The government's temporary migration cap has been ruled illegal and quashed because it did not follow parliamentary procedure correctly in introducing it. This means that many care workers who had had their work permits removed should get them reinstated. Big news for the sector.
December 2010 Archives
It seems I wasn't the only one thinking about localism this morning.
Marije Davidson, public affairs manager for RADAR, writes on her blog that while local control is desirable disabled people must be able to move from one place to another and take their services with them.
Marije Davidson, public affairs manager for RADAR, writes on her blog that while local control is desirable disabled people must be able to move from one place to another and take their services with them.
Yesterday, Swindon Council took the plunge and decided to outsource most of its social care provision to a social enterprise.However, one of Swindon's councillors, Derique Montaut, points out to the Swindon Advertiser that this means it will not be subject to freedom of information law. It raises a serious question about accountability in the new era of social care.
The government's direction is fairly well laid out in the NHS white paper and its vision for social care. It wants greater control at a local level, more involvement of social enterprises and the voluntary sector and more local accountability.
It's model for local accountability however seems to be primarily driven through the creation of HealthWatch. However doubts over the viability of this within present funding streams have been voiced recently and it will, for many users, form just another organisation to tackle to get to information.
Local accountability might be possible without massive pressure to save money but it seems likely that over the next four years further services will move outside of public bodies (for all the right cash saving reasons) taking them out of the reach of freedom of information legislation. The government may find this desirable because it cuts back on 'bureaucracy', and therefore costs, but it also removes the ability of citizens, and the press, to call service management to account.
More after the jump...
Continue reading Are cuts making social care less accountable?.
The closure of NHS campuses for people with learning disabilities will miss its deadline due to legal wrangling.The previous government set a target to close all NHS campuses by the end of this year. But in this will not be met.
Campuses are group homes for former long-stay hospital residents, where learning disabled people have been found to have less choice than in other settings.
In a letter to NHS and local authority chiefs Ann Williams, national director for learning disabilities at the Department of Health (DH), said that those areas where campuses were in the midst of defending legal challenges to closure or awaiting decisions from the court of protection.
Today's news it not a surprise, in April the DH published a report saying it was unlikely to meet the target.
In her letter today Williams, wrote: "We expect that, as a minimum, everyone still in campuses at the end of 2010 will have new support providers in place and full transition plans. In some areas, people will be in transition to their new homes during 2011, because of planning and other unexpected delays, although most will have moved by March 2011."
Image by comedy nose on Flickr
Social workers will get training on autism following 'landmark' statutory guidance to be published later today.The guidance is the first to be published under the Autism Act 2009 and follows the Autism strategy published earlier this year.
The document will say that councils should offer autism training to all key staff.
It will also make it clear that no-one with autism is to be refused a community care assessment based solely on their IQ.
Care services minister Paul Burstow will announce the guidance under the Autism Act at a national conference of autism experts in London later today.
Speaking ahead of the launch Burstow said: "It is unacceptable that adults with autism have not been getting the full and appropriate care and support that they need from health and social care services. Today is a vital step forward in changing that picture."
Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, said that following the landmark guidance councils needed to set their budgets to ensure that people with autism don't slip between the gaps in services. "Now more than ever, they and their families need support," he said.
The guidance will also mean that councils have to appoint an autism lead within the organisation and develop a clear pathway to diagnosis and assessment by 2013.
Image by BLW photography on Flickr
Scottish public health minister Shona Robison has today published a draft bill to enshrine self-directed support as the mainstream system of supporting adults with care needs in the country.
The Scottish government wants to move away from having a local authority arranged service as being the default option for service users; instead they want choice and control to be the default.
However, choice and control means something different north and south of the border.
The UK government wants all long-term care and support users receiving public funds to be on personal budgets by April 2013. This means they will control the spending of the money the state allocates to them either directly (through a cash payment), through a third party (in the case of an individual service fund) or through the council.
However, in Scotland, the government is presenting another option: that the service user delegates that control back to the council, leaving it up to the local authority to arrange the services itself.
"Control should not be forced upon those who do not want it. Choice should be real and every choice should be equally valid," it says. In England, as I understand it, a council-managed personal budget involves the authority acting as the agent of the service user and managing the hassles the person doesn't want to get involved in (payroll, contracts etc).
It doesn't mean the council deciding on what services the individual needs, even if this is at the user's behest.
The Scottish government wants to move away from having a local authority arranged service as being the default option for service users; instead they want choice and control to be the default.
However, choice and control means something different north and south of the border.
The UK government wants all long-term care and support users receiving public funds to be on personal budgets by April 2013. This means they will control the spending of the money the state allocates to them either directly (through a cash payment), through a third party (in the case of an individual service fund) or through the council.
However, in Scotland, the government is presenting another option: that the service user delegates that control back to the council, leaving it up to the local authority to arrange the services itself.
"Control should not be forced upon those who do not want it. Choice should be real and every choice should be equally valid," it says. In England, as I understand it, a council-managed personal budget involves the authority acting as the agent of the service user and managing the hassles the person doesn't want to get involved in (payroll, contracts etc).
It doesn't mean the council deciding on what services the individual needs, even if this is at the user's behest.
Yesterday I blogged on the local government settlement and its implications for social care and have picked up another couple of nuggets from conversations I've had with councils leaders.Essentially, they are not pleased with the way the settlement has been portrayed by communities secretary Eric Pickles (the man on the left).
Specifically, they object to the government's characterisation of the settlement in terms of the reduction in local authorities' spending power as opposed to local government grant.
By the former measure, authorities with social services responsibility are seeing a reduction of 4.7% next year; by the latter measure the drop is 11.6%. The difference is explained by the fact that "spending power" includes councils' income from council tax and from money transferred from the NHS to fund social care.
The government's argument - which is not without merit - is that spending power, by including all of councils' income, is what matters to residents.
Councils' arguments are as follows:-
- The government has gone with spending power because it produces a lower figure for the cut facing councils.
- The money from the NHS - as the government outlined today - is very specifically designed to fund adult social care services, particularly those that will relieve pressures on the NHS. Councils are not free to spend it as they like.
- The spending power method makes county councils look like they've won the lottery. For instance, Surrey is due to see only a 0.3% reduction in spending power next year, but is seeing its main government grant cut by 14.3%. This disparity is due to the relatively large amount Surrey raises through council tax as a relatively wealthy area. However, the County Councils Network argues that the government's presentation of the figures masks the pain counties will feel, particularly as many face big pressures in adult care from their ageing populations.
On the wider debate about spending power cuts versus grant cuts, I think the government should have been more open about what it was doing and presented the cuts clearly in both forms. But that would have blunted its case that councils have received an adequate settlement to see them through the next few years, hence the focus on spending power.
(Image on Flickr from Department for Communities and Local Government)
The social work reform board has made a huge set of recommendations to further improve standards within both children's and adults social work.
A new career framework, regular supervision and tougher entry requirements for social work courses are all among the changes trumpeted.
You can get all the details in our special report.
A new career framework, regular supervision and tougher entry requirements for social work courses are all among the changes trumpeted.
