Council cuts: traumatic, yes, but you ain't seen nothing yet - Guardian

Council cuts: traumatic, yes, but you ain't seen nothing yet

A study of town hall cuts finds most councils are 'coping' and some key services such as adult social care are still relatively protected. But it warns this could be all about to change

• Patrick Butler
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 November 2011 19.40 GMT

We know the funding climate for local authorities is bad, but exactly how bad? There are some fascinating insights in the Audit Commission's comprehensive study of the 2011-12 council spending cuts programme, the first of four of the toughest years, financially speaking, that municipal services will have endured for decades. There is no good news here, just a few bits of not-as-bad-as-we-thought-news to leaven what is, on the whole, pretty alarmingly bad news.

The not-as-bad-as-we-thought news is that in this first year the majority of councils in England are coping with the cuts they have had to make. Coping in this sense means that town halls are, by and large, successfully seeing through this year's planned budget cuts. It doesn't mean the cuts are not painful, that vital services are not shrinking, or that staff are not losing their jobs. It simply means that existing cuts will not get worse, at least not for a few months.
The first bit of bad news is that it expects roughly one in 10 councils (around 35 in total) will see this year's savings plans collapse, requiring them to sack more workers and shrink more services between now and April 2012. This will come as a rude shock for staff and residents.
The commission is not saying which councils its auditors think are at risk of collapsing into financial chaos in the next two or three months, it merely suggests that authorities that have big cuts to make, weak management, and low levels of financial reserves are very much on the at-risk list.
Interestingly the commission holds that there is no causal link between volume of financial cut (and the biggest cuts, it confirms, are falling on the most deprived areas of England) and impact on services. Council cuts programmes, it suggests, fall on a spectrum: well-planned and thought-through at one end and crude and hasty (my words) at the other. Where your local council is on that line they don't say, just that there are good and bad authorities, in poor and wealthy areas.

That's not to say a council can manage its way out of cuts entirely, but that good financial planning and leadership might mitigate some of the worst effects. A recent study of council cuts to disability services by the think tank Demos came to the same conclusion.

The commission has calculated the net reduction in spending for English councils this year. On top of the £3.5bn cut from central government it factors in losses from the council tax freeze and estimated falls in income from fees and charges (another £1.2bn). It subtracts from this net figure £329m that councils have dug out of their "rainy day" reserves, giving an overall shortfall in funding in 2012 of £4.4bn.
Where have they made up this shortfall? The cuts axe has fallen disproportionately on so-called "smaller" services, such as planning (which represents just 4% of council spending, but has provided 22% of the savings needed), housing, cultural services (libraries, museums) and highways (roads, potholes). Environmental services (refuse collection, recycling) and children's services (child protection, youth) have suffered cuts marginally less than their share of spending. But it is adult social care which has been, relatively speaking, most protected: it accounts for 41% of overall spend, but has contributed just 18% of the savings.

That's not to say things are rosy in the world of adult social care: nearly three quarters of English councils are this year increasing adult social care charges; 75% plan to reduce the volume of services; a quarter plan to reduce standards; and 40% plan to tighten eligibility criteria (notwithstanding legal challenges, such as this one and this one).

Essentially, the commission suggests, councils have four options for making good their £4.4bn shortfall across up to eight service areas (cultural services, education, highways, environment, adult social care, children's social care, planning, housing)

• Cuts in volume or frequency of services;
• Changes in quality or minimum service standards;
• Restrictions in eligibility; and/or
• new or increased fees and charges.

The commission assesses each council's approach to this challenge. It finds the 2011-12 cuts programmes of 28% of the biggest (single tier) councils will see a "high overall impact" on services. This means all four options would be used in five or more of the service areas.
At the other end of the scale, one in ten councils, it reckons, have got away with "low impact" cuts: no reduction in services, lower standards or eligibility squeezes; just rises in fees and charges. Tantalisingly, the report doesn't names. According to the commission:

"We found no link between the extent of service impacts and the size of cuts. A council facing large cuts is as likely to be in a group where the impact on services is high, as in a group where the impact is low. This is due to differences in local decision-making on how much to protect services, and what councils plan to achieve through efficiency savings."

