Stranraer ARC – lack of maintenance Care Commission report 20 May 2009

Stranraer ARC (DG9 7JJ) Report – 20 May 2009

Quality Theme 2: Quality of Environment
Statement 1
We ensure that service users and carers participate in assessing and improving the quality
of the environment within the service.
Service Strengths
See information as at 1.1.
The Disability Discrimination Officer has made further recommendations for access with regard
to the inner front door, an exit from the building and the car park barrier. The manager
confirmed that these developments had been discussed with service users at their ‘Members
Committee’ meeting.
Where there are changes to decoration and soft furnishings, within the service, this is
discussed/consulted with service users at their committee meetings and their views taken and
acted upon.
There are different noticeboards around the centre which identify what members can do within
the service.
Areas for Improvement
The manager stated that when the new ‘Members Committee’ is elected view’s regarding the
ARC environment would be discussed further with them and clearly recorded in the Minutes.
Grade awarded for this statement
4 – Good
Number of Requirements
0
Number of Recommendations
0

Statement 3
The environment allows service users to have as positive a quality of life as possible.
Service Strengths
The manager and staff have made some improvements to the internal decoration of certain
rooms within the ARC since the last inspection e.g. Braidfelt and the sensory room. Other work
undertaken which has resulted in damage to existing paintwork has been ‘patched’ by the
contractor.
As identified in last year’s report, where the new heaters have been fitted, the bare unpainted
or wallpapered plaster above the heaters has been patched in.
The service users are about to finish making a wooden structured greenhouse, using 2 litre
plastic bottles for the glass.
Areas for Improvement
As identified within the last 3 years’ inspection reports:-
As identified in the strengths where different areas of the building have needed to be altered,
the paint on the walls has been patched to the existing colour. However, this further shows up
the general decline in decoration and paintwork inside the ARC. This has been reported on in
the previous three inspections. The walls and ceilings in the remainder of the rooms used by
service users are now looking grubby and dirty.
Dumfries & Galloway Council must seriously consider appropriate action to ensure that the
decoration of this building is brought up to an acceptable standard. It is again strongly
recommended that redecoration is seriously considered for the Stranraer ARC as a matter of
urgency. See recommendation below.
As identified in previous inspection reports it is still very noticeable that there are many of the
double glazed windows throughout the ARC which now have condensation between the double
glazed units which hinders service users from looking out. There should be a programme
introduced to ensure that these windows are repaired without delay. It is strongly advised that
Dumfries & Galloway Council ensure that all windows within the ARC are repaired without
delay. See recommendation below.
Grade awarded for this statement
3 – Adequate
Number of Requirements
0
Number of Recommendations
2
Recommendations
1
The internal redecoration for the remainder of the accommodation within Stranraer ARC is
undertaken without delay.
National Care Standards – Support Services – Standard 5 -Your Environment.
19 August 2009 Inspection Report 2009-10: Support Service Not Care at Home Page 19 of 31
2
There should be a programme introduced to ensure that the double glazed windows are
repaired where required without delay.
National Care Standards – Support Services – Standard 5 -Your Environment.
19 August 2009 Inspection Report 2009-10: Support Service Not Care at Home Page 20 of 31
Statement 4
The accommodation we provide ensures that the privacy of service users is respected.
Service Strengths
From observations where service users require to have privacy with personal care tasks these
are carried out in the privacy of bathrooms and toilets as required. Staff could be heard
speaking to service users in a quiet and pleasant manner.
The mini bus used by the ARC has no markings to identify it to the ARC.
Areas for Improvement
The Officer observed during the inspection that a bathroom door in the ‘flat’ opened into the
lounge area. Although staff tried to be discreet when entering the bathroom there was the
possibility of a service user’s dignity and respect being compromised. The Officer spoke with
the manager about this issue. The manager should investigate and put in place a screen
around the door to shield service users when using the bathroom and needing support from
staff members. See recommendation below.
Grade awarded for this statement
3 – Adequate
Number of Requirements
0
Number of Recommendations
1
Recommendations
1
The manager should investigate and put in place a screen around the door to shield service
users when using the bathroom and needing support from staff members.
National Care Standards – Support Services – Standard 14 – Daily Life

Divide and Rule – Social Work Director Alexander is scared to meet DGPPG carers in a group face to face

First Stranraer ARC, see article 17-Mar, and now Newton Stewart.  We hear that another small seperate meeting with selected carers will take place at the Newton Stewart ARC in April, but other carers are excluded and not welcome.  Why?  This secrecy and refusal to face and answer simple basic questions continues to undermine trust.  Which four ARCs did JA select and intend to close last October?  Will it be the same four to go first next time round, picked off one by one?   Where is the transparency and honesty that should be the hallmark of a really caring service and manager?

