Housing Choices Discussion Paper 3

In the first discussion paper in this series ‘What is the evidence for the cost or cost-effectiveness of housing and support options for people with care or support needs?’ we concluded that the limitations of the evidence of cost-effectiveness of residential care compared to other housing and support options means that there is not sufficient, reliable evidence on which to inform decisions on the basis of cost. Given this lack of evidence (that residential care is more or less expensive than other forms of housing and support), there is a strong argument that decisions about an individual’s housing and support should be based on other factors supported in current health and social care policy – rights, inclusion, choice and control.

In the second discussion paper in this series ‘A proposed typology of housing and support options’ we presented a draft typology which identifies, categorises and briefly describes the housing options available for people with care or support needs who do not live with family. Following some comments and suggestions, we have amended the typology slightly (see Appendix).

In this third paper we consider the characteristics of these housing and support options in terms of the level of inclusion, rights, choice and control they offer to people with care or support needs. Taking the list of housing and support categories identified in the typology, the diagram and table below illustrate the characteristics of the different options.

We welcome comments and views on the paper from commissioners and providers of housing and support (in all its forms), people who use services and their families (and representative organisations), academics and policy makers. In particular, we are interested in knowing:

• Is it useful to think in terms of inclusion, rights, choice and control when considering housing and support options?
• If yes, who is it useful for and how should different people (e.g. policy makers, commissioners and providers, use this typology?
• If no, why not and what alternative factors would you suggest should be considered by policy makers, commissioners and providers?
• Do you agree with the characteristics of each of the options identified? If not, why not?
• Are there any changes that you think should be made?

The comments and feedback on all three papers will be used to inform a final position paper with recommendations for policy and practice development.