//

Integrated Living~Real C hoice ?"

Conference Report

Report of the conference held at

Sparth Community Centre, Rochdale

on

Thursday 23rd October 1986

CONTENTS

P.5 - Introduction.

P.6 - Opening Talk (Joyce Hulvie)

P.7 - Val Bracken/Ron Spencer

P.8 - Ken Lumb

P.10 - Ken Davis

P.13 - Maggie Mines

P.14 - Dave Goddard

P.15 - Workshop Reports

P.17 - Conclusion

(and news of a- meeting todiscuss alternative services),

P.18 - Conference Participants

PROGRAMME

MORNING SESSION:

Chair - Joyce Mulvie.

Speakers

Val BrackenRon SpencerKen Lumb

Ken Davis

Maggie Mines

AFTERNOON SESSION:

Chair - Sue Kalko.

Speakers

Dave Goddord

followed by Workshop Sessions

INTRODUCTION

This conference was arranged, hy the Rochdale Housing\ Disability Group in conjunct inn with the Greater ManchesterCoalition of Disabled People, as a reaction to the re-emergeneoof the scheme to build a Younger Disabled Unit at tiirehHill Hospital in Rochdale.

The project was first aired in 1977, hut was subsequentlyshelved in the face of heavy opposition from voluntary organis--ations of disabled people.

The current scheme, incorporating a new 'progressive'operational policy, was already well under way by the timethat local disability groups had organised themselvessufficiently to renew their opposition, and it. must he saidthat some local disabled individuals now shared the Local

Authority view that although the- service .provided hy theYDl! might not bo ideal, no realistic alternatives existed.

The aim of this conference, then, was to:

(a) relate clearly the reasons why organisations ofdisabled people object so strongly to the YD!) form of service.

(b) illustrate that alternatives do exist.

(c) to encourage the development of truly appropriatealternative services locally.

In the event, we feel it is fair to say that the firsttwo objectives were achieved successfully. Only time willtell whether the third objective will come to fruition,but the opportunity for organisations and individuals fromthe h affected boroughs to join together to examine thebest way forward now exists (see "Conclusion").

*** From an organisational point of view, thisconference served to highlight the problemsencountered in securingsuch events.

an accessible venue for

We had been assured that the venue used hadgood access, and we were obviously keen to holdthe event in the home of the YDl) under discussion

- Rochdale.

Sparth Community Centre was not ideal, andthe somewhat unexpectedly high attendance compoundedthe problem of limited space and unsatisfactorytoilet facilities.

We must apologise, and hope that conferenceparticipants were not too seriously inconveniencedby these problems.

- 5 -

Opening TalkJoyce Mulvee, a member

of Rochdale Mousing & Disabi1ityGroup since 1979, introducedthe morning session.

After welcoming the speakers,she outlined the purposesof the day. These included

the rehabilitative

of the YDU, ensuringis not used for

residential

examining

function

that it

long-termand considering the suitabilityof respite care in a YDU.

In 1977, a number of disabledpeople and their friendsheard about the proposedYDU and were extremely disturbed. They approachedthe Community Health Council(CMC) to find out more.However, the CMC didn'tknow much - it appearedthat the Regional HealthAuthority was offering apackage which Rochdale couldtake or leave. If Rochdale

didn't take it, anotherarea would!

care

rganised a publicthe subject,

tal questionaireopinion amongst

organisationsed individuals.

gth of informatione CHC notified

ealth Authorityposition to the

The

meetin

and

survey

volunt

and

On th

receiv

Rochda

of th

YDU pr

At

reside

propos

the cu

policy

CHC o

g on

a pos

of

ary

disabi

e stren

ed, thle H

eir opoposal.

that

ntial

ed. T

rrent

is upo

time a long-termunit was beinghe emphasis indraft operationalh rehabilitation.

After the CHC public meeting,the Rochdale Housing & Disab

ility Group was formed.At first it was a sub-groupof Rochdale Voluntary Action,

but it now operates as anindependent organ isati on.It aimed to promote we II-designed, supported housingas alternatives to institutions.

An early achievement wasto initiate the Crossroads

Care Attendant scheme in

Rochdale.

