-
DFG Quality Standard Logo

In practice, the delivery of Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) often focuses on the provision of showers, stairlifts and ramps. They are essential adaptations that support thousands of disabled people every year to live more independent lives.

But where DFG works best it is part of an integrated range of services, all delivered in a person-centred way. This DFG Quality Standard sets out what that should look like by taking little pieces of good practice and fitting them together like a jigsaw puzzle to build the bigger picture. It’s intentionally brief so you can see that bigger picture without getting lost in the detail.

None of this Quality Standard is about the mechanics of managing DFG applications – that’s covered in the new DFG Guidance from the Department of Levelling up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care.

How to use the DFG Quality Standard

This Standard sets out what good looks like, to help you spot which parts of your current practice could be improved. If you recognise any of the following, then you are recommended to read on.

  • DFG is not an integral part of a local strategy for housing, health and social care
  • Home adaptation services are not co-produced with disabled people
  • There is little accessible public information on how to access DFG
  • There are separate waiting lists for Social Care assessments and DFG applications
  • Occupational Therapists and housing staff are based in separate offices and work independently of each other
  • DFG applicants do not know how long their application is likely to take
  • There isn’t a published Housing Assistance / RRO Policy
  • The quality of service you receive depends on the tenure of your home
  • There’s no information or support for people who might want to move instead of adapt
  • There’s a separate tender process for every grant application.

We hope you find this approach more helpful than traditional case studies that are often written more to promote than inform.

We’ve included links to other guidance that you may find useful for each section. You can find these below the signpost:

Guidance icon - A Blue circle with a way finder

 

You’ll also find links to practical examples, so you don’t need to “reinvent the wheel”, these are below the cogs:

Examples icon - A Blue circle with cogs

 

 

1. Commissioning

Local Authorities understand the needs in their area and hold a joint commitment to meeting them

  • Is there a JSNA or other needs analysis?
  • Is housing represented at the Health & Wellbeing Board or a subcommittee?
  • Is there senior officer commitment​?
  • Is there and agreement of concordat between Districts and Counties​?
  • Is funding allocated in accordance with need?
  • Is there a Memorandum of Understanding on housing and health?

Before setting up or reconfiguring services it is important to understand the needs of the local population, what already works well and where the gaps are. Equally important is a joint commitment to meeting those needs across organisations and departments.

Commissioning is different to procurement. It offers a means of joining up resources to focus on improving outcomes for citizens in the most efficient and effective way both now and into the future – and may not involve any tendering whatsoever.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Published JSNA for housing. Shared strategy joining up housing, health and care. Metrics used to inform future commissioning

Mature​

Needs assessments in place informing aligned strategies. Outcomes linked to BCF metrics. Continuous improvement

Established​

Housing leads are involved in developing and agreeing BCF plans

Plans in place​

Governance arrangements in place to assess needs and develop joint working

Not yet established​

No governance or assessment of need for adaptations and no joint strategies for action in place

2. Co-Production

Disabled people are involved in the design of adaptation services

  • Are service users are involved in reviewing and improving delivery of services?
  • Could be as part of an advisory group / user board?
  • Are satisfaction surveys and feedback are monitored and used to improve delivery?

Co-production is a simple concept: combining the expertise of the professionals who provide services and the people who have experience of using them should mean that they work better.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

User forum (including carers) reviews and makes recommendations.
Access to personal budgets

Mature​

Strength based assessments/solutions developed jointly with person and carersRecognise that people are experts in their own lives

Established​

Feedback from satisfaction forms routinely analysed used. Some design choice provided. Casework role to reach solution

Plans in place​

Strategies in place to develop co-production / person centred approaches

Not yet established​

Disabled people have not been actively involved in developing local polices and strategies for home adaptations. 
Applicants not an active participant in their own adaptations

3. Public information

Disabled people know where to go for help and support with home adaptations

  • Is the availability of assistance and support publicised?
  • Is good quality public information designed in consultation with disabled people?
  • Are GPs and community health workers aware of DFG?
  • Are initial point(s) of contact well known, and include triage and signposting?

Before a disabled person can even consider applying for a DFG, they need to know about it. All information should be presented in Plain English that’s accessible, easy to understand and clear.

