Task and Finish Group Review of Disabled Facilities Grants ... · A bi-annual working meeting...

OSC Task and Finish Review of DFGs in Copeland –Nov 2015

Task and Finish Group Review of

Disabled Facilities Grants in Copeland (November 2015)

LEAD OSC MEMBER (CHAIR):

Cllr Anne Bradshaw

LEAD OFFICER: Julie BetteridgeREPORT AUTHOR: Gillian Butterworth

Why has this report come to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee? To present OSC with the finding and recommendations of the Task and Finish Group review of Disabled Facilities Grants in Copeland.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That OSC agree the recommendations made on pages 3-4 of the attached report (Appendix 1)

5.1 Monitoring Officer Comments

5.2 Section 151 Officer Comments

Background Paper and Appendices:

Appendix 1 – OSC Task and Finish Report - Review of Disabled Facilities Grants in Copeland.


Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Task and Finish Group

Review of

Disabled Facilities Grants in Copeland

November 2015


Task and Finish Group Membership

Cllr Anne BradshawCllr Hugh Branney

Cllr John BowmanCllr Allan Forster (1 meeting)

Officer Support

Director of Customer and Community Services – Julie BetteridgeStrategic Housing Services Manager - Debbie CochranePolicy Officer – Gillian ButterworthTechnical Support Officer & Interim Scrutiny Officer – Clive Willoughby

Glossary of TermsDFG – Disabled Facilities Grant adaptationsCBC – Copeland Borough CouncilSHA – Strategic Housing AuthorityOT – Occupational TherapistRSL – Registered Social LandlordT&F – Task and Finish

TCHA – Two Castle Housing AssociationIH – Impact HousingHG – Home GroupOSC – Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Version HistoryDraft 1 10.11.2015 Circulated for commentsDraft 2 12.11.2015 Updated to include

commentsFinal Report 01.12.2015 CBC Overview and

Scrutiny Committee


Task and Finish Group Recommendations

Note: the term ‘Stakeholders’ will be used to refer all witnesses that were interviewed as part of the Task and Finish Review on DFGs, including CBC Grants team; Occupational Therapist from Adult Social Service; Occupational Therapist from Children’s Services; Registered Social Landlords- Impact; Home Group and Two Castles Housing Association.

RECOMMENDATION 1 All Stakeholders involved in the assessment and delivery of DFG funded adaptions should have in place an up to date and concise policy for DFGs and/or adaptations. This policy should reference The Care Act 2014, and in particular its focus on keeping people in their own homes and preventing the escalation of need.

RECOMMENDATION 2 All Stakeholders involved in the assessment and delivery of DFG funded adaptions should have in place an up to date and concise procedure. Stakeholder should also work together to develop formal Service Level Agreements (SLA). SLAs should include:

a named point of contact for each organisation, details of what is required from each organisation; An agreed timeframe.

RECOMMENDATION 3Monthly meetings between CBC, Occupational Therapists and Home Group should be prioritised in order to progress current DFG cases and alleviate backlogged cases. The requirement to attend monthly meetings should be written into formal SLAs.

RECOMMENDATION 4 A bi-annual working meeting should be organised and facilitated by the CBC, this will allow all Stakeholders the opportunity to share ideas, best practice, and respective priorities and limitations.


RECOMMENDATION 5 In order to meet its duty as the Statutory Housing Authority, Task and Finish Group strongly recommend that The Council maintains the current level of financial contribution for DFGs.

RECOMMENDATION 6In order to meet its duty as the Statutory Housing Authority, the Task and Finish Group recommend that CBC staffing levels should reflect any significant increases in workload as a result of increased DFG applications.

RECOMMENDATION 7 Task and Finish Group will reconvene in June 2016 to review progress and discuss whether re-examination is required.

1. Scrutiny Topic

In line with The Care Act introduction in April 2015 and the Better Care Fund implementation in April 2016, Copeland Borough Council Scrutiny Committee wishes to explore the potential impact of the Act.

With a focus on independence and improved health and wellbeing for Copeland residents, OSC will explore current DFG policies, delivery and practice.