Here's the second bit of bad news: this year, traumatic for most councils as it has been (many were caught out by the unexpected scale and speed of community secretary Eric Pickles' financial settlement last December) may well come to be seen as the "easy" year in cuts terms. Sacking town planners will no longer offer up easy savings. The 2012-13 budgets will see many town halls forced to cut into public-facing services like adult social care, reckons the commission:

"Many savings plans rely heavily on large cuts in small service areas, particularly in councils facing the biggest losses in government support. This approach may not be sustainable beyond 2011/12. The opportunities for big future savings from these smaller services will be limited. This is a particular problem for those councils in the 'high cuts' group. A further 50 per cent cut in planning spending is highly unlikely to be possible in 2012/13, and even if it was, such a cut would deliver much smaller savings. The bigger services may need to make a greater contribution to future savings."

I spoke recently to a local government insider about the prospects for local government. The pressure on budgets (and on services, and jobs) would not let up (250,000 jobs gone by April 2013). He told me that the smaller, weaker district councils faced serious challenges next year. Already they were:

"Screaming loudly that things were really difficult. A lot of the shire districts are close to the tipping point of financial sustainability."

For the bigger stronger councils, 2013-14 will be the critical year, he reckoned, because by then they would know whether their hugely ambitious attempts to find efficiency savings (a process I wrote about here) were paying off. If they are not, then they too will face serious financial crisis. The commission, itself facing abolition as a result of the cuts, would seem to agree:

"Future years will provide a continuing, and possibly tougher, test of councils' financial management skills."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2011/nov/18/council-spending-cuts-likely-to-get-worse

The care sector needs cash not lawsuits - Guardian

The care sector needs cash not lawsuits

Reform of statute alone won't address the root problem of cash-strapped councils making cuts to adult social care, says David Brindle

• David Brindle

• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 November 2011 14.05 GMT

Bupa research estimates that, to pay rates to meet CQC standards, English councils would need an extra £1.7bn over the next three years. Photograph: Brian Harris/Rex Features

Legal rulings against councils' cheese-paring of adult social care are starting to flow thick and fast. One day it's a censure over the tightening of eligibility criteria; the next it's a reprimand for the screwing down of fees for care operators.

Such judgments are invariably hailed as "landmark", but in truth they rarely have a wider impact. More often than not, they turn on an error of process in decision-making and the guilty council is sent back to do it all properly. Net result: a heartening moral victory for the complainants, a temporary reprieve for those affected and a salutary warning to other councils not to fall into the same trap.

Two rulings last week are likely to follow that pattern. In one, in a case brought on behalf of two autistic men, the Isle of Wight's tightening of its eligibility criteria in April was quashed on grounds that both its consultation and impact assessment were flawed. In the other, in an action taken by care operators in Sefton, Merseyside, the local council was found to have failed to assess the full costs of care provision when it acted last December to freeze for a second year the rates paid to care home operators on behalf of state-funded residents.

Hard on the heels of the Sefton judgment came news that another council, Staffordshire, had forestalled a similar court challenge by agreeing to revisit its fee levels for this year and next with a transparent review of care costs and other relevant factors.
The labyrinthine and outdated nature of social care law, added to but fundamentally unreformed since 1948, certainly offers rich pickings for lawyers. That should change under sweeping changes proposed by the Law Commission, due to be included in a white paper next spring. But reform of statute alone will not address the root cause of the legal bushfires breaking out all over the care sector because they are fuelled primarily by a quite separate problem: shortage of money in the system.

Research published this week by care home operator Bupa, and carried out by care sector analysts Laing & Buisson, suggests that the average fee of £461.70 a week paid by councils in England for residential care falls significantly short of what is required to meet basic standards set by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Typically, fees have been frozen this year after an increase of just 0.5% in 2010.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that some councils are trying to drive rates down as low as £350 a week. By way of context, that would just about buy you a week from tonight in the cheapest Travelodge in Leeds – provided you had no wish to eat anything.

Small wonder that the number of care home businesses going bust has more than doubled over the past year. According to accountants Wilkins Kennedy, 72 companies went under in the 12 months to 30 September. And while almost all the 750 homes of the biggest casualty, Southern Cross, have found new operators, many have reputedly been taken up only because their landlords dangled attractive short-term incentives.

If those operators are gambling on there being a new cash deal for social care, they may be whistling in the dark. Ministers are committed only to produce a progress report on funding reform in England, further to the recommendations of the Dilnot commission, "alongside" the white paper.

