Why we need to mutualise social care

By pooling their budgets, care users can have greater purchasing power to influence the market.

Britain is an ageing society, with healthier lifestyles and medical advances meaning that our older population will continue to grow. Many older people have lived their lives proud of their independence, and they value the control they have over their life choices. For these people it can be a frightening as well as a deeply disempowering experience to find themselves subject to decisions made by others. Some older and disabled people are told which day centre they will attend, who will come into their home to care for them, when and what they will eat, when they can socialise, sleep, bathe or even go to the toilet. In a time of austerity, with cuts to basic local services, it remains vital to meet the wider challenge of ensuring that people using care services preserve their power over what happens to them.

There are two changes already under way that start to address these problems: integration and personalisation. Integration seeks to remove the artificial barriers between services which are preventative or home-based (often commissioned using council funds) and acute services, such as hospital services provided by the NHS. By integrating the preventative with the acute, there is a clearer financial incentive to stop low-level health problems escalating.

Personalisation is an approach that gives the person using care services more control over what care they receive, who provides it, and what they want to achieve with the rest of their life. By giving the individual more control over what is done with the budget allocated for their care, with appropriate professional advice, they are in the driving seat.

Take-up of personal budgets, particularly of those taken as a cash Direct Payment, although growing, is still low, particularly for older people. There are barriers that need to be overcome to extend personalisation more widely, including better advice, guidance and facilitation for the service user and their carers, and a wider range of flexible services to meet new and changing needs.

Integration is a structural change; personalisation is based on empowerment. That principle of empowerment is key to improving a wide range of public services by making them more responsive to the real and self-defined needs of the people who use them. A logical next step for personalised care budgets is to expand its power to influence the market by encouraging the creation of clusters of budget holders. The cluster would be self-defined as far as possible, and would pool the budgets of a number of service users who have something in common that affects the service they want to receive. This might be as simple as living in the same neighbourhood, or it might be a shared ethnic or faith background, type of disability, or care objective.

By pooling their budgets, care users can have greater purchasing power to influence the market to provide appropriate services. If a group of Somali Muslim elders want to receive home care that is sensitive to their specific cultural needs, they may be able to commission such a service through pooling their individual allocations.

For optimum effectiveness, clusters need to be small enough for individual service users to know and care about each other; stable enough to deliver the outcomes required over a sustained period of time; and flexible enough to adapt as needs change or individuals need to move in and out. They require the full engagement of professionals at every stage so that individuals are supported in understanding their problems, agreeing a care plan that addresses their needs, and moving on when necessary.

This will inevitably lead to demands being identified that are not currently being met. As well as influencing existing service providers in the third, public or private sector, councils are well-placed to help develop new start-up enterprises to meet new needs and to provide the necessary oversight. Local authorities have access to office space; back-office systems including HR, IT and finance systems; and legal advice. They can facilitate mentoring from more established service providers, as well as holding budgets on behalf of users that could provide financing to new providers. By bringing these supply-side interventions together, councils can help develop new community-based services including social enterprises to meet changing demand. In some cases, this would also create new employment opportunities in communities experiencing high levels of social exclusion.

Pooling personalised care budgets is a model of mutualising care services so they become more responsive to the needs of the people they serve. If people don't like the services they are receiving, they can change them. If they want services that don't exist, they can help create them. This is not a panacea that can magic away the pain of funding cuts, but whatever level of resource is available, we will generate better value for money if public funds are used to deliver outcomes that service users want. 

Read RSA's new pamphlet The New Social Care: Strength based approaches

Steve Reed MP for was elected as member for Croydon North in November 2012, having previously been leader of Lambeth Council

Actor Tony Robinson joins campaigners protesting in support of social care opposite Parliament. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.