Obsessive secrecy Misuse of £1.2 Million Public funds? Miscommunication & confusion re Wigtownshire Test Pilot & changing Council plans. See D&G Standard 19/3 p5 “Services Pilot”

This reply was sent to Chris Raftery  Scottish Government  Adult Care and Support  0131 244 5492   email:  Chris.Raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk  It was copied to Audit Scotland and MSPs for this region.  You will note the request that they comment to set out their views and position, especially if they feel we are wrong.  If so it would help if they explain why.  Chris Raftery reply to our questions on 3 March is now published with that date and our questions were dated 16 Feb as posted.  The reply today read as follows:

Many thanks for your reply Weds 3/3 at 17: 22 and further explanation which, along with this response, will be posted on the DGPPG www site, so all carers and interested parties have easy access.  Media contacts may wish to note the continued confusion about how and why £1.2Million is being spent in this way at a time cut of savage individual cuts for both the disabled and others.

We again formally request that the Scottish Government and Audit Scotland re-examine this matter fully.  Because both the timing and way in which this £1.2Million is now being spent is not apparently in accordance with the intentions and objectives first set out by the Scottish Government concerning a ‘direct payments’ test pilot.  £1.2 Million is a large sum of public money allocated for the Wigtownshire test pilot, with defined and narrow objectives.  It was not for a Dumfries & Galloway wide development of services!  What has changed and when?

Your reply and further events are creating ever increasing confusion, presumably not the intention.  You clearly state that ‘Personalisation’ is “definitely a separate workstream, despite possible miscommunication from the council” and that you “have been assured by the council that this is the case”.  Yet this £1.2 Million cash is being used for ‘Personalisation’ as defined by the Council, not your much more limited test pilot to develop direct payments.  As you say, they are not the same thing at all.  But the Council clearly intend to continue conflating these terms, presumably to suit their own purposes, all they claim as “signed off by the Scottish Government”.  So they say you do know what is going on and have approved it?  Perhaps for some, including we amateur carers and possibly also some Elected Members, it is all rather detailed and technical, especially as the reports always sound so very positive and laudable.  In fact, just like the ARC closure plan, using the same wonderful ‘apple pie and motherhood’ rhetoric.  But when examined it is actually the same disingenuous and obfuscating dissembling, so beloved of our ‘leaders’.  Just like the unjustified and still unexplained ARC ‘strategic’ closure plan.

That there is “miscommunication” by the Social Work Director J Alexander and his senior managers is therefore not in any doubt as agreed by you.  But it seems to continue.  “Miscommunication” is a massive understatement to describe the ARC “personalisation” debacle, for which we still have no explanation or promised documents, as requested under FoI last year.  We are in no doubt this is how part of the £1.2 Million was covertly planned to be used, or perhaps ‘misappropriated’?  As the Care Commission say, the Council is “pulling the wool over our eyes”.

Because of the Council’s obsessive secrecy, in order to continue hiding the evidence, Director Alexander unilaterally and unreasonably now refuses to meet and consult with us as a group of carers.  This is outwith both Council policy and his statutory duty, also despite his public undertaking on Dec 16^th 2009 to do so.  If he and his senior managers have nothing to hide, then why does he refuse to meet us, answer our reasonable questions openly, honestly and transparently, and fully release the otherwise hidden and secret documents, as he promised to do?  We asked to observe the Personalisation Change Board.  This is not happening after more than 3 months, but ‘miscommunication’ continues.

Please may we refer you to the Dumfries & Galloway Standard article on 19 March, (full link as follows: http://www.dgstandard.co.uk/dumfries-news/local-news-dumfries/local-news-dumfriesshire/2010/03/19/dumfries-and-galloway-council-embarks-on-personalisation-pilot-51311-26062481/)

Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of this article, which reports the Council is spending £1.2Million on a pilot scheme to “radically change the way services are delivered” and implies this is about developing services across Dumfries and Galloway.  The report says: “The cash will be spent developing “personalisation””.  It does not mention evaluation or that this is the Wigtownshire test pilot, yet this is the cash that was actually allocated to the very limited Test Pilot in deliberately selected rural Wigtownshire.  Please will you explain why the Scottish Government, who are providing the funds, describe this in a very different way to D&G Council?

You say the pilot is part of a carefully planned and coordinated 3 site exercise, which is to report by Jan 2011, with formal evaluation, which we are told is by independent academics and so can be trusted.  What institution and what academics, please advise?

