H
H
o
o
m
m
e
e
l
l
e
e
s
s
s
s
n
n
e
e
s
s
s
s
s
s
e
e
r
r
v
v
i
i
c
c
e
e
s
s
i
i
n
n
f
f
o
o
c
c
u
u
s
s
A
A
s
s
u
u
r
r
v
v
e
e
y
y
o
o
f
f
h
h
o
o
m
m
e
e
l
l
e
e
s
s
s
s
n
n
e
e
s
s
s
s
o
o
r
r
g
g
a
a
n
n
i
i
s
s
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
s
s
O
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...4
1.1 METHOD...4
1.2 RESPONDENT PROFILE...5
2. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...6
3. RESEARCH FINDINGS...7
APPENDIX 1 - RESULTS ...9
1. HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY ...9
1.1 IS YOUR ORGANISATION ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR LOCAL HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY? ...9
1.2 HAS THE EXTENSION OF PRIORITY NEEDS CATEGORIES IMPROVED YOUR ABILITY TO OBTAIN STATUTORY HOUSING AND SUPPORT FOR SERVICE USERS? ...10
1.3 HAS THERE BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE SERVICES RECEIVED BY YOUR SERVICE USERS FROM YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOMELESSNESS ACT IN 2002? ...11
1.4 ‘SUPPORTING PEOPLE’?...11
2. USE OF IT ...12
2.1 INTERNET ACCESS AND WEBSITES...12
2.2 EXTENT TO WHICH STAFF ARE TRAINED TO USE IT FACILITIES...12
3. USE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORKS/MODELS ...13
3.1 WHICH QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK/MODELS ARE IN USE IN YOUR ORGANISATION?...13
4. SERVICE USERS...14
4.1 NUMBER OF HOMELESS PEOPLE USING ORGANISATIONS’ SERVICES IN 2002-03...14
4.2 AGE OF SERVICE USERS...15
4.3 PROPORTION OF SERVICE USERS FROM BLACK, MINORITY AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES...16
4.4 SERVICES SPECIFICALLY FOR PEOPLE FROM BLACK, MINORITY AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES...16
4.5 ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES...17
4.6 WOMEN ONLY SERVICES...18
5. BUILDING USE ...19
5.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF BUILDINGS (INCLUDING TEMPORARY ONES) PROVIDING SERVICES FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE...19
5.2 TYPES OF SERVICES PROVIDED...19
5.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF BED SPACES...20
5.4 TEMPORARY SHELTER BEDS...20
5.5 DISABLED ACCESS...21
6. BUILDING MANAGEMENT ...22
6.1 TYPE OF EXPERTISE AVAILABLE TO HELP IN THE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS...22
6.2 PLANNED MAINTENANCE/DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES...23
6.3 RESERVE FUNDS FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT...24
6.4 JOINT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT – RECEIPT OF SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE FROM THE LANDLORD...24
6.5 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET SPENT ON RENT OR MORTGAGE...25
6.6 GRANTS FOR CAPITAL WORK...25
7. MANAGEMENT, USE AND CONDITION OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS ...27
7.1 EXTENT TO WHICH THE BUILDINGS HAVE SHORTCOMINGS WHICH RESTRICT THEIR CAPACITY...27
7.2 HOW COULD THE BUILDING BE IMPROVED TO DELIVER BETTER SERVICES?...28
7.3 IF YOU HAD A BETTER BUILDING HOW WOULD THIS HELP YOU TO DELIVER BETTER SERVICE? ...28
7.4 SERVICE USERS PER YEAR...29
7.5 SERVICE USERS PER DAY...29
7.6 PROVISION OF DORMITORY STYLE ACCOMMODATION...30
7.7 TOTAL NUMBER OF STAFF INCLUDING VOLUNTEERS WHO WORK IN THE BUILDING...30
7.8 AGE OF BUILDING...30
7.9 WAS THE BUILDING PURPOSE BUILT? ...31
7.10 WHEN WAS THE LAST MAJOR REFURBISHMENT? ...31
7.11 HAVE YOU HAD ANY MAJOR WORK CARRIED OUT ON THE BUILDING IN THE LAST 3 YEARS?...31
7.12 DO YOU HAVE SOLE OCCUPANCY? ...32
7.13 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT...32
7.14 IF YOU RENT, WOULD YOU CONSIDER BUYING? ...32
7.15 DO YOU HAVE A FULL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY?...32
7.16 HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY PROFESSIONAL ADVICE ON ALTERING THE BUILDING TO SUIT YOUR NEEDS IN THE LAST 3 YEARS?...33
APPENDIX 2 - VERBATIM COMMENTS ...34
1.1 DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR LOCAL HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY...34
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF WOMEN ONLY SERVICES...36 1.4 HOW WOULD YOU IMPROVE YOUR BUILDING TO ALLOW YOU TO DELIVER BETTER SERVICE? ...37 1.5 IF YOU HAD A BETTER BUILDING HOW WOULD THIS HELP YOU TO DELIVER BETTER SERVICES? ...40
1. Introduction
Homeless Link, RICS Foundation and CRASH, the construction and property industry charity for the Homeless commissioned Lychgate to conduct a survey amongst the members of Homeless Link and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless.
The aim of the survey was to collect information on Homeless organisations, to identify the condition of their buildings and how they operate. A comprehensive database will be created on each organisation, which will assist Homeless Link in understanding members’ needs.
1.1 Method
The survey was self-fill with respondents completing paper questionnaires, which they returned in pre-paid business reply envelopes.
In February 2003 a pilot survey was undertaken to test the questionnaire prior to distribution to the entire membership. 27 organisations selected by Homeless Link were sent a questionnaire to complete. 16 returned completed questionnaires, a response rate of 59%.
In the main programme, a further 437 member organisations were mailed in April 2003, 18 of which were members of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, the rest were all Homeless Link members. After 2 weeks, reminders were sent by email and telephone calls made to organisations that had not responded.
In total 95 responses were received (including those from the pilot), a response rate of 20%. This is a good result by industry standards. A further 8 organisations also responded either by letter or partial completion of the questionnaire, but have been excluded for a number of reasons:
Do not own any property Do not have any service users Not a homeless organisation Charity recently folded
As well as questions about their organisation and building management, we asked respondents to report on each of their buildings. Respondents were asked to provide details on a maximum of 5 buildings. Organisations with over 5 buildings were asked to select the 5 most representative buildings in their portfolio.
Where appropriate the results in this report have been broken down by region. Sample bases are indicated. Some sample bases are very small and can be misleading. Those not answering questions have been excluded from the results unless otherwise indicated.
