Dumfries and Galloway Public Protest Group:
Fighting to save your Activity Resource Centres (ARCs)

Action agreed 16-Dec. Further meeting Jan 2010 ARC future developments

Posted: December 17th, 2009 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

At 11:53 DGPPG wrote the following note of key action agreed points to Dumfries and Galloway Council Social Work Director: Dear Mr Alexander & Ms Collington

Around 25 representatives, all very concerned about the present situation, met with you yesterday in Castle Douglas and we wish to repeat the thanks given to you by the chair, Yowann Byghan, for your time and attention to all that was said. Thanks also to Cllr Ian Blake who observed, saying afterwards that he had learned a lot and wished his colleagues could have seen and heard all this as well.

It was a meeting arranged at very short notice with carers travelling from far away in Stranraer and Kirkconnel, which presents real difficulties with little time to prepare. We were therefore all very pleased to agree that a follow up meeting will now be organised by you towards the end of January, thus enabling advance planning and help with attendance & transport etc. We look forward to a proposed date and convenient location for that meeting as soon as possible, hopefully before the holiday, since a lot of questions were left unanswered yesterday with other topics yet to be raised. Many still wish to speak and need more time to do so.

It was also agreed that the draft record of the meeting your note taker made yesterday shall be agreed by DGPPG and issued jointly in due course. But ahead of that we trust you agree certain key points are not in doubt and need action now.

We were all very pleased to hear your unequivocal commitment you will ensure that effective participation of the families will be restored at all levels, including the strategic, and will now reply to the 5-Nov proposal. This must be a topic for January and cannot be tokenistic. Including UCI, a body 50% funded by the Council, in meetings is not ‘effective participation’, as can be seen from these recent events. We are pleased to hear you say no changes will ever be imposed, but only taken forward by agreement after full and effective involvement and only if they represent a measurable improvement in the quality of care and outcomes from that existing. The best way to achieve such advances is for those directly affected to be part of the change process from the outset. That is starting at the strategic level and working forwards. We understand that is what you intend will happen from early 2010.

Linked to this you also heard the direct and very negative feedback about the ‘Wigtownshire Pilot’ and the Enable Scotland 30-Nov ‘shambles’, but we also do appreciate that you wholly disassociated D&G Council from that event clearly saying we must take up any complaints directly with Enable Scotland. Perhaps some will now do so.

Your attempt to explain the latest meaning of ‘personalisation’ was helpful, since you are now using this term a great deal. It seems clear that by personalisation you mean increased self directed support in terms of an individual budget or how care is paid for. It is not person centred planning, which you agreed already exists and is well implemented. Anything more you can do to clarify this for everyone, including Members, would be helpful as there is a lot of confusion because, unfortunately, the word ‘personalisation’ is jargon. We understand the definition you are using is for “Personalisation and Self Directed Support” and that mo doubt you would summarise this as follows:

“Personalisation describes a model of care that gives the person needing support the means to decide and purchase or secure it in a way that best meets the outcomes that they want for their lives. It is about the people that need support defining, to an extent, the support that they want and about them being given an amount of resource that enables them to procure it”.

We understand that this drive to give people their own cash to budget is for a much wider population than the learning disabled, but you did agree it is much easier for the able minded to manage their affairs in this way, and that it is not compulsory for all to do so. We understand the personalisation plan was ‘rolled out’ on 1-Nov for all new referrals, presumably including new ARC clients? Please will you confirm this and that it links directly with the ILF, including that savings option and direct payments?

You confirmed that such individual budgets could be used by service users for attendance at the ARCs “if that network continued to exist”. Of course, the big word here is “if”, which just adds to the ongoing uncertainty amongst the families. You did spend some time explaining the complexities and difficulties of administration, accounting, budgets and the operation of such payments, but stressed that was an internal matter of ‘admin’ and should not really be a concern to service users and families. However, we understand you suggested a “working budget” was “not a very secure way” of paying for ARCs, but we didn’t really understand this or why. This needs clarification.

