Posted: February 26th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Please would Ronald L Hart who posted a comment on 23 Feb get in touch again, because we are trying to trace all who attended the Easterbrook Hall ‘event’ last November. RLH then wrote as follows:
“I was totally bemused at the incompetence in the presentation at Easterbrook Hall. Judith Proctor is another under achiever brought in from some distant post, to a job she would not even be offered in a major city like Edinburgh or Glasgow, the scheme is to be run here because of the high level of self help groups!, these groups exist because of the failing of Social Services and their associated under achieving departments to deliver relevant help”
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: February 26th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: accountability, Activity Resource Centres (ARCs), Care Commission complaint, Freedom of Information, Galloway News, ITV Border News, transparency and honesty, UCI, wasting 1.2Million, Wigtownshire pilot
Comments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Read the story. Click here or use the full link below: Galloway News article
This complaint was also reported by ITV Border News on Weds 24th 2010 and has been discussed that day with the Care Commission who are now very concerned that the Council have not kept them fully or properly informed. It appears that the Care Commission has also been mislead by Council officers as to the true and accurate position in order to avoid and postpone enforcement action. On 23 Feb the Care Commission confirmed: “The Care Commission has identified in successive inspection reports for several years, the unacceptable standard of maintenance of the property from which the service is provided. Quality grades of 2 – ‘weak’ have been awarded for the Quality of Environment in recent inspections.”
In discussion 24/2 a resident’s representative was informed by the Care Commission of a recent ‘unannounced inspection’ of Dunmuir Park Care Home and that a full report of this should be published on the Care Commission www site within the next two weeks. Until published no details or gradings can be released, but it is reliably expected that the previous findings in successive reports over several years will be repeated. This position is obviously not acceptable under any circumstances especially as all Officers vehemently deny there is any intention or policy of closure by stealth, that is letting the buildings decay and presumably eventually fall down.
However note the parallel to the ARC buildings where a worryingly similar picture of neglected basic day to day maintenance is becoming apparent in Care Commission reports, which can also be accessed and read elsewhere on this site.
We know the Social Work Director & Ms Proctor want to close the ARC buildings, yet he is now arrogantly refusing to discuss this with the DGPPG as a users and carers group, despite his statutory duty to fully consult. This is being challenged and will also be the subject of further formal complaints. These will include reneging on his promises to provide full data to support his claims that the Alexander/Proctor closure strategic plan was “Achievable & Sustainable” and why he stated that the ARCs are “not cost effective”. The Council has failed to produce this and other documentation under FoI requests. We have asked senior Elected Members to carry out their duty to ensure accountability and are waiting to see what, if anything, they will do. It seems there is no real accountability and this situation is the direct result, including the shambles of the Wigtownshire pilot ‘Personalisation test site’, which is costing us £1.2 Million pounds at a time of front line service cut backs.
The Council have failed to produce documents concerning this under FoI and not replied to a request for representatives of the learning disabled to at least observe at the ‘Personalisation Board’ meetings where UCI & Mr J Dowson are allowed to be present and participate. But they do not actually represent or consult with the learning disabled and UCI are funded by the Council. How cosy is that self serving arrangement also spending we understand around £50,000 of our Council Tax. For details see elsewhere on this site. UCI has failed to reply to our questions, because they are not accountable to anyone, yet consume our cash as a ‘pseudo quango’ with charitable status!
In the interest of local democracy we will continue to post all relevant information on this site.
Full link to Galloway News is: http://icdumfries.icnetwork.co.uk/gallowaynews/news//tm_headline=social-work-boss-is-8220-uncaring-and-untrustworthy-8221%26method=full%26objectid=25907776%26siteid=77296-name_page.html
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: February 25th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Friends of Dunmuir Park Registered Charity SC017823
22nd February 2010 From the Chair Mrs M Sproat Dumfries
Delivered by email to:
Mr G Stevenson Chief Executive Dumfries & Galloway Council Council Headquarters
English Street
Dumfries
DG1 2DD
Copy to The Care Commission as a formal complaint vs the Service Provider Dumfries & Galloway Council
Dear Sir
Formal complaint – failure of duty of care by J Alexander & his managers
This formal complaint about Dunmuir Park Care Home (DPCH) is from the Friends of Dunmuir Park (FDP) and residents being sent by the Chair to Dumfries & Galloway Council by email as resolved at the meeting of the FDP Charity Trustees and residents on 18th Feb 2010 at DPCH.