You say that one “key theme” to be evaluated in the test pilot in rural Wigtownshire is “cutting red tape and leadership and training”. From earlier notes that you sent us last month, you advised the other two key themes of the pilot are: intervention and bridging finance. Please explain how this latest Council plan of “developing personalisation services” fits those three themes for which cash was allocated to be spent: 2008/9 = £170K; 2009/10 = £510K and 2010/11 = £510K.   Total £1,190K or in shorthand £1.2Million.  Because of the shambles in 2008/9 the first £680K not then spent was presumably carried forward.  But your deadline for test pilot completion and evaluation of the rural Wigtownshire test pilot is by Jan 2011.  Please explain how all that is going to be achieved in the next 9 months?

We quote from your Annex 1 Glossary 26 which states: “After discussion with COSLA, the Scottish Government has designated three test sites (Glasgow (urban), Highland (remote rural), and Dumfries and Galloway (rural)) which are working to increase the uptake of self-directed support by focusing their work on three themes of intervention: bridging finance; cutting red tape and leadership and training. The test sites are due to conclude their work in January 2011. A fourth test site hosted by NHS Lothian will investigate the use of health monies in SDS packages.”

In your most recent email you also say: “With regards to your concerns about the local management of the test site. All three test sites have had challenges with progress in the first year as test sites, this is something the Scottish Government can learn from. All three test sites are committed to accelerate their progress in the second year to compensate for a slower than expected start. One of the three key themes of the test site activity and therefore the evaluation is leadership and training. Therefore the approaches to leadership of all test sites will be evaluated and will form part of the evaluation. I have to state at this point, the evaluation will look at the organisations approach and not individual staff members.”

May we now refer you to the Report 16 March 2010 by Penny Nowell & John Alexander to the Dumfries & Galloway Council Resources Committee , (Also please see full link: http://rpu.dumgal.gov.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/committee_reports/022008.pdf ) It is titled: “ADDITIONAL POSTS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALISED SERVICES”.

It refers to an agreement in principle on 13 Jan 2010 at the ‘Personalisation Change Programme Board’, which comprises approx 22 persons and was set up in late 2008/early 2009 as part of the Wigtownshire Test Pilot funded by the £1.2Million as detailed above.  This Nowell/Alexander plan clearly states that: “The purpose of these posts is to further the development of more personalised services for people in Dumfries and Galloway”. Please explain how this fits the “Wigtownshire rural test pilot” as described by you to develop Direct Payments, with the three defined themes as above?  Moreover these jobs are for 2 years, which is well beyond the planned Test Pilot evaluation and completion date of Jan 2011?  Please explain this.

At a time of stringent budget cuts, we again request that Audit Scotland and MSPs examine what appears to be a possible misuse of public funds for a purpose they were not allocated.  If central funds are allocated for a specific test pilot is it misappropriation to use them for other purposes?   If not why make and publish plans including comparative site evaluations?  How is this very different ‘back door’ arrangement to be evaluated in terms of the brief to the academic evaluators?  Please explain this in detail.

You already know that the first year of the Wigtownshire test pilot was a shambles, whilst learning disabled carers were and still are denied access to observe at this Board, let alone be consulted or participate.  We understand why you have reiterated that the closure of the ARCs is not related to the test site activity, because under the original objectives and themes it should not have been.  But it seems you have or are now changing these objectives?  It was of course the subversion of this pilot and the subterfuge use, that planned misappropriation, of “double funding” by Dumfries & Galloway Council, not the Scottish Government, that linked the two.  As you request, we are trying to get the Council to explain this, but without success.

In this Council Social Work Report we can find no mention of “evaluation” or any of the themes of the Wigtownshire test pilot as you define it.  Yet apparently you or the Scottish Government have “signed this off”, such that the funds in full are now being used to develop personalisation services and not just in rural Wigtownshire.   Are the other test sites being changed in the same way and how will the sites be compared, now that this site here is so very different?  Is this costing more cash for extra and different evaluation over a much wider area?

Please explain exactly how, as you now state, “the test site evaluation will uncover any problems with the test sites.”

You say that: “As I explained in my previous e-mail, the test sites are there as a learning study both positive and negative. It is obvious from your concern, that a major piece of learning from this, is the need for effective communication to ensure no confusion between different work activity. This learning alone will be invaluable in the future because it demonstrates any future changes that Local Authorities undertake needs to be clearly communicated to everybody concerned, to avoid the distress that this can obviously have on individuals. D&G motives for their test site activity is to carry out work to increase the uptake of Direct Payments, which is a Scottish Government priority. They have entered into an agreement with the Scottish Government to ensure that all learning both positive and negative is shared with other Local Authorities. It is not reasonable for the Scottish Government to expect that any of the test site councils to halt other work in order to carry out this activity. All the test sites are subject to continuous evaluation and monitoring as the test site progresses. For the reasons outlined above the test site activity will continue.”