We also heard you clearly say and repeat robustly that your ARC closure plan was definitely achievable and sustainable as stated by March 31st 2010, but if approved may well not have been implemented in the way the option plan described. We did not have time to explore this yesterday but believe we may understand what the real and so far undisclosed implementation intention could be. We will address this more separately with a further request for information, supported by FoI. For when challenged with figures you stated that the spreadsheet sensitivity analysis provided on 29-Oct was wrong. Yet there has been no reply to this effect from any officer, despite repeated requests since then, although you thought that you had replied. We cannot trace this and during the meeting you could not detail how or why the analysis was wrong, but promised to detail this in writing immediately afterwards. As intimated, we shall write more about this.

You also agreed the ARCs did an “important job” but went on to repeat they “are not cost effective”. However, you could not explain to us how or why or what alternative would be more cost effective. You said the ARC budget was ~£ 2.4Million for 230 service users. We need more data and information about this, since the number of service users appears to have declined from the 244 cited as the official D&G figure in the ‘Same as You Annual Survey 2007’ yet you agree there is a waiting list and an upcoming pressure of the transition cohort of potential ARC service users. Why is the present number lower? We shall write separately requesting up to date and historical data and budgets. We used the 2007 data in the 29-Oct sensitivity analysis, but that difference is not material to the expected error bound.

You expressed great surprise when we also explained that the 14-Nov FoI request 9822 had not been fully answered in the statutory 20 days and referred to our reply 27-Nov (see attached for clarity) and the subsequent Alex Little internal request to your department 30-Nov, to which there is no response. Our original request of 14-Nov clearly asked for confirmation of inter alia:

  • Any other reports or analysis etc relating to or concerning the ARC ‘redesign’ proposal that have been considered or approved by any other senior management group/committee within the Council and/or NHS, such as determining financial achievability and sustainability. This is to understand the full decision making process before such a report is published in the public domain without any prior warning to or consultation with those immediately and directly affected.

We appreciate your assurance this will be attended to immediately and that you suggest “FoI is not really necessary” because you will ensure all relevant documents from the past and in future will be copied to us by email as attachments in either pdf or Word format henceforth. That is much appreciated and will be very helpful. We need all this as soon as possible plus other material not previously requested. This concerns: “All Minutes and papers of the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme” and “Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009” and to avoid any doubt we require disclosed anything else that relates or is at all relevant, including the obvious link to the intended ARC closures implicit in this programme. We did not have time to explore any of these very important issues for a plan running throughout 2009 at the meeting yesterday The latter plan discloses funds to D&G are: 2008/9 £170K this year? 2009/10 £510K also this year and £510K for 2010/11. We wish to know on the record how these funds have been used this year and how they are be budgeted to used next year? To ensure formality we will also confirm this under FoI and have copied this to Alex Little for his information.

Our impression of the meeting is that putting together what was both not said and what was confirmed there is a clear intention in your vision that ARCs will close because you will create something better, improved and more cost effective, but as yet you cannot share with us what that is or give examples. We accept your word that this will not be imposed “top down” and that you will engage with us in effective participation at all levels. We have been excluded since 2006, which is why the present situation has come about. As an immediate first step we request formal representation on the Personalisation Change Programme Board on behalf of Learning Disabled service users.

We note that John Dowson is a member, but we record openly on the WWW site his completely wrongheaded opinion publicly expressed that ARCs are “outdated, Victorian institutions that should be closed”. Mr Dowson may speak well for the physically disabled, for whom personalisation as you now define it is a very good thing, but he clearly does not adequately represent the Learning Disabled and their family and carers. We have copied him with this message. Also we note Morven Campbell of UCI is a member. As far as we are aware there has been no feedback of any of these plans to the ARC families and UCI is not effective participation for the interests of the families. Also as mentioned above UCI is 50% funded by the Council, a point made at the 30-Nov Enable Scotland shambles, where UCI had a ‘stall’.

