Housing and Support Program (HASP): Final Evaluation Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 Section 1 Introduction 1.1.4 Securing HASP Support — The process The reader is referred to Appendix I for a schematic representation of the process. In brief, Queensland Health staff identify and nominate, for the program, individuals meeting the selection criteria described above. Applications are examined by the ‘HASP Interagency Panel’ which endorses applications to progress to the assessment and verifi cation phase. Disability and Community Care Services (DCCS) then verifi es the person’s eligibility for DCCS services and their non-clinical support requirements to live in the community. DCCS and housing coordinators engage with the person to: identify where they would like to live (location, type of housing, lifestyle needs, hobbies, etc) determine the level of ongoing support required select a funded non-government service provider engage with selected support provider (identify support needs, personal goals, develop support plans and select support workers) determine how they could best participate in the review of supports, goals and future plans. Final Evaluation Report Housing and Homelessness Services (HHS) assesses the person’s housing and tenancy management needs and identifi es a suitable property to meet identifi ed needs. DCCS allocates funding to the person’s selected support agency which engages in the provision of support services to the person. All stakeholders work together to collaboratively develop and implement a plan to transition the individual to the community. Throughout the process, the individual is encouraged to make informed choices about: their preferred location and type of housing the NGO providing their support their household possessions personal goals and lifestyle the involvement of informal supporters. The actual move from hospital to the community is directed by each consumer. Some consumers transition slowly and gradually increase the amount of time they spend in the community until they are living there permanently. Others depart on the agreed date and do not return to the hospital again. While consumers are encouraged to commence living in their new homes as soon as possible, some took up to 12 months to make the transition. It should be noted that in some of the more protracted transitions, issues outside the control of the consumer (e.g. Mental Health Act status), rather than the inability of the consumer to transition, were responsible for the delays.
1.2 Housing and supports – previous research In Australia, the inclusion of psychiatric disability in the Commonwealth Disability Services Act 1986 brought into focus the distinction between illness and disability. It was noted that illness should be the domain of clinical interventions, while the disability component should become the concern of those skilled in the management of disability. Whiteford (1994, p.343) argues that no single agency should take complete responsibility for the lives of people with mental illness (as mental health has historically done). Whiteford outlined several reasons for this: access to social and disability programs available to people with other disabilities should be available to people with a mental disability. This is in keeping with equitable access and non-discrimination in service provision; mental health professionals can specialise in the provision of treatment and rehabilitation rather than the provision of services that can be provided more effectively or effi ciently by other agencies; mainstreaming people with mental illness into current social and disability services is likely to decrease marginalisation and stigmatisation; no single agency (including mental health) would have suffi cient resources to meet the broad range of services required by people with a mental disability. Thus disability support is provided on some assumptions about the desirability of moving care and treatment away from a focus on clinical concerns towards a broader community approach. The research evidence supporting greater involvement of the disability sector is increasing. Indeed, in Australia, funding provided to the non-government sector to support people with psychiatric disability has increased by 294% or $75 million since 1993 (Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2004). 1.2.1 Services provided by disability support workers Support agencies work in collaboration with mainstream mental health services and tend to target people at the more severe end of the spectrum. They assist people to connect to mainstream social and disability services by linking them to community-based recreation and vocational services (Walter & Petr, 2006). While different models of disability support have developed, the interventions provided seem to be common across models. Warner and colleagues (1998) collected information on the services provided by support staff in a number of different support programs in the UK and Northern Ireland and found that service provision could be categorised into three domains — assisting clients ‘within the home’, ‘outside the home’, and ‘liaising’ on behalf of clients (Warner et al., 1998). Services offered within the home were classifi ed as being emotional or practical in nature, while those provided outside the home were classifi ed as social, practical and leisure based (Table 1.2.1). Housing and Support Program (HASP) 5
Page 1 and 2: Department of Psychiatry (UQ) and S
Page 3 and 4: Final Evaluation Report of the Quee
Page 5 and 6: • Community integration While eig
Page 7 and 8: List of contents Executive summary
Page 9 and 10: Section 1 Introduction Since the 19
Page 11: 1.1.1 HASP — Management Structure
Page 15 and 16: Table 1.2.2 Outcomes for clients mo
Page 17 and 18: activities, while others tried to c
Page 19 and 20: 1.2.6 Section summary It is clear f
Page 21 and 22: Section 2 Method 2.1 Design The stu
Page 23 and 24: 2.2.1.2 Clients unavailable to part
Page 25 and 26: 2.2.1.5 Clinical staff — sample F
Page 27 and 28: 4) Data collected from mental healt
Page 29 and 30: 2.4 Procedure 2.4.1 Clients - proce
Page 31 and 32: All focus group discussions and ind
Page 33 and 34: However, it was clear that the deve
Page 35 and 36: Importance of the Supports Facilita
Page 37 and 38: Accountability There was a percepti
Page 39 and 40: Support workers highlighted issues
Page 41 and 42: 4.1.2 Client perceptions of support
Page 43 and 44: In general, Case Managers expressed
Page 45 and 46: 4.2.2 Client perceptions of the amo
Page 47 and 48: Support workers felt, as a result o
Page 49 and 50: 4.2.8 Amount of support required in
Page 51 and 52: 4.3.2 Living arrangements The major
Page 53 and 54: 4.3.7 Housing in HASP — compariso
Page 55 and 56: The majority of HASP clients (76%)
Page 57 and 58: 5.2 Satisfaction with key life doma
Page 59 and 60: 5.7 Depth of friendships We explore
Page 61 and 62: 5.11 Community involvement Clients
Page 63 and 64:
5.13 Section summary During our int
Page 65 and 66:
etter functioning). However, while
Page 67 and 68:
6.7 Physical and mental health Link
Page 69 and 70:
6.10 Section summary The average ti
Page 71 and 72:
7.2 Comparing HASP with inpatient/r
Page 73 and 74:
of applications, increase Case Mana
Page 75 and 76:
available when and where needed by
Page 77 and 78:
8.4 The ability of the program to m
Page 79 and 80:
Section 9 Recommendations 1. More i
Page 81 and 82:
Section 10 Reference list Anthony,
Page 83 and 84:
Shepherd, G., Murray, A. & Muijen,
Page 85 and 86:
Housing and Support Program (HASP)
show all

Housing and Support Program (HASP): Final Evaluation Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?