We request that as Chief Executive you promptly, properly and independently investigate this under the Council Complaints procedure. We say this explicitly because in 2006 our complaints were ignored and not actioned. Please ensure this complaint is immediately acknowledged with confirmation of how, when and by whom it will be investigated. We are also complaining to the Care Commission, hence they have copy of this for the detail.
FDP is a registered charity consisting of wholly unpaid volunteers from the local community who have for the past 30 years supported DPCH and residents. Over that period community donations have been around £70,000. Unlike other some other D&G ‘charities’ we are truly independent of both the Council and NHS, because we neither solicit nor receive any public funds. For your information we will be happy to send you our most recent OSCR annual report and accounts as approved 23/4/2009 for the year ending 31 January 2009.
Dumfries & Galloway Council, Care Service Provider SP2003003501, is fully responsible for DPCH as both landlord and care provider, service number: CS2003010864, as registered with the Care Commission. This formal complaint concerns the personal failure by the Director of Social Work Mr J Alexander and those managers reporting to him namely: Ms H Collington, Mr P McCann and Mr B Needham, all being responsible for the safety, welfare and well being of DPCH residents and respite users, with a statutory duty of care to them.
The complaint is the apparently deliberate failure by the Council and J Alexander as a policy to carry out basic maintenance at DPCH, despite our and the Care Commission repeated requests to do so, whilst giving personal assurances and undertakings that this will be actioned. This has put residents and staff at risk whilst dangerous dilapidated chairs, some having already collapsed, continue to do so. After two years it is clear Mr Alexander and his managers on behalf of the Council have both mislead residents, the Care Commission and FDP playing us all for fools. Note that explicit Care Commission reported concerns have been ignored.
It appears this is either deliberate Council policy to ‘save’ cash short term, or incompetence or both, whilst Mr Alexander has been deliberately misleading and presumably endorsed his subordinates lack of action, no doubt to reduce expenditure at the expense of the most vulnerable in their care. As the Director he is the most responsible senior manager and statutory officer. Therefore when he promises action we must expect that his word can be trusted. After two years it is evident that it cannot and that he is uncaring and untrustworthy. This is not acceptable behaviour from a public servant holding such high office, or from his subordinates.
At a meeting on 25 Feb 2008 at Woodbank in the presence of Cllr I Blake, Mr Alexander gave an unequivocal undertaking to a FDP Trustee, also the legal representative of a resident, that all the long outstanding basic and protective maintenance at DPCH, for which there is an annual budget, would be actioned. The building was needlessly being allowed to decay with windows & door woodwork rotting, simply for want of basic painting from the late 1990s
Very shortly after there was a wider meeting with FDP in the Town Hall at Castle Douglas on 28/2/2008, convened by the then FDP Chair Willie Bell at the request of Mr Alexander, who was very robustly challenged by the FDP Secretary, Mrs J Layden, about this lack of maintenance and internal decoration, wilfully neglected since the 1990s. She also referred to the excessively heavy springs on fire doors. Once again Mr Alexander unequivocally undertook and promised that such basic maintenance would be sorted out and actioned promptly and we understood that he instructed Ms Collington, Mr McAnn & Mr Needham to do so. He and they failed to do so.
That was two years ago and the matter was regularly raised since at subsequent Dunmuir Park meetings with Mr Alexander and his managers, when similar reassurances were given. But nothing was done. The Care Commission have made adverse comments in their reports, the latest inspection 17 June 2009. Such was the Inspector’s concern that she wrote as follows:
“The door into the main service building has little paint left on it now and looks shabby and
neglected. The window frames are rotten and without paint and the wood in places is
crumbling. The glass panes in some windows are insecure and mobile and present a risk to the
security of the vulnerable adults who live in the house. Some of the furniture and fittings in the
house need replaced as they are reported to be faulty. One of the residents has complained
about a dining chair falling apart and not being replaced. Bathrooms and kitchen need to be
updated and the paintwork and decoration throughout the home is marked, dirty and dowdy.
The standard of maintenance of the property from which the service is provided is not
acceptable and this has been identified in successive reports for several years.”
Take note that it was only after we, in desperation and frustration, widely circulated that extract, including to the media, that the “risk to security” of the “insecure and mobile” glass, some in the main back door, was fixed with some beading. A quick simple job costing at most £50, but if painted would never have been a risk for month after month when glass in a main exit door could have easily fallen out and cut a vulnerable adult, or the staff. This is a fundamental failure of duty of care after 20 months of repeated complaints and false assurances of action. Mr Alexander and his managers are personally responsible for this situation; yet do not seem to care. Is this the standard of maintenance at their homes? We doubt it.