1.2 Respondent profile
Number %
Country
England 86 91%
Scotland 4 4%
Wales 5 5%
Region
London 18 19%
South West 13 14% South East 10 11%
East 11 12%
Yorkshire & Humberside 9 10% West Midlands 8 8% North West 7 7% East Midlands 6 6%
Wales 5 5%
North East 4 4%
Scotland 4 4%
Size (number of bed spaces)
10 and under 6 6%
11-30 20 21%
31-50 7 7%
51-70 8 8%
71-100 3 3%
Over 100 6 6%
Not answered/do not offer bed space 45 47%
Number of buildings
1 building only 38 40%
2-5 28 29%
6-10 9 9%
11-20 8 8%
Over 20 10 11%
Not answered 2 2%
Annual turnover (as at end March 03)
2.
Summary and recommendations
A wide range of organisations responded, varying in size and the type of service they offer. 94% are involved in the development of local homelessness strategy and three quarters will be funded through ‘Supporting People’.
All organisations have internet access and 60% have their own websites. 65% of service users are male with the majority between the ages of 25 and 49.
On average 17% of service users are from Black, Minority and Ethnic communities and 9% are Asylum seekers or refugees. Over one-third provide women only services.
In 2002 and 2003 between 12 and 25,480 users used each organisation’s services. The majority (40%) have one building only.
32% of buildings provide supported housing, 28% were hostels (Direct access or other types) and 20% are day centres.
14% of buildings were considered to have severe shortcomings which restricted their capacity. On average buildings are 78 years old and 21% were purpose built.
On average, 9% of the budget is spent on rent or mortgage. 27% of buildings have been refurbished since 2000.
Almost half have a planned maintenance programme and on average 6% of the budget is allocated to building maintenance.
47% have applied for grants for capital work in the last 3 years and in the main these went ahead with 72% of applications successful.
63% of organisations consider their buildings to have full access for disabled people. Respondents felt that they would be able to deliver better service if their buildings had more space and better disabled access.
3. Research
findings
94% of organisations are involved in developing their local homelessness strategy. The 5 organisations not involved are based in London, the East and the Midlands.
53% of organisations considered that the extension of priority needs categories had improved their ability to obtain statutory housing and support for service users. 2 organisations in London and one in the South East felt the extension of priority needs categories had greatly improved their ability to obtain statutory housing and support for users.
54% considered that there had been an improvement in the services received by service users from the Local Authority since the implementation of the Homelessness Act in 2002 (or the 2001 Housing Scotland Act. Although in London 9 out of 15 organisations answering felt services had not improved.
The results show a heavy dependence on funding received through ‘Supporting People’ with three-quarters being part funded in this way. On average this funding accounts for 50% of organisations’ budgets, which is cause for concern as it could be reduced or cancelled at any time.
All organisations who took part in the survey have Internet access and 60% have a website. 54% are adequately trained to use IT facilities and 8% consider their staff to be very well trained.
72% are using a Quality Assurance framework or model. PQSSO and Investors in People are the most popular with 23% using each one.11% are using Quality Mark and 9% QUADS. Between 12 and 25,480 homeless people used the organisations’ services during 2002 and 2003. 58% had up to 500 using their services, and 12% had over 2000 users last year.
65% of service users are male, with the majority between the ages of 25 and 49. 8% are young women under 18.
In 2002 and 2003 there were1182 service users were from black, minority or ethnic communities, 637 of which were in London. Homeless people from BME communities represent an average of 17% of total service users.
14% are providing services specifically for people from BME communities, all of which are provided by organisations in London, the Midlands and the South West. Organisations in the South East, East, North East, Yorkshire & Humberside, Scotland and Wales have service users from this group but do not provide specific services.
On average, asylum seekers and refugees account for 9% of organisations’ total number of service users in 2002 and 2003.
55% have had asylum seekers and refugees use their services during 2002 and 2003. This is highest in London where 87% of organisations have provided services to this group.
47% of organisations are working with more asylum seekers and refugees than 2 years ago and 43% are working with the same number. This question was not well answered with only half giving us their view but the upward trend in asylum seekers and refugees is apparent. Organisations were asked to describe the services they provide to asylum seekers and
refugees. Accommodation, food clothing and washing facilities are the main services provided. 37% (34 organisations) provide women only services, 12 are based in London.
40% of organisations have one building only, 29% have between 2 and 5 buildings, 8% have 11 to 20 and 11% have in excess of 20 buildings. 2 organisations had over 60 buildings; one was in London and the other in the North East.
Most organisations (44%) use a Handy person to help in the management and maintenance of their buildings. 28% use the services of a surveyor. 23% have employed a local builder and a further 23% a maintenance or building management company. Only 3 organisations have no help with the management and maintenance of their buildings, as one respondent put it ‘we muddle through’.
It is encouraging that 49% of organisations in our survey have planned maintenance and development programmes to maintain and care for their buildings. Money is set aside – between 1% and 24% of budgets are allocated to building maintenance.
39% have reserve funds specifically for building maintenance and improvement. Some
organisations are Registered Social Landlords and have an obligation to set up reserve funds. 48% are not receiving the specified maintenance and repair service from their landlord. This is surprisingly high as landlords have a contractual obligation to provide this service.
Organisations are spending between 1% and 50% of their budgets on rent or mortgage. One organisation in London spent 47% and another in the West Midlands spent 50% of their budgets on rent or mortgage.
47% have applied for grants for capital works, the majority of which (67%) applied to Trusts. 72% of grant applications were successful.
3 organisations that received grants experienced restrictions, which limited their ability to use voluntary labour, or donated goods.
40% of buildings used to provide services to homeless people are considered to have none or very few shortcomings restricting their capacity. 45% have some shortcomings. 14% (24 buildings) have severe shortcomings.
In respondents’ views, increasing space and improving disabled access are two of the main ways the building can be improved to allow them to deliver better services.
When asked how a better building could help improve their services, respondents felt they would be able to provide a wider, more comprehensive range of services, particularly to disabled clients.
Last year, just over 134,000 service users used the buildings in the survey and on a daily basis over 5,000 users use the buildings. Although the sample size is restricted this level of constant usage illustrates the pressure on the buildings and the need for a continual cycle of
maintenance.
Dormitory style accommodation is uncommon with only 5% (10 buildings) with dormitory rooms. Of these, 4 plan or may possibly convert to single rooms.
The buildings occupied by homelessness organisations are old; 57% are over 50 years old. 38 (21%) were purpose built, 9 of these are in London.
47 buildings have been refurbished since 2000 and 35 were refurbished in the 1990s.
