Families with stable jobs at risk of homelessness in Britain, report finds

Homelessness is now a serious risk for working families with stable jobs who cannot find somewhere affordable to live after being evicted by private-sector landlords seeking higher rents, the local government ombudsman has warned.

Michael King said nurses, taxi drivers, hospitality staff and council workers were among those assisted by his office after being made homeless and placed in often squalid and unsafe temporary accommodation by local authorities.

“People are coming to us not because they have a ‘life crisis’ or a drug and alcohol problem, but because they are losing what they thought was a stable private-sector tenancy, being evicted and then being priced out of the [rental] market,” he said.

King said the common perception that homelessness was about people with chaotic lives who slept rough no longer held true. “Increasingly, [homeless people] are normal families who would not have expected to be in this situation,” he said.

 

Source: Families with stable jobs at risk of homelessness in Britain, report finds

Chickens coming home to roost: local government public health budgets for 2017/18 | The King’s Fund

With the central government grant falling, David Buck takes a look at local authorities’ plans for public health spending in 2017/18.

Source: Chickens coming home to roost: local government public health budgets for 2017/18 | The King’s Fund

As Better Care Fund fails to deliver have lessons been learned for the future? | Care Industry News

Integrating the health and social care sectors is a significant challenge in normal times, let alone times when both sectors are under such severe pressure. So

Source: As Better Care Fund fails to deliver have lessons been learned for the future? | Care Industry News

Is this guy Iain Duncan Smith ever going to stop ?.

Government agrees four more years of ILF transition cash for councils | DisabledGo News and Blog

The government has agreed to fund former users of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) in England for the next four years, following months of campaigning pressure from disabled activists. The minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, passed on the news yesterday (10 February) to two former ILF-users at a meeting in his department. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) yesterday published a six-week consultation on the plans – although it has so far failed to publicise the consultation – which describes the funding it proposes passing on to local authorities over the four years from April 2016. ILF was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and when it closed on 30 June 2015 it was helping nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently. But ministers decided it should be scrapped, promising instead that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced funding would be transferred through DCLG to councils in England and to

Source: Government agrees four more years of ILF transition cash for councils | DisabledGo News and Blog

George Osborne’s officials ‘blocking emergency aid’ to flood-ravaged Northern regions

Eight days after spending review, ministers still cannot answer ILF funding question | DisabledGo News and Blog

A government department has refused again to provide any details that would clarify vital disability-related announcements made by George Osborne in last week’s spending review. For the second week running, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has been unable to explain exactly what the chancellor meant when he announced funding for new accessible housing, and for disabled facilities grants (DFGs). And eight days after the chancellor’s announcement, and the publication of detailed documents by the Treasury, DCLG is still refusing to comment on whether it will provide a second year’s funding to local authorities to compensate for the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF). ILF was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions, and when it closed on 30 June it was helping nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently. But ministers decided it should be scrapped, promising instead that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced

Source: Eight days after spending review, ministers still cannot answer ILF funding question | DisabledGo News and Blog

Tory conference: Minister admits he is monitoring impact of ILF closure

Original post from Disabled Go News

‘……………..

The minister for social care has asked officials in his department to monitor “closely” the impact of the decision to scrap the Independent Living Fund, he has told Disability News Service (DNS).

Last week, both the Department of Health (DH) and the Department for Communities and Local Government refused to say whether they were monitoring the impact of the fund’s closure on disabled people.

But after being questioned by DNS during a Conservative party conference fringe meeting, Alistair Burt, a former minister for disabled people in the 1990s, said: “I have indeed asked for exactly what you have said, to ask what the impact has been.”

He told this week’s meeting, hosted by the Care and Support Alliance: “It is too early for us. Local authorities have now to arrange their own packages and make their own assessments.

“We put the money into local authorities but they have to make their own judgements and assessments about what is right.

“I am waiting to see what those assessments will be, because it is right we try and find out what is happening, and we are waiting to see what that will be.”

Afterwards, he told DNS: “I am very interested in how this transfer to local authorities works in practice.

“I have asked officials to monitor it closely and I am awaiting to hear what the exact impact is. It matters to the Department of Health, as I am sure it does to local authorities. But we need some information to work on.”

DNS had told the minister of the evidence of “shocking” cuts to the support packages of many former ILF-users, including in Waltham Forest, where 16 of 60 former ILF-users face cuts of more than half to their support packages.

ILF was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions and when it closed on 30 June it was helping nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently.

But ministers decided it should be scrapped, promising instead that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced funding would be transferred through DCLG to councils in England, and to devolved governments in Wales and Scotland.

Burt admitted to the meeting that social care faced “extraordinary challenges”, but he said he was “very limited” in what he could say about its future funding because of the government’s spending review, due to report later this autumn.

He said: “The spending review is going on, there is nothing I can say before that that can have any bearing on the issue.”

But he said he was “more than aware of the financial pressures”, including the impact of the chancellor’s new “living wage”, on local authorities trying to fund social care.

