Letter from Karen Wooding , MCCH Director of Operations
Dear Ms Goble
Below is a statement that will hopefully answer your questions and queries concerning MCCH and our involvement in the Garden Centre.
MCCH Society Ltd is a charitable organisation that provides accommodation, support, employment and vocational services for people with mental ill health, learning disabilities and/or autism. We work in partnership with the people who use our services and strive to be person-centred in everything we do, promoting empowerment, meaningful choice and real community participation.
In the Spring of 2005 we tendered to provide and manage a number of services in Surrey. We understand that we were a close second to Richmond Fellowship and when it turned out that one service would not fit as well in the main contract with them we were subsequently invited by the commissioners (Mid and East Surrey PCT and Social Services) to look at providing a service to manage and develop the Old Moat Garden project based on the background information and specification provided in the earlier tender documents. Our understanding was that we received very good feedback for the service users who were part of the tender process.
We made the decision that at that time we could not proceed with the tender until more detailed work was carried out on its overall viability particularly bearing in mind our distance and its size. We were keen to help if we could so agreed that MCCH would work with the Old Moat project for a period of a year on a consultancy basis to look at the opportunities, in particular, ways of attracting new revenue funding, partnerships and even finding an alliance locally, which may suit the local environment better.
During this time, MCCH has worked in partnership with all of the stakeholders to develop a strategy for taking the Old Moat project forward to meet the agreed aims, objectives and outcomes.
Surrey & Borders remain responsible for managing the project. At the end of the year, which concludes this December, it was envisaged that a decision would be made as to whether MCCH would feel able to take on this project to the best interest of all stakeholders including the people currently using the service.
MCCH were not involved in any way in the withdrawal of the therapeutic earnings or its subsequent re-instatement. Indeed we have never been involved in a situation where people in any service we have been involved with would be worse off financially as a result of any action we have taken.
The ‘Paying a Real Wage Guide’ promotes a model of good practice which is designed to ensure that people receive their correct entitlements as far as employment is concerned and supports organisations to work through the minefield of benefits legislation and challenges those organisations that may have used a variety of loopholes to avoid paying people at least the minimum wage. It reflects our experience of working with experts who support our belief that everyone is employable and that real work is often a key component in someone’s journey of recovery from mental ill health. It also shows that this can be achieved, with care, in a manner that ensures that people are not vulnerable to having payments challenged or benefits cut as a result of receiving payments. This is important where it is unclear how payments are made or calculated at a time when these are under closer scrutiny by benefits and minimum pay officials. This is not a comment on what happens in Surrey as we are not familiar with the arrangements as yet.
We were unaware of your campaign until you contacted our local senior manager and would as previously stated be prepared to meet with you to discuss our work.
You also correctly stated that we are distressed by the photographs that are on your web site of the Non Executive Directors of MCCH that imply that they are paid. All the Non Executive Directors are unpaid and give their time freely to govern MCCH. This is why I requested that those pictures, along with the damaging and misleading comments, be removed.
I would like to reiterate that no decisions have been made at this point in time as to whether MCCH will be taking on the provision and management of the Old Moat Garden Centre.
If you would like to arrange to meet with us please let me know and I will arrange a time suitable to you. I would not agree to be recorded but would be happy for you to report on the website the outcome of the meeting.
I am pleased to at least have had this opportunity to set the record straight and look forward to your positive response in light of this.
Karen Wooding
Director of Operations
MCCH Society Limited
posted by simply human @ 4:17 am
Listen to this article
5 comments
Dot This
5 Comments:
1. If MCCH has had a Consultancy role ref Old Moat for almost a year what is the relationship between MCCH and the externalisation project manager Helen Lockett.
2. All people are clearly not able to work , why is MCCH pushing this and the 'recovery' line - identical to NIMHE and SCMH - in such a dogmatic way?
3. If MCCH has been looking closely at the Old Moat centre, liasing with users there and discussing developments with SABP then it must have known about the cuts or have been simply going through the motions.