You can get all the details in our special report.
We reported earlier this week on the planned abolition of the Independent Living Fund. The government seems to be considering merging the ILF's £360m a year budget for severely disabled people into personal budgets managed by councils - an idea put forward in a 2007 review into the fund for the last government.
Today we have published an opinion piece by the authors of that review - Melanie Henwood and Bob Hudson - which argues that the ILF's abolition provides an opportunity to design a better system of support for severely disabled people.
But social work blogger Fighting Monsters puts a different perspective in her post today. While she says that the ILF is in need of reform, she worries that integrating its funding into local authority budgets risks it disappearing into other services.
Worth reading both to see which side you fall down on.
Today we have published an opinion piece by the authors of that review - Melanie Henwood and Bob Hudson - which argues that the ILF's abolition provides an opportunity to design a better system of support for severely disabled people.
But social work blogger Fighting Monsters puts a different perspective in her post today. While she says that the ILF is in need of reform, she worries that integrating its funding into local authority budgets risks it disappearing into other services.
Worth reading both to see which side you fall down on.
Half of carers have poor health as a result of caring a report by the NHS Information Centre concluded yesterday.The full report had quite a lot to say about carers situation today. Here are my personal highlights:
- Only a small number (6%) of carers said they had been offered a carer's assessment and four per cent had actually been assessed. Two per cent said they had been offered a review of their own needs and one per cent said they had actually had such a review.
- 67% of carers who had been assessed said they had received a service of some kind as a result of the assessment.
- Around half (46%) of carers were in paid employment, 27% were retired from paid work and 13% were looking after their home or family.
- 48% provided care for 20 or more hours per week.
- 27% of carers had been looking after their (main) cared for person for at least ten years, including 8% who had been providing support for 20 years or more.
- Only 11% of all carers reported receiving Carer's Allowance.
- Around half (52%) of carers said their health had been affected because of the care they provide.
- Six in ten carers (61%) anticipated that the amount of time they spend caring will increase in the next five years, while just eight per cent felt it would decrease.
- Amongst carers who were of working age, 26% felt their caring responsibilities had affected their ability to take up or stay in employment, although nearly three quarters (74%) did not feel this was the case. Carers aged 35-54 were most likely to say that caring had affected them in this way (32%).
The latest in a long line of abuse cases prosecuted under the Mental Capacity Act makes headlines today.
Three care workers from Bradford have been convicted of tormenting dementia sufferers at a Bupa care home and filming it on their mobile phones.
The video showed the carers poking an elderly man, laughing at him, shoving phones in his face and taunting him, the papers report.
The Daily Mail reports Recorder Richard Mansell described the crimes as 'inhuman and degrading'.
They each received sentences between 12 and 21 months.
Three care workers from Bradford have been convicted of tormenting dementia sufferers at a Bupa care home and filming it on their mobile phones.
The video showed the carers poking an elderly man, laughing at him, shoving phones in his face and taunting him, the papers report.
The Daily Mail reports Recorder Richard Mansell described the crimes as 'inhuman and degrading'.
They each received sentences between 12 and 21 months.
Communities secretary Eric Pickles yesterday delivered what he called a fair, sustainable and progressive settlement for local authorities.
The average cut facing authorities next year would be 4.4% with no council having a reduction of more than 8.9%.
This appears to be much better than the doomsday scenario being painted by local government leaders ahead of the settlement - it also appears to be better than the Local Government Association's own verdict on yesterday's settlement, which talked about councils facing cuts of up to 17%.
So what's the truth? I'm not exactly sure but here's my best estimate.
Is the government right to say that the average cut facing councils is 4.4% and the worst that authorities can expect next year is an 8.9% reduction?
Yes and no. The government's figures refer to the reduction in councils' spending power, not the reduction in formula grant for councils - the government's overall block grant for local authorities.
Formula grant is being cut by 9.9% next year on average, with an 11.6% reduction for authorities with responsibility for social services. When the government's "spending power" measure is used, social services authorities are due to see a reduction of 4.7%.
Why is the government's figure lower?
Spending power includes all of councils' income. Crucially, it includes council tax, which is effectively going up by 2.5% next year (the government is offering councils that freeze their council tax a grant equivalent to a 2.5% rise; the vast majority of councils will accept this), and funding allocated to the NHS to transfer to local authorities to spend on adult social care. This is worth £648m next year.
Isn't the government's figure a truer reflection of what will happen to council budgets next year?
Yes, but there are caveats. For one, the money from the NHS is dependent on primary care trusts and councils reaching agreement on how it should be spent. Moreover it is only supposed to be spent on adult social care services that reduce pressures on the NHS (all this will be laid out in the government's NHS operating framework, due out tomorrow). It is not money that councils can use in any way they like.
Secondly, the local government settlement is fundamentally about how much money Whitehall gives to town halls. The way the government has presented the figures is being seen by many council leaders as a way of disguising the scale of government cuts. And they're not happy about it.
What about inflation?
The government's figures do not take inflation into account. Inflation is expected to be about 1.9% next year. So a 4.7% reduction in spending power for social services authorities translates into a real terms cut of 6.6%; and an 11.6% reduction in formula grant for the same authorities translates into a real terms cut of 13.5%.
What does the settlement mean for different areas?
Different parts of the country are facing very different fates off the back of the spending cuts. Some of the poorest parts of the country - Liverpool, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham - are seeing their spending power cut by 8.9% next year (about 10.8% in real terms). Comparatively wealthier areas are seeing their spending cut far less steeply. The wealthy borough of Richmond Upon Thames in London is having its spending power cut by 0.6%; the county of Surrey is seeing a 0.3% drop. County councils in general do better than metropolitan boroughs or London councils on this measure.
Why the difference?
This reflects differences in the amount councils can raise from council tax. Wealthier populations have a broader council tax base, meaning councils are less dependent on government grant and are more able to absorb grant cuts of the magnitude of those being imposed by government. The difference would have been greater still if not for an £85m transition grant next year that the poorest authorities are receiving to dampen down the level of the spending reduction they are facing.
Wealthy areas and county councils must be delighted?
Again, yes and no. It appears that county councils are particularly aggrieved by the way the government has presented the figures as the cuts to their government grant are most disguised. For instance, Surrey Council is facing a cut in formula grant of 14.3% next year, well above the average for all social services authorities. Yet, according to the government's figures, it is doing pretty well.
Anyway, if you have a spare moment and want to drown in the figures as I have done this morning, here they are
And here is the government's verdict on the settlement.
(Photo on Flickr from Department for Communities and Local Government)
The average cut facing authorities next year would be 4.4% with no council having a reduction of more than 8.9%.
This appears to be much better than the doomsday scenario being painted by local government leaders ahead of the settlement - it also appears to be better than the Local Government Association's own verdict on yesterday's settlement, which talked about councils facing cuts of up to 17%.
So what's the truth? I'm not exactly sure but here's my best estimate.
Is the government right to say that the average cut facing councils is 4.4% and the worst that authorities can expect next year is an 8.9% reduction?
