legacy and sustainability report - my care, my … map - legacy and sustainability report the map...

Legacy and Sustainability ReportRight to Control Trailblazer

2011 - 2014

2 MAP - Legacy and Sustainability Report

Email: [email protected]: www.mycaremychoice.org.uk

Email: [email protected]: www.manchester.gov.uk

Email: [email protected]: myway.trafford.gov.uk

Email: [email protected] Web: www.oldham.gov.uk

Web: www.gov.uk Web: www.gov.uk

Email: [email protected] Web: www.breakthrough-uk.co.uk

Email: [email protected] Web: yourcareyourchoice.bury.gov.uk

http://myway.trafford.gov.uk

https://yourcareyourchoice.bury.gov.uk/


Contents

Background to the Programme 4

Acknowledgements 5

Management Summary – The Manchester Area Partnership 6

Partnership Working 9

Market Position Statement 12

Coproduction Overview 14

MAP Centre for Independent Living 15

Disabled People’s User Led Organisations 17

Employment 19

Legacy 24

Case Studies 27

Appendices 53


The Right to Control (RTC) was introduced between December 2010 and December 2013. The Right to Control was a legal right to enable disabled people to have more choice and control over services purchased using disparate funding streams and create a holistic and person centred approach to organising support to live the lives they choose.

Background to the Programme

In December 2010, the Office for Disability Issues (ODI) commissioned seven trailblazer areas across England to test the new legal right to control with disabled adults, enabling people to combine the support they receive from six different sources and decide how best to spend the funding to meet their needs.

Seven Local Authority test sites were established: Essex County Council, Leicester City Council, London Borough of Barnet, London Borough of Newham, Surrey County Council (two parts only: Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council), Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Sheffield City Council The first six went live on 1 March 2011. The Manchester Area Partnership started on 1 April 2011 which included Oldham, Bury, Trafford, Stockport and Manchester councils.

The purpose of this legacy and sustainability report is to highlight key successes and learning from the Manchester Area Partnership trailblazer, and to describe the legacy and sustainability post programme. It is intended that this report will be shared with the Manchester Area Partnership partners, DWP, Central Government agencies, organisations of and for disabled people, and the trailblazers across England.


The Manchester Area Partnership would not have been possible without the cooperation of many organisations. We would like to specifically acknowledge input from the following people and organisations:

Acknowledgments

Organisation Name People InvolvedAccess to Work Linda Anderson

APM Interim Limited Tony Marvell

British Association for Supported Employment Huw Davies

Body Positive Phil Greenham

Bury Council Julie Gonda, Tracy Evans, Wendy Carr

Breakthrough UK Michele Scattergood, Peter Jackson, Lorraine Gradwell, CIL TEAM

Carey Bamber Associates Carey Bamber

Coproduction Board Members Richard Currie, Andy Walker

Department for Work And Pensions Duncan Fox, Yvonne Woolvern, Katy Murray, Phil Murray, Marianne Dempster, Angela Costello

Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People Caron Blake, Steve Scott and colleagues

Groundswell Sam Bennett

Helen Sanderson Associates Helen Sanderson Associates

Independent Living Fund Jesse Harris

JobcentrePlus Karen Donaldson, Sue Chambers, Peter Jenkinson

Manchester City Council Diane Eaton, Sheila Dawber, Matthew Kramer, Anna Fedeczko, Mike Petrou, Tom Raines

Melling Training and Consultancy Kathy Melling

MiLife Andy Billings

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Kim Doolan, Gwen Irving

ResultCIC Hormoz Ahmadzadeh, Jane Cordell, Andy Hilton

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Jude Wells, Terry Dafter, Sue Griffiths, Karen McLauchlan, Karen Saville, Paul Graham, Jon Channell

Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council Martin White, Andrea Glasspell, Joanne Wilmott, Barry Glasspell


The Manchester Area Partnership (MAP) brought people and professionals together across national and local government, disabled people’s organisations, the third sector and other groups to work in real partnership to test out how a right to choice and control over funding streams might work.

Management Summary – The Manchester Area Partnership

The legal Right to Control has challenged Local Authorities and others to act and think smarter as personalisation rolls out right across government. Government Departments and Local Government agencies have responded to the Right to Control positively and have, as a result, forged new and more innovative working relationships in Job Centres, through the Independent Living Fund, and Access to Work, Disabled Facilities Grant, and Supporting People funding streams.

People in receipt of funding embraced the opportunity to think more creatively about how their lives could work without the rigidity of funding silos that previously only allowed them to organise support in limited ways.

The Manchester Area Partnership developed capacity amongst the Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) across the partner areas, equipping staff, volunteers and people supported by organisations with enhanced skills and knowledge to be able to grow, form and further develop lasting peer support networks.

The Partnership tested a hub Centre for Independent Living, which provided support to people from across Bury, Oldham, Manchester, Stockport and Trafford, as well as working with existing DPOs. The detailed independent report on the CIL forms part of the appendices of this report.

We have been able to pilot the forthcoming portability legislation across the Manchester area authorities that took part in the programme and ten disabled people have been able to move home whilst retaining their existing support plans as seamlessly as is possible.


The MAP will retain portability arrangements through its portability protocol for disabled people as its legacy until April 2015 when portability becomes a new statutory responsibility for all unitary authorities in England through the Care and Support Act.

Through the Market Position Statement Manchester, Stockport and Trafford have coproduced plans to stimulate a diverse market of personalised care and support that offers real choice and control to individuals. This was an extensive piece of work with our partners Groundswell and is also available in the appendices.

Through the employment pathways work at Stockport we have been able to analyse a large cohort of disabled people moving through various life stages and to redesign systems that have a much greater emphasis on vocational choices for young adults with disabilities.

The project is now moving into the implementation stages and this will challenge the status quo in terms of emphasis placed on educational attainment as opposed optional vocational and work pathways and work choices, challenging Schools and Colleges to provide more vocational and independent living skills in educational settings alongside the curriculum.

The programme has operated with coproduction at its heart with disabled people and staff planning and designing the programme’s projects and taking an active management role at the Strategic

Delivery Board. Disabled people have brought excellent challenge and contribution to all processes and key decisions and we close the programme feeling very proud about the way we were able to operate in an open and transparent way. In the local areas, Local Implementation Teams were developed, with local people contributing and coproducing throughout.

Our roving coproduction experts formed a collaborative called the CIA (Coproduction in Action) and took their learning and expertise far and wide, speaking at conferences around the country, and contributing to the development of social work education in Manchester and beyond.

There have been real and dramatic improvements to the quality of life for some disabled people participating in the scheme across the Manchester Area Partnership, which have in some cases produced tangible economic benefits across the ‘whole system’ of government funding streams.

The legal Right to Control (clause 22) expired at midnight on the 12th December 2013, and the Manchester Area Partnership has now completed its closedown phase. Three months later, all provisions and arrangements under the act expired.


There is much to celebrate from the work that has been produced by the Manchester Area Partnership, and this programme has enabled many disabled people to live more independently, and empowered government agencies, in coproduced ways, to create more imaginative solutions and improved the quality of life for disabled people. I hope that you will take the time to read the case studies in the appendices which powerfully highlight the many and varied examples of how the Right to Control made a lasting positive impact to the lives of disabled people.

It has been a privilege to work with all the partners in the programme over the lifetime of the Trailblazer. Whilst the legal right has now come to an end, we hope that these relationships and the greater legacy of learning will last long into the future.

Carey Bamber Independent Chair for the Manchester Area Partnership

March 2014


The MAP successfully brought together five authorities, strategic delivery partners, disabled people’s organisations and the third sector into a fully coproduced model, across a very large geographical area.

The MAP Authority and Principal Partners were:

• Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Stockport, and Trafford Councils; • The Office for Disability Issues (ODI); • Independent Living Fund; • Access to Work; • Jobcentre Plus; • Disabled People’s User Led Organisations (DPULOs); • Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP); • Disability Stockport; • Breakthrough UK; • Body Positive Northwest, Result CIC; • Trafford Centre for Independent Living.

Partnership Working

Manchester

TraffordStockport

Oldham

Bury

Greater Manchester

Rochdale

Tameside

Salford

Bolton

Wigan


With such a large complex partnership model there were the ever present risks that decisions would not be reached, and consensus would be difficult to achieve leading to the delay or non-delivery of the programmes, projects.

This risk was recognised at the start of the programme and the governance arrangements were designed to enable timely and consensus decision making. Clear escalation paths were in place to support delivery.

Regular Strategic Delivery Board meetings were established with an independent Chair who was able to bring a wealth of experience and an objective approach to steering the delivery of the programme.

The Board model had peer challenge, support and scrutiny at its heart. All local authority partners were represented as were JCP, a disabled people’s organisation and individual disabled people from the Co-Production Design Group. Representatives from ODI also attended.

The governance approach made certain that decisions were made at the highest level across the partnership and involved disabled people and their organisations at its core.

An analysis of the changes that the partnership was able to bring about is included in the table on the next page.

“The partnership has benefitted greatly from the work of the MAP programme management team, through their skills, knowledge, good planning, coordination, facilitation, and drive to move change forward.” Martin White Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

“The Partnership has led to great links with the DEA’s from the DWP, along with Social Workers. We can use RTC as a springboard to build on new initiatives. Strong relationships have been built on with third sector organisations such as Disability Stockport and MIND” Jude Wells Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

“Working together with the other partners involved; the fund holders, including the DWP, the other local authorities, disabled people and their organisations has been essential in being able to make the progress and deliver improved outcomes for disabled people.” Martin White Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council


Challenges Right to Control enablers Outcome

Partner agencies were operating with a ‘silo’ mentality and front line workers were not empowered to implement creative cross agency solutions.

The RTC legislation brought into place an information sharing protocol that for the first time allowed front line workers to share information about disabled people. The Manchester Area Partnership strategic delivery board was able to embed the changes relating to information sharing into programme delivery, thus facilitating creative and innovative person centred solutions.

A paradigm shift took place with front line workers who with a fuller understanding of the right to control and other funding streams were empowered to make decisions with greater confidence and creativity. Simultaneously a power shift took place for disabled people who were empowered to exercise their legal right to control.

This resulted in some dramatic improvements in the lives of disabled people whilst at the same reducing the cost of publicly funded statutory services. See later case studies.

Disabled people were not always included in shaping services for disabled people.

GMCDP developed the Design Group which evolved into Co-production in Action (CIA) who, in turn were consulted by Manchester University which informed the social work degree course.

Breakthrough UK, a local disabled people’s organisation, were involved in shaping the successful MAP bid and remained as key partners on the Strategic Delivery Board throughout the pilot.

The value of the lived experience of disabled people is taken into account at a strategic and operational level when partners make decisions about services for disabled people. Peer support is valued and remains the norm.

The contribution of disabled peoples organisations as a ‘voice’ of disabled people have was valued and shaped the programme.

The development of DPULOs in the MAP area was recognised and supported by all Local Authorities.

Disabled people were confused and anxious about moving from one authority boundary to another which was a barrier to employment, education, or locating with friends and family.

The Manchester Area Partnership put in place a portability protocol that enabled disabled people to move across the five local authority boundaries without reassessment of their support plan.

The new portability protocol has been a success, will continue to be in place up until April 2015 when it becomes a new statutory duty on all English local authorities.

An individual approach by each MAP authority would not have created the scale on which to successful trial the right to control. Many collaborative programmes across Manchester had used the AGMA footprint in order to deliver multi agency change programmes.

The creation of the Manchester Area Partnership brought together a five authority model that created real scale for the RTC test area.

The utilisation of skills and shared knowledge across the MAP area ensured greater continuity and flexibility of resources. Eg. Bury’s contribution of project finance skills, Stockport’s contribution of communications, My Job, My Choice project, Breakthrough’s delivery of coproduction projects.


The Market Position Statement was commissioned by the MAP as part of Manchester, Stockport and Trafford’s plans to stimulate a diverse market of personalised care and support that offers real choice and control to individuals.

The MPS whilst a part of a wider process was designed to stimulate a positive conversation and stronger collaboration between the commissioning authorities and providers of care and support locally, whether large or small and particularly highlights the value and of the services offered by local disabled people’s user led organisations.

The MPS conveyed combined expectations for how the social care market will change and develop over time. It was produced for people and organisations with a stake in the health and wellbeing of our populations and for current and prospective providers of social care and support services. We hope that it will be of interest to people with care and support needs, their carers, families and members of the general public – in particular to raise their understanding, expectations and aspirations for personalised care and support in their communities.

The MPS includes:

• Where are we headed? A description of the ‘direction of travel’ in adult social care drawing on policy and economic considerations;

• What are some of the key pressures? Information about demography and the likely impact on adult social care;

• How are we responding? An overview of the current use of resources in adult social care and how this is changing;

• What else is needed? Information about how the market works now and what may be needed and most valued by citizens in the coming years.

Market Position Statement (MPS)


The MPS was produced with strong co-production and the decision to develop the MPS was made by the Right to Control Board, whose members include disabled people and their organisation with care and support needs, and the subsequent work to develop it involved representatives from the Manchester Area Partnership disabled people’s user led organisation working alongside the commissioning authorities.

In addition, each local authority involved has taken some very specific steps to ensure the involvement of people locally in determining their views about current services and their priorities for the future. In particular, each area has used a process called Working Together for Change to embed coproduction in their work and this has informed the final document.

The MPS forms part of the appendices to this report and marks the beginning of an ongoing and open dialogue between commissioners, providers and citizens with the shared ambition of developing a thriving market of personalised care and support in our areas for the future. We hope you find it informative and above all useful!


Recognising the value of effective co-production, the Manchester Area Partnership invested for the initial two years of the project in the independent facilitation and delivery of a design group, managed by the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. The design group consisted of members from across the partnership with representation from all Local Authorities.

Two design group members were partners of the MAP Strategic Delivery Board and each Local Authority developed a Local Implementation Team with design group representation.

In the third year of the RTC project, the Co-production in Action (CIA) group was established, which is a diverse group of people living within the geographic footprint of Greater Manchester with an age range spanning from 20 years to 60 years. All members have a range of lived experience and have had contact and interaction with the social care system and social workers throughout their life.

Previous design group members have joined this group to ensure co-production is understood and valued in a wider context than just health and social care.

Manchester Metropolitan University initially commissioned the group to explore “What is good social work?” and more recently the group have explored “What is effective co-production, what does it look like and what stops this happening?”

The group agreed to explore and think about how their personal experience could improve the general understanding of what is co-production and positively

inform and enhance effective co-production and how this must happen.

An evaluation and range of products to support the work was presented to the Manchester Area Partnership RTC Strategic Delivery Board detailing the thoughts and recommendations of the group.

A summary overview of the work delivered around coproduction by the MAP forms part of the appendices to this report.

Coproduction Overview

“Partner organisations and people have been able to share their practices and their requirements, to plan through coproduction how obstacles can be overcome and changes can be delivered in a way that meets the needs of both fund holders and disabled people.” Martin White Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council


In December 2010, Breakthrough UK was commissioned by the Manchester Area Partnership (MAP) to deliver a Centre for Independent Living (CIL) to support and facilitate the delivery of Right to Control across the five local authorities for the then, two year period of the pilot.

The CIL was commissioned to provide a streamlined service to clients, who could use the centre to access information, advice and support around the RTC. As a disabled persons’ user-led organisation (DPULO), the Breakthrough UK CIL offered a person-centred alternative to local authority assistance with support planning, based on a model of peer-support.

As well as providing services directly to clients, the Breakthrough UK CIL aimed to bring partner organisations from across the five participating local authorities together, to facilitate mutual learning and the development of best practice, and to offer training and support in delivering the RTC to clients.

It also aimed to provide ULOs with training and support around their longer term sustainability and to support the establishment other local CILs across the five local authorities to deliver similar services on a more local scale.

MAP Centre for Independent Living


The objectives of the CIL were to:

• Be one of a choice of access points for new and existing Right to Control customers;

• Ensure that customers are informed of their Right to Control and the choices available to them. This will come via a variety of access points;

• Ensure that Co-production is embedded at each stage of the customer journey, from point of access and to point of review;

• Deliver Brokerage & DIY Brokerage, Advocacy Support and Self-Advocacy, Assessment, Self-Assessment & Planning;

• Provide Access to Employment, Employment Training & Volunteering;

• Support the development of the Design Group to become peer advocates;

• Act as the budget holder for individuals, if required.

The partnership wide CIL Service based in a hub at Breakthrough UK’s offices in Manchester – was a challenging model to implement. It involved working in close partnership with numerous different services and organisations spread across a very large geographical area comprising five different local authorities and six different funding streams.

This was an extremely ambitious model and there were inevitable logistical challenges involved in its implementation.

There was a limited take up of the services offered by the CIL due to a lack of awareness and understanding of the Breakthrough UK CIL; limited enthusiasm for and broader issues relating to the RTC trailblazer; some practical and logistical barriers to accessing the service; the existence of ‘competing’ local CIL services; and the difficult wider context of local authority budget cuts and departmental restructuring.

Nevertheless, the CIL played a positive contribution to the shift in culture surrounding personalisation and the role of independent organisations – particularly the role of disabled people’s organisations in the delivery of RTC and personalised services.

The services provided were widely regarded as good services by the clients who used them and the CIL had positive short-term and long-term impacts on the lives of service-users and provided a much-needed independent alternative to local authority support with personal care planning.

A full independent evaluation of the CIL forms part of the appendices of this report.


During the final programme delivery year, the following two projects were commissioned by the MAP to strengthen and develop user led organisations across the Manchester area.

DPULO Activity (Support Planning and Peer Brokerage)This project was delivered by Breakthrough UK and had two broad objectives the first to deliver improvements to both support planning and peer brokerage and the second which focussed on the development of skills of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to provide whole life planning.

In the first two years of RTC, Breakthrough UK delivered a development programme to DPULOs which was concentrated on robust organisations and an understanding of the Right to Control, and the role organisations could play in co-production and delivery of Right to Control.

Experience and learning from the previous development programme has shown that many disabled people and their organisations have an underdeveloped understanding of

the current environment and the changes within Adult Social Care, Employment and Health services.

In addition, a number of individual disabled people from across the MAP Local Authorities were offered the opportunity to become independent Support Brokers via the My Support Broker Training Programme. Eighteen disabled people attended – nine achieved accreditation and are have the opportunity to offer independent support to disabled people and their families and circles of support.

Following on from this initial DPULO development programme, Breakthrough UK has coordinated a ‘Phase 2’ programme to provide DPULOs and disabled people in the Manchester Area Partnership with the skills to be contributors, both paid and voluntarily, to

any future market to support RTC customers and families and, more generally, for the Personalisation provider market.

Through a series of expert-led group training and 1-to-1 sessions, this training programme has been designed to move organisations onto the next stages of strategic and operational business planning and skilling up staff and volunteers in areas beyond the traditional support broker role. 124 people attended this programme from DPULOs across the whole MAP area.

Disabled People’s User Led Organisations (DPULOs)


DPULO Activity (Leadership and Sustainability)In partnership with Result CIC the MAP programme commissioned a project to deliver a programme of leadership development, combining group sessions and one-to-one coaching to DPULOs and other third sector organisations in the MAP area.

Organisational & Personal Excellence (COPE)

A programme designed to support organisations that work with disabled people to ensure as much peer led support is available in the community.

Targeted at Chief Executives, senior managers and Board Members of user-led and voluntary organisations, the programme has been designed around one-to-one coaching and group training to work on their plans for personal and organisational development.

Focusing on topics such as ‘coaching skills in the workplace’, ‘promoting your message’, and ‘improving service delivery’, the programme has enabled senior ULO staff to help themselves by setting clear goals and making confident use of all their resources in the current very demanding environment.

Having brought together the participants from various charities, voluntary and user-led organisations. The programme has also provided a major networking opportunity, which participants started taking advantage of early on in the programme.


Work Choice The Manchester Area Partnership has developed excellent relationships with Jobcentre Plus colleagues, with Breakthrough UK and other partners.

It took time to bring about system and cultural change across Local Authorities and partner agencies. However in the final year the MAP achieved real ‘traction’ across Work Choice.

From the current DWP report, 167 people received Work Choice payments and overall 285 people had Work Choice payments across the Manchester Area Partnership, which represents the highest volume across the national trailblazer sites.

Employment

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

300

250

200

150

100

50

0Barnet Barnsley &

SheffieldEssex Leicester MAP SurreyNewham

60

13

244

74

285

5119

Work Choice - By Area

Working with the principal funder, the Department for Work and Pensions, the MAP were able to construct a number of projects designed to provide better support for people in relation to obtaining paid employment. A ‘root and branch’ review of employment and vocational pathways has been undertaken, a new website launched and the overall take up and performance surrounding Work Choice has been analysed as part of this section.


Employment Pathways The Manchester Area Partnership commissioned a project based in Stockport to examine existing employment pathways for two key cohorts of disabled people and to design new structural vocational pathways for disabled people as part of Stockport’s overall 0-25 transformation programme. The two cohorts can be described as:

Cohort 1

Young people aged 0-25 who will ultimately become ‘FACS eligible’ adults as a result of having on-going critical and substantial needs

Cohort 2

Children and young people aged 0-25 who after the age of 18 are anticipated to become frequent on-going users of a range of statutory services due to moderate or low level needs, currently referred to as adults at risk. Many of these are likely to fall into the following categories: Those Not in Education, Employment or Training; Looked After Children; Autistic Spectrum Disorder; Mental Health; Physical and/or Learning Difficulties; Substance and Alcohol misuse; Victims or perpetrators of Domestic Violence; Offenders or at classed as being at high risk of offending due to numerous issues.


Through the employment pathways work at Stockport we have been able to analyse a large cohort of disabled people moving through the various life stages and to redesign systems that have a much greater emphasis on vocational choices for young adults with disabilities.

The ‘as is’ analysis confirmed that significant volumes of children and young people often disappear from statutory services at 16 and often represent to Adult Services between the age of 18 and 25 at a crisis point. This work has confirmed the need to design vocational pathways and choices within the educational setting at a much earlier point.

In some places there is a lack of provision of the right type in the right place leading to sometimes inappropriate and ineffective high cost packages. In some cases, the Post 16 academic offer/curriculum simply duplicates the last two years of a child’s education, and no thought is given to a child ‘exit strategy’ from the educational setting.

The funding model for schools and colleges in not transparent enough or understood by CYP aged 0-25 years and their families. There is a ‘block’ commissioning approach to services and the funding model needs to be clearly broken down into its elements to support the impending policy changes in respect of Personal Budgets for CYP aged 0-25 years alongside the imminent introduction of Education, Health and Care plans.

In view of policy direction arising from the Children and Families act with the introduction of personal budget and the Education, Health, and Care plans for people 0-25 it is element 3 funding that could be used in different ways to provide personal budgets to children and families.

The project is now moving into the implementation stages which will challenge the status quo in terms of the emphasis placed on educational attainment as opposed optional vocational and work pathways and work choices, challenging Schools and Colleges to provide more vocational and independent living skills in educational settings alongside the curriculum.


My Job, My Choice The My Job, My Choice project was a pilot project managed by Stockport Council. It aimed to fund supported employment for 30 adults with disabilities using a mixture of strategic commissioning and outcome payments.

The project ran from April 2012 to March 2013 and was delivered by Pure Innovations Ltd. It sought to deliver the following outcomes:

• Widen participation in employment from the most disadvantaged groups including cohorts of customers who have learning disabilities, long-term mental health needs and autism;

• Simplify the allocation of individual budgets by offering a single interface between the customer and the funding;

• Test a model that develops commissioning built on a better understanding of employment support and the quality considerations and costs involved in delivering it;

• Support wider transformation activity across the local authority.

“ More disabled people access and remain in work; there are people back in work who have not had a job for 15 years.” Jude Wells Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Person Centred Education, Health and Care Plan or CAF Employment considered as an option

0 – Year 8 Year 9Start Vocational Profile as part of Person Centred Education, Health and Care Plan or CAF.

Year 10Update Vocational Profile, transition plan and Person Centred Education, Health and Care Plan or CAF

Employability Skills• Travel Training

• Independent travelling

• Information, Advice and Guidance

• Meaningful work experience, with support as necessary

• Saturday jobs and volunteering, with support as necessary



• Information, Advice and Guidance

• Meaningful work experience, with support as necessary

• Saturday jobs and volunteering, with support as necessary

Year 11Update Vocational Profile, transition plan and Person Centred Education, Health and Care Plan or CAF

Person centred transition plan with employment considered as an outcome.

Post-16 Education

Update Vocational Profile, transition plan and Person Centred Education, Health and Care Plan or CAF

GCSEs and A levels

Vocational qualifications

Study Programmes including Supported Internships

Traineeships and Apprenticeships University

A job and a career

Including self-employment and enterprise development

Further Education, sixth form and

training providers





• Stranger danger

• Safe road crossing

• Using public transport

Employability Skills• Saturday jobs and

volunteering

• Employability Skills and meaningful work experience

Education Pathway What do you want to do when you grow up? What may you be able to do when you grow up?

• Local Offer• Families talking to familiesBuilding and Raising Aspirations • Information about support

• Images and role models• People with disabilities

seen in employment


The MAP implemented cross authority procedures across the five local authorities to trial the portability of care and support. This has enabled service users to move across authorities whilst at the same time retaining their assessed care and support plan until their assessment falls due with their new authority. The work enabled authorities to prepare for the legislative changes which take place from April 2015.

Portability ProtocolThe forthcoming principles of the Social Care Portability Bill (April 2015) are:

• The Bill places a legal duty on Local Authorities to work together and cut red tape.

• Relocation should not require a reassessment. The second authority must put in place a package equivalent to existing support.

• The first authority must ensure the continuation of support, and be reimbursed by second authority if necessary.

• The welfare of the customer is paramount, with all decisions underpinned by dignity, choice and control for the individual.

The Manchester Area Partnership have been able to put in place a portability protocol enabling service users to move seamlessly across local authority boundaries without the fear of having their care and support plans being changed overnight. The care and support bill is enshrining portability as a key feature of new statutory responsibilities for all local authorities with effect from April 2015.

As part of the area partnership’s legacy arrangements an extension has been agreed for this portability protocol which will allow residents to ‘port’ their care and support plans across the MAP authorities until April 2015 when local authorities will have new statutory responsibilities for national portability.

Ten disabled people used the portability protocol across the Manchester Area Partnership, these people benefitted from the retention of their support packages through a planned transitional period with set periods for reviews by the new authority. This has effectively tested Portability across the authority boundaries.

Legacy


All Authorities & Funding Streams

• Take steps to ensure that customers are aware of arrangements to support portability, and promote the agreed protocol.

• Promote the availability of Access to Work in conjunction with the Portability Protocol, as a means of boosting the confidence of disabled people to consider employment options.

• Provide general advice and support to any customer who may be considering moving.

Authority 1 • If a definite decision to move has been made, formally notify Authority 2 and begin making joint arrangements for transfer of funding responsibility.

• Provide advice to the customer, including contact points in the new authority and availability of peer support.

• Confirm that the customer has an equivalent support plan in place in the new authority.

• Fully fund the support plan in the new authority for an initial hand-over period (while guaranteeing the continuation of support until Authority 2 takes over).

Authority 2 • Work with Authority 1 to provide information about available support, including peer support, in the new area.

• Assume full responsibility for funding of the support plan after the initial hand-over period.

• Reimburse Authority 1 for any support funded beyond the agreed period.

• Continue to fund the equivalent support to that provided in Authority 1 for a guaranteed period before conducting a reassessment (unless the customer indicates that their support needs have changed and request a review.)

Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) & Supporting People – Authorities 1 & 2

• Support portability via innovative solutions wherever possible, e.g.

• Supporting the cost of a removal to more accessible accommodation via DFG funding as an alternative to large adaptations to an existing property.

• Fast-tracking and / or jointly funding adaptations to a home in the new authority to enable a customer to move.

• Agree to maintain levels of housing-related support, e.g. agree shared funding of on-going floating support to support the move.

• Ensure that accommodation-based support is available to customers wishing to move in from outside the LA area, and that that social care staff are alerted so that this protocol can be followed.

Access to Work • Work with Authority 1 and 2 to support the move, and provide the customer with a coordinated support plan.

• Arrange for a transfer of existing support to the new employer / new location. This should be based on the Sayce recommendation of avoiding a reassessment unless absolutely necessary.

Jobcentre Plus – Work Choice • Explore how Work Choice funding might be used to support customers choosing to move, particularly if that may help enhance employment prospects.

Independent Living Fund (ILF) • To support the transfer of funding to the new authority without requiring a reassessment of ILF support within the remit of the trust deed.


Content of the formal ‘notice’ from Authority 1 to Authority 2.

Content will initially be informal, but should include an indication of the customer’s support requirements, and how support should be arranged, e.g. Direct Payment, directly provided services etc.

Period by which Authority 2 should have made arrangements for ‘equivalent’ support to be in place.

Recommend two to three months from date of notice.

Period for which the new support provided by Authority 2 should be equivalent to that previously provided by Authority 1.

In order to offer a degree of security, and assurance to the customer, a minimum of six months is essential. Nine months, may be reasonable, to ensure that the customer has chance for their support to settle down before any review or reassessment takes place.

Period for Authority 1 to retain funding responsibility.

Recommend the first six weeks following the customer’s move.

Dispute resolution mechanism. Disputes and disagreements to be considered by strategic leads from the three other members of the Manchester Area Partnership.

Portability GuidelinesThe guidelines that were used for the portability protocol were as follows:

• Authority 1 refers to the Local Authority where the customer originally lives;

• Authority 2 refers to the Local Authority into which they intend to move.


Throughout the programme, the Manchester Area Partnership PMO were able to assemble a large number of case studies relating to the experiences of disabled people before and after the introduction of the legal right to control. This section records the qualitative evidence relating to the programme by client group.

Mental HealthThe Manchester Area Partnership have been able to interview a number of disabled people with mental health conditions to understand how the Right to Control has been able to change and improve their lives. In each case we have been able to summarise the background to the disabled person’s circumstances, their needs and aspirations, we have then described the Right to Control Process, the outcome achieved, and how the Right to Control was able to ease the barriers to achieve the outcome.

Case Studies


Background Right to Control Process Outcome How Right to Control eased the barriers to achieving the outcome

R and C are a married couple in their forties supported by the Local Authority to live independently.

R has mental health problems and a mild learning disability. C has learning disabilities and some mental health issues (relating to a child who was removed from her care at birth).

The couple are very wary of Local Authority involvement and show a strong determination to do things their way, often finding themselves in complicated and vulnerable situations, financially destitute and in poor mental health.

An independent advocacy organisation brought their circumstances to the attention of the Learning Disability Partnership Board during an information session on Right to Control.

Following the Partnership Board meeting it was agreed that a member of the Right to Control MAP team and the Learning Disability lead could support the couple to explore their options on neutral territory with their respective social workers and care managers.

An initial meeting took place between the two professionals, the manager of the advocacy agency and two care managers assigned as the named workers for the couple. Background information was obtained and shared with the consent of the couple. This was followed by a meeting with the couple, social workers from Mental Health and learning disability services and Right to Control personnel. Their legal right to have choice and control over their support was explained and reinforced at this initial meeting.

Discussion was held about funding available across service areas and it appeared the couple were eligible for support from Adult Social Care, Mental Health and Supporting People.

A support plan was drawn up outlining what was important to them as a couple and as individuals. R and C acknowledged they had been victims of financial abuse from unscrupulous landlords but wanted full independence in a home of their own and of their choosing. However, they did not want the responsibility of managing the money.

R and C chose to exercise their legal Right to Control by choosing support from an independent provider of warden controlled housing with an Individual Service Fund which included joint assistance with budgeting and some household tasks.

Joint funding including Supporting People was agreed, although this was already allocated as a block contract with a number of housing providers. A personalised, joint support plan between the couple, the housing provider and other provision was designed and implemented. This has enabled them to maintain their tenancy and reduce and manage the risks of financial abuse and homelessness.

Organisationally there was and remains reduced demand and dependency on the care management services of the LA and safeguarding team.

The legal right empowered the couple to be confident and feel stronger about asking for what they really needed as opposed to accepting what they were offered. Previously concealing true feelings and lifestyle preferences [they were frightened of being separated and taken into institutions as they had been in their childhoods] would have resulted in two separate packages of support at greater cost with a less positive outcome.

The legal right facilitated joint working between the Local Authority, an independent provider and advocacy services.

Cross service and organisational working supported the deployment of a shared budget combined with a holistic joint support plan.

The marriage had also been at risk of breakdown as the relationship was not valued or recognised by the organisations involved. However, the legal right has been used to:

• Highlight the importance of the relationship

• Recognise their right to live together

• Recognise their right to care for each other.

Joint working and funding avoided additional budget pressures through effective use of allocated resource.

Due to previous financial problems and abuse R was at risk of becoming criminalised and involved in the criminal justice system in his attempts to raise money and stay solvent.

Through exercising choice and using the legal right the customers accessed personalised, flexible support that has long term benefits for health and well-being in addition to being a cost effective use of resource.

The customer said:

“ We can live together, do our own thing and keep the cat, I don’t have to look after C all by myself”.


Background Right to Control Process Outcome How Right to Control eased the

barriers to achieving the outcome

A male customer living with HIV and a severe mental health condition was receiving peer support to evaluate his life and future from a stretch project funded by the Right to Control programme.

Previous discrimination had impacted on his confidence and self-esteem resulting in depression, increased anxiety, isolation, and reinforced his low self-image and inability to secure employment.

Although accessing mental health support and HIV support via ASC, he was adamant that neither support mechanism should be aware of the other for fear of further stigma and discrimination.

The customer made a positive choice with regard to meeting his outcomes his way by exercising his legal Right to choice and control through receiving effective peer support from a person with lived experience.

The customer had choice and controlled which information was shared and which was withheld about him and his circumstances between service providers and social workers. Prior to his experience with Right to Control he had no confidence about this issue.

Strong effective peer support and guidance empowered the person to make a choice although this challenged service provision and was a new concept for this service area. Provision is now more diverse and flexible with an increasing range of choices which include:

• Weekend breaks;• Leisure activities;• Alternative therapies;• Spa breaks.

These choices produced outcomes of: • Increased confidence and self-esteem;• Improved mental health and reduced anxiety;• Cashable benefits of 50% for the funders as the customer met his needs

using only half the budget through shopping around.As his health and wellbeing improved, the customer identified his ability and skill to achieve his outcome of being self-employed. Therefore Work Choice, although explored, was not required. He is currently involved with a time-limited course of positive coaching (a project funded by the Trailblazer) which is building on his achievements to date.

The customer is no longer dependent on benefits, is socially and economically active, has improved self-esteem and is running a successful small business which he is looking to expand by employing additional staff.

His mental health support package has now ceased with only low level input from Health and his GP as required.

The legal right instigated and facilitated joint working between the Local Authority, Health, an independent provider and peer support at a pace the customer chose.

The legal right in partnership with effective peer support empowered the customer to be confident and reject what was offered knowing he had a legal right to choice.

He was also empowered to make choices about information sharing, having had the data sharing protocol and confidentiality explained to him in detail. Previously this had not happened.

Service providers also acknowledged his right to choice, although this challenged their perception and view of what respite was and how this should be provided. Attitudes and service provision are evolving because of this case.

Exploration of Work Choice, although not utilised, was productive and positive as it provided a level of confidence that he could have choice and control over his support requirements. The plan, together with positive coaching, achieved his outcome of working and not being dependent on benefits.

The customer said:

“I am finally getting to know and like who I am, I am an OK guy”.




D is in his mid-20s and has Asperger’s Syndrome. He describes himself as being a very sensitive person, with special interests. Maintaining good mental health is important to D, and part of this is brought on by having a routine/schedule that he is happy with.

Referred to CIL broker from Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS – Early Intervention Team. D had been given an indicative budget of 4 hours per week (£50) to pay for a cleaner to support him to maintain cleanliness in his flat. Broker supported D to find a value-for-money cleaner that he felt comfortable with (informal interview was held).

There were surplus funds from the indicative budget (£14 per week), so the broker supported D to write a second plan to request at panel that D could use remaining funds to pay for a support worker via the Aspirations Project to accompany him on driving journeys for leisure (a project D had designed and hoped to do via a PB in the future). Panel agreed, and the plan was implemented.

D and family have since informed broker that he is delighted with how he is spending his PB and how pleased he is with his cleaner, who he can trust and rely on. A three month review will be conducted by the broker and D and family are aware that they can contact the broker at any time if they need support or if circumstances change.

D’s cleaner is also happy to support D at short notice. For example, if things go wrong in the house, for e.g. a leak – D will telephone the cleaner who will then provide assistance. This is a huge comfort to D and his family who live some miles away.

Finding the right person to support D with cleaning was imperative, as D needed someone who he feels comfortable with, especially with them being in his home. If D was not offered the RTC, he would have had very little control over who provided this support which could have resulted in a significant amount of anxiety.




C is a 41 year old married male with two young children.

He has been suffering for the last two years from the onset of dementia which has resulted in his right leg and arm being affected.

The gentleman had increasingly become depressed and found it difficult to access the community and socialise whilst his wife is at work (she works full time).

He was assessed as requiring 12hrs of support within the week for socialisation.

C considered employing Personal Assistants but decided to commission an agency of his choosing. He did this by interviewing three that were shortlisted at Sale Waterside, choosing the provider that he felt would best meet his assessed needs.

The chosen provider was able to match his needs by providing a carer who was a male, a similar age to the service user, had similar interests and would support the client wearing casual clothes as the service user was very self-conscious whilst out in the community.

He also requested to save up to 2 hours per week to put towards an Apple iPad which would allow him to access the internet more effectively via the touch screen interface as he now cannot use a traditional mouse and keyboard.

This allowed him regain access to social groups he joined before the onset of his illness and the dementia awareness forums he contributes to.

This would also allow him to access on line shops, purchase music of his choosing as this helps him relax and take his mind off his illness.

A Support Plan was submitted and approved. The iPad was bought and is working well allowing the gentleman access social groups/shop online.

The agency took a few weeks to train their specific support worker before they could deliver the care in the community and at home but this was discussed at the point of interviewing the agency and the service user understood the time scales. The care package is now in operation and running well.

RTC allowed C to voice his own wishes regarding the delivery, composition and there for personalisation of his care package.




V came to me having been unemployed since 2003. She had previously worked as a care assistant for 14 years and had cared for her parents until their death. She had not been treated well by her last employer which had left her worried about returning to work.

She suffered two nervous breakdowns in 2006 and claimed incapacity benefit. She was found fit for work in late 2011 and was referred to me in January 2012. V clearly wanted to work but was still very fragile and frightened. Each time she came to the Jobcentre she cried. I felt that she would need a lot of support to sustain employment but her desire to work was clear.

We discussed Work Choice and I explained Right to Control. After discussing what the Prime providers could offer we decided to explore Right to Control further.

We arranged a meeting with a manager at Pure Innovations who have a specialist mental health team. I felt that emotional support would be key to V’s success and it was agreed that JR who has worked on the team for many years would be her employment officer.

Julie helped V to believe in herself again and gave her lots of confidence building and support to recognise that she had a lot to offer employers. Julie used her contacts to arrange two working interviews with local home care providers. They were so impressed with V that they both offered her work!

Most home care jobs require a driving licence but Julie arranged for V to work with another lady who could drive. Initially she was only offered 16 hours a week which meant that overall she would only be £8 a month better off. She was so determined to work by this stage that she took the job. Within four weeks the employer had given her full time work as they were so impressed with her. Julie helped her to claim tax credits, which means that she is much better off in work.

Julie continues to offer support which is the reason why V is still thriving in work. When rent payments are being sorted out letters threatening court action are sent to people as a matter of course. This in itself would have caused V a huge amount of stress which would have made her ill again. Because Julie takes all these letters and sorts everything out V continues to remain well. She is extremely happy in work and very glad that she was able to access Right to Control funding. V is very grateful to Julie for delivering such a holistic service and putting a safety net in place so that if any problems arise she can help to sort them out. Without this she says she knows that she would still be applying for jobs and being overlooked by employers. Julie’s ongoing support has been crucial to this fantastic outcome. V is very unlike the frightened person I met back in January. She is now a happy, confident worker who is highly valued by her employer.

The Right meant that the service was completely tailored to what V needed to overcome her barriers to work.




When D first came to me he had not worked for 10 years. He was suffering from depression, OCD and labyrinthitis and was far from ready for work. Although he had been found fit for work and had to sign onto Jobseekers Allowance he did not feel that he would ever be well enough to work.

In spite of this he did want to work and was interested in any support we had to offer. His only work experience was as a sales assistant for a few months and he had no idea what he wanted to do.

I explained mainstream Work Choice and RTC and we both felt that RTC would be more beneficial. With mainstream Work Choice the provider has to search for work from day one which would have been totally inappropriate for D. We were able to use the flexibility of RTC to achieve his dream goal of finally going back into paid work.

The first part of his support plan was counselling support to overcome some of the barriers that although due to poor mental health were causing severe physical difficulties impairing D’s ability to work. D also had anger management issues which his counsellor worked on with him. D came on really well through this specialist counselling and when he felt ready for work we arranged a meeting with Breakthrough UK. They arranged two different placements-one in a care home and one at Halfords as these were two areas of interest for D. Within a very short space of time D decided that he wanted to work in care. He has been on placement for six weeks and the feedback from management and colleagues has been fantastic.

D has just been offered paid work of 20 hours a week to start April 2013 and is over the moon. He was also approached by another care home as his reputation and standard of work are so good.

Without the legal right D’s only option would have been Work Choice and this would not have achieved this outcome as he needed a lot more than just support with job search.


Learning Disabilities The Manchester Area Partnership have been able to interview a number of disabled people with learning disabilities to understand how the Right to Control has been able to change and improve their lives. In each case we have been able to summarise the background to the disabled person’s circumstances, their needs and aspirations, we have then described the Right to Control Process, the outcome achieved, and how the Right to Control was able to ease the barriers to achieve the outcome.


A gentleman with a learning disability lives independently with another gentleman who has a learning disability and similar support needs.

The gentleman receives six hours per week of social care support to provide support to make dinner and to do housework in addition to five hours provided by tenancy support (Supporting People), which the gentleman uses to go shopping and to manage his tenancy.

The gentleman has been offered the option to receive a personal budget or a commissioned service.

The gentleman with the support of his family sourced an agency to take over the care package.

The gentleman decided that he would pool together his social care funding with the tenancy support funding to allow him greater flexibility and give him greater choice in how he uses his assessed number of hours.

The gentleman decided to have a Personal Budget so that both funding streams were available to purchase the support from his preferred provider of choice.

The gentleman used both his funding streams (Adult Social Care and Supporting People) on sourcing and paying for the services of one home care agency provider.

This made the managing of his care package easier to manage as he was arranging support with just one provider and not two.

The gentleman was therefore able to be supported by one agency, and not two. This allowed the gentleman to have peace of mind and alleviate anxieties by knowing that he was being supported by one agency who could provide a consistent and regular team of staff and who would be able to build strong relationships with him in order to fully meet his needs.

As only one provider took over the whole care package, they were able to provide the gentleman with a personalised and consistent approach that was bespoke to his needs.

Pooling together two funding streams into one Personal Budget empowered the gentleman as he was in control of his care package. The gentleman, with the support of his family, was able to create a bespoke service which met his needs and own individual situation and allowed him to have control as to how his needs are met.




P is a woman with LD, previously attending in house Day Service, and college. The hours of P’s college course was reduced.

P wanted more choice about what she was doing in the day, and more flexibility around when she could be supported.

She said she would like to continue learning new skills, and maintain her independence.

P is eligible for ASC funding, she was supported to look at the option of having a Personal Budget, and to develop a support plan.

P looked at different options of what she would like to do, and how she could be supported to do these.

P now goes to a new service on one day, with people she knows. She has been supported through this to access the community, on a variety of visits, meet new people and to learn skills related to maintaining her independence.

P attends a camera club, to follow up another of her interests.

She has also been able to continue things she enjoys like attending college and going out to a club on a Friday evening.

P says “I go to college some days a week during term time and now, through Direct Payments I have learnt more interesting things to do.

During the summer holidays I went with Helen from Friendly Faces some days and learnt how to open an e-mail account in my name so I can begin to send messages to my friends and family, she also showed me how to download a CD. I have met lots of new friends and have been invited to birthday parties and even went to an evening cabaret show with a meal and saw the Temptations singing.

The other things that I have done is fed the chickens on Helens farm, went to the Tabley show saw all the steam trains ,animals and again met lots of new people. I have also improved my cooking skills made lots with Helen and we also made some Christmas/birthday cards. I also go one afternoon a week to the camera club at the Rowans and it is good to know how to do it properly, I am looking forward to the Christmas break and I can go to the friendship group and meet up with my friends and Helen for a few days. So thanks to everyone who helps me keep my independence and makes sure I carry on learning.”

P has been able to work with brokers to look at what she would like to do, and how she could achieve that.

She now has more control, variety and flexibility, continuing to learn and maintaining her independence.



J has a learning disability and other health issues that require managing.

J receives 17 hours support from Supporting People Service throughout the week for meal preparation, medication prompts, personal care assistance, domestic duties, correspondence and health appointments.

J also receives 12 hours social support via a Personal Budget, using an agency of their choice.

The support allows J to live independently and enables him to access his own community.

A representative from the Personal Budget Team and the Commissioning Team visited J to discuss their options ahead regarding the replacement of the Independent Living Service. An independent advocate from Trafford CIL was also present.

J chose to split the hours delivered from the current Independent Living Service (ILS).

The block hours assessed for Domestic Tasks, finance management and health care needs was chosen to be delivered via a Personal Budget using the current agency provider used at the week end. The reasons behind their decision was that the hours have to remain flexible for the Service User and the current agency has built a very good relationship up with J.

The hours assessed for personal care, medication prompts and meal preparation was selected to be delivered via a Commissioned Agency. The decision was reached as the service user thought a commissioned service was a safer choice to deliver the important necessary calls as it was explained to him that the service is regularly monitored

The combination of the two funding stream enabled J to choose employ an agency of their choice.

It has also allowed the service user to build in to his support plan a degree of flexibility that the current ILS provides now via a Personal Budget.

The care package has been running for two weeks now with no issues.

The choice to combine both funding streams and allow them to be delivered in a personal centred way in line with the wishes of J resulted in a successful change of service.



B has severe dyslexia and attended a specialist school but still left with very limited reading and writing skills. He was unable to use a computer and was very embarrassed about his difficulties. Since leaving school he had worked for his father in the family business for seven years as an apprentice central heating engineer. Although he had lots of practical skills he had no formal qualifications.

When he came to me he had been through a horrendous time as his father’s business had gone into liquidation and his father had disappeared. The young man and his mum were left to sort out the financial mess and not only did he lose his job but his home as well. He said he felt he had nothing to offer an employer and was also frightened of being bullied when people found out about his difficulties.

I saw real potential in him but his confidence was very low.

When B had found a place to live I referred him to Breakthrough UK stressing that he needed paid work as soon as possible. He is such a proud man that when he lost his job he did not claim any benefits for nine months and only came to the Jobcentre when he was absolutely desperate.

He wanted to come off benefits as soon as possible. Matthew, of Breakthrough UK, built up a great rapport with him and arranged some voluntary work at Styal Mill to build his confidence but all the time he tirelessly searched for paid work.

Matthew called me as B was feeling frustrated as when his 4 hours with Matthew were up he could not carry on with his own job search. I knew of a lady called Judith who had been a dyslexia teacher for 14 years and was now working self-employed. I arranged for her to work with him on a weekly basis to help with his English skills and help him to use a computer. With her great skill and patience he is now able to do this.

Through joint working I saw his confidence greatly increase thanks to these two professionals who really wanted him to succeed.

Matthew had helped B to apply online for a vacancy in a small well established firm. Job stability was so important to him after what had happened and he researched the company and told me they had been established for 36 years.

They make car parts for adapted vehicles for disabled people and had been advertising the post for 18 months.

They had tried out graduates and people with lots of qualifications but none had been right for the job. Matthew arranged a working interview so that B could show the employer what he could do. Matthew called to say that B has been offered paid work and he actually started today.

Matthew will still offer support and make sure that if any problems arise they are sorted out.

Without the legal right he would only have been able to access mainstream Work Choice support which would not have met his needs. This wonderful outcome was only possible as a result of flexible and collaborative working using multiple providers and I am over the moon for this lovely young man who so deserves a chance.


Physical Disabilities The Manchester Area Partnership have been able to interview a number of disabled people with physical disabilities to understand how the Right to Control has been able to change and improve their lives. In each case we have been able to summarise the background to the disabled person’s circumstances, their needs and aspirations, we have then described the Right to Control Process, the outcome achieved, and how the Right to Control was able to ease the barriers to achieve the outcome.



Customer required formal care support following sudden heart attack of her husband who then had a significantly reduced capacity to care for his wife. Traditional services tried however unsuccessful due to restrictive manner of the services and unsuitable times for home care support.

Customer was already in receipt of direct payments due to the above however at time of review of DP the Right to Control discussed and the benefits of transferring over to a personal budget from DP explored further.

Customer stated that she would prefer to exercise the RTC and process of transferring from DP to personal budget commenced.

Customer able to continue to use her PA whom had been supporting her via the DP method however this enabled a small increase to the package and enabled the customer to develop her own care plan flexibly and in a less prescriptive manner than the DP service although it was acknowledged that the DP was already reasonably flexible. The customer recognises that she will be able to use her budget in a creative manner should she wish to in the future however at the present time was very pleased with the current service provided by her PA rather than the traditional services which simply did not work for this lady.

As this lady already had a PA via a Direct Payment, there were no major changes other than the slight increase and the opportunity to be more flexible in the future. The customer being satisfied in the service was the most important outcomes and these were reached satisfactorily.



This lady has a physical disability resulting in restricted movement, high levels of pain, she also suffers with depression.

Initial meeting with customer with the social worker resulted in discussion of personal budgets and how this would increase choice/ control over support and services required.

Outcomes focused on assistance at home to manage day to day activities and assistance with walking dogs which are a significant part of the customer’s life.

Customer also wanted some help managing her pain more effectively in a manner which may compliment other health therapies. Installed Carelink and Internet connection to reduce the dependence on her daughters.

The requests made to the funding panel included employing a PA to assist with dog walking, support via a care agency who were more skilled at assisting younger customers and not one provided through the councils ‘preferred provider’ list hence promoting customer choice and control. A request to funding panel was also made to use the personal budget to purchase a ‘hot tub’ to enable some ‘none medication’ pain relief which in her experience of her own pain management was beneficial to her.

Funding panel approved the package requested and the initial review of this demonstrated that the care provider was the most successful area and although pleased that the hot tub had been approved, the customer was concerned that this may be difficult for her to afford to heat/ run and requested that this be changed to enable the installation of a ‘whirlpool’ type bath which may have cheaper running costs. This is still being looked into and hopefully further discussions will commence following the New Year period.

The personal budget has also been used to pay for installation of a BT Landline as the customer did not have sufficient funds to do this. This then allowed for installation of Carelink to be requested which will offer an emergency service should the customer be in need of assistance. This will provide more security for the customer and offer reassurance to her daughters and also reduce dependency on them which made the customer feel ‘less of a burden’.

RTC helped to enable a support plan to be developed which included support outside of traditional methods and gave the confidence to request these using a personal budget to facilitate these outcomes.



This situation involved a young lady who is a permanent wheelchair user who lives in an adapted bungalow with her partner. DFG process had already been completed however other pieces of equipment were desired by this lady who she felt would give her the opportunity to exert an increased level of choice and control over her own life.

The equipment, seemingly very simple, would enable her to take a much greater control over the most simple and taken for granted areas, such as choosing her own clothes and being able to turn independently at night time.

As such a specialist double bed was requested along with an adaptable wardrobe which had a ‘pull down’ hanging rail which enabled this lady to choose and reach her items of clothing each day instead of relying on her partner to get them for her.

Traditional services had been used historically with limited success due to the nature of support offered. A Personal Budget was chosen as it was clear that this lady wanted to optimise her own opportunities and start to regain control over her life and choices.

The family were encouraged to be creative and to source the equipment which would make a difference to them, with themselves being the expert in their own life rather than a social worker.

Advice was given on how to make the best use of the budget and they were encouraged to negotiate best ‘package deal’ prices and take advantage of VAT exempt items.

A flexible approach to PA support was also required which would enable higher/reduced levels dependent on need and what her partner was doing that week.

The family went and successfully negotiated discounted rates and a significant VAT reduction which then enable an additional piece of furniture (sofa bed) which would allow benefits at a twofold level, firstly it was suited to allow the lady to take time out of her wheelchair as it was at an adequate height to allow her to transfer independently and secondly as it would double up for a PA to provide overnight support as required when her partner was away.

The funding was agreed to allow for the above requests and discussions with a friend who is willing to provide a flexible PA support system agreed.

Flexible approach to how funding can be used has enabled this lady to take the lead in what she felt were her prioritised outcomes and whilst some elements of payments for goods have been troublesome, (items not dispatched until payment received and unwillingness to invoice broker etc.) none of these have been insurmountable and the equipment shortly to be in situ at the customer’s home.

The above would not have been possible using traditional services although perhaps the PA situation could have been operational using the direct payments scheme.

The customer stated that she feels that she has been listened to in terms of what she felt to be the best outcomes for her rather than what others perceived to be the best route to take.



The customer is a 44 year old male currently experiencing work related issues that could potentially result in him becoming unemployed.

Due to the progression of his impairment alternative equipment is required to maintain employment.

The customer requested a joint review at which the legal Right to Control was explored and discussed.

Information and advice from the review was shared, with the person’s consent, with Access to Work and Health.

The customer chose to meet with the Manchester Area Partnership Design Group to access peer support and explore his options.

The customer chose to exercise his Right to Control through pooling his allocated budget, taken as a direct payment. He took a Direct Payment from Health in lieu of an NHS wheelchair (the standard model was not considered appropriate to meet his requirements). This was pooled with funding from Access to Work, enabling him to purchase one wheelchair most appropriate to his requirements.

Documentation and paperwork was completed and shared between relevant organisations and in line with the data sharing protocol.

The customer pooled funding to purchase equipment of his choice and that best met his requirements.

Funding was pooled from Access to Work and Health via a direct payment.

The process demonstrated that with the legal right organisations can work in partnership to offer choice, pool budgets and provide improved services.

The customer remains in employment and is economically and socially active.

The customer’s health and well-being is not put at risk due to stress and unemployment.

The legal right facilitated joint working. Crucially this expanded beyond the primary RTC funding streams and involved Health. This highlights the importance of considering other funding streams and organisations in supporting disabled people to live more independently. The customer journey was streamlined through effective information sharing.

All agencies achieved cashable efficiencies by sharing the cost of the wheelchair and providing a model that genuinely met the customer’s requirements. Prior to Right to Control the customer would have ended up with two or even three wheelchairs: one from Health for medical purposes; one from Access to Work that could only be used for work related activity and one personally funded that may have been used for sports or social activity. In the past it is likely that none of these individual wheelchairs would have met the customer’s needs.

Through exercising choice and using the legal right the customer accessed personalised, flexible support that has long term benefits for his health, well-being and socio-economic contributions.

The customer said:

“ I want a life not a service. It’s not ordinary to be special but it’s very special to be ordinary. Having the right equipment is essential so that I can do ordinary things like work”.



The customer is a 54 year old woman, who had lost her job, was keen to stay in work but had fears this would be difficult because of her age and impairment.

She has cerebral palsy and is a wheelchair user. She wanted to explore the possibility of being self-employed.

The customer asked for a review of her support and funding and was asked if she would like to go down the Right to Control route.

The customer asked she be supported by an advocate from her local Centre for Independent Living and a meeting was arranged with a support planner, Access to Work assessor and an advocate.

The customer chose to take the Right to Control option and pooled part of her Individual Budget and Access to Work funding, as a Direct Payment. She used her Individual Budget to attend a course on being self-employed at her local college and her Access to Work to pay for a PA/Driver.

By enabling the customer to have flexibility with her two main funding streams she was able to stay in work, keep off benefits and keep her self-respect.

These were her main concerns when she lost her job.

The customer said:

“I don’t want to go back on benefits and live off government hand-outs. I want to pay my way and contribute to society like everyone else. Having work enables me to do that in ways of giving me an equal status, money to spend and friends. I just want to be like you”.



P works as a clerical assistant for Manchester City Council. He has been receiving Access to Work funding for transport to and from work and also to provide support workers from an agency. P was experiencing numerous issues of lateness and absenteeism from the support staff the agency was sending. The agency also went through a period of sending him different support workers each day, which failed to provide any consistency in his support. Despite numerous attempts to resolve these issues he found that he wasn’t any nearer to resolving them.

As a Design Group member, he had a good understanding of Right to Control and decided to exercise his right to access support that really would meet his needs.

P referred himself to Breakthrough’s Centre for Independent Living to get assistance with exercising his Right to Control regarding Access to Work.

The CIL supported P to meet with an Access to Work advisor where all elements of his support package were reviewed. At the meeting he talked about the issues that he had been having with support workers from the agency and how this was having a negative effect on his ability to do his job. P, the CIL staff member and the Access to Work advisor worked together to identify a number of solutions to the issues that P was experiencing with his support staff.

After considering each of the options P decided to hire his own personal assistants to support him at work. He did not want to have the responsibility of being a direct employer, so he has ended up hiring personal assistants from a different agency. He was fully involved in picking the people who are going to support him and the agency manage all payroll and Human Resource issues for P. When his PA is off sick or on holiday he is also provided with cover.

P has been able to have full choice and control over his in-work support, so that it now meets his needs, in the way that he wants it to be provided. He now has a regular PA who he has a strong working relationship with. The new agency that the PA works for also provide an added layer of security which means that if his PA is off sick or on holiday they will provide him with a suitable replacement. This ensures that P will always have the support he needs at work.

Choice and control is at the heart of Right to Control. P was given lots of options to resolve the problems with his Access to Work package. He was supported by both the CIL and the Access to Work advisor to make an informed choice about the support that is right for him and to put this in place.



R moved to Manchester to attend University and has since built a life for himself in the city. He has found that his support needs have started to increase in the last few years. He has been receiving adult social care funding for his personal care from a care agency, but experienced a series of ongoing issues with agency staff failing to turn up, or being consistently late. This was having a detrimental effect on R’s quality of life and mental wellbeing.

R is a Design Group member and was interested in looking at the support he could get through the different funding streams involved in Right to Control.

He met with a CIL staff member who looked at the different funding streams with him and identified that R could get support from Adult Social Care, Supporting People and Work Choice.

Together they began by looking at R’s options for using his Adult Social care budget and R expressed an interest in hiring his own personal assistants.

After looking into the feasibility of this it was apparent that PA’s were not going to be a viable option for R due to his requirements of needing someone to support him first thing in the morning and last thing at night. The size of his budget meant that he would only be able to employ someone for up to one hour blocks, which made recruiting a PA a practical impossibility for him.

Supporting People was also looked into as an additional area of support. R was referred to a supporting People provider who has now been provided with a support worker.

R initially expressed an interest in Work choice as a way of building his skills and working towards his goal of employment. He opted not to pursue this, but to look into volunteering instead.

Whilst using his adult social care budget to hire his own PA’s was not viable for R, several other outcomes have happened. He has been awarded some additional money to enable him to access more activities in the community and to help him from becoming socially isolated. He has full choice on and control over how to spend this.

The support of the CIL staff member has enabled R to resolve the long standing issue of care staff either not turning up or from being late.

Through liaising with Manchester’s adult social care directorate and also senior care agency staff an electronic monitoring system is now in place. This is ensuring that R is getting the amount of support he is entitled to.

Through Supporting People R is now accessing a support worker who is going to work with him for the next nine months to develop his cooking and independent living skills.

The CIL worker supported R to set up a work placement opportunity in Breakthrough UK’s policy department. He is now serving an apprenticeship that is allowing him to develop skills and experience in this area and move towards his goal of full time employment.

As Right to Control is made up of six different funding streams it enabled R to look at getting support outside of his existing adult social care support. Having access to a CIL worker provided enabled him to make an informed choice about each area of support under Right to Control and to put this support in place.



This gentleman was referred to Adult Social Care with a view to access support to extend his social, leisure and learning opportunities in an effort to improve his quality of life. He was diagnosed with terminal kidney cancer and given a poor prognosis of only six months to live. This was however some 15 years ago and whilst his abilities have decreased, this gentleman still desperately wants to engage in a range of activities and to maintain his health (cardio vascular exercise) and to offer a meaningful role to his local community.

RTC discussed and a personal budget agreed as an appropriate route to enable a greater degree of personal control and flexibility to meet outcomes. The indicative budget was established and support planning process commenced encouraging the customer to take the lead in the development of his own support planning documentation.

Customer and social worker met to go through the support plan and make amendments or changes as necessary and then formal application for personal budget at funding panel. Support plan approved and positive recognition of the stated outcomes and how these were to be met.

As this gentleman wanted to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible, the single biggest barrier to achieving this was around transport. The support plan therefore included approximately 75% to be spent on accessing taxi’s to enable door to door transport, thus reducing the need for support workers.

Other aspects covered accessing hobbies such as bird watching, fortnightly personal shopping, attending a Bridge club, paying for and taxi’s to and from a suitable college course, bi-monthly trips to see a live band (with support from a family member) and also maintaining twice weekly swimming sessions for which taxi transport was required. It was also possible to factor in support costs to attend hospital visits and a contingency fund for unexpected appointments or taxi fees.

This support plan will enable the customer to reduce the reliance on his wife for the support required when using public transport which in turns enables them to keep financially viable as she does not have to take time off work. It also enables him to maintain an active role in his community and engage in meaningful activities which stimulate both his physical and mental health thus hopefully reducing decline in these areas.

The customer has started to regain some of the control over his life which he has lost as his condition has deteriorated which will hopefully continue to develop as he becomes more confident with his personal budget and the flexibility this can offer.

He is aware of the necessary processes which have to be followed and is respectful and mindful of the use of ‘public money’ but following our initial discussions around traditional services and there limitations has now gained a much clearer understanding of how the creativity and flexibility of personal budgets can deliver much better ‘tailor made’ outcomes at individual levels as opposed to the limited and rigid traditional services.

Flexibility of use of funding allowed a creative approach to meet this gentleman’s needs as determined by him. It will allow the fruition of identified choices and goals for the individual which would have previously been unobtainable due to restrictive transport, support etc.



This young lady is a permanent wheelchair user and has high support needs. She has recently completed a three year residential college course and was keen to continue to use her newly developed skills once her course had completed and as such wanted to live as independently as possible and move out of her family home.

With support from her mum an application was made to a service with eight fully adapted flats in the local area where tenancy and other housing support would be provided as part of the package. An application for adult social care support was also made with a view to have a personal budget so support costs could be funded via the personal budget but in a flexible manner more fitting with the independence sought in the new environment. The support planning was completed with the young lady and her family and presented to funding panel for consideration.

Initially the request was deferred as it was requested that Supporting People funds were accessed and that the requested funding was not duplicating support tasks from the Adult Social Care Budget. This was clarified with panel as the housing scheme provider will provide housing related support from the funding already in situ and this would not be duplicated (or double funded) using the adult care services budget which was to enable different support tasks around leisure/ learning work etc. rather than housing related tasks.

Panel were satisfied with this explanation and the funding approved to enable the young lady to employ PA’s of her choosing which maximised her independence and reduced her reliance on her mum.

This complemented the levels of support the family were still prepared to provide for the young lady but also ensured a more cost effective use of a budget and gave control to the young lady who was able to make choices around her support.

Whilst the Supporting People funding has not been taken as a Direct Payment in this example, I would feel confident in arguing that this young lady has chosen her service area which just so happens to have the appropriate support in situ already funded by supporting people and as such feel that she is therefore still exercising her Right to Control.

I feel that this may have been more difficult to achieve the outcome for this lady using traditional services as they would have been less flexible in terms of start/ finish times and would almost certainly have been more costly than using a PA.

A traditional service ultimately would have been able to provide the support required however the young lady would have had far less choice, control and autonomy over who would provide the support which potentially minimises her ability to determine the manner in which she would prefer to be supported.

She (with appropriate guidance, advice and support from her mum and social worker) has been able to determine when she will benefit most from the support and feels more confident that she can ‘bend and flex’ her support hours provided she does not exceed her agreed budget.



Mr J is a disabled man who has a spinal injury.

Mr J requires constant personal supervision especially during the night. Wanted to explore independence fully.

Very frustrated about being assaulted, when a knife wound led to his impairment.

Came to the attention of Trafford Council in 2003. Services began in 2006.

Has different funding streams, personal budget and ILF.

Mr J uses his personal budget creatively with his ILF to supports his independence.

The positive result is a person who was constantly angry and frustrated at his own situation being able to fly to Spain to see his mother on a holiday which he always felt was completely unobtainable.

This positive outcome enabled a boost in confidence and an improvement in self-worth.

The combination of the funding streams allowed the flexibility in his daily living situation that Mr J craved to become a reality.



An individual who lives with her son and daughter in law (who both work full time) had a stroke earlier on this year, and as a result needs homecare to enable her to manage her personal care at home.

She doesn’t speak English, as the stroke has affected her word finding capabilities, and she now only speaks her native language, Russian.

She started to receive support from a commissioned agency following the Reablement process, and despite requesting a Polish or Russian speaking, there were none available at the agencies Trafford Council commission. She was referred to the Personal Budgets team, so she could start to recruit a Russian speaking carer.

The Personal Budgets team explained the process to her, and her son, and started advertising for a carer for her. In the meantime they discussed it within the Russian community in their local area.

A Russian speaking Personal Assistant was recruited, who was the translator for the service user whilst she was in hospital.

Her son has taken on the role of employer, and we have engaged with an agency to provide backup care in the event of PA sickness/annual leave.

Without a Direct Payment, the service user would not have been able to have a carer who spoke the same language, and therefore communicating her needs would have been incredibly difficult.

Having the Right to Control was incredibly important to this lady, in order to meet her own care needs.



P has a history of TIA’s, Vascular disease, arthritis and is registered blind and lives in a ground floor flat in Stretford. P finds completing personal care tasks difficult to do without support and finds personal care difficult due to his visual impairment.

P has been assessed as needing three daily visits by the Reablement team to support with personal care, meal preparation, and weekly assistance with shopping and laundry.

P was adamant that he did not want a commissioned service as he states that he is a very private person and does not want strangers coming into his home on a daily basis. P is also anxious about different people coming in and is anxious letting in people who he doesn’t know, especially due to his visual impairment as he can’t see who he is letting in.

P decided to opt for a Personal Budget and was given an initial advice visit where he was given options about how his care needs can be met. P liked the idea of employing his own staff as he would be able to choose his own carers from his own social and family network.

This put P’s mind at ease as he was able to have his care needs met by people he knew and trusted. This ensured that P allowed himself to receive the care and support he needs, and that he was able to ask his personal assistant’s to come and support him at times convenient to him.

P was empowered to create his own care package for his assessed care needs to be met; he had the control over who his carers were and when they worked for him. This reduced anxiety for P and ensured that his care needs were met in the most convenient way for him.

The offer of a Personal Budget allowed P to have his care needs met; had a Personal Budget not been offered, P would not have received care as he would have refused a commissioned service. This broke down the barriers as P had choice and control and was able to create his own care package himself.



C has a physical disability and is a wheelchair user. A very outgoing man, who likes to keep busy and try new things.

When C came to me he was already in receipt of a PB for social care needs and was not eligible for other funding streams. However, he was unhappy with his PA and wanted to employ somebody else. He also felt that things were getting a little monotonous in terms of how he was spending his money from ASC and wanted to better his social lifestyle by thinking of ways to spend his social inclusion fund more creatively. I soon realised that there were potential spare funds that had not been spent as he wasn’t sure what he wanted to spend his money on.

After employing a new PA and doing some support planning exercises he realised that he has always had a quiet passion for singing but had never really thought about taking it up. I introduced him to a local choir which he used his PB to join, and subsequently took up an offer of private singing lesson which he felt were more suited to him whilst he built up his skills.

C has been enjoying this new venture for some months, and has found that his confidence has increased due to the singing helping his stammer.

C has amended his support package by employing a new PA and spending his PB on something that interests him and that he enjoys.

He is now looking to start a quiz night at the CIL and has a meeting with staff here next week to discuss the project.

Without RTC, C would have found it difficult to partake in the social activities that he wanted to and would not have had the flexibility to employ a new PA who he wanted to work with. C is very independent and likes to make decisions for himself – without RTC this would be limited.


Sensory Impairment The Manchester Area Partnership have been able to interview a number of disabled people with sensory impairment to understand how the Right to Control has been able to change and improve their lives. In each case we have been able to summarise the background to the disabled person’s circumstances, their needs and aspirations, we have then described the Right to Control Process, the outcome achieved, and how the Right to Control was able to ease the barriers to achieve the outcome.


S has a communication disorder following a seizure in young childhood which means that he cannot process auditory information. He is unable to translate noises heard to speech. For this reason he communicates by sign language and had only ever done voluntary work in the deaf community. He has never had a paid job.

He asked Jobcentre Plus (JCP) for support in exploring work options and was interested in gaining mainstream work experience His mother also mentioned that they would like information about his options for independent living in the future.

The Department of Employment Advisor (DEA) explained the Work Choice programme and Right to Control. Prime provider provision was discussed, but they were unable to fund interpreters for a voluntary placement.

The customer asked for advice on how he could source a qualified BSL interpreter who might be interested in working with him.

The DEA was aware of an interpreter who had worked with JCP customers previously and had successfully supported customers to find employment.

The DEA approached the interpreter and asked if she would consider working with S. The interpreter was uncertain, as the concept was completely new to her, but after discussion with the DEA she agreed to meet S and the DEA again, to discuss the support she could provide.

The meeting took place and S felt very comfortable with the interpreter, and said that he would like to work with her. A support plan was drawn up and the costings were agreed. A work placement at the local hospital for one day a week was arranged. The interpreter supported S on the placement as he was very nervous and extremely low in confidence.

A referral to Supporting People team was also made. They contacted the family and explained the type of support that may be available. Although living independently is not currently an option, the family are now more confident that this is something they can work towards.

S has now been volunteering at the hospital for two months. He is responsible for collecting recycling from all around the site. This was an extremely daunting task at first as the site is large and he was initially very concerned about navigating through the hospital and engaging with new people.

The DEA met with S recently and found his confidence had greatly increased. Positive feedback has also been received from the employer – if they had the available funds they would be happy to employ him.

They also reported that S’s presence has identified a potential disabling barrier for people they were previously unaware of. As a result, an alternative to the door entry (buzz) system is being researched. S is now confident enough to try and complete his duties alone.

S, the DEA and the support worker have updated his CV and are actively job searching for permanent employment.

Without RTC this would not have been possible.

Using Work Choice funding in a different way, enabled S to address and overcome his disabling barriers, and move closer to employment in a relatively short space of time.



T suffers with poor coordination and has not been in employment for a number of years. T had been volunteering at Age UK for 10 years, and attends her local JCP every two weeks to sign on for her DLA, which is her wage.

T has not been in any source of paid employment for a significant amount of time and it is her goal to get back into paid employment. Consequently T lacks a lot of confidence, and this is one area that she wants to improve in. T has been working in a kitchen environment as a volunteer with Age UK. This is an area that she feels comfortable in, and would like to pursue a career in it.

T came to Right to Control through one of the drop ins that was being help at her JCP. T was referred through her DEA who was working with her, and wanting to put her through the work choice programme. However, T’s DEA felt it would be good for her to attend the drop in to find out more information about Right to Control and the benefits it could provide. T’s DEA made an appointment for her to come along.

At the first appointment T was very nervous, and a bit apprehensive. T’s advocate explained what Right to Control was about and what the possible options were if she was looking at doing Work Choice. T was very keen to explore Right to Control a little bit more, and felt it would be a fantastic opportunity to get back into paid employment but with the correct support. T was going to have a think about it.

After thinking T felt positive and comfortable with going ahead with Right to Control, and came to another drop in and the first route finder was completed. It focused on what is important to T for example volunteering, family and friends. The main outcome was to achieve part time paid work, building up her confidence with interviews, and getting support with finding and applying for jobs. Shortly after the second route finder was completed with T and the support plan looked at.

In the meanwhile T’s advocate liaised with her DEA over independent providers in the area who provide job supported/ job coaching who could be contacted. Through making various different telephone calls T’s advocate made contact with The Right Focus to find out about their service. They provide support with applying for jobs, filling in job applications, practice/ mock interviews, calling potential employers and getting CVs updated. The Right Focus staff member said they could meet up with T to explain more about their programme and give her the opportunity to ask questions.

T also felt this would be a good opportunity too. A meeting was set up with T, her advocate and two of The Right Focus staff at a cafe near where she lives. This meeting went very well, and staff from The Right Focus left T with their information pack for her to read and think. T was impressed and felt that she wanted to go ahead and choose to go with The Right Focus. The Right Focus could meet up with T, in her own environment as often as she would like, so she felt comfortable with this. Other telephone calls were also made to other providers, but did not provide any programmes like The Right Focus. T felt they were the provider to go with.

T choose to go with The Right Focus as a provider for work choice. T felt that they would provide the right level of support with all areas such as confidence building with interviews, filling in job applications and job searching. They also agreed to meet up with T every two weeks for two hours at her choice of meeting place.

As T lacks confidence she felt very at ease at the meeting that took place with The Right Focus staff, and felt that this was another key factor as to why she wanted to go with them.

The support plan was completed with T who stated what are goals were, what support she required and what support The Right Focus would offer to her. T wanted the payment to be paid directly to The Right Focus, not them, as this was something that she did not feel comfortable with and quite vulnerable. T’s advocate also said that she would support her in her first meeting with The Right Focus once her support plan is authorised, to ease her into the new programme.

The support plan was sent to T’s DEA who would then get the authorisation of payment for The Right Focus being T’s chosen Work Choice provider.

Throughout the Right to Control journey T felt supported all of the way, as she had continuous support from her DEA, through meeting her advocate to and The Focus Staff. T felt at ease as she was made to feel comfortable, as she normally feels nervous when meeting different people.

T through Right to Control has had active involvement from start to finish. She has been able to have choice in deciding who could potentially give her support. Through this T has felt that her confidence has built up, and for once in her life people have accepted her for who she is. T felt that barriers were removed and that people understood her disability. This is something T cannot thank Right to Control enough for.

In addition, T attended a satisfaction feedback session at Breakthrough UK, and felt this was excellent as she felt more motivated and was given the opportunity to meet other people.

From start to finish T felt that Right to Control journey to be positive, and is now looking forward to her achieving her outcome of paid employment.


Appendices

Independent Evaluation Report by Breakthrough UK

Coproduction into Action

Charter for effective coproduction (Aide Memoire)

Charter for effective coproduction (Poster)

Market Position Statement Sept 2013

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Stockport/Stockport_Homepage/Document_Library/MAP_Independent_Evaluation_Report_by_Breakthrough.pdf

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Stockport/Stockport_Homepage/Document_Library/MAP_Coproduction_into_Action.pdf

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Stockport/Stockport_Homepage/Document_Library/MAP_Charter_for_effective_coproduction_Aide_Memoire.pdf

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Stockport/Stockport_Homepage/Document_Library/MAP_Charter_for_effective_coproduction_Poster.pdf

http://www.mycaremychoice.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Stockport/Stockport_Homepage/Document_Library/MAP_Market_Position_Statement_Sept2013.pdf

Created by Lemon Zest tagST2730/0913 Lemon Zest Creative Ltd. 01942 670100 www.lemonzest.co.uk

July 2014

Legacy and Sustainability ReportRight to Control Trailblazer

legacy and sustainability report - my care, my … map - legacy and sustainability report the map...

Documents