Council failing on social care

On Wednesday night senior Labour Councillors on the Cabinet considered how to respond to another low rating from the independent body which looks at how well Councils serve adults who use social care services and what potential there is to improve.   

 

Greenwich Council received an overall rating of one star (out of three) which means its performance is adequate in that area and the Commission for Social Care Inspection [CSCI] considered that the capacity for the Council to improve this rating was ‘uncertain’.  This one star rating places Greenwich among the worst 26 boroughs in the country for Adult Social Care as no area received a zero star rating.   

Officers of the Council mounted a spirited defence of the service, but their representations were rejected. 

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury, said “I think the problem here lies with the erratic and inconsistent leadership which the Labour Party provides – for instance the Labour leadership decided to push through the closure of some sheltered housing schemes at the start of 2007, but as the foolishness of their approach and the widespread opposition became clear, they had to back track.  Indeed the decline in ‘Capacity to improve’ rating from promising to uncertain for the last two years reflects very serious concerns over the Council’s leadership by an independent body”   

It is no wonder officers are struggling to raise their rating when the Council’s Labour leadership keeps changing its mind on the right way forward.  Labour may boast that they have improved, but once again this is from such a low base that the actual service delivered to residents remains below average.  The people who suffer as result of Labour’s failings are the vulnerable in our community and Labour should accept they have let the people of Greenwich down (again).”  

Of the various strands considered by the CSCI only 2 (improved health and emotional well-being & economic well-being) were rated good, while 5 (improved quality of life, making a positive contribution, increased choice and control, freedom from harassment or discrimination & maintaining personal dignity and respect) were rated adequate.  Both the leadership and the commissioning and use of resources were rated uncertain.