Yes and no. The government's figures refer to the reduction in councils' spending power, not the reduction in formula grant for councils - the government's overall block grant for local authorities.
Formula grant is being cut by 9.9% next year on average, with an 11.6% reduction for authorities with responsibility for social services. When the government's "spending power" measure is used, social services authorities are due to see a reduction of 4.7%.
Why is the government's figure lower?
Spending power includes all of councils' income. Crucially, it includes council tax, which is effectively going up by 2.5% next year (the government is offering councils that freeze their council tax a grant equivalent to a 2.5% rise; the vast majority of councils will accept this), and funding allocated to the NHS to transfer to local authorities to spend on adult social care. This is worth £648m next year.
Isn't the government's figure a truer reflection of what will happen to council budgets next year?
Yes, but there are caveats. For one, the money from the NHS is dependent on primary care trusts and councils reaching agreement on how it should be spent. Moreover it is only supposed to be spent on adult social care services that reduce pressures on the NHS (all this will be laid out in the government's NHS operating framework, due out tomorrow). It is not money that councils can use in any way they like.
Secondly, the local government settlement is fundamentally about how much money Whitehall gives to town halls. The way the government has presented the figures is being seen by many council leaders as a way of disguising the scale of government cuts. And they're not happy about it.
What about inflation?
The government's figures do not take inflation into account. Inflation is expected to be about 1.9% next year. So a 4.7% reduction in spending power for social services authorities translates into a real terms cut of 6.6%; and an 11.6% reduction in formula grant for the same authorities translates into a real terms cut of 13.5%.
What does the settlement mean for different areas?
Different parts of the country are facing very different fates off the back of the spending cuts. Some of the poorest parts of the country - Liverpool, Knowsley, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham - are seeing their spending power cut by 8.9% next year (about 10.8% in real terms). Comparatively wealthier areas are seeing their spending cut far less steeply. The wealthy borough of Richmond Upon Thames in London is having its spending power cut by 0.6%; the county of Surrey is seeing a 0.3% drop. County councils in general do better than metropolitan boroughs or London councils on this measure.
Why the difference?
This reflects differences in the amount councils can raise from council tax. Wealthier populations have a broader council tax base, meaning councils are less dependent on government grant and are more able to absorb grant cuts of the magnitude of those being imposed by government. The difference would have been greater still if not for an £85m transition grant next year that the poorest authorities are receiving to dampen down the level of the spending reduction they are facing.
Wealthy areas and county councils must be delighted?
Again, yes and no. It appears that county councils are particularly aggrieved by the way the government has presented the figures as the cuts to their government grant are most disguised. For instance, Surrey Council is facing a cut in formula grant of 14.3% next year, well above the average for all social services authorities. Yet, according to the government's figures, it is doing pretty well.
Anyway, if you have a spare moment and want to drown in the figures as I have done this morning, here they are
And here is the government's verdict on the settlement.
(Photo on Flickr from Department for Communities and Local Government)
The Scottish Labour party has set-up a group of MSPs to develop plans for a national care service in Scotland.
The group will be holding consultation events across the country over the next few months and report by April next year.
Labour leader Iain Gray said: "I want Scotland to have a National Care Service on which our people can depend within the lifetime of the next Parliament. This is about the local delivery of national standards of care and an end to the postcode lottery. Just as our predecessors rose to the challenge of the last century and created the NHS, we must rise to the challenge of the twenty-first century and ensure our elderly and disabled citizens receive the social care they need."
The effort mirrors the development of a plan for a national care service in England launched by the Labour party in Westminster while in power last year.
The group will be holding consultation events across the country over the next few months and report by April next year.
Labour leader Iain Gray said: "I want Scotland to have a National Care Service on which our people can depend within the lifetime of the next Parliament. This is about the local delivery of national standards of care and an end to the postcode lottery. Just as our predecessors rose to the challenge of the last century and created the NHS, we must rise to the challenge of the twenty-first century and ensure our elderly and disabled citizens receive the social care they need."
The effort mirrors the development of a plan for a national care service in England launched by the Labour party in Westminster while in power last year.
A health and social care think tank has estimated that the funding gap for adult social care will reach £1.2bn by 2014-15.
The King's Fund found that the local government settlement, as set out in the spending review, and the public sector pay freeze are likely to mean a 7% cut in spending over the next four years. This would leave the gap at £1.2bn.
In its submission to the health select committee the King's Fund have been pretty eloquent in their explanation of the scenarios so I'll leave it to them: "On the assumption of average reductions in baseline spending (not including the personal social services grant) of 7% over four years [the middle scenario], by 2014-15, the funding 'gap' will be around £1.23 billion - about 8% of estimated spend in that year. Over the whole four year period, the gap is equivalent to around 2% on average per year.
"On the assumption that there is no real cut (that is, spending increased in line
with the GDP deflator), then increasing demographic needs and rising costs are
more than covered over the first three years, but leaves a shortfall of around £270
million in 2014-15. However it is unlikely that most Councils could afford to
completely protect adult social care spending in this way given that it is the largest
area of their controllable spending. The worst case scenario is no protection at all -
with a 14% real cut in spending. On this basis, by 2014-15, the funding gap widens to
around £2.2 billion - about 15% of the actual spend in that year."
The King's Fund concluded that to meet a £1.2bn gap will require 2% efficiency savings per year. While if the cut is closer to 14% then it will require 3.5% per year in savings.
Peter Beresford, chair of national service user network Shaping Our Lives and professor of social policy at Brunel University, explains why he has signed the petition to stop the reform of disability living allowance and why benefits and social care must be seen as a complete system.Two things that go very badly together are populist political ideology and welfare benefits reform. Sadly the Coalition government has not been able to resist what it seems to see as easy political targets in its headlong rush to cut public spending.
Worst of all, disabled people have become a number one target in its calls to cut the 'deficit'. Yet only the Coalition and fellow-travelling right-wing economists seem to see this as of primary importance in getting the UK economy back on an even keel. As the banks bask again in high profits and personal bonuses, it will be poor and disabled people who once more take the hits.
And now as part of this Alice In Wonderland strategy, based on blaming the victims, rather than the profiteers, the government seems set on destabilising Disability Living Allowance (DLA). For all its limitations the underpinning value of the DLA is its recognition of the costs of disability. Sadly this government so far seems to have seen the benefits system as more of a cash cow to milk to its own advantage, rather than a massively complex system that does indeed need reform, but not for a quick ideological fix or to bail out competing spending demands.
More after the jump...
Councils will probably find it tough to maintain services in the face of big central government funding cuts.That's if the example of Edinburgh City Council is anything to go by.
Scottish councils found out how big their grants would be last week and so have had a bit longer to digest the implications.
Paul Edie, lead councillor for adult social care in Edinburgh, said: "We will be struggling to stand still on social care provision."
I think we can expect councils south of the Scottish border to feel very similar come the end of the day.
Image of Edinburgh Castle by http 2007 on Flickr
The Independent Living Fund is set to close in 2015 according to both the Sunday Mirror and Richard Watts, policy officer at the Essex Coalition of Disabled People.
