Hi everyone
I just wondered how far ahead your local authority is regarding implementing personalisation and support planning etc. Particuarly in relation to adult social care.
Whilst I think the concept is fantastic, I was wondering if any social workers are actually doing support plans in place of the usual Community Care Assessments and how they are finding this in practice?
Is it more time consuming? And is it allowing social workers to be more person centred and do the job they actually planned to before they got bogged down in paperwork and risk management?
Has anyone had positive outcomes and how have the service users found this?
Thanks!
As carer of adult with complex care needs we have very good person centred package - under pre personalisation arrangements. Our soc serv and health |Auth are getting well on with Personalisation - unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. The driver is to cut costs and existing clients are finding their packages threatened with cuts in the name of Personalisation rather than personalisijng the service. They have brought in consultants to target cost cutting of 'expensive' packages for those in most need, paying them on cost saving results. In Control indicative resource allocation models being used as cost cieling in a ruthless one size fits all savings exercise. Apologies for rant but like Care in the Community, Personalisation from the client side is looking like just another way of reducing services.
I work with a support service commissioned by the local authority to support those receiving Direct Payments through a Personal Budget and I think it is a sound idea in theory but the practice leaves much to be desired. The average service user now has three teams involved in their care - the social work team, the support planning team and the support service. It is a nightmare and very confusing as everybody has different ideas of how the new policy works and the service user/family receive very conflicting information. I spend several hours trying to clarify how policy works on a case by case basis which is time-consuming, frustrating and does not make any of us look very professional at all!
A major issue we are dealing with at the moment involves opening bank accounts. the service user must open a separate account for the money and that account cannot be used for anything else. That is understandable, however nobody is clear on what to do if the service user lacks capacity as we have been told that a family member cannot operate the bank account. This is ridiculous, one family I am working with are receiving the money to employ a PA for their father who has mental health problems and lacks capacity. As nobody in the family was allowed to open an account to receive the money, one of the sons' girlfriends opened the account to receive the money. Surely this is more worrying as what happens if that relationship then breaks up? In the past we used to solve the issue of capacity/bank accounts by way of indemnity forms.
We have recently implemented a 'third party' direct payment, specifically for people who lack capacity. i havnt used it yet but many collegues have. dont know if that helps but i dont imagine it is something the council have made up themselves. I agree with you with regard to different teams being involved,. As a Social Worker the role has become disconnected, I work with people who are transfered from the assessment team, with support planning pack to hand and i start from there. The relationship part of our work seems to be being marginlised, with the emphasis on self , family, brokerage, charties and Oh yes if you really need to your case manager can help. It is great for people that it really suits, normally the empowered, literate, knowledgable and strong, who are able to navigate themselves through the private care industry and employment requirements for a personal assistant. I do not want to put down the agenda but you have to ask if it creates a much further divide between the 'can do's' and the 'can nots' an example would be residential care, with the intermediate care, preventative services and emphasis on living at home and media focus on 'how to pay for older people' it seems that residental care is becoming almost taboo. i could go on and on and on .....
I think the way Personal Budgets have been implemented in my LA is very ad hoc. We have meetings every week and we're all told different things from week to week. There is no clear policy that we can all follow which really needs to be put in place. I agree with you about the possibility of the divide between the "haves" and have nots" being widened and the very thought of self-assessment concerns me because I have worked with many people who have no idea what they are entitled to and many others who don't want to be a "burden". These people will either not know how to find the assessment process in the first place or will not fill it in completely as they will try to struggle on when they could be getting support. On thje other side of the debate, those who know the system will also know the buzz words to use in the assessment to rack up the points! I think it's a great idea in theory and I'm all about giving control/choice to the service user but it needs to be fairly evaluated/monitored to ensure that everybody is getting what they deserve/are entitled to.
As a carer (probably a more articulate one able to play the system) we're having Direct Payments pushed at us as the way forward all the time. My son has complex care needs and is PMLD with lots of medical problems. The last thing we want is more admin - we've more than enough to do as it is. We already have a good PCP care package involving shared care of us and x2 voluntary agencies but are running into problems with their new registrations - and the 'solutions' proposed are for us to take the money and employ our own staff, so we don't need to be registered!
