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

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

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