It records activities and events from the planning stage in August 1996 (when Liverpool Community Care Ltd (LCC Ltd), were asked to host the Initiative), through to the implementation of the Project and until the end of June 1997. However, because the project has been extended until 30 September 1997 the Report is not complete. Activity from June to September will be centred around Pilot Service development and an account of this activity will be published as an Addendum to this Report, in October 1997, together with LCC Ltd’s Exit Strategy. The findings of this Report are not ‘owned’ by LCC Ltd, but will be widely available in the autumn. However, as care providers, LCC Ltd have had a moral responsibility for delivery of a service whenever requested.

The LHCPI was one of six projects on Merseyside, each with distinct responsibilities, but all centred on providing employment opportunities for Long Term Unemployed People (LTU).

The company is the creation of several Community Based Economic Development (CBED) organisations in Liverpool. Its community business is the delivery of domiciliary support to people across the city who have mental health needs. Currently, the company’s activity is almost entirely (98%) contract work with Liverpool Social Services. The company’s philosophy is to recruit LTU to its staff and provide training to NVQ II (delivered by Liverpool Social Services). The development of the company as a CBED body, together with its aims and objectives as a community business and its successful track record in delivering services, make it a most appropriate host for this Initiative.

The LHCPI model for Research is unique (Researching Care Needs and willingness/ability to purchase services in conjunction with business opportunities before offering employment/training to LTU) and could be adapted for use elsewhere. It was a complex project with the four main areas of responsibility being:-

• Research the demand for unmet Care Service Provision in Liverpool.
  
• Research the barriers/aspirations of LTU in finding suitable sustainable employment.
  
• Research the potential for income maximisation in order that people may purchase a care service.
  
• Research the potential for business development in this care service provision to provide employment opportunities for LTU.
  

All the above facts have to be disseminated and discussed in the report, given that its findings are far reaching.

The Research has delivered some interesting findings and raises many questions. The main points to consider are as follows:-

Unmet Care Service Demand

• 76,187 people, aged over 16, have one of the care needs measured by the survey, with the most frequent requests being for: Painting and decorating, gardening, domestic services, property repairs and lifeline alarm services.
• 52% of people with a care need had a form of disability and 24% were in the older aged category.
• There was a high correlation between age and social class: 40% of those with any or multiple needs were aged 65 or over and 55% of those with any or multiple needs were of socio-economic class E.
• 60% of those with a care need were women.
• Many elderly people do not perceive themselves as having a "personal care" need; loneliness, social isolation, mobility and personal safety were their main concerns.
• 35,914 (62%) of people identified mobility as a problem (leading to difficulties with everyday tasks such as shopping, bathing and domestic chores).
• Single parents identified problems with home safety, holidays and outings.
• Disabled people identified problems with mobility, personal safety and lack of social interaction.
• Many people were unwilling/unable to pay for the services they identified.
• People’s willingness to purchase a care service was not dependent on having their income maximised.
• People felt they had "little control" over services provided by statutory agencies.

Recommendations

• Increase awareness of what services are available.
• Increase awareness of quality assurance in service provision, which would increase peoples willingness to purchase.
• Increase awareness of how income can be maximised in order to purchase services.
• Increase social activities/social interaction for disabled and elderly people (liaison with current voluntary and statutory providers is essential for this).
• Increase availability of "respite" services for single parents.
• Provide transport services or better advertise those currently available.
• All agencies should frequently consult service users to evaluate levels of service delivery.

NB Contrary to many widely held opinions, elderly people did not perceive themselves as having a care need. Why is this? This is particularly significant given that this sector of the population is the fastest growing. Further research may provide the answers.

Long Term Unemployed

• Many LTU primarily want to work in order to regain their self-respect.
• Financial reimbursement was not the main concern, although many felt that they needed decent wages to cover basic expenditure levels, the costs of actually being employed and still have money left to improve their standard of living.
• Many felt they were caught in the "Benefits trap" and working could actually reduce their standard of living as Benefits, such as Housing Benefit, may be lost.
• They want proper, sustainable employment not "more training".

