To update the Committee on respite care services for people with a learning disability.

(Councillor P.G. Turpin declared a personal interest)

The Committee received an update on the provision of respite care services for people with a learning disability.

The report noted that in June the Committee had requested a report on respite care provision and that a review, a copy of which was appended to the report, had been undertaken.  The Head of Social Care (Adults) highlighted the review’s findings including the options for future respite care and the complications caused by emergency admissions.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         In relation to the cancellation of planned respite care by the Service, the Head of Social Care (Adults) explained that this was attributable to a large extent to the need to accommodate emergency placements.  People could then continue to occupy a bed for some considerable time.  Reasons for this included lack of funding or lack of an appropriate alternative placement.  The Service did contract with the independent sector for some respite care but, in addition to the cost of this care, some needs could not currently be met by local independent sector providers. She also explained that some care was cancelled by families themselves, often at short notice.  There were a variety of reasons for this including illness or other family circumstances.

·         In response to questions the Head of Social Care (Adults) confirmed that alternatives to respite care were considered and account taken of the cost of the different options. 

·         It was noted that the funding streams for supporting people to live in their own home were complicated.  Some support was eligible for funding from the national Supporting People Programme other support was not.  Having identified the appropriate service provision, caution then had to be exercised in identifying the appropriate funding stream.

·         That whilst older carers favoured improved traditional residential respite care younger carers were more inclined to consider alternatives.  However, funding for alternative options such as Direct Payments would have to be released from elsewhere within the Social Care budget.  Additionally Direct Payments could not be spent on Council provision.  Whilst they could be used to purchase independent sector provision, where available, this presented the Council with a financial difficulty in that it still had to meet the fixed operating costs of its in-house residential provision whatever the level of occupancy.

·         The report used Luton Social Services as an example of how respite services could be developed, noting the work and resources which had been required to achieve change.  It was noted that it had proved difficult to obtain comparative information but Luton had been given as an example because of the large amount of work it had done which was recognised as best practice.

RESOLVED:

THAT  (a)                      options for future respite be explored further;

(b)          reasons for emergency admissions be explored further;

(c)     a new strategy for short breaks be considered and referred to the Cabinet Member (Social Care and Strategic Housing), based on this review and subject to considerations in (a) and ( b) above;

                     and

(d)    feedback on the Review recommendations in the report be brought to the Committee in the New Year following discussions between the Director of Social Care and Strategic Housing and the Chairman of the Committee.