Please will you provide all the documents and history that we have requested formally under FoI on 16 Feb.  In the spirit of effective communication we presume you would not wish to deliberately delay because of FoI, as your email might imply, and as D&G Council have indeed actually done.  So please will you provide all relevant documents by email as quickly as possible, especially as you state many are easily available and you would do this anyway outwith FoI.  That is exactly what Director Alexander said publicly on Dec 16^th, but has actually supplied nothing.  We are not asking for any “commercially sensitive” documents or information and would regard citing such reasons for refusal as hiding the facts and requiring challenge.

The request on 16 Feb was to send us: “All 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.”

In Feb you stated 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.”

We repeat our request that you please advise who are the ‘independent evaluators’, so we may contact with them about all these matters directly, because we firmly believe public money is presently being wasted.  We asked you if this was the ‘academic’ evaluation of the test site pilots that we are being told by Ms Proctor should reassure everyone that ill ensure all is OK?  You know that we have asked Director Alexander about this, but still have no reply.  You know of the poor track record in 2006 of the deliberate misuse of academic research by this Council & NHS Officers, like Ms Proctor, is not very encouraging or confidence inspiring.  We referred you to www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk in July and August 2006 for the historical evidence of this, which is a matter of public record and complaint.

You want keep the identity of the evaluators secret, yet they are being paid by public money.  Who are they?   Telling us who the evaluators are, how they are evaluating and against what criteria for the three sites can hardly be a ‘commercially sensitive’ secret.  If it is please justify this claim.  Nor can it be a secret how much public money is being paid as agreed for this service and to what organisation or individuals.  We are told it is an academic institution, which should hardly be a bastion of secrecy, unless there is something to hide?  If the simplest way to provide this information is their tender bid, as you suggest, then send that.  How can that be secret or sensitive?  You/they can redact any commercially sensitive information and explain to us exactly what is redacted and why.  If we disagree we can then appeal to the Commissioner.  Why is there such needless secrecy in all this?  It just increases suspicion and the bureaucracy just further wastes our public money.

With the greatest respect, please remember you are all supposed to be public servants, not our masters!  It is very disturbing that you feel the need the need to go to such lengths of discouraging disclosure saying: “to ask if they are happy for me to release their tender bid to the Scottish Government. This would be exempt under a formal FoI request as it contains commercially sensitive information, however I think this will help you. I am happy to ask them, if you wish but they do have the right to refuse this request. These are the three most important documents, however we do hold other information, which is of much less significance and tend to be work in progress as such. These documents will need to be subject to further analysis of whether they are exempt from FoI for reasons such as commercial sensitivity or advice to Ministers. I am unsure at this point, whether the costs for the request you have made would be within the FoI limits, my initial analysis is that it would be out with these limits. We would be happy to look at this formally for you, should you wish but I am confident the documents, I am prepared to send you now would be sufficient for your questions. Please let me know how you wish to proceed”.

This all sounds like there is something to hide!  Why?  We are discussing benefits for the disabled not state defence!  Is it necessary to ask our MSPs to obtain the information, as it is clearly in the wider public interest and that of the disabled community and their carers.  In case it is the MSPs now have a copy of this and we refer them all to the www site and invite them to comment.  Indeed we would welcome their public feedback.

We look forward to a further detailed reply explaining all this confusion and the current plans / evaluation, plus the relevant documents in due course.  As usual this request is on the record and published openly.

Many thanks .

Stranraer ARC meeting? Neglected maintenance. Care Commission say Dunmuir Park “care home accommodation remains shabby, dirty and damaged in places”. Unanounced inspection in January.

Attention Stranraer focus group.  Following up your message of 1^st March is there any more news about the possible meeting at your ARC and the group being set up?  Have you seen the various open responses and comments to ‘Galloway Lass’ on this site?  Any idea who ‘Galloway Lass’ might be and will she identify herself?