I've elaborated more on my blog at http://nedluddcarer.blogspot.com/ if interested
Just seen the articles on the new Tory minister's comments about personalisation being 'thought up on high'. God knows I'm not a fan of Personalisation but even I think it's a good idea in concept. The problem with it has been in it's application inappropriately to cut services and save money. The idea of giving carers and service users control over their own lives seems unarguable to me. I've posted here quite a bit on the failings of Personalisation implementation but never against the idea of people having control in reality. If it were implemented in a way that really let people decide what was needed and provide it, and let people who didn't want to do it that way carry on as at present, it would probably be OK. It's not the concept it's the fact that it's been sidetracked to save money (often, though not exclusively, by Conservative Councils.)
Personalisation offers nothing more than good practice should already deliver...in fact by adding yet another layer of bureaucracy it is adding to costs and diverting funds which should go straight to front line socila care services or the people who need them (I refuse to use the term 'service user' which I consider derogatory!)
My sister has learning disabilities and lives in residential care in a sheltered community. The voluntary organisation that supports her has implemented everything implied in 'personalisation' already, for decades....but now its having to 'tick the boxes' to keep commissioners happy... It is just another bit of government 'agenda-speak'. If money is going to be put into 'personalisation' services I fail to see what has been gained if all it means is that what little there is left, after it has been filtered through another layer of desk-based staff, has had a spurious element of 'choice' applied to it, . I fail to see the benefits of a much smaller service with a supposed element of 'choice' . The choice is likely to be biased in any case, as people with my sisters disabilities are easily persuaded and there is less to choose from, once day services etc are cut in the interests of personalisation!
I've been around in the field of adult social care for very nearly 40 years and have seen some great changes that have improved the lives of the most vulnerable members of society and some that have made peoples lives much worse. I have mostly embraced every change.
As someone who worked as a Social Worker with people with a physical disability I have seen the introduction of Direct paymenst ( used flexibly) change the lives of scores of individuals.
I now work with older people and the introduction of personalised budgets has been an unmitigated disaster.. I have seen grown men and women, once capable and confident in the difference they were making to peoples lives, reduced to gibbering idiots under the stress and strain of trying to negotiate the doubling of paperwork and processes that has resulted from the introduction. I have seen older people ask " please don't push any more paperwork at me" when all they want is someone to provide some help for them; it feels abusive to many workers.
Has this benefitted the service user...has it hell!! When once we spent 2/3rds of our time actively working face to face with the individual, engaged with them, we now spend 2/3rds of our time( at least) feeding computers, producing artificial performance indicators and filling in reams of paperwork while service users wait on ever lengthening lists.
STOP I say...streamline, do away with Resource Allocation tools and lets stop kidding ourselves that this is for the good of the individual when it feels to them and to us anything but that and rather more to do with cutting costs.. Let the Social Worker use his professional judgement again and allow him/her to enable the service user with the straightforward imaginative use of Direct payments if the service user wants them and if they don't, to help find the most flexible support systems possible.
What are we more interested in as a society?
Paperwork, performance indicators or people??
I know which one I'd choose.
Message I'm getting here, from carers and social workers, is that Personalisation isn't working in practice. We also have a very person centred package that was set up before Personalisation or Direct Payments were on the horizon. It wasn't easy then but it was possible. It still isn't easy but at least all the effort and cash went into the package, not into propping up the admin and target structures as it does now.
My understanding is that the new government isn't very keen on Personalisation (not necessarily for the right reasons) so we could see some changes here. The challenge will be to make sure it isn't just an excuse for another round of service cuts.
I've blogged on a number of aspects of Personalisation ( http://nedluddcarer.blogspot.com/ ) as it's attempted introduction has affected us directly - and would have decimated our service had we not fought tooth and nail against it. Maybe now is the time for a groundswell of carers, service users and social workers to tell commissioners and government that this initiative isn't working. Social workers need to be allowed back to doing social work actively not just responding to protection issues and paperworking the rest.
