As part of many L/A's 'proposed' changes in their eligibility criteria they are investing time and money in training their practitioners should the change go ahead.
Part of this training looks at alternative options (note not labelled preventative because lets face it does that even exist anymore) to provide a service not covered by social services if they do not meet the new eligibility.
If these alternatives will not be in place at the time of the proposed change in eligibility then is it strictly legal and/or ethical to make that change?
Also with the need for reassessment and probable withdrawl of services if they do not then meet the new eligibility how is this not resource led and not strictly legal?
Hi Spindrift,
Im a little confused about your post. What criteria do you make mention of?
As practitioners, we all abide b the same national criteria laid down to us by central government; Fair Access to Care (FACS).
Do you mean additional criteria set down by the local authority?
I did mean additional criteria set down by local authority but based on FACS - low, moderate, substantial and critical. Many L/A's are raising their thresholds, some to critical and some are campaigning for super critical.
I am not convinced that the time, cost and resources in the reassessment process will make the savings required and again I go back to the original comment of how is this not resource led?
apologies for the confusion