Adult Social Care Consultation

Report No: 175/2013 Appendix1 Adult Social Care Consultation Eligibility Criteria and Charges for Adult Social Care in Rutland

Completion of the Survey – Adult Social Care Consultation End of consultation period - 22nd June 2013 Number of surveys completed - 167 The responses to the questions in the survey are shown split into the numbers received from each of these groups. The views and comments given by people taking part in the survey in response to each of the questions are listed in the appendix at the end of this report

Question 1Do you agree that the system that the Council operates should be fair to everyone?

CommentsDo you agree that the system that the Council operates should be fair to everyone?Please tell us why you think this or how it could be fairer • Fair' does not mean treating everybody the same • Eligibility should be judged on income not savings which prudent people have managed to accrue sometimes with personal sacrifice, modest living etc. • All adults should be assessed correctly whether referred or self referred • it shouldn't matter how financially well off you are, if you have a need it should be equal opportunities for everyone • to try and stop the government from being overdrawn by so much money. • Those that can afford to pay and have assets above the Residential Care thresholds should pay full cost for community based services • people with disabilities often need support to meet friends and access the community otherwise it will be lonely as we all have different needs - this needs to be looked at. one thing to make it fairer is to have more for children with disabilities and older people age groups. • equal and fair for all • because some people have more income than others and can afford to pay more than others - not sure how it could be fairer • it wouldn't be fair if it didn't operate across the board • a balance is essential otherwise home owners with medium savings above £23,000 will be penalised - going into residential care sooner than necessary in order to access funds held in the value of their property to pay for extra support at home. • all groups need to be considered • it is not fair that individuals who become ill have to fund their care people like us worked hard all our lives then see retirement savings evaporate on care costs. care should be free (I know that this is a government decision) • those who can afford should pay towards their services, those who cannot should be subsidised people who NEED more care should receive those who would LIKE more care should obtain it elsewhere if they are not satisfied. • as long as everyone has same financial assessment, I feel that fair • There are people who genuinely need help. • Everyone should be treated equally • I had some help three years ago but nobody has helped me since • Everyone should be treated the same. • As the system exists fairness does not come into the equation, only penalising the elderly further. Better that the council tax be increased to pay for it. Failing this the government needs to provide this free for all.

CommentsDo you agree that the system that the Council operates should be fair to everyone?Please tell us why you think this or how it could be fairer • why not • Take into account that since April, council tax has been increased in Rutland for people with Learning disabilities to almost 300% of that for people with Learning Disabilities in Melton • If people can adult social care and their is many in Rutland that can in certain areas then they should pay extra. • Of course the system should be fair; how could you possibly argue in favour of an unfair system? • It should be fair to everyone regardless of income. • So everyone gets the help and support they need and support to make the right decisions for me • because it should be fair • how do you think the council can make this system fairer? • The people that have the money should pay for the care help or more towards the help • "Fairness" is a word that implies freedom from discrimination and dishonesty and conforming with legitimate rules and standards. The system operated by the council should certainly be fair. • Access to services should be on the basis of need, services should either be free to all or not offered. People who pay council tax (in full) from their own resources should have equal access to those who do not. • I think certain groups should get preferential treatment, especially if they have contributed greatly up to the local community.It is an unfair system because it requires some form of positive discrimination. • Very important to protect most vulnerable and disadvantaged.Look at support providers costs and what they provide. • Everyone should be given the chance to use the system. • After saving and working all our lives, paying into the system and being taxed year after year on our savings, I think the government has had more than its share of our savings to pay for their mistakes. • Because this county is biased towards only the rich and well to do! In housing and everything! The poor, sick, disabled and elderly should come first. • It could depend on the people who cant walk far in so much pain and all other things they cant do themselves. • Persons who have been prudent and saved should not have to subsidise those who spent all their income.

CommentsDo you agree that the system that the Council operates should be fair to everyone?Please tell us why you think this or how it could be fairer • Take into consideration people that are poor. • We are all equal but in the eyes of the government some more than others. • The amendment will need to be closely monitored as circumstances can change at anytime. • As for myself I am very happy to be treated as I am and I'm sure the carers are as good and helpful to everyone else as well as myself, I do thanks them all, patient, friendly and helpful. • I am worried that people will only get help if their needs are substantial & above. I came out of hospital unable to go upstairs, wash myself, get dressed etc, I would not have managed with the councils help as a single parent with no relatives locally & elderly parents an hour away. • Everyone should have to contribute but based on what they can afford. • NOT FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS! • I think all cases deserve consideration on merit. • Because I believe fairness, equality and justness should always be watchwords, sharing of the burdens is fairer. • Everyone should be fairly treated. • This includes all users of the system no account should be taken of any assets or income otherwise it punishes the savers and strivers who have paid for the system all of their lives and continue to pay through council tax • Obviously the system should be fair to everyone. This does not mean that those whose need is greatest should be treated the same as everyone else . Those whose need is greatest should receive the most support. • At present it is fair. • Who is going to answer that the system should be unfair? • all eligible services should have a charge and service users should pay what they can afford to pay towards services

Question 2Do you agree that the Council should start to prepare for an increase in the population over 65? (predicted to rise by 70% in Rutland by 2030)

CommentsDo you agree that the Council should start to prepare for an increase in the population over 65? (Predicted to rise by 70% in Rutland by 2030)Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • The much smaller pensions many long retired have should be taken into account. • My husband & I will be in this category in a few years time & all of the uncertainties of new approaches to healthcare, financial constraints & failing health, cause great worries for everyone, especially in the current climate.. • not sure figures are accurate • Capacity building in the community - neighbourhood schemes - third sector capacity building - social enterprises - focus on prevention • don't know - if charges increase this will affect me as I may now have to pay more for my care. • there have been 65 years to prepare for this numbers cannot have come as a surprisedo you want the elderly to leave Rutland? • hopefully neither my husband nor I will be alive in 2030 but preparations should be made • more people will require support in order to maintain their daily living requirements and remain living in own homes longer • the recent input of RCCoccupational therapist has been very constructive and appreciated these services will be in greater demand as will loans on property to finance residential care which more expensive than extra care at home I would prefer more care at home. • however I am concerned about increased costs • people are living longer and I am nearly 80! • big problem • we are over 65 now but it should help family members when their time comes. • it might increase our contribution if changing to charging 100% of assessed income • this should have been planned for from the 60s as we all knew this was coming. • I myself will fall into this criteria as it is a big increase, the council must begin to examine the possibilities and ideas in the years ahead. • This should be planned for but increased costs deferred • As long as it doesnt impact on social care NOW • My wife and I are already aged and infirm, therefore we know that the council budget will need increasing year on year. • With the present baby boom at the moment, who takes priority, the youngsters or the elderly? • my husband has Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, is diabetic and has heart problems and is nearly 80. We currently get no help but it is highly likely that we shall need some soon, not likely that we shall be here in 2030.

