Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Executive Decision Record:

1) Summary:

The following decision was made:

1.1. That approval for the proposed approach to a countywide roll out of Self Directed Support be given, with this being a two year plan, including an initial period of training, development and process change (year 1) followed, on successful completion of this, by a phased geographical implementation around the county (year 2).

2) Reasons for the decision:

2.1. On 22 December 2008 the Cabinet received the report of the Commission and approved the Hampshire Model as set out in the Commission report and supported its planned incremental implementation within available resources from April 2009

2.2. The Hampshire model builds on the current self directed support project and delivery of Self Directed Support around the county will underpin delivery of the rest of the model. The successful pilot in Basingstoke has allowed for significant lessons to be learnt - and care has been taken to incorporate these into planning a countywide implementation.

2.3. The roll out plan has been designed to address and resolve all of the main issues raised by a review of the Basingstoke project. The plan has been designed to cover two years. The first year will focus on staff and external training and development. Recognising the importance of risk management, specific training will be given to all appropriate staff during year 1 on positive risk management. The first stage will provide the wider context of personalisation, and an introduction to SDS. It will also deliver the required process change - across IT systems, finance processes, charging policy, team processes and financial modelling. Effectively, year 1 of the roll out prepares the ground for a smooth implementation.

2.4. On successful completion of the first stage, Year 2 (commencing January 2010) will begin with focused training for frontline staff on the mechanics of delivering SDS. This will be delivered locally, to maximise coverage and minimise disruption. Following three months of focussed training, the locations trained will `go live' for all new service users, and for those coming up to review.

2.5. The Executive Member for Adult Social Care is asked to note the governance arrangements and planning currently being undertaken for the incremental implementation of the Hampshire Model.

3) Other options considered and rejected:

3.1. Option 1:

No further roll out - given the Council's commitment to the Hampshire Model, and the key role that offering Self Directed Support will play in this, this option is not considered viable.

3.2. Option 2:

Immediate roll out - the lessons from the review indicated a number of county level or strategic issues which require changing/amending for SDS processes to work smoothly. Given the experience in Basingstoke, it was felt that trying to solve these office by office would result in a piecemeal solution, and would in fact take significantly more time than the proposed two-phase approach

3.3. Option 3:

`Big bang' approach. Although this offers advantages in terms of minimising the impact of running dual systems - the risks posed by going for a simultaneous implementation outweigh these.

4) Conflicts of Interest:

4.1. Conflicts of interest declared by the Decision-Maker:

a) None

4.2. Conflicts of interest declared by other Executive members consulted:

a) None

5) Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee:

None

6) Any reasons for the matter being dealt with urgently:

None

7) Statement from the Decision Maker:

.