Lack of basic maintenance – hidden budget cuts as a matter of Council policy. As indicated a few weeks ago, the latest report of a Care Commission unannounced Inspection of Dunmuir Park on 19^th Jan 2010 is now available on the Care Commission www site, (full  link as follows: http://www.carecommission.com/berengCareservices/html/reports/getPdfBlob.php?id=197942 ) On page 21 the Inspector again states that:

“We looked at the physical standard of the buildings during the inspection as we do each year. This was not a detailed examination of the property or the internal accommodation but the state of the building gave cause for concern. As each year passes the unattended repairs and deteriorating fabric of the care home become more obvious.  The manager and staff stated that though reports of faults and repairs are attended to by the Council, major issues are not progressed. While the resident accommodation is very much in need of refurbishment and decoration, this has not been addressed. Once again we noted that the result of this is that the care home accommodation remains shabby, dirty and damaged in places.  Areas for Improvement 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.  …..”

To date there has been no answer from the Council to the FDP complaint, whilst the 20 day time limit expires this week.  No one is holding their breath given the documented history of the morally corrupt complaints process operated by Dumfries & Galloway Council, and it’s still the same managewrs, many now promoted!    The FDP formal complaint to the Care Commission will be followed up, not least because reports of faults are not attended to as claimed by the manager, like the loose glass in the exit door last June and the furniture.

For the Council to continue to “pull the wool over our eyes”, as the Care Commission said a few weeks ago is simply not acceptable for the next 4 or more years.  The DGPPG is reliably informed that it was agreed last year by senior Council managers that the existing DP buildings must remain in operation for at least that time, even if analternative development was agreed now.  This reality and true situation was explained to the Care Commission a few weeks ago, as they were being kept in the dark by the Council.  Yet the uncaring and untrustworthty social worke dept is obviously content that, “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.  ….”.  That Care Commission inspection says it all in describing the real values of this Council and its managers, despite all their fine words of “Personalisation”.  Beware!

There is no doubt a similar scenario is and will unfold at the ARCs, because of the inept and incompetent short term thinking and ‘cost saving’, which is a lack of real planning by the same managers.  Consider the latest debacle over the other ‘planned’ disabled cost saving plans, now withdrawn from Committee at the last minute because of basic elementary failures, just like the ARC closure ‘plan’ last year.  Yet these ‘plans’ are supposedly the expert and considered work of very highly paid ‘managers’ and ‘strategic’ thinkers and ‘leaders’.  It’s no wonder we are in a mess and they will make it worse, unless properly held to account.  No doubt that’s why JA now refuses to meet with the DGPPG but wants to try and divide and rule with small seperate meetings, as proposed at Stranraer.  Please will you keep all other ARCs informed via comments on this site.

Chris Raftery for Scottish Government admits “Miscommunication from D&G Council” Reply to our questions 16-Feb but no definitive answers.

See reply 22-March and detailed request for clarification and release of all documents including identity of the academic evaluators.

on 3-Mar Chris Raftery wrote as follows:  Thank you for your recent e-mail. I appreciate your concerns.   I have to reiterate that the closure of the ARCs is not related to the test site activity. If, a member of D&G council has suggested this, then this was a mistake on their part and it is unfortunate that this has given the impression that it has done. We have been assured by the council that this is definitely a separate workstream, despite possible miscommunication from the council.

The miscommunication does not discredit the test site activity or the study. The test site evaluation will uncover any problems with the test sites. As, I explained in my previous e-mail, the test sites are there as a learning study both positive and negative. It is obvious from your concern, that a major piece of learning from this, is the need for effective communication to ensure no confusion between different work activity. This learning alone will be invaluable in the future because it demonstrates any future changes that Local Authorities undertake needs to be clearly communicated to everybody concerned, to avoid the distress that this can obviously have on individuals. D&G motives for their test site activity is to carry out work to increase the uptake of Direct Payments, which is a Scottish Government priority. They have entered into an agreement with the Scottish Government to ensure that all learning both positive and negative is shared with other Local Authorities. It is not reasonable for the Scottish Government to expect that any of the test site councils to halt other work in order to carry out this activity. All the test sites are subject to continuous evaluation and monitoring as the test site progresses. For the reasons outlined above the test site activity will continue.

We understand the demography and geography of Wigtownshire and that of wider Dumfries and Galloway. This was a major criterion for the council being selected as a test site. The point of this, is that we know there are different issues that effect people in different locations. The D&G test site, will alone provide one perspective but with the other 2 test site areas, we can build a bigger picture to help inform our future direction. Also, D&G’s test site action plan is to initially start work in Wigtownshire and then expand this further across other areas of D&G. We are confident that the data both quantitative and qualitative will be statistically valid and this is the role of the independent evaluators, who have good experience with this type of work.

