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”

Posted: March 22nd, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News

Comments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

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 .

Leave your feedback, post a comment here »

---