Agenda item

1.       The report was presented by the Director for Adult Social Care (Operation, Kent) Mr Mark Albiston.

2.       Mr Watkins highlighted to Members that the proposal originated from officers within both Children’s Services and Adult Social Care. 

3.       In answer to Member questions, Mr Albiston explained that the key driver for the decision centred around proper alignment to the Corporate Director, who held the statutory responsibility for the function. The secondary key driver was the CQC regulatory functions which were not in place when the decision was made to have the item in Children’s Services.  The design principles of the decision had minimal impact on the work force, young adults, parents / carers and would be achieved by maintaining the current function, as well as learning from the work carried out in the Strengthening Independence Service (SIS).  There was no proposal to break up the function and place it in the Adult Social Care structure.

4.       A Member confirmed the following reasons for opposition to the proposal:

a)       The proposal had not been co-produced with service users and parents / guardians.

b)       The cohort of young people who would be affected by the proposal would have Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCPs); training and education up to the age of 25 was vital in terms of developing ability of independence. It was argued that the best place for this cohort of young people was in education and training.  It was asserted that when a child or young adult failed to make progress, their EHCP was stopped. It was alleged that there were currently over 300 young people sitting in day cares and not in education / training and therefore not being given the opportunity for enhanced independence, through Adult Social Care.

c)       All of the SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) expertise lay within Children’s Services and it was crucial that annual reviews took place for young people aged 18 – 25.

d)       The Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) did not include the involvement or discussion services users, parents / guardian and the decision would impact on 900 of the most vulnerable adults.

e)       It was pointed out to Members that the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health currently had many significant responsibilities and therefore transfer of 18 – 25 SIS cohort from Children and Young People and Education (CYPE) where good progress had been made, to Adult Social Care.

5)       Mr Watkins addressed the points raised by the Member as follows:

a)       The proposal had been coproduced through conversations with families and service users.

b)       There was a significant amount of expertise in dealing with adults with special educational needs within the directorate. The culture within Children’s Services focused on protection of the child, whereas in Adult Services, the focus was on the promotion of independence. Therefore, and in accordance with, the Adult Social Care Strategy, Officers felt it would be beneficial to families and services users to move into the adult environment.

6)       Mr Smith explained that this was not a decision made lightly, rather it was one to ensure that statutory responsibilities were adequately met. CQC had now regulated Adult Services and one of the key requirements was to provide safe systems of transitions which allowed for the safeguarding oversight of the 18 – 25 SIS cohort.  The legal status of change is 18 and not 25 and so these were adults and eligible for Care Act Services, as well as the benefit regime.  This meant the key primary legislation was different.  Mr Smith did not agree that Adult Services were not able to support independence and argued that they were well placed to be able to support service users to become as independent as possible.

7)       Mr Albiston highlighted to Members that other Local Authorities recognised the change in law and managed their services in a similar way.  A detailed conversation had taken place with corporate partners concerning corporate governance and equality impact assessment and the scope of the EQIA.  A timeline for coproduction was required in order address any inequities.  Mr Albiston confirmed that he attended a staff briefing session with approximately 70 members of staff from SIS who work with adults aged 18 to 25  and the universal feedback was that they did not understand ‘Making a Difference Everyday’, the implications for everyday practice, or transformations, which meant there was a disconnection between practice, vision and what it meant for young adults in Kent.

8)       Mr Albiston confirmed that the expectation was to bring a deeper and broader EQIA when additional work had been completed. At this point the decision would be coproduced with a broader group of people.

9)       In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Albiston explained that the implementation plan set out communication paths with staff and stakeholders, as well as how date protection would be managed.  This plan could be shared with Members outside of the meeting.

10)     It was confirmed that Community Learning and Skills (CLS) will continue to support young adults, as per the information contained within the report.

11)     Mr Watkins confirmed that Children’s Services would continue to support adults in the 18 – 25 cohort with EHCPs in terms of the education and training aspect and clarified that it was only the care package which would change.

12)     Mr Smith and Mr Albiston reiterated Mr Watkins’ commented in that the transfer only included the element of social care and the EHCPs cohort would still be managed by CYPE as part of the annual review process.

13)     In answer to a Member question, Mr Albiston confirmed that, within SIS, there were two groups; staff either worked with children aged 0 – 17 and then a cohort of staff dedicated to working with 18 to 25 year olds. 

14)     Members show of hand to indicate in support of the Key Decision were as follows:

·       5 Members voted in favour

·       1 Member voted against

·       3 Members abstained from voting

15)     RESOLVED Members considered, endorsed and made to Cabinet on the proposed decision.