The Care Commission also report on the state of furniture and fittings with complaints from residents also being ignored as “identified in successive reports for several years”. What needs to be done to get action? At the FDP meeting last week, also attended by several residents, the care staff struggled to find enough basic dining chairs to sit around the table. It was reliably reported that over the past two years around a dozen chairs have fallen apart to be replaced with a mix of old second hand gifted cast offs. Two of those chairs last week that had to be used at the meeting were dangerously damaged and wobbly. Is this the standard of furniture provided for Members and Officers? Of course not.
But it is seemingly OK for learning disabled vulnerable adults and the front line care staff to suffer inadequate and dangerously damaged old second hand chairs liable to collapse.
Because this too has been raised repeatedly, including by the Care Commission, we hold Mr Alexander and the named managers personally responsible for failing to ensure proper and immediate replacements and are formally complaining about their dereliction of basic duty of proper care, despite repeated requests. We note new furniture is readily provided at great expense elsewhere in the Council, where priority is clearly applied.
We believe these basic failures should be disciplinary matters in the light of the wholly foreseeable risks and the obvious failure of the duty of care and the deliberately misleadingly false assurances of action over years. Mr Alexander, as the highly paid Director brought in post SWIA to provide strategic direction and leadership is personally responsible.
As FDP and on behalf of the residents and staff we now expect immediate action and are asking both you, as Council Chief Executive ultimately responsible and the Care Commission to ensure all necessary action is immediately expedited, without the residents being prejudiced in any way whatsoever in terms of continuing to live in their home, with decent furniture and proper regular maintenance, including basic painting and decorating.
These matters were once again raised robustly at the Dunmuir Park meeting on 10th February 2010 and yet again noted by Ms Collington, Mr McAnn and Mr Needham, but based on the last 2 years we have zero confidence they or Mr Alexander will actually do anything, apart from uttering more meaningless platitudes and empty cheap talk.
This is now a formal complaint. It was also resolved by our meeting that these complaints to both you as the Service Provider and the Care Commission also be circulated to Elected Members for their information and hopefully action by them on this occasion to hold Officers properly to account for their failures. Also it was resolved to copy circulate to the media so that the general public and community can be aware of how the named managers and the Council actually regard and treat the most vulnerable in their care. It seems that until there is adverse publicity nothing gets done and actioned, which is an unacceptable state of affairs.
We look forward to hearing from you very soon with confirmation of what you are doing and when regarding this complaint and the substantive failures. Please email a copy of any reply to the Chair. Thank you.
Yours faithfully, M Sproat (Mrs) Chair Friends of Dunmuir Park
Note for Care Commission. Attn: Mr Henry Mathias, Mrs Elizabeth Reid and Mrs Karen Fraser
Please action this as a formal complaint to the Care Commission in respect of the failures of the Service Provider and Managers as described in the above and respond to FDP as requested.
By email this letter was delivered to and received by both Dumfries & Galloway Council and the Care Commission having been discussed in detail with Karen Fraser along with the recent history.
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: February 16th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
This email was sent 16 Feb 2010 to Chris Raftery Scottish Government Adult Care and Support (0131 244 5492) re the Dumfries & Galloway Council £1.2Million pilot trial of ‘personalisation’ in Wigtownshire. As yet there has been no reply and none of the requested information has been provided.
Dear Chris. Very many thanks for your prompt and comprehensive reply received this morning at 11:34 in response to our two messages sent yesterday. For the benefit of others your reply is attached. First may we say that if only the local senior Dumfries & Galloway Council Officers could similarly communicate promptly, transparently and honestly then life would be much improved for everyone. But seemingly that is a vain hope, not being their culture or attitude, for they do not communicate, never mind promptly, despite the upset they create for so many.
We fully understand all that you say and knew that had to be the position. But we did not dream up or create the events started last October by the sudden publication of the Alexander/Proctor plan. At a public meeting on Dec 16th SW Director Alexander and Senior Social Work Officer Heather Collington used the lamely pathetic and weak defence of, ‘Not me guv – I was only following orders’. In Dumfries and Galloway Council it is always someone else who is responsible!
The meeting was disingenuously told that Officers were obliged by Elected Members to write and publish that ARC closure plan in order to save £660,000 in 2010/11 and annually thereafter. How convenient to forget they deliberately and cynically cited the Scottish Government National Policy of “personalisation” as the required underlying justification and to persuade Elected Members to agree. That is why you and the test site pilot in Wigtownshire are involved, because those Officers involved you directly. The very officers to whom you have entrusted £1.2Million of OUR money for a ‘pilot’, cynically created this plan and very publicly betrayed the trust of all involved, not least the service users. By doing so and misusing the test pilot they have badly discredited that study. That is why we reasonably insist their motives and competence need to be examined now, before that test pilot ‘progresses’ further.
