The Letter we have sent to the Cabinet.....and a few other places! 9 September 2013 Dear Cabinet Members CABINET MEETING ON 12 SEPTEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM 6 – CHANGES TO INTEGRATED DISABILITY SERVICE This letter is sent on behalf of Family Voice Warwickshire in order to set out our grave concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Integrated Disability Service. We urge the Cabinet members not to approve the recommendations set out in the report to cabinet on this item. We have asked if we could speak briefly at the Cabinet Meeting in order to have the opportunity to set out our concerns but this request has been refused and therefore we would request that you consider our letter instead. This letter is being sent to all Cabinet Members and we would be very pleased to discuss the contents with any Member prior to the meeting. Our concerns relate to both the decision making process which has led these recommendations to be put before Cabinet but also the substance of the proposals themselves. We believe that if the proposals are approved, the Council will fail to comply with statutory duties and will leave highly vulnerable disabled children and their family without essential support and services. The Consultation We have serious concerns about the way in which these proposals have been consulted on and in particular: • We were involved in the IDS service re-design group and attended re-design meetings on 8th April, 17th April, 24th April and 1st May. On 1st May, we were told that the consultation document had to be ready for printing the next day. We made clear that we considered the current version of the document was completely inadequate and we would have to take legal action if it went out in that form. On 2nd May we were told the document had been withdrawn. An entirely different document was produced on 3rd May which we had never seen before. We were told we could send comments via email up to Friday 10th May but there were no more face to face meetings. We sent a joint email on the 8th May making a number of recommendations and suggestions about what information should be included in the consultation but these were largely ignored. We also made clear during the course of the consultation itself that we were very concerned with the final version of the consultation document but no further changes were made. • Consultees were not provided with any information about the changes to the eligibility criteria that will be to be applied to the four types of support under the Local Offer to enable them to understand how they would be affected by the proposals. We have now seen the revised ‘Matrix of Need’ for the first time annexed to the Report to Cabinet. The changes to the eligibility thresholds are absolutely central to the proposals and yet this information was not provided to consultees. We think this makes the consultation fundamentally unfair. This is particularly so when this document was requested by consultees. In one consultation meeting on 11 July 2013, officers (Sarah Callaghan, Jayne Mumford and Ross Caws) stated categorically that the eligibility criteria would not be changed. • The language used has not been clear or understandable and many consultees have complained that they did not understand the terminology used. • The consultation questions are narrowly focused and do not allow consultees to provide views on the impact of the proposals on disabled children and their families. • There has been inadequate consultation with children and young people about their views – in particular with those children who access mainstream rather than special school. • As a result, families of disabled children and children themselves could not fully participate and provide meaningful responses to the consultations. • The consultation did not make sufficiently clear that if savings could not be made without the Council breaching their statutory duties then a contingency pot could be used and / or the targeted savings could be reviewed. Council representatives have repeatedly stated this at meetings but this information was not provided to consultees as part of the consultation documentation. As such, we are significantly concerned that any future decision making, and in particular, the decision to be made by Cabinet on 12th September will be based on inadequate and misleading information, in particular regarding the impact of the proposals upon disabled children and their families, and therefore will be fundamentally flawed. For the same reasons, we would urge the Cabinet to treat the Equality Impact Assessment with caution. It appears to have been completed on 9th August 2013 – only one day after the consultation closed and we do not believe it has properly considered the likely impact of the proposals nor the steps which could be taken to avoid or mitigate that impact. In addition, we consider that the Council is proceeding with its decision making too quickly and is not allowing sufficient time for adequate engagement and assessment of the impact before moving to the next stage of its decision making. In particular, the Council have provided no evidence and undertaken no analysis that they will still be able to meet their statutory duties if these proposals are approved. The Proposals We have serious concerns about the impact of the proposals on disabled children and their families which we have already set out in detail in responses to the consultation but would wish to make the following particular points to Cabinet: • We do not consider that the proposed new “matrix of need” which is the crucial document which defines the actual eligibility of children for particular services is consistent with the Council’s statutory duties. • In particular, we are very concerned that it appears that decisions about which band of need applies to a child will be made without a proper social care assessment under Children Act 1989 section 17 and the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance. The “Local Offer Framework” suggests that it is only children who have complex or acute needs who will get a full assessment – children with ‘additional needs who require early intervention / prevention support’ will only be able to access a CAF. We understand that the High Court in JL v Islington found that eligibility criteria which limit access to assessments like this are unlawful. Eligibility for services has to be determined after an