Care services minister Paul Burstow has been quoted as saying that it was disgraceful that only 13% of service users had access to a personal budget in England and claimed it is because public services are unwilling to let go of control. However the blogger Fighting Monsters - and who is also a social worker - says that it is due to "poorly adapted and poorly administrated systems and piloted exclusively in teams and departments that were ‘easy’." She calls on Burstow to "meet and talk with people who actually DO the job to understand the difficulties, rather than meeting and talking to people who manage people who do the job or people who write the policies or people who audit accounts." Who is right? What do people think on this?
Burstow needs to cease his political grandstanding and talk to some actual service users - asking them whether or not they want Personal Budgets! Many do not, especially older people who simply see it as a hassle. What people want are reliable, good quality services that they don't have to pay a fortune for. The Coalition seems hell-bent on ensuring that they do not get their wishes.
One of the reasons my husband and I are reluctant to take up the offer of direct payments for my adult son with cerebral palsy and LD (we have not been offered a personal budget), is that there is nothing out there that will meet my son's needs.
My son enjoyed the companionship, choices of sessions and freedom that he had in his day centre before it was closed, and there is nothing in our borough to buy from the private sector that matches that format. He could go on endless shopping trips with a carer from an agency, but he needs to meet with his peers and experience lots of different activities as a group. I believe that direct payments/personal budgets are going to isolate a lot of people, and actually turn the clock back fifty years. It is a cynical ploy from the government and local authorities to distance themselves from the responsibility of providing good quality care for vulnerable people.
soldier I am not quite sure why you believe that a direct payment or personal budget would not be suitable for your son, he could use the payment to access places where he could meet his peers. I believe what the intention is, is that it moves away from a service led world to a more needs led. A day centre does not suit everyone and people may prefer to attend an activity which is more suited to them like a computer class or the local swimming baths for example. I agree shopping is not really a male dominated area but he may wish to go the cinema. I do have reservations about the closure of day centres though as they are much valued by many people though.
Hmmmmmmmm well where I am we do Personal Budgets/SDS for everyone, no choice in the matter, we have targets to reach, feels a bit weird though when someones actual budget is £130 per annum because the have meal on wheels 5 days a week which costs the council 50p a day, the SDS Plan takes ages to write up !!!!
Soldier - sadly, yours is an example of what is happening all over the country - and it will get much, much worse over the next 4 years as the Coalition cuts bite. Social care management is playing along with the cuts, adopting the language of choice and user-control, when in practicial reality services are being removed and users are left with nothing.
I've got to admit that the cuts are hindering social work staff and the aim from a government's perspective with regard to personal budgets is to save money. I've just read a wonderful spread in our local free paper that talks about people buying season tickets for footie and going to Blackpool with their personal budgets which is great but my fear is that people are going to come forward and think this is the norm.
Soldier I can see you are in a predicament and the closing of day centres and care homes is not good and I feel frustrated by it but the government keep telling us that people don't want residential care!!?? Not sure how they are responding to the day centres when in my area there is a waiting list for people to attend them and these are main stream for elderly people, specialised ones are even harder to come by. It might be worth contacting your counsellor or local mp and getting other people to do the same so that they realise these are services that people want. Good luck
@Boingboing.
Eighteen months ago I wrote to every councillor in my borough (approx 60 people). I pointed out that the one-size-fits-all approach they were adopting in their radical changes to day care for service users with L.D. and complex needs was causing much stress and anxiety to service users and their carers. I received only three replies (2 from Labour councillors and 1 from a Lib Dem) all the other councillors (Conservative) chose to ignore me even though there was probably a person with a LD in their ward. The Portfolio holder for S.S. did reply but his advisors were the management who were already wedded to the idea of the slash and burn approach to day centres.
In May of this year I was door stepped by our local MP during his election campaign. I pointed out to him that my son now spends his time at home with us because the alternative to his closed day centre was not meeting his needs and was making him anxious and depressed. To his credit he said that he would see what he could do and he has kept his promise. We are now in dialogue with the chief executive of our local social services, with our MP as a go-between. To say that the chief executive and his managers are devious is an understatement. They have deliberately chosen to not answer the searching questions I have put to them and I feel they are misleading my MP.
