Agenda item

To consider a Report of the Strategic Director People on the proposed implementation of the Adult Social Care Redesign programme.

The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – People on the implementation of Adult Social Care redesign.  The redesign would result in localised services, control and choice in the hands of individuals; reduced bureaucracy; improved preventative and information services and a change to the shape and nature of provision.  Service users could expect to understand what they were entitled to and have more choice about how best to achieve outcomes against assessed need.

In order to improve overall responsiveness and better local working six locality teams were proposed with a variety of roles including the provision of information and signposting, preventative services, assessment, support planning and provision of advocacy.  Each team would be mapped onto the seven Local Area Partnership boundaries so in time their performance could be managed and measured with other key partners within each locality.

There would be an impact on provider services due to giving users more choice and control and it was intended to develop more commercial and business-like practice within current in-house providers and better value and choice for users. 

The provision of transport was to be reviewed as most transport provided within Adult Services was not an assessed care need and therefore did not have to be provided directly by the Council. 

The introduction of a personalised service meant that all users would be given a Personal Budget based on an upfront and transparent Resource Allocation System (RAS).  Individuals would be told at an early stage in their contact with the service the amount of resource to which they would be entitled.  Needs would be assessed and allocated points which were then converted into a numeric allocation through a set formula.  Users could decide to take this allocation as a cash payment (Direct Payment) or continue to receive services direct from the Council to the level determined in the RAS.  The RAS would be used for all new users and users requiring unscheduled reviews during 2009-10 and would then be rolled out to existing users subject to evaluation that it w as an appropriate method for ensuring correct outcomes for users and a stable financial situation for the Council.

Reablement and preventative services were to be implemented as part of the Redesign with the aim of increasing independence, improving quality of life and reducing the call on the social care budget.  Pilot studies were underway to determine precisely how these services would be applied.

Joint working with Health partners was underway and a project involving the top 100 high intensity users of Council and Health services was being jointly progressed to inform the future design of services.

A widespread consultation exercise had been undertaken by the former County Council and responses received overall support for more choice and control, clear and transparent charging mechanisms, alternatives to current services and greater flexibility.

During discussion of the report the following issues were raised:

      The Council had a duty to meet assessed care needs of those assessed to have critical and substantial needs who were therefore eligible for services through Fairer Access to Care Services criteria.  Such users would then be financially assessed to determine the level of contribution they would be required to make towards their care;

      The Redesign would make savings through efficiencies not through a reduction in service;

      What level of capital did individuals need to have before becoming eligible for Local Authority help?  In response the Committee was advised of an approximate figure of £23,000 but this would be clarified and circulated outside of the meeting;

      What were the timescales for assessments to be undertaken and were these met?  In reply Members were advised the timescale was approximately 10 working days and this was usually met;

      Did enabling people to have a direct payment mean they were at greater risk of being exploited?  Members were advised that there could be an increased risk but that the Council was required to offer direct payments which did lead to far greater independence for service users.  There was a responsibility on everyone to safeguard both vulnerable adults and children;

      Could direct payments be spent outside of the Local Authority area?  Members were advised that those receiving direct payments were able to spend them wherever they chose and that payments were made on a monthly basis.

RESOLVED:  That

(a) the consultation on Social Care Redesign be endorsed;

(b) the report to Cabinet be amended by the inclusion of additional information in relation to Safeguarding to reflect the additional funding for new posts within the Safeguarding Unit;

(c) the Cabinet be advised that the Committee supports the Redesign proposals as outlined at the meeting; and

(d) an update be provided to a future meeting on progress following the Redesign.