moved into sheltered housing" is missing the point. Ever heard of foward planning? Peace of mind? Personally I would go with the actual residents who when surveyed stated that the warden service (or whatever they are called now!) was the very reason why they moved in!!!
  
  It seems to me she is not on-side with the rest of the thinking in the older persons housing world, and from a providers view we have vowed to maintain our warden service to ALL our properties - it is the reason they exist, and the reason why people move into them, else why not install a call system in the tenants existing flat???
  
  The reason that this matter has arisen, and is ongoing is, the withdrawal of funding from SP to meet the support element within the wardens role. Prior to SP this wasn't an issue, with the cost of this provision being included in the service charge and therefore benefit elegible. And let's not forget the admin vs. SP income challenge - ask Anchor (last estimate was it was costing them over £1m in admin!). Floating support is the cheaper option, but to provide a 'fit for purpose' service you need more than a shoestring budget.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Vernony | 05/02/2010 12:37 pm

  No Joe, not always, but quite recently it has been banded and indeed the TSA have told me that they do not refer to Sheltered Housing at all and have not done so since it was banded into three categories .
  However, the DCLG still refer to it a Sheltered Housing hence their Ministerial Sheltered Housing Working Group and Europe is still discussing Sheltered Housing under CEN 385
  
  Against this background of officialdom not knowing what to call it, it is either Sheltered Housing or alternatively would slot into band two .
  
  Residents, of course, were never canvassed about the move from Sheltered Housing into the bands and it had an affect upon the wording regarding Warden cover, which should really be judicially reviewed because it is amendment by stealth
  
  Sincerely
  
  Vernon J Yarker
  Chairman
  SHUK

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• loumum | 05/02/2010 1:16 pm

  I think there is an awful lot of missing the point from everyone here, we are where we are which is that sheltered housing went into the SP pot and that pot is rapidly diminishing. No one doubts that 'wardens' did things like organise social events before SP and in the best schemes there are still events - tenants are empowered to deliver them themselves which is as it should be. I think most housing providers would be more than happy to expand services but where is the money going to come from? For years social servcies saved on those in sheltered schemes precisley because theywere in sheltered schmes. There is no money there either.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anne | 05/02/2010 2:28 pm

  When Imogen Parry says that "between a quarter and a third of tenants did not need a warden when they moved into sheltered housing," is she referring to the new influx of younger tenants who are being put into 'de-sheltered' flats (and thus changing the entire nature of what sheltered housing is meant to be)? It is not fair to use these newer tenants to try to invalidate the voices of the genuinely elderly and vulnerable sheltered housing residents who DO need a warden.
  The most extreme case of this is World War II WAF veteran who now finds herself the only elderly person left in her 'sheltered housing' scheme: all the bungalows around her are filled with young unmarried mothers with boisterous children. Instead of enjoying the social contact of other residents of her own tastes and interests, she lives in isolation and finds her own views entirely ignored.
  The fact that this practice is widespread is clearly documented in the "Strategic Review of Older Persons Housing and Support Services." In this document the clearly stated goal is "to let sheltered housing on the basis of housing need as opposed to support needs." This report also states openly, "There has been no specific consultation meeting with existing residents of sheltered housing" about these proposed changes.
  Vernon Yarker of Sheltered Housing UK has provided a vital and essential document, which pays the residents the respect of asking them directly what their views are, rather than presuming to speak for them, as all the government-sponsored 'consultants' do, producing documents which are entirely one-sided and therefore entirely meaningless. The so-called "National Conversation," for example, does not even include the question "Do you wish to retain your resident warden?"
  The Help the Aged report "Nobody's Listening" revealed the deeper problem, "Nobody's Asking." The clear message in all the countless pages of jargon-filled reports from the housing specialists was "Nobody cares what the residents think."
  Vernon Yarker has now fixed that, by providing some genuine data on the views of the people who should have been consulted in the first place: the people who gave up their homes in the trusting belief that they would receive "the reassurance of knowing there is someone nearby in case of emergency."
  Housing Associations are STILL printing promotional leaflets with these honeyed phrases upon them, even though these promises have become no more than empty words. If a con man duped an elderly lady into giving up her house, broke all his promises to her, and left her lying dead on the floor, there would be a huge outcry in the newspapers. Why is this allowable in sheltered housing?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• mandy downs | 05/02/2010 2:31 pm