It organised a well attendedday conference on 'Alternativesto Institutional Care'.It initiated and helpedto develop the housing/neighboursupport scheme provided»y St. Vincent's HousingAssociation at Law Street.

It has acted as advocatefor disabled individualswho ' were having problemswith housing or supportservices.

The group continued tooppose the development ofthe YDU. In 1980 it wrote

a well publicised open letterto the Chair of Rochdale

Health Authority, once againquestioning the use of valuableresources to provide a hospitalbuildiung and hospital-basedservice.

The proposal appearedto be dormant for a longtime. It wasn't until 1985

that it resurfaced to publicview. Dy that time therewas no stopping it!

- o -

f

Val Bracken~Ron Spencer

Valerie Bracken, re presenting

Rochdale Area Health Authority,outlined her backgroundin mental handicap communitycare and, more recently,as Handicapped ServicesManager working with physicallyimpaired people in Rochdale.

Val stressed that the

money provided by the RegionalHeal tli Authority had beenoffered specifically forthe building oT a YDU,in line with reg iona1 policy.

It was not a questionof the YDl) using moneywhich could have providedother services. The systemof application for CapitalPlanning is long-windedand takes many years toprocess. At this pointin time the YD'! is almost

fully built, and it istoo late to change thoseplans.

Val believes that althoughthe traditional YDU is

against everything shebelieves, in that it Seg--regates people and isnothing like a home, someservice is better than

none - and she pointedout that at present wehave a building and somefunding to buy specialiststaff. We can use them

as we wish.

Val did ask for constructive

criticism and positiveideas from , the conference

participants.

Val detailed the draft

operational policy for theYDU, which was generallyfelt to be progressive and

which, it was hoped, wouldavoid the new unit beingused as a 'dumping ground'.

She pointed particularlyto the direct involvement

of patients in their owntreatment and training plans,and the flexible approachwhich would enable individuals'

preferences and abilitiesto be taken into account.

Although the unit willaccept referrals from fourdifferent boroughs, the;clients' "own social worker

would act as a 'Key Worker'to act on their behalf.

People using the unit, andtheir families would be

involved in assessment of

treatment. Planning fordischarge would start fromthe day of admission. Theaim of the stay would be

clear, and an approximateproposed length of stay(not normally longer thansix months) would be identified.

It was also proposed thatthe unit operate on a 5-dayworking week principle,with clients returning totheir homes at weekends.

This was designed to lessenthe trauma of seperatiunand to avoid aimless weekends

which occur when paramedicaland specialist staff arenot available for treatment

programmes.

Val said that althoughthe YDU may not be the idealform of service provision,it would nevertheless be

a valuable addition to the

area, where services werecurrently severely overstretched.

Ron Spencer, speakingon behalf of Rochdale SocialServices Dept., HandicappedServices Section spoke insupport of the points presentedby Val Bracken.

Ken LumbKen Lumb presented a

brief history of the disabledpeoples' movement. It wasimportant, he said, for2 reasons:

1. to challenge the traditional"charitable ethic", bywhich disabled people areseen as passive objectswho have things "done tothem". This image had beencreated and perpetuatedby the recorders of history

the journalists, doctors,non-disabled academics,politicians and do-gooders.These represented a certainviewpoint, onenothing to do

2. To see certain

more clearly.experience andof disabled people individ--ually, in Rochdale forinstance, was very similarto what was happening todisabled people everywhere.This shared experienceformed the basis of organis--ation on common

and placed theYDU in a wider

than simply as anregional service forpeople.

The introduction

Fokus housingsupport scheme,had caused many disabledpeople in Britain to examinethe way in which they livedin this country., It exposedfor the first time the

"medical model" of disability,which says that if youare in residential accommoda-

-tion it is as a result

of your bodily condition

which

with

had

the

day-to-day experience ofdisabled people of theirown history.

connections

That the

development

causes,

Rochdale

context

intended

disabled

of Sweden 's

and care

in 1966,

there is no way thatyou can live in ordinaryhousing. Clearly, the peopleliving under the Foku.sscheme would have been

"incarcerated" in long-stay wards, geriatric homesor part-3 accommodationhad they lived in thiscount ry.