I am happy to provide all the documents that you have requested formally, which as you will appreciate will take the full amount of time under FoI. However, I am also aware that you are eager for the information as soon as possible.  Therefore, if you would rather I can provide you now with  the criteria for the test sites, which was agreed with COSLA. This is the primary document that outlines our assumptions for the 3 test sites. I can also provide a copy of D&Gs recently re-evaluated action plan. I am also happy to contact our evaluators, to ask if they are happy for me to release their tender bid to the Scottish Government. This would be exempt under a formal FoI request as it contains commercially sensitive information, however I think this will help you. I am happy to ask them, if you wish but they do have the right to refuse this request. These are the three most important documents, however we do hold other information, which is of much less significance and tend to be work in progress as such. These documents will need to be subject to further analysis of whether they are exempt from FoI for reasons such as commercial sensitivity or advice to Ministers. I am unsure at this point, whether the costs for the request you have made would be within the FoI limits, my initial analysis is that it would be out with these limits. We would be happy to look at this formally for you, should you wish but I am confident the documents, I am prepared to send you now would be sufficient for your questions. Please let me know how you wish to proceed.

Again, with regards to your statements about the proposed ARC closures, please could you direct them directly to D&G. unfortunately, I am unable to provide advice on this issue.

With regards to your concerns about the local management of the test site. All three test sites have had challenges with progress in the first year as test sites, this is something the Scottish Government can learn from. All three test sites are committed to accelerate their progress in the second year to compensate for a slower than expected start. One of the three key themes of the test site activity and therefore the evaluation is leadership and training. Therefore the approaches to leadership of all test sites will be evaluated and will form part of the evaluation. I have to state at this point, the evaluation will look at the organisations approach and not individual staff members.

I have contacted the researchers and I understand that some individuals who are concerned about the ARC proposals and the test sites will form part of the evaluation. It is for the evaluators to ensure that appropriate views form part of the evaluation. As the evaluators are independent and the Scottish Government do not wish to influence their work, we will not pass on their details. The evaluation is separate from any other work and has been commissioned by the Scottish Government, last year. D&G have had no input into the specification of the evaluation, how it is conducted or the selection of the tender bids. A pre-requisite of a council becoming a test site, is that they allow full access to the independent evaluators to all the test work. To date, we are content that evaluators have been given the access they require within D&G.

Unfortunately, we cannot publish your correspondence on our website. We only promote the policies and work of the Scottish Government. We do publish summaries of consultation responses, following the end of the consultation. However, the responses that we have had to date, would not be published as they are not specifically in response to the consultation. As, I stated in my previous e-mail the authors of the paper you refer are not involved, nor do they have a remit in this area of work. This paper is purely incorporated as an annex as an illustration of co-production. Therefore, I cannot forward your concerns on directly to them. Since my previous e-mail, I have ensured you are placed on both SDS and Changing Lives/personalisation, consultations lists.

I hope this is helpful.   Many thanks

Chris

Chris Raftery

Scottish Government  Adult Care and Support  0131 244 5492 email: Chris.Raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

More “uncaring and untrustworthy” hypocrisy from Dumfries & Galloway Council who have no concept of Strategic Planning

See Dumfries & Galloway Standard Frid 26th and the story of a £2,500 cut to RDA (Riding for the Disabled) at Barend and Nithsdale.  This is part of the insidious ARC closure cuts.

For this latest and new cut of £2500 directly affects the intended ARC closure plan.  What the public may not appreciate is that the RDA now provide one of the very few “non buildings based” facilities “in the community” for ARC service users as well.  At Barend there is a weekly session for learning disabled adults, a group regularly travel out from the Castle Douglas ARC on a Wednesday and pay a nominal amount per session from their Income Support.  Without the RDA volunteer charity support this much loved and very beneficial facility would not exist.  Note that the RDA is a ‘real’ charity of volunteers getting their hands dirty.  It is not a ‘pseudo charity’ like UCI where the Council & NHS are content to spend £50,000 of your money to employ unaccountable ‘managers’ replicating work that is very effectively carried out by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers.   Yet £2,500 can be cut from the RDA, who provide a real front line service for the disabled.

Consider that on the one hand the Alexander/Proctor ARC closure plan states that there must be more activity “in the community” in the name of Personalisation and Choice, whilst on the other the same Council cuts £2,500 from an existing key and much loved facility offered by the RDA.  You could not make this up!