2. Aim of the reviewTo ensure there is a fair and consistent service across all providers for residents of Copeland, whilst making best use of Council resources.

3. Background

3.1 The Council is the statutory housing authority for all of Copeland borough. Copeland Borough Council has the legal duty to provide mandatory grants and can provide discretionary grant aid for eligible works to meet the care and mobility needs of people with disabilities in the Borough, to enable them to remain at home, live independently with privacy and dignity.

3.2 Cumbria County Council has the duty to assess the needs of disabled people for assistance at home and provide practical assistance. This is not limited to assistance for Disabled Facilities Grants. Occupational Therapists, employed


by Cumbria County Council (OT’s) are engaged to assess properties and provide recommendations on adaptations. Provided the work is reasonable, practicable and considered appropriate the Council will consider approval of a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

3.3 The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration At 1996 (as amended) is the main piece of legislation governing the administration of DFGs.

3.4 Disabled Facilities Grants are available to homeowners, owners of qualifying houseboats, owners of qualifying park homes, tenants of private landlords and tenants of housing associations

3.5 The Council is the statutory housing authority for all Copeland borough. Within this CBC have the statutory duty to provide Disabled Facilities Grants to enable people with physical access requirements to be able to live effectively in their homes. The grants are mean tested and provided to the applicant. Our ability to scrutinise the DFG process resulting in grants from the Council fits fully with our statutory role.

3.6 The social landlords are able to provide through their own funds minor adaptions and resources to assist their tenants with access and mobility needs. This is at their discretion and whilst it is very useful for the Council to be updated on the activities and improvements made this is through a partnership approach and not linked to the Council’s statutory duty on DFGs.

3.7 Future funding and DFG arrangements will be impacted upon by the Better Care Act. The June 2013 Spending Round announced £3.8 billion worth of funding to ensure closer integration between Health and Social Care. The funding, called the Better Care Fund (BCF) is “a single pooled budget for health and social care services to work more closely together in local areas, based on a plan agreed between the NHS and local authorities”. The Better Care Fund came into being in 2015/16. It was announced that the Better Care Fund will also include £220m of Disabled Facilities Funding which is part of the national £350m capital grant funding

3.8 The potential situation, without changes to the legislation, would leave borough councils with the mandatory duty to meet the need, but would be dependent on the decisions of the upper tier and CCG as to the size of grant they might get.


3.9 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department of Health (DH) issued guidelines concerning the payment of the DFG budget. The joint Better Care Fund Policy Framework (Dec 2014) stated:

‘For 2015/16, there is an additional requirement set out in the Better Care Fund planning guidance that, due to the statutory duty on local housing authorities to provide DFG’s to those who qualify,

each one will have to allocate DFG funding to their respective housing authorities (district councils in two-tier areas) from the

pooled budget.’

3.10 The Better Care Fund is not new money but a combination of funds at a national level which includes: a) £130 million Carers’ Break fund, b) £300 million CCG re-ablement fund, c) £1.1 billion existing money transferred from health to social care and £1.9 billion additional funding from NHS allocations, including funding to cover demographic pressures on social care and costs associated with implementation of the Care Bill.

3.11 Prior to 2015, funding was paid as a un-ring-fenced capital grant to the statutory housing authority, which in the case of two tier areas is the district council. The upper tier, being the Welfare Authority, is responsible for the delivery of Social Care and is the accountable body for that funding. Under the Better Care Fund, the Social Care budget will be pooled with the Health budget administered in most areas by the local Clinical Commissioning Group. The placing of the DFG budget into the Better Care Fund will at the moment bring the monies under the umbrella of Social Care and Health and take it away from being given directly to the district council with the statutory duty.

3.12 Currently the Borough Council has a mandatory duty to award a DFG to someone who meets the eligibility criteria and to meet their assessed need. District Councils also add to the DFG pot from their own capital budgets to meet the shortfall in the DFG budget where spend exceeds the Government Grant. This is the case in most, if not all, authorities.


