1. Slides on the New Support Systems for SDS

2. Confusion about “Brokerage” We should either abandon use of the term or make sure we define it clearly when we do use it.

3. 3

4. 4 In Control Model Infrastructure for SDS

5. AdvantagesDisadvantages Real knowledge of individual High commitment Strong community connections Very efficient Subjectivity Not always available Real knowledge of situation Real community connections Credibility & understanding Potentially efficient Poorly facilitated in current system May be somewhat subjective Knowledge of community Funded from mainstream Objectivity Support will usually be tightly rationed Risk of double-funding - is it a free service? Incentive to serve and support Knowledge of support systems Possible experience of different solutions Ability to resolve tricky practical issues Relatively expensive - but often ‘already’ funded to do this work implicitly Bias towards their own services Duty of care on behalf of council Knowledge of system solutions Low community focus More expensive Possibly relevant expert knowledge Objectivity Low natural commitment Low knowledge of individual Often most expensive options

6. Current imbalance in infrastructure & thinking

7. Care Manager predictions on best planner

8. Care Manager predictions on best organiser

9. 96% people (of 196 in sample) got help to develop a plan 38% used their social worker 15% used family and friends 32% used family or friends and their social worker 15% paid someone to support them Outcomes improved more where family and friends and family were involved The impact of social work support had a variable impact on outcomes but was particularly valuable to older people Current Reality I - Phase II Report:

10. Table 1 Support planning Role in support planning process (N=285) Leading (%)Involved (%) IB holder5540 Partner1011 Son/daughter914 Parent1413 Other family member39 Friend13 Independent broker/ advocates1813 Provider28 Local authority care manager3538 Non-local authority care manager55 Current Reality 2 - Ibsen Report: IBSEN data skewed by depending largely on people transfered over from DP schemes - no data to correlate outcomes and forms of support

11. Possible Principles for Experimentation 1. Make SDS systems accessible and easy to use 2. Minimise transaction costs (so that more money ends up in the hands of citizens) 3. Make best use of community resources - map & grow - both formal and informal support systems 4. Continue to innovate and promote creative solutions 5. Ensure multiple support options 6. Provide a universal information system 7. Put in place strategic/commissioning leadership for whole area 8. Fully involve self-funders 9. Do not limit to social care 10. Think prevention - early information, planning, transitions 11. Mindful of the need to engage and support user-led organisations 12. Involve people using personal budgets in change process

12. Goals of the TT Support System Project Develop an efficient and effective infrastructure for SDS Write up elements of good practice Demonstrate how the overall cost of the current infrastructure can be reduced Monitor progress and impact on personal outcomes Demonstrate how the current system can be transformed Engaging key national stakeholders to understand issues and opportunities

13. TT Project Plan on Support Systems MappingPrinciples Local Strategy Case Studies Cost & Outcome Data

14. Support sourceTypicallyIn ControlSheffieldEssexCroydonW-Sussex Universal information Systems Varying solutions Shop4SupportFirst PointInfo. Partal - Googalish - hosted by voluntary - village agents POP Service, SARA, Contact Centre, POP Village; equipment shop (with advice & info), VCS Accessible SystemsUnduly complex systems Framework Plans, Top Tips, Information SDS academynot available yet - OSCARS - full system in development A range of tools and guidance currently in development inerim paperwork on intranet - IT system non-functional Family and Individual Very low investment Partners in Policy Making 8 families LD (10k) Good involvementTalking to PPMcustomer and workforce engagement lead Peer SupportTendency to confuse with ULO Plan UK, Planning Live SDS Academy Good network, ULOs included - shifting resources into this area DP user group; plans to set up inclusive stakeholder forum West Sussex ILA, carers support network CommunityCIL or ILA, Advocacy, CAB, Schools, 'local services' Engaging NCIL, Action 4 Advocay, ODI work, Small Sparks community interface ODI pilot, good range of organisations, not sustainable model - exploring - 1 stop centres (PCT) Exploring capacity across VCS to deliver support brokerage functions Advocacy netowrk exist ProvidersResistance from commissionin g (but 20% £ located here) IC Provider Development Programme in-house providers, ACE, HFT In discussion with providers - looking at transaction costs Not ruled out at this stage. Lots of engagemetn and some interesting examples on the ground LA Social Work and others Major source of support (16% £ located here) IC Social Work Programme SheffieldLA trading company will pick up many SW functions - reviewing skill mix - 'workforce calculator' - look at piece work Not ruled outGetting people up to speed Independent Professionals A few brokers and independent SWs national - NBN Concern at accreditation and professionalise 1 - supporting 1 person ECDP, Essex Pass act as coordinating agency - reviewing contracts NoneSome brokers for people with learning disabilities Mapping exercise For other authorities - Northants, Southampton, Oldham, Newham - to enter your data into this table please go to http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pm_vaMeThAopAdOPlKHALeA&inv=gillie2k@googlemail.com