Another ‘option’ for a budget cut. Cease public funding of UCI as it is suggested no value is being obtained by the learning disabled
Posted: December 21st, 2009 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: NewsComments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
The following email was sent to UCI on Mon 21-Dec at 00:12. Copied to Elected Members and others it asks whether public funding for UCI is ‘best value’ and if it should continue in view of the lack of representation and real involvement with the learning disabled community.
Attn Trustees & Management Committee UCI. 81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ OSCR: SC031835
It is understood that:
- UCI is a registered charity SC031853; Office at: 81-85 Irish Street Dumfries DG1 2PQ
- UCI is partly funded by D&G Council. Is it 50% of all funding? What is the source and application of funds by year for the last 5 years by year and the amount of Public funding?
- UCI has a ‘Learning Disabilities Project’, where you are seeking further funding. What public Council / NHS funding has been received by year for the last 5 years for Learning Disabilities?
- The Project Coordinator is Carolyn Little
- The Learning Disabilities Project Worker is Morven Campbell
- Administrative Support Lina Viciulyte
- UCI also has Older Adults/Dementia & Mental Health Project Worker - John Robertson
- UCI tel: 01387 255330 details at: http://www.userandcarer.co.uk/
The feedback and questions in this message enquire whether UCI is effectively and accurately representing the learning disabled and representing best value for money in that area. Further, it now appears that UCI passively, if not actively supports the wholly negative ARC closures, which would be in direct contravention of the stated Mission as below and charitable objectives.
Urgent ‘on the record’ replies and comments are invited to all the following questions, because there may be little or no evidence that continuing UCI ‘involvement’ in matters like ‘personalisation’ and ARC closures is providing any benefit to the learning disabled and that UCI may not be able to demonstrate an effective mandate to purport to ‘represent’ service users in this area and receive public and charitable funds to do so.
The UCI Mission is:
To ensure that people who have mental illness, dementia or learning disabilities, and their carers have a representative voice and, as a result, see positive changes in their service provision.
Learning Disabilities Project (copied from UCI www site as above)
User and Carer Involvement was commissioned to focus on people with Learning Disabilities for a two year project. The purpose of the project was to help people with learning disabilities have their views heard within service provision and to influence service design for the future.
Initially the project was involved with the production of the Partnership in Practice report with Dumfries and Galloway Council and also produced booklets which guide people with learning disabilities and their carers through the Adults with Incapacity Act. The second half of the project focused more on encouraging people with learning disabilities to become involved with service design at a strategic and operational level. This has resulted in activities such as developing training designed to help people with learning disabilities better understand and become involved in working with groups such as committees, having an input into the design of Dumfries and Galloway Council website and being involved in the national Involvement Charter for people with learning disabilities.
The purpose of the project now is to build on this work and encourage others who wish to become involved in wider community inclusion. This could be activities such as expanding local support services and putting people with learning disabilities at the heart of their communities in a way which is equal and meaningful.
The project is also seeking funding at this stage to ensure the continuation and development of current networks and to ensure their co ordination.
OSCR income data is: (ref: http://www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexDetails.aspx?id=SC031853 )
|
Mailing Cycle |
Financial Year |
Annual Return |
|||||
|
Year End
|
Income
|
Issued
|
Checked
|
||||
|
2005 |
31-07-2004 |
£31,594.00 |
29-04-2005 |
08-09-2005 |
|||
|
2006 |
31-07-2006 |
£43,704.00 |
25-09-2006 |
29-05-2007 |
|||
|
2007 |
31-07-2007 |
£99,057.00 |
03-08-2007 |
25-02-2008 |
|||
|
2008 |
31-07-2008 |
£100,397.00 |
04-08-2008 |
10-03-2009 |
|||
|
2009 |
31-07-2009 |
- |
04-08-2009 |
- |
|||
Of this ~£100K in 2008, (and presumably a similar sum in 2009?), how much has been allocated to and spent on Learning Disabilities and for what purposes? How is best value and the return on this expenditure and the benefits to the learning disabled community being independently assessed? Where are the report(s) detailing this?
Whilst the “Mission” and Learning Disabilities Project rhetoric sounds very laudable and really positive, nevertheless it appears that many ‘LD’ carers have seen little if any benefit or utility from UCI. Many ask “What is UCI?” and “What does UCI do?”. This is in sharp contrast, for example, to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, who for very many years have provided a real ‘hands on’ support and benefit to so many carers and thus service users, and have an active network and meetings. Why is UCI seeking to replicate this excellent work and receiving public cash to do it? In short from a carers perspective. One carer has said verbatim, “**** – utterly hopeless – takes a salary and represents no one”. That may be extreme and perceived as unfair by UCI, but it is a valid viewpoint based on real experience, which surely requires an answer? What exactly has UCI really achieved for the LD community, given their passive support for ARC closures?
It appears that UCI are bound up deciding upon and promoting ‘personalisation’, just like Enable Scotland, which includes the planned move away from “buildings-based services”. That means closing the ARCs, as detailed in the Alexander/Proctor Plan, which is the “acceleration” of personalisation. Exactly when and how many ARC carers and service users has UCI consulted and ‘involved’ who are in favour of ARCs closing? Without such data what input is UCI making to the Personalisation Change Programme Board, which is planning the closure of ARCs. Why is the UCI Learning Disabilities Project Worker Morven Campbell sitting on that Board? What mandate does UCI have to purport to represent the interests of service users and carers in this way, that is to support the closure of ARCs?
It seems to carers that outside bodies, like Enable Scotland and UCI, are increasingly involved in promoting changes that they have not discussed with those that are affected and are not wanted by them. Yet these bodies do so without any meaningful consultation or responsibility or accountability for their actions. If, as in the case of UCI, this activity is significantly funded by public money from D&G Council and NHS, then should there not be some real public accountability? For what many may see as ‘meddling’, is potentially harmful misrepresentation. As UCI may now have noticed the majority, if not all ARC service users and carers, do not want their ARC to be closed, whilst many others are queuing up for a place. Are they all wrong? Do UCI, like Enable Scotland, know what’s ‘best’ for them?
An attempt was made on 30-Nov to establish the UCI position on the ARC closure issue, since UCI was a ‘stallholder’ at that Enable Scotland event, which was clearly promoting ARC closures as a move away from ‘buildings-based services’. The LD Project Worker could not or would not state a position, yet sits on the Board deciding these matters, presumably representing others who do know what they want. Is this a case of ‘Pipers & Tunes’, given the Council & NHS funding stream, whilst the presence of UCI on that Board provides the illusion of consultation and representation, which the prima facie evidence suggests does not exist?
From what budget(s) is the UCI funding provided? At this time of austerity and other front line cuts, is this public cash, perhaps up to £50K or more, justified and money well spent? Should this be a potential ‘cut’ for 2010/11, rather than other front line services that may have a greater real benefit? We ask both Officer and Elected member recipients of this note to consider these questions in their deliberations. Meanwhile UCI comments and answers are awaited. Thank you. This enquiry will also be posted on: www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Why has this registered charity apparently not replied to any of the above questions after 6 weeks? Should we complain to OSCR? What is the real purpose of UCI and it’s funding by Dumfries and Galloway and/or NHS D&G with our money? Is it a pseudo charity? A carer never contacted by UCI for my views.