I get the opposite impression about the current government - they like personalisation because of its promise to "streamline" services to fit the individual (read: cut costs to the bone and leave all the admin work/contracts/dealing with employees to users and carers to do). The only (brief) ref I could find to personalisation in the Tory manifesto was positive.
The thing is, admin still needs doing. Whether it comes out of the user's 'own' budget or the local authority's is purely an accounting matter. At the end of the day it is public spending (unless it's users' and carers' unpaid labour, which see above) and the new govt is after cutting it.
I do not think that stopping personalisation will mean social workers geting back to doing active social work. I found (working in learning disability) that it was quite possible to make personalisation about more than paperwork and for some people it worked fantastically [ including several who had a combination of LA-commissioned and own-arranged services]. But it took a lot of effort and our team was relatively well-resourced in terms of time, experience and sensible managers. Resources, as ever, are key.
Hi,
As a Support Worker i'd like to say that we have been carrying out support plans which focus on the person and ahere's to their specific needs and what they want as opposed to my professional opinion and so see this personalisation not much different to how we plan our support. Having said that from what I understand the main aspect of personalisation is direct payments and to be honest currently only one of my service users are on direct payments (just) so I have yet to see the positive or negativeness of it all.
One thing good about personalition is that Service Users are actually given copies of their support plans (previously assessment notes were hard to obtain or even seen by the service user), this is good practice -its something we already do but seing social services also adhering to it is a bonus for the concerned service user.
Oz y
Oz y:One thing good about personalition is that Service Users are actually given copies of their support plans (previously assessment notes were hard to obtain or even seen by the service user), this is good practice -its something we already do but seing social services also adhering to it is a bonus for the concerned service user.
agreed
However, personalisation in my opinion is only good for those that want it. Surely it is a contradiction in terms forcing personalisation on those that just don't want it and are happy with their POC being care managed.
yes I totally agree, you cannot force sth on someone, they should have a choice on how they want their care package managed, so that should be considered also.
Hi Ozy, when you mention support plans, do you mean your service users were not previously getting copies of their care plans? there's a difference between a care plan (now a support plan) and an assessment document. care plans the service user is entitled to have a copy on commencement of their services. to access the assessment (in our local authority at least, might be different elsewhere) the service user would have to make a request for this. under personalisation, we now have to give service user's the opportunity to see and sign the assessment if they wish.
A couple of comments.
Direct Payments are only one means of Personaliseation - though probably the ones that tend to get the headlines. Personalised Budgets are what the government has set targets for Social Services Departments to achieve. The concept is that they are person centred and established by and with, not just taking into account, what the 'client' wants. That's the theory and as someone on the receiving end (carer for a young adult with complex care needs) I find it unarguable. What I do find arguable is that in reality this isn't what is actually happening. In reality Personalisation is being used to 'review' services - and surprise, surprise, it turns out that there is less money available (through the RAS models) than there used to be - so the service gets cut to fit the money.
I find it a bit worrying that there should be any assessments or plans that are not routinely compiled with the client and therefore not obviously visible to them. Having said that, we still had to ask for our sons, even though it was compiled as a Person Centred Plan with our considerable involvement. These assessmensts and plans are not just boxes to be ticked - they decide the quality of life of real people with a disability.
I know this forum is for social work professionals and I'm a carer, but I do have a working life experience in social housing for vulnerable people as well as 27 years experience in my sons own care and his condition, so hope you will accept these comments.
hi ned ludd carer, just to clarify the assessments our team complete are completed in conjunction with service users - we just don't write them up in front of the person whilst we visit to complete the assessment with them. there might also be information that is received to furnish the assessment at a later stage e.g. OT functioning assessments that would then need to be incorporated. as i said, this is only the area where i work, it has tended to be policy that our assessments are for the file, panel, and if requested, the service user. we do inform them of their right to request it, should they choose too. the care plan's tend to set out the identified needs, risks and service provision, and this is what the service user physically receives and is asked to sign.
however this will change if we get laptops as i believe we will be asked to type up the assessment there and then in the service user's home. personally i find it more worrying that as a worker i would be expected to type up the assessment in front of the service user. surely this would concentrate more of my energies and interest on "ticking the right boxes" in front of me than having a genuine exchange of information with a service user.
