ripfa NCASC 2012 presentation notes: User-Led Organisations

582 views

Published on

Full notes from a presentation on User-Led Organisations. This was done at the NCASC 2012 in Eastbourne, done jointly with research in practice for adults and the Strengthening DPULOs Programme.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
582
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
38
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ripfa NCASC 2012 presentation notes: User-Led Organisations

  1. 1. User-Led OrganisationsNCASC 2012Rich Watts, Strengthening ULOs Programme / ecdpGerry Nosowska, research in practice for adultsOverview• Which problems are ULOs a solution to?• What’s the evidence that they’re a solution?• You’ve convinced me: what do I do next?The demand side: questions you might be asking yourself• What is a ULO?• What do they do?• How does this support me in my work?• So?What is a ULO?• At least 75% of Management Board are disabled people• At least 50% of staff are disabled people• At least 50% of volunteers are disabled people• Works from the social model of disability perspective o (Or working towards the above)• Around 350 o Significant variation  Across the country  In shape and size o How can commissioners be expected to work with organisations which they might not even know are there?What problems are they a solution to? (1)• ULOs do the voice side of things very well o Local Involvement Networks: saved £4.30 for every £1 invested o Community development approach: saved £3.80 for every £1 invested o POET survey - Importance of good support for people navigating the care system o ODI’s Support, Advocacy & Brokerage Project  People have more control over their care and support  People feel that they are achieving more through their care and support o Demos Counting the Costs report  Examples of coproduction between disabled people, their organisations and local authorities in making difficult decisions  Mitigates or minimises effects of these choices
  2. 2. What problems are they a solution to? (2)• DPULOs can be very effective when they deliver services o IAG – 89% of all people who went through a peer-led IAG service took up a DP, compared to 13% nationally o Support planning – 100% of all people who went through peer-led approach took up a DP, compared to 17% locally o Peer-led approaches save money o Personalisation Forum Group – over 13,00 hours of practical support, with a net value of £250,000 o Leeds User-Led Crisis Centre – saves £28,000 a year by reducing acute hospital days o Birmingham Support, Time & Recovery peer-led model – saved £120k a year whilst supporting more complex referrals in a more personalised way o Disability hate crime reporting – higher incidence of reporting where better support services exist o Healthwatch, employment, housing etc. o Three in five people (59%) agree they trust services more if they are provided by charities within their local communityExample • Work in Lancashire by Disability Equality North WestThe supply side: ULO challenges• If we flip to the supply side, what are the challenges that ULOs face? o Concern of losing independence by receiving grants, SLAs or contracts from local authorities / public bodies o The need to professionalise and become more business-like in their approach  Not incompatible with being part of the VCS o Balancing a professional approach with the culture and values that our organisations imbue and the history they represent o Building constructive, positive relationships with commissioners whilst also being a representative voice of their members / service users / patients o Recognising that if DPULOs are best placed to deliver services for disabled people because they’re run by disabled people, then the future environment of personalisation and PBs should be one we welcome, not worry about.What can be done? • Some examples of what has already been done: o Commissioners reserving contracts for ULOs using existing legislation and regulations (Article 19) o Significant contracts being issued for voice/engagement-related work o DPULOs and commissioners have worked together to deliver value for money at a time of austerity o Strategic partnerships between ULOs and commissioners (including, for example, secondments)
  3. 3. o Effective engagement between DPULOs and emerging Health & Wellbeing Boards and local HealthWatch organisations o Using Section 106 agreements to move ULO agenda alongWhat support is available? (1) • Strengthening ULOs Programme o 15 local Ambassadors o £3m Facilitation Fund specifically for ULOs  Key is to focus on sustainability  Chance to develop ideas to put them into practice o http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/dpuloprogramme o www.facebook.com/dpulos o Twitter - #dpuloWhat support is available? (2) • ripfa work o Key Issue publication o Strategic Briefing o Customer Guide o Dedicated website section on ULOs o Support for organisational change o Forum and network support o http://www.interactive.ripfa.org.uk/ o www.ripfa.org.ukThanks and contact details • Gerry Nosowska o Research & Development Manager, ripfa o gerry@ripfa.org.uk o 01803 847262 • Rich Watts o National Lead, Strengthening ULOs Programme o richard.watts1@dwp.gsi.gov.uk o 07595 345235 o Twitter – @rich_w / #dpulo

×