Agenda item

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Adult Social Services informing the Scrutiny Board of the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation and engagement on the Adult Social Care charging review for non-residential services.

The Director of Adult Social Services submitted a report informing the Scrutiny Board of the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation and engagement on the Adult Social Care charging review for non-residential services.

Appended to the report were copies of the following documents for the information/comment of the meeting:

• Adult Social Care – Charging Review for Non-Residential Services 2012/13 – Report on the Consultation and Engagement – March 2013
• Adult Social Care – Charging for Non-Residential Services Feedback Form (Appendix 1 refers)
• Charging Review – Consultation Events Summary (Appendix 2 refers)
• Charging Review 2012 2012 – Feedback Forms Summary (Appendix 3 refers)
• Feedback Form Summary (Appendix 4 refers)
• Charging Review Consultation Feedback – Statistically Significant Variations (Appendix 5 refers).

The following representatives were in attendance and responded to Members’ queries and comments:

-  Councillor Lucinda Yeadon (Executive Board Member for Adult Social Services) – Leeds City Council

-  Sandie Keene (Director of Adult Social Services) – Leeds City Council

-  Janet Somers (Consultation and Involvement Officer) – Leeds City Council, Adult Social Services

-  Alden Chadwick (Charging Review Project Manager) – Leeds City Council, Adult Social Services.

At the request of the Chair, the Executive Board Member for Adult Social Services presented the report highlighting the following key areas:

• that the consultation had informed the revised charging proposals contained in the Charging Review report to be presented to the Executive Board on 24 April 2013
• that each stage of the consultation process had been discussed at the all-party group
• that service users comments will be included in the Charging Review Report to the Executive Board
• that the report to be considered today details the intensive consultation process
• that it was originally planned to bring the consultation report earlier in the year but the complex processes (particularly around CareRing) took more time than expected.

In summary, specific reference was made to the following areas:

• Clarification of the aims of the CareRing and Telecare Service; Home based Sitting Service and Mental Health Services.
• To congratulate officers in achieving a feedback of 4,000 forms
• Clarification of how CareRing compared with other telecare services provided by private organisations.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that there are few 3rd sector providers of alarm services – however she knew that Age UK provided a service. She pointed out that we would be looking at the revised charges and charging comparisons at the workshop on 12 April.)

• Clarification regarding Adult Social Care’s knowledge of service users use of attendance allowance i.e. if they used the allowance to contribute to their charges.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that attendance allowance is not taken into account in assessing people’s contribution. However, Adult Social Care has no way of requiring people to use their attendance allowance to pay for services.)

• Concerns that it was unfair that CareRing service users wouldn’t have a financial assessment, because if they did, the majority wouldn’t have to pay anything.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that most CareRing customers had low or moderate needs and are not required to have a community care assessment.)

• Clarification of the number of CareRing users affected should the proposals be approved and the concerns expressed that many constituents would not respond to the consultation process so very little savings will be achieved through the proposals. 

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that the Government [in deciding allocations to local government] would make assumptions about the levels of income the council made from charging. If the council didn’t charge to bring Leeds in-line with similar authorities the council would face financial penalties.)

• Clarification if Members had the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

(The Executive Board Member for Adult Social Services responded and confirmed that final proposals were being worked through and that there was an opportunity to discuss these at the Working Group meeting on 12^th April 2013 prior to consideration by Executive Board on 24^th April 2013)

• Concerns that there were very low returns from people who used the mental health services (particularly the housing support service).

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that some mental health service users had specifically asked ASC not to send them written information and feedback forms. She suggested that given the extensive consultation on the modernisation programme some people felt ‘over-consulted’. The Director explained that the charging consultation was running alongside the service consultation and had been discussed at the Mental Health Advisory board.  The Consultation and Involvement Officer explained that ASC had attended all the mental health day centres for specific sessions on the proposed charges for mental health services, in addition to drop-in events. Also there was mental health service user representation on the Service Expert Advisory Group where mental health issues were discussed in a very interactive way.)

• Clarification if the Service Expert Advisory Group and Members Advisory Group were planning to have further meetings.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that the Advisory Groups would not be meeting again before the Executive Board Meeting.)

• The concerns expressed that there was no comparative figures included within the report.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that the benchmarking information was public and would be made available to the Working Group and the Executive Board.)

• The concerns expressed that the process was late in coming forward and that all charges should be brought to the Scrutiny Board at the start of the process.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that the submission of all charges to scrutiny would have to be subject to political decisions.)

• Clarification of what additional income would be raised from the revised CareRing charges.

(The Director of Adult Social Services responded and explained that she did not have the detailed information to hand but it was in the range of £0.80m for CareRing with an overall income of £2.3-2.4m. She explained that detailed information will be provided at the workshop on the 12th April.)

• Clarification of the impact the proposals would have on those people who opted out of the CareRing Service and the concerns raised that the process would become over complicated and put the Council at risk financially.
• The concerns raised that the most vulnerable constituents would have difficulty in completing the feedback forms.
• The concerns raised that the wording of paragraph 5.3 appeared to be contradictory.

(The Consultation and Involvement Officer explained that paragraph 5.3 referred to a main issue but it was not raised by the majority of respondents [50% or over].)

RESOLVED –

a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted.

b)  That the Scrutiny Board notes the outcomes from the stakeholder consultation and engagement activity, associated with the Adult Social Care charging review for non-residential services.

c)  That the above issues raised be discussed further at the Scrutiny Board Working Group on 12^th April 2013.