4. ScopeIn light of The Care Act 2014 and the implementation of the Better Care Fund 2016, the OSC Task and Finish Group agreed to focus on current DFG policies, delivery and practice. The aim of the review was to ensure that there is a fair and consistent service across all providers for residents of Copeland.

4.1 The scope of the review included:

Major adaptations Policies Procedures Performance Targets Customer satisfaction Resources Risks Safeguarding (children, vulnerable and elderly) Equality and Diversity

4.2 The scope of the review excluded: Minor adaptations Accounts from individual residents Private landlords

4.3 The Task and Finish Group acknowledged that owner occupiers and private landlords make up a large portion of DGF applicants, however it was decided that confidentiality issues around the disclosure of information would make it difficult to generate a list of suitable interviewees. It was agreed that this line of enquiry could be perused in the future, if it was found to be necessary and if time and resources permitted.

4.4 List of key interested parties: CBC DFG Team CCC Occupational Therapist – Adult CCC Occupational Therapist – Children Social Landlords Residents of Copeland Private Landlords


4.5 List of witnesses/interviewees: CBC DFG Team CCC Occupational Therapist – Adult CCC Occupational Therapist – Children Impact Housing – Registered Social Landlord Home Group – Registered Social Landlord Two Castles – Registered Social Landlord

5. MethodologyNote: the term ‘Stakeholders’ will be used to refer all witnesses that were interviewed as part of the Task and Finish Review on DFGs, including CBC Grants team; Occupational Therapist from Adult Social Service; Occupational Therapist from Childrens Services; Registered Social Landlords- Impact; Home Group and Two Castles Housing Association.

5.1 Stakeholders were asked to share background information with the Task and Finish Group, a list of questions pertaining to Policy, Procedure, Performance and customer satisfaction was sent to each stakeholder. (APPENDIX 1 - List of background data questions)Information shared with the Task and Finish Group was held electronically by the T&F Group Support Officer.

5.2 Stakeholders were invited to attend an informal interview with the Task and Finish Group. A list of questions was devised in order to facilitate discussions during the interview. A copy of the questions was sent to each stakeholder prior to the interview. (APPENDIX 2 – List of interview questions)

5.3 Interviews were held at The Copeland Centre, and carried out over a 9 week period. (APPENDIX 3 – Timetable of Task and Finish Group meetings and stakeholder interviews)

5.4 The Task and Finish Group support officer made notes during the interviews. A copy of the interview notes was sent to each interviewee afterwards for verification.

6. Findings and Recommendations6.1 During 2014/15 CBC awarded and completed 108 Disabled Facilities Grants.

The annual budget for DFGs stands at £600,000.00

6.1.1 The £600,000.00 budget for DFGs is made up of £351,105 from Cumbria County Council (Better Care Fund) and the £248,895 contributed from the Council General Fund. At present monies from CCC is not ring-fenced, and


there is uncertainty about what sum will be awarded for 2016/17 after the full implementation of the Better Care Fund in April 2016.

6.1.2 CBC does not have a waiting list for DFGs and customer satisfaction is very high. Crucially, in line with The Care Act, DFGs enable Copeland residents to remain in their own home and have a positive outcome in terms of their independence and well-being.

6.1.3 The Local Authority has a duty placed upon it to process DFG applications within 6 months (from first application to approval). During 2014/15 Copeland Borough Council grants team achieved an average time of 8 weeks to process DFGs from first application/referral to approval.

6.1.4 The majority of DFG applications are from owner occupiers. The below chart explains these referrals broken down into ownership, to date this financial year 2015/16 of all live ongoing cases, 38% refer to Home Group properties and 50% refer to owner occupiers

6.1.5 Table below shows referrals broken down by ownership (2014/15)

8

70

5

55

1

2

3

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

TENANT-PRIVATE

OWNER-OCCPUIED

TWO CASTLES

HOME GROUP

HOUSING 21

IMPACT

SHAREDOWNERSHIP

ANCHOR

New referrals 2014-15

6.2 The Impact of DFGs

6.2.1 DFG adaptations have transformed the lives of many of Copeland’s residents, the result of which is consistently high customer satisfaction.


