So, we get back from a nice weekend away, with the sun still shining, and there’s a letter from LB’s Transition Care Manager (ASW).
I am writing to confirm that we have been successful at panel and that your indicative budget is xxx per week or xxxx for a full year. I understand you wish to receive the budget as a direct payment and manage the account yourself. I enclose a support plan that needs to be completed before any money is released. I’m happy to start the support plan for you as a draft and then we can arrange to meet to discuss any questions you may have.
Well, I have quite a few questions.
Kicking off with who is the we? Given ASW has never met LB*, I’m not sure who it refers to? I’ve met ASW for about 20 minutes in total and she ain’t ever met LB, so seems a bit too familiar for my liking.
And why were we successful? Was there ever a question mark over the need for an adult care package? I find it pretty offensive really, suggesting we somehow won something. Or is this a (waste) product of current government welfare reform. WE have been successful in the wider context of cuts. Great.
What is an indicative budget? If these terms are going to be used, they should have some sort of explanation or it is meaningless (and frustrating).
Is this budget for just the period while LB is still in full time education or indefinitely? If the latter, does that mean that LB will have his case closed once this care package (xxx a week) is in place?
And if yes, how the fuck are we supposed to manage our lives, with full time jobs, around the equivalent of 10 hours a care week?
That’s it really. I’m not going to bother repeating the way in which careless, jargon filled communications like this are experienced.
Transition really is shit.