CommentsDo you agree that the Council should start to prepare for an increase in the population over 65? (Predicted to rise by 70% in Rutland by 2030)Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • People are getting older but also fitter • I am over 85 and am worried that the care I need may not be available when I need it. • Be like Gordon Brown: exercise prudence! • Because my husband and I are over 70!! 70% of total population in Rutland is quite a thought. • I am a young person who will in the future be looking to live independently in Rutland, I am unsure where I can live or if there will be space for me? • yes they should • I maybe one of those over 65 at that time. Feel now we should know some in advance if possible • This will certainly impact on adult social care in Rutland and will inevitably impact on my wife and myself who are already in our 70s. • Again equal access to all or not at all. • It would impact on myself as it would keep me in employment, as there is likely to be a greater number of people with disabilities. • This is bound to alarm people who receive support but realise savings may need to be taken into account for older people. • I agree that when a person can work to the drop they should do so because it is not nice being put on the scrap heap due to any ill because it suits 2100 system being drawn up by selfish and greedy people. • You do not predict how many of the elderly will require help by 2013. • Because the large growth in people living longer! and should be dealt with now. • these views wont impact on me. • It is only prudent to plan ahead from increased dependant population. • I don't expect to be here to find out! • Think outside the box for this preparation. • Because people are living longer and its not their fault, it is gods will that they should live long until he is ready. • Having read the questionnaire, Rutland seems to be embracing many different races and creeds. • As more housing is being built in Rutland and a majority of the people moving to area and not be in the catchment at the moment this will need to be addressed. • I do not think I will be around for it to affect me but I think the idea is good. • but would hate to see people not being able to receive care if they didn't have the finances and left at home with no-one helping them.

CommentsDo you agree that the Council should start to prepare for an increase in the population over 65? (Predicted to rise by 70% in Rutland by 2030)Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • If people are living long then the cost impacted on the services needs to be taken into account. • Already well in my 70's so that's my status. • Speaking on behalf of my father who is 100 years and 4 months old - he does not expect the changes to affect him. • With constraints on central government funding and community charges, the money has to come from somewhere. Sadly, as a county we probably are not going to be able to fund the level of support needed as the 'baby boomers' pass into dependency • Because the realities with medical & environmental progress mean death is delayed - chronic illness, pain and age related ill health is far more preventable - we are servicing longer than we did and we all need to plan for it to ensure some quality of life for ourselves and our families. • It makes sense. • One of the greatest need for support for carers is the those who support people with Dementia. The low number of people diagnosed with Dementia means that there are many in the community who are unknown. Early diagnosis enables Carers to obtain support, information and training in how to cope with the problems associated with Dementia. There will be an increased incidence as the older population increases. • It will impact on everyone. You can't ignore it. • Hopefully not at all for myself but it is inevitable that resources will be stretched as the aging population becomes more in the future. • RCC should not have sold all its housing stock for the elderly to private provider.

Question 3 Do you agree with the proposal to amend the eligibility criteria to “substantial and above” in line with the majority of the other Local Authorities?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to amend the eligibility criteria to ‘substantial and above’ in line with the majority of the other Local Authorities?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • The criteria seems very vague - no specific examples were given to enable me to make an informed decision. • Moderate need assessments, help to prevent deterioration and promotes independence. • The most severe cases must be given priority. However, less urgent cases should not be overlooked as this may lead to a detrimental affect on the service user requiring a higher level of intervention later on • If you can get to people early enough who have early symptoms of (high financial) chronic illnesses.People can then be assessed & moved up the scale more slowly if things are planned long term as they can remain independent for longer & agree on next stages of planned care. Instead of repeated hospital & care packages which happen often & self neglect also then impacts as people don't know which way to turn to get the help they need. The new approaches sound as if they should work as the government intends but they have financially constrained services, which makes it a mockery. • it will depend on other factors such as social isolation, fear of stigma and discrimination inequality and isolation, and the actual stigma discrimination on individuals health and wellbeing, including disabilities and mental health • I think everyone who needs support should be entitled to it I m not sure if I am moderate or substantial as I cannot do lots of things like meet my best friend without support being there my mum is getting older and my dad - they cant take care of me for every I also need help in cooking and putting things on the airier.I can’t go out in the dark, I get scared and when boys are around without help I cannot manage. I wish I did not have this disability. • needs are needs obviously those with substantial needs are more vulnerable but moving the goalposts may leave some without essential assistance. • I think I would need to know what the eligibility criteria for the future. • assessment will need to be thorough and insightful or some people will fall through the net - the less assertive ones. • I don't really understand most of these questions except for the first one • dementia is unpredictable and even small changes can impact greatly the care of a dementia patient affects the whole family and can impact on a partner greatly this can be taken into account when assessing etc. • Rutland council provide a good service to many people with moderate needs and I feel they may lose some of that care or not be entitled at all • If no longer able to provide services to people with moderate needs this would affect the provision of minor adaptations/equipment which help maintain a person's safety and independence and help prevent falls/fractures (eggrabrails, half steps, stair rails, bath equipment). • We will be in the substantial group. • It should be on carefully assessed need incorporating health, social, mental health and social interaction • Although I understand why this is required I simply fear it will leave vulnerable people in the community trying to cope on their own.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to amend the eligibility criteria to ‘substantial and above’ in line with the majority of the other Local Authorities?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • Do not understand what the criteria are for • Whilst you may have no choice to do this given budget constraints and increase in demand, it is hoped that the Council will continue to invest in preventive services that will reduce budgetary pressures and increase the health and wellbeing of adults in need in the longer term. • It is vital that all elements of possible support are categorised and any elements which continue to need support are fully provided for. • I think your current system is extremely generous and hope you can muster the finances to continue with it. However if you have to change I understand the need - even if I am a turkey voting for Christmas. • I think probably this is the way it is going to go. Those just above "substantial" will find it an effort though. • I am unsure what this means to me? • Without having alternative support options for people who may not be eligible under the new system, will be devastating and mean for me, I could not remain living in my home. • Some individuals with moderate may need the help, should be so black/white there should be room for movement on individuals and discretion for each person please. • It should not affect (name suppressed) - her needs would have not and will not change. • I agree with the spirit of the proposal but can see that, in some cases, a single inability might be deserving of help such as the onset of blindness or an inability to climb a staircase. Some flexibility might be appropriate. • This should be means tested • Support for those with moderate needs will help to prevent the progress to substantial needs. At the very least it delays degeneration. • My experience has been that although there is a national eligibility criteria there is still considerable scope for each council to interpret the criteria in their favour. • I could not manage without support staff.I would not be able to do weekly shopping - need help with budgeting/ chores/ socialising - need support from staff - I would be lonely. • Rutland Melton Market Harborough should do the right thing concerning this proposal not following others. • At the moment I look after my wife and her needs, I am 73 and my wife 71. I receive no help for being her carer, the savings we have would not last long, if I had to pay £364 a week my hard earned savings would soon disappear. Again it is the people who have saved and paid taxes who suffer. • I'm on incapacity benefit D.L.A and housing benefit through ill-health and am going to lose all help! while there is no hope, help or prospect of work. • It would depend on where the cut off point was placed.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to amend the eligibility criteria to ‘substantial and above’ in line with the majority of the other Local Authorities?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • Don't think it will, Already in critical category. • Only if the system is fair - including the difference of assessment between TWO social workers. • Some people may not be able to cope. • Not a lot at the moment but as the population increases some of us who are indigent to this county will be sidelined. • We hopefully get older and our needs change with age. People with ongoing difficulties will need more care as the years go by. • By making it more difficult to obtain assistance at a lower level of need there is a risk that people will deteriorate more quickly and require more help or residential care than they otherwise would. • I would have to think the answer out but I am pleased, happy and very grateful. • At present my fathers needs are very substantial as he needs 24 hour care. • Depends on the level of inability to carry out several personal care or domestic routines. • Requires better definitions. • I consider that encompassing Moderate need actually may alleviate an individual becoming Substantial to Critical • HOWEVER! I am fearful that people who find themselves alone whatever their age or stage in life, may end up without any support early on and to help them cope and may neglect themselves and end up being substantial too soon especially people with mental health type issues. • Without further info. on "the eligibility Criteria" and the meaning of "Substantial and above", I feel unable to comment • This would mitigate against those with moderate disabilities, who should not be neglected. • It makes it consistent with other local authorities - not an easy decision. • I hope not to be affected as I have a good support network (family & friends) but have concerns about elderly who are not so lucky. • as long as transitional measures are put in place for those who may be re assessed as not needing the current service.