We were hoping to confirm this this morning but I understand a full statement from the Department for Work and Pensions is coming this afternoon.
Watts is pretty scathing on his blog: "It's nothing short of an out-and-out attack on disabled people."
We were hoping to confirm this this morning but I understand a full statement from the Department for Work and Pensions is coming this afternoon.
Watts is pretty scathing on his blog: "It's nothing short of an out-and-out attack on disabled people."
Local councils in England will find out the extent of government cuts to their funding today as ministers publish the local government settlement.
The government is expecting to publish allocations for councils for the next two years - 2011-12 and 2012-13.
While councils overall are facing significant overall cuts next year of over 10%, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, this will hit different councils differently, with those in deprived areas, such as Liverpool or Blackburn, likely to suffer most.
In these areas, in particular, councils will need to look to new ways of commissioning or delivering services to survive the cuts.
However, the government is arguing that this should be possible without cutting frontline services - indeed it is also publishing a Decentralisation and Localism Bill today to help councils manage with less. Among provisions in the bill, provision of services including social care will be opened up to new providers, including communities themselves.
We are expecting the announcement this afternoon and will be providing full coverage on the website.
The government is expecting to publish allocations for councils for the next two years - 2011-12 and 2012-13.
While councils overall are facing significant overall cuts next year of over 10%, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, this will hit different councils differently, with those in deprived areas, such as Liverpool or Blackburn, likely to suffer most.
In these areas, in particular, councils will need to look to new ways of commissioning or delivering services to survive the cuts.
However, the government is arguing that this should be possible without cutting frontline services - indeed it is also publishing a Decentralisation and Localism Bill today to help councils manage with less. Among provisions in the bill, provision of services including social care will be opened up to new providers, including communities themselves.
We are expecting the announcement this afternoon and will be providing full coverage on the website.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has been taking a lot about the 'squeezed middle' lately - though has been criticised for failing to define what this means. (Here's a good definition if you're wondering - essentially it's people who are too rich to qualify for state support and too poor to benefit from private markets).The concept has now entered the social care lexicon with a report today from the University of East Anglia on the impact of local authority purchasing of care home places.
It looks at the way in which councils' buying power enables them to drive down prices below market rates, forcing providers to recoup the difference from self-funders.
This penalises the so-called squeezed middle who are ineligible for state support but cannot meet the higher costs charged to self-funders.
The paper, by Ruth Hancock, professor in the economics of health and welfare, and Morten Hviid, discusses the impact of various scenarios arising from the planned reform of care and support funding.
Expanding the number of people eligible for public support could have a double impact on the public purse - not only will councils have to fund more places in total but they may have to pay more for places as fees will rise closer to the market rate.
Not sure if this is something Mr Miliband is considering yet but it probably should be.
Picture by net_efekt on Flickr
Cuts in social care will put increasing pressure on hospital inpatient end of life care services, a study by the Nuffield Trust has found.The study of over 16,000 people showed that in the last year of life they were increasingly reliant on social care. The costs of social care for individuals rose more than the cost of hospital care, indicating that social care was substituting for inpatient care.
It points out that cutting social care may well trigger a sharper increase in costs for expensive inpatient care.
Further figures are expected as the group is now working with a bigger sample to discover more detailed trends.
Image by wwarby on Flickr
A fascinating interactive map highlighting key differences in the way schizophrenia is managed in England has been launched.
It reveals the postcode lottery of schizophrenia management across England and is worth exploring.
Among findings:
*The extent of choice of medication and psychological therapies that people are being offered appears to differ throughout the country.
*When an individual's mental health declines the data suggests there are clear differences in the percentage of people being admitted to hospital as emergency cases and/or being formally detained across the country (between 0.27% and 75.65% of people admitted as inpatients).
*The average (median) length of inpatient stay varies between 10 and 148 days.
*In some primary care trusts (PCTs) as few as 40% of people with schizophrenia feel they are involved as much as they would like to be in decisions about their care and treatment.
*There is variation in the amount of prescribing of injectable antipsychotic medication across England.
Mental health charities say this shows that more needs to be done to help ensure all people with schizophrenia have access to the best possible, most clinically effective and outcome based care, including real choice.
Jane Harris, deputy director of external affairs, Rethink, said: "The data in Choosing Well? highlights that there is still work to be done to help the hundreds of thousands of people with schizophrenia get a choice in their treatment and care, both when well and at the earliest opportunity should their mental health decline."
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of SANE said: "There has been a succession of reports showing that patients are not given the time from professionals essential to their understanding of their treatment, or consistent support in learning how to manage their symptoms and prevent relapse. This is why the research portraying this 'true picture' is timely to ensure that future patients are not forced to play the service user lottery."
The site has been launched by the Choosing Well? initiative, supported by Janssen in association with leading mental health charities Rethink and SANE.
It reveals the postcode lottery of schizophrenia management across England and is worth exploring.
Among findings:
*The extent of choice of medication and psychological therapies that people are being offered appears to differ throughout the country.
*When an individual's mental health declines the data suggests there are clear differences in the percentage of people being admitted to hospital as emergency cases and/or being formally detained across the country (between 0.27% and 75.65% of people admitted as inpatients).
*The average (median) length of inpatient stay varies between 10 and 148 days.
*In some primary care trusts (PCTs) as few as 40% of people with schizophrenia feel they are involved as much as they would like to be in decisions about their care and treatment.
*There is variation in the amount of prescribing of injectable antipsychotic medication across England.
Mental health charities say this shows that more needs to be done to help ensure all people with schizophrenia have access to the best possible, most clinically effective and outcome based care, including real choice.
Jane Harris, deputy director of external affairs, Rethink, said: "The data in Choosing Well? highlights that there is still work to be done to help the hundreds of thousands of people with schizophrenia get a choice in their treatment and care, both when well and at the earliest opportunity should their mental health decline."
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of SANE said: "There has been a succession of reports showing that patients are not given the time from professionals essential to their understanding of their treatment, or consistent support in learning how to manage their symptoms and prevent relapse. This is why the research portraying this 'true picture' is timely to ensure that future patients are not forced to play the service user lottery."
The site has been launched by the Choosing Well? initiative, supported by Janssen in association with leading mental health charities Rethink and SANE.
Baroness, Hanham, secretary for communities and local government, is by no means the first to have made the point below but with the full details of the settlement imminent I think it's worth bearing this in mind.
"While the settlement is clearly challenging, we do not think that there should be a huge impact on adult social care given the £1 billion in the local government settlement and another £1 billion earmarked through the NHS budget for spending from next year onwards. With a strong focus on efficiency and co-operative working with others, we believe that adult social care should continue to be a top priority of local authorities."
"While the settlement is clearly challenging, we do not think that there should be a huge impact on adult social care given the £1 billion in the local government settlement and another £1 billion earmarked through the NHS budget for spending from next year onwards. With a strong focus on efficiency and co-operative working with others, we believe that adult social care should continue to be a top priority of local authorities."
There is a rather excellent blog over at Benefit Scrounging Scrum by economist Rhydian Fôn James breaking down in precise detail why the government's reasoning for reform of disability living allowance is flawed in the extreme.
I won't precis the arguments here because I would risk not doing it justice but it concludes:
"The arguments above demolish the case for reform presented in the consultation paper, dealing with each point made in the consultation paper. It raises serious questions about the competence of the Minister responsible and the Secretary of State that a consultation paper for reform has been based on such a shocking lack of evidence, preconceptions about benefit claims and abuse of accepted statistical methodology."
It's highly recommended reading, especially if you are considering responding to the Department for Work and Pensions consultation on the issue.
Update: Rhydian Fôn James has now started a petition calling for the welfare reform plans to be scrapped.
I won't precis the arguments here because I would risk not doing it justice but it concludes:
"The arguments above demolish the case for reform presented in the consultation paper, dealing with each point made in the consultation paper. It raises serious questions about the competence of the Minister responsible and the Secretary of State that a consultation paper for reform has been based on such a shocking lack of evidence, preconceptions about benefit claims and abuse of accepted statistical methodology."
It's highly recommended reading, especially if you are considering responding to the Department for Work and Pensions consultation on the issue.
Update: Rhydian Fôn James has now started a petition calling for the welfare reform plans to be scrapped.
The extent of the opportunity gap facing disabled people has been laid bare today in a survey of disabled and non-disabled adults whose results were unveiled today. The Life Opportunities Survey is the first survey to measure disability in relation to social barriers to participation, rather than health ones. Findings included the following:-
"Far from being the 'scroungers' portrayed by some parts of the media, the great majority of disabled people who are out of work are prevented from working because of their condition, a lack of accessible and suitable transport, and the absence of decent job opportunities," said general secretary Brendan Barber. "The price disabled people and their families are paying is a life in poverty. Ministers need to focus on removing the barriers that prevent equal access to work, not on slashing the benefits system and making disabled people even poorer."
- 17% of adults with impairments experienced participation restrictions in their learning opportunities compared with 9 per cent of adults without impairments.
- 56% of adults with impairments experienced restrictions in the type or amount of paid work they did, compared with 26% of adults without impairments.
- 74% of adults with impairments experienced restrictions in using transport compared with 58% of adults without impairments.
- 45%of households where at least one person had an impairment were unable to afford expenses or make loan repayments. This compares with 29% of households without any people with impairments.
"Far from being the 'scroungers' portrayed by some parts of the media, the great majority of disabled people who are out of work are prevented from working because of their condition, a lack of accessible and suitable transport, and the absence of decent job opportunities," said general secretary Brendan Barber. "The price disabled people and their families are paying is a life in poverty. Ministers need to focus on removing the barriers that prevent equal access to work, not on slashing the benefits system and making disabled people even poorer."
Councils in Greater Manchester are planning to collaborate adults' and children's services to generate efficiency savings. A report last month from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities said that these two services areas were among four that would be prioritised for closer co-operation across the 10 authorities concerned. Between them, adults' and children's services account for £1.15bn of expenditure a year - £640m for adults and £497m for children.
The plans for adults' services include:-
The plans for adults' services include:-
- Joint procurement of residential services to drive down prices and generate economies of scale.
- Joint procurement of equipment.
- Sharing best practice across the region in care management and supported housing. This will involve some councils learning from others that have generated big savings in these areas.
Homelessness is on the up following a long downward trend, government figures have shown.The stats from the Department for Communities and Local Government - show that 14% more households were accepted at homeless in the third quarter of 2010 (July to September) than during the same period in 2009. And, when seasonal differences in levels of homelessness are taken into account, the number of acceptances have risen for two consecutive quarters for the first time since 2003.
The charity Crisis has warned that worse is to come in the light of government cuts to housing benefit.
(Image from Rev Stan on Flickr)
Councils across the UK are currently mulling over multi-million pound cuts to adults and children's social care.Among the latest Torbay Borough Council outlined plans for cuts of £3m to adult social care and £2.1m to children's social care.
Final figures will depend on the government funding announcement expected next week. The government is expecting authorities to freeze council tax.
Mayor Nick Bye's plans include for the joint adult care services run by Torbay Care Trust include £600,000 off the low-level care given to the elderly at home, and £500,000 with other measures to limit interventions for only critical circumstances while there is a planned £258,000 saving in children's services through management restructuring.
Mayor Bye will finalise the budget proposals at the Cabinet meeting on 1 February 2011.
Dorset County Council will, next week, decide on budget proposals to save £22.5m over three years that include cutting the numbers of day centres to save £861,000 and shed around 500 posts in 2011/12.
Also next week, Leeds City Council is considering removing subsidies on charges for non-residential adult social care services, and warn that keeping all 16 day centres open is not an option.
Picture courtesy of strife on Flickr.com
The extent of the cuts facing social care in Scotland have been revealed by a survey of directors, leaked to the Herald newspaper, with preventive services in the firing line.
The Association of Directors of Social Work poll found that a quarter of respondents (6 out of 25) are predicting cuts to preventive services for children and older people.
One director said: "In all services we will be moving away from our aspiration to deliver early intervention and preventative services ... and focusing on delivering our statutory responsibilities."
This is an inevitable response to the combination of budget cuts and rising demand (though Scottish councils will be better off than counterparts in England) but seems to be a recipe for storing up problems for the future. This conflict between early intervention and statutory services has been raised by my colleague, Judy Cooper, in relation to provision for vulnerable children. It will be a motif that will dominate the next few years in social care.
The Association of Directors of Social Work poll found that a quarter of respondents (6 out of 25) are predicting cuts to preventive services for children and older people.
One director said: "In all services we will be moving away from our aspiration to deliver early intervention and preventative services ... and focusing on delivering our statutory responsibilities."
This is an inevitable response to the combination of budget cuts and rising demand (though Scottish councils will be better off than counterparts in England) but seems to be a recipe for storing up problems for the future. This conflict between early intervention and statutory services has been raised by my colleague, Judy Cooper, in relation to provision for vulnerable children. It will be a motif that will dominate the next few years in social care.
"Be a voman for cheap care insurance!" That's what the well known Russian insurance selling meerkat would say.Research by the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) reveals that insurance premiums for women could be double those for men .
The study found that the life time costs of care for women were £45,650 on average, while the average man's care cost only £22,300.
The study suggests an average premium of at least £31,500 would be needed to cover care costs.
However, insurance premiums are calculated on risk so I can see no reason why an insurance company would not charge different amounts for men and women. That's what they currently do for car insurance because men, on average, have more accidents.
Either way it raises prospects of higher charges than Labour's proposed £20,000 levy on estates, which they floated while in power. It garnered much opposition from the Tories who favoured a voluntary insurance model.
Although it doesn't put the cost as high as right wing think tank Policy Exchange which predicted it would cost around £40,000 per person.
Image by Tambaco the Jaguar on Flickr
The charity Elizabeth Finn Care, which provides financial support to individuals in need, is surveying carers on the extent to which they are affected by fuel poverty.
If you know anyone who may want to contribute to this survey, send them to this link.