Despite constant pressure on the buildings and the need for maintenance, almost half have not had any major work carried out to them in the last 3 years. Buildings in Scotland, the South East and North East were more likely to have major work carried out with at least 40% having had major work.
Of those contemplating major work, 36% are at the discussion stage and 28% at the concept/planning stage.
80% of organisations have sole occupancy on their buildings.
36% have a management agreement with a Registered Social Landlord.
46% of those with leases or licences have 5 or less years to run. The 5 buildings that had licences had notice periods of 1 month to a year.
23% would consider buying their building.
39% have a full repair and maintenance responsibility.
48% have received professional advice on altering the building to suit their needs in last three years.
Appendix 1 - Results
1. Homelessness
strategy
Organisations were asked a series of questions regarding their interaction with the Local Authority about the homelessness strategies.
1.1 Is your organisation engaged in the development of your local homelessness strategy?
England and Wales only)
Percentage of organisations engaged in the development of their local homelessness strategy
By region
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
88%
88%
83% Overall (88)
North West (7)
South West (12)
Wales (5)
Yorks & Humb (9)
North East (4)
South East (10)
East (10)
London (17)
West Midlands (8)
East Midlands (6)
Based on 88 responses
94% are involved in developing their local homelessness strategy. In describing this involvement, respondents gave many different activities and roles, but in the main, they are members of local forums, they work closely with the local council and other organisations and attend various meetings and consultations.
1.2 Has the extension of priority needs categories improved your ability to obtain statutory housing and support for service users?
By region
4%
10%
13%
49%
57%
54%
60%
25%
75%
60%
40%
67%
33%
40% 48%
43%
46%
40%
75%
25%
30%
60%
33%
67%
47% Overall (84)
North West (7)
South West (13)
Wales (5)
Yorks & Humb (8)
North East (4)
South East (10)
East (10)
West Midlands (6)
East Midlands (6)
London (15)
Yes, greatly Yes, somewhat No
Based on 84 responses
The extension of priority needs categories has improved just over half of the organisations ability to obtain statutory housing and support for their service users. 3 organisations in the South East felt it had greatly improved their ability to provide this support for users.
1.3 Has there been an improvement in the services received by your service users from your Local Authority since the implementation of the Homelessness Act in 2002?
Percentage of organisations that have experienced an improvement in the services received by their service users from their Local Authority since the implementation of the Homelessness Act in 2002 (2001 Housing Scotland Act)
By region
2%
20%
12%
52%
50%
46%
80%
25%
75%
60%
64%
60%
33%
40%
100% 46%
50%
54%
62%
25%
40%
36%
40%
67%
60% Overall (83)
North West (6)
South West (13)
Wales (5)
Yorks & Humb (8)
North East (4)
South East (10)
East (11)
West Midlands (5)
East Midlands (6)
London (15)
Scotland (2)
Yes, greatly Yes, somewhat No
Based on 85 responses
Just over half had seen an improvement in their services since the Homelessness legislation. 2 organisations in Wales and Yorkshire and Humberside felt it had greatly improved.
1.4 ‘Supporting People’?
Overall three quarters will be part funded through ‘Supporting People’. In the regions it varied from 64% in the East to 100% in the West Midlands.
2.
Use of IT
2.1 Internet access and websites
All organisations have Internet access. 60% have a website.
2.2 Extent to which staff are trained to use IT facilities
By region
Very well Adequately Poorly Very varied
Scotland (4) 25% 25% 25% 25% London (17) 18% 41% 18% 24% East Midlands (6) 17% 50% 0 33% West Midlands (8) 12% 50% 25% 12% Yorks & Humbs (8) 12% 38% 25% 25% South East (10) 0 70% 20% 10% South West (13) 0 62% 8% 31% East (11) 0 64% 27% 9% North West (7) 0 71% 14% 14% North East (4) 0 75% 0 25% Wales (5) 0 40% 20% 40%
Overall (93) 8% 54% 17% 22%
Overall 54% are adequately trained and 8% consider their staff to be very well trained to use IT facilities.
3.
Use of Quality Assurance frameworks/models
3.1 Which Quality Assurance framework/models are in use in your organisation?
23% 23% 11% 9% 7% 4% 3%
28% 21% PQASSO
Investors in People Quality Mark Quads Foyer Federation Homeless Link Quality Toolkit EBM/Excellence Model None Other
Based on 94 responses
PQASSO and Investors in People are the most popular frameworks.
Over a quarter are not using a Quality Assurance framework; it was particularly high in the East where 64% (7 organisations) are not using a framework.
Of those using other frameworks, 5 are using QAF Supporting People and a further 2 use CLS. Other frameworks used are listed below.
Other frameworks used
ALG Race Equality Toolkit Clwyd (Voice of Young People) Duke of York Community Initiative
IAG Accreditation (Information, Advice and Guidance) Information Advice and Guidance Quality Mark Legal Services Commission Specialist Quality Mark Matrix (specific to Advice and Guidance Services) NHF Standards, Care Standards
Outcomes Management Programme RSL Registration with housing corporation The Guidance Council
4. Service
users
4.1 Number of homeless people using organisations’ services in 2002-03
By region
Up to 100 101-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-5000 Over
5000
London (17) 12% 12% 24% 41% 12% 0
South East (10) 20% 50% 0 30% 0 0
South West (12) 8% 58% 17% 0 8% 8%
East (11) 27% 55% 18% 0 0 0
East Midlands (4) 25% 25% 25% 0 25% 0
West Midlands (7) 14% 57% 0 0 29% 0
North West (6) 17% 33% 33% 0 0 17%
North East (3) 33% 33% 33% 0 0 0
Yorks & Humbs (8) 25% 50% 12% 0 12% 0
Scotland (4) 25% 25% 0 0 25% 25%
Wales (5) 0 60% 20% 20% 0 0
Overall (87) 17% 41% 16% 13% 9% 3%
By annual turnover
Up to 100 101-500 501-1000 1001-2000
2001-5000
Over 5000
Up to £50,000 (4) 50% 50% 0 0 0 0
£50,000-£99,999 (4) 50% 50% 0 0 0 0
£100,000-£499,999 (44)
20% 48% 11% 11% 5% 5%
£500,000-£1,999,999 (14)
0 43% 21% 14% 21% 0
Over £2 million (5) 0 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Turnover not given (16)
12% 25% 31% 19% 12% 0
Overall (87) 17% 41% 16% 13% 9% 3%
58% had up to 500 homeless people using their services. The number of users ranged from 12 to 25,480.