Question 4Do you agree with the proposal to increase net assessable income from 85% to 100% in order to cover more of the cost of the service to the Council?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to increase net assessable income from 85% to 100% in order to cover more of the cost of the service to the council?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • Although means testing needs to take into account all of a persons outgoings not just specified areas • It should be a means tested benefit • What you are saying is that you are penalising people who have worked & saved all of their lives & done as much as they could for themselves until their hour of need which means they have to be in financial straits until they are helped by services. That's how so many people fall into a chasm of self neglect, loneliness & disarray. Then it becomes expensive as they then have to be helped!! • yes when will I get it? • I don't understand the question. • I agree but with reservations • it wholly depends on what costs may be incurred by the service user. • as long as it is fair to EVERYBODY • this will hasten the time when home owners have to sell up and go into residential care which is more costly and inappropriate if prematurely accessed. • with the economic situation, especially as one ages, one would be forced to make more choices i.e. heat , food, or care with allowances some of that is eased. • Unfair that DLAwill be considered as income as this is essential for additional costs for disabled to people to have a quality of life that can be very expensive. • As long as it doesn’t mean that some will be struggling to pay for social care. • Enough is enough as they say. • It is not clear from the consultation how income is assessed, it talks a lot about savings but no detail regarding if no savings and individuals living on benefits. I am particularly concerned about those who are under 60 with LD and MH issues, if there benefit income is taken into account at 100% it would leave no income to manage day to day to integrate into the community and access leisure activities. • why should someone who has been thrifty and saved be penalised, when someone who has not saved and spent income benefits? • I cannot see why not • I think your current system is extremely generous and hope you can muster the finances to continue with it. However if you have to change I understand the need - even if I am a turkey voting for Christmas. • Provided this extra money is used for patient care and not administration.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to increase net assessable income from 85% to 100% in order to cover more of the cost of the service to the council?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • With increased fuel and utility costs, increased food costs, rent costs, cost of living this will put more people into poverty. • I think there are other ways for councils to save money • This I accept as inevitable, Councils need to reduce their commitments. • I don't understand the question • No immediate impact but potential for future impact. Any services provided by the council should be free to all or free to none. • I feel that it should take into account the need for people to have a disposable income in order to maintain their quality of life. • I do not currently pay for support so not sure about this. I now have to pay some bedroom tax and some council tax. • Why pay out in one had pretending to give back money that that person has paid into a Govinsurance and rip off that person off with some private system they never hoped they have to use. • I don't agree with any fony proposal increases, cut threats, bullying or anything! • We have saved all our lives for a a rainy day and feel it is unfair to charge up to £364 a week more than twice the old age pension for council services. • It means the council can be helped more to help people who need it more. • It could mean that the care received was unaffordable. • Times are hard, so yes. But take a look at your staffing levels. • Only if access allowance is maintained for those at the tip of finances. • Its a very high rise, some people cannot afford this because their pension is low and not much increase. • How else will you cope financially, think of the staff needed to achieve all this and the meetings to discuss in. • But wonders if this is really fair. • I would have to think this out before I could really say. • The council needs to look at its own costs for staff & management. Local councils waste of money on expenses that are totally unnecessary - such as 1st class travel, lunches, for meetings, courses, you also need to cut back on sickness pay - its far too generous, totally different where I'm employed as a disabled person, I get 3 weeks sick a year. • If the service costs more then people will need to pay more to cover it. • I don't think we will be affected as my wife has been long term invalid. • My father is funding most of his care himself.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to increase net assessable income from 85% to 100% in order to cover more of the cost of the service to the council?Please tell us your views or how this might impact on you • If understood correctly this will give no scope for error or contingencies. • I don't think you can ever really assess the accessible income as there are always further outgoings for an individual which are not included in the assessment. For example necessary home repairs, extra clothing required if individual soils clothing regularly. I only use these as examples but there are always a lot more hidden outgoings. • This ensures fairness across the community and enables people who are not well off to be properly supported. However - EVERYONE should use their benefits (DLA) towards contributing to their package of care regardless as that's is what it is for. • It may affect us in the future. • Again I have insufficient info. to comment. • The aim must be to provide the best possible care for all, for which adequate funding is a pre-requisite. • Unpalatable but again inevitable. • Those who have saved should not be penalised. • Council can no longer afford the 15% discount that they have until now been giving assessed service users. As long as good systems ensure that the income being assessed has been maximised to include all entitlements to disability benefits.

Question 5Do you think that the Council should change the maximum amount it can charge a service user from £170 to £364 per week or those who can afford it? (People are likely to pay up to the full cost of the service they receive if they have over £23,250 in savings)

CommentsDo you think that the council should change the maximum amount it can charge a service user from £170 to £364 per week for those who can afford it? (People are likely to pay up to the full cost of the service they receive if they have over £23,250 in savings).Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • It should be in line with residential costs. Although means testing needs to take into account all of a persons outgoings not just specified areas. • This is too much of an increase in the first instance. Could this be graded? £170 for 1st 6 months, add £97 to this for the following 6 months and then £364 in total there after? • Savings are needed to maintain property and to cover emergencies, etc, etc. If savings have to be used, many difficulties would arise with modest (mine) savings especially reserved for contingencies. • If a person has been assessed as being able to pay the full amount for their care (i.e. an amount above £364) they should do so; it makes no sense for the council to subsidise those who have the financial means to pay for the total cost of their care. • Why should someone (who can afford it) pay more than a drug abuser an alcohol abuser & people who just haven't bothered to help themselves. I suppose when you have taken all of their money it will then have to be up to government /social services to pay for everything. Where will you be saving money then? How will you recoup money from people who have put nothing into the system & never have. Who will pay for them?? • within no time at all people paying £364 per week would have no money left to live on. • Some councils don't have a top cap. Full costers pay for the full cost whatever it is. I think we should do the same. • I don't understand question • I don't understand • the elderly for example don't have school age children will you increase the council tax for those who use the schools or for those with several cars using the highways? • It depends what is meant by afford having savings seems to penalise those who save • £364 is £18928 per year - after another 12 weeks the £23,250 will have gone what then? • unless they are very well off with 100s of thousands of savings • at £19,000 per year savings will soon reduce - equally those paying the full cost - £35,00 - £40,000 per year are punitive amounts I have just made my will - there will be little or no inheritance for my sons who have few savings. • if people have been prudent enough to save during their working life they shouldn't be heavily penalised when it comes to care they have paid their taxes and so should be eligible for some help • some people only just fall into the charge with savings the £23,250 should be raised. • if you do this I can see no point in them using the service at all • you cannot charge the same for home visits as in a "care home" the amount of time spent per person does not equate home carers do not have much time per client and are not on call nor are duties comparable.

