Have your say on the future of Adult Social Care

York residents are being invited to have their say on the future of Adult Social Care in the city this month.

City of York Council clams it is “committed to helping York’s residents live independent and fulfilling lives based on choices that are important to them. The authority already knows that where residents need care and support in older age, they want these delivering in their own homes or in a community setting. They also want improved signposting, advice and guidance, and for the agencies involved in health and adult social care to join up more and provide greater awareness of the local support and facilities available to residents”.

“To build on this, the council is carrying out a quick five minute survey to understand what is important to those who are currently accessing adult social care, and those who may potentially need to access care and support in the future. The authority is also keen to hear from Carers and those in the voluntary sector.

The results of the consultation will be used to shape services (jargon) for the future, as part of the council’s Rewiring Public Services (jargon) Programme.

In Adult Social Care, the council’s rewiring (jargon) programme is seeking to address some of the inherent failings of, and pressures on, the existing national model for adults’ care including a lack of clarity and understanding of the system by customers, an ageing population and people living longer with disease and disability.

Acomb care village site – project 3 years behind schedule

Following engagement with residents, staff, elected members and partners, the council is looking at a number of different ways it can achieve the outcomes that local people want -relying less on hospital-based care and care homes, with more care delivered in resident’s homes and in their local neighbourhood -within the budget available”.

The consultation is available at www.rewiringyork.com

Sad really that the Council is making it so difficult for residents to react to their programme of cuts in public service provision.

Language, setting up separate web sites, failure to issue timely notices of meetings….. all adds up to confusion for many.

NB. Following on from our story about the Councils clumsy consultation processes and use of jargon we understand that later today (Thursday 12 February) between 2pm and 2:30pm, “Sally Burns, director of Communities & Neighbourhoods, will be answering people’s questions about proposed changes to Place-Based Services (jargon) in a live streamed Q&A session broadcast on YouTube and www.york.gov.uk/webcasts “

The Council are encouraging everyone to put forward their burning questions either before or during the event by email at rewiringyork@york.gov.uk or on Twitter using the #RewiringYork hashtag.

“It’s almost as if they didn’t want us to know”

Council delivers notification leaflet after meeting has taken place!

Following on from our story yesterday, the Council has started to issue a survey form to residents asking for their views on cutting public services (aka “rewiring”).

Most residents have yet to receive the leaflet which advertises a “drop in” taking place at the Acomb Library on …err yesterday. (There are other “drop in” dates next week)

No attempt was made by the Council to publicise yesterday’s event. No media release was issued. The Consultation is not listed on the Council web site and cannot be downloaded from there. (Although we have provided a link HERE to a copy on “dropbox”)

The Council has for some reason set up a separate, impenetrable, web site containing what it describes as background information http://rewiringyork.com/ . Most residents won’t, of course, know it even exists. There is no link shown from the Council web site.

The rewiring blog makes much of the Council’s new (under development) web site – but fails to acknowledge the leap backwards on communications that has taken place over the last 12 months (the facility to report issues like broken street lights and potholes using the internet was withdrawn by the present administration – increasing pressure on an already overburdened “contact centre”)

The content of the leaflet is risible.

It says that residents can see a copy of the “business case” for change on the blog site. No such business case is visible.

The leaflet says “the proposed changes will have an effect on the frequency, accessibility and cost of services such as waste collection and STREET CLEANSING”. It talks of changes to “roads”

Waste collection “survey”

The leaflet fails to say how much green bin emptying will cost a resident under Labour’s plans and doesn’t’ even mention “street cleansing” or “roads” again.

The leaflet makes the bold statement that the Council “needs” to save £2.5 million from “this service area” They mean street level public services but don’t define them or mention current standards.

The statement is in any event untrue.

The Council can make savings in other areas. Many capital investment plans (new access bridge into the station land, new Scarborough footbridge, turning the Guildhall into a media centre etc) could be shelved with annual savings on borrowing costs equivalent to the amount being cut from essential street services.

£9.32 million on Guildhall media centre

It’s not all bad. Investment in LED lights may well save energy and running costs, and MAY prove to be more reliable and durable than the exiting street lighting systems. But there is no information provided which allows residents to make an informed judgement on that claim.

Included is a very limited prioritisation list. It muddles service improvement (collecting kitchen waste) with service reductions (charging for all green bin emptying & reducing the frequency of grey bin emptying to monthly).

The costs and implications of the latter two “options” are not explained.

So what does it really mean?

Labour are seeking endorsement for their plans to:

Reduce the investment in road and footpath repairs
Reduce the number of sub-urban litter bins
Sweep streets less frequently
Reduce grey bin emptying to once a month
Make an annual charge to everyone who has a green bin
Get local “volunteers” to “manage” parks and open spaces.