The charity is looking to influence the big energy companies to take more account of the needs of carers and is campaigning for a reduced rate for the group.
If you know anyone who may want to contribute to this survey, send them to this link.
The charity is looking to influence the big energy companies to take more account of the needs of carers and is campaigning for a reduced rate for the group.
Take-up of personal budgets rose by 55% from March this year to September among long-term users of care funded by English councils, with one in four such service users now using them. That was the message from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services yesterday in a press release that confirms figures that were released last month at the National Children and Adult Services Conference.
Adass has confidently said that this means councils are on course to hit the April 2011 target - set by the last government - to have 30% of users on personal budgets. Jeff Jerome - who works through Adass to help councils implement personalisation - said that there is only a "shrinking minority are off the pace".
However, this has led some organisations to warn about a postcode lottery in the availability of personal budgets, something we have highlighted recently.
However, the real test for councils will be in the years from 2011-13, by which they need to have all ongoing service users on personal budgets. This will mean having all the relevant systems - care management, financial management, contracts with providers, support systems for users in their roles as employers - fully in place to move what may still be a pilot scheme in some areas into the mainstream.
Adass has confidently said that this means councils are on course to hit the April 2011 target - set by the last government - to have 30% of users on personal budgets. Jeff Jerome - who works through Adass to help councils implement personalisation - said that there is only a "shrinking minority are off the pace".
However, this has led some organisations to warn about a postcode lottery in the availability of personal budgets, something we have highlighted recently.
However, the real test for councils will be in the years from 2011-13, by which they need to have all ongoing service users on personal budgets. This will mean having all the relevant systems - care management, financial management, contracts with providers, support systems for users in their roles as employers - fully in place to move what may still be a pilot scheme in some areas into the mainstream.
I felt rather like Jeremy Paxman yesterday as I pressed Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, for some figures to back-up the government's disability benefit plans.
She couldn't tell me how many people it would affect, how much it would cost or even how many people were inappropriately on the benefit right now. Here's a snippet:
It was farcical and reminiscent of Paxman's repeated questioning of Michael Howard over whether he threatened to overrule a civil servant over the dismissal of a member of staff in the prison service.
It's astounding that the government doesn't seem to have any idea of the effects of the policies it is proposing despite many disabled people being quite clear it will be catastrophic for their lives.
She couldn't tell me how many people it would affect, how much it would cost or even how many people were inappropriately on the benefit right now. Here's a snippet:
It was farcical and reminiscent of Paxman's repeated questioning of Michael Howard over whether he threatened to overrule a civil servant over the dismissal of a member of staff in the prison service.
It's astounding that the government doesn't seem to have any idea of the effects of the policies it is proposing despite many disabled people being quite clear it will be catastrophic for their lives.
"Do government ministers need disability equality training?" That was the
question asked by a member of the public at an all party parliamentary group on
disability earlier this week, according to reports from sources who were there (I was not able to
make it unfortunately).
Lord Freud, minister for state for welfare reform, was present to discuss the government's benefit reform agenda with MPs and members of the public.
I'm told he was just as evasive as Maria Miller was answering questions about reform of disability living allowance.
It's a sign of how disabled people's trust in the government agenda around this issue has broken down that someone even felt it appropriate to ask if they needed equality training - even if it was slightly facetious.
More after the jump...
Continue reading Do government ministers need disability equality training?.
New research from the NHS Confederation's Mental Health Network shows that improving mental health and well-being must be a vital part of any plans to tackle health inequalities and wider social policy.
In an almost uniform response, 98% of respondents to a survey of NHS commissioners, local authorities, public health experts and mental healthcare providers said tackling mental well-being must be central to any plans to improve health inequalities.
Furthermore 82% thought improving mental well-being contributed towards meeting wider health, social, community and economic development goals, while 51% said health inequalities were one of their biggest health challenges.
There was also widespread agreement that to improve mental well-being, organisations across the public, independent and voluntary sectors must work together.
The Mental Health Network said that the government's soon-to-be released mental health strategy will therefore be a central plank to making this happen.
Steve Shrubb, director of the Mental Health Network, said: "In essence, our findings show that everyone agrees that mental health and wellbeing has to be a central part of tackling health inequalities and a range of other social policy issues.
"More encouraging still, the survey also shows that there is a growing awareness of how important good mental health and well-being is.
"Be it improving well-being, helping people deal with the recession or addressing public health issues, mental health is a common, vital, link. It's not just a good idea but a make or break element in the full range of government policies.
"Through the mental health strategy, we need to see a framework through which mental health is embedded in policy making and everyone is encouraged to work together towards meaningful goals."
In an almost uniform response, 98% of respondents to a survey of NHS commissioners, local authorities, public health experts and mental healthcare providers said tackling mental well-being must be central to any plans to improve health inequalities.
Furthermore 82% thought improving mental well-being contributed towards meeting wider health, social, community and economic development goals, while 51% said health inequalities were one of their biggest health challenges.
There was also widespread agreement that to improve mental well-being, organisations across the public, independent and voluntary sectors must work together.
The Mental Health Network said that the government's soon-to-be released mental health strategy will therefore be a central plank to making this happen.
Steve Shrubb, director of the Mental Health Network, said: "In essence, our findings show that everyone agrees that mental health and wellbeing has to be a central part of tackling health inequalities and a range of other social policy issues.
"More encouraging still, the survey also shows that there is a growing awareness of how important good mental health and well-being is.
"Be it improving well-being, helping people deal with the recession or addressing public health issues, mental health is a common, vital, link. It's not just a good idea but a make or break element in the full range of government policies.
"Through the mental health strategy, we need to see a framework through which mental health is embedded in policy making and everyone is encouraged to work together towards meaningful goals."
In the course of putting together today's feature looking at day centre closures, what they mean and how they can best be handled, I was sent a rather good poem by an anonymous service user.I think it really puts into perspective what the closure of these services really means to the people who use them.
No more day care
No more meeting up with friends
No more having fun
No more learning living skills
Or tutoring one to one
No one helping with personal care
With someone you trust and know
Or having a chat and making me laugh
When I'm feeling low
No more learning how to cook
Or even make a cup of tea
No more being a part of a group
There will only be mum and TV
No one taking part in games
And trying to keep fit
No more help with exercise
So I will have to sit
No more seaside outings
Or to the zoo and going out
No more making my choices
Or telling me what all this is about
No more feeling valued
And being part of a group
Just feeling anger and lonely
And sitting at home to mope
No more future hopes and dreams
What happened to PCP?
But just carrying on making your cut backs
And don't worry about little old me
Thanks to my colleague Gera Noto for retyping this while I was running around like a headless chicken this morning.
Image by The Truth About on Flickr
David Cameron's plans for Big Society could be in trouble, according to a report from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The NCVO, which is headed by Sir Stuart Etherington (above), said it feared that as a result of budget cuts many voluntary organisations, many of which deliver social care-related activities are at risk of going under, therefore putting the whole premise of Big Society at risk.
The report said there were two scenarios open to voluntary organisations in the current climate with one presenting a a radically altered model of delivery through co-production with service users and totally new funding arrangements.