To pay rates to meet CQC standards, Bupa's research estimates, English councils would need an extra £286m next year,nrising to £866m in 2014-15. That amounts over three years to £1.7bn – by chance the first-year price tag attached to the Dilnot plan for the care system as a whole. Either way, it doesn't look likely that the lawyers will be short of work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/nov/15/care-sector-needs-cash-not-lawsuits

Council slammed for using untrained staff for care reviews - community care magazine

Council slammed for using untrained staff for care reviews

Jeremy Dunning

Thursday 24 November 2011 00:16

Northamptonshire Council has been slammed for failing to carry out required reviews of care packages and using unqualified staff to do so, in a damning report into two cases from the local government ombudsman today.
The ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, also found that the council had breached government guidance in charging the two service users for their care.
The council has accepted recommendations to compensate the two service users and their families to the tune of more than £3,000 in total.
In the first case, the council failed to properly review the care package of a man with Down's syndrome, known as Mr DC, from 2001. Instead of care management staff reviewing his care, staff at the two council-run day centres he attended did so.
The report found the review "was largely descriptive" and failed to consider whether the current care package was meeting his needs or whether alternative services were required.
The ombudsman said it was concerning that care management staff failed to act when the lack of a up-to-date care plan was brought to their attention in 2009 during a financial assessment or on the death of the user's mother, which led to his brother giving up work to become his full-time carer.
The council also failed to properly assess Mr DC for community care services. While it took into account the disability benefits he received, it did not also take account of expenditure related to his disability, as required by government guidance.
In the second case, Dr Martin found three failings in the handling of the care package of a woman, called Mrs F, who had multiple sclerosis.
The council firstly delayed and failed to respond to requests for a review and reassessment of her care package through a face-to-face meeting, which meant she did not have enough care to meet her needs for a period of time. Nor did it carry out an annual review, contrary to guidance under Fair Access to Care Services.
It also failed to properly assess her financial contribution and failed to ensure that her income remained above the minimum level of income support plus 25%, as required by government guidance.
Martin also warned that similar problems could arise under a new charging policy introduced by the council, which could lead to service users not having their circumstances fully taken into account.
She called on the council to ensure that reviews were undertaken by staff skilled in assessment with adequate care management authority and "reasonably independent" of the service users are receiving. It should also review its charging policy.
A council spokesperson said it accepted the recommendations and that it had taken steps to rectify the failings identified in its approach to charging service users.
"We will be reviewing the report to assess whether any further action needs to be taken in light of the recommendations," the spokesperson added.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/24/11/2011/117822/council-slammed-for-using-untrained-staff-for-care-reviews.htm

NLGN: government must rethink personal budgets target - Community Care Magazine

NLGN: government must rethink personal budgets target

Molly Garboden

Thursday 17 November 2011 16:58

The government must relax its 2013 target for 100% take-up of personal budgets in adult social care, according to the New Local Government Network.
In a report published today, the NLGN said that, although a move to personal budgets was a positive step for service users, rushing the reform could have disastrous consequences.
"We're in favour of personal budgets, but we think the government should slow down the reforms and get implementation right the first time," Daria Kuznetsova, author of the report, told Community Care.
Kuznetsova said in a lot of cases, personal budgets do not mean choice and control for service users because people are not given the choice of direct payments. Their budgets are handled by a care manager, which can be a choice in the personal budgets system, but in many cases it is not a choice and people are receiving the same care they were always receiving, she said.
"It's just called a 'personal budget' to push this government target," she added.
The think-tank's analysis of council data showed that each additional direct payment issued to someone with a learning disability between 2002 and 2012 added between £15-25,000 to a council's overall expenditure on learning disability services. Care for people with learning disabilities accounts for more than 23% of the adult social care budget, the report added, and represents the fastest growing part of that budget in the past five years.
The report argued that the only way to ensure affordable personalised services was to accelerate moves towards a new form of outcome-based commissioning. With a strong outcomes measurement system in place, it said, emerging commissioning tools such as payment by results and social impact bonds could be developed within adult social care.
"This will drive a focus on value for money, rather than simply cost, and it will help commissioners identify effective forms of intervention that help people with learning disabilities to live the lives they want to lead," said Kuznetsova.
Kuznetsova said the outcomes measures should be determined nationally, leaving local authorities to develop the marketplace so that it is more consumerised.
"It's already becoming more consumerised, with some individuals purchasing services themselves," she said. "The problem at the moment is that information about how good those services are and what services are available is still held by a very select few. So there needs to be a broader definition of commissioning that includes this information sharing and market development."

Isle of Wight Council care cuts unlawful - BBC

Isle of Wight Council care cuts unlawful

Related Stories

• Care cuts plans 'all over place'
• Q&A: Social care
• 'Crisis' over mental health cuts

The families of two autistic men have won a High Court case over cuts to social care by Isle of Wight Council.