I think I'd agree that writing up there and then would not be best - would encourage tick boxing and not allow for other peoples contributions. Important thing is that care and client involved at all stages and kept in the loop before decisions made.
I'm sure you're right about how Resource Allocation Systems are being used as an opportunity to cut the cost of services. I work for a charity that can give legal advice to people who want to challenge Community Care decisions and anyone who is concerned about whether the amount they are being awarded is sufficeint to meet their needs can contact our advice line. We're caled Disability Law Service and can give telephone advice to anyone in England and can potentially provide legal representation.
duvetqueen2: Hi Ozy, when you mention support plans, do you mean your service users were not previously getting copies of their care plans? there's a difference between a care plan (now a support plan) and an assessment document. care plans the service user is entitled to have a copy on commencement of their services. to access the assessment (in our local authority at least, might be different elsewhere) the service user would have to make a request for this. under personalisation, we now have to give service user's the opportunity to see and sign the assessment if they wish.
Hi Duvetquuen2,
Apologies for the rather late reply. The Support Plans I was referring to is the not the care plan but the assessments that were carried out by Social Workers, it seems now with the introduction of personalisation a Support Plan has been devised to include parts of the previous assessments carried out that was not privy to the Service User but now they have access to that information which is a good step forward, though I have still yet to see Service Users sign Assessment forms/Support Plans carried out by Social Workers.
I'm amazed to hear this talk of not seeing assessments. I've worked for 3 different councils in England as well as a long period in Northern Ireland. In each place the assessment would have been completed with the service user and 2 copies sent to them for signing, one of which they kept and the other they sent back. If they didn't agree with it they could write on it and send back.
Now in the council in which I work under Self Directed Suppport ( personalisation) the individual is assessed in the same way, they complete a support questionnaire which identifies what support they need, how much is supplied by natural support ( i.e family and friends) the answers are put through a Resource Allocation tool which identifies an indicative amount of money for the individuals personal budget ... this can be increased if double calls are needed etc.
When the amount is known the Service user is told ( the full amount is not necessarily given...too complicated to write about here !) The service user then writes their own support plan ( they can have help with this is they wish) about how his/her assessed needs will be met using the money. They do have to meet the needs identifed but as long as they do they can use the money how they wish as long as it's not illegal or a health need. If they don't say how the needs are going to be met in the support plan then the care manager/social worker has to discuss how they propose to do that before it will be signed off.
The service user can choose to have arranged provision ( by the council) or a Direct Payment or a mixture of both.
So all this quite different from what you are describing Oz
This is not much different to what good practitioners were already doing with Direct Payments, using flexibly and very much about empowerment for the service user. However it has produced an inordinate amount of paper and process.
Agree with most of what you say Purpleangel. A great idea in theory, but in my L/A has been turned into a paperwork nightmare. The self assesment has gone, to be replaced by an assessment that currently has to be completed by a qualified Social Worker. It is a very rigid, slow system, that becomes less "person centred" by the second. Think it was always clear that Social Work jobs would be lost as a result of personalisation, but with this new government, that loss is likely to be speeded up.
I feel very sad for people we work with, but also very sad for workers who have worked really hard to try and do their best for people, now knowing the axe is hanging above. The future is certainly bleak.