CommentsDo you think that the council should change the maximum amount it can charge a service user from £170 to £364 per week for those who can afford it? (People are likely to pay up to the full cost of the service they receive if they have over £23,250 in savings).Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • too big a jump between both amounts. would agree to a smaller increase. • Although this is a huge jump in weekly cost I feel people who have higher savings could pay a little more than those who have less. • For some they only the savings, it would soon go down if they have to pay £364 and its not their fault they need high level of care. • £23,250 in savings is a low figure these days, therefore I feel that to increase to £364 per week will last just over one year and then there will be hardly anything left. • With things on further as they are it amounts to sheer profiteering. • excessive increase • £364 a week seems excessive • Perhaps a lower maximum could be introduced than £364, or at least a phased increase for those already in receipt of services to give service users time to fund the increase. • I think your current system is extremely generous and hope you can muster the finances to continue with it. However if you have to change I understand the need - even if I am a turkey voting for Christmas. this does not affect me directly. • I think this jump (over 100%) is totally too steep or people may decline to use it (this of course may be what you want!) • Those with the least need the most financial help • This seems fair. Sadly, I can see no way of assessing those who have no savings because of their profligacy! • The amount of savings should be higher - £100K plus • If money was stolen from a bank account containing savings or a fraudster obtained rights to part of the value of a property this would be theft or fraud. criminal offences. • Unless the threshold for savings is raised e.g. above £40,000.This figure is of £23,250 is probably less than the average annual earnings. • £364 sounds an awful lot for a person to pay out. • If and when council give satisfaction to there care customer then the customer should be helped choose the best system for there money. • I would only agree if the charges ceased when I had only £23250 left for emergency. • If and only IF it is levied at those who can afford to pay! • If an elderly person has been prudent and saved for old age they are subsidising those who did not. • This is an exorbitant increase, few will be able to sustain this rise for long then you will have more to subsidise.

CommentsDo you think that the council should change the maximum amount it can charge a service user from £170 to £364 per week for those who can afford it? (People are likely to pay up to the full cost of the service they receive if they have over £23,250 in savings).Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • As long as it is fair? • I agree if they have these savings but not for those who have less or none. • Hardly fair but necessary to achieve your targets. • In principle but again they will have worked hard to achieve those assists so should not be penalised. • To more than double the charge in one move would greatly affect many vulnerable people. • I do agree in part but I suppose all individual cases differ in their circumstances. • Not been in that situation yet. But I know I'm worse off working than on benefits but have too much pride not too work and want to have pride in what I achieve. I think this question relates more to pensioners and I'm only in my 50s and have no savings. It would leave a lot more money for other things though. • If people have the money then they should pay for the service that they have, they don't means test any other service. • It makes sense for people with ample funds available to be fully charged. • No! The level of £23,250 savings is not high enough - this sum will quickly be used up in living expenses. • this is not what I call fair. why should those who have saved responsibly all their lives have to pay more than those who have either or both not worked or not saved. Many financially savvy older residents will either spend their money or gift it to family members to avoid this increased charge if they have any sense • I have not seen the charges for the various services and therefore suspect that charge rates may increase for basic services thus maximising/increasing council income.The savings limit hurdle is too low even though it is reckoned to be at the upper level and what is meant by savings? • Many individuals who require this level of support will refuse the support and they will consider £364 per week to be unaffordable and therefore they will try and struggle on their own • Those that can afford it should pay - everyone should make some contribution in any event. • The increase in charge appears to be punishing. Presumably when saving reach £23,250 charges will cease? To be fair there should be a sliding charge surely? Is it really fair • This is a great increase at one go. • For people with modest savings over the amount £23250 the council wont benefit for long as the savings will soon be eaten up. • Delivery of care is becoming profit led. • As long as the Council is aware that the service users affected who currently have more than £23,250.00 in savings, will become more rapidly eligible to have a reduced bill as their savings reduce. It can be that someone who is income poor but has large savings would go from paying the maximum to a nil charge when based on income.

Question 6 Do you agree with the proposal to charge for both carers where 2 carers are needed to ensure safety of service users and carers?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to charge for both carers where 2 carers are needed to ensure safety of service users and carers?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • I do not agree with this - unless it's due to the individuals preference or request - it's the support package that should be paid for not the number of people involved - that doesn't appear 'fair' and would potentially have a greater impact on the severely physically disabled. • This may prevent some people accepting support due to cost, putting themselves and their carers at risk. • This would put the service user at risk of injury as they are likely to choose not to pay for a second carer, leaving the one carer to use a hoist alone for example, putting the carer at risk also. The service user's spouse/partner is likely to fatigue in their caring role, as likely to put themselves forward to be the second carer. The spouse/partner might not be able to physically or mentally help but insist. • This is discriminatory • if a person needs 2 carers their needs are obviously greater. They should not be penalised for this. • I think that this will cause problems for paid carers because service users will want them to undertake moving and handling by one person which could result in injuries to the person themself or the person providing the care which in the long run will cost more. • I feel the first 6 - 8 weeks to allow someone to get back onto their feet should be free of charges. If the care is then on-going then both carers should be charged for. That period of time will then be stress free for the cared for & enable them to feel they can recuperate without the added constraints of charges. • I don't understand question • I think health and safety regulations have gone over the top you cannot eliminate all risks and by limiting what a person is allowed to do and put more burden on people both the carer and the cared for if two people are necessary then they should be paid but necessary could be matter of opinion! • unless they have 100s of thousands in savings it is not the person's fault that they need two carers the government want people to stay in their homes therefore they should pay for it • I think it depends on the ability to pay for two carers • once again it speeds the time when residential care is the only option and the sale of my home..... • I have savings but have worked hard all my life people who have claimed benefits all their life seemed to benefit more you penalise people who look after their money • it would in certain circumstances be safer to have two carers both from the user and the carers point as illness progresses it is very likely that more help with washing/dressing/moving etc will be needed and the risks of falls increases. more help will mean more carers must be properly trained and not just "learn on the job“ • I feel if someone needs two carers for lifting and moving, they shouldn't be penalised and have to pay it might cause more trouble by trying to manage with one to avoid the extra charge

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to charge for both carers where 2 carers are needed to ensure safety of service users and carers?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • We already should have two carers night and morning 7 days a week and we are being for two by direct payment. • fairness decrees that they should not be penalised for their needs. • people who need extra carers should not have to pay more as this may be the only safe way to care for them. if this level of care is needed the person should not be penalised by paying more for the care they need. • This is likely to have a significant impact on occupational therapists carrying out moving and handling risk assessments with service users and their carers. Conversations are already difficult when people need to start using increasingly complex equipment (e.g. on/off their bed, wheelchair, toilet, armchair) as people are reluctant to accept that their needs are deteriorating and they can no longer be physically assisted safely.Service users often then need increasing numbers of carers for them to be able to complete the task safely, using the equipment provided (e.g. the use of a mobile hoist will usually require two carers to use it safely).Moving and handling tasks often present a serious risk of injury to the carer. In complying with moving and handling legislation and reducing risks to the lowest reasonably practicable level, double up carers are often required.Service users may refuse to pay for a second carer, leaving an existing lone carer at risk. Is it fair, reasonable and justifiable that service users should be expected to pay double the cost of their care to meet the needs of their carers? • Is it fair to expect when one needs 2 carers for safety to pay more? Is it their fault they need to be hoisted? • Two carers may only be needed for part of the visit. After the need has been satisfied then only one carer will be needed thereafter. • Relatives will be doing more of the work themselves. • Could mean individuals try to manage with one carer putting both client and carer at risk. • discriminatory - assessment should be based on needs - potential risk of harm to the other carer if 2nd carer is unaffordable • If two carers are necessary it seems to add misery to incapacity - there should be no charge for a 2nd carer • this is subject to ones personal needs and affordability • Again, I am responding hypothetically because I am fortunate not to need this provision. • How much would the 2nd carer be charged - if same as first care quite a bit of income will be used. If second carer is a member of the family (e.g. husband/wife etc.) would they be paid???! • I only need one carer • Council should make sacrifices in its other depts. vision and ensure care for elderly and priority - longevity and life expectancy is increasing year on year. • no one persons life or an accident is worth money!!

