Star date: 1st December 2015 

SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES TO BE `REDUCED'

"It does feel like these changes are more about funds than the child's needs" parent

Salford City Council is to introduce tighter eligibility criteria for children with disabilities... "Some families will see a reduction in their current support package following a reassessment of need" states a Council report.

Salford Council argues that the changes are a "redesign" but behind the `redesign' are cuts totalling £290,000 from the Children with Disabilities Service and the Short Breaks budget. Just under half of parents who responded to the Council's dodgy consultation said that their child would be affected by the changes.

Full details here...

Salford City Council is set to change the criteria for children with disabilities to access support packages for short breaks, which range from after school and out of school activities, to overnight `respite'.

In what it calls a "redesign" and `modernisation' of the services, the Council aims to reassess young people against `revised eligibility criteria' ie the bar for support gets heightened.

Under the current system, assessments are made by social workers who know the families concerned. But under the new system the social worker will merely fill in a `resource allocation questionnaire' together with carers, and the final decision on support, based on disability points awarded, will be made by a Disability Resource Allocation Panel, chaired by the Service Manager for Social Care.

A report to be considered by the Council's Cabinet next week states that "There are very few differences in the existing criteria" but, eight lines later, adds "some families will see a reduction in their current support package following a reassessment of need against the new eligibility criteria"...

..."Some families"? The Council itself estimates that the huge majority of families who currently use the services could be affected... "The current customer base for children with disabilities social care service comprises of 166 disabled children" the report states "the impact of the changes could be particularly experienced by 138 families who already have a service and will be reassessed against the revised eligibility criteria."

Indeed, the Council carried out an incredibly dodgy consultation on the changes, mainly conducted during the summer, which garnered only a 10.5% response (129 people).

Of those who responded, 56 families (43.5%) said they would be affected by the changes as they currently care for a child with a disability and receive support from the Council...42 (32.5%) didn't know if they would be affected, and 26 (20%) didn't use the services (some didn't even know they existed!).

The Council only asked two relevant questions. The first was about removing the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) before children can access some 'level 2' services, like Barnado's, Core Assets, Oakwood Youth Group and Wheels for All cycling. Understandably the vast majority of respondents agreed with this, although one parent stated..."The services provided at level 2 are very limited and will continue to be so, they have had their funding cut yet you are proposing that more children and young people are pushed into using level 2 services."

The second question was about whether parents agreed with the introduction of the resource allocation questionnaire, which the accompanying booklet stated was `Fairer', `More consistent' and `More transparent'. And 60% (78) agreed, while 12% disagreed and almost one third (27%) `didn't know'.

The consultation never asked whether families would like to see a "reduction in their current support package following a reassessment of need against the new eligibility criteria"...

Some of the comments parents and carers made in the consultation said it all about the `changes' and the consultation...

"I agree with the principle of making the system clearer and fairer but not in the way detailed in this booklet" stated one parent "These changes will leave many children and families without any support at all."

Another added: "I believe what is being proposed in this consultation is unlawful and that you have not provided sufficient information about the proposals for me to make an informed and intelligent response...it does not include the resource allocation questionnaire (RAS) so I cannot properly understand how this will impact the funding I currently receive for my son and how he will be impacted by these changes."

And yet another parent stated: "I don't understand everything in the booklet but it does feel like these changes are more about funds than the child's needs."

Two other parents concluded "This feels like another cost cutting exercise..."

Indeed, the `modernisation' and `redesign' certainly looks like a cut. Under the heading Financial Implications in the report, the Council's Finance Manager states: "At this stage it is difficult to determine if the revised eligibility criteria will result in reduced revenue costs to the City Council. This will only become clear once individual reassessments have been undertaken"...

...And then, adds: "In 2015-16, savings proposals of £190k have been accepted for the Children with Disabilities Service and also £100k from the Short Breaks budget. These savings proposals have contributed to a current budget pressure around the Children with Disabilities service which is being partly offset by underspends elsewhere within the Child in Need & Child Protection service"...

And under Assessment of Risk in the same report it is noted: "It is likely that any reduction in care packages will result in a rise in the number of complaints to the service. Some of these complaints may inevitably progress to stage 2 complaints which could result in an additional cost to the council..."

The report also states that 11% of respondents to the Council's consultation commented: "Already enough changes/cuts affecting children/adults, further ones are unfair..."