6.2.2 By providing DFGs the council is enhancing the quality of life and

independence of its residents, but also it is reducing bed blocking for the NHS and allowing budgets to be spent elsewhere. (APPENDIX – 4 contains an anonymous account of a DFG case and personal account of the impact that a DFG has had on the life of one Copeland Resident)

6.3 Policy and Procedure6.3.1 All Stakeholders have policy documents pertaining to DFG and adaptations.

For the most part these were Aids and Adaptions policies, good practice guidance and Service Standards Documents. The CBC documentation was current and up-to-date, however this was the exception.

Recommendation 1 – All Stakeholders involved in the assessment and delivery of DFG funded adaptions should have in place, an up to date and concise DFG and adaptations policy. The policy should reference The Care Act 2014, and in particular its focus on keeping people in their own homes and preventing the escalation of need.

6.3.2 All Stakeholders have procedures in place for processing DFG adaptations. Again it was found that some procedures were out of date. The procedures were quite varied in the level of detail and number of stages, Home Group in particular have a minimum of seven stages (potentially involving seven different members of staff/contractors) for a major DFG adaptation, the result of which is delays in the processing time for DFG adaptations.

6.3.3 At present there are no operational service level agreements between the Stakeholders for the DFG process, although it was noted that Home Group are currently working with CBC to develop a SLA. The Task and Finish Group agreed that when fully developed, this SLA could be rolled out by CBC to other Stakeholders.Recommendation 2 - All Stakeholders involved in the assessment and delivery of DFG funded adaptions should have in place an up to date and concise procedure. Stakeholders should work together to develop formal Service Level Agreements (SLA). SLAs should include:

a named point of contact for each organisation, details of what is required from each organisation, An agreed timeframe.


6.4 Performance Management, targets and monitoring6.4.1 There are no statutory requirements on the Strategic Housing Authority (CBC),

Registered Social Landlords or Occupational Health Services to measure or monitor performance in relation to the DFG process or property adaptations.

6.4.2 CBC does report the following voluntary performance measures to its Corporate Leadership Team on a quarterly basis:

% of appointments made and kept – 2014/15 -95% % of DFG applications processed within 10-12 weeks – 2014/15 -100% % of residents satisfied with adaption made to their property – 2014/15 -

95%

6.4.3 The Task and Finish Group acknowledged that the time taken to complete a DFG application and adaption ‘end to end’ is not a measure of any individual organisation, but the sum efforts of all organisations involved.

6.4.4 Successful and timely processing of DFG adaptions relies on good working partnerships and good operational frameworks. Task and Finish Group noted that some DFG adaptations on Home Group properties were reported to be taking much longer to complete than with other social landlords, owner occupiers and private tenants. Some DFG cases were found to be up to two years old. The interviewees from Home Group were not aware of the extent of backlogged cases. In response to this information, Home Group agreed to prioritise 13 outstanding cases.

6.4.5 Home Group recognised that there are unacceptable delays in their tender process for building contracts, but did inform the Task and Finish Group that alternatives to the traditional tender process are currently being explored. The Task and Finish Group recommend that Home Group adopt a more competitive tender process in order to address delays.

6.5 Partnership working6.5.1 All Stakeholders reported that they worked well with CBC as the Strategic

Housing Authority. Although there are no formal SLAs in place at present, informal working between the Stakeholders was reported to be good. In most circumstances a phone call or e-mail between organisations is used to deal with any issues, concerns, or queries.


6.5.2 Some Registered Social Landlords do not have a dedicated DFG officer. The Task and Finish Group noted that with Home Group in particular, other Stakeholders had found it difficult to progress DFGs cases or relay customer concerns, as no-one owned the process at Home Group. In response to this information Home Group agreed that Louise Barkes (job title) would be the named point of contact for all major DFG adaptions on Home Group properties.