A judge ruled the council's new eligibility criteria were unlawful and should be quashed by the court.
Under the plans only vulnerable adults assessed as critical or at risk of becoming critical would qualify.
Lawyers for the men said it was a "landmark judgement". Isle of Wight Council said the changes were in response to cuts in government funding.
The council said 32 people who have had already had changes made to their care are being offered a reassessment. Campaigners said up to 2,000 people could have been affected by changes.
Saving money
Until recently the council followed a policy of meeting adult social care needs as long as they were "critical" or "substantial".
However, in February the Conservative-run council resolved to cover these needs only if they involved issues of personal safety and accommodation.
It said it was trying to save £1.6m by restricting council-funded care to the most pressing cases.
In a statement, Isle of Wight Council said: "We will now need to spend time reflecting on the implications for both service users and the wider council budget before deciding on our next course of action.
"Throughout this process we tried to ensure that the methods used to consult, and the content of that consultation, would be understood by residents."
'Devastating' effect
It said it would immediately comply with the judge's decision and revert to the previous eligibility thresholds for care.
Lawyer Alex Rook said: "If a council seeks to make cuts to its budget for adult social care, it cannot do so by only meeting certain needs designed to keep someone safe, but neglecting their overall quality of life."
The judicial review looked at the cases of two men, known only by their initials.
"JM" was described in court as being aged 32, with severe autism and a brain injury dating from birth.
He lives with his retired parents who are his full-time carers.
"NT", the second claimant, is aged 31 and has autism and a learning difficulty. He spends the week in residential accommodation, returning to his mother at the weekends.
She launched the court action, fearing the council's new policy could potentially have a "devastating" effect on her son's quality of life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15690065

Councils 'sent message' on care cuts after threshold rise ruled unlawful - community care

Councils 'sent message' on care cuts after threshold rise ruled unlawful

Mithran Samuel

Friday 11 November 2011 11:50

The Isle of Wight Council's increase in eligibility thresholds for adult care this year was unlawful, it was ruled today, in a judgement today that "sends a very clear message" to other councils considering cuts.
The council failed to take into account the impact of its decision to exclude some people with substantial needs from support, breaching the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Mrs Justice Lang ruled at the High Court.
It must now return its eligibility threshold to substantial.
"This landmark victory sends out a very clear message to all councils in England and Wales," said Alex Rook of Irwin Mitchell, the law firm representing the claimants, two severely disabled residents from the island.
"The judge has ruled that the consultation the council undertook did not involve proper consideration of the practical detail of what the move to this new policy would entail even were it lawful, and the council had very little information about the impact that this would have on people's lives before it when it took this decision.
"The reality is that the Council simply did not know what the effects would be - other than how much money would be saved - and so the Court has declared the Council also to be in breach of its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act."
The council said it was "disappointed" by the ruling but said it would not appeal it.
"We accept the judge's decision that that we did not provide sufficient information and that, in our attempts to explain what was a complex decision, we unintentionally breached some elements of the guidance," said council leader David Pugh and cabinet member for adult social care, housing and community safety Roger Mazillus.
Of 708 service users reassessed as a result of the new threshold - which limited council-funded care to people with critical needs and to those with substantial needs "at greatest risk of being unable to remain at home safely" - just 32 experienced a reduction or withdrawal of services.
Pugh and Mazillus said staff would be contacting the 32 immediately to reassess their needs against the reinstituted substantial threshold.
The ruling was welcomed by charities including Age UK and the National Autistic Society, which provided evidence to the court over the impact of the cuts on people with autism, such as the two claimants.
"The NAS now calls on other local authorities to recognise the national implications of the ruling and ensure they are fulfilling their statutory obligations for adult social care," said chief operating officer Mark Milton. "Cutting vital services to satisfy budgetary targets is not a viable solution and can actually create greater financial pressures in the long run.
This is the third time that a council has been forced to reverse a decision to increase eligibility thresholds because of a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act, the others being Birmingham, earlier this year, and Harrow in 2007.
It is also the second significant ruling against council cuts in as many days, after a judge ordered Sefton Council to review its decision to freeze fees to residential care providers because it had failed to assess how the fees would enable providers to meet assessed care needs.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/11/11/2011/117752/unlawful-threshold-rise-sends-message-to-councils-on-care-cuts.htm

Statutory watchdog needed to resolve care funding Crisis - Community Care

'Statutory watchdog needed to resolve care funding crisis'