Hear hear - totally agree. I've had enough and left Social Services
DisillusionedSW: I'm amazed to hear this talk of not seeing assessments. I've worked for 3 different councils in England as well as a long period in Northern Ireland. In each place the assessment would have been completed with the service user and 2 copies sent to them for signing, one of which they kept and the other they sent back. If they didn't agree with it they could write on it and send back. Now in the council in which I work under Self Directed Suppport ( personalisation) the individual is assessed in the same way, they complete a support questionnaire which identifies what support they need, how much is supplied by natural support ( i.e family and friends) the answers are put through a Resource Allocation tool which identifies an indicative amount of money for the individuals personal budget ... this can be increased if double calls are needed etc. When the amount is known the Service user is told ( the full amount is not necessarily given...too complicated to write about here !) The service user then writes their own support plan ( they can have help with this is they wish) about how his/her assessed needs will be met using the money. They do have to meet the needs identifed but as long as they do they can use the money how they wish as long as it's not illegal or a health need. If they don't say how the needs are going to be met in the support plan then the care manager/social worker has to discuss how they propose to do that before it will be signed off. The service user can choose to have arranged provision ( by the council) or a Direct Payment or a mixture of both. So all this quite different from what you are describing Oz This is not much different to what good practitioners were already doing with Direct Payments, using flexibly and very much about empowerment for the service user. However it has produced an inordinate amount of paper and process.
Hi Disillusioned,
Sorry for the delayed response. It seems like there are good practice and bad practice depending on which borough you work for.. I now understand the borough in which I work falls under the 'bad practice' section. It is a shame as good practice is the best way forward.
Regards,
Ozy
Don't get me wrong It sounds great the way I've written it but it is actually a complete shambles in practice. A mountain of paperwork and lengthy processes, clearly not fit for purpose. It acually seems almost cruel in relation to older people as they are being bombarded by endlesss bits of paper to sign when all they want is a bit of help...which is ridiculous! However the Service user does always get to see their assessment!!! but then they did before!
DisillusionedSW
From a carers viewpoint, personalisation feels like personally targeted cuts. For people with learning disabilities, at best it means advocacy and brokerage - the costs of which come out of the care package, so mean less money left for actual services. At worst it leaves vulnerable people open to arbitrary 'one size fits all' cuts administered in the name of 'fairness' by Service Commissioners - on people unable to argue their own corner.
We face our own 'Personalisation agenda' soon - not because any service has changed but because the registration changes from CQC are forcing us to administer his current (pre-personalisation) very Person Centred Package in a different way. It will make an already heavy care burden even more difficult and complex to carry. I'll be blogging on this soon at http://nedluddcarer.blogspot.com/
I agree concept is sound. However, the model and implementation are flawed. We are currently funded through a mix of PCT and Local Authority grants to provide Employment, Training and Day Services for people with mental health problems. We provide opportunities for people to get out of the house, socialise, undertake activities that some have never before had the opportunity to try (from going bowling to a day by the sea), try out work based activities, learn new skills through vocational and accredited training, undertake work preparation training (including confidence building/assertiveness), be supported to find, secure and remain in employment. We support over 200 people every year and get fantastic feedback on the services provided.
These block funding grants, which although are usually agreed on an annual basis, do allow some forward planning for continuation of service, are now under threat with a view to people 'purchasing' our Services through Personal Budgets. As the Local Authority has such a haphazard approach to implementing Personalisation for people with mental health problems, the net effect is that our service will no longer be viable, or we will have to be extremely agressive in 'selling' our services to ensure we get enough income to continue.
What should actually be a more efficient and effective system is causing a lot of stress for both professionals in the stautory/voluntary/community/charity fields, and those requiring support, due to the confusion in process, length of time it takes to get a package agreed, new models of finance/administrative systems required to manage 100's of individual customers.
With the latest Local Authority cuts, the Adult Social Services 'pot' for Self-Directed Support is shrinking and more and more people are being advised they are not eligible.
We prevent hundreds of people from heavy use of Statutory Services and prevent relapse/hospital admissions. Take us away and the Local Authority/PCT costs incurred to keep people well will rise...
Those controlling the purse strings do not have experience of front-line delivery, do not manage the grants they give out well to ensure they are a) being used for the purpose intended, b) monitoring the outcomes generated from the funds. Once again those in need of the most support to have a life will be those most affected by any cuts.
