2nd opinion: What I learned in stir

Recently I visited a fascinating residential project. It works with some of the most disadvantaged and needy members of society, who have already fallen through plenty of "safety nets".

As well as accommodation, I saw evidence of a range of care and support programmes. Particular work was being done to help those seeking to break out of a cycle of drug abuse. Short-term courses in basic skills were available on site. Dedicated day facilities for residents with mental health needs were being constructed. Thought had been given to the needs of black and minority-ethnic residents, and there was clear recognition of, and provision for, the spiritual needs of different groups. Staff were proactive in addressing antisocial behaviour and there was a high level of volunteer resident involvement in supporting services.

No, it wasn't a flagship housing scheme under In Business for Neighbourhoods; I was visiting one of Her Majesty's prisons.

I'm not advocating prison as the perfect environment; in fact, I find it disturbing that in spending a day behind bars I find an example of the sort of joined-up service most of us fail to provide.

We can, if we choose, make excuses. The money available per prison inmate far exceeds even the most ambitious Supporting People bid you or I might dream of; the number of bedspaces is way beyond anything we can imagine getting planning permission for and the numbers provide the critical mass to run support activities. Many project staff would sacrifice their birthright to work on a scheme where all the residents get up at breakfast time and are back in their bedrooms by mid-evening.

But even the best excuses are rarely more than half the answer, and they distract us from facing the questions.

If we are to flesh out the In Business theme for supported housing, where it is at its weakest, one essential will be to join up provision for clients. First, as the prison example showed, we need to join up the various elements of a support package for each person on our books so that they are accessible and available at the point of need. It isn't good enough to offer a bed today, a training course in eight weeks and a drugs rehab place two months later.

Second, we must look at opportunities to share or jointly commission services in partnership with other agencies, statutory and voluntary, that are working with similar individuals and groups, and to do so without it being at the expense of my previous point. I really do believe that in many towns and cities, social landlords need to forget competition and pool their resources either directly, in jointly commissioning work, or by using their combined influence to get a much better deal from external service providers.

Third, we need to use what we provide for our residents in ways that add value to the wider neighbourhood. That might mean allowing community groups to use meeting space in our projects, encouraging residents to use our advice and support services or having scheme managers and other staff take significant roles in neighbourhood organisations.

The pay-off in terms of our projects being seen as beneficial rather than blight on their neighbourhood will be well worth the money that all this will cost.

And finally, as it has become popular in recent years to send senior executives back to the shop floor to gain new perspectives, which housing personality do you think would most benefit from a stay in prison? Answers via the letters page, please …