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to charge for both carers where 2 carers are needed to ensure safety of service users and carers?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • It wont affect (name suppressed) she wont know you take more • My agreement assumes that the "safety card" is not overzealously applied e.g. understand that it is usual to have carers to assist with giving a person a shower, even if the main reason for providing the assistance is because he/she needs prompting to wash and dress appropriately. This seems to me to be a real waste of resources. • This is unfair as the people who require this are obviously in need of a lot of care and may be unable to move around their home • The more you suffer the more you pay. And how many more would be advanced to needing 2 carers rather than one to increase the profits of the private companies providing help. • I would disagree unless it is purely for the safety of the service user and not the carers. • Would depend on circumstances. • It is not the fault of the service user to how they are accessed. • If I was having to pay for two carers it would have a big impact on our savings, the money you must be paying to carers or agencies must be high, I never had that sort of hourly wage in my life. • Because it is unfair for those who cant cope and cant afford to pay! Again typical of the Tories & RDC to attack those vulnerable members of society, as for me I don't know as yet but bet it will! • Not affected. • I need two carers twice a day for hoisting etc, this would be an intolerable burden. • If a client has gone from one carer to two (hoisting etc) then their quality of life is seriously below normal so the extra money could take this the extreme. • You already charge for one therefore there is no need to charge for the second one. The elderly sometimes need one or two people to help them get out of bed or bath, so they cannot be penalised for this. • But I think if they are needed you have no option, HEALTH AND SAFETY. • Yes but this is not an option if 2 carers are needed at times a person will need lots of help which needs to be done safely. • This is boarding on disability discrimination. • Again I think all cases can be different in their circumstances etc. • I think people need to be monitored that are working in care. making sure the user is warm, safe, clean and fed. Treated with care and dignity. Time management for staffing this service needs to be slick so that wasted journeys are not made to keep it as efficient as possible.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to charge for both carers where 2 carers are needed to ensure safety of service users and carers?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • People may not want the service if they have to pay. It may jeopardize their care or safety. • In areas where 2 carers are unavoidable if households have very limited funds I think this would be unfair especially if as in our case only very basic. Short spells per day relieves the home carers pressure. • If frequently is not the fault of the user that on occasions two carers may be needed. This double charge will be intolerable for many will be unable to pay. • Who controls the criteria or requirement for the number of carers needed? Will it lead to unnecessary labour being employed? • Yes I do agree. I also think a lot of time and money is wasted because some people do not cancel their care within a notice period - enabling the staff/carers to have this work and time relocated. If people cancel, apart from hospital admission, they should pay for the time allocated unless they give 24-48 hours notice - time and staff allocation costs money - it is wasteful. • It may affect us in the future. • This proposal would affect the most vulnerable and may mean that some people have no choice but to go into residential care instead of stay in their own home • Who carries this charge? Is it really fair that those most in need i.e. need 2 carers, should have to pay more? Would there not be a temptation to manage with 1 carer to save cost and thereby lead to a danger of lack of safety? • I'm not quite sure what this proposal means. • This is discriminatory and probably contravenes the disability discrimination act. • This seems to be penalising people for their disability - its not a life choice to be so impaired as to need this level of care. • The more disabled you are the more you have to pay. Disability is not a choice. • It appears to be penalising service users with the most severe disabilities. It would only affect those who had savings above capital limit and yet again their capital will reduce more quickly with the huge increase in their weekly bills for homecare. They will soon boomerang back into the Fairer Charging net and could see the services charged at a minimal weekly amount. It would be a very negative image of how Rutland treats the most disabled. I would think that charging a reduced amount for the 2nd carer would be fairer and more reasonable

Question 7Do you agree with the proposal to include day care and social activity / access allowances charges in the financial assessment at a charge of £25 per day?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to include day care and social activity/access allowances charges in the financial assessment at a charge of £25 per day?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • I think it should depend on the activity and not necessarily have a standard rate. • Seems reasonable • I believe access allowances if managed properly are a good thing as they allow people choice and control. • I feel day care & social activities need a complete overhaul to their provision. I realise some people are not capable of joining in & are probably in need of more specialist care. (These services are stretched to capacity with the amount of care needed at times), whereas other people only need a bit of support &company. Perhaps the more specialist activities for e.g. Alzheimer's should be charged. This may then help to bring in more than one funded Specialist provision to the area. We also still seem to forget about all the socially isolated people at e.g. Christmas, who are on their own. What could be done about that?? • this charge needs to be used to fund the day care and social activity provided • I don't understand question • I don't go to day services • I cant imagine why the plight of isolated service users should be aggravated by cost restraints. • it is good to be offered the opportunity of day care and special activity but again the cost might well be a hindrance one might prefer to keep the money to give away or do something else with. • this could be good value for some people compared with the hourly rate for support workers • I attend age concern which is £25 • that is a very high change for a fairly short day and many could not afford that along with other charges priority would have to be given to how one spent money and if social activity giving the partner a break was worth that sort of expense. • no impact on us. • You will end up with people with special needs never going anywhere. • I think £25 per day is far too much to expect out of ones pension particularly if they are going five days per week • This will hit the most isolated in our community • If people have the money to pay then a charge could be made, however people with little savings should have the service available to themselves. • too expensive for pensioners • so many people don't access the community • I have noticed that some don't pay for day care so it would be fair for all to pay but would you get the same number attending?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to include day care and social activity/access allowances charges in the financial assessment at a charge of £25 per day?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • £25 per day is too much for social activity access. • This could disadvantage the disabled, as could be unaffordable. People will not access services if money is very tight and they have to pay. Public health outcomes will be at risk. • It would have no impact. I am over the income criteria • I fear that this proposal could increase the isolation of the most vulnerable members of our community. This is particularly applicable to the elderly. • Presumably this won't affect those on benefit. Others may not full use this facility. • Those who can should pay... • It seems reasonable to charge £25 per daily attendance at a day centre. I do not know what is entailed in "social activity/access allowance charges". • Not sure as don't know what they are now • The proposed charge is far too high. If those who would have to pay withdraw, the council will still provide the service for those who get it free and the cost to the council will remain the same. Why not make savings by reducing the number of days access by half. • It seems a reasonable amount especially if people are getting disability related benefits. • Not sure who this would apply to would I have to pay for the lodge if so I could not afford it. • I don't know how that works. • Agree only is covers a full day 9-5 disagree with charges for 1-2 hours of the day, transport to be provided (included). • It would not impact me or my wife as I take her out and try to keep her occupied to the best of my ability. • As above, Costs should be levied against those who can afford to, lots of people have already contributed either through taxes or N.I It will affect me eventually as all cuts will. • As a full time carer my help from the council is a one hour sitting service a week plus 2 hours to help me with housework. If a charge was introduced I would cancel all services which would eventually impact on both my wife's and my health. • The charges would impact on the allowance the country says a person needs to live on. • Not if this means I will be charged £25 each time I go to the day centre. • Should be given as prevention, should be giving the volunteer sector support - the centres etc supported are guided towards learning disabilities not prevention of the whole elderly. • Honestly life is so difficult as it is without being charged so much money just to be able to attend and meet people socially. Its not fair we have paid for ourselves through our working life contributing to our N.I.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to include day care and social activity/access allowances charges in the financial assessment at a charge of £25 per day?Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you • Yes it cannot run efficiently on nothing. • Not a lot at the moment but who knows what the future holds - even you cannot predict this. • I do agree in part but only after all things have been discussed and thoroughly gone into. • If people can afford it. Some people may never see a sole from day to day and be very lonely and vulnerable. People aren't neighbourly like they used to be. I'm lucky I have fairly good neighbours who keep an eye on each other. • As long as it is means tested on the ability to pay. • Don't apply in our case. • Once again many will NOT take advantage of day care and social activities - due to it being impossible for them to travel to them. • As a disabled pensioner, following a shoulder operation I needed some help. Under no circumstances could I have afforded to pay for the wonderful care I received. Should I need help again my circumstances would still be the same, however people who can afford it should have to pay it. • I think this will deter a lot of people from using the service. £25 per day sounds extortionate. Perhaps £5- £10 per day might be a better figure and more affordable. • I do and I don't, Respite for carers is very important and if they can get a break or a rest it enables them to have the strength and will to carry on. Some carers are on duty 24 hours per day and make themselves ill. Who else would do it for £59+ per week, 7 days - 24 hours per day??? They are the backbone of families and communities and under appreciated. However I do believe that the mobility benefit should be used to contribute towards the transportation costs to and from the day care facilities. • This seems reasonable. • Again I do not understand the details implied in the question. • I hope it would not discourage the person from going out, feeling they could not afford it. They would then miss out on valuable social contact/activity. • Not enough. • A fair unpalatable but fair. • Loneliness kills old people, if they are discouraged by cost to mix socially it is a slow lonely death. • All services provided by the council have a cost to the council and I believe council tax payers would prefer there to be a fair charge for all services.What is the actual cost of Day Care to the Council...is it £40 per day? What impact has the increase in Access Allowances had on take up of Day Centre places? Has there been a commensurate fall in Day Care placements as the Direct Payments for Access Allowance increased?

