Agenda item

(1)       Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services; Mr O Mills, Managing Director; Miss C Highwood, Director, Resources; and Ms C Martin, Head of Supporting People Unit, Kent Adult Social Services Directorate, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       Mr Lynes and Mr Mills explained that Supporting People was a central Government programme which was administered by the County Council through a partnership comprising the County Council, the Kent District Councils, Health and Probation.  In accordance with the rules laid down by Government, governance was through the Supporting People Commissioning Body (SPCB) which, as the name implied, was responsible for commissioning services against a specification defined by Government.  Mr Lynes was the current KCC Member representative on the SPCB.  He had been elected Chairman of the SPCB but there was no rule that said that the SPCB had to be chaired by the KCC representative.  Officer support was through the Core Strategy Development Group (CSDG).

(3)       Members’ questions covered the following issues:-

Response to Audit Commission Recommendations

(4)       In answer to a question from Dr Eddy, Mr Mills emphasised that the Audit Commission’s overall finding had been that the Kent Supporting People Programme was “good with promising prospects for improvement”.  The CSDG had met recently to consider the Audit Commission’s recommendations and was preparing a response for Mr Lynes, as Chairman of the SPCB, to sign off by 29 January under powers delegated to him by the SPCB.  The response would be reported to the SPCB and to the Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee (ASSPOC) at their next meetings.

Partnership Approach

(5)       In answer to a question from Mr Chell, Mr Lynes said that the SPCB was a good example of two-tier partnership working.  The SPCB had robust debates but aimed to reach decisions by consensus.

Involvement of Members

(6)       In answer to questions from Mrs Newell and Mr Law, Mr Lynes said that the relevant Audit Commission recommendation was “continuing to involve the wider body of elected members” in the development of the Supporting People Programme and he felt that the key word was “continuing”.  The wider body of Members was already involved but he accepted that this needed to be stepped up.  Within KCC, the headlines of SPCB business would continue to be reported to Cabinet and ASSPOC.  SPCB meetings were held in public and the papers for them were widely distributed within KCC.  He had also briefed Members on specific SPCB issues at District briefings and ASSPOC meetings.

(7)       Mr Mills said that, by its nature, the Supporting People Programme was complex and unique and he accepted the need to ensure that KCC Members had a good understanding of it.  On this point, Miss Highwood said that the CSDG at its recent meeting had recognised that one of the barriers to Members’ understanding of the Supporting People Programme was the jargon involved, and so it had decided that:-

(a)       future SPCB papers would include a glossary of terms; and

(b)       an Induction Pack would be produced for new Members of the SPCB and new staff involved with the Supporting People Programme.

(8)       In response to a suggestion from Dr Eddy, Mr Lynes said that he would be happy to circulate the planned Induction Pack to all KCC Members and to arrange briefings for them.  In return, he hoped that, when Members were out and about in their electoral divisions, they would be able to identify Supporting People issues and feed them back to the Supporting People unit.

(9)       In response to a suggestion from Mr Horne, Mr Lynes said that he would consider whether Local Boards could be used as a vehicle for getting information to Members about the Supporting People Programme or for carrying out specific consultations.

Supporting People Funding

(10)     In answer to a question from Mr Lake, Mr Mills said that there had been frustrations in the past when Government funding for Supporting People, and the conditions relating to that funding, had varied from year to year.  However, the introduction of a three-year funding announcement had given much greater stability.  Mr Lynes said that his concern for the future was that Supporting People funding was to be part of the area-based grant from April 2009.  As such, it would no longer be ring-fenced and priorities would be determined not just by the SPCB.

Service-User Choice and Monitoring of Service-Providers

(11)     In answer to questions from Mr Smyth, Mr Lynes said that providers of the Floating Support service had all gone through a rigorous selection process and their subsequent performance was fully monitored. 

(12)     Ms Martin explained that Floating Support service-users were given a choice of service-provider wherever possible.  If a user was not happy with their service-provider or their support worker, then the Supporting People unit would try to provide another.  Service provision was subject to rules laid down by the Government.  These required service-providers to submit quarterly workbooks.  There was also an outcomes regime and a client record process run by the University of St Andrews.  In addition, officers of the Supporting People unit visited schemes in order to monitor them.

(13)     Mr Mills said that performance data was already reported to the SPCB but, in the light of the Audit Commission’s recommendations, the CSDG was looking at ways in which monitoring could be strengthened.

Facilitation of Service-User Comments and Complaints

(14)     In answer to a question from Mrs Dean, Ms Martin said that all service-providers were required to have a complaints procedure and service-users could complain either to their provider or direct to the Supporting People unit.

(15)     Mr Lynes said that the need to enable service-users to complain or comment independently of their service-provider or support worker was recognised.  User groups were being established.  The Supporting People unit employed two ex-service-users who visited current service-users to discuss the standards of service they received.  “Mystery shopping” was being considered.  Focus groups were used to discuss specific topics (eg, alarms) with service-users and a service-user conference had recently been held at Kings Hill.

Consultation on Older Persons’ Review

(16)     In answer to a question from Mrs Dean, Mr Lynes said that he accepted that there had been problems with the consultation on the Older Persons’ review, and he gave an assurance that lessons had been learned.  However, he felt that it had been right to carry out the review because it was a condition of Supporting People funding that systematic reviews should be carried out on every part of the service from time to time to ensure that the funding was spent in the most effective and efficient way.

(17)     Unfortunately, as soon as the Older Persons’ review was announced, a number of providers of sheltered accommodation rushed to consult their residents, without informing or involving the Supporting People unit.  As a result, many residents of sheltered accommodation – elderly and vulnerable people – were unnecessarily scared by being given a very unbalanced view of what the review was about, suggesting that 24/7 warden cover would be withdrawn.  As soon as the Supporting People unit realised what was happening, they sent a leaflet to every resident of sheltered accommodation setting out the true purpose of the review and inviting their comments.

(18)     The outcome of the consultation had been reported back to the SPCB meeting, attended by the Audit Commission inspectors and Mrs Dean, who also spoke on the Older Persons' Review.  It was unfortunate that, whilst the decision to undertake the Older Persons' Review had been agreed unanimously by SPCB and CSDG members; once the review was underway, some of the partners seemed unwilling to accept their part in that decision.  This had been noted at a recent meeting of the SPCB and it was hoped that the situation would not recur.

Conclusions

(19)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)       Mr Lynes, Mr Mills, Miss Highwood and Ms Martin be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Members’ questions.

(b)       the Managing Director, KASS, be asked to circulate to all Members of the Committee in due course the Action Plan to be prepared in response to the Audit Commission recommendations;

(c)        the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services’ offer to distribute the planned Supporting People Commissioning Body (SPCB) Member Induction Pack to all Members of KCC, and to arrange briefing meetings on the Supporting People Programme for KCC Members, be welcomed;

(d)       the Cabinet Member and Managing Director be requested to ensure that the planned SPCB Member Induction Pack included an explanation of the process by which service-users could give feedback or express concerns about the Supporting People services provided to them;

(e)       the proposals to do more to facilitate independent feedback from users of Supporting People services through ‘mystery shopping’, user groups, etc, be welcomed and the Managing Director be asked to inform Members of the Committee of the outcome.