Agenda and draft minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members are asked to declare:

·        any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        any prejudicial interests

·        any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of the business on the agenda.

At this point in the meeting, Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they may have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Personalisation Scrutiny Review Task Group held on 18 September 2013.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the Personalisation Scrutiny Review Task Group meeting held on 18 September 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5pm the working day before the meeting, in this case 5pm on Wednesday 12 February 2014.

To register please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

This report sets out the findings of the Task Group to date and highlights some emerging trends arising from the review. 

Members considered a report which set out the draft findings of the Personalisation Scrutiny Review Task Group to date and highlighted some emerging trends arising from the review.

Members were asked to take into account the key priority areas which it had identified at its last meeting in November 2013 (as outlined in paragraph 35 of the report) and to formulate some recommendations for inclusion in the final report.  A representative from In Control was in attendance to provide information as to what support they could offer the Council in any of the three identified priority areas.

Discussion took place around the following issues:

·        The need to make clear that personalisation was about more than personal budgets.  Some of the key outcomes, for example friendships and not feeling isolated, did not require funding.

·        The important role played by the community. This could be neighbours providing support informally (kinship) as well as Churches, schools (eg encouraging intergenerational volunteering), voluntary organisations and community groups.  

·        Ways of developing community resilience and building stronger communities.  Encouraging and nurturing citizen leadership was important.

·        A need to raise awareness of what was available and how this could be developed – helping people to make links.

·        Exploring further ways of how neighbourhood care teams could work together more effectively.

·        The possibility of putting into place a charter. Examples were given of how a charter had been developed from the “Making It Real” programme.

·        Ways of being more innovative in support planning.  The quality of the conversation was key to successful support planning with the emphasis being on personal outcomes.  

·        Consideration as to how to deliver services in places other than traditional venues eg by advisers visiting community centres and cafes to meet people rather than the other way round.      

·        The importance of good quality planning for self-funders as well as for others.

·        The need to link better care funding with the rewiring of public services through the transformation programme that was taking place.

·        Ensuring that engagement was meaningful and enjoyable and that a range of methodologies and innovative communications were used.  Language should be easily understood.  It was also helpful to use human stories.

·        The “Shared Lives” programme.

·        The importance of sharing of good practice and extending initiatives that were working well.

·        The need for different parts of the Council to work more closely together in the provision of services and support. Initiatives such as the appointment of a community facilitator for health were welcomed. 

·        The benefits that could be achieved by addressing issues in an innovative way.  An example was given of how a shortage of good quality personal assistants in one local authority had been tackled by offering training to those interested in social care.  The involvement of the Workforce Development Unit in such initiatives could be considered.

Members agreed that more consideration needed to be given to the Council’s arrangements in respect of the provision of mental health support.

It was noted that, arising from the workshop that had been held, a list had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.