Agenda item

Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets

To highlight the implications and challenges for Adult Social Care following the  Supreme Court Judgement involving Surrey County Council Council [P v Cheshire West and P and Q v Surrey County Council] : March 2014.

Declarations of Interest:

None

Witnesses:

Jim Poyser, Practice Development Manager, MCA and DOLS

Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director for Adult Social Care

Key points raised during the discussions:

1.    The Practice Development Manager apprised the Board of the changes which came into force regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) due to a Supreme Court judgement which had effectively lowered the threshold for what constitutes deprivation of liberty. The Board was informed that the Directorate was supportive of the changes but that the ruling has made, in that the safeguards are now expanded to safeguard more vulnerable adults but that this has created a national problem in keeping up with the subsequent increase in DOLS work required. The Law Commission has just published their proposals for amending the DOLS regime for consultation with a view to making the scheme more flexible and proportionate whilst still safeguarding people’s human rights. They have been charged with reporting back to government after their consultation, with a new draft bill.

2.    Further information was requested on the number of assessments being completed by the DOLS Team and how this workload was being managed. The Practice Development Manager advised the Board that the Supreme Court judgement had led to a significant increase in the number of assessment request, the number rising from just over 100 in 2013-2014, to 3,045 in 2014-2015. It was highlighted that a Best Interest Assessor (BIA) is a highly qualified role, with social workers being required to have at least two years post-qualified experience before they can undergo training to become a BIA which had presented resourcing challenges. Members were informed, however, that the number of BIAs had been increased through a variety of measures including recruiting BIAs, training eligible locality staff and beginning a dialogue with Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SABP) about training more of their staff as BIAs.

3.    A Member asked whether consideration had been given to restructuring the way in which work is allocated to ensure that social workers which are qualified as BIAs are freed up to focus on assessments. The Practice Development Manager indicated that changes had been made to ensure that BIAs can prioritise the completion of assessments but that this had to be balanced alongside an already heavy workload. The Strategic Director advised Members that this work chimes with changes introduced across ASC aimed at prioritising workloads so that experienced social workers are freed up to take on the most complicated cases.

4.    Attention was drawn to the £400,000 received from Central Government and asked whether this was enough to cover the additional costs which had arisen from the dramatic increase in the number DOLS assessments that SCC was being asked to conduct. The Practice Development Manager advised Members that, in terms of per capita allocation, Surrey had received a fair amount of money from the £25 million made available by the Government in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement. It was, however, stressed, that £400,000 would not come close to covering the costs that SCC would incur from the DOLS threshold reduction with estimates indicating that 10,000 assessments a year ( an approximate estimate of the potential cases requiring assessments) would cost SCC  in the region of £4.2 million per annum. In order to mitigate rising demand, the DOLS Team would prioritise requests to ensure that assessments were provided in the most complex cases first.

5.    The Board agreed that the current DOLS framework is unsustainable and asked whether the additional demand has left SCC vulnerable. The Practice Development Manager advised that SCC are expected to complete 100% of the DOLS requests that it receives in the prescribed timescales set out in the DOLS legislation but that the supreme court ruling had created unprecedented challenges in meeting this obligation and it is simply not realistic to expect that we can do this. Other Local authorities are experiencing the same difficulties Members were informed, however, that ASC would continue to prioritise DOLS assessments on a case by case basis to ensure that those people who require an urgent response to their situation are allocated as a priority to ensure those that most need the safeguards in place are afforded this protection as quickly as possible.

Recommendations:

1.    The Board expresses its serious concerns at the vastly increased number of assessments regarding deprivation of liberty and the problem of recruiting enough qualified staff to carry them out.

2.    The Board therefore recommends that the Cabinet raise these concerns regarding the new responsibilities placed on the council with central government, and the insufficient funding made available to meet their duties.

3.    It is recommended that the Board is kept up to date on progress made on recruiting and training Best Interest Assessors (BIA) and the funding issues.

Actions/ further information to be provided:

            None

Board next steps:

            None