Just thought I'd alert you all to some recent stuff we've published on personalisation.
With all the issues that have been raised about poor implementation of personalisation in some local authority areas, Andrew Tyson (a social worker, consultant and former policy head at In Control) has given his view on how councils in this position can change. It's pretty much a back-to-basics manifesto for personalisation around removing multiple assessment processes and giving service users as much choice and control as possible.
And we've also had a piece about the role of the social care broker, looking at what brokers do (or should do) and who should perform the role. The author is Steve Dowson, associate consultant at the National Development Team for Inclusion, who has a longstanding interet in this area. His view is that it is a role best performed independently of the council; however in many areas it is being done by council adult social care staff.
Be interested to get some thoughts on these.
Andrew Tyson's contribution is a helpful reminder of the vision for Personal Budgets. Much of it will have wide support in terms of establishing the right relationship between service user and the State. However, as a stratregy for achieving this relationship it fails, not least because it falls at the first hurdle - agreeing the money. Allocating money before knowing the cost of meeting needs has not happened:
- the Department of Health dealt a blow by making the up front indicative only in order to address legal risks. If the IB was below the amount needed to meet eligible need, the actual budget should be increased so that it was enough
- this was not a fatal blow, however, so long as the actual budget did not fall below the indicative budget. This would still preserve the essential element of a money based entitlement. Such an approach is contained within the performance definition of a Pesronal Budget which requires it to be a "clear, up front" allocation. However, this is clearly not happening. What Council will give people more than actually require to meet their needs? It is not even happening in Hartlepool, a Council looked upon as one that is good at Self Directed Support and which Andrew reported on. It showed that the actual Pesronal Budget is as likely to be below the Indicative Budget as above it (with no surprise that older people on average had a Budget below their Indicative Allocation and working age adults above it).
It should be no surprise to find that Councils have simply added in the bureacracy to deliver the Indicative Budget, while continuing with practice as usual, which is the only way they know how to match spend to budget as closely as possible. The error is compounded when the IB process is linked so closely with the assessment process, and it becomes a tick box based process that drives out the quality of exchange that Andrew rightly points out most service uesrs need to really think things through.
If Government wants up front allocations to really happen it will have to go for it properly, legislate accordingly and take the financial risks. If it doesnt, then we have to return to the original problems and find sustainable solutions. This will will mean replacing FACS with a new approach that no longer stifles choices whilst still supporting the need to spend within budget, and Councils revisiting the strategic commissioning agenda they thought they no longer needed given the new army of service users flexing their muscles in the market.
Colin Slasberg