Minutes:
(Presentation by Ms D Exall, Head of Performance and Planning, and Ms T Gailey, Information Performance & Policy Manager)
(Mr L Christie, Mrs S V Hohler and Mr W V Newman were present for this item)
(1) Ms Exall and Ms Gailey introduced a series of slides which set out the current performance framework and how this would change with the introduction of new national indicators and how these related to the Local Area Agreement, Transforming Social Care, etc. The slides used in this presentation are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1. Arising from a presentation, and in responding to questions put by Members, Ms Exall, Ms Gailey, Mr Mills and Mr Leidecker highlighted the following points:-
(a) With the Kent Local Agreement 2, it was good that there were few social care indicators (two out of 36; NI125 – achieving independence for older people through rehabilitation/Intermediate Care, and NI141 – the number of vulnerable people achieving independent living) as the criteria for selecting indicators were performance improvement and partnership working. The small number of indicators was a reflection that social care services were performing well, and the two chosen could both only be implemented in partnership with others.
(b) Ms Gailey explained that she served on the national group, and through this group Kent had expressed concern that not enough indicators were outcome focussed. Professional staff administering the service did not necessarily agree with the content of some of the indicators.
(c) With the reduction in the number of indicators from the old system, there was nothing on residential and nursing care, and CIPFA had pointed out that there were no indicators on funding and finance.
(d) Kent hoped to set up its own indicators by asking clients to comment on how well it had helped them address their three most important concerns.
(e) Kent was currently in a transition period with the new system being phased in and the old system phased out.
(f) Members expressed concern that working in partnership might lay KCC open to risk, as partners’ performance standards might compromise our own. Officers agreed it was important to identify and be aware of strengths and weaknesses in partnership, but reassured Members that Kent had a good partnership tradition, particularly with the NHS. Mr Mills reminded Members that the public, quite rightly, expected public services to be seamless, and it made sense for them to be assessed together. The NHS was fully signed up to the new indicators.
(g) It was important to tailor services to serve the broadest population possible and offer maximum choice.
(h) Although the overall number of indicators had been reduced, it was the content and focus of them which were important, and the wording of them was still being developed.
(i) Information that Kent was required to collect under the new system was the information that it would want to collect anyway, to support and develop its own best practice. Indicators applied consistently nationwide gave the benefit of allowing like-with-like comparison between local authorities around the country.
(j) Mr Mills clarified the terms used for various means of purchasing care:
(i) Kent’s aim was to move towards self directed support, under which everyone would have a personal budget which would allow them to identify the cost of care and how money was allocated for. Some of these budgets would be in cash form (Direct Payments), although he emphasised that nobody would be compelled to take up Direct Payments if they did not wish to; and
(ii) Kent did not currently run individual budgets as it was not among the 13 authorities taking part in the pilot scheme.
(k) To cover the cost of major change involved in the setting up the self directed support system, the government had made available Social Care Reform Grant of £520m for England, over 3 years. For Kent, this was £1.9m in year 1, £4.6m in year 2 and £5.8m in year 3.
(l) A good needs assessment process would identify the level of need of each client, so would indicate where expert help was needed and where informal support from family and neighbours would be sufficient. It would also show areas of greatest need, so available funding could be allocated proportionally across the county. The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) offered useful guidance to resource allocation using demographic profiles.
(m) People with learning disabilities who needed and wished to access supported employment should be treated equitably. Transport was a key factor in allowing them to access and remain in employment and KCC should seek to influence commercial bus providers, wherever possible, to develop a more responsive routeing policy.
(n) KCC should seek to influence the employability agenda wherever and as far as possible and, as the biggest employer in the County, should lead by example. The new Kent Employability Forum allowed employers to join only if they provided a certain number of work placements for people with learning disabilities.
(2) RESOLVED that the information given in the very thorough presentation, and in response to Members’ questions, be noted, with thanks.