Question 8Do you agree with the proposal to change the hourly charging rate from £11.59 per hour to £13 per hour?

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to change the hourly charging rate from £11.50 per hour to £13 per hour? Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • Should depend on disposable income. • I think that it would be more sensible to make it the actual cost that we pay for care - i.e £15 that way everything could be brought into line which would make it much easier for people to understand their personal budget and it people were assessed as able to pay then this would be sensible. • this needs to be passed onto the provider to cover the living wage, training, management support and travel, holiday pay etc for carers and personal assistants. • it is expensive to live in Rutland, carers need to make a living wage • it would be right to increase the amount particularly if the carers have to travel and use a car but it would mean that available money would be spent more quickly • only if they have more than £50,000 of savings • £13 per hour is too much for a single pensioner to pay • this seems fair. • I disagree but understand that costs must rise with inflation • if the charge must be increased it should be in line with inflation or a two/three stage approach 10% is too much with all the other increases you're bringing online • charges always seem to increase more than incomes • when we need services we will have to carefully assess what can be afforded. • As this has not increased since 2008 I think that people who can afford to pay will accept the increase. • I agree to the proposal of increasing the charge for the single carer.however if the proposal was in conjunction with proposal four (charging for a second carer) this would actually be an increase from £11.50 per hour to £26 per hour. This seems huge increase more than double the cost.people requiring two carers are those with the generally with the highest level of needs and often require x four calls a day. At present this would be £11.50 x 4 = £46 per day, which would increase to £26 x 4 = £104 per day.This would affect the most severely disabled group of service users in Rutland. is this fair reasonable justifiable? • would be ok if one is able to afford the increase, some cannot and end up using savings. • Bear in mind the minimum statutory wage. • As next of kin (i.e relative) I shall be doing more of the actual work myself.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to change the hourly charging rate from £11.50 per hour to £13 per hour? Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • Why should it not be £16 or whatever the real cost is? • No effect • It is important to have quality staff to provide a quality service • yes to those that can afford it! • £13 is a fair wage in expensive times and in an expensive part of the UK. • This is fair as "caring" is jolly hard work! • It is very difficult to currently buy care at £11.50 per hour or less which means having less care than required to buy it. • I am unclear sorry on the wages of this kind of position. should be fair. • The council should look to other providers • This seems reasonable • Should be dependent on needs and savings • Before answering this question I would like to know what happens to the difference between what the person providing the service (probably no more than £7 an hour) and the £11.50/£13.00 charged. • As it better reflects market prices. • Depends if it can be afforded. • Giving council staff a pay rise would be moved in the right direction for better care on £11 • As q7 An outrageous attack on the poor, elderly and sick By the Tories, no impact on me as yet. • Direct payments for personal planned care would increase to £13 per hour in line with already greatly increased costs. • Reluctantly. • Does this mean more money to pay for more care - if not it will mean a reassessment by social workers to reduce the time required. • I now feel sick, it is better to be dead than alive at this age because one is being penalised for being old and alive. • Not applicable at the moment. • Not too much but your wages must be set at a decent living wage. • I do get help financially from several departments etc (very thankful) and I hope it helps others too. • I get £7.37 an hour - so for myself this would be impossible. Very soon I will be in a very serious situation as disabled benefits are changing. At the moment these help me to afford working part time which is what my body can cope with. I am very scared about the future ahead.

CommentsDo you agree with the proposal to change the hourly charging rate from £11.50 per hour to £13 per hour? Please tell us your views or how this proposal might impact on you. • This seems reasonable with current inflation costs so a wider number of people can get affordable care. • Some may be able to pay the increased rate, many others will not be able to pay. £11.50 per hour is quite sufficient. • A qualified nurse is paid approximately £12-£14 per hour. the care assistants used by the local authorities are not registered nurses. Why should old people have to pay qualified nursing rates for unqualified carers? There has been a freeze on public service workers pay for the last 2 years and it will only rise by 1% annually over the next two years. therefore, where is the extra money you are proposing to charge go? The service you will provide will not be value for money for old people • This seems to be an extremely fair rate, and of course much cheaper than outside agencies • My view is everyone has to be realistic and the subsidy from the council should be minimal I think £15 is not unreasonable and people who need much more will have it capped in any event. • Seems reasonable. • Does this charge include mileage expenses? In a rural area travel to the villages incurs a lot of mileage, and sometimes for a visit lasting only 15mins.! How do you find Carers willing to do this, if there is no mileage allowance given? • In line with other authorities. • Presumably this increase will have a knock on effect with private care providers. • This money is NOT what a carer earns. Poorly paid staff results in a poor job being done. • If the Fairer Charging process is completed correctly then only what can be afforded out of net income is charged. I think the actual cost to the council should be used as the hourly rate. Council can no longer afford to give this discount. Currently there is a huge cost to the council in providing a subsidised service to those who could afford to buy in their own care. Cost of paper invoices and credit control just to give a subsidy to people with money to buy their own care.