6.5.3 At present CBC, Occupational Therapists and Home Group meet on a monthly basis in an effort to progress cases and share performance data. All parties recognised the potential of these voluntary meetings for achieving efficiently delivered DFG adaptations, however the Task and Finish Group were made aware that these monthly meetings are not currently fulfilling their potential because Home Group do not always attend or bring the relevant information. The Task and Finish Group value the continuation of these monthly meetings in order to progress current DFG cases and alleviate backlogged cases.Recommendation 3 – Monthly meetings between CBC, Occupational Therapists and Home Group should be prioritised in order to progress current DFG cases and alleviate backlogged cases. The requirement to attend monthly meetings should be written into formal SLAs.

6.5.4 Two Castles Housing Association and Impact also thought that a meeting with other stakeholder ‘face to face’ would be a good way to exchange information, allow ideas to be shared; and provide an opportunity to discuss and appreciate each other’s priorities and limitations.

RECOMMENDATION 4 – A bi-annual working meeting should be organised and facilitated by the CBC, to give all Stakeholders the opportunity to share ideas, best practice, and respective priorities and limitations.

6.5.6 When asked specifically about working with the Copeland Borough Council, and in particular, any suggestions for improving work outcomes, Stakeholders suggested:

Having SLAs in place (Recommendation 2) Have meetings with all Stakeholders to allow face-to face

communications and sharing( Recomendation4) CBC technical Officers carry out joint inspections at the beginning of

the process with Children’s Occupational Health, this would allow for an open discussion between the tenant, the SHA and Occupational


Health Services as to what is needed/feasible/affordable in terms the property adaptation.

6.5.7 CBC Technical Officers are available to offer technical advice via e-mail or over the telephone, prior to the Occupational Therapist (OT) making their recommendations. After the OT has recommended an adaption, where necessary, the Technical Officer will carry out a joint visit with the OT.

6.6 Customers6.6.1 Two Castles Housing Association, Home Group and Impact have

tenant/residents groups in place who they consult with on matters that effect tenants and policy development.

6.6.2 All Stakeholders have in place or adhere to a set of customer standards. CBC, TCHA and Impact consult with residents after a major DFG adaptation. Home Group and Occupational Health Services consult on general customer satisfaction. All Stakeholders reported high levels of customer satisfaction.

All Stakeholders have in place channels through which their clients/tenants can make a complaint, however all reported that they receive very few complaints.

6.7 Housing Stock, budgets and reallocation of adapted

Properties6.7.1 There are 71,500 residents in Copeland, however the total number of homes

that have been adapted is unknown. CBC does keep a record of the homes that they award DFG monies to, but this is only part of the picture, this is because some homes may have been adapted using private or charitable funds.

6.7.2 There is no statutory obligation on RSLs to provide minor adaptation to their properties. A minor adaptation is an item such as a handrail, and generally costs no more than £1000. Copeland Borough Council as the Strategic Housing Authority has a duty to provide means tested DFG assistance up to the value of £30,000 (per each case). In 2014/15 CBC awarded 108 DFGs.

6.7.3 When an adapted property becomes vacant, the priority for the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) is to reallocate as soon as possible. All Stakeholders agreed that, in an ideal situation, another suitably matched tenant should move into the property to make best use of the adaptations, however on a


practical level, each tenants needs are different and it is not easy to match exactly the needs of one resident within the timeframe allowed for voids.

6.7.4 Minor adaptations e.g. handrails are usually left in situ when that property become vacant. Major adaptations are left in situ at the discretion of the RSL. Stair lift are removed and scrapped. All Stakeholders were open to the idea of trying to reuse stair lifts, however finding another property that is an exact fit is difficult, also storage space for the stair lifts is an issue. The Task and Finish Group though it was worthwhile to explore the idea of recycling or reusing these stair lifts.

6.7.5 After a major adaptation the tenant is responsible for decorating or ‘patching- in’ the adaptation. Task and Finish Group thought it would be worthwhile to explore the option of utilising painting and decoration apprentices from The Lakes College. Further detail would need to be sought about legal, health and safety and safeguarding issues. The Task and Finish Group though it was worthwhile to explore this idea further.

6.8 The Future – BCF experience and opportunities

6.8.1 The Better Care Fund means that in Two Tier Authority areas like Copeland, the Housing Authority and the Social Care Authority will have to work together to manage the DFG fund. The Legal responsibility for provision of DFGs will remain with the Housing Authority (CBC) while the money to fund DFGs will be paid to the top tier of Local Authority (CCC).