To reach all your audience, you need to make effective use of accessible communication formats. Involve disabled people from your audience in developing and reviewing a strategy for producing information in accessible formats. They will know their needs and could help you find the most effective ways of meeting them. You can also approach disability organisations for advice.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Developed with users.  Accessible. Interactive decision-making tools to give personalised response. Forums, community of interest

Mature​

Integrated info (DFG & care) on a range of platforms – face to face, online and telephone. Signposting as appropriate

Established​

Basic info on website limited to DFG. Disconnected access points with limited options for advice

Plans in place​

Plans in place to review and revise public info.

Not yet established​

Website details do not exist or are out of date and do not give contact details for an accessible contact point. No advice/info line

4. Person centred

Disabled people do not have to search out other services

  • Do you provide a single holistic assessment?
  • Are home adaptations are delivered collaboratively with other complementary services including:
    • Equipment and minor adaptations
    • Handyperson services
    • Repairs and affordable warmth
    • Home from hospital
    • Telecare and assistive technology, etc…
  • Do you provide support for ‘self-funders’?

Local Authorities provide a wide range of support services to people with disabilities. Often these services are provided completely separately with different access points, criteria, application forms and waiting lists. Some of these differences are created in the governing legislation and regulations, but this doesn’t mean that they can’t be delivered in a more person-centred way.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Co-produced with client/family/carers to meet needs and wants to improve wellbeing/outcomes​

Mature​

Holistic caseworker assessment resulting in range of services from different funding streams and providers​

Established​

DFG plus limited package of services/measures to meet some needs. Client will need to apply separately for some related services​

Plans in place​

Plans in place to broaden service offered​

Not yet established​

A DFG applicant is not offered access to other funding or services as part of a grant application.

5. Staffing

Local Authorities deploy staff to deliver efficiently and effectively

  • Is a single person responsible for the whole customer journey​?
  • Do you co-locate staff (OTs, caseworkers, technical officers)?
  • Do you have trusted assessors​?
  • Do you employ disabled staff?
  • Do staff have opportunities for training and networking?

The people who deliver DFG and related services are a vital element of a quality service. But having good people is only part of the solution, they also need to be deployed efficiently and effectively.

Many reports have noted the split in responsibility for adaptations between districts and counties, housing and social services departments. However these organisational divides do not have to mean disjointed services for customers.

Having a single point of contact helps to build trust with customers. DFG applicants can become frustrated by being passed between people and departments without anyone taking responsibility for a problem. Some areas have multi-skilled staff who are able to assess, design and support for the majority of standard adaptations.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Key worker identified to act as main point of contact from end to end. Succession planning

Mature​

Integrated/ multidisciplinary team, appropriately trained. Vertical integration

Established​

Joint working and co-location. Appropriate supervision of staff. Staff involved in service improvement

Plans in place​

Organisational development plans in place

Not yet established​

Assessment and grant application are delivered by separate teams/organisations based in separate locations 

6. Approach to Tenure

Disabled people can access assistance with adaptations regardless of their tenure

  • Are agreed protocols in place with housing associations?
  • Are there equivalent procedures for retained council housing (where applicable)?
  • Is there awareness raising with private landlords?

In the legislation, there is no restriction on eligibility for a DFG based on tenure. However, there can be significant differences in practice, particularly for tenants.

This does not necessarily mean that all adaptations are processed in exactly the same way but should mean the same outcomes are achieved in the same timescales regardless of the tenure of the property.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Advice on housing options is routinely offered and there is practical and emotional support to move if that provides the best outcome. There is a maintained register of adapted properties​

Mature​

Strategic agreement on delivery of adaptations with arrangements for discussing cases. Information available for tenants and landlords

Established​

Joint working with a range of landlords with most adaptations delivered in a timely way

Plans in place​

Active and on-going discussions with social and private landlords

Not yet established​

No agreements in place with local Registered Providers / no proactive work with private landlords / longer timescales for Council housing tenants.

7. Assistance Policy

Local Authorities have a policy in place that allows DFG funding to meet local needs

  • Do you have a current Housing Assistance / RRO policy that addresses:
    • Works costing more than £30k
    • Best use of the test of resources
    • Appeals process (not fettering discretion)
    • Appropriate (minimal) bureaucracy
    • Review process

Since 2008 Local Authorities have been able to use more discretion in the way that they spend their annual DFG allocation from central government. To use this discretion, they must publish a Housing Assistance Policy under The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002.