As an aside locally we noted in the same recent block ad for D&G Council Jobs, one for a Carer at the Kirkconnell ARC, salary ~£8K. Just above that was one for a Research and Evaluation Officer, salary £33K – £36.5K, for the Personalisation Test Pilot in Wigtownshire, closing date 12th Feb, that is last Friday. Now Wigtownshire is not a very large area and hardly densely populated. Indeed we question whether and how it is suitable and representative as a ‘Personalisation’ test site at all, surely it is too small? Where is the prior evaluation that any test pilot data will be statistically valid for extrapolation nationally? Can we see this please. Also we ask why, in addition to a Manager and a 22 person ‘Personalisation Board’ plus numerous other sub groups and committees all talking and writing copiously to each other but not service users, does a full time £36.5K pa job need to be created to “evaluate”? Where is the justification for this, for it is public money being spent.
Evaluate what precisely? How much data is expected? How is this extra job justified, at a time of austerity and cuts, noting also it is more than 4 times the value of an ARC carer, who actually makes a direct front line contribution. But then it’s easy to spend ‘other people’s money’, apparently with little or no accountability.
Where are the plans and assumptions underlying all of this? Please can they be published to us, under FoI if necessary. Please treat this as a formal FoI request if that is really necessary. We have asked Director Alexander, but received no answer. Will you, with responsibility for the £1.2Million being spent, please direct him to release all this public information to us by email immediately, or do so yourself or get others to do so. Email and attached files PDF or Word is preferred and the simplest with little or nil variable cost.
As far as we can ascertain no D&G Council Elected Member has owned up to pressuring the two authors into writing the Alexander/Proctor plan, which must therefore entirely be the voluntary creative wish and policy of those Officers. No one twisted their arms up their back!
It is clear that no one forced them to offer up a serious “achievable & sustainable” £660,000 annual budget saving plan by closing 4, as yet still secret and unidentified ARCs, by the end of next month. That was their serious plan and still is their intention, even though they were forced to delay for a year once the massive management, statutory and accounting flaws in their ‘strategic plan’ were laid bare by a huge public outcry. At best this is not competent, at worst there are far stronger words of criticism that can be justifiably used.
As your Dec 8th paper clearly states “The Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003 provides that local authorities have a duty to involve service users in the services they provide. This can take the form of local support organisations …”. However, not being to answer justified criticism is why Director Alexander is now trying to run away and evade his statutory duty by refusing to communicate with and involve a significant group of service users and their carers. We reasonably ask if that is really the sort of attitude that should be exhibited by someone responsible for a National Strategic test pilot, spending £1.2Million? We think not and are therefore demanding that all this now be examined openly and publicly. We repeat, this situation has been entirely created by the subversion of ‘Personalisation’ and self directed support by the Alexander/Proctor plan.
So put simply we say that honesty and transparency and ‘Best Value’ of public money demands an immediate review now of the test pilot they are supposed to have been managing for the past year or more. You are of course aware that as of late last year the ‘manager’ could not answer simple questions and was working off a domestic table in a kitchen or dining room. If you doubt this contact the local carers. Yet this is a £1.2Million test pilot of National strategic importance. Ironically once this was made public by carers in Wigtownshire, who were not consulted, the manager was then housed in the local ARC building. Presumably not one of the 4 ‘buildings’ to be closed by the end of next month!
We note that “In terms of the separate issue of progress of the test sites, we have contracted independent evaluators that will identify any progress or lack of progress. These evaluators will be able to determine the value achieved through this investment and determine learning for all Scottish Local Authorities and what interventions have worked well and which have not worked so well.” Please will you advise who are the ‘independent evaluators’, as we wish to be in contact with them about all these matters now, because we firmly believe public money is presently being wasted.
Is this the ‘academic’ evaluation we have reassured will ensure all is OK? We have asked Director Alexander about this, but as ever no reply, since the track record in 2006 of the deliberate misuse of academic research by this Council & NHS Officers is not very encouraging or confidence inspiring. See www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk in July and August 2006 for the historical evidence of this.
