Agenda item

A report by Executive Director for Children’s, Adults, Families, Health and Education (CAFHE) and Director of Adults Services.

The report outlines proposals by the County Council to deliver In-House Services to better meet the needs of people in West Sussex.

The Committee is asked to determine whether it wishes to support the proposals for the future model and configuration of Adults In House social care provision in West Sussex, taking into account the results of the engagement exercise, and provide any comment to the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health for consideration prior to a planned formal decision in July 2018.

5.1     The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director for Children, Adults, Families, Health and Education (copy appended to the signed minutes) which was introduced by Jana Burton, who highlighted the following: -

•    The Care Act stipulated that services needed to be modernised, be    more preventative and help people maintain their independence

•    West Sussex County Council still allocated a significant amount of      funding to in-house services compared to many other local authorities

•    Work had taken place over the last two years involving 800 people to       develop the proposals which were intended to be adaptable to           future needs

•    Not all feedback had been received as yet so the analysis which had been included in the report was incomplete, however all information      would be shared with members when available

5.2     Barry Poland, Operations Manager Provider Services, highlighted the following: -

•    There had been 11 reviews of in-house services over 10 years, but    none had considered bringing customer groups together to share       resources

•    Engagement had taken place with service users, families, carers and       organisations (including district/borough councils) over the past two years – from this, success factors had been developed that formed service principles and ‘Choices for the Future’ had been published in 2018

•    The aim was to maintain levels of service at the heart of local       communities whilst rationalising use of buildings as 55% of capacity was currently not used

5.3   Summary of responses to committee members’ questions and comments: -

•    The three service managers responsible for daily operations and       development were already in post so there would only be three new       posts

•    It would cost £15m to maintain services, but in five years residential       stock would be unfit for purpose, already there were eight vacancies           in learning disability accommodation due to inaccessible upper floor bedrooms

•    Services would still be offered to the same number of people (900)   but in fewer buildings with more community-based services which          would be tailored to need and could cope with increased demand

•    Service uptake often increased when there were good community       opportunities available

•    When the consultation was complete there would be a better idea of what people wanted

•    The use of personal budgets could also affect people’s choice of         service

•    Members had concerns over: -

Ø  evidenced support for the proposals by users and volunteers

Ø  the lack of consultation on specific proposals

Ø  a seemingly rushed implementation

Ø  mixing different user groups

Ø  the potential break-up of relationships between groups of service users and service users and staff

Ø  the proposals being buildings/finance-based not people-based

Ø  difficulties for people getting transport to different centres, especially in rural areas

Ø  closing centres leading to less choice of service

Ø  community services not being developed now in readiness for the changes

Ø  no consideration of a mix of out and in-house services

Ø  some services leaving large buildings for smaller ones with less customer transport available – Maidenbower to Deerswood/Burley’s Wood

•    Maidenbower day services were used by 12 people a day on average       and there were vacancies at Deerswood and Burley’s Wood that could       accommodate them subject to needs assessments and personal choice        of service

•    Maidenbower would not close, but the Council’s day services would be       based elsewhere

•    The Council would continue to lease Maidenbower with or without in- house services based there

•    The Council leased space at Glen Vue from Mid Sussex District           Council, if in-house services were moved from Glen Vue other          organisations based there should not be affected

•    58% of people who used the Wrenford Centre in Chichester came from       Bognor Regis so would have less distance to travel if they took-up the       new service at the Chestnuts in Bognor Regis

•    Staff would be re-trained so they could work with more than one type         of user group

•    Members requested information on the number of people who used   each centre and where they came from – ACTION: Barry Poland to      provide

•    Service users and their families would be involved in the design of     new co-located services

•    Unlocking the power of communities was another workstream that    could help with future services

•    In-house services were just a small part of services overall (7%)

•    Service provision would cover all needs taking account of the Lifelong       Services project which would feed   in to in-house services

•    Relationship groups and demographics were important

•    It would take five years to complete the programme

•    There were filmed examples that showed where mixed groups worked       that could be shown to interested people

•    The expected £0.75m savings would come from the proposals overall

•    There would only be capital receipts if there were site disposals

•    The capital investment was expected to lead to future savings

•    In-house services had a good bank of volunteers which would be       developed and grown – they had been involved in the engagement   process and were excited by the new proposals

•    Voluntary organisations would be part of the range of providers       supporting people in a dynamic way

•    UNISON had been included in developing the new staff structure and       was happy with the service proposals

•    It was complicated for self-funding people to use in-house services,   but this would be looked at on a short-term basis in the new model

•    People from Coastal Enterprises would be assessed and offered a      choice of local alternative services if the service closed – many who   used the service travelled there by public transport

5.4     Amanda Jupp, Cabinet Member for Adults and health, told the Committee: -

•    This was about working together with communities, which would       present certain challenges

•    The decision was about people and the services they received

•    Concerns over the timeline were recognised

•    Talks were being held with district and borough councils regarding     Glen Vue and Maidenbower however, no decisions had been made yet

•    Burnside in Burgess Hill had been kept open

•    Meetings were arranged with service users/families whose comments       would be taken on board

•    Ideally there would be accessible services in all areas which current users were happy with and would be suitable for future users

•    The Committee’s recommendations would be taken on board

5.5.    Resolved - that the Committee: -

i.        Asks the Chairman to write to the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health informing her that the Committee recognises that closing facilities will always be an unpopular choice, but can be managed by maintaining and valuing existing relationships with service users, carers and staff. The Committee asks for an assurance that necessary services will continue to be provided for those residents that require them and that any impact regarding transport is mitigated appropriately. The Committee also asks for assurance that when mixing user groups, detailed planning to cater for different needs, the provision of any specialist equipment and access to suitable available space, with appropriately trained staff will be provided and that the necessary management of sharing space and transport is undertaken

ii.       Asks that locality information, as requested during the debate, is provided

iii.      Asks for updates at the end of each year of the five year programme to ensure that the Committee’s comments to the Cabinet Member are being addressed and in light of this, decide whether any further formal scrutiny is required