He said: “I am very conscious of that; so is the secretary of state [Jeremy Hunt]; so I am sure is the spending review.”

And he said there was a “commitment in government to recognise the challenges in social care”.

He added: “If it has been a Cinderella service in the past, it is not now. It has got a very high priority in the NHS.”

Vicky McDermott, chair of the Care and Support Alliance and chief executive of Papworth Trust, and herself a disabled person, told the meeting that she believed that it was now time to call the situation facing social care “a crisis”, with the system “already on its knees” and “at breaking point”.

She said there was a “real risk” of the coalition’s Care Act “becoming an embarrassment rather than the beacon it ought to be”.

She said: “I absolutely applaud the Care Act, the best piece of social care legislation that has happened, probably ever.

“Ultimately, as a party you should be able to shout about that, you should be really proud, but right now it is not delivering on the promises it has made.”

And Izzi Seccombe, the Conservative leader of Warwickshire county council and chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, told the meeting that the situation facing adult social care was “stark”, with a funding gap set to grow by more than £700 million a year.

She said local authorities continued to support the reforms brought in by the Care Act, but did not want to see them implemented unless they were “affordable”.

She said: “If the government cannot fund both the system and the reforms then the absolute priority must go to maintaining the stability of the system itself.”

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Aden

Hi I’m Aden, I work at DisabledGo as the Digital Marketing Manager and I manage the blog and all social media channels.

More posts from author   ………..’

Independent Living Fund: Government silence ‘suggests something to hide’

Original post from Disabled Go News

‘………………..

Disabled activists have asked why the government is refusing to answer key questions about severe cuts to the support packages of former users of the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

Both the Department of Health (DH) – which is responsible for social care policy – and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) have refused to say whether they are monitoring the impact of the fund’s closure on disabled people.

Disability News Service (DNS) has already reported on two local authorities where former ILF-users have seen their support packages slashed since the fund closed.

ILF was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions and when it closed on 30 June was helping nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently.

But the coalition government decided that it should be scrapped, promising instead that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced funding would be transferred through DCLG to councils in England, and to devolved governments in Wales and Scotland.

This transition process has been hit by reports of cuts to the care packages of former ILF-users, but both DH and DCLG are refusing to answer key questions about the measures they have taken to ensure their support.

Among the questions they refuse to answer are: whether they are concerned about reports of former ILF-users facing significant cuts to their support; how they see the overall picture across England since the fund closed; and whether they are making any attempts to monitor the impact of closure on former ILF-users.

 

They have also refused to confirm – as alleged by at least one local authority – that DCLG did not pass on the full equivalent of the annual support that would previously have been paid to each ILF-user, but instead cut it by three per cent.

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “The refusal of DCLG and DH to answer even a few simple questions about the transfer process surrounding the closure of the ILF implies that they have something that they want to hide; otherwise there would be no need for this complete lack of transparency.”

And Tracey Lazard, chief executive of Inclusion London, said: “Central government seems to have tried to wash its hands of all responsibility for meeting the social care support needs for former ILF recipients, but we will continue to hold them to account.”

The closure of ILF came at a time when councils were already facing huge funding pressures, with the latest (provisional) official figures showing a three per cent decrease in real terms in adult social care spending in 2014-15, compared with 2013-14, and an eight per cent fall since 2009-10.

Barbara Keeley, Labour’s shadow minister for older people, social care and carers, said: “This government’s failure to face-up to the care crisis in England has left many vulnerable people without the help and support they need.

“Ministers must now come clean about whether funding passed to councils has been top-sliced, and if so how many people have had their support cut as a consequence.

“It is vital that the needs of former ILF recipients are met so they can live independently and with dignity.”

A DCLG spokeswoman refused to answer specific questions from DNS, but said in a statement: “We have ensured that there is sufficient funding to maintain support packages for all existing Independent Living Fund users.

“We have also encouraged local authorities to use any surplus funds to provide further social care.”

A DH spokeswoman also refused to answer key questions, but said in a statement: “We are committed to ensuring adults with care and support needs are properly supported by local authorities – our Care Act puts a duty on local authorities to assess and meet the eligible needs of people.”

She said that 94 per cent of all former ILF-users had already been receiving some services from their local authority prior to the fund’s closure, and that “authorities will now be responsible for meeting all eligible needs for these people”.

She said that DH had issued guidance to councils to help them prepare for the transfer, while the new care and support reform programme board was monitoring the impact of the Care Act.

She added: “If anyone with care and support needs, including former ILF-users, are unhappy with how their needs are being met, they can use the complaints procedure or take their concern to the Local Government Ombudsman.”

But one local authority, Waltham Forest, in London, has confirmed to Disability News Service that its ILF transition funding was cut by three per cent by DCLG before it was handed over.

A Waltham Forest council spokeswoman said: “When the government transferred ILF funding to the council, the overall funding amount was reduced by three per cent… this was intended to allow for overall expected changes in client circumstances.

“The DCLG will need to comment on why they decided to reduce the funding by three per cent – this was their decision.”