Should I respond to the survey?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Silence may be pronounced as contentment with the changes planned by “rewiring” supporters.

On the other hand, prioritising a very limited number of options could be used as a justification for an unpopular change to waste collection arrangements (just about the only Council service that every resident uses).

The survey couldn’t be answered “on line” so freepost returns will cost taxpayers over 40p each, putting more pressure on public service standards.

NB. Belatedly the Council have now put the survey on line but without the option to suggest alternatives to their limited list of questions

What we’d do

Send an Email with your views to rewiringyork@york.gov.uk.

Say that the Council should abandon other, less essential, projects to make savings.

Say that core street level public service standards should be sustained.

Tell the Council to make future consultations timely, fairer giving full information on costs, provide a wider range of options and offer a flexible “on line” response option.

Council failing to communicate on major public service changes

Jargon used to hide York Councils real intentions

Residents attending today’s “drop in” at the Acomb Library (1:00pm – 5:00pm) should beware.

They will be talking to the “rewiring” team about changes to “place based” services.

Use of jargon and euphemisms is a well tested way of disguising the true motivations and intentions of corrupt organisations

In reality the proposals in York include plans to charge for waste collection while making local residents responsible for managing and maintaining local parks and open spaces.

Council to charge for refuse collection

The PR campaign is part of an emerging trend with the Council encouraging other propaganda initiatives aimed at influencing public opinion…..while being economical with the facts

These may include the ostensibly independent (business led) @YorkLocalPlan twitter account.

This group advocates building “at least” 850 additional homes in the City each year and erroneously claims that there is only room for 5000 to be built on brownfield land. In fact, over 2000 additional brownfield planning permissions have been granted during the last 2 years…. all on brownfield sites which were not identified on the draft Local Plan for housing. More are in the pipeline.

Still at least that organisation is unashamedly driven by vested commercial interests.

More worrying is the impenetrable “rewiring” project. It aims to save over £4.5 million a year for the Council.

Of this £800,000 will be cut from street level public services.

It is dressed up as a devolution project in a report to the Councils Cabinet next week

The reality is given away in a paragraph in another report which says,

” Community Open Space Management – As part of the review of Place Based Services the Council are looking to transfer the management of open space to local communities. Such a transfer would reduce both day to day and long term costs and enable the Council to achieve savings”.

The Council report – rightly – does criticise some local Councillors for not providing “leadership”.

In truth many – particularly on the Labour side – do not live in the wards that they represent and rarely even visit the people that they are supposed to represent. They don’t produce newsletters, don’t survey public service quality standards and only follow up issues when there is an election in the offing. They are the people who are least likely to drive community action.

It is also fanciful to suggest that all communities have the capacity to take on public service management .

While the devolution of powers to local communities is welcome

Seeking a way of blaming local volunteers for a deterioration in public service standards is a deplorable tactic

Now £18,000 consultants bill for “transformation review” emerges

It appears that the York Council has spent £18,000 on a consultant’s review of its transformation project.

John Tizard Ltd apparently completed the review 4 months ago and submitted a bill for £18,000.

The results of the review have not been revealed in any Council papers.

Opposition Councillors are likely to press for the documents to be published on the Councils web site.

The transformation review is related to the Councils ludicrously mis-titled “rewiring” project.

The money would have been better spent on improving the customer contact interface which is limping along pending the implementation “of a software upgrade“.

How to get York residents attention? Call your project something impenetrable

York Council reduces opening hours

The Council is being asked to approve the next stage in it’s, ludicrously titled, “rewiring” project.

The project has nothing to do with moving electricity supply cables in the Councils West Offices!

It is just a euphemism for another reorganisation; but the non de plume will effectively raise a barrier to resident understanding.

A report to a meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) proposes to reduce the hours of opening of the Councils contact centre. In future it will open between 9:00am and 5:00pm (Mon-Fri)

Although it is claimed that this is a response to resident contact patterns, the reality is that the centre is hopelessly overloaded with IT systems unable, after 6 months, to even provide complainants with an issue reference number.

The Council report also makes much of devolving management of public services to local communities.

Incredibly it talks of the need for “local buildings to be multi agency focal points”.

This is the same Council which has cut Community Centre support –all of which are located in the least well off communities – to the bone.

Two face closure.

It comes from a Council which has off loaded, to an independent trust, local libraries – one of the few successful public services provided in the City over the last few years.

The programme aims to facilitate cuts of £5.5 million in the Councils budget.

The largest part of these will come from Social Care. The Social Care budget overspent by more than £1.3 million last year.

While some change is inevitable, the Council would be wise to provide more details of the implications of its plans for residents and in plain English.

Dropping gimmicky titles would be a good start