Please will you post all our correspondence on your site so others can freely see what we are saying from Dumfries & Galloway. Also please will you make sure and confirm this is all FW to the 3 authors of the Dec 8th Paper as requested yesterday and your colleagues. We wish to stress there is no opposition to the general concepts or actions concerning the objectives of SDS and ‘Personalisation’. We have no doubt it is of great benefit to many, but as you say not all.
We look forward to hearing further. Many thanks again for your prompt and helpful reply. www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: February 16th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Reply from Chris Raftery Scottish Government Adult Care and Support 0131 244 5492 on 16 Feb at 11:34 Email : Chris.Raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Re Personalisation and the Wigtownshire £1.2Million trial pilot
Thank you forwarding the summary of the Scottish Government’s consultation on Self-Directed Support (SDS) to ARC Service Users and Carers and thank you for your e-mail of 18:35 yesterday.
As the consultation suggests we are very keen to gain the views of a wide range of people particularly users and carers. This ensures we are able to make decisions based on the people who are affected by any changes in Scottish Government policy. If anybody wishes to ask for hard copies of the consultation for those without e-mail access, we are happy to provide this, you can contact us on the same details that you have circulated. As a national organisation, we attempt to consult as widely as possible but we have to rely on local organisations to circulate more widely as we cannot hold a database of everybody that might be affected by any proposals, so we value this being circulated further.
I think it is helpful to point out that the proposals from D&G council to close the ARCs is not related to the Scottish Government’s draft Self Directed Support strategy. Self-Directed Support is a means of giving an individual control over the support they receive. This can take the form of a Direct Payment or it can be that the individual has a greater say in the way services are provided for them. “Personalisation” is an over arching term about tailoring the services that a individual receives to their needs.
Whilst we welcome comments from individuals about their local issues surrounding SDS, D&Gs proposals about the ARCs is a separate issue. The Scottish Government has not asked Local Authorities to close any day centres. As you may have noted from the SDS consultation, the Scottish Government acknowledges that Direct Payments are not the right option for everyone and should not be enforced upon anyone. Giving the individual more choice and control is the key aim. I would not want people to be confused about these different agendas or for people to take time to respond to our consultation about a separate local issue that the Scottish Government cannot address
In response to your second e-mail yesterday. I think its important to clarify that the Scottish Government at no point has asked or told D&G council to close the ARCs. As suggested in the letter from Alasdair Morgan, the aims of the test sites is not to a create budget saving for council. The money is aimed at increasing the uptake of SDS using a range of particular interventions. Some of that money would be used to help release funding from building based services to allow individuals to use that money in more flexible and innovative ways. As, I have already stated, the Scottish Government does not want to enforce Direct Payments onto an individual. Therefore any building based service that is closed in order to free up resource for Direct Payment packages, has to be either not meeting individuals needs or demand falls to a point where that service becomes unsustainable. In these instances, it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure a suitable alternative service is put in place.
I will ensure that you are placed on the circulation list for anything related to Self Directed Support. In terms of “personalisation” I will forward your details to our Changing Lives team, that initially produced the Personalisation statement. I should point out that the term personalisation is widely used across the Scottish Government, therefore I cannot guarantee that your details will be on every consultation that uses this term. I suggest that if there is anything that you are particularly interested in that you check the Scottish Government website for the relevant policy areas and then approach the responsible team. If a individual contact for the team is not available online, you can ring our central enquiries line on 08457 741 741 or 0131 556 8400 who will be able to assist you. The paper you refer to on Independent Living, is an annex to the strategy that demonstrates co-production of another policy area that we recognise is a way to pursue the SDS strategy. It is a different policy area, whose remit is wide ranging. As such I do not think it is appropriate to forward your e-mail directly to the individuals concerned.
Within the Scottish Government, it is the Self Directed Support team, of which I am a member, that has responsibility for the funding of the test site. As I have outlined D&Gs proposal to close the ARCs and the Scottish Government test sites are not the same thing. I have copied in John Alexander and Judith Procter, so they can ensure clearer communication to avoid any future misunderstanding between the two separate pieces of work.
In terms of the separate issue of progress of the test sites, we have contracted independent evaluators that will identify any progress or lack of progress. These evaluators will be able to determine the value achieved through this investment and determine learning for all Scottish Local Authorities and what interventions have worked well and which have not worked so well.
I hope this is helpful but you feel you would like further information on the test sites or the Self Directed Support strategy please feel free contact me. The issues surrounding the closure of the ARCs is a local issue and not related to the test site activity, as such you should continue to raise your concerns locally to the Council.