I feel incredibly sorry for the care managers, social workers and front line staff who have to work under the supervision of this flawed management. The dictum they use when dealing with people with LD is 'where there is no sense there is no feeling', because there can be no other reason why this social service dept. are not listening to the concerns of its vulnerable citizens.
I too am a carer (27 years, complex care, learning and physical disability) and we're seeing the same thing in our area. We have a Person Centred Plan package that predates the Personalisation Agenda, Individualised Budgets etc. so have been able to fend off cuts so far. But ... with CQC changing its registration rules, our service no longer fits the boxes, so if one of our service providers continues doing what has worked well (and is rated excellent by CQC) it will be acting illegally. Net result is we're being forced to take Direct Payments against our will. Personalisation is the only game in town now, and it's one size fits all matrix doesn't suit everyone. They don't want to discuss any other way of doing things. N.B. these changes won't alter the actual service my son gets, they'll just make life more complex, difficult and fragile.
Blog at http://nedluddcarer.blogspot.com/
I wonder where the extra money new packages (as opposed to those replaceing other packages) will come from.
There is no extra money. What there was for new packages wasn't ring fenced so got used to reduce general deficits. Councils are now rate capped from the Spending Review so most (including mine) are looking to cut existing packages. My sons has already been selected for reduction as it is expensive (he has complex care needs including nursing, so his needs are great). Additionally the Spending Review 'equalised' (to zero) his Mobility Allowance - for all on higher rate classed as in registered care. Lots of us are in the same (sinking) boat, particularly with learning disabilities and/or complex health care needs. Personalisation is now a side issue.
What ever happened to the White Paper "Valuing People"? It offered so much but delivered so little. I naively thought that Mr. Cameron would be a champion for people like my son, (he has cerebral palsy and LD.), especially has he had experienced what it was like to care for someone who was severely disabled. (I know his wealth must have helped, but the emotional trauma is still the same) but no, he is like all the other politicians before him.
My son does not understand the concept of 'we are all in it together' and frankly nor do I, because it is not true. Personalization is slowly becoming dead in the water, because the funds are inadequate. Depriving people who live in care the higher mobility component is taking away their independence. How can that be right? Was not choice and independence the buzz words used in 'Valuing People'?
To be brutally honest, I believe my son and people like him are so undervalued that their lives are becoming unbearable.
Sadly, things are going to get worse, as the "Nasty Party" makes poor and vulnerable people pay for the Bankers' recession.
Its always going to be blame the social workers for being useless from now on.
This personal budget thing has not been properly rolled out and most people I work with, including me, have not got a clue what its all about.
Usual rush job with those banging on about what we have not done because we are all idle do gooders.
Whatever!
YES YES YES I am a service user who used direct payments (they have been about since 1996) went on the IB pilot and now use a personal budget since 2007. Have worked in disability movement for years.I am fed up of being told service users have been involved as it seems that only the govermentsdepartmental "pets" have been used or managers of LA "s social care or so called experts. They need to actually talk to people who USE it
dede: YES YES YES I am a service user who used direct payments (they have been about since 1996) went on the IB pilot and now use a personal budget since 2007. Have worked in disability movement for years.I am fed up of being told service users have been involved as it seems that only the govermentsdepartmental "pets" have been used or managers of LA "s social care or so called experts. They need to actually talk to people who USE it
We know that IB works for younger adults with disabilities, adults with learning disabilities and 'more able' older adults and those who have involved families. We know because direct payments worked for the same groups of people.
All the research evidence indicated that the more difficult to engage groups - older adults without informal support, older adults who lack the capacity to manage direct payments and people with mental health difficulties were less involved in the direct payments roll out. It appears that all that evidence was ignored in the roll out and we have RAS systems which are designed for younger adults or adults with primarily physical disabilities and for individuals/ or family members who are able to complete extensive, intricate and personalised plans.
It is actually THOSE people that the researchers needed to talk to. Not the people who have DPs that worked very well.
Currently there is a two tier system with those who can articulate themselves better getting more than those who cannot.
Trust me, I wanted to be positive about this. I have used the system very successfully with people and my dad benefited immensely from direct payments. He also was involved in pilots for IBs. He had wonderful carers that he employed directly. But he was also very very good at articulating what he wanted and filling in forms.
I want everyone to get an excellent personalised service. It isn't happening.
And it's being 'hidden' because we are saying people have had choices while putting in the same block contracted agencies because they offer services at lower costs to the local authorities.