This

throughas the

Impai red(UPIAS).

thinking deorganisationsUnion of PhyAgainst Segr

ve 1opedsuch

s ical1yeg a tion

Centres

Liv inn

signed,trolled

usingr ience)further

con 1d

The introduction of

for Independent(CILs - services deprovided and conby disabled people,their own direct expein the USA offered

evidence of what

be.

A UPIAS policy document,drawn up in 1974, had beenscathing about the "medicalmodel", in which residentialinstitutions played sucha prominent role. Thesewere described as "human

scrapheaps".

The intoduction of anintegrated housing schemein Chesterfield (the GroveRoad Scheme) again madea nonsense of the "medical

model", as it showed clearlythat the removal of barriers

imposed by society, togetherwith improved technology andappropriate personal assist--ance, would enable disabledpeople to' live independentlyin normal housing.

Similar developmentswere taking place in otherparts of the world, andin 1980, when disabledpeople asked for 5Q% representation on the managementcommittee of Rehabilitation

International and v/ere

- a -

outvoted, a breakaway movement,emerged Which eventuallyformed Disabled Peoples'International (DPI).

In Britain at the same

time, disabled people formedtheir own national group

the British Council of

Organisations of DisabledPeople (BCODP) - whichagain was made up oforganisations controlledby disabled people, sothat it was possible tobe absolutely sure thatit was representing theviews of disabled people.

A leading role in developingintegrated services wasplayed by the DerbyshireCoalition of Disabled People,who initiated Britain'sfirst CIL. Others werenow springing up aroundthe country.

The formation of theGreater Manchester Coalitionof Disabled People reflectedthe way that disabled peoplev/ere organising themselveslocally, nationally andinternationally.

Ken's personal historyalso showed Lba t:

(a) theaids for

are amongstfor the

everybody

most liberatingdisabled people

the aids providedwel1-being of

e.g. water

on tapWCs etc.

in the house, ind oor

phy sicaln e c e s s -

sabi 1ity .cond it ion

ch nnges

urns t ances

1abi 1 ity '

(b) increasedimpairment does not-arily mean greater diKan 's phys ica1deter io ra tnd whi1s t

in social circ

gave him far moreand independence.

Ken then went on to speakabout the history of YDUs,which emerged in the 1950s.Originally called "youngergeriatric units", theywere devised as a reactionto the absence of any serviceprovision for younger disabledpeople other than long-staywards. Disabled

themselves v/ere

of the

national

critical

to set up ;of these

them as

pointed towhich w as

in Sweden

had been

uni ts ever

more so than

had actuallyliving in themhad since moved o ut.

"inhumane"

people:

highlyscheme

n e t w o r k

units, describinga n d

the Fokus Scheme,now under wayDisabled people

critical of the

since, nonethose who

exper iencedand w h o

YDUs had been developedon the basis of second

hand experience, "not onthe experience of beingsegregated, of being reducedto a state of dependency,of having literally nocontrol over their own

lives, of being deniedwork, adequate personalassistance, transport andequipment". Mot surprisingly,some of the most committed

activists in the disabledpeople;;' movement had beenthose who were

severely impairedthose who had

the most extreme forms

of segregation and dependency.

the m o s t

i.e.

suffe red

- «3 -

What

w a r e

service

c o n t ro 1

1ives,their

societywhich

-cipateand

v/i th

forms

Moreove

peoplebe di

the

of thoo

Onlyd i r e c t

pe op 1ecould

service

disabled peoplenow demanding v/ere

s which gave themover their own

which furthered

integration intoat all levels,

enabled them to parti-fully in society,

which provided themsecure and reliableof personal assistance.r, that disabled

themselves shouldrectly involved indesign and deliverye services.

by applyinq theexperience of disabledto service provision

truly appropriatei be formulated.

Ken Lumb is Chair of the Greater

Manchester Coalition of DisabledPeople, and a member of RochdaleHousing & Disability Croup.

Ken Davis

Ken Davis outlined thebackground to the developmentof Derbyshire Centre forIntegrated Living, whichhad been based on the directexperience of disabled people,and whose aim was to ensure

that all disabled people,throughout the county, wereable to participate in thesocial, political and economiclife o.f the county, on thesame basis as everyone else.

