Skip to Main Content

Agenda item

Scrutiny of Disabled Facilities Grants and social outcomes for service users

Minutes:

The committee requested a report be brought to the meeting on how the Council utilises Disabled Facilities Grant monies to achieve critical outcomes for service users. Members had scrutinised this over a number of years, but were seeking to understand how effective partnership working between housing and social care staff can deliver adaptions in the home that would increase a person’s independence and also their well-being.  A case study was presented to the meeting which demonstrated how a ramp to the exterior of a property had enabled the person to following a critical operation to continue their interests independently in the community.  The report’s context was discussed, the following points noted:

 

  • The number of cases had fallen through the middle of last year only to rise in the autumn and then plateau. The position can change frequently without cause.

 

  • A new manager is in place and the service has recently been reviewed. Staff are confident that they can improve the timescale from referral to implementation and reach the target of 7-10 days. The review had not identified any specific elements of the process that were causing delays, but it suggested there were several areas where timeliness could be improved.

 

  • The priorities for the service are to strengthen the offer and to ensure that work undertaken is of a high quality, whilst reducing the timescales for completion. Some of this may be achieved through finding synergy with contractors.

 

Challenge:

 

  • The report indicates a reduction in funding from £900k to 600k and this can be seen also in the budget proposals. What are the implications of this? in the budget and what are the implications?

This is the current position. The service received additional funding a few years ago to process the backlog of cases. The funding increase means we have not had to ration funding for people.

 

  • The reduction in funding when we are not currently achieving our target seems nonsensical and is a concern.  The cases outstanding does not indicate we should be reducing funding.

Cabinet Member for Finance ~ The £600k is the base budget and that £300k was allocated to clear the backlog. We have asked for a progress report on how the £300k has alleviated that, so we now need to consider the findings and review the capital budget to see if there is scope to provide funding above the base level.

 

  • Who can make referrals? Can members make a referral for a member of the public?

Yes, Members, friends and family can refer people to this service and also to Careline. We will make information available to all elected members on the services and how to refer.

 

  • Are the delays in processing these adaptations leading to people needing to stay in hospital for extended periods when they would be better cared for in their home? 

This is not something we are experiencing, but our detailed examination of this has shown that we cannot shorten the 7-10 days’ timescale for completion.  We have good relationships with contractors and we have no delays associated with Occupational Therapists (OT’s)processing applications, but we need to ensure we consistently provide a high quality service. 

 

  • The new Local Development Plan being produced needs to consider accessibility issues for all housing and design ‘homes for life’.

This is something that is being considered and we would urge the Planning Committee to champion this.

 

  • Are contractors approved to ensure a high quality service is provided?

Yes, contractors are Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checked and feature on an approved list to ensure a high quality service is delivered.

 

  • Is there any potential for funding from Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (ABUHB) for delivering this?

The health sector is starting to realise that we need to work together and ABUHB did fund Careline and they have also provided funds for ramping to properties through the Intermediate Care Fund, so we are working in partnership.

 

  • You have referred in the report to previous delays associated with Occupational Therapists processing applications, however you have said this isn’t causing delays at present. Please can you explain the reasons for delays?

We have a very good relationship with the OT’s, but particularly with children’s adaptations, a surveyor may be required to assess the job.  Our OT’s work part time and the surveyor post is 0.6 of a full time equivalent post, so sometimes, this does mean if this stage is required, applications can take a little longer. There are also times when an approval may be waiting for a second manager. This was highlighted in an audit, so we are questioning whether a second signatory is necessary. In addition, information was being sent by post and sometimes there were delays in paperwork being returned, but we recognise we need to be more proactive, in that we have staff in communities who could check whether people are finding it difficult to complete the paperwork. We also recognise that we should give contractors a date and then check with them on the progress.  So whilst there is no single aspect of the service that is causing a delay, we think we can reduce the timescale by addressing all pf these issues.  The surveyor has planned time off for a health issue which is something we will need to plan for and mitigate, but as explained, our staffing situation is fragile.

 

  • Is the Intermediate Care Funding allocated on a year by year basis? Does this cause issues for your service? Is there any expectation that funding can be mainstreamed?

It is allocated annually and the Wales Audit Office (WAO) suggested that there isn’t enough mainstreaming of funding.  We have highlighted this as an issue, but it is a common one for all local authorities.

 

Outcome and Chair’s Conclusion:

 

We are grateful for the case study as this demonstrates how the grant can make significant improvements to many lives and not only increase a person’s independence, but also to enhance their well-being.  We are also content that the service has been reviewed and that you have identified that improvements can be made through developing relationships with the public and also with contractors. 

 

We are aware that Welsh Government are researching practice across Wales and we request officers to input into that work if possible and demonstrate the impact of the grant funding on people’s lives.

 

We are concerned that the £600k base budget is insufficient to meet demand and to enable you to provide a high quality service and we recommend to the Cabinet Member for Finance that the £900k remains to provide this vital service that is contributing to our corporate objective to build strong and resilient communities.

 

Supporting documents: