Survey Results Consultation on Outsourcing of Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice, and Financial Adults Safeguarding, Services

Transcription

1 Appendix 1 Survey Results Consultation on Outsourcing of Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice, and Financial Adults Safeguarding, Services Introduction This report details the results of surveys conducted on the potential outsourcing of Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice, and Financial Adults Safeguarding, services currently delivered by West Sussex County Council. It outlines the reasons and methodology behind the surveys, reports on the results, and provides a summary analysis of the results. Background The surveys form part of a wider consultation exercise, run between 19 February and 19 March This will inform a Cabinet Member decision, and the customer focussed analysis supporting this. The intention is that this consultation informs the decision on whether or not to outsource services and there is also an opportunity for customers to let the Council know about what is important to them about the services concerned. Two groups of stakeholders were surveyed: A. Organisational Stakeholders: Representatives from voluntary organisations, service providers, advocacy groups and other key stakeholders, associated either with the services, or their customers. A list of organisations contacted can be found in Appendix A. These surveys were administered via , with a link to an online form. B. Customers of the Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice Service. This group were contacted via letter, and the survey administered in paper form. The group were selected from 203 customers in receipt of an assessment in November Two Focus Groups also took place with representatives from groups A & B. These were the Adults Services Customer & Carer Group and the Adult Services Minority & Ethnic Communities Working Group. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix B, along with the questions which were considered as part of the Focus Groups. All receipts were anonymous. Overview of Results The sections which follow provide an overview of the results and a high level analysis of what can be drawn from the results. Appendix C provides tabular and graphical representations of the results. This information is based on the following number of responses. Group A: 26 Group B: 22 Q1 In which district or borough do you live?

2 In both groups surveyed, respondents came from across the county. For the organisational stakeholders, all parts of West Sussex were represented; however, the highest concentrations of respondents were from Chichester, Adur and Worthing, and Arun. For the customer group, the largest representation was from Adur and Worthing, with Chichester residents as the second largest group. Q2. Are you a: customer / carer / completing this questionnaire on behalf of someone else / a West Sussex Resident / West Sussex Business owner / West Sussex County Council employee / supplier to West Sussex County Council / Voluntary or Community sector worker For the organisational stakeholders, the largest proportion classified themselves as West Sussex Residents, with carers coming second. Suppliers, WSCC and voluntary workers were also represented. For the customer survey, as expected, the two largest groups were either customers, or people completing the form on behalf of a customer. This represents a varied range of viewpoints, from which to consider the results. Q3. Have you previously used or been in contact with either service? For the organisational stakeholders, it was interesting to note that many respondents stated they had not been in contact with either of the services concerned. Where they had, the most common contact was with the Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice Service. The customer group surveyed had all been in contact with the Financial Assessment and Benefits Advice; one respondent did also note they had been in contact with the Financial Adults Safeguarding Service. This balance towards the assessment service is as expected, given that it has a considerably larger customer base. It does, however, mean that the balance of the survey analysis represents only that service, and not views of Financial Adults Safeguarding. Q4 What did you like about the service? For the organisational stakeholders, all listed aspects of the service received some positive responses. The most common benefit noted was in regards to advice and guidance, with face to face interaction and responsiveness to queries coming second and third respectively. Customers, again, expressed positive views across all listed aspects of the service. The clear favourite was the face to face element provided by Welfare Benefit Advisor visits, which was seen as positive by 60% of respondents. Responsiveness and Advice and Guidance were the second most liked elements. These points indicate areas of specific focus, in considering future plans, and in terms of requirements set for outsourced providers. Q5 What didn t you like about the service? For the organisational stakeholders, there was an even spread of elements they did not like about the current service. For those who responded, a lack of face to face service, speed of service, and simplicity and availability of information were the lead issues. This, perhaps, is a reflection of the fact that welfare benefits advisors focus on specific

3 clients, rather than organisations or other stakeholders around them. This service does not tend to have any presence, beyond clients and their representatives. For customers, there were even fewer incidences concerning what they did not like. This was a positive reflection on their direct experiences with the Welfare Benefits Advisors. Responses were evenly spread, though responsiveness to queries was the least liked aspect by a clear margin. Q6 How would you feel if the service was run by someone other than West Sussex County Council (outsourcing)? Interestingly, the organisational stakeholders, despite their limited interaction with the specific services concerned, had the strongest views, and were clearly against the idea of outsourcing. Nearly three quarters either Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the proposal that the service be run by someone else, with the balance spread fairly evenly across the remaining categories. For customers, there was a wider spread of responses. 46% either Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed that the service should be run by someone else, whilst approximately 32% either Agreed or Strongly Agreed that it should be run by someone else (the balance of 23% being Don t know ). The prevailing sentiment is clearly against outsourcing. However, the customer group appeared slightly more open than organisational stakeholders to the idea of providers other than West Sussex County Council. Any recommendation on outsourcing should recognise and seek to address the concerns raised here. Appendix D provides an indication of some of the comments on this matter. These are anonymous. Overview of Focus Groups Both groups expressed clear views about what they liked about the current services such as face to face contact and close working with social workers. As well as what could be improved such as poor communication both in regard to the reasons for the visit and follow up afterwards. It was thought to be a very long process. Both groups saw that there were benefits to potentially offering some of these services online but that choice was most important. Participants felt that elderly people would prefer face to face contact. Participants felt that those with mental health disorders or those from gypsy and traveller communities might prefer online facilities. A chat function would be helpful. Both groups expressed strong concerns about these services being outsourced. There were a number of areas which caused concern. These were: poor services; reduced level of trust; lack of accountability; a private company would only think about profit and would lack the empathy, values and experience of Council staff. The Groups would feel more confident about services being run by someone else if they were a not for profit organisation; there were clear routes for making complaints; robust monitoring and accountability was in place; ensure staff are empathetic and can communicate effectively with individuals with diverse needs; clearer communication with customers; and that relationships and close working with social workers would be maintained.

4 Monitoring Information The summary information on respondents is as follows: Organisation Stakeholders Of those who responded, most people were evenly spread across the 45 54, 55 64, and age groups. For those who declared their ethnicity, the majority of respondents were White British ; one respondent classified themselves as Black. Over two-thirds did not consider themselves to have a disability or long term illness. Most of the balance did not wish to say. Customers There was a wider spread of ages amongst the customer groups. However, for those who were happy to declare their age, most were in the 55 64, 65 74, and 85+ age groups, with the latter being the largest. For all those who declared their ethnicity, all but one respondent was White British ; one respondent classified themselves as White Other. Of those who responded, most customers declared they either had a disability or long term illness. This is reflection of the constituency surveyed.

5 Appendix A Stakeholder Listing Adult Services Social Workers Adult Services Customer & Carer Group Adult Services Minority and Ethnic Community Working Group Age UK West Sussex Carers Support Service Carewise Panel of specialist financial advisors Customers and Carers in receipt of the services Department for Work and Pensions HealthWatch Impact Advocacy Independent Lives Mental Health Service User Group

6 Appendix D Free Text Commentary, regarding the potential for services being outsourced Loss of knowledge/overview of the local social care system and ability to advise/signpost ref other care services. Change in value base of staff and model of "service" from one of support and social care to that of a more impersonal and superficial "customer care" approach I feel that knowledge of our customers is essential and the link to WSCC is helpful. I would support this move, as long as WSCC had robust monitoring and checking in place. I feel it would be good to outsource, particularly to an organisation who specialises. ATOS are a disaster, at least the FAS Team are under county control. Privatisation does not work for vulnerable people. The quality of the contract with the possibility that unhelpful KPIs are set out resulting in a rigid and unresponsive service that will not flex and is ultimately unhelpful to both customers and staff. This is based on the experience of the admin contract where there is a level of rigidity and unhelpfulness that has increased enormously the pressure on hard pressed social work teams so that the financial savings have been achieved by shifting admin work to professionals. Concerned that it would be difficult to actually speak to someone. Potentially more expensive than employing staff directly for this role, depending on who it is outsourced... I have little trust in some of the organisations that run old council services. Lack of accountability. Capita poor reputation. Who is 'carer of last resort'? - do WSCC wash their hands of their responsibility to maintain a fair and just society in WSC? Services like this should not be run on a profit making agenda. Accountability, backlog, continuation service, another service provider for service users to engage with. I am concerned the service may deteriorate. Public Services should be provided by Public or Local Authorities, not private companies who want to make a profit. The services get worse. Period. The only beneficiary from this would be Capita, whose national record leaves much to be desired. That the company that these services will be outsourced to will be more interested in ticking boxes than in the interest of the people they are supposed to be safeguarding.