Mithran Samuel

Thursday 10 November 2011 00:59

Social care's funding crisis can only be tackled through the creation of a statutory watchdog tasked with holding ministers to account for underfunding and educating the public about the sector.
That was the message from a paper today by think-tank the Strategic Society Centre, which called for the creation of an Office for Care and Living to address the various political issues that explain the chronic underfunding of adult social care.
The office would be based on the Office for Budget Responsibility, set up by the coalition to provide information on the state of the public finances that was independent of government.
The paper argues that long-term under-funding of social care arises from a number of factors that cause politicians to neglect the issue, including:
● A lack of public understanding of what social care is and what constitutes good quality or improvement, in contrast to the NHS, where the length of waiting times is a widely accepted indicator.
● Funding decisions being taken locally, limiting national media coverage and discussion.
● Politicians fearing the impact on their popularity of decisions to improve social care funding through new taxes or contributions.
● The disparate and diverse nature of the social care lobby, which limits its influence.
● Ideological division over key issues in social care funding, such as whether personal care should be free and funded out of taxation or not.
"Campaigners for social care funding reform need to recognise that any boost to public spending on care may only ever prove temporary if the underlying factors that see social care neglected by politicians are not addressed," said report author James Lloyd, director of the Strategic Society Centre. "A sustainable solution to long-term care funding requires a proper 'fix' for these issues."
This would be provided by the Office for Care and Living, he said, which would collect and publish accessible data on care funding and projected demand, carry out public education campaigns, promote media coverage of care and providing a voice for the sector.
Lloyds stressed that the office could criticise and challenge decisions taken by ministers in relation to social care and its funding.
The paper comes with the government in the midst of an "engagement process" to shape its White Paper on adult social care, which will contain recommendations on reforming the funding system, informed by this year's report by the Dilnot commission

Councils boost reablement services with money from NHS - Community Care

Councils boost reablement services with cash from NHS

Jeremy Dunning

Wednesday 09 November 2011 10:52

Reablement services are being expanded significantly across England on the back of £648m transferred from the NHS to local authorities this year.
Sixty per cent of English councils are expanding or setting up reablement services using money transferred from primary care trusts, making it the most popular use of the health money, Community Care has found.
Freedom of Information requests answered by 117 of the 152 English councils indicate that the £648m is set to be transferred to councils in full, and that most authorities are using it exclusively for adult social care.
Reablement involves, typically, six weeks of intensive home-based support to help people recover independence following crisis or hospital discharge, and is seen as a crucial way of minimising costs to health and social care.
The College of Occupational Therapists said new reablement posts were being created for occupational therapists.
"Occupational therapists are making a core contribution to the reablement team through training care staff, assisting at midway reviews, and ensuring ongoing links with their local community on discharge from the reablement services," said professional operations director Julia Skelton.
The expansion of reablement is likely to be greater still because PCTs have additionally been given £150m this year by the government to spend on reablement directly.
The transferred funding, which will flow from the NHS to councils every year until 2014-15, was announced in last year's comprehensive spending review to give adult care some protection from 28% real terms cuts in government funding from 2011-15.
Almost three-quarters of councils (72%) are using the money for adult social care only, while a quarter are combining spending on adult care with investment in children's social care or joint work with the health sector.
After reablement, the next most significant areas for investment of the NHS funds are telecare or telehealth services (34% of councils), prevention or early intervention (32%) and support to carers (32%).
The findings indicate that councils are using the money as intended by the Department of Health by investing in services that relieve pressures on the NHS.
Peter Hay, president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, said the findings were encouraging and showed councils were setting up sustainable services with the NHS resources.
Concerns were raised by the United Kingdom Homecare Association, however, about the predominance of in-house council provision of reablement. "Our view from a best value perspective is that the independent sector should be offered the opportunity to deliver as well, but sadly we aren't seeing a lot of that," said UKHCA chair Mike Padgham.
Gordon Conochie, joint policy and parliamentary officer at The Princess Royal Trust for Carers, said the PCT money being used for carers was covering "massive cuts from council funding".
Council says reablement service will save £17m
"Following a stroke I had to have intensive care support. I'll soon be able to get out of this room and go upstairs - to not only get to the loo, but also to my room and finish building my model railway. This is my ambition."
Model rail enthusiast Rob Simnet (pictured above) from Staffordshire needed intensive reablement support following a stroke to successfully get his life back on track.
He has benefited from Staffordshire Council's investment in the service.
Thanks to £9.75m transferred from the NHS, the council is now offering users 12 weeks' free reablement, up from six, the norm across the country.
But Staffordshire believes the expanded service will yield savings of £17m in the first year alone, based on 3,000 people using it. Pilots of the 12-week Living Independently Staffordshire service found that more than half of service users did not need further support and were able to go back to living independently.
"I firmly believe that six weeks was not enough for most people," said cabinet member for adults and well-being Matthew Ellis. "We will catch a lot more people.
"In other counties it seems that quite the opposite is happening. The free time is being cut from six weeks to three weeks and in some places to nothing. I don't understand why."
The Living Independently service is being provided by expanded joint health and social care teams including specialist social workers, occupational therapists, mental health support workers and home care staff, who provide lower-level support.
Service delivery lead for the Newcastle district of Staffordshire Christine Wheeler said: "We've had examples where people have come into the service, been referred for care support and been referred to the Living Independently Staffordshire office and within a week have been able to regain independence."