What 'choice' will people have when services have disappeared!!
totaly agree with this post i'am a sw in a cmht just doen the personalisation training today can't see how it is going to work alongside foundation trust policy's of treatment intervention we are supposed to discharge once mental health needs are been met and the person is stable but if they have social care needs? is there anyone who has seen it work in mental health in intregated teams?
General opinion after training today was there will be no money to meet peoples needs, the paperwork is a nightmare there is a falacy of choice how do we disentangle health and social services what do we do about sec117 and most people just want a good service and have the care coordinator sort it out
Having been providing Personal Budgets for a few years now and seen the great things that can be achieved, we're now seeing it all being chopped back to personal & practical care only, every imaginative solution to complex problems is being ruled out & I'm having to go out and tell people they can't continue as they started. The really stupid thing is that because of the the RAS works, this does not affect their total budget, only constrains how they can spend it. So much for choice & control...
That's somewhat concerning.
Must be terrible to tell people that what they've been doing is no longer acceptable, as well as pretty exasperating for service users.
Odd that this doesn't seem to be a way of cutting costs (if total budget is staying the same)
Are decisions being taken at senior level to restrict choices or is it something that's being done further down the chain?
As a service user on a personal budget from 2007 after being on original IB pilot ,can concur that there has been over the past 2yrs a total change in what you can use your PB for, because now the RAS comes out in such a way and there are such constraints on the way you can now use the money that there is no way you have any choice in the way you can spend . If you have to use a P/A the only way you can employ is to pay a realistic wage, this is especially true if you live in a rural area. Its laughable that it seems the majority only get such a small amount that if you sustain the purely physical and practicle needs there is nothing left over.
With sds and personalisation you were brilliantly set up to be creative in your person centred support plan, NO MORE !!!
From a carer and service user perspective, I'm afraid this comes as no great surprise. Disappointing that someone who was making it work is being stopped but certainly our Social Services Dept used it from day one to cut services. Due to the cuts our own service has been called in for 'review' - it was going to panel for decision despite only half the assessment having been done (social done, no medical - and this is a heavy learning and physical disabilities, complex needs situation.) However we had the temerity to ask to see a copy - very reluctant to show us and subsequently withdrew assessment from panel. We can't help but infer that it wouldn't have stood up to scrutiny by someone who actually knew our son. Sorry to be cynical but in a world where Adult Services are being cut massively, fees to providers being reduced locally by up to 4% (instead of an inflation rise), eligibility FACS criteria increasing and charges being imposed, coupled with benefits being taken away (Mobility Allowance, DLA and ILF funding) we don't really trust the authorities to have our interests at heart.
See blog at http://nedluddcarer.blogspot.com/
My sister lives in a sheltered village community, and has significant learning disabilities. Its been her home for 26 years...she moved there from our family home when she was 32...purely because it offered her a very good lifestyle. It was 'personalised' back in 1984 because it gave her opprtunities that didn't exist anywhere else..and still don't! Currently the charity which runs it (and others places like it) has been forced into playing the Supported Living game...to get adequate funds, and is diversifying....not necessarily a bad thing...for new people moving in who want that...but its wrong to justify it in 'personalisation' terms...because its destroying a lifestyle which was a very good one. Some people need 'community' facilitating'...they just can't find it 'out there'...
The issue isn't about the philosophical idea of 'personalisation'...anyone involved with caring should always have put that centre-stage...the issue is surely about linking it to funding streams! Personalisation now means a way of doing the funding, for less!
Originally the formal policy idea of personalisation was an idea was applied to people with physical disabilities....written up in Joanna Bornats 'Developments in Direct Payments'...(2006?) the only proper published assessment of the idea/policy I've yet found in the library....the last chapter raises the question of whether its really appropriate for persons with significant learning disabilities...simply because there is so much 'interfacing' that needs to be inserted to make it work (my term) A simple model where someone is handed a chunk of cash to buy their own support (and I mean that...to really buy it for themselves, because they do not have an intellectual disability makes sense. Once you start down the road of SDS for all....inevitably the cash is less, because so much is used up on the intermediaries. All over the country perfectly good day services are being closed as a result.
budget in our area is not staying the same our RAS is been redrawn to reflect spending cuts, doubt we are the only ones. Also now all plans over £500 must be approved by director
Our RAS (older people) was cut by 25% in Sept and we are expecting further cuts in April. Our Service users who were self funders and needed double up care used to only have to pay for one fo the carers and council picked up cost of 2nd. On review Service user now told they have to pay for both carers...how morally wrong is that!! With new self funding Service users at least they will know what to expect but to tell one person one thing and then a year later to move the goal posts just isn't fair..