4. No one has implied Non-Exec's get paid, the caption ' paid ? ' appears to be a question - meaning is the person depicted paid.
why are the Non-execs bothered about this as they clearly get expenses and perks whereas the real victims here , the Old Moat and other so called therapeutic payment workers got their pittance of three pounds a day cut on MCCH's watch.
This campaign is about disabled people being expected to work for nothing , if your non execs feel upset maybe the real issue is that they would like to be properly paid for what they do.
Well I am glad that Karen Wooding of MCCH Ltd has now confirmed what I was told by Diane Woods of East Surrey PCT last week that they are doing a report and that no decisions re the Old Moat have yet been made.
It does seem strange that MCCH would not have known about the workers having their £3 a day cut while they have been doing this consultancy.
I'd like as many comments as possible on this letter either here or by email before I reply to Karen Wooding including whether or not we should have a meeting with MCCH Ltd on the basis that she refuses to allow it to be taped and the tape/transcript up for everyone to hear/read?
Yes, it would be helpful to talk to MCCH but it has to be on the record as their role here seems most odd - for example, did they ever bid for the contract ? where was independent consultancy here and what level of user consultation were they involved in?
Perhaps Jo could explain exactly what MCCH's role has been in respect to Old Moat as if she is economic with the truth she is accountable, in ways MCCH are not.
Hi Jill,
I am not sure that there will be that many comments. Except from those who are proactively taking an interest and aren't afraid to do anything for fear of putting themselves in more vulnerable positions.
People with mental health problems are scared and experiences have shown that actually challenging things in the past has been used against them.
Don't be disheartened by that. It is the brave that fight the good fight and have battle scars to show for it, but the campaign has also shown that things can be done and by very few people.
My view, for what it is worth, is that not everyone with mental illness can work..and certainly not in the ignorant work environemnts that are out there.
I cannot comment about people with Learning Difficulties but would assume one size doesn't fit for all those people either.
If whatever company takes over the Garden Centre can comprehend that every individual will have specific skills, capacities and support needs and be prepared to accommodate them..that will be something like a good starting point.
If they expect everyone to slot into the same recovery model it won't benefit anyone, except maybe the audit trail fixers who want to show how well they are doing..whilst hiding most of the facts.
First, the complaint about the photos was not made by the non-execs - it was made on their behalf and on a woolly argument that they are only volunteers. The point about non-execs is that they are supposed to be advising an organisation with an outside view, the lay person, the "real world". So they are a waste of time unless they do this.
One of the reasons for MCCH's lack of awareness is, I would say, because they are remote geographically from Surrey services - they are based in Maidstone.
And that is another question to be raised. Why is a business operating outside Surrey being given Surrey business.
As to a meeting, unless this is effectively public, either by being taperecorded or open to Observers, I don't think this is a good idea.
I would suggest some correspondence with the MCCH Chief Executive, Gordon Boxall. And that you get a copy of the MCCH Annual Report 2005/6 (just ring and ask) which although a fairly small document does give some important information. It also highlights that this organisation is for the learning disabled, although it looks as if it is branching out tentatively towards mental illness.
Important information gleaned from the MCCH Annual Report -
1. Over the last year Gordon Boxall, MCCH Chief Executive, was seconded to set up the Mental Health Providers' Forum
http://www.mhpf.org.uk/ whose CE is Judy Weleminsky, appointed December 2005, who in the 80's was the CE of Rethink (then National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It was during her time as CE that the charity really started to concentrate on being a service provider (business) as opposed to its original remit as self-help organisation mainly run by unpaid people.
You can see the Board is mainly made up of CE's from various provider charities including MCCH:
http://www.mhpf.org.uk/board.asp
The Mental Health Providers' Forum is holding an Annual Conference in London at 1 Savoy Place on 21 November. See details on website.
Anne Beales,Director of User Involement of Together, will be speaking.
2. Gordon Boxall is quoted in the Annual Report saying:
"We continue to work hard to adapt existing environments to meet the different needs of people entering the system whilst continuing to support those already in it - against a backdrop of severe financial pressures from funders."
So there you have it, MCCH and other providers will continue to be given work by state run bodies but the money isn't going to be forthcoming to provide a realistic service.
Rosemary in Surrey
Post a Comment
<< Home