However the current fear is that: "The present pattern of public services is cut to the bone, serving fewer and fewer people.
"Commercial organisations take over the running of many of the services that are left, working
to narrow eligibility criteria under largescale, performance-based contracts.
"The public sector protects its own. CSOs become hopelessly overstretched and unsustainable through reductions in their funding and an unrealistic assumption that voluntary effort and income can fill the gap left by the state's withdrawal.
"Disadvantaged communities suffer most and inequalities increase, as the cuts in public services and welfare benefits begin to bite."
The report, called "Funding the Future", said there is much charities can do to help themselves by accessing alternative funding streams and making better use of social media, but that the government must play its part, which is also a point made by the newly launched Commission on Big Society.
This includes establishing a restructuring fund to promote greater collaboration and /or merger between CSOs, developing small-grant programmes, as part of its Big Society initiative, and introducing new approaches to commissioning, as well as setting up the Big Society Bank to shape the market for social investment in the sector.
In a report on Radio 4's Today programme civil society minister Nick Hurd made the point that government had established a £100m transition fund to help groups that feel most vulnerable, though critics will point out that overly draconian cuts could put their future and that of Big Society at risk.
Picture courtesy of NCVO on Flickr.com
I have updated a blog I did following the comprehensive spending review about the government's claims that it was providing an additional £2bn a year for adult social care.
This includes information that came through subsequently about how the funding given to the NHS to spend on adult social care would be allocated.
This includes information that came through subsequently about how the funding given to the NHS to spend on adult social care would be allocated.
It's no secret that councils across the country are looking at increasing care charges and eligibility criteria. But Kingston Borough Council may have bitten off more than they can chew because renowned disability campaigner and peer, Baroness Campbell is resident in the borough.
The Surrey Comet today carries an interview with her lambasting the council's proposals. She says: "This new charging system is going to make disabled people second class citizens who will never rise above a very minimum standard of living.
"I think it is sad a council that pioneered independent living more than 15 years ago has now undone all that work by making unreasonable charges."
image by Tom Parkes
NHS Wales has been given £110m in extra funds to deliver more community and domiciliary care.The money will be used to ease demand on hospital treatment and help the NHS as it comes under added winter pressures to deliver key frontline services.
The funding has been allocated from the Welsh Assembly Government from its in-year reserves for 2010/11.
The government has announced a £100m fund to help charities affected by public spending cuts to make the transition to a world in which state funding is less available.The Transition Fund is designed to help charities that receive at least 60% of their income from the state and who are facing cuts of at least 30% in their state funding in 2011-12. They must be delivering services in one of a range of areas, including social care.
BIG Fund UK - part of the Big Lottery Fund - is administering the fund and is holding a series of consultation events over the next fortnight - details here.
I suppose you could see this as the government trying to square the circle between the government's Big Society agenda - which involves a flourishing voluntary sector - and its programme of deficit reduction, which involves cuts to the voluntary sector.
(Picture from stuartpilbrow on Flickr)
Further to my colleague Vern's blog about health secretary Andrew Lansley's appearance on BBC Radio 4's You & Yours programme there are some interesting parts of it worth drawing people's attention to.Firstly the government appears blindly optimistic that it has provided enough for social care and local government in general or possibly it's a touching faith that local councils will do the right thing.
Despite being played a report outlining numerous concerns from charities about cuts in people's personal budgets, which also mentioned pending court cases over assessments for personal budgets and amounts these people ended up with, Lansley insisted there was no need for councils to cut eligibility because the government had provided sufficient resources.
I just wonder how long the government can continue to hold this line.
He also insisted the quality of the assessment is key and that it was for local councils to decide on priorities.
Other interesting aspects from the show concerned the regions and especially Wales and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the health minister has called for an additional £1.4bn a year or the country risked facing a drastically different health service.
Social care is already feeling the pressure with waiting lists for domiciliary care packages at an all time high and pressure is on to keep a hold on new nursing home placements.
Wales is also facing residential care problems and more onus is expected on domiciliary care.
Scotland is trying to develop more care at home and less in hospitals for elderly people through its £70m Change Fund.
However its free personal care at home policy for the elderly is obviously sacrosanct.
The amount the government intends to commit to the roll-out of talking therapies could become clear within the next two weeks.The belief is it will be revealed in the NHS operating framework, which some believe should be out this month.
The government has in the past spoken of its wish to see more people able to access the service in the light of evidence showing patchy coverage.
This was backed up during the comprehensive spending review in which the chancellor said it was committed to rolling out talking therapies.
Care services minister Paul Burstow reiterated this during a conference run by the New Savoy Partnership (NSP), which is a coalition of organisations that have come together to support the extension of psychological therapies to the NHS in England.
Speaking at the NSP's Psychological Therapies in the NHS conference, Burstow told delegates that the government would complete the work of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme for adults with common mental health problems.
It will also extend access to talking therapies to children and young people, older people, people with severe and enduring mental health problems and people with long-term physical conditions and medically unexplained symptoms.
Among delegates Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, said: "Improving access to psychological therapies is good value for public money. Investing the funds and resources necessary to see these plans come to fruition will bring many benefits and we look forward to working with the Government to make this happen."
Paul Jenkins, chief executive of Rethink, said: "We know from firsthand experience of running IAPT services that appropriate psychological therapy at the right time can have a profound impact on an individual's recovery.
"This is true for people affected by a whole range of mental illnesses, including those with severe conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
"The government's commitment to increasing access to psychological therapy for people affected by severe mental illness is welcome news.
"As the experience of many Rethink supporters suggests, timely access to psychological therapies can be transformational in the outcomes experienced by someone affected by mental illness. The evidence also shows that they can lead to significant savings in the total cost of care."
Picture courtesy of The Health Hotel on Flickr.com
Chris Davies, a former president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, has been appointed as a deputy lord lieutenant of Somerset.
Davies, who is also Somerset's former social services director before going to Cardiff, is now non-executive director of the care provider Somerset Care.
Davies, who is also Somerset's former social services director before going to Cardiff, is now non-executive director of the care provider Somerset Care.
Andrew Lansley was on You and Yours on BBC Radio 4 today taking questions from listeners. If you need to catch up quick on the state of social care funding, eligibility and future it's a good listen.
The umbrella charity Homeless Link has sent out a reminder to local authorities on the importance of triggering the Severe Weather Emergency Protocols (SWEP) to prevent rough sleeper deaths.This comes amid some initial concern over the reluctance of some authorities to implement the protocols immediately the cold weather struck because of resource issues. The charity has said however that most authorities are implementing "well-oiled plans".
SWEP should be triggered when the night time temperature is predicted to be zero degrees or below for three consecutive nights.
Jenny Edwards, Chief Executive of Homeless Link, the national network of frontline homelessness charities, said: "There is existing guidance available - there is no need to re-invent the wheel.
"However, we are concerned to hear of some reluctance to implement arrangements that could save lives because of cuts.
"While we understand the current pressures on local budgets, we do not accept this is an area that can be cut.
