SSRG Newsletter - January 2004: Report from the Technical Working Group

We met on December 11th and had Christmas lunch, courtesy of the DoH who said there is no such thing as a free lunch! The agenda, as always was packed, so I will focus on key issues. Full details can be found on the DoH website.

1. Proposed Changes to KS1 Return for 2003/4

(a) Delivery of Equipment (PAF D38).
There were two issues here: firstly the removal of the £1000 criteria had not been communicated well and some authorities were not aware of the change. Secondly, a revised definition covering the thorny issue of decision to supply date was discussed. Unfortunately, the definition proposed by the Adult Review Group muddied the waters even more so we referred it back to the group for another go.

(b) Intensive Home Care (PAF B11).
The big issue here was whether to include or I exclude Boyd loophole cases. We have left it with the DOH to conduct some sensitivity testing on whether these cases make a difference to B11. If there is no impact, then DOH will simply go with the normal return and there will be no adjustment of B11. If authorities performance is adversely affected, then Boyd loophole cases will need to be separately identified and B11 adjusted.

2. Compliance Costs

We have had a series of interesting debates with DOH over the years as to the compliance costs of providing all the data for DOH returns. As you can imagine, we have never agreed! In order to advance this, we helped DOH devise a questionnaire which was piloted. This will now go to all local authorities and it is really important that it is completed and returned. I think it will reveal two things: firstly, just how expensive the agenda is and secondly, just how variable local authorities are in what they find easy or difficult to do.

3. Proposals for Changes to the OC2, 903 and CPR Returns

Amendments were proposed relating to Children's Returns. We readily agreed some additional placement codes on the 903 which will be helpful to local authorities but must of the other proposals, we had trouble with. To summarise:

(a) Floating Support
We agreed that there was no code on the 903 to adequately describe independent living with formal support. But further work is needed before we could agree this change.

(b) Residential Special Schools
Two new codes are required to capture placements in residential special schools and boarding schools that accommodate children for more than 295 days per year. We agreed the requirement, but detail we needed was not available from the Care Standards Commission.

(c) Re-Referrals
The DOH has just spotted that their definition and the ones used by the DIS are different! This is despite the fact that the DOH definition had been agreed by a DOH sub- group and that the discrepancy with DIS had been reported long ago. To cut a long debate short, DOH now want to go with the DIS version: this is not acceptable as the DOH version is a quantitative measure and the DIS version is qualitative, which is infinitely cookable by local authorities. (as if!!) This has been deferred.

(d) Drug Education
DOH wish to add to the OC2 a question which asks, how many children looked after aged X and above at 30th September have received targeted drug education, including information, in the year to 30th September. The term coach and horses spring to mind and, yes, you have guessed it, this has been deferred!

4. Best Value PI's 195 and 196 (Waiting Times of Assessment and Delivery of Services to Older People)

These two PI's were introduced by Mr. Milburn in July 2002 to apply to the year 2003/4. This undue haste has caused incredible headaches and we have worked with DOH to try to come up with acceptable definitions. The trouble is that the definitions have only been finalised in December, 9 months into the year! These two PI's demonstrate just what happens when ill-thought through political intentions are transformed into Best Value PI's with no piloting or testing in any real way. We all know what is going to happen -insuperable problems interpreting the national data as we will all do it differently.

5. The Shape of the Future: A few notes on what is happening at DOH:

(a) The TWG is now co-chaired by DOH and DfeS and at this meeting, the DfeS agreed to set up a TWG sub-group to look at all the Children's issued deferred at the meeting. Despite our moans and complaints, if DfeS adopt the same approach to consultation and joint working as the DoH have done, then the future looks reasonably bright.

(b) Both DOH and DfeS are down-sizing, relocating staff and will be establishing new organisations for data collection and presentation. It is likely that independent information agencies will have responsibility for all social care and health data and returns.

(c) Of considerable worry is the threat to our very young Social Care Information Policy Unit headed up by Roger Staton. They are very thin on the ground as it is and the worry is that they will be sucked completely into a health driven agenda. It is my personal view that Roger and his colleagues have moved mountains in support of the social care agenda, and the Unit has been a critical friend to local authorities which we should not give up lightly.

Apologies for such a lengthy report - I am trying to learn how to write short sentences!