Agenda item

To receive the report of the Head of Health & Housing which provides the Inner South Community Committee with an update on the work of the Health & Housing Service in the Inner South Wards and around the whole city.

The report of the Head of Health & Housing provided the Inner South Community Committee with an update on the work of the Health & Housing Service in the Inner South Wards and around the whole city.

The Head of Health & Housing outlined the following information:

• The service promoted independent living through provision of home adaptations and helping people move to more suitable properties.
• The service was comprised of 65 staff members, including surveyors and contractors. The annual budget for providing adaptations was £18 million, which covered a wide range of works, from downstairs showers to extensions.
• The national budget for Disability Fund Grants had increased in recent years and was £623 million for 2023-2024. In order to access funds, an occupational therapist conducted assessments to provide access to funds. It was noted to be a good use of money as adaptations kept families and communities together whilst reducing required A+E visits and residential care reliance.
• A list of common adaptations was provided as, showers, ramps, lifts and access improvements.
• The surveying team was comprised of 21 experienced staff members and were nationally recognised as market leaders. They were responsible for design models, schedules and planning adaptation works. They also procured specialist contractors and there was a buoyant recycling scheme for repurposing kit.
• Rehousing required an occupational therapist assessment, and the process was supported by independent living officers. Medical priorities were divided into band A+, A or B and were determined after an assessment generated a referral from Adults Social Care and then needs assessment of properties were done.
• Case workers and support staff assisted with accessibility and the bidding process and also offered incentives for property swaps or moving people out of homes better suited to people with complex needs. It was considered a sensible money saving option for the Council if a swap could be done instead of new adaptation work.
• Adaptations and rehousing were determined against a 12 step criteria and also statutory duty requirements, with additional support programmes available for different needs. Child asthma and dementia were examples of common needs that required action.
• As a case study example, photos were shown to Members to outline high level protective works of a project which assisted a child with very specific behavioural needs. Although £170,000 had been spent on the rehousing and adaptation work for this example, the money had been recouped within 7 months across the services that had previously provided intense support and was outlined as a spend to save approach.

Members discussions included the following points:

• The service’s influence of development planning policies, in regard to accessibility regulations, was queried. In response it was noted that planning laws were difficult to overcome but work was ongoing to better join up departments and some influence was held at a local planning level.
• The process for a holistic approach, allowing people to access local areas and amenities was complex as the service was considered insular and was only able to assess properties as far as the curtilage and access points. This was a wider discussion with other services, with consideration to the Social Care Act as the budget for adaptations was restricted.
• Planning permission for fences and relevant adaptation work to secure the environment, particularly affecting absconded children, was sometimes complex depending on the level of works required, however, legislation changes allowed more lenience and also it was noted that there was an increase in the number of diagnosed children and the need for this type of work was increasing.
• It was suggested that the service could improve links to tenancy management organisations in order for residents to better understand the process and be able to access the service, whilst potentially making the rehousing process easier.
• It was confirmed that a diagnosis was not required for adaptation work, however, it did require an occupational therapist to conduct a needs assessment. The assessment also covered and outlined personal responsibility for families and carers.
• The complaints process for disagreement with an assessment was explained to have multiple steps. There were referral complaints where there was the ability to question the occupational therapist’s decision, and then complaints may be escalated to a review panel which was held every Tuesday; an independent review process, which was private, took place every 3 months where an external body would make a final decision. A further step would be through the Ombudsman.
• Time scale standards were outlined as, the first point of contact being the Contact Centre or Social Care, cases were then triaged and given a priority rating, then a standard Social Care assessment may take around 6 months. It was noted that the private sector can provide a quicker turn around process.
• With demand for adaptations increasing against a decreasing service budget, it was noted that expectations were to be managed and clarity regarding timeframes were provided. Time extensions were also sometimes used to stretch the budget, but the service was still meeting Government targets for time scales.

 RESOLVED – That the report, along with Members comments, be noted.