"Avoiding unnecessary risk to life is a fundamental concern for any civilised society. We'll push hard to ensure that special provisions are made throughout England for this most exposed and vulnerable of groups."
There's a nice little blog from a social worker on the Guardian today about why personal budgets aren't going to work.
It's not that they're a flawed philosophy, it's just that they are an underfunded one.
It's not that they're a flawed philosophy, it's just that they are an underfunded one.
The new Housing Emergency Coalition has called a protest outside Downing Street on Wednesday 15 December at 1pm against the housing benefit (HB) cap and its effects on disabled people.
Organisers want people to take sleeping bags and cardboard boxes emblazoned with Housing Emergency on them.
After this protesters will move to the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree.
This comes with the government's own social security advisers having warned ministers yesterday that they "should not go ahead" with housing benefit reforms that risked increased homelessness, poverty, debt, over-crowding, crime and would seriously disrupt poor children's schooling, in reports released on the day the controversial welfare changes became law.
Damningly the Social Security Advisory Committee said: "These proposed HB measures appear to us to risk a range of negative and perverse impacts that will resonate beyond the HB system and budget outcomes.
"We have concluded that these measures must impact disproportionately on those low-income households with the least financial resilience and the fewest options for managing their lives and their finances in ways that might lessen the most negative impacts of arbitrary changes in their circumstances."
The government believes it can control a rising HB budget and bring down rents in the private sector by capping payments so claimants can only afford to live in the 30% cheapest properties in their local area, down from 50%, increasing LHA in line with the consumer price index measure of inflation, rather than the higher retail price index, and chopping the benefit by 10% for those who have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than a year.
LHA will also be capped for each property size, with a maximum of £400 a week for a four-bedroom property.secretary of state for work and pensions.
However the committee said: "There is little evidence to suggest that landlords will reduce their rents to reflect the resources available."
The government refused to back down though confirmed it would delay a new cap on housing benefit by nine months to give those affected more time to negotiate a cheaper rent or find a new home.
However ministers brought forward from October to April next year its plan to peg welfare payments to 30% of market rents rather than half.
Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, said: "We urge the government to consider the impact this will have on some of the most vulnerable people across our country and rethink the cuts to housing benefit altogether."
Image by Danchitnis on Flickr.com
Organisers want people to take sleeping bags and cardboard boxes emblazoned with Housing Emergency on them.
After this protesters will move to the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree.
This comes with the government's own social security advisers having warned ministers yesterday that they "should not go ahead" with housing benefit reforms that risked increased homelessness, poverty, debt, over-crowding, crime and would seriously disrupt poor children's schooling, in reports released on the day the controversial welfare changes became law.
Damningly the Social Security Advisory Committee said: "These proposed HB measures appear to us to risk a range of negative and perverse impacts that will resonate beyond the HB system and budget outcomes.
"We have concluded that these measures must impact disproportionately on those low-income households with the least financial resilience and the fewest options for managing their lives and their finances in ways that might lessen the most negative impacts of arbitrary changes in their circumstances."
The government believes it can control a rising HB budget and bring down rents in the private sector by capping payments so claimants can only afford to live in the 30% cheapest properties in their local area, down from 50%, increasing LHA in line with the consumer price index measure of inflation, rather than the higher retail price index, and chopping the benefit by 10% for those who have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than a year.
LHA will also be capped for each property size, with a maximum of £400 a week for a four-bedroom property.secretary of state for work and pensions.
However the committee said: "There is little evidence to suggest that landlords will reduce their rents to reflect the resources available."
The government refused to back down though confirmed it would delay a new cap on housing benefit by nine months to give those affected more time to negotiate a cheaper rent or find a new home.
However ministers brought forward from October to April next year its plan to peg welfare payments to 30% of market rents rather than half.
Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, said: "We urge the government to consider the impact this will have on some of the most vulnerable people across our country and rethink the cuts to housing benefit altogether."
Image by Danchitnis on Flickr.com
Figures released by the police yesterday show an increase in the amount of recorded hate crime last year, including a near doubling of disability hate crime.There were 52,028 reported hate crimes last year up on an estimated 46,300 in 2008. Disability hate crimes increased from 800 to 1,402 over the same period.
Disability charities said it was very worrying that number were going up especially as there is still thought to be wide under-reporting of hate crime from disabled people.
David Congdon, Mencap's head of policy, said: "People with a learning disability do not always go to the police. When they do, the police do not always record or investigate the crime as a hate crime, instead choosing to investigate it as anti-social behaviour. Hate crime against people with a learning disability needs to be taken as seriously as race-related and homophobic hate crimes."
Chief Constable Stephen Otter, the Association of Chief Police Officers equality and diversity lead, said: "Whilst we want to reduce the incidence of these crimes, it is vital that we close the gap of under-reporting. We are making real progress in this critical area through standardized reporting and better recording and we continue to work to improve our support to victims of hate crime.
"Only by increasing reporting can we gain a full understanding of the extent of hate crime and it is for this reason that I urge victims and witnesses to continue to come forward."
The case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her disabled daughter after years of abuse, last year, highlighted the need for greater reporting of disability hate crimes.
The Equality and Human Right Commission is currently looking into how councils are tackling disability hate crime.
Image by Police Mad Liam
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations are running a video project for those running voluntary services to tell people how they are managing the cuts.
The latest is this video about Autism Plus, a support project for autistic adults helping them reach their full potential.
More can be found on the NCVO website.
The Telegraph reports today that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has said more cuts are needed to meet rising costs of elderly care.
That's probably isn't news if you work in the sector, we all know the pressures on the system are mounting.
However, what the report fails to acknowledge is that the government (and indeed the previous government) are working on devising a solution to this to make the funding of the care system sustainable. That's what Andrew Dilnot's care funding commission is looking at and the Department of Health has repeatedly stated it will introduce legislation to meet that challenge next autumn.
I'm not one to champion the government but at least something is happening. The OBR, however, seems like it is just trying to scare people with this one.
That's probably isn't news if you work in the sector, we all know the pressures on the system are mounting.
However, what the report fails to acknowledge is that the government (and indeed the previous government) are working on devising a solution to this to make the funding of the care system sustainable. That's what Andrew Dilnot's care funding commission is looking at and the Department of Health has repeatedly stated it will introduce legislation to meet that challenge next autumn.
I'm not one to champion the government but at least something is happening. The OBR, however, seems like it is just trying to scare people with this one.
About the Adult Care blog
The Adult Care blog looks behind the policies, practices and personalities involved in the care of older and disabled people for any hidden truths, helpful tips or humour. It is written by Community Care’s adults’ services beat editor Mithran Samuel. |
 |
Follow the adults team on Twitter | |
| Cookies & privacy | ||
How to get in touch
| Email: | Mithran Samuel |
More from Community Care
Other blogs we like
- Age UK
- Alex Fox
- Carersblog
- In Control
- In My Shoes
- Malcolm Payne
- Martin Webber
- Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law
- Ned Ludd Carer
- Not So Big Society
-
- The Broken of Britain
- The Small Places
- The Social Issue
- Who Cares
Facebook
----------Advertisement----------