4.2 Age of service users
Average percentage of service users in each age bracket
7%
17%
30% 11%
8% 12% 11% 4%
Under 18 18-24 25-49 Over 50
Male Female
4.3 Proportion of service users from black, minority and ethnic communities
Total number of users
By region
637
110
95
89
71
53
52
42
20
8
5 London (13)
Yorks & Humbs (7)
West Midlands (7)
East Midlands (6)
South West (8)
North West (7)
South East (6)
East (10)
North East (3)
Scotland (2)
Wales (2)
Based on 72 responses
Overall there were 1182 service users from black, minority and ethnic communities. On average, nearly 17% of service users are from BME communities.
London has the highest number of users from this group.
4.4 Services specifically for people from black, minority and ethnic communities
Percentage providing services specifically for people from black, minority and ethnic communities
By region
14%
44%
25%
17%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% Overall (95)
London (18)
West Midlands (8)
East Midlands (6)
South West (13)
South East (10)
East (11)
North East (4)
Yorks & Humb (9)
Scotland (4)
Wales (5)
Based on 95 responses
Overall 14% have services specifically for people from black, minority and ethnic communities, all of which is provided by organisations in London, the Midlands and the South West.
Some regions have service users from BME communities (see section 6.3) but do not provide specific services.
Respondents’ description of the services they provide is listed in Appendix 2.
4.5 Asylum seekers and refugees
Proportion of service users who are Asylum seekers and refugees
On average, asylum seekers and refugees account for 9% of the total number of service users. In the case of one organisation, 61% of service users are from this group.
Percentage of organisations providing services to asylum seekers and refugees
By region
55%
87%
60%
67%
67%
62%
57%
50%
46%
36%
20%
0% Overall (92)
London (15)
South East (10)
East Midlands (6)
Yorks & Humb (9)
West Midlands (8)
North West (7)
Scotland (4)
South West (13)
East (11)
Wales (5)
North East (4)
Based on 92 responses
55% of organisations provide services to asylum seekers and refugees. Nearly nine in ten organisations in London provide services to this group.
Organisations with larger turnovers are more likely to provide services to asylum seekers and refugees.
Respondents’ description of the services they provide is listed in Appendix 2.
Are you working with more, the same or fewer asylum seekers and refugees than 2 years ago?
47%
43%
10% More
Same
Fewer
Type of services provided to asylum seekers and refugees
Accommodation, food clothing and washing facilities are the main services provided to asylum seekers and refugees. An analysis of respondents’ comments is given below.
Service provided Number of times
mentioned
% based those providing services
(51)
Accommodation, temporary, supported housing 16 31% Food, clothing and washing facilities 12 24% All services provided 11 22% General advice and support 8 16%
Housing advice 7 14%
Outreach 5 9%
Language/translation services 2 4%
Drop in centre 3 6%
Miscellaneous 8 16%
4.6 Women only services
% providing women only services
By region
37%
71%
50%
50%
50%
40%
29%
29%
23%
22%
20%
9% Overall (93)
London (17)
East Midlands (6)
Scotland (4)
North East (4)
South East (10)
West Midlands (7)
North West (7)
South West (13)
Yorks & Humb (9)
Wales (5)
East (11)
Based on 93 responses
37% of organisations provide women only services.
5.
Building use
5.1 Total number of buildings (including temporary ones) providing services for homeless
people
Number of buildings per organisation
By region
739
190
80
74
66
62
59
54
48
46
44
16 Overall (93)
London (18)
North East (2)
Wales (5)
Yorks & Humb (9)
South West (12)
West Midlands (8)
Scotland (4)
South East (28)
East (11)
East Midlands (6)
North West
Based on 93 responses
The median number of buildings is 2.
40% have one building whilst 8% (7 organisations) have over 30. One organisation has 68 buildings.
5.2 Types of services provided
Total number of buildings providing each service
407
82
72
45
37
33
10 Supported housing
Offices
Other hostel
Day centre
Direct access hostel
Education and training
5.3 Total number of bed spaces
By region
1307
382
364
242
199
160
143
107
70
58
22 London (10)
South East (9)
East Midlands (1)
South West (5)
West Midlands (6)
East (6)
North East (2)
Yorks & Humb (4)
North West (2)
Wales (1)
Scotland (1)
Based on 47 responses.
In total, the 47 organisations who responded have 3054 bed spaces available. The number of bed spaces available per organisation ranged from 6 up to 484. 55% have 30 or under bed spaces available.
13% (6 organisations) have in excess of 100 bed spaces. Of these, 3 are located in London.
5.4 Temporary shelter beds
Region where organisation based Total number of beds in temporary
shelters
London 92
South West 58
East Midlands 55
Wales 18
East 18
North West 8
Yorks & Humbs 6
West Midlands 3
South East 2
13 organisations provided information on the number of temporary shelter beds
The largest temporary shelter was in London with 92 beds; its organisation had a turnover of over £5 million.
5.5 Disabled access
% of organisations whose buildings have ‘full access for disabled people’
By region
63%
100%
83%
75%
70%
62%
60%
61%
60%
58%
55%
45% Overall (95)
North East (4)
East Midlands (6)
Scotland (4)
South West (13)
West Midlands (8)
South East (10)
London (18)
Wales (5)
North West (7)
Yorks & Humb (9)
East (11)
Based on 95 responses
Percentage of organisations whose buildings will meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act
By region
69%
100%
77%
75%
75%
71%
67%
66%
60%
60%
60%
57% Overall (93)
North East (4)
South West (13)
West Midlands (8)
Scotland (4)
London (17)
Yorks & Humb (9)
East Midlands (6)
South East (10)
East (10)
Wales (5)
North West (7)
Based on 93 responses
6. Building
management
6.1 Type of expertise available to help in the management and maintenance of buildings
44%
28%
23%
23%
17%
13%
8%
21%
Handy person
Surveyor
Local Builder
Maintenance or building management company
Architect
Registered Social Landlord/ Housing Association
In-house
Other
Based on 88 responses. Adds to more than 100% as respondents gave more than one answer
The majority of organisations (44%) use a Handy person to help in the management and maintenance of their buildings. Over a quarter use the services of a Surveyor.
Other expertise and help includes electricians/plumbers, the local authority, landlords, and volunteers.
6.2 Planned maintenance/development programmes
% of organisations who have a planned maintenance/development programme
By region
49%
71%
67%
56%
50%
50%
50%
45%
42%
33%
29%
25% Overall (91)
London (17)
North East (3)
Yorks & Humb (9)
South East (10)
West Midlands (8)
Scotland (4)
East (11)
South West (12)
East Midlands (6)
North West (7)
Wales (4)
Based on 91 responses
Overall just under half have a planned maintenance/development programme. In the North East 2 out of the 3 organisations answering have maintenance programmes.