Waltham Forest is one of the councils where there have been severe cuts to support, with 53 of 60 former ILF-users seeing their packages cut after being reassessed.

The council spokeswoman said: “We have reviewed everyone receiving a service and depending on a person’s current individual circumstances, some people will receive less support and others will receive more.

“Everyone goes through the same assessment process to ensure that packages are allocated fairly and by current need.

“Our intention is to ensure the funding is being used by everyone who needs it, in a way that can meet those needs, not simply to pass the funding on to individuals based on an old assessment of their needs which may no longer reflect their current situation.”

She added: “We also advise individuals of their right to appeal if they have concerns about their care and support and will carefully review each decision on a case-by-case basis.”

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Aden

Hi I’m Aden, I work at DisabledGo as the Digital Marketing Manager and I manage the blog and all social media channels.

More posts from author   ………………’

 

Councils tell different stories than government on ILF closure funding

Original post from Disabled Go News

‘…………..

The aftermath of the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) has descended further into confusion after several local authorities disputed the government’s funding claims.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has repeatedly insisted that it told every local authority in the country on 1 July exactly how much money they would be given to support former ILF-users after the fund closed.

But a series of freedom of information responses from local authorities to campaigning journalist Kate Belgrave, who has played a major role in the campaign to reverse the fund’s closure, show some councils claiming they were not told how much money they would be given until days after the ILF had closed.

The ILF – which was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and helped nearly 17,000 disabled people with the highest support needs to live independently – closed on 30 June.

Ministers promised that nine months’ worth of non-ring-fenced ILF funding would be transferred through DCLG to councils in England, and to devolved governments in Wales and Scotland.

But the transition process has been littered with reports of delays in reassessments for former ILF-users and cuts to their individual care packages, compounded by many local authorities failing to plan ahead for the closure.

DCLG insists that every local authority in England was told on 1 July exactly how much funding they would be given.

But responses from local authorities to Belgrave’s freedom of information requests tell a different story.

Cheshire West and Chester council told her on 8 July that it was still waiting to be told by DCLG how much funding it would be given. Lewisham council gave a similar response on 7 July.

Rochdale council originally said this week that it was still waiting to be told about its funding, but changed its mind after talking to civil servants at DCLG, and issued a fresh response to Belgrave which stated that it had actually been told on 7 July.

Stoke council said in its freedom of information response that it was not told until 20 July how much it would be receiving from DCLG.

When questioned by Disability News Service (DNS), Rochdale said it was only “given an indication” of its funding on 1 July, and the final amount was not confirmed until 7 July.

Lewisham council told DNS it was given an “indicative” amount in mid-June, but failed to clarify by 11am today (Friday) whether it has now been told the precise amount of funding it will receive.

Cheshire West and Cheshire council said it did receive notification of the funding it would receive on 1 July, but the freedom of information response had been prepared a few days earlier and was not sent to Belgrave until 8 July.

Stoke council said it was told on 2 July by DCLG how much funding it would receive, but this information was not passed to its assistant director for social care until 20 July.

A Stoke council spokesman said: “Somewhere along the line that message had not worked its way up the chain.”

Despite the claims of local authorities, a DCLG spokeswoman insisted that every council was sent an email on 1 July stating exactly how much they would receive for the remaining nine months of the year.

She said: “We are telling you the truth to the best of our knowledge. We don’t understand why the FOIs are coming back differently. We can’t say why councils are saying something different.”

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “The difference in responses between local authorities and DCLG only helps to illustrate the complete mess that has been allowed to happen during the ILF transfer process, with DWP typically washing their hands of any responsibility.

“It is totally unacceptable that disabled people are the ones left in the middle of such a chaotic situation, many still having no idea what funding they will get.”

Belgrave said: “I find it utterly bizarre that I’ve been sent FOI responses from councils that clash with the official line to this extent.

“This whole experience just adds to the general conviction that the ILF transfer to local authorities is a complete shambles that nobody is properly in charge of.”

Burnip added: “Since DCLG insist that every local authority had details of how much money would be devolved sent to them by 1 July whereas several local authorities have said they did not receive the information until after 7 July, we can only assume that pigeon post was used rather than some more modern form of electronic communication.”

Last week, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) insisted in a statement to DNS that councils were all told on 1 July via an email from DCLG how much they would receive, “based upon the number of confirmed ILF individuals within their council boundary and at the ILF rate received by those individuals”.

But after some of Belgrave’s freedom of information responses were passed to ADASS this week, a spokesman was unable to say how widespread the delays were and whether they had caused any problems to local authorities in planning the ILF transition process.

The ADASS spokesman said: “The decision to make this transfer was not one which was willed by ADASS or local government as a whole, and we simply do not know the answers to these questions in detail. The situation will differ as between authorities.

“We do, however, urge our members and their authorities to deal with this transfer as a priority.

“We are aware of its importance to many people with disabilities and we urge members to do all they can to avoid needless anxieties which might arise through the process.”

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Aden

Hi I’m Aden, I work at DisabledGo as the Digital Marketing Manager and I manage the blog and all social media channels.

More posts from author   ………..’