The only way to use scarceresources wisely, he said,was to make sure that those

resources are focussed

precisely on the needsidentified out of thecollective experience ofd isabled people.

These needs arise becausedisabled people have histori--cally been marginal toa society which is structuredto serve and perpetuatethe interest:-, of non-disabledpeople. Taking as its focusthe IYDP a im of fu1 1

and equali typart icipationdisabled people,

Centre for

Living has beento provide supportfundamental areas

for all

DerbyshireIntegratedset upin seven

of need:

1. Information

choice dependsdate, accurate-hensive information on

all tilings which affecta disabled person's lifebeing openly availableat the time it is needed.DCIL's information hankis now being computerisedand is available to all

disabled people, socialand health services.

2. Counsel line) - becauseof restricted opportunitiesfor full social participation,some disabled people maylack confidence or feelinsecure, and need adviceon how to apply the inform--ation to practical usein their own everyday lives.Counselling services, basedon peer experience, hadbeen set up to help peoplethrough the problems whicharise through unaccustomedlife in the community.Other counselling and relatedactivities involve awareness-

raising through group work,joining together to workout the best solutions

to problems, sharing ex--perience and giving mutualsupport. Formal methodsof counselling were notexcluded, however, anymore than support forprofessional workers exper-

rat iona 1

on up—to-ond eompre-

- 1U -

ng role-confusioning from the blurringaditional professional-

boundaries within

integrated living

-lenci

result

of L.rclient

the

a p p r o a

3. II

p ro v id

Housin

deve lo

assoc i

housin

Inst

s inn le

a d

proper

a n t i c i

invol v

thingsp lanneothers

caused

w h i c h

of t

c i r c u in

beingsa v o i d i

a 11 s r n

unsu i t

ch.

ousing - bodies whie housing (the D istrig Authorities, privap e rs , and housiat ions) are buildig stock which wifor generations. Eveoccupant is potentialisnbled person, a

housing design cw

oth

wi

a

pateed,

this. DCIL

amongst, in workingrs, architects

to remove d is abi1i

by housing stofails to take accou

he changing physicstances of hum

, with the aimng the vastly expensiat ive of adapt iably designed housing.

ch

ct

te

ng

ng

11

ry

tynd

an

as

er

th

nd

tv

ck

nt

al

an

of

ve

ng

4. Technical aids - Hostdisabled people don't getthe chance to choose whichtechnical aid is most suitablefor their own needs, aren'table to talk to peoplewho have • experience ofthose aids, aren't ableto try out an aid beforeit is issued or before

they buy it. Action isneeded in the area of tech-

-nicnl aids. They are nvital component in theprocess of gaining ormaintaining independence.Their efficient use is

often integral to goodhousing .design, and DC IIviews their selection and

supply from this integratedperspective.

5. Personal help - Howevergood the basic house design,or appropriate the technicalaids, some people willalways need some personalassistance from other human

beings. That help mustbe provided, not simplyto survive but to helpa ' person lead an act ivelife within the community.6. Transport - integratedliving also depends ondisabled people havingaccess to properly designedand organised public transportsystems, which give thesame freedom of choice

experienced hy non-disabledpeople. DCIt takes theview that disabled peopleshould not be forced on

to the private transportmarket through lack ofpuhl ic foe i1iI Los, .iiidis working with a varietyof transport providersto this end. It does, however,work with individuals on

detailed solutions lo their

personal mobility needs.

(7) Environmental accessthis is the final component

to full integration. Withoutaccess to buildings theeffectiveness of the previous'essentials' is severelyreduced. Derbyshire Cltare closely involved withthe planning and designof their local environment.

DCIL's approach to serviceprovision for the f'u! 1social integration of disabled

- il -

people is an holistic one.It's workers try to seethe interlocking needsof disabled people as anintegrated whole, and itis developing its practicealong these lines.

The CIL is built on the

basis of a cooperativerelationship between peoplewho are physically impairedand those who are not. It's

management structure isequally poised between disabledpeople and people from

statutory authorities. Thepolicy for the employmentof staff is the same. The

insistence is that disabledpeople and non-disabledpeole should work together.