assessment to comply with the Council’s legal duties. • We believe that the requirement that the criteria in the majority of sections must be met to enable the child to access services at that level is set too high and is not consistent with the Council’s legal duties to safeguard and promote children’s welfare or meet the needs of disabled children. • In particular, we are concerned that a child which would meet the criteria for the highest level of support under the Local Offer (the specialist offer) would in fact most likely meet the criteria for continuing healthcare funding and therefore should not be the responsibility of the local authority to fund their care in any event. • We are very concerned that the “matrix of need” says that “criteria in the majority of sections MUST be met to access services at that level”. The previous version of this matrix said that “the judgment on the overall level of need will require the exercise of professional judgment alongside Team Manager as to whether some dimensions carry a heavier weighting than others resulting in a high level of need in just a small number of dimensions leading to an overall judgment of a high level of need because of the severity of need in those particular areas’. The absence of similar wording in the new version of this matrix will lead to the Council fettering its discretion and indeed breaching its statutory duty where a child has particularly intense needs in one or two areas. • By preventing any child who does not meet the threshold for at least the “Targeted Offer” from accessing (i) short breaks, (ii) key workers, (iii) personal budgets or (iv) home care / personal care, the Council is fettering its discretion to meet the individual needs of the child based on the assessment. At the very least there needs to be an exceptionality policy so that these services can be provided to children below the “Targeted Offer” threshold in exceptional cases. • It is unclear whether it is enough for a child to meet just one of the bullet points in the majority of the sections to be eligible for the “Targeted Offer” or “Specialist Offer”, or if more than one of the bullet points must be met. It is unacceptable to have such a lack of clarity in a centrally important document like this. • We are concerned at the proposal to remove transport to services other than residential care, when we understand there is a duty under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide such transport. • We do not understand how the Council can say that the proposals will result in 120 families no longer being entitled to regular short breaks and 600 families no longer being entitled to ad hoc short breaks and at the same time give assurances that they will still be able to meet their statutory duties when they have not yet re-assessed any of those children or their families. • We do not consider that the Council has properly calculated the savings and despite repeated requests no proper financial analysis has been provided detailing how the savings will be achieved. In particular, there is no evidence that disabled children and their families can have their short breaks cut and their needs still be met. The Cabinet Report proposes almost 45 purported “mitigating steps” yet there is no analysis of how much they will cost or whether there will be any savings achieved if all those steps are taken. There has been no feasibility assessment for these actions: they are not resourced, costed or planned for, there is no timeline for their implementation. Some of these actions are significant projects in their own right and will plainly require substantial investments from existing budgets. • We believe that the proposals will place children at significant risk of harm and that they are contrary to the Council’s safeguarding duties. We are aware of the serious case review which is currently being undertaken in relation to Gemma Hayter and believe there is a real risk of further cases like this if the proposals are approved. • Whilst we are pleased that the Council have stated that they will re-assess every family currently receiving services before there is any cut to those services, we remain gravely concerned that the cost and timescale for this process has not been considered, especially in the light of losses that have already occurred to Social Work staffing levels. • Our experiences in the redesign process have caused us significant concern about the capability, experience, and the limited human resources available to deliver this change effectively. We also know that there have significant staff changes and reductions meaning that we have little confidence that there is a staffing structure in place to implement any change or even to continue services as they are now. We have been told that the target savings will be reconsidered if the Council cannot meet its statutory duties achieving them. Given that the Cabinet Members cannot be satisfied that statutory duties will still be met if the new eligibility criteria is approved, we submit that the Cabinet should require that those target savings are indeed reconsidered follow a further, lawful consultation. We would wish to emphasise that Family Voice Warwickshire very much wishes to work together with the Council to ensure that the needs of disabled children within the Council are properly considered in decision-making. However, we do have very significant concerns as to the way in which the process has been undertaken to date and unless those concerns are resolved at this stage, it is likely to render any future decisions fundamentally flawed. Furthermore it appears that a number of the proposals are simply unlawful. In those circumstances, we would have no choice but to consider challenging the decision by way of judicial review. We very much hope that this will not be necessary and urge the Cabinet Members to reject the proposals and require that further steps are undertaken to properly consult and assess the impact of the changes to the IDS proposed before any further decisions are taken. This is precisely the kind of case where contingency monies should be used so that the policy for a very vulnerable group of children and families can be properly thought through and compliance with legal duties assured. Yours faithfully Ruth Walwyn Chair of FAMILY VOICE WARWICKSHIRE
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:19:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015