Labour calls for coalition guarentees over "quiet crisis" in social care - guardian

Labour calls for coalition guarantees over 'quiet crisis' in social care

Party refuses to reopen talks with ministers on injecting more cash into system unless PM and chancellor show serious intent

• David Brindle
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 October 2011 19.23 BST

Andy Burnham has set down three pre-conditions before resuming talks cross-party talks on funding social care for older people.

Labour is demanding concrete assurances of good faith from the government before agreeing to resume cross-party talks on a deal for the funding of care and support for elderly and disabled people.

The need for a settlement has been underlined by research suggesting that spending by councils in England on social care for people over 64 will this year be up to £1.3bn less in real terms than in 2009-10.

Labour says there is a "quiet crisis" in social care. But it is refusing to reopen talks with coalition ministers on ways of injecting more cash into the system unless David Cameron and the chancellor, George Osborne, guarantee their serious intent.
The standoff follows the breakdown of previous cross-party talks, before the last general election, when the Conservatives ran a damaging campaign accusing Labour of wanting to introduce a "death tax" on people's estates.
The then-Labour health secretary, Andy Burnham, has now returned to the brief after a spell shadowing education. He remains angry over the collapse of the earlier negotiations and is wary of a resumption even though Labour's former shadow health team had met Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers to start the process.
Burnham said he had received a letter from the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, inviting him to continue the discussions, but had replied setting down three pre-conditions: appointment of a secretariat to ensure the talks ran smoothly; a binding agreement on confidentiality and a "demonstrable commitment at the highest level of government, the prime minister and chancellor, recognising that these issues of funding adult social care are urgent and need to be accepted as such by the government".

Lying behind this is speculation that the Treasury has decided to shelve the report of the Dilnot commission, ordered by the coalition and published in July, which called for reforms including an initial extra £1.7bn government spending.

Burnham said: "If there is no recognition from the Treasury that something needs to be done, I think we are not going to get very far."
The new research on council spending was undertaken for Labour by the House of Commons library. After adjusting for inflation, total expenditure on social care is calculated at £2bn less this year than in 2009-10, with that on people aged 65 or over £1.3bn less.
Ministers say there should be no need for councils to cut spending on social care because the government is providing up to £2bn a year extra funding, including cash transferred from the NHS.
However, overall government grants to councils have been slashed by more than 25% and many councils have not protected social care spending, which is the biggest controllable part of their budgets. The care services minister, Paul Burstow, has accused them of "hopeless short-termism".

Martin Green, chief executive of the English Community Care Association, which represents many of the bigger social care providers, said: "There is a need for urgent action to stop services collapsing and vulnerable people being left without care and support."

Welfare reform: the fight for disabled people just got harder - Guardian

Welfare reform: The fight for disabled people just got harder

The new mantra of 'something for something' may disadvantage disabled people, says Alice Maynard, if that something means work that they can not find

• Comments (40)

Alice Maynard: "One in two disabled people work, but this masks the fact that many more want to, but can not find suitable work." Photograph: Scope

The House of Lords is debating the welfare reform bill. Few people would argue that the welfare system doesn't need reforming, but the plan to get more people working will backfire when it comes to disabled people.

The bill includes a number of proposals that chip away at the support disabled people and their families need to play a part in society.

These include a time limit for out-of-work support for disabled people who have previously been employed, changes to disability living allowance – a lifeline for many people – and a drop in the support for parents with a disabled child as part of the new universal credit.

But my worry is that any concerns are being drowned out by a new mantra: "something for something".
The message that your right to welfare should depend on your contribution to society was a thread running through speeches at Labour conference by Ed Miliband, Liam Byrne, Tessa Jowell and others.

"We have to be the party that puts back together the something-for-something bargain that was the genesis of the way we came together to create a country free from fear", said Byrne.

In Manchester, David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and Maria Miller echoed Labour's new refrain.

"Under Labour they got something for nothing. With us they'll only get something if they give something," declared Cameron.