In the East Midlands, the North West and Wales there are fewer such programmes.
Broadly speaking organisations with larger annual turnovers are more likely to have maintenance programmes. 68% of organisations with turnovers in excess of £500,000 have a programme compared to 37% of those with under £500,000.
The percentage of budgets allocated to building maintenance ranged from 1% to 24% with an average of 6%.
6.3 Reserve funds for building maintenance and improvement
Percentage who have a reserve fund specifically for building maintenance and improvement
By region
39%
75%
61%
43%
40%
38%
33%
30%
25%
20%
17%
0% Overall (89)
Scotland (4)
London (18)
West Midlands (7)
East (10)
South West (13)
North West (6)
South East (10)
Yorks & Humb (8)
Wales (5)
East Midlands (6)
North East (2)
Based on 89 responses
Overall 39% have reserve funds specifically for building maintenance and improvement. 63% of organisations with turnovers in excess of £500,000 have reserve funds, compared to 26% under £500,000.
6.4 Joint Management Agreement – receipt of specified maintenance and repair service from
the landlord
Of those who have Joint Management Agreements, 48% are not receiving the specified maintenance and repair service from their landlord.
6.5 Percentage of budget spent on rent or mortgage
Median percentage of budget spent on rent or mortgage
By region
5.5%
20.0%
9.5%
9.0%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
5.5%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
2.0% Overall (48)
Scotland (1)
Wales (2)
East (5)
South West (9)
London (10)
South East (4)
East Midlands (4)
North East (2)
North West (3)
West Midlands (6)
Yorks & Humb (2)
Based on 48 responses
The median is 5.5%.
Organisations spend between 1% and 50% of their budgets on rent or mortgage.
One organisation in London spent 47% and another in the West Midlands spent 50% of their budgets on rent or mortgage.
One respondent in Scotland spent 20%.
6.6 Grants for capital work
Percentage who have applied for grants for capital work in the last 3 years
By region
47%
57%
56%
50%
50%
50%
46%
40%
40% Overall (92)
North West (7)
London (18)
South East (10)
West Midlands (8)
East Midlands (6)
South West (13)
East (10)
If you have applied for grants, to whom did you apply?
67%
40%
30%
26%
19% Trusts
Local Council
Central Government
Community Fund
Other
Based on 43 responses
In the main organisations are applying to Trusts to obtain grants for capital works. Of those applying to other parties, most had applied to the Housing Corporation or SRB.
Was the grant application successful?
In order of success
Successful Unsuccessful Awaiting outcome
East Midlands (3) 100% 0 0 West Midlands (4) 100% 0 0 North East (1) 100% 0 0 Scotland (1) 100% 0 0
East (4) 75% 25% 0
North West (4) 75% 25% 0 South East (6) 80% 20% 0 London (10) 70% 0 30% Wales (2) 50% 0 50% South West (6) 50% 17% 33% Yorks & Humbs (3) 33% 0 67%
Overall (43) 72% 9% 19%
Over seven in ten grant applications were successful.
Although the individual sample bases for most of the regions are very small, the above table does show where grant applications have been most successful across the country.
If you received a grant, did you experience any restrictions which limited your ability to use voluntary labour or donated goods and services?
Based on the 31 organisations who have received grants, only 10% (3 respondents) had experienced restrictions which had limited their ability to use voluntary labour or donated goods or services. The organisations were based in East Midlands, Scotland and Wales. Their comments on their experiences are listed below:
Nature and size of the projects meant we had to comply with Communities Scotland procurement requirements. (Scotland)
The problem is that (1) the Housing Corporation is reducing the number of RSLs through which it allocates capital funding. (2) Other funders are also reducing their capital programmes. (East Midlands)
We were told that the cost of this would come off the grant. (Wales)
7.
Management, use and condition of individual buildings
Respondents were asked to provide information about the management, use and condition of individual permanent buildings that provide services for homeless people. Organisations were asked to select up to 5 buildings which were representative of their building portfolio. The results in this section report on the 191 separate buildings occupied by the 95 organisations who participated in this survey.
7.1 Extent to which the buildings have shortcomings which restrict their capacity
By region
In order of severe shortcomings
14%
40%
33%
25%
24%
17%
17%
13%
9%
8%
6%
5%
45%
60%
33%
25%
47%
25%
27%
27%
62%
58%
41%
68% 41%
33%
50%
29%
58%
57%
60%
28%
33%
53%
26%
Overall (170)
East Midlands (5)
Sotland (3)
North East (8)
Yorks & Humb (17)
Wales (12)
South West (30)
West Midlands (15)
London (32)
North West (12)
South East (17)
East (19)
Severe shortcomings Some shortcomings None or very few shortcomings
Based on 170 buildings
7.2 How could the building be improved to deliver better services?
Respondents were informed that one of the aims of the survey is to establish what can be done to upgrade the quality of their buildings to allow them to improve their services for homeless people. They were asked how they would improve their building to allow them to deliver better services. Respondents’ verbatim responses have been analysed and presented in the table below. The full comments are listed in Appendix 2.
Improvement No of times
mentioned
% (based on 191)
More space, build an extension 26 14% Improve disabled access/install disabled toilets 26 14% More admin/staff/office space (including staff accommodation) 16 8% Building is OK, improvements recently carried out 15 8% More/improved public/communal space 11 6% Would rather move/acquire additional buildings 8 4% More training/activities rooms 7 4% More interview rooms 6 3% More/improved kitchen facilities 6 3% Needs a full refurbishment/major work 6 3% Improve the accommodation 6 3% Need new windows/doors/lighting 6 3%
More storage 5 3%
Install a lift 5 3%
Demolish and start again, no point trying to improve 5 3% Convert shared accommodation into single rooms 4 2%
Improve garden 4 2%
Partitioning to increase number of room 3 2%
More meeting rooms 3 2%
More/improved shower/bath/toilet facilities 3 2% Improve security/install CCTV 3 2%
Need new furniture 2 1%
Listed building therefore restricted 2 1% Change the general layout 2 1%
Improve ventilation 2 1%
Miscellaneous 17 9%
Increasing space generally and improved disabled facilities were the most popular suggestions for improving the buildings.
7.3 If you had a better building how would this help you to deliver better service?
Respondents suggested a variety of ways that a better building could help them deliver better services. A number of respondents considered that a better building would mean they could provide a wider, more comprehensive range of services, particularly to disabled clients. Better quality of life, improved safety of clients and staff was also mentioned. The full comments are listed in Appendix 2.
