“It felt a bit like a computer game where you had to get to the different levels and you get through to the second level and you might get through to the third level but ultimately, on a number of occasions, I’ve been able to get up a few levels but you still can’t get any kind of help”
Homeless client, 2005

Lift (formerly Brent Homeless User Group) have over five years experience of using mystery shoppers, recruited from amongst their service users. In a recent review of the housing advice services provided by 11 Welsh local authorities, Lift’s mystery shoppers highlighted that in more than 50 per cent of visits mystery shopper’s expectations were not fully met. A quarter of staff were not felt to be friendly, encouraging or supportive.

As an organisation, mystery shopping provides:
• Tangible facts about the experience from someone actually using it
• Recommendations which can not be dismissed as linked to a particular case or decision taken against that individual
• An opportunity to catch issues early
• A means of proactively testing mechanisms used to improve inclusion and simplify delivery of complicated information

And yet for Martin Cheesman, Director of Lift “the purpose of peer research isn’t only to improve services; [it] also supports these mystery shoppers through a pre-employment service, translating the skills they have gained into paid employment!”

This January, one of LIFT’s service users has recently moved into a paid role as a support worker in health and social care after having completed peer research training with the organisation.

Broadway introduced mystery shopping in June, to all its front line accommodation and support services this year. We have trained a group of five mystery shoppers and supported them in their work toward an NVQ in Customer Service as part of the course.

In introducing the course we have had to identify:
•An effective method of measuring service against clear standards and with consistency between projects
•A means of preparing clients, coaching them in how to respond to questions and deal with ethical dilemmas
•An effective way of answering staff concerns and delivering feedback in a proactive and structured way as part of ongoing management.

The programme has already been viewed as a positive initiative and improvements have been made at three of our services. Information collected in mystery shopping exercises has been praised by Supporting People teams and is going a long way to help us achieve the Cabinet Office’s Customer Service Excellence Standard.

Real Skills are currently looking at ways in which we can share our experience in developing a mystery shopping exercise by either running training for other organisations or offering to coach clients directly.

If you would be interested in seeing how we could help you introduce a similar scheme to your project email chris.cornell@broadwaylondon.org

Read the full article about Mystery Shopping by clicking here.

The Homeless Change fund follows hot on the heels of the government’s Places for Change programme. It shares its its ambition to prioritise investment in accomodation with access and space for education, training but is focussed largerly on targetting new rough sleepers.

Making his announcement at an at an event organised by Homeless Link, Shapps was quoted as saying it was “almost impossible to get the outside world to take any notice of homelessness at all”.

In a critical comment to a national newspaper, he said “I suspect even if I did press release it, no-one outside this room would give a damn.”
As Shadow Housing Minister Mr Shapps has previously admitted to bedding down at Victoria Station as a publicity stunt in 2007. At the time he admitted that it was the only way of highlighting “the plight of children who slept rough” over the Christmas period.

As part of an panel discussion the Housing Minister also commented on claims that the coalition’s Universal Credit policy will see homelessness increase, as benefit caps are introduced.
He told delegates that it was important to strike a balance between those needing support and those paying into the system, claiming it was “bonkers” for the housing benefit budget to be higher than the police, housing and transport budgets put together.

For the full story in the Guardian click here.

Sure, the private sector is a far quicker way of generating accommodation for move on, but is it the most appropriate option for vulnerable people?

Government studies have shown that at least 44% of private rented accommodation in England doesn’t meet the Decent Homes Standard. With changes to single room rent now affecting all those under the age of 35, potentially vulnerable priority need clients who have been fast-tracked through housing options in less than three months, could be forced to accept  shared accommodation – potentially jeopardising a person’s mental health or attempts to deal with drug and alcohol addiction.

In a competitive market, private landlords are agreed that cuts to housing allowance are a disincentive to housing vulnerable people. The presence of first time buyers unable to get their foot on the housing ladder has seen Shelter recently suggest 55% local authority rents are unaffordable and yet still they are being let.

If local authorities are serious about using private landlords, three questions remain:

1. How are they going to enforce supply?Landlords are often only motivated by long term contracts with a local authority paying top dollar and willing to pay for their voids.

2. How are we going to ensure accommodation standards and do accreditation standards actually have any teeth?

3. What are we doing to prepare clients for this?

Local authorities surely now have a duty to invest in tenancy training in order to prevent their officers having to deal with countless cases of repeat homeless twelve months later.

What do you think, is it the most appropriate option for vulnerable people?

This month, and unknown too many, CLG announced the names of 10 local authorities who are piloting a performance related element to block Supporting People contracts. Over a period of two years, pilot authorities will split block contracts into a core payment representing 80% the total and an optional 20% paid on results.

Quite exactly what the results will be or successfully they will measure the “distance traveled” to avoid a “cherry picking” of clients is unknown. But the direction of travel is clear.

For CLG the Supporting People grant is in many ways an obvious target. Whilst the coalition government has announced an end to nationally collecting SP Outcomes, the St Andrews monitoring forms are a robust data set for government to measure success and well understood by staff.

So what’s the future for Supporting People?

Will the QAF be usurped by local guidance or will it simply become a compliance tool? Are we seeing a further means to cut our funding or a savvy approach to public spending?

Managers obviously have a vital role to play; but we find that it is often that the unique challenge of the training environment and the external perspective of a trainer which helps staff appreciate why we have the rules we do rather than blindly uphold them. Clients expect more than blind obedience to a mantra – they can see when you don’t believe in something.

Many of our staff have asked for an accredited qualification but our City & Guilds qualification took over 6 months and turned many people off.  More experienced support workers, often as much in need of training, felt the course was too much like “going over the basics” and was expensive. Everything we’ve tried has taught theory but not focused enough on new and innovative models of working. We want staff to see that there are different ways of dealing with common problems?

When Homeless Link say that 89% of organisations want an industry standard training qualification how do you do it? What have you tried and think works? Do you have the same problem?