These policies were adoptedfor a very clear reason.If you want to solve a problem,you need a11 the informationthat's available. This cancome from the professionalexpertise of non-disabledpeople and from the directexperience of disabled peoplethemselves.

The Rochdale YDU, on whichmillions of pounds wouldbe "wasted", was the resultof non-disabled people "lookingin" on a problem and providinga solution which totallyfailed to take into account

the experience and wishesof disabled people (whichshould have over-riding import--ance in decisions which

affect their lives).

Ken detailed his own personalhistory - how he had been"dumped" out of hospitalwithout support or information;how his family had brokenup because of the strainof caring for his needswithout assistance; howhe had been offered the

"choice" of going to livewith his elderly mother

or going into an institution.Again the burden of providingpersonal assistance wasleft to rest with his immediatefamily; no support was offeredto his mother. "By the timeshe got to 80, things weregetting serious."

Everyat this

similar

in ye a rbuild up.

d i s a b 1 e d

con Terence

experiences yearout the stress can

person

had had

When Ken had met his presentpartner, they had decidedto put a stop to all thatby using the experiencethat they had, drawing onthe support of other disabledpeople, and building theirown solution. That was how

the Grove Road Scheme had

come about.

With that kind of

it was designeddisabled people escapeinstitutional care,to help familiesfrom the intolerable

of caring for arelative, which

know 1edge,to help

from

and

escape

stress

disabled

in turn

removes any choice for thefamily about how they developtheir own lives.

All of that personalexperience lie3 in the back--ground to the developmentof the C.I.L. in Derbyshire.It was based on the personal

experlence

of disabled

county.

of hundreds

people in the

I he only firmthe developmentis when it is

that direct experience,and when it has a clear

aim and a clear perspectiveof what it's there to achieve.

Ken Davis is Secretary to Derby--shire Centre for Integrated Livingand a Derbyshire County Councillor.

basis for

of services

rooted in

Maggie HinesMaggie had become disabled

as a result of an accident

she had had while workingas an S.R.N1, in the Lebanon.

Like the other disabled

speakers, she had been offeredno information about how

to cope more easily withher impairment or how shewould manage in the 'outsideworld' .

Her view of

a service

conditions and

people toas quickly asshattered when

nut of her

and across

grounds to a YDl).

Maggie found the experienceemotionally shattering.This was supposed to beher home and yet it didnot resemble 'normal life'

at all. Staff came on and

off duty, she was treatedlike a chiid (after havingbeen in a 'responsible job,making life-or-death decisions)etc. Although she stillhad the same expectationsas anyone else, she hadbecome, overnight, a second-

the

which

the n

the

NHS as

treated

restored

communi typoss ible wasshe was moved

hospital v/ardthe hospital

class citizen in a

democratic society.

The only alternto Maggie at theto live at home

frail, elderly mreading thepo1 icy of the Rocshe had notice d

much emphasis waon returning peoplnv/n home environme

family sup p0r tessential .

s o - c a 1 1 e d

ve

me

ith

or .

rat

lo

at i

ti

w

oth

ope

hda

tha

op

w

h

ion

YD

aga

lac

the

who

c ii

as

e r

I n

a I

U,i ii

ed

i r

TO

be

»t,wo

t o

uld

Why, she

the burden

a severe 1y di sab 1e.lbe borne by theAnd why should aper

asked, shnu Idof caring inr

persnu

fami1y?disab1ed

to stayna t ii r;i 1

.n break

•on be oh 1igedWith the family when apart of life is

away from the family ata certain age?

What is the function ofa YDU? If you examine? thepolicy of respite care,you get a picture of a familyperiodically 'cracking up'under the stress of look in.)after disabled familyService providers areenough to hand themfor a couple of weeks,full

were

ie m b (? r s .

happya break

knowjnqwell the torment they

causing by dischargingpeople back into the samestressful situation.

And Of course ires p i t. e

and rehabilitat i on bods

were alv/a ys in dang er Of

becoming 1ong-s tay beds

and t h a y a 1w ays w i 11 be.

If the fami 1y re fuses to

have the disabi ed person

back, there's abs o 1 u te 1ynothing e lse for thein hut

to stay in the YDU.

II ag g ie described the w ho le

r e h a h i 1 i t a t i on f unc t ion

Of YDUs as "a shamii How

could a person be ' n. hab-

-il Hated' in a di ffe r e n t

- u -

environment to the one they'regoing to live in?

The -fundamental problem, shesaid, was the approach takenby service planners. In:, rational planning process,

should begin bythei r

pi aimerschallenging-usions.

One challengebeen - is it a

of public resources to buildsuch a unit? The alternativechallenge may have been- is it right to rely uponthe family as being a primesource of support? The ultimatequestion is whether it'sright for a health authorityto be asking these questionsin the first place, becauseto ask them is to assumethe Tightness of their ownauthority. The questioncould have been asked

what information do we needto solve the problems ofour patients, who are facedwith discharge into an essen--tially hostile social environ--ment.

own concl-

would have

proper use

As it is, the Heal th Authorityhave ignored all the obviousques tions about housing,personal assistance, technicalaids etc. They are to builda YDU in hospital groundsso that when the magic ageis reached, it's one smalljump from one building tothe next.

She warned professionalswho were present that disabledpeople were becoming stronger,and beginning to formulatetheir own strategies forproviding their own solutionsto problems they are facedwith. The development ofCILa represented real hopefor the future.

Maggie's .final messageto the professionals atthe conference was: "Your

paternalistic administrativesolutions have had their

day!"

Maggie Hinds is involved withplanning and design and a peercounsellor with Derbyshire Centrefor Integrated Living, and is amember of N.E. Derbyshire CommunityHealth Council.

Dave GoddardDa

many

have

byoutl

expe

what

He

in

move

4 yb r e a

onlyther

fact

2kto

as

He

sys tyou

such

go

with

enta

peop

ve

r

ot

in

ri

t

t

d

ea

k-

s

of

ai se

tier

e

ence

hey

had

tie

in

rs

up.

bee

for

it

ors.

trea

wo

ried

wo

o d

un

be

s ta

th

aid that althoughthe points he wouldd had tieen covered

speakers, tie wouldhis own personal

in support ofti a d said. .

star

comm

to

a g o

Init

n m

3

tur

He

t t

uld

, burks

o so.

when

d, hff

e ca

ted

unityan

after

iallye a n I.

moot

ned

had

he

his

t tti

does

5 impto

ave

dutie

re o

out

ti

inst

a

h

to

hs

out

bee

inst

own

e w

n' t

le c

getto

1i v ilujlit had

i tut ion

familye had

s; ta yi n

to be

n told

i tut ion

home .

ay theall ow

hoices,up or

fit in

which

0 other

ye

he

t

em

t

to

il

le

David had been encouraged

- U -

to move

by a foworker.

involved

Mancheste

Disabled

heard phow theyin

and

for

more

the communityinking social

also become

the Greater

alition of

, where hetalking aboutindependent 1yenv ironment,

d to presslife once

into

rward-th

He had

with

r Co

Peopleeople

lived

r own

decide

mmuni ty

thei

he

CO

He had contacted his localsocial services departmunt,

and it had

to initiate a

scheme, whichin Oldham at

for someone wtio

disabled.

been

care

didn't

that

decided

supportexist

time ,was severely

A severely disabled personneeds to negotiate caresupport on on individualbasis, so that their personalrequirements are met. Althoughother forms of support exist,for Dave's purposes, thelocal authority were thebest people to approach.

He met

providerssocial

etc - to

package'

with all the

district

service

nurses,

workers,draw up

There tiad been

at first, butthe package

to fitindividual

Securinghad been

suitable

and Dave

move back

family home,not adapted,Dave had been

quite wellfamily help,that the

by theadded toSo, workingdepartment

home helpsa 'support

difficultiesgradually

was moulded

more closely hisrequirements.

suitable ho usingdifficult. Little

housing exists,was obliged to

into the now vacatedThe house was

and althoughable to managewhile he had

he now found

barriers presentedhome environment

his disability.with the housingand occupational

therapists, various adaptationswere planned.

Dave had now

in the community18 months, andwere things beginningbe properly sorted out.

been livingfor some

only nowto

He stressed ttie need forlocal authorities to reviewsituations as they changedjtolook at things in a totallynew light according to thesituation.

David Coddard is Chair of Oldham

Disability Action Group and a memberof Oldham Social Services Committee.

G&3&e$&®&e&&3&

WorkshopsEach workshop was asked

to consider the same five

questions, felt to tie centralto the day's debate.

Whilst the format o f each

individual workshop differedthe conclusions readied

were largely the same. Thisis a concensus of the opinionsexpressed.

(1) What kind of supportis neceaaary to enable anyphysically impaired personto live and participatefully in the community?

- 15 -

(a) The 7 components identifiedhy Ken Davis, in the morningsession, as essentials tofully integrated living.

(b) Particular emphasiswas placed on housing, caresupport and transport.

(2) To what exsupport servphysical andof a di s ah

the community?

(a) They don't

(b ) The re alie very muc

representationbodies, littleof services

people, andon the "ch

rather than th

consumers".

tent do existingices meet the

social needs

led person in

sons for this

Ii with inadequate

on planningor no monitoring

by disabledthe emphasis

aritable model"

at of "questioning

(3) What are the-ments which

a disabled penundergoneto resume their

the community?

(a) Their own individualexpressed needs should bemet, rather than simplybeing told what they canhave .

(b) Rehabilitation cannotbe carried out or measured

anywhere but in the person'sown regular surroundings.

key require-will enable

on who has

rehabilitation

place in

(c) Properly adapted housing,with the consumer involvedin all planning decision:;.

(4) How appropriate is hospital-based respite care? Whatare the alternatives?

(a) Not appropriate!

(b) Longer breaks are neededboth for ,the carer and forthe disabled person.

(c) Better support for carerscould reduce the need forrespite care.

(d) Infromation onof alternatives

available.

the rangehould bo

(e ) Inter -.h e1p registersof people who may need helpand those who can providehelp .

(5) Is representation onJoint Care Planning Teamssufficient to ensure that

disabled people have controlover their own services?

(a) No!

(b) Representation numericallyis not even.

(c) Agendas are set by Professionals.

(d) Decision making is doneby professionals ratherthan disabled people.

(e) Support groups are neededto combat lack of confidence.

- 16 -

Conclusion

The overwhelming conclusion reached, bythe end of this very full day, was that localorganisations of disabled people, workingtogether with sympathetic professionals,should join together to formulate alternativestrategies for service provision.

To this end, a meeting has been arrangedto enable all interested people to form figroup who will actively work towards:

(a) ttie effective monitoring of the opera tiona 1practices of the Birch Hall YDU.

(b) the development of alternative, community-based services, based • on the principles

outlined by Ken Davis in his talk on"Centres for Integrated Living".

Please see inserted sheet

USEFUL CONTACTS

Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People:11 Anson Road, Rusholme, Manchester M14 5BY

Tel: 061-224 2722.

Rochdale Housing S Disability Group:c/o Middleton DIAL, Parkfield Parish Hall, Sarah St

Middleton.

Tel: 061-65 3 9 2 69.

Greater Manchester Housing S Disability Group:c/o St Thomas' Centre, Ardwick Green North, Manchester.

Tel: 061-273 7451 (Tony Daldwinson).

Derbyshire Centre for Integrated Living :•Long Close, Cemetery Lane, Ripley, Derbyshire DE5 3HY.Tel: 0773 40246.

Oldham Disability Action Group:c/o New Vale House, Greaves St., Oldham.Tel: 061-626 7893.

- 17 -

CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS:

David Swindells - Tameside College of Technology.Kevin Sheridan - Tameaide Social Services Pent.

Anne Crue - Tameaide & Gloouop C.I1.C.

Geoff Taylor - Beaumont Products, Denton.Jim Fallon - Oldham Social Services Dept.

Eiluned Parry - Oldham S.S.D.

Karen Cocksey - Oldham S.S.D.

P. Winterbottom - New Vale House Day Centre.

Margaret Boote - New Vale House.Sue Davies - New Vale House (Oldham S.S.D.).Barbara Simmons - New Vale House.

Joan Mayers - New Vale House (Oldham S.S.D.).Derek Broadbent - New Vale House (Oldham S.S.D.).Janet Taylor - Oldham Health Authority (Community O.T. Service).M.A. George - Oldham I District General Hospital.Terry Shaw - Oldham Disability Action Group (ODAG).Brian HaineB - ODAG.

Audrey Creighton - ODAG.

Wendy Joyce - Park Dean Special School, Oldham-Debra Seddon - Park Dean Special School, Oldham.

Mra M. Beckett - Carer, Middleton.

Andrea Walkden - Newhcy.

Anne Hulme - Middleton S.S.D.

Judy Evans - Whitworth.Pam Tomlinaon - "Friends".

V. Beckett - Middleton.

Vera Mearns - Heywood Volunteer Bureau.

Mike Baldwin - Heywood Volunteer Bureau.

Shirley O'Connell - Heywood Volunteer Bureau.A. Rahim - U.K. Islamic Mission.

J. Mills - Middleton DIAL.

Barry Gray - Spina Bifida Association.Caroline Broomhead - Balderstone Community School.A. Hameed Salik - U.K. Islamic Mission.

Deryk Mead - Rochdale S.S.D.

David Dawson - Rochdale C.H.C.

Jim Robbin - Rochdale M.B.C.

Sue Lemmon — Rochdale M.B.C.

Marilyn Ogden - Rochdale Labour Party.Clifford Leach - Rochdale Mobility i. Acceaa Group.

Dawn Gorton - Rochdale Housing Dept.

Mike Collinson - Rochdale Voluntary Action.Claudette Davies - Rochdale S.S.D. (Community O.T.).David Pitcher - Rochdale Housing & Disability Group.

Margaret Pitcher - Rochdale Housing & Disability Group.Anne Rath - Kirkholt Community Centre, Rochdale.Anne Preston - Immobility in Action, Rochdale.Beryl Deavall - Immobility in Action, Rochdale.Chris Drinkwater - Rochdale Voluntary Action

Jean Daviea - Two-Way Club, Rochdale.Pat Ashworth - N. Manchester General Hospital (Manchester S.S.D.)CM. Brownlow - N. Manchester Health Authority.Sue Napolitano - Equal Opportunities Unit, Manchester.Gillian Allan - Bury PHAB.

Bernie Gibbina - N. Manchester Community Support Team. -

- Id -

Pat Ashworth - North Manchester General Hospital (Manchester S.S.D.).

Jean Davies - Two-Way Club, Rochdale.

Pat Ashworth - N. Manchester General Hospital (Manchester S.S.D.).

C.H. Brownlow - N. Manchester Health Authority.

Sue Napolitano - Equal Opportunities Unit, Manchester.

Gillian Allan - Bury PHAB.

Bernie Gibbina - N. Manchester Community Support Team.

Dr J Chakravorty - N. Manchester Health Authority. •

J.H. Gilpin - Telford P.H. School, N. M/c Health Authority.

Gerald Daly - Park Lodge, Manchester.

Lesley Wilkie - Salford Health Authority.

0. Olujugba - Salford Health Authority.

Amilie Kraynovic - Salford Spastics Society.

Joan Hamilton - Salford Disabled Motorists.

C.J. Hamilton - Salford Disabled Motorists.

Bernard Schlecht - N. Manchester Health Authority.

S. Smith - Lancashire Social Services.

Neville Strowger - Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP)Ian Stanton - GMCDP.

Ken Lumb - GMCDP.

Hazel Lumb - GMCDP.

Anne Plumb - GMCDP.

Lorraine Gradwell - GMCDP.

Julie Madigan - GMCDP.

Judith Holman - GMCDP.

Tony Baldwinson - Gtr Manchester Council for Voluntary Services.

Caroline Wells - G.M.C.V.S.

Patricia Ward - Spastics Society Regional Office.

Annette Taylor - ADAPT.

John Luke - Stockport S.S.D.

Joan Campion - Research Assistant, Manchester Polytechnic.

This report written, compiled and produced by:

Ian Stanton (GMCDP Information/Publicity Worker)

and

Sue Kalko (Chair, Rochdale Housing s Disability Croup)

- 19 -