"Something for something": it sounds so straightforward.
Little wonder the two parties have adopted it as their narrative for welfare.
But for disabled people it begs some difficult questions, not least "what do we have to put in to get something back?"
The prime minister's speech gave us some clues. Cameron talked about "unleashing your leadership" and "community spirit". Disabled people would back such a broad definition of contribution.
Many disabled people do contribute in this way. We volunteer; we are part of families, communities and organisations. We sit on charity boards; care for relatives; participate in our community and get involved in local issues.

However, it costs more to be disabled – getting involved in your community, visiting family, finding work all spell extra costs if you're disabled. For instance, getting a cab where there's no accessible transport. That's why payments such as disability living allowance exist.

The welfare reform bill is proposing to squeeze this support – removing the very thing that allows a disabled person to do "something". Without support to overcome the extra costs of being disabled, disabled people will struggle to keep their side of this social bargain.
But intriguingly, the likes of Liam Byrne and Iain Duncan Smith – the Labour and Conservative leads on welfare – don't take quite as progressive a view on the "something we have to put in". They both define it strictly as work.
And it is here that things get even tougher for disabled people.
Approximately one in two disabled people work. But that figure masks the fact that most want to work. However, the reality is that the flexible, accessible jobs don't exist and where they do, disabled people are less likely to have the skills, experience and confidence they need to get them.
What happens to people who can't find work in this world of "something for something"?
Reading between the lines of the rhetoric, one of two things happens.
They are either written off as workshy, and face losing state support. Or we decide that they are not able to work and they just get the basic support they need. The message is that they have no value in this new society.
This leads us inevitably to the most important question when it comes to welfare and disabled people: would we still invest in support for people to live independent lives if they're not likely to get a job?
If contribution is a pre-condition for support, then that leaves the disabled people who need the support in the first place in a catch-22.
Scope is fighting to ensure that the future of welfare includes a system that gives disabled people the same opportunities as everyone else. Judging by this emerging narrative, that fight has just got even harder.
• Alice Maynard is the chair of disability charity Scope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/oct/21/welfare-reform-disabled-people

Elderly struggling to cope with social care cuts - Guardian

Elderly struggling to cope with social care cuts

Annual budgets allocated to help the over-65s have fallen by £1.3bn since 2010, a cut of nearly a fifth

• Jo Adetunji
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 October 2011 02.29 BST

The chancellor, George Osborne, promised to provide an extra £2bn for councils to spend on help for older people. Photograph: Corbis

A crisis in social care funding since the coalition government came to power has left many elderly people in greater hardship, struggling with higher charges and less specialist support.

Government figures show that councils' annual budgets for help for the over-65s have fallen by £1.3bn since 2010, with cuts hitting nursing homes and support for the most vulnerable.
Despite a promise by the chancellor, George Osborne, last year to provide an extra £2bn for councils to spend on care homes, meals on wheels and daily help for older and disabled people, research conducted by the Commons Library suggests that the money, which was not ring-fenced, has not reached the frontline.
Instead, the figures show that in 2009-10 councils in England spent £7.6bn on social care for the over-65s compared to £6.3bn this year – a cut of nearly a fifth (17%).

Liz Kendall, the shadow minister for care and older people, who commissioned the research, said: "Older people, their carers and families are seeing services reduced, charges increased and support restricted to those only with the most critical needs."

She told the Daily Telegraph: "These cuts will cost everyone more in the long run, as older people who could remain healthy and independent in their own homes end up in hospital when they don't need to."
Campaigners have warned that the cuts will mean longer hospital stays for the elderly and cause strain on families with more people being forced to give up work to act as carers.
The government laid the blame squarely on local authorities, which it said had a duty to spend extra money it made available on social care.
Paul Burstow, the care services minister, said there was no excuse for cutting social care. "Our decision to make up to £2bn extra a year available to councils means they are receiving more money from the government than ever before for social care. If local councils are cutting frontline services then local people should hold them to account for that decision."

The local government minister, Grant Shapps, said it was "unacceptable" for councils to "target the elderly and vulnerable to boost their bank balances".