Other Comments • For the past few months due to an accident (not my fault) I've had to rely on family for everything and at a cost in time, money and travelling from a considerable distance detrimental to their own lives. Without their help I can't imagine what I would do. • other ways to raise revenue:charge full council tax on second homesinvest in prevention of benefit fraudactively encourage a younger population to move to the area - all the new homes being built could be filled by pensioners which would worsen the problem. not sure how this could be achieved, perhaps by attracting specific businesses to the new ashwell site, offering younger people housing deals in conjunction with developers.sell the council offices and relocate to the prison site - use a bus service for staff (already in place at co-op) and have regular buses for members of the public.promote the use of the council chambers for community groups and charge.these rooms stand empty most evenings (also the castle, museum and vic hall)regular maintenance of highways avoiding major problemsmeans tested bus passeslibraries - are they cost effective or would more mobile libraries be more efficient? (outlying areas e.g. Ryhall)grass cutting - should be a safety measure - i.e. around junctions - limited elsewherecap on the amount of housing/council tax benefit per familysmall increase in council taxesall staff overtime to be avoided where possible, taken as time in lieu rather than time and a half.cap on wages for all who earn over £35k for the next 5 yearsstop the use of agency staffschool transport - if catchment areas no longer exist there is a potential for buses to be going to all three secondary schools from each village. If schools set the admission criteria perhaps they should contribute to transport costs? • don't know • did not understand questions 3 to 8 • I just hope that there is enough support for everyonewe all need support in different ways it would be very sad if people who need support were not allowed it. nobody asks to be born with a disability and I just hope and pray that everyone that really needs support in whatever way still can have it

Comments - continued • I'm very happy with and grateful for the services I receive.. the quality of my life would change substantially were they to be reduced however. • I agree that care should be paid for to a certain level of income but not to prohibit savings or property to have to be used for care if the person has worked and bought the house with a view to having something to leave to children.it seems people who have never worked are given everything and others who have cannot choose how to spend their money. I am not happy about the benefit situation in general I know a lady who lived in a housing association flat with her rent paid by the council as she didn't work. the housing association offered the property for sale to the occupants and this lady said she would like hers. the council have been paying the mortgage on the flat and would not expect the total amount back if the flat sold in the future this seems totally wrong as people who are working and find they cannot pay their mortgage have to sell their home.this lady has lived on benefits for years and now gets full disability allowance with all her needs catered for free. She has in the past been abroad for holidays and seems to have been offered care for all kinds of things which she hasn't had to pay for. if you compare that situation with a couple who have both worked and managed to save money which they had hoped to be able to leave to their family. the husband who until he retired only had a basic wage and never saved any money until retirement now needs care which is being paid for from his savings. they own their home and as far as I am aware if the husband went to live in a care home and the savings were spent if the wife wants to sell her home her husbands care would come out of the proceeds of the sale so there might not be a great deal to leave to the children. I think that someone who has never paid rent should not be allowed to own a property and have the mortgage paid and a good part of the future sale given then and other people who have bought their property and saved money could end up with nothing or very little to leave to their family because of care home fees. if the lady had to live in a care home and the money taken from the sale of her flat to pay for it she still would not be paying as the council are paying for the flat anyway.it seems that people who don't work and save are given everything and those who do are expected to pay. • I object to people having mobility cars unless they are very severely handicapped the cost to ordinary persons who pay tax to be independent subsidising people who are not in real need of a car, if they need a car pay for it themselves • I pay privately for care and support which I anticipate will increase until I have used up all my savings - selling my home will be only option and going into residential care.an upbeat note! congratulations RCC for your high standards in training your care staff - those I have met at friend's homes have been exemplorary! as indeed are the staff who work for the evergreen care trust. • I am sorry but I do not understand some of the questions

Comments - continued • home care staff must be fully trained in the use of equipment as people get older and try to stay at home it is also necessary that special training is given with regards to dementia which is a very complex illness. it may be preferable to have staff who deal mainly with such clients as not all home care providers can cope or want to deal with the really unpredictable. • tried to discuss this with my father but at 87 year old he does not understand and just gets confused when you try to explain things. if any changes someone would have to come and see him. • I think that calls should be for no less than an hour particularly for people that live in a village no carer will come for half hour calls and get £5.75 - they would be losing money by the time they have travelled there and back to town plus wear and tear on the car mileage etc. • I do not have any adult social care therefore I can only give a view about these proposals. Please note my wife as a carer provides all my care. • I am on the Rutland register but have no help since 2011 I don't understand how some people my age (47) get heating allowance and other help - i.e. carers payments for help in the home but are not bad health wise, anyway I can hardly walk without aid and my partner does a hell of a lot for me and we get nothingplease tell us why • Consultation for me does not provide sufficient detail for me. It appears rushed. I am not clear from the consultation if people solely on benefits with no savings will pay for social care services, I hope not but feel this has been hidden deliberately within the consultation.Concerns regarding LD young adults and MH users. If they have to pay for services on already tight budgets they will choose not too leading to further social isolation, further issues and potentially longer term MH and health issues.I am not sure how individuals who currently receive social care can make an informed response to this consultation without understanding how this will affect them personally. • I assume the criteria for assistance is based on income and savings. On this basis I do not feel competent to comment but I do not support free handouts. • The presentation at VAR gave useful additional information. It is important to keep reviewing all areas of support bearing in mind the possible effects of the changes which are to take place in the benefits system. A holistic approach is required. It is important that all interested parties are kept informed.This survey was found by a chance reading of the local paper rather than being informed as a parent of a person with Learning Disabilities.It is important that parents and carers are informed by email or post

Comments - continued • I would be extremely upset if it was deemed necessary to curb my carer's allowance. I am very grateful to receive it and certainly do not take it for granted but it has most definitely improved my quality of life and hope that budget cuts will not see an end to this provision. • One trusts that no more extra persons/admin need to be appointed to oversee this review or facilitate carrying it out. No need to spend the extra money on office work. • Care for the elderly must be a priority in this county. Sacrifices to budget ensuring the most needy with minimal savings, no property are assessed and those with extensive savings and properties should not benefit; pro rata. • At present I am self funded and do not receive payment from Rutland CC. My disability is Parkinsons' disease and I have answered the questionnaire in the context of my disabilitydictated to carer (name suppressed) • I think this questionnaire is written in a way to force the answers that the council want. Some of the questions are unclear, for example no. 7 - what is the current charge and who pays it? No 4 - what does this mean? • When assessments are made it should include availability of practical support from family and not just someone living in the same dwelling.There are people in Oakham who do indeed need support and get it for free but have fit healthy children who , even if in work could do just as much. Of course if they only work part time or are unemployed they can easily make the effort, if however the support needed is free why should they make the effort. Let the council tax payer provide. • The way that the questions have been phrased does not allow a full picture to be given of people's views e.g. if they only partly agree with the statements.In any analysis of the results there will obviously be errors caused by this, so it may not reflect people's actual opinions. • Greed & Selfishness will not solve this problem of money robin hood robbed those with money to pay for the needy remember you may be the needy one in nhs care. • I have filled in the form for my wife as she does not understand forms but she agrees with the comments made. • I have suffered with anxiety and depression for many years. There has been little or no funding to help me get back to work. I don't get on with or around people, I have also had IBS for many years and prolapsed a disc about 8 years ago, I am also in remission from bladder cancer in 2011. and now I am type 2 diabetes. I'm not sure even if I could work? Where and what work I could do? I'm totally and wholely dependant on benefits and I don't have a social life and any cuts no matter how low has a long-term effect on me both mentally and financially! • I think the council should look carefully at its staffing levels and how it operates its carers service. I know from past experience that you could save money on travel payments to carers: e.g. you send Uppingham carers to Ryhall and Casterton workers to Uppingham.

