Issue - meetings

Report ACS12016

The Committee considered progress made against the Adult and Community Portfolio Priorities 2011/12 and the draft Portfolio Plan Priorities for 2012/13. Members commented on the following sections as follows –

• Aim 1a2 (Mylife web portal): It was suggested that the target needed to change to focus more on ensuring that the impact on staff lessened.

• Aim 1a5 (Accessibility of universal services): It was suggested that the updates about employment were only one aspect of this target and it should probably not be flagged as green.    

• Aim 1b2 (Review of respite care): It was suggested that the work was still ongoing and that the target should be amber or red.

• Aim 1c1 (Personal budgets): It was suggested that service users needed not just to be offered personal budgets, but to understand how they could be used – the Portfolio Holder proposed that for the coming year the target should be amended to focus on the user having control.  

• Aim 1d1 (Dementia daycare): It was confirmed that there was no waiting list for dementia daycare services.

• Aim 1g2 (Job carving): It was confirmed that job carving was still being supported.

• Aim 2a1 (Reducing health inequalities): A Member suggested that the focus should be on improving standards rather than reducing health inequalities.   

• Aim 3a1 (Carer’s assessments): It was clarified that changes had been made to the compulsory fields required on the system to ensure better recording of assessments.  

• Aim 3b1 (Travel Training): Feedback from the travel training for people with learning disabilities was extremely positive, and steps were being taken to find funding for a new programme.  

• Outcome 1: 3. (Proportion of adults with learning disabilities in paid employment): It was suggested that the description should be amended to clarify that it did not necessarily refer to full time employment.   

• Outcome 4: 2. (Safeguarding Adults): A Member commented that, on the target for percentage of safeguarding cases completed within 40 days of acceptance of a referral, a percentage alone could not be an adequate measure. However, this was a pan-London policy and was monitored for a statutory return to the Government.   

• A Member commented that there was a lack of hard numerical targets in the report.  

The Chairman thanked officers for providing a useful report which provided both statistical and qualitative feedback, and emphasised the importance of working together to achieve the right outcomes.

RESOLVED that:

1)  Progress made against the actions in the 2011/12 Portfolio Plan be noted; and

2)  Members comments on the draft Portfolio Plan priorities and aims for 2012/13 be noted.