If the Ras won't deliver enough to meet needs we now have to go through an escalation process...more paperwork and more delays for the service user..
We are being told we have to make swinging cuts, cut our mileage etc. Then they give us SDS a ridiculously cumbersome system which requires at least 1 extra visit in comparision with previous system.= extra man hours and mileage. Freedom to work creatively with providers and commissioning getting their backsides into gear and negotiating flexibility would have enabled us to be as person centred as Social Workers have always wanted and tried to be.
SDS is NOT helping the Service User, certainly not with Older people, it has just emant delays and terrible confusion and fear for most of them in my experience..
I'm sorry to hear that DisillusionedSW.
Is other people's experience that the Ras is being cut? 25% sounds an awful lot.
Mithran if you scroll up I think there is another post that mentions cuts.
I have worked in Adult Social Care for a very long time ( nearly 40 years) and have seen very many changes, a lot of them good, but this is truly the most terrible thing I have seen and I am wondering when someone in government is going to catch on to the farce this has become.
That coupled with the obscenity of selling the most vulnerable members of society to the private sector to make profit from has me more than disillusioned it makes me crazy.. Has anyone ever seen a poor home owner? or poor domiciliary care agency director? I think not.
If I could afford to give up work and campaign about the way our older people, in particular, are being discarded and ignored by society then that is definitely what I would do.. The services for older people have got worse and worse over the last few years. I am safeguarding lead and the way our older people are "cared" for at benchmark should be a national disgrace.
So Mithran if you have a place for a passionate against injustice articulate knowledgeable Social Worker in your organistaion I'm your woman
DisillusionedSW: Mithran if you scroll up I think there is another post that mentions cuts. I have worked in Adult Social Care for a very long time ( nearly 40 years) and have seen very many changes, a lot of them good, but this is truly the most terrible thing I have seen and I am wondering when someone in government is going to catch on to the farce this has become. That coupled with the obscenity of selling the most vulnerable members of society to the private sector to make profit from has me more than disillusioned it makes me crazy.. Has anyone ever seen a poor home owner? or poor domiciliary care agency director? I think not. If I could afford to give up work and campaign about the way our older people, in particular, are being discarded and ignored by society then that is definitely what I would do.. The services for older people have got worse and worse over the last few years. I am safeguarding lead and the way our older people are "cared" for at benchmark should be a national disgrace. So Mithran if you have a place for a passionate against injustice articulate knowledgeable Social Worker in your organistaion I'm your woman
This reflects my thoughts. I wish I could be more hopeful. The reason I feel so angry with the personalisation agenda is that it is couched in language so if we challenge the realities, we are told it must be because we desperately want to hold on to professional 'power'.
I had to go and tell someone their budget had been cut as well not too long ago. It made my stomach turn.
Yes there are 'poor home owners' !!!.....because this sector covers not for profit charities, like the one which cares for/supports my sister, who is an adult with learning disabilities! All fees are re-negotiated with funding authorities, each year, and every year LAs try to peg fees, and in this year, reduce them. And it seems LAs are using the current round of cuts to endorse this practice.
So how do you define 'poor' in this case...? Its a matter of your service being put under constant pressure...families want the charity to pay its frontline staff very generously as we value them so much...but the charity can't afford to pay more...and is in competition with others paid more generously in the public sector, or has been in the recent past...it often struggles to fill vacancies at the rate it can afford...and of course you need the right people to do this very interesting but often challenging work. Also the charity is a recognised and well regarded trainer...but once it has trained people, they are often lost to other organisations that can pay more....