Comments - continued • I appreciate that things have to change but you have to realise that not everyone has alot of money. RCC have been good to me with part of my illness of cancer, my children were looked after, taken out and enjoyed the social activities they were involved in. At the time I did not mind what I paid i.e. council tax, which was high! In Rutland but my care was excellent, but now things have changed, the economy is not very good, pensions are very low, heating bills are up, we can barely afford to keep warm.God bless you and do what God expects you to do. • Housing levels are rising in areas - yes we are the smallest county which is unfortunately going to be swamped by overspill from Leicester - this will be of all ages, creeds and needs. There will also be a need for ethnic clubs, meeting places, places of worship - i.e. mosques/synagogues. People to translate in many tongues, will need representives in council - social services ets etc. 1000 houses being built, 4 per home, 4000 half of which will need care of some sort. • Having had access to many of the facilities offered and found them extremely good in most areas I hope you can continue with this service. • I am very pleased, grateful and offer my thanks to everyone concerned with my treatment and welfare. They all without exception treat me with great respect and are so friendly and helpful and I so much look forward to the girls coming, 1/2 hour each morning (help me shower and get my breakfast) and (name suppressed) taking me out on Wednesday afternoons a ride out and co-op shopping, the cup of tea etc. Thank you all very sincerely (name suppressed)Also my children phone often and visit when able to, (name suppressed) my eldest who lives in Ridlington now visits often and is there if I need help or anything. • For people that can afford it I agree. • Prevention :I know there is a considerable amount of 'bed blocking' within hospitals. Patients who no longer require medical support but are not able to return to their own homes without suitable support structures in place. I would like to see interim accommodation as part of the re-enablement scheme to support people in re-engaging, within the community, in dedicated accommodation with Carers and Re-enablement services to prevent re-admission to hospital, which in turn will reduce ongoing costs of the client becoming 'Critical'. I often find that members of our community are isolated and therefore a 'befriending service' would be highly valuable. This could even be set up as a telephone befriending service which could be benchmarked against the successful service run my Age UK Leicestershire and Rutland.Due to the rural aspects of our residents within Rutland there is a considerable need for shopping service. Gardening, cleaning, laundry are all difficult to undertaken when elderly/disabled. Most residents are happy to pay for this service to lessen the daily struggle.Public Transport in Rutland is very poor for the elderly and/or disabled. This should be improved to enable the more able bodied attend appointments (hospital, dental etc).Having been involved in the management of social events for the elderly and disabled of Rutland I know the value of such events. Old friendships renewed and new friendships made, which then has assisted in providing a support network within the community. The events have always been very well attended (circa 100) with little advertisement. Why can't there be two events each year, one in the summer and one at Christmas.

Comments - continued • The cost of care should be free at the point of use for ALL people who need itIt is unfair on people who have paid all due taxes should when they need help be told they have to pay again • If the rate goes up to £13.00 now, how will future increases be calculated, the proposal does not detail what will happen in future years. • It needs to be restated to those receiving small packages of care or who may need some help with shopping and cleaning that they may be entitled to Attendance Allowance which is not means tested. And that if they get Pension Credit they often get a severe disability premium. In those cases the service user would have an extra weekly income of £100+ This should be used for purchasing help. Day Services should be replaced wherever possible with what is on offer in the Voluntary Sector.Preventative measures and good awareness of what is available within the county is needed

The Council wants to look at preventative options for people. What things do you think might be useful for you or someone you support in the community? These are shown ranked in descending order of each category on the following pages

The Council wants to look at preventative options for people. What things do you think might be useful for you or someone you support in the community?Ranked in order of response - Already have this

The Council wants to look at preventative options for people. What things do you think might be useful for you or someone you support in the community?Ranked in order of response – Would be useful

The Council wants to look at preventative options for people. What things do you think might be useful for you or someone you support in the community?Ranked in order of response – Would not be useful

The Council wants to look at preventative options for people. What things do you think might be useful for you or someone you support in the community?Other – feedback given by participants • Help should mean supporting someone to be able to do these things for themselves as far as possible and improving accessibility to services and activities - both in terms of location, cost, literature/resource material. Supporting elderly/isolated individuals to 'get online' would go some way to helping with some of these issues, e.g. online grocery shopping - meaning they can do it themselves and choose their own products. • I am severely disabled and get no assistance apart from wife and family • it is very important to have maintaining friendships - please don't forget. it is fun meeting up with friends would be lost without that whatever age they are there should be more help for carers there should be something to help them cope where person being looked after is happy. • have laundry via direct payment for my father • bins collected from back door please not end of the garden • Help with garden and fences. • Assistance in managing day to day activities (for a person with Learning Disabilities) • help with keeping in touch with friends and family • help keeping in contact with friends and family • help with home maintenance (e.g. changing bulbs, minor repairs, decorating) • More/any access to electric wheelchairs, heavy duty mobility scooters for use at Rutland water and outdoors in Rutland. A community garden for physical/mentally blind for us all to go to and use and socialise please!!! • Home from hospital care should be provided • As a carer my health is suffering. Please support the carers. • Help with insurance benefits one is entitled to (everyone) • Decent and useful counselling services as there is no real help provided. • I cant think of anything else at the moment - Very happy with all the carers. I truly am thankful for all the help and support I need and get. And I am very happy with everyone who helps me, A big thank you to you all. • Help with accessing own interests separate from family involvement. • Proper advice and warnings around taking on the responsibility for "Direct Payments". This arrangement seems to devolve all the responsibility on to the Carer and the Council seems not to support the Carer very adequately in this situation. Could you re-assure me about this? • Some of the above could well be useful, but until I reach the situation where I need help myself I don't know which would be appropriate. At present I provide help with shopping and some laundry, and occasional transport when needed, to an elderly friend.

Equality Monitoring • Ethnicity of respondents • Faith / religion / belief of respondents • Language preference of respondents

Residency • 98.6% of respondents in the survey were British / United Kingdom citizens • In response to the question “Are you a national of another country” three people indicated that they were EU Nationals and two indicated “other” but didn’t specify anything further • 66% of respondents chose to give their postcode, see the chart below for the breakdown of this

Disability • 60% of respondents considered themselves to be a disabled person (only 148 of the surveys had this question answered)

Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Relationships 99.2% of respondents indicated they were the same gender as they were assigned at birth

Adult Social Care Consultation

Adult Social Care Consultation

Presentation Transcript

Adult Social Care Transformation

Personal budgets and adult social care

Transforming Adult Social Care

Adult Social Care and Young Carers

Our priorities for adult social care

Health and Adult Social Care

ACS ADULT SOCIAL CARE

FOI 2100 Adult Social Care Structure

Adult Social Care Budget 2014-15

Where next for adult social care?

Adult Social Care A consultation event 6 th February 2013

Adult Social Care Worker TrailBlazer

Adult Social Care Provider Forum

Adult Social Care eMARKETPLACE ChooseMySupport choosemysupport .uk

Adult social care ratings slides

Adult Social Care

Adult Social Care

Strategic Review of Adult Social Care Services

Adult Social Care Risk Assessment

ADULT SOCIAL CARE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTING LINES