But whilst doing this they are also wasting £1.2 Million on a trial pilot in Wigtownshire and appointing a £36.5K pa Manager for Evaluation & Development and running a 22 person ‘Personalisation Board’, on which UCI sit, but not representing  the learning disabled.  What sort of strategic thinking and planning is this?  But as the headline in the Galloway News 25 Feb said , the Social Work Director J Alexander is “uncaring and untrustworthy”.  This is more evidence he and other Council managers are also incompetent and are simply following short term short sighted budget cuts wherever there are seemingly ’soft’ targets.  Just like the maintenance shambles and the current Care Commission complaint detailed on this site, amongst much else.  Look at the waste whilst the vulnerable suffer cuts.  Who is investigating this?  What are our senior and very well paid Elected Members doing?

Please would they post a comment on this site, if they are concerned?

Divide and rule – J Alexander plans a meeting at Stranraer ARC. Better count your fingers after any hand shake!

The “uncaring and untrustworthy” (see  Galloway News article ) Social Work Director J Alexander plans to hold a meeting at Stranraer ARC.  Having refused to meet as a wider group covering all 6 ARCs,  he now wishes to ‘divide and rule’, picking off the individual ARCs one by one.  No doubt he hopes and expects to minimise any resistance and then be able to report to Elected Members that there is no problem.   Director Alexander has no answers to our questions and is not providing the requested information.

What is the state of maintenance at Stranraer?  Is there a waiting list?  Is the ARC fully staffed, or is he trying the well established Council tactic of ‘death by a thousand cuts’?  Note he clearly stated on Dec 16th that the ARCs are “not cost effective”, but despite his promises has provided no factual evidence to support this.  That and other failures justifies the public branding as untrustworthy.  He intends the ARC be closed and is prepared to play a long waiting game, issuing plausible platitudes meanwhile.  The events of October and since evidence that at heart he is “uncaring” about the service users and families seemingly only really concerned about saving money and looking good in terms of his budgets.

No one can now trust what he says is either true or will be actioned.  If that is how a boss behaves what example is that for the staff?  Consider all that he has not done as he promised on Dec 16th, when blaming Elected Members for the Alexander/Proctor closure plan, effectively saying ‘not me guv’!  This is the situation where we really should count our fingers after any hand shake!

Perhaps the Stranraer ARC focus group will invite representatives from all the other five ARCs to be present as well, so all can see what is said and ask relevant questions?  If you advise the date and plans as a comment to this site, it can then be openly published for all to see and suggestions for questions can be shared.  As a start, let’s get the answers Director Alexander promised on Dec 16th and all the outstanding FoI data being kept hidden and secret.  For example was Stranraer one of the four ARCs intended for closure by Alexander/Proctor in phase one of their planned cost cuts?  No wonder they refuse to release the papers, otherwise what have they got to hide?

ITV Border TV News – update re Care Commission and ARCs

This was an update to ITV Border News after the report run on 24th Feb.  It was for the news desk plus ‘Pam & Ian because since then the Galloway News published a report on Thursday 24/2.   Representatives at the FDP Trustees’ meeting on Thurs 18 Feb agreed entirely with those reports and had further discussions with the Care Commission in Dumfries, with emails confirming this.  Any reader can request further details on the record by making an email request from this site or posting a comment.

It is now apparent the Care Commission has not been told the truth by Dumfries & Galloway Council over the past few years and certainly since 2006.  The Care Commission  realised this last Weds when the facts were fully explained and said in response, the wool has been pulled over our eyes.  There were press reports of relevant matters in Q1 2008 and the history is all a matter of public record.

The Care Commission then advised of a recent ‘unannounced inspection’ of DPCH and that a full report of this should be published on the Care Commission www site around 11 March.  Quite properly, until published no details or gradings can be released by them, 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 and the planned andintended closures, where a worryingly similar picture of neglected basic day to day maintenance is becoming apparent in Care Commission ARC reports.  These can also be accessed and read on the Care Commission www site, also being copied with links on this site (see ARC Reports) where all this is on the public record.

In 2008 (and 2009) J Alexander gave unequivocal assurances that basic maintenance / repairs, painting & decorating & replacements of things like old furniture at DPCH would be done.  The public can see the trouble FDP, residents and respite service users had in mid June about the dangerously loose main door glazing in June 2009, not getting such a simple job like that done for four months by mid October, despite what the Care Commission said in June at the inspection and later wrote.  In June the Care Commission inspector then spoke about the “disgraceful” state of the door pointing out the danger.  The local manager Barry Needham has a budget and should have fixed the glass there and then or the very next day in June, after it was pointed out so forcefully.  But then we presume he operates, implicitly if not explicitly, under J Alexander instructions to delay all maintenance expenditure as a matter of Council policy, see below.  So he waited until the FDP were forced to make it very public in mid October.  But with publicity there was immediate action!

Hence the Galloway News headline on 24/2 of “Uncaring and Untrustworthy” is wholly accurate.