6.8.2 The Better Care Fund will be implemented in April 2016, until then it is unclear how funds are going to be allocated amongst the districts, or whether CBC will receive the same amount as the previous year (£354,105). Cumbria County Council is currently gathering data from CBC and other local authorities in preparation for BCF implementation.

6.8.3 All Stakeholders reported that at present the Better Care Fund is an unknown. Home Group, Two Castles and Impact conveyed concerns about government announcements relating to a 1% rent decrease for social housing tenants; and compulsory right to buy. At this point the RSLs thought that these measures would have a negative effect on their ability to maintain, repair or adapt their housing stock.


6.8.4 Demographic information about Copeland implies that the need for DFGs is likely to increase due to the aging population.

Cumbria is experiencing a population decrease for those aged under 65 years, and a population increase of those aged over 65 years.

In the ten year period between 2004 and 2014 Copeland saw a 41% increase in those aged over 85 (number500); and 18.4% increase in those aged 75-84 and a 19.4% increase of those aged 60-74.(Source: ONS office for National Statistics)

The Household Survey carried out in 2010 which found that the vast majority of older people (69.1%) wanted to continue to live in their current home with support when needed. (Strategic Housing Market Assessment)

6.8.5 Copeland Borough Council’s Housing Strategy states:

“Addressing the accommodation requirements of older people is going to become a major strategic challenge for us over the next few decades, with the number of our residents aged 65 or over expected to increase significantly. Over the period 2010 to 2033, the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase by 72% (or by 9,500) and the number of residents aged 75 years old and over is expected to increase by a dramatic 193% (or by 2,700)”.

6.8.6 The number of disabled people in Copeland is predicted rise with the ageing population.

The prevalence rate of disability rises with age, around 1 in 20 children are disabled, compared to around 1 in 5 working age adults, and almost 1 in 2 people over state pension age.(Source: Office for Disability Issues updated Department for Work and Pensions estimates based on Family Resources survey 2009/10)

People are more likely to become disabled if they have a low income, are out of work or have low educational qualification. (Source: Papworth Trust disability facts and figures 2010)


6.8.7 The CBC Housing Strategy also states:

“Older people and vulnerable people of all ages are significantly represented among disabled people. Social definitions of disability are useful because they focus attention on how it is produced by an unhelpful environment. If the environment is changed by the removal of barriers people are enabled to take control of their own lives at home and maximise their independence. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) have a vital role in enabling people to overcome their disabilities at home”.

6.8.9 The Care Act places a duty on local authorities to prioritise increased independence and well-being; and delay or reduce the need for care or support. DFG funded adaptations make a huge amount of difference to the quality of life of the recipients and their families.DFGs normalise the home environment for disabled residents and as a result, allow them and their families to remain in their own home.

6.8.10 The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 states ‘A local housing authority shall by notice in writing notify an applicant for a grant as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, not later than six months after the date of the application concerned, whether the application is approved or refused.An Ombudsman case against Liverpool City Council in 2011 stated that lack of funds was not an acceptable reason for the delay in approving a DFG.

6.8.11 Future levels of funding through the Better Care Fund are still unknown for CBC. The total annual budget for DFGs in Copeland stands at £600,000, with the Councils contributing £248.895 from the General Fund. This contribution is vital to CBC being able to fulfil its duty as the Statutory Housing Authority.

RECOMENDATION 5 – In order to meet its duty as the Statutory Housing Authority, Task and Finish Group strongly recommend that The Council maintain the current level of financial contribution to DFGs.

6.8.12 Predicted demographic changes to Copeland’s population mean that there will be an increase in the number of residents that require DFG adaptations.

An increased number of DFG applications will create an increased workload for the Stakeholders that deliver DFG adaptations.


Recommendation 6 – In order to meet its duty as the Statutory Housing Authority, the Task and Finish Group recommend that CBC staffing levels should reflect any significant increases in workload as a result of increased DFG applications.

