1 in 10 councils have cut social care spend by more than a quarter

http://type2diabetestreatment.net/uncategorized/1-in-10-councils-have-cut-social-care-spend-by-more-than-a-quarter/
1 in 10 councils have cut social care spend by more than a quarter Budgets have tumbled by 11%, overall, in England since 2009-10

Caroline White

Wednesday, 05 April 2017

Add to PDP Tracker Print

One in 10 councils have cut their spend on social care for adult residents by more than 25% since 2009-10, finds an analysis* of local government expenditure by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), published today.

Across England as a whole, spending by councils on social care per adult resident fell by 11% in real terms between 2009–10 and 2015–16, with around six out of seven councils cutting back on this budget, to some extent, the findings show.

The sharpest fall in spend was in London, averaging 18%, and in metropolitan districts covering urban areas like Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Tyneside, where the fall averaged 16%. Cuts tended to be larger in the north of England than in the south.

Cuts were also larger, on average, in areas that in 2009–10 spent more on adult social care; had higher assessed spending needs; and were more dependent on central government grants.

The amount councils spent on social care varied widely across the country, the analysis revealed. Spending was less than £325 per adult resident in a tenth of council areas, but more than £445 in another tenth of council areas in 2015–16, a difference of more than a third.

Councils with relatively more residents over pension age (particularly those entitled to means-tested benefits), and where levels of disability benefit claims and deprivation are higher, tended to spend more on social care. Higher local earnings levels are also associated with higher levels of social care spending.

Nevertheless, these ‘spending needs factors’ only explain a small proportion of the variation in spending across councils. Councils’ ‘scores’ in the last official needs assessment in 2013–14 can only explain around 13% of the variation in what they actually spent on social care per person in 2015–16.

This may reflect inaccuracies in that needs assessment, and the fact that by 2015–16, the assessment was two years out of date, suggests the report.

But it will also reflect the fact that given similar needs, different councils are likely to make different trade-offs between adult social care and other services. And they have different overall budgets (from council tax, business rates, and grants) from which to fund their spend.

Furthermore, people often contribute towards the cost of their care through fees and charges. These raise an average of £63 per adult resident, but once again the amount varies widely: one in 10 councils raise less than £35 per adult resident, while a further proportion raise £95 or more.

However, there is no clear relationship between local authorities’ own spending and fee income. Not all high spenders charge lower fees, nor do all low spenders rely on high income from co-payments to meet costs.

“The spending cuts analysed in our report have been accompanied by a substantial fall in the number of people receiving social care: down 25% across England, between 2009–10 and 2013–14 alone,” commented report co-author Polly Simpson, a research economist at the IFS.

“Cuts have therefore been delivered, in part, by removing care from many people, with those still receiving care presumably those with the highest needs. What all this means for the quality of care received, the welfare of those no longer receiving care, and other services like the NHS requires further research to answer,” she said.

“One thing that stands out in these figures are the big differences in spending per adult on social care among councils assessed to have very similar spending needs by the government,” added co-author David Phillips, an associate director at the IFS.

“Whether this means spending needs assessments are inaccurate, or reflects differences in available funding or the priority placed on social care relative to other services or council tax levels, is unclear. But it emphasises that the government has got its work cut out in its ‘Fair Funding Review’ of how to measure different councils’ spending needs from 2019 onwards. That debate could get quite fraught.”

Anita Charlesworth, director of research and economics at the Health Foundation, which funded the analysis, insisted that the current model of social care was “unsustainable”.

She said it was putting at risk the quality of life for thousands of older and vulnerable people and piled on the pressure for the NHS.

“The government has provided a short-term injection of cash, which is welcome, but it won’t be enough to keep pace with the inevitable pressures that arise from an aging population,” she warned, adding that the promised Green Paper on the funding of social care would have to “wrestle with some incredibly tough choices.”

* Phillips D, Simpson P. National standards, local risks: the geography of local authority funded social care 2009-10 to 2015-16. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2017.

Type 2 Diabetes Treatment
Type 2 Diabetes Diet
Diabetes Destroyer Reviews
Original Article
#Uncategorized
#obesity_help