Note also in relation to the ARC saga that Director Alexander has reneged on what he promised publicly 16 Dec, which is also reported on this site . Please note the following:

• No January follow up meeting, indeed no meeting at all will be held.
• Alexander now refuses to talk to the DGPPG and will only consult with “established fora”, whatever that means!
• Alexander has not provided promised data and is failing under statutory FoI requests,
• Alexander refuses to release any relevant information about the £1.2Million pilot test site, in breach of FoI,
• Yet Alexander allows UCI, a ‘pseudo charity’, at least £50K funded with Council/NHS cash, to sit on the 22 person ‘Personalisation Board’.  We & others asked to observe and didn’t even get the courtesy of a reply.
• John Dowson also sits on this board.  Neither he nor UCI have consulted ARC users & carers, whilst Dowson is on record as saying  he thinks the ARCs should close.  See also final para below.
• No reply yet from Chris Raftery Scot Gov about the misuse of the £1.2Million as it’s now evident that 50% of this was to be diverted to ‘create’ the planned £660,000 saving in the ARC closure ‘option’ by “double funding” buildings based services.  It’s ‘smoke and mirrors’, but we have worked out the intended trickery and John Alexander’s only reaction is to pretend we are not there!
• No reply to our request that Audit Scotland investigate this.
• No information as requested from Chris Raftery < chris.raftery@scotland.gsi.gov.uk > about the “Independent Evaluators” and other questions, see our email 16/2 sent at 16:26, but see later comment.

This is all posted publicly on this site because there is apparently no local democracy or accountability.  Our senior elected Members seem to do nothing, despite their obligations, for which they are now paid very well indeed.

The £1.2 Million being spent by D&G Council on the ‘Wigtownshire test site pilot’ is a very serious story that needs investigating, alongside the parallel ARC and DPCH issues.  The same managers are involved and it is firmly believed they are dissembling to both Elected Members, service users and carers, along with the general public.  There is £1.2 Million of public cash that is being wasted at a time of austerity and cuts.  That £1.2Million is being (mis)spent by J Alexander & J Proctor, who have failed to demonstrate competence, honesty and transparency.  Using £660,000 of this budget was it appears the only way in which the Alexander/Proctor 12 October plan could be “achievable and sustainable” as J Alexander keeps repeatedly saying, whilst refusing to provide the necessary evidence.  presumably because he cannot do so?  If anbd when he does and meets with the DGPPG, as he promised to do in Janauary, these comments can be corrected accordingly.  Until then they stand as true and fair public comment based on the evidence provided.

Who is asking the relevant questions about all this at a time when real valuable services are being cut to vulnerable and older people?  £50-£70K is a significant cut, but we are considering £1.2Million, which is one third of the total budget saving D&G Council required.  What is going on?  The senior Elected Members are not asking these questions.  Why not?  Please will ITV Border News, because there is a failure of local democracy and public accountability surrounding the ARCs & DPCH.

This links directly to another big story in the recent news – the £80 million Dumfries & Galloway Council say is needed to bring council properties to the point they are ‘fit for purpose’.  We understand there is a Scotland-wide audit with our Dumfries & Galloway Council at the bottom of the rankings on this issue – with approx. 63% of council properties in a neglected state.  This is an old trick, one they have used in the past and tried in 2006 with DPCH and at Langlands school.  They target a provision for closure, by stealth or otherwise, and stop spending any money to maintain it, just as described above as a specific example.  Hey presto, pretty soon it’s no longer ‘fit for purpose’, hence the relevance of the Care Commission ARC reports already mentioned above, which have identified  issues that need to be addressed.  If checked under FoI no doubt they stopped maintaining them a few years back, unless it was for emergency repairs or forced by the Care Commission or for Health & Safety reasons.  Although loose door glass is a clear H&S hazard!  Also look at the story about Loreburn Hall – already questions are being asked  ”did the council deliberately allow it to deteriorate to the point of no return?”  It is a tried and true pattern, and one that has some relationship to the PPP projects that the council entered into several years back.  After all why refurbish existing buildings when we can build shiny new ones for twice the cost?  This ties in with the comments freely made by Mr Dowson (Coalition for the Disabled) concerning the Dumfries & Galloway Council intention to sell off the shut down ARC buildings very cheaply to already identified third parties.  Rememember he sits on the 22 strong ‘Personalisation Board’ as a ‘representative’ of the disabled and so would indeed have inside knowledge of these matters.  We of course are denied any access to the full papers or even to observe.   These are big issues of public waste that need investigation.  Who is interested and doing this investigation?