  I think that the reason why some people have the impression that residents of Sheltered Housing do not need more support than others in social housing stems from the chronic housing shortage which has led to people who do not meet the criteria (age, etc.) being offered Sheltered Housing accommodation, which in turn has meant that there are now more people who do not need this support - conversley, with people living longer and being more active, there may a proportion of residents still working - how can support for these residents be justified?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Alex Davidson | 05/02/2010 4:15 pm

  We won our case regarding retaining ( in the meantime ) relief wardens, in this budget 2010/2011. Keep up your good work , as we will regarding other issues with the wardens.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Ianto | 05/02/2010 5:21 pm

  While its interesting to read the often confused debate about the pros and cons of resident scheme managers, which always seems to miss the point that we are talking about a small minority of older people and who is shouting for those older people who do not have the privilege of these types of sheltered services, no one seems to be interested in trying to test this survey's validity. It's results are presented as being perfectly valid, whereas in fact unless more is known about the survey there act a mere propaganda.
  
  I have visited the SHUK website to read more about the survey but only find a couple of PDF files setting out some results. I find nothing about the methodology used in conducting the survey, such how the sample of residents was selected (random; representative?); or how and when they were questioned and by whom; or who analysed the results; or a copy of the questionnaire. For any research of this type to be valid the methods used must be transparent and must be able to be replicated. In this instance there is no way of knowing the former or doing the latter.
  
  Shouting very loudly has so far worked well for SHUK but what I would like to read is some proper valid independent research into sheltered housing in England and Wales (such as was carried out in Scotland recently) and for SHUK to give some thought to those millions of older people for whom it does not speak and yet who probably need some support yet are denied it because such a huge chunk of the resources available are swallowed by sheltered housing, especially where there is a resident support worker.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• vernony | 05/02/2010 5:30 pm

  Loumum I am afraid that is a situation of the Government's own creation when they took the support side of Sheltered Housing out of Housing Benefit and dumped in into Supporting People which are neither financially, nor by remit, enabled to finance it. Sheltered Housing should never have been put into the Supporting People it was a bad mistake. Luckily the Government have seen this and are discussing if Supporting People was the appropriate budget in which to relocate Sheltered Housing.
  
  Mandy has a point but as the SHUK Report points out. If you wish to lure people out of family sized houses into Sheltered Housing it has to be worthwhile for them to make the move. If you take away the Wardens then it is no longer worthwhile and you are stuck with voids which eager councils and RSLs will pounce upon to fill. One ask the question though if these self same authorities went through the proper dedesignation procedures or they just bunged people into the schemes. If there is a problem it is in management, and should not be taken out on the genuine residents !
  
  Incidentally the SHUK Report also points out that there are said to be 500,000 residents in Sheltered Housing only a minority of them are living there with partners. Allowing for this these residents will have vacated some 350,000 (or more) family sized homes. Or, to put it another way enough family sized houses
  to nearly house a city the size of Birmingham (Which is England's second largest city) .
  
  In costings: 70% of residents in Sheltered Housing are reliant upon benefits, which means if they progress to a care home the costs would be borne by the taxpayer, anything from £480 to £800 per week. However, in my personal experience a good warden does not like to lose her flock and with diligence
  prevent them going into care homes, at least until the final stages. For each resident that he/she saves from going prematurely into care it represents savings of his/her own monthly salary for every two weeks that this is achieved. So if one is looking for savings on the elderly, this is it 'big time'.
  
  There is therefore a, therefore, a strong argument to to enhance the job of a Warden and perhaps pay them a little more to do it. Although, I hasten add many are doing that already !
  
  sincerely
  
  
  V.J, Yarker
  Chairman
  The Sheltered Housing UK Association

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment