Spiralling costs and cash shortages force organisations to cut jobs and services, says survey
Tue 4 Feb 2020 03.35 EST
Last modified on Tue 4 Feb 2020 03.37 EST
Growing numbers of providers of care for disabled people say they have run out of options to cut costs and have started to reduce the numbers they are able to support.
One in five organisations responding to an annual survey of providers said they had offered care to fewer people last year, with an average reduction of 8%. One in three said they had cut jobs by an average 4%.
The findings from the Sector Pulse Check, commissioned by learning disability charity HFT, offer a stark reminder that the crisis in social care extends far beyond funding and services for older people, which appears to be the focus of concern in government as ministers prepare to honour their general election pledge to “fix” the crisis.
Billy Davis, public affairs and policy manager for HFT, said the survey previously found providers avoiding reductions in services by making internal savings. But the scope for efficiencies is shrinking and providers are being left with no alternative but to take decisions “culturally at odds” with their principles and missions.
“The lack of a sustainable cash injection for the sector has seen providers resorting to offering care to fewer people to manage spiralling costs at a time when demand for social care is widely acknowledged to be growing,” he said.
The latest, third, edition of the survey covers 77 providers of care mainly for people with learning disabilities but also for those with physical disabilities and for older people. Relatively fewer organisations were found to have made internal efficiencies in 2019 (79%, compared with 92% in 2018), closed down functions and/or handed back contracts (45%, compared to 59%), curbed investment (39%, compared with 45%), or reduced scope of services (24%, compared with 35%).
However, broadly the same proportion of organisations was found to have shed staff (33%, compared with 35%) and there was a striking rise in the number that had offered care to fewer people (20%, compared with 8%), with 29% expecting to do so in future.
Davis said HFT was among those that had resorted to cutting numbers of people supported. “We have had to make some very difficult decisions ourselves in terms of which services are viable and which are not and where we need to look at doing things differently.”
The survey also found that 43% of providers acknowledged a drop in the quality of services they provided. This was shown most frequently in a rise in safeguarding incidents and lower satisfaction levels reported by people receiving support and their families. Some providers – 14% – admitted to planning a reduction in quality in future to cut costs.
One organisation said in its survey response: “It has never been harder to do what we do. There are no policy solutions on the horizon for supporting people with disabilities to lead better lives.”
In a related development, Care England, which represents larger care providers, has accused the government of “betraying” the 2,000 people with severe learning disabilities and autism who are stuck in supposedly short-stay hospitals by not allowing them to move to social care facilities with more than six beds.
Martin Green, Care England chief executive, said the limit is being applied by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspectorate in a misguided assumption that smaller care settings are always more homely. “Care homes are ready and willing to provide specialised and suitable accommodation but are prevented from doing so by this crazy ‘six only’ rule,” he said. “It’s nothing short of betrayal.”
Kate Terroni, the CQC’s chief inspector of adult social care, said best practice indicates that smaller settings “usually accommodating six or less” are preferable for people who may display behaviour that challenges, but there is no rigid rule and other factors such as staff skills, management effectiveness and the proposed care model are also taken into account when deciding to register a service.