7.4 Service users per year
Total number of service users using building last year
21% 11%
12% 6%
9% 7%
9%
Up to 20 21-50 51-100 101-200 201-500 501-1000 1000+
Based on 191 buildings
21% have below 20 users a year. The number of service users per year ranged from below 5 to over 27,000.
Many of the buildings servicing large numbers of people have multiple uses.
The building use affects the number of service users using that building. 78% of Day Centres have in excess of 1000 users a year, whereas Supported Housing which by its nature has a much reduced through-flow of users; 63% have less than 20 users a year.
7.5 Service users per day
Number of service users using building each day
16%
21% 21% 18% 9%
5%
Up to 5 6-10 11-20 20-50 51-100 100+
Based on 175 buildings
7.6 Provision of dormitory style accommodation
5% (10 buildings) provide dormitory style accommodation. The buildings are located in Yorkshire, London, South East, South West, East and North West.
There are between 2 and 4 people to a dormitory room, although one permanent night shelter in the South West has 40 to a room.
20% plan to convert to single rooms and a further 20% may possibly do this, the majority (60%) have no such plans.
7.7 Total number of staff including volunteers who work in the building
34% 24%
21% 15%
6%
Up to 5 6-10 11-20 20-50 51+
Based on 178 buildings
Just over one third of buildings have 5 or fewer staff.
Again, a building’s use largely determines the level of staff with 63% of buildings with 5 or under providing Supported Housing. 4 buildings had 100 or more staff, 3 of which are Day Centres.
7.8 Age of building
By region
Up to 10 years old
11-20 21-50 51-100 Over 100
years old
East (17) 12% 12% 12% 47% 18% East Midlands (3) 0 0 67% 33% 0 London (26) 19% 15% 12% 35% 19% North East (8) 0 13% 13% 75% 0 North West (13) 15% 0 8% 38% 38% Scotland (3) 67% 33% 0 0 0 South East (16) 19% 0 19% 50% 13% South West (18) 22% 6% 33% 33% 6% Wales (6) 33% 33% 0 33% 0 West Midlands (15) 13% 0 20% 40% 27% Yorks & Humbs (16) 19% 0 25% 44% 13%
Overall (141) 18% 8% 18% 41% 16%
57% of organisations occupy buildings which are over 50 years old.
7.9 Was the building purpose built?
Number of buildings which are purpose built
By region
9
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
2
0 0 London (33)
Wales (13)
South West (30)
Sotland (4)
North West (12)
South East (18)
Yorks & Humb (17)
East (19)
West Midlands (19)
North East (10)
East Midlands (5)
Based on 180 buildings
Overall 38 buildings were purpose built.
7.10 When was the last major refurbishment?
Of the 89 who responded, 47 buildings have been refurbished since 2000. 15 buildings were either refurbished this year or refurbishment is still ongoing.
7.11 Have you had any major work carried out on the building in the last 3 years?
By region
Yes have undertaken major work
In progress now
Contemplating such work
Needed but no plans at present
No works carried out
7.12 Do you have sole occupancy?
80% of organisations have sole occupancy on their buildings. 20% share with other organisations. Across the regions, the pattern is the same with high sole occupancy.
7.13 Type of occupancy agreement
36%
35%
19%
5%
3%
2%
Management agreement with RSL Occupy on a lease
Own the freehold Occupy based on informal agreement with owner
Occupy on a licence
Other
Based on 187 buildings
36% have a management agreement with a Registered Social Landlord and a further 35% occupy on a lease.
46% of those with leases or licences have 5 or less years to run; the average term was 14 years.
Respondents whose buildings have licences were asked what notice period must be given to quit, the majority did not answer. The 5 who did, had notice periods of 1 month to a year.
7.14 If you rent, would you consider buying?
Based on the 99 who answered, 23% overall would consider buying their building.
7.15 Do you have a full repair and maintenance responsibility?
Percentage that have a full repair and maintenance responsibility
By region
39%
100%
75%
67%
53%
43%
38%
37%
29%
30%
10%
0% Overall (178)
Sotland (4)
East Midlands (4)
South East (18)
East (19)
London (30)
North West (13)
South West (30)
Yorks & Humb (17)
West Midlands (20)
North East (10)
Wales (13)
Based on 178 buildings
Overall 39% have a full repair and maintenance responsibility.
7.16 Have you received any professional advice on altering the building to suit your needs in the last 3 years?
Percentage who have received professional advice on altering the building in the last 3 years
By region
48%
65%
60%
58%
50%
50%
47%
47%
40%
43%
38%
33% Overall (179)
South East (17)
North East (10)
London (33)
Sotland (4)
East Midlands (4)
East (19)
Yorks & Humb (17)
West Midlands (20)
North West (14)
South West (29)
Wales (12)
Based on 179 responses
Appendix 2 - Verbatim comments
1.1 Describe your involvement in the development of your local homelessness strategy
We have attended and contributed to consultation meetings in Lambeth and Southwark. Assisted in consultation with Westminster and Vision 21.
Attending homelessness strategy forums, discussing various issues with other relevant agencies and local authority. Raising awareness about issues affecting young homeless people.
Consultation providing stats, highlighting gaps.
Involved in local strategy groups comprising of local housing agencies plus local councils Working with other local representative organisations and the local council in workshops, forums and task groups.
We are involved via consultation document feedback.
Attending meetings and steering groups with local authority and other agencies. Member of steering group.
Seat on steering group working with Local Authority to draft strategy. Attend regular planning and strategy committees.
In Sheffield we have taken part in the consultation and mapping process and we are the lead agency on the rough sleepers subgroup. In Leeds, we are members of the Inter-agency Rough Sleepers Group and have taken part in Supporting People matting that will inform the homeless strategy and attended consultation events
Initial consultation questionnaire, information and discussion seminars, other focus groups Director sits on the strategy board.
Participating in and facilitating a working group which is part of strategy development.
We are working with all ten boroughs and district councils as advisors for each local strategy. We have been consulted via membership of the Homelessness and Refugees Health
Partnership Group. We have also helped run a conference and returned a questionnaire. Attend all meetings and actively contribute, provide data for this and go through all paperwork produced by officer from Local authority regarding the strategy.
Director interviewed by consultant sitting on steering group, users and staff consulted on draft. I sit on the Manchester Single Strategy Group and chair a meaningful occupation task group and have had various meetings about the strategy.
Contracted to write Youth homeless strategy element, fully consulted and involved in homelessness strategy and regional housing strategy.
Member of Homeless Forum – RSI.
Closely involved with writing strategy. Central to all homeless services in Southend, already named in all planning.
Meeting with government office, Local Authorities, service users and providers to identify policy and strategy. Also member of a regional youth homelessness group.