6.8.13 The Task and Finish Group acknowledge that there are a number of recommendations in the review that should be monitored and reviewed. RECOMMENDATION 7 - Task and finish Group will reconvene in June 2016 to review progress and discuss whether re-examination is required.

7. Supporting Documents

Copeland Housing Strategy 2011 – 2015http://www.copelandbc.gov.uk/content/housing-strategy

Copeland Borough Council 2014/15 Service Plan Performance Summary

Copeland Borough Council Disabled Facilities Grants Policy 2015

The Care Act 2014 – Factsheetshttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-2014-part-1-factsheets

The Better Care Fund – how it will work in 2015/16https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-work-in-2015-to-2016

Better Care Fund: how it will work in 2015 to 2016https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-work-in-2015-to-2016

7.1 Website Links

Care and Repair Englandhttp://careandrepair-england.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Briefing-1-final-with-PHE.pdf

Department of Health Factsheet 19 – The Care Bill – Better Care Fundhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270417/Factsheet_19_Better_Care_Fund.pdf

ONS office for National Statisticswww.ons.gov.uk

http://www.copelandbc.gov.uk/content/housing-strategy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-2014-part-1-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-work-in-2015-to-2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-care-fund-how-it-will-work-in-2015-to-2016

http://careandrepair-england.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Briefing-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/


Office for Disability Issues updated Department for Work and Pensions estimates based on Family Resources survey 2009/10)https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/disability-facts-and-figures

Papworth Trust Disability Facts and Figureshttp://www.papworthtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013%20web_0.pdf

Cumbria Intelligence Observatory – Copeland mid-2014 population profilehttp://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/1757/39317171848.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/disability-facts-and-figures

http://www.papworthtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013%20web_0.pdf

http://www.papworthtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013%20web_0.pdf

http://www.cumbriaobservatory.org.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/536/673/


APPENDIX 1 – Background data questions sent to all Stakeholders

1. Questions to allADVANCEa. Do you have a policy pertaining to DFGS’s, if so, would you be prepared to share it with us? b. What performance targets, monitoring and management activity is in place? Would you be prepared to share those with us? c. Do you have standard tenant / customer commitments / principles that you use in working with your tenants / DFG applicants and partners? Are you happy to share these with us? d. What information do you hold on disabled residents, DFGs, adapted properties – what do you share or are you willing to share with partners and the Council as the strategic housing authority? How do you use this information? And would you be able and willing to provide this information annually so that we could gather a truer overview of the major and minor adaptions undertaken in the borough through the statutory and discretionary activities of all partners? e. What is your process for requesting and recording customer satisfaction feedback?

2. Standard to Social Landlordsa. What contribution / budget do you have and use for both minor and major DFG activities?b. Do you have a policy on adapted properties that are no longer required by the disabled tenant?c. How do you update the information held about your adapted properties, and how do you match these to the needs of your other tenants that require an adapted property? –ADVd. What is your experience of working with the Council with regards to DFG’s? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? (Can you identify any opportunities to increase the impact of your work with CBC?) 4. CBC Specifica. Statutory role, process and resources b. Better Care Fund resources specific to DFG in Copelandc. Information sharing and SLA arrangements


Appendix 2 – Interview questions sent to Stakeholders in advance of interviews

1. Questions to allASK AT INTERVIEW f. How do you work with other partners in delivering the DFGs? Particularly the Council in line with our statutory duty?g. How has performance been over the past two years 13/14 and 14/15 e.g. process time? How do you share this performance data with partners e.g. Council, and your Stakeholders? h. How are DFG requests received, prioritised and processed? Do you have any cases that have been in the system longer than six months, a year, two years? How do you manage this backlog? I. How a DFG related complaints are captured, responded to and managed? j. How do you communicate with your customers / tenants on access, independent living and DFGs? - Askk. What is your experience of the Better Care Act and Fund to date in respect to keeping people in their own homes and enabling independence and improved health and wellbeing? L. What opportunities, issues and concerns do you have around the potential impact of the Better Care Act/Better Care Fund? (please delete as appropriate)

2. Standard to Social Landlordse. How do you work with the Council on DFG cases? Is this any different to the work you undertake with other District Councils? For example, do you have SLA’s with other District Council’s 3. OT Specifica. What is your process on referring and overseeing DFG cases? How do you prioritise? And do you have any issues with that process? b. How do you work with the Council on DFG cases? How do you think this can be improved?c. How do you explore available options prior to determining what adaptations are required? d. Do you have different protocols for dealing with adult or child referrals/assessments? 4. CBC Specificd. How do you work with the OT service /social landlords? How do you think this can be improved?