Please can I ask that any responses to SDS strategy are sent to the dedicated mailbox and not to my individual inbox. There is a team that is dealing with this consultation and the dedicated inbox ensures that all views are taken into account and analysed, appropriately. I would therefore be grateful, if you could circulate this request and/or my above response to the individuals that you have circulated your previous e-mails to.
Many thanks Chris
Chris Raftery Scottish Government Adult Care and Support 0131 244 5492
Sent: 15 February 2010 11:04
Attention ARC Service Users & Carers and other persons affected by ‘Personalisation’, better described as self directed support, which is being used by the deeply flawed and misleading Alexander/Proctor Oct 2009 plan as the justification to close the Dumfries & Galloway ARCs.
The following is the summary from the attached PDF file, a Scottish Government consultation document. If you wish to have your views known and hopefully taken into account the please take time to read and respond to the attached. Please will you draw this to the attention of those carers and service users who do not have email access at home. You may wish to tell your experiences re the ARC saga to Chris Raftery Self Directed Support Team Adult Care and Support Division Scottish Government Edinburgh EH1 3DG selfdirectedsupport@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or if you have any queries contact Chris Raftery on 0131 244 5492 Chris.Raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Why are we, the ‘amateurs’ having to find and circulate such information when we employ highly paid Officers to serve us? Why are we paying for useless representation and ‘communication’ by self serving bodies like UCI, funded by us via our Council Tax, who purport to represent the learning disabled? No one is responding to these or other questions whilst Director Alexander has unilaterally decreed outwith Council Policy that he will not deal with carers in a group that dares to express any view that he disagrees with. He has still not answered the questions he promised to do on Dec 16th nor has this information been released under FoI. What is he and the Council hiding and why?
This will be published on: www.dumfries-galloway.org.
Summary extract from the Scottish Goverrnment Dec 2009 paper:
The national strategy for self-directed support in Scotland has been
developed to help take forward the personalisation of health and social
care services in Scotland.
The increasing numbers of people accessing social care and the range
of individual needs mean that services and supports will have to
continue to become much more flexible and responsive in the future.
This strategy responds to increasing interest in reshaping care and
support in Scotland. It aims to set out and drive a cultural shift around
the delivery of care and support that views people as equal citizens with
rights and responsibilities. It recognises that for consumers and
providers alike, tighter financial pressures, and demographic changes
mean that improved outcomes cannot be delivered with more of the
same.
Self-directed support has a role in supporting the Government’s
overarching aim of growing the Scottish economy. It supports the
empowerment of individuals to gain equality of opportunity and sustain
their citizenship. It also contributes significantly to improving health and
well-being and tackling health inequalities.
The strategy has been developed with the support of a National
Reference Group and through extensive discussion with other
stakeholders. It will be a long term strategy, spanning 10 years, and so
what is provided is a framework for significant changes in the way
support is provided. It is not intended as detailed guidance, which may
follow as the strategy is implemented.
The key themes of the strategy are:
- · Values and principles that are based on human rights and
equality legislation.
- · Ownership and leadership reflecting the importance of
leadership at all levels, including citizen leadership, and adoption
of co-production in planning and delivering services, support and
workforce training.
- · Supporting choice and control through a shift to outcomes
focused assessment, review and commissioning. It recommends
action to assess the role and funding of support organisations,
including disability led organisations.
2
- · Resources: it recommends a review of the tools for assessing
individual budgets to see what works best. It promotes joint work
between local and national government to consider the use of nonsocial
work budgets in providing lower level support and creating
inclusive communities.
- · Measuring progress through engagement with regulatory bodies
to ensure the principles of self-directed support are understood. A
short term goal is to review information gathered nationally to
reflect the focus on individual outcomes rather than outputs and
processes.
Following consultation, an implementation plan will be developed to
identify timescales and targets for the strategy’s short, medium and long
term goals.
The draft strategy will be available for download in easy read
approximately two weeks after the start of the consultation process. If
you require the document in any other format, this can be requested
from Chris Raftery.
Responding to the Consultation
The Self-Directed Support Team welcomes responses to this
consultation paper by Friday 7th May 2010. Please send your
response with the completed Respondent Information Form (see
“Handling your Response” below) to:
selfdirectedsupport@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
or
Chris Raftery
Self Directed Support Team
Adult Care and Support Division
Scottish Government
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
If you have any queries contact Chris Raftery on 0131 244 5492
We would be grateful if you could clearly indicate in your response which
questions or parts of the consultation paper you are responding to as
this will aid our analysis of the responses received
Circulated in the interests of local democracy by: DGPPG see www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