Member of 3 Local Authority review groups.
Partner in consultative group; provided research information to Local Authorities. Working closely with District Council.
Attend Strategy Groups at local and county level.
Members of Supported Housing Forum. Partners in Single Homeless Strategy. Attend HSG meetings.
Director is chairman of local Housing Forum which is involved through consultation as well as a partnership with Centrepoint in researching youth homelessness.
Through participation in local Forum and collecting of relevant information.
Member of the steering group assisting consultant on the overall strategic delivery from a management stance plus client and user input on other levels.
Work with council and other voluntary organisations and feed in development and areas that need developing within the borough.
Member of HS steering group guiding strategy development and review of current needs/provision.
Represented on Homeless Strategy Reference Group on Employment and Training in London Borough of Camden.
Member of City Councils 'Operations Committee' who put together strategy.
Represented on the local homelessness strategy group for the local borough of Tunbridge Wells District Council.
Forum organised by Local Authority.
Meeting with other centres involved in homeless provision. We work with PCT for health services for homeless persons. Raising awareness of homeless issues in the local community The Director sits on the Council Homelessness Strategy Development Committee.
We have attended consultation meetings, supplied data and helped to review drafts. Working partners with Local Authority, member of homelessness strategy forum. On the Homelessness Strategy and Steering Group.
Have been part of consultation.
Involvement in strategy group, attending meetings, planning events. Attend meeting, give information.
Working with homeless strategy forums in 3 local authority areas. Member of East Kent Homeless Forum.
Participation in the Forum. Co-operative working and joint venture with local authority. Meeting with responsible officers to inform them of our services.
Member of local consortium for rough sleeping, Nottingham Voluntary Sector Homelessness Forum, involvement in 'speakouts on homelessness'
We participate in our local East Kent Homelessness Forum and the preparation of the local Canterbury District homelessness strategy.
Attend Consultation meetings with local council.
Major role in influencing content and pressurizing for delivery. Chair one of 3 working groups to implement strategy.
Lead voluntary agency in the development of the strategy with the housing department. We have worked alongside Strategy Development Officer for duration of development. Attendance at Local Authority meetings.
Consultation with management and residents. Support Provider Forum.
Member of Homelessness Review and Strategy Group.
Indirectly as a contributor to local multi-agency forum whose views will be represented when homeless strategy is formulated for our area
As part of the Housing Forum. Strategy officers consult all housing and support providers Patchy - we work in 4 local authority areas and are in discussion with just two. We are developing services in a further 3 areas and are in discussion with 2.
Comments direct to Local Authority. Group Action via coalition or older homelessness hostel Managers Group
Members of Local Authority Homeless Strategy Forum. The Chief Executive is the chair of the Single Persons Homelessness committee of that forum.
Project Manager is a member of the Herefordshire Homeless Forum and Homeless Strategy Group, Editorial Group.
Attend local housing strategy meetings, consulted by Local Authorities. We are a member of local homelessness strategy forum.
We are on the core group and have a great deal of input and influence - we have worked hard to achieve a strong partnership.
Helping to establish a group to look at responses to homeless 16-17 year olds presenting as homeless in central London, but who may have other local connections. Developing a service to meet needs of a Local Authority - as an alternative to B&B.
We have engaged in consultation with 3 out of the 9 boroughs we work in. Attend meetings, provide statistics etc.
On consultation groups.
We form part of the Strategy Review Group
1.2 Description of services provided specifically for people from BMEs
It is a 3 year funded project offering intensive ongoing casework with BME and refugee women to assist with re-housing and resettlement.
2 specific supported housing projects working with the Somali community in Tower Hamlets. One project in Haringey for people with mental health problems.
Refuge and outreach services for South Asian, Turkish, and Iranian women experiencing domestic violence.
One supported house (4 bed spaces) for African/Caribbean men. We have interpretation facilities for ethnic minorities.
We have a partnership with the Refugee Support Group, provide translators and access to our Rent deposit scheme to refugees.
Around 50% of service users are from BME groups so all services are designed to be culturally appropriate.
We run a Black service user group.
We run a number of life skills and other programmes specifically for BME clients. 2 supported housing projects for black African /Caribbean men.
Floating support services specifically for Asian young people and refugees.
1.3 Description of women only services
2 hostels (104 beds), 1 day centre, 1 mental health unit with 14 beds.
24 hour supported accommodation for homeless young women 16-30 yrs. 24 hour supported accommodation for young mothers and children. Core and cluster project for young mothers, move on flats for young single women.
3 supported housing projects in London, 1 supported housing project (self contained flats) for women with babies. 3 floating support schemes (Leeds, Accrington, Scunthorpe) for women fleeing domestic violence.
4 houses for women only with off-site support.
6 flats and 6 bed sits for vulnerable young women (under 25) who are pregnant or who have a child.
A day centre for women and young children. It has advice and resettlement services and a domestic violence worker.
Advice, supported housing/refugee accommodation, family houses, floating support for women and women with children, floating support for teenage pregnancy.
Afternoon women’s group at the Day Centre once a week for 6 weeks at a time. Dedicated women’s worker and women’s group.
Direct access hostel for women (23 beds). Direct access hostel for women (10 beds) Teenage parents projects (10 beds).
Direct access hostels, mothers and baby hostels, high support projects, youth groups A small 4 bed space, short term stay hostel.
Hostel for women and children.
Hostel for women fleeing domestic violence, shared housing for vulnerable women. A House with 6 bedrooms providing emergency accommodation.
14 bed hostel for young women aged 16-25 Occasional group services on a range of subjects. One four bedded resettlement hostel - referral only. One to one, groups.
Our organisation is women only - staff and service providers.
Our services are all specifically geared for women. Homelessness prevention, advice and casework and free information guides, accommodation referrals and support.
Outreach, drop-in, women-only housing.
Refuge and outreach services for South Asian, Turkish, and Iranian women experiencing domestic violence.
Single parent/pregnant women hostel and move on project. Support group.
We are open for women only on Fridays. We have a women’s shared house.
We have several women only supported housing schemes.
We run a number of life skills and other programmes (e.g. health) specifically for women.
Weekly women's drop-in groups. Weekly women’s group.
Women only organisation. 16 unit self catering support housing scheme with 24 hour cover. Women’s only group, housing and other advice.
Young mothers and single homeless women.
1.4 How would you improve your building to allow you to deliver better service?
Larger areas for interview rooms, more office space, storage facilities, kitchen facilities, night shelter facilities
We are awaiting grant confirmation for a major building project which will involve putting in a lift, ramps and disabled toilets which are sorely needs. The entire building needs material
refurbishment and some external works are needed, e.g. to the windows/brick work. We need a lot more space to expand.