Appendix 3 – Timetable for Review

Meeting Content Date/TimeMeeting to finalise Scope and Delivery Plan, include context and CBC statutory role 27th Aug 2015CBC Housing Grants Team

30th Sept 2015Social Landlord 1 – Two Castles

7th Oct 2015Social Landlord 3 – Home Group

9th Oct 2015Adult Occupational Therapists - CCC

14th Oct 2015Children Occupational Therapists - CCC

16th Oct 2015Social Landlord 3 - Impact

20th Oct 2015Analysis and RecommendationsFinalise report 28th Oct 2015

DRAFT 1 – Report amendments 12th Nov 2015


Appendix 4 – Case study 1

Pen picture:

Mr M lives with his wife and has family and close friends living locally who he sees regularly. Mr M has lived in his present property for many years and it is important to him and his wife to remain living in the property. Mr M is an independent man who wishes to be able to do as much as he can for himself and to relieve pressure on Mrs M.

Physical Health:

Mr M had a physical health condition as a child. This has affected his left side and as a result he is a wheelchair user. Mr M has also had result surgery to his lower limbs which has further affected his mobility and caused increasing difficulty with transfers.

Social situations:

Mr M lives with his wife who assists with washing and dressing, domestic activities of daily living. Mrs M has a bad back which is exacerbated by assisting Mr M to transfer.

Difficulties:

Mr M was unable to access the toilet due to limited space in the toileting area, he was using a commode.

Mr M is unable to use the swivel bather with the shower hose due to the position of the shower and a left sided weakness.

The door width between the kitchen and hallway is too narrow for Mr M to self-propel. There is a small step at the front of the property which Mr M is unable to negotiate. Mrs M has been assisting with this but this is difficult and places her at risk.

Recommendation:

- ground floor utility room will be converted into a toilet only with corner wash basin (toilet to be sited 500mm from wall to allow for equipment);- doorway between kitchen and hallway to be widened to allow better wheelchair access;- ramped access to be created to front door.

- Repositioning of shower to improve use.


Better care fund outcomes achieved:

1. Prevention/ promoting independence- Mr M is now able to access the property, toileting and washing facilities independently.

2. Prevention of admission to res/nursing care- Prior to the adaptation being complete Mr and Mrs M had expressed that they weren’t managing with the current situation and were considering residential care. This adaptation has prevented this from happening.

3. Enable informal carer to continue in their role- Mrs M has problems with her health problems which were exacerbated by assisting Mr M to transfer. Carers stress has been reduced by the provision of this adaptation which has enabled Mrs M to continue in her role.

Appendix 4 – Case 2 – Personal Account

Quote from Mrs F.“The DFG has completely changed my life, given me back my independence and quite simply allowed me to live. I could not get up the stairs, could not get out of my house and latterly was unable to access my toilet quick enough. This led to embarrassment and accidents. I lost all my dignity and was very depressed. Now with adaptions through the DFGs I live a good life and I have my dignity back. The Council staff were wonderful in helping me and nobody has any idea how much better I feel about myself just to be able to get to the new toilet quickly. I have said it’s the best thing I have had done, and I am so grateful for the DFG process. People need to understand how these adaptations for disabled people can be the difference of being housebound and not, and the difference between being dirty and clean – simple things non-disabled people take for granted. I am forever grateful for this service.”

Task and Finish Group Review of Disabled Facilities Grants ... · A bi-annual working meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Task and Finish Group Review of Disabled Facilities Grants ... · A bi-annual working meeting...