Recommendations

• The question of low-pay and welfare benefits should be addressed as a matter of urgency. Perhaps a sliding scale of Benefits should be introduced with enough income to cover basic expenditure levels and increase their standard of living.
• Could the benefit, "Job Match", or similar, be reintroduced.
• Self awareness/motivation training should be offered to all LTU to help them have the confidence to access employment.
• Training for training sake creates apathy and despondency.
• Full-time paid employment offering on-going skills training should be encouraged.

NB The governments "Welfare to Work" Initiative, although still a discussion document, does not provide enough financial data to judge if it will help LTU returning to the workplace. LTU require enough financial assistance after employment has been gained to ensure their basic living costs are met (i.e. housing, council tax etc.).

Income Maximisation

• Many people are not receiving the Benefits to which they are entitled.
• People are still refusing to claim the Benefits to which they are entitled.
• People’s willingness to purchase a service was not dependent on income maximisation.
• People’s circumstances may alter and therefore they may be unaware they are underclaiming.
• Medical Practitioners often do not provide enough details on claim forms.

Recommendations

• Benefit advice and information should be made more easily available, in understandable jargon. Perhaps an awareness raising campaign could be undertaken.
• Claim forms should be less complex.
• Benefit advisers should be more accessible and willing to make house-calls, for those with restricted mobility.
• Regular, say bi-annual reviews, should be made to ensure peoples changing circumstances are addressed.
• Medical Practitioners should be provided with training/information for them to understand what is expected of them.

Business Development

• Services most frequently requested were painting and decorating, gardening, domestic and home maintenance.
• Service sustainability is dependent upon peoples ability to purchase the service.
• Business overhead costs would prohibit the formation of a stand-alone business, as would the seasonal aspect of some of these services.
• A client database needs to be in place to ensure the sustainability of business activity.

Recommendations

• Employing a "multi-skilled" team, who can be trained in all tasks (painting and decorating, gardening, domestic and home maintenance) to provide "year round" employment.
• Intensive marketing campaign is required to emphasise quality assurance and guarantees of service.
• Liaison with other care providers can form partnerships, in order to develop new business or expand existing businesses.
• Accessing any funding available for new business development and employment of LTU can alleviate any financial constraints to business start-up costs.

The report puts these examples in context and provides information and data in each of these four areas.

For more information on the findings and recommendations of the Report, see Conclusions and Recommendations.

Several difficulties and obstacles arose during the Research. There were some difficulties in delivering the Project within the short time scale. These were further exacerbated because the LTU Initiative, as a whole, was received with scepticism, and even opposition in some quarters. LHCPI, nonetheless comprehensively and thoroughly marketed the Project to alleviate people’s fears. This was not only successful, but was, in fact, also essential, in order for the project to continue and further research should perhaps make note of this liaison exercise. It should further be noted that similar Research needs a time scale of at least 12 months, in order that the activity/results can be measured to a greater degree.

Another difficulty was in actually accessing Grant funding payments. It is a lengthy process, requiring several signatories, and this often delayed payment - resulting in LHCPI becoming overdrawn whilst awaiting payment. Future Projects should make note of this. Given the importance of this Project we have endeavoured to keep local politicians, MPs and government ministers aware of the Project’s progress. But due to a lack of response from these, it is difficult to know whether our experience has had, or is having, any impact on policy at these levels.

Due to the considerable hard work and dedication of the Project Team, the Project has successfully reached its agreed targets and in commending their work to the reader, I hope that this research will help enable the people of Liverpool to:

• Receive the care they need
  
• Access funds, if necessary, to pay for the care
  
• Achieve sustainable employment
  
• Increase business activity in the care market.
  

Margaret Callan
Manager LHCPI