As we suggest, if we put together what that you say the closure plan was achievable and sustainable, that ARCs are not cost effective and, if the ARC network continues, then we form a clear picture of the future vision and intention. That is why our representation is now essential, since we understand such redesign and closure is to be by agreement. Importantly this vision is implicit in the Personalisation Change Programme Board Programme and the Dumfries and Galloway Personalisation Project Plan January 2009. We understand the latter not only discloses the funds detailed above but also lists “three themes”

The first is “Investing to save: this theme will seek to double fund buildings based care to enable remodelling of the facilities while encouraging service users to adopt other forms of social care in the community using self directed support”. This seems to explain the ARC closure plan and how you said it was achievable, but not in the way described in the plan. With an extra £510K next year D&G Council has the cash to ‘double up’ whilst shutting the ARCs, with 4 first next year and the other 2 later in 2011/12.

None of this has been made clear to any of us. Do the Members know of these plans and if so why are they not discussing this with those directly affected. In that “theme” seems to be the hitherto undisclosed key as to how & why the closure plan is achievable in cost terms, but not notice & consultation by 31st March. Why is this extra income not disclosed to all the public as part of the budget planning and consultation process. You said nothing was being or would be ‘hatched up in the dark cupboard of Social Work’, but this all seems very opaque to us. All we want is transparency and honesty and all this can be fully explored at the next January meeting.

Meanwhile we expect all the relevant papers to be delivered by email as attached files, so we can be fully informed and prepared for that meeting, along with an invitation to the “Board(s)” where all this is being planned. Including other related groups like the “Personalisation Executive Group”, which agreed to “go live with personalisation on 1 Nov 09, the date for new referrals”. Also active and effective participation by families and carers at the ‘front line’ in the Wigtownshire Pilot as clearly requested at the meeting yesterday along with answers to the questions being raised, given that action is now “live”. The impression of the meeting is that planning and preparation on the ground is far from adequate at the present time. As was said at the meeting why try and fix something that is not broken and working very well, the ARCs, when you have big unresolved problems with transition and ‘personalisation’. Focus in terms of selectivity and concentration of effort is a well tested business maxim that seems to apply here.

We look forward to receiving and agreeing your draft detailed record of the meeting, but meanwhile trust the above non contentious and agreed points plus the new topics shall be actioned promptly as requested in preparation for more detailed discussions later in January.

We all look forward to working together in a spirit of openness and cooperation, for we are not and never have been opposed to positive change and improvements and will do all we can to bring that about for the benefit of the service users, their carers and families. Thank you once again. DGPPG

Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

2 Comments on “Action agreed 16-Dec. Further meeting Jan 2010 ARC future developments”

  1. 1 A parent carer from Newton Stewart ARC said at 10:46 pm on December 17th, 2009:

    At the end of yesterday’s meeting John Alexander approached me to discuss the Wigtownshire Pilot, because I was one of those who were very critical. It’s another shambles. I told him in no uncertain terms that if he insists on sending the new manager (JS) to us when she knows nothing and is not able to answer simple questions, then nothing is going to be achieved and the pilot will go nowhere. I also told him she must be clued up or at least be able to get the info for us, bearing in mind ‘personalisation’ or self directed support with an individual budget has “rolled out” as at 1-Nov for all new referrals. A Newton Stewart Carer – too busy caring to be messed about like this, but needing the ARC support.

  2. 2 Frustrated. Another angry carer said at 11:07 pm on December 17th, 2009:

    I was at the meeting too. First Enable Scotland patronise, insult and upset us with misleading scary misinformation and then pretend we can all get a mini mansion and £200,000 a year personal budget to spend as we want. I wish!! But now Dumfries and Galloway Council waste all this money, more than a million pounds, on a ‘pilot’. Yet those they are meant to help around Newton Stewart say they can’t get any information because newly employed extra managers (not care staff of course) can’t tell them. But the real services people rely on daily are being cut back. Staff shortages at the ARCs and numbers cut, closure by stealth someone called it at the meeting. What is going on and why is no one doing anything about it? There was a reporter at the meeting, where 25 carers were very, very angry at the evasive non answers from the man in charge. Where will this be reported? We can’t all be wrong. I don’t know anyone who is in favour of all this and the ARCs closing. So when will the politicians listen and talk to us, those who are actually doing it. People behind desks don’t have a clue. Stop this waste now! Another angry frustrated carer.

Leave a Reply