Increased space but as fairly new build built for purpose.
It is not possible to upgrade our present building as it is a listed building. We are looking for alternative accommodation.
Room dividers to give added flexibility and allow a variety of services to run simultaneously. We need a larger building.
Add another storey (it is single storey) to improve office, counselling space etc. A bigger kitchen.
Activities room, shower room with changing facilities and toilets. Training room, medical room, decent furniture, interview room, storage room, new TV, kitchen.
Could do with more space - possibly build upwards or buy next door. Disabled access.
Full scale refurbishment and full disability access. Improve access to disabled people.
Improve disability access to all our services.
Improved showers, reduce 10 shared units to non-sharing, acquire neighbouring buildings Knock it down and start again.
More space.
Need more space - would be ideal if we had the entire building. Recent improvement to provide a surgery meant loss of office space for staff.
New building.
Partitioning of large area to give flexibility. Turn one area into smaller group rooms.
We are happy with the building as it is at the moment, but have concerns we may soon outgrow it!
We are limited in terms of space due to the listed nature of the building.
We are working with Sheffield cathedral and should have a purpose built site in 2006. Already several million has been raised.
We do not have space to upgrade present building. Also it is a listed building. In 2/3 years may have new building space which we can adapt to our needs.
Would need bigger premises.
Access for disabled, otherwise the building is adequate. Adequate for service at present, no access for disabled.
Build extension at the back for more single rooms and communal space.
Provision of private interview rooms and IT learning centre would be beneficial although difficult in a Grade 2 listed building.
Provision of single bedrooms.
The council is refurbishing and extending a council owned building for us. We move in September 2003.
There is no scope to improve facilities due to layout.
We have been submitting bids to change to more suitable premises for several years with no success.
We need an extension, but the building is owned by someone else.
Lack of staff accommodation and need to properly accommodate young mothers - application with Housing Corp.
Make it wheelchair accessible, convert space to become workable for disabled service users, and install a lift.
Rebuild from scratch.
Improve office space and staff accommodation.
All shared, support accommodation is of a high standard. Better disabled access, bigger office space.
Building is ok. Building is ok. Disabled access.
House in good condition but it needs new windows and security lighting.
Improving the appearance of the outside of the building, adding flowers, painting doors and windows, replacing windows, creating a mini kitchen area/breakfast bar in the lounge area, establishing a training and IT suite.
Increase staffing levels and by so doing include for permanent double cover and to include for working watch.
Installation of CCTV.
Lack of communal space and office space, layout makes it difficult to know what’s happening in the building.
Limited access for disabled people except in downstairs flats.
Major refurbishment and internally design building to suit service rather than service to suit building.
More communal areas.
More communal space and better disabled access.
New project to provide supported move-on accommodation (flats) linked to care plans. New windows, external doors, security lighting.
No access for disabled.
Old damp building with £80,000 worth of work required. Provide a garden.
Purchase (but no means to do so) and provide on-site staff facilities. At present staff visit rather than work at site.
Redevelop into flats and then provide a purpose built hostel in Diss.
The building provides shared accommodation - each person has their own bedroom. The project is divided into 4 different sections (for 9,4,4,3 people flats)
The building would have more communal space on each floor for residents to utilise. This building is a dispersed unit for one family. It is situated on the first floor and has disabled/wheelchair access.
Total refurbishment of kitchens/bathrooms. Redecoration of communal areas, office and keywork room.
We would prefer to demolish buildings and rebuild on site to offer wider range of services Better space planning in the building overall.
Extension, space/office space. Expansion of coffee shop.
I probably wouldn't spend much on improving this building but would probably re-locate. Listed building has just had full grant work completed on internal and external.
The main problem is lack of space. Too small.
Better disabled access.
Full disabled access. Somewhere with cheaper rent so excess funds can be spent elsewhere No disabled access, new windows required, new lighting to meet EEC regulations.
No disabled access/facilities for staff or service users.
Redesign rooms to allow adequate space for each service. The building is OK.
We are selling the property to RSL as we no longer want to provide our own accommodation and only use for offices.
Will incorporate Admin into new cathedral site in 2006. More storage, safety assessment, bigger offices.
Stair lift to allow access to Adult Learning activities, extend building to gain extra space to expand services
We are a portacabin and have run out of space.
Improve security measures, extend for office and storage.
If was no longer providing office space for HO staff, could provide additional bed spaces. Currently using the basement of the buildings - hope to take over the rest of the building as and when current tenants vacate the property.
General maintenance - building programme (worth £100k), more adaptation for disabled Need better provision for people with a disability.
A feasibility study has shown that the improvements to the property would not provide a wise investment; therefore we are purchasing alternative accommodation.
A lift - currently no provision for residents or staff with poor mobility or disabilities. Office could be better laid out.
Better ventilation to main office and keywork room. Door from office to hallway could include glass or become a stable door to allow better visibility to rest of hostel and contact with residents. Including thermostats on radiators in rooms would be very beneficial. Bigger rooms.
Close it down and move to a building that provides self contained units. Extending - loft conversion.
Improve the kitchen facilities and create a kitchen training area. Lack of communal and training facilities.
Lack of staff accommodation and poor resident communal space. Larger office.
Only have a very small communal room, would need bigger, possible conservatory style on an external wall.
Provide communal and training space.
Rooms need to be ensuite and have more kitchens. Start again.
The building has been badly adapted so that there are narrow corridors and small rooms, it is not ideal. It is Georgian so can’t be altered too much. We would like to extend into our back yard to have more office space as this is limited. We would also like a garden.
It was refurbished to suit client group. Good facility in the right area for this project.
Quality of fabric of building - difficult to maintain/keep clean but getting RSL to repair properly is impossible (even though they own it)
Currently refurbishing reception.
We would need to move as it is too small, but have plans for a new building to open in September.
Access for people with disability issues.
Convert top floor into accommodation for 16-25 year olds.
Regular maintenance, remodelling of parts to reduce risk, more discrete offices.
Self contained accommodation. More space, for storage. Suits our needs at present.
This building is currently having major works carried out. It is then presumed that very acceptable accommodation will result.
This is a newly refurbished building so we haven't discovered what/if the snags will be.
We have funding in place to build units for young mothers and nursery/childcare - this is due to start later in 2003.
We would move. We currently have 2 office/advice centres on the edge of the city centre; neither is adequate in size or design. Ideally one accessible building would be city centre based but costs are prohibitive.
We need a front door of our own and more interview rooms and space in general. As we only lease our part of the building (2