Where legislation gives a Local Authority discretion to make decisions, as the Regulatory Reform Order does, the authority must be able to consider each ‘decision’ on its own merits. So, whether or not you have a published policy, you should not ‘fetter’ your discretion by applying a rigid or one-size-fits-all policy to all applications without considering the specific facts of each case.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Based on evidence (e.g. stock condition survey), based on published strategies and local priorities. Reviewed with 2 years for changing priorities

Mature​

Policy reviewed and updated based on new evidence and experience. Contains outcome based and person centred measures

Established​

Approved by Council, published on website with 3 years

Plans in place​

Draft policy in development and date set in Council’s Forward Plan. 

Not yet established​

No Housing Assistance Policy published or updated in last 3 years. 

Guidance icon - A Blue circle with a way finder

  • For guidance on producing a policy and some good examples click here
  • You can also find guidance on developing a Housing Assistance Policy here

8. Housing Options

Disabled people will be supported to move home if they want to

  • Is housing options advice routinely available?
  • Is there a register of adapted properties (across tenures)?
  • Is support to move home available?

In some cases, it will not be feasible to adapt and in others it may be a better option for the disabled person to consider moving. Deciding whether or not to move can be difficult and emotional, but it should be considered even if immediately discounted.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Advice on housing options is routinely offered and there is practical and emotional support to move if that provides the best outcome. There is a maintained register of adapted properties​

Mature​

Policies will support moves where it will lead to better outcomes with support on decision making

Established​

Alternative housing options are routinely considered as part of the process

Plans in place​

​Training plan for staff and information on options is being collected

Not yet established​

​No alternative options to home adaptations are offered to potential grant applicants

9. Process

Disabled people know from the outset how long an adaptation is likely to take to complete

  • Are there agreed procedures from first contact to completion?
  • Do you have a process for continual improvement?
  • Are timescales published as part of service standards?
  • Are benchmarking comparisons used?
  • Is prioritisation used where appropriate?

The Disabled Facilities Grant is often criticised for being slow and bureaucratic. The current guidance suggests that urgent adaptations should be completed in 55 working days (11 weeks) and non-urgent within 165 working days (33 weeks). Both should include the entire process from initial inquiry through to completion. In many areas these targets are not consistently achieved meaning delays, frustration and, in some case, a fall or other injury that could have been prevented.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Expected timescales are published and benchmarked. Process is continually refined to reduce timescales

Mature​

Timescales are measured and reported. Improvements to the process have been made in the last year

Established​

Documented and agreed processes in place from first contact to completion

Plans in place​

Plans in place review and improve process and timescales

Not yet established​

​No agreed process in place. Separate systems for assessments and applications

10. Value for Money

Local Authorities provide value for money home adaptations

  • Do you regularly review your specifications​?
  • Do you have efficient procurement through frameworks / tender portals?
  • Do you engage with the supply chain​?
  • Do you proactively manage a list of contractors​?
  • Do you offer aspirational design / client choice​?
  • Do you recycle items like stairlifts?
  • Do you understand and measure the Social Value of adaptations?

The Disabled Facilities Grant is public money which must be spent wisely. But this does not simply mean driving down costs to deliver the cheapest possible adaptations. It also requires an understanding of the comparative costs of health and social care services and the social value of the adaptations you deliver.

Disabled Facilities Grant programmes often provide work for small local builders and play an important role in supporting employment in that sector. However, in many areas the procurement process involves traditional tender processes that are inefficient and create often unnecessary delay. Framework agreements can be used to order standard items like stairlifts and through floor lifts without having to seek multiple quotations each time. This approach can significantly decrease fitting times and also allows for systematic recycling and refurbishment of lifts.

Self-assessment

Rating

Description

Exemplary​

Contractors are rated by grant recipients with feedback publicly available for the reference of future applicants. Social value is routinely measured and reported

Mature​

Proactive use of schedule of rates / dynamic procurements systems. Maintained list of approved contractors. Framework agreements with equipment manufacturers/suppliers

Established​

Maintained list of contractors working to a schedule of rates for some applications

Plans in place​

A standard specification has been established with a robust approach to cost and quality. Agreed approach to establishing a list of approved contractors 

Not yet established​

Multiple quotations are routinely sought for grant applications. No systems in place to assess and approve contractors

If you have a nugget of good practice to share and help others to improve, please get in touch…

And if you think we’ve got anything wrong then please challenge us. We’re always looking to move from ‘best practice’ to ‘next practice’.