Councils are also increasing fees for home help and meals on wheels in an attempt to plug the funding gap, according to a survey by Age UK.
The charity said it found that two thirds of local authorities were increasing fees for services such as meals on wheels, which on average had risen from £3.17 last year to £3.44. Nearly half of councils were now charging more for home care services, with a rise in average prices from £13.05 an hour to £13.40.
Councils are also less willing to pay higher fees for specialist care such as dementia care, and Age UK said only a quarter of councils had increased rates paid for residential care homes.
Michelle Mitchell, Age UK's charity director, said: "We know the care system is in financial crisis. We need the government to show leadership and make the difficult but vital decisions to reform our broken care system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/28/elderly-social-care-funding-cuts

30000 cases of abuse of vulnerable adults last year - Community Care Magazine

30,000 cases of abuse of vulnerable adults last year

Mithran Samuel

Friday 04 November 2011 10:01

Councils identifed over 30,000 cases of abuse of vulnerable adults last year, official figures indicate.
Of 73,600 completed referrals to council adult protection teams in 2010-11, 41% were wholly (32%) or partly substantiated (9%), meaning physical, sexual, emotional, financial, discriminatory or institutional abuse, or neglect had been found on the balance of probabilities.
Thirty one per cent were unsubstantiated and 28% were inconclusive, though the NHS Information Centre, which published the figures, advised that the results should be treated with caution due to data quality issues.
In 54% of cases a protection plan was offered to the adult at risk, 58% of which were accepted.
Councils received 96,000 referrals in 2010-11 and provided client data for 94,500. Of these:-
• 13,900 were recorded as repeat referrals.
• 49% of clients were classified as 'physical disability'.
• 39% were aged 18-64 and 61% 65 or over.
• Physical abuse was the most common form of alleged abuse (36%) followed by neglect (28%) and financial abuse (24%).
• The vulnerable adult's home was cited as the location of alleged abuse in 42% of cases, with a care home the location in 35% of cases.
The figures were based on returns from 151 of the 152 councils with adult social services responsibility in England. It is the first year that councils were required to submit figures on adult protection referrals
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/04/11/2011/117713/30000-cases-of-abuse-of-vulnerable-adults-last-year.htm
If you are a vulnerable adult yourself and you believe that you are suffering from abuse (financial, physical, emotional, neglect, sexual, institutional or even domestic abuse), or if you are concerned about a vulnerable adult,  it is vital that you report this. Please contact your local Social Services department (in RBKC you can contact the Social Services helpline on 020 7361 3013 and say that you need to talk to someone concerning abuse of a vulnerable adult.)

Cuts increasing risk of loneliness and depression among elderly, finds report - Community Care

Cuts increasing risk of loneliness and depression among elderly, finds report

Jeremy Dunning

Friday 04 November 2011 00:02

Older people believe their well-being is under attack through a combination of cuts to community services, poor care at home services and failings in hospital care, putting an overstretched NHS under even greater pressure, research from the WRVS released today shows.
The findings by the WRVS, which provides services to lonely and isolated people, show that the cuts are leading to the danger of increased isolation among older people increasing the risk of depression, which often leads to physical ill-health.
It found that many older people have concerns that some services and professionals – particularly health services – are falling far short of expectations due to cuts with delays among people being discharged from hospital now 12,433 above the level since the introduction of the public spending cuts. Cutting the number of older people admitted to hospital could save the health service £2bn a year.
The report forms the first part of the charity's three-year Shaping Our Age project, which is a partnership between WRVS, the Centre for Citizen Participation at Brunel University and the Centre for Social Action at De Montfort University. The project aims to provide new ideas and insights to the emerging issues around ageing.
It is based on qualitative responses from 165 individuals from across the UK representing older people from all walks of life and examines older peoples' views about the scope, quality, availability and importance of public services for older people.
It shows:
● Social interaction is one of the most important factors to improved well-being and quality of life, but older people are feeling more isolated as services become increasingly remote
● There is a tangible impact on older people, the wider community and the UK economy as a result of cuts to public services designed to prevent older people from being isolated.
● The level of practical support available to older people to enable them to continue living in their own home is not sufficient.
● There are significant failings in hospital care for older people - poor treatment from hospital staff, poor hospital hygiene and low disability awareness.
● There is evidence that unacceptable older people's care is present throughout the public sector, which is sparking concern about the quality of public services more broadly.
David McCullough, WRVS chief executive said: "Overcoming loneliness and isolation is one of the most important aspects to maintaining or improving quality of life.
"It adds to the weight of evidence which shows that loneliness is a genuine health risk and if undetected, can lead to expensive and avoidable stays in hospital.
"Isolated older people are more vulnerable to returning to accident and emergency departments after a spell in hospital, are more likely to suffer from depression which in turn can lead to physical health problems."
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/04/11/2011/117709/service-cuts-increase-isolation-among-elderly-finds-survey.htm

Do you live in RBKC and feel socially isolated (whether you are an older person of not)? Get in touch with us at ADKC and we will see if we can assist you to get help to combat social isolation. Contact Jenny H on 020 8960 8888