Agenda item

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Health and Community which gave Members an update on the implementation of a resource allocation system (RAS).

The Board was advised that ‘Personalisation’ was the vision for the future of social care provision.  This would enable people to have more choice and control about what services they wanted, needed and when. Individual budgets for people and streamlined funding streams into one budget that people could access including funds from Supporting People would need to be introduced.

The Board was further advised that Unlike Direct Payments a Personal Budget could be used to purchase Local Authority services, and therefore a package of care may be a mixture of Local Authority services and services provided by Personal Assistants or provider agencies, e.g. an older person may receive home care provided by the Local Authority and a meal provided by a local pub.

It was reported that as with Direct Payments, Halton Borough Council’s internal audit would undertake audits of how people receiving a personal budget were spending their money.

The Board also received a presentation from Jean Clieve, Health and Community which:-

·        Explained why a Resource Allocation System (RAS) was required;

·        Outlined the current system and detailed the new system;

·        Highlighted the next steps in developing a RAS;

·        Gave an example question and considerations made when calculating the scoring; and

·        Set out the conclusions of developing a RAR system.

 The following points arose from the discussion:-

·        Concern was raised that the level of service could deteriorate with third party intervention.  Clarity was also sought on whether individuals were covered for any liabilities.  In reply it was reported that the Personalisation agenda was an extension of the Direct Payments Scheme,  It gave individuals the choice of who they employed to provide their services and they had to flexibility to change providers if they were not happy with their service.  The Authority provided clients with a Preferred Provider and Personal Assistance List.  Individuals on the list had to be of a required standard  and CRB checked.  Clients were also advised to take out employer and public liability insurance.  However, the Authority could only recommend providers as the individual had a right to chose who they employed;

·        It was noted that a Support Plan was drawn up for each client and the Authority would highlight if employees were not CRB checked etc and could chose not to support the plan;

·        It was noted that there would be a separate system for carers developed in the future;

·        It was noted that there would be guidance notes distributed with the questionnaire to alleviate any confusions re the questions.  However, it was also noted that the Support Plan would details peoples needs and the support that would be required;

·        Clarity was sought on whether any training was given to individuals to help them manage their payments and employ people.  In reply, it was reported that the Authority undertook a home visit and explained the scheme and support was given to them for such things as placing an advert, interviews etc. The Direct Payment Scheme would continue to be a choice for individuals but it was anticipated that by October 2010 new social service clients would be on a personal budget and reviews would be undertaken on existing clients offering them a personal budget.

RESOLVED: That

(1)                     the contents of the report and comments made be noted; and

(2)          that Jean Clieve be thanked for her informative presentation.