You’re in for a surprise! (The results)

The results are in! In my last post, I asked people to answer five questions about social care in England because I had a hunch that what people thought would be different from reality. In fact, perception was the complete opposite of reality.

Q1. The correct answer is that 89.7% of people receiving social care support in England were quite, very or extremely satisfied with the services received. This option received the lowest votes, with most people thinking only 25.5% of social care users would be so satisfied.

Q2. Same trend. Correct answer was 53.4% of social care users rate their Quality of Life as good, very good or so good it could not be improved, but most people thought only 18.9% of social care users would say this.

Q3. The reality is that 57% of social care users feel that the way they were treated when receiving a service made them feel better about themselves. Most people thought only 29% of users would say this.

Q4. We got closer to reality with this one. The most popular answer was that there are 2.81m people who get social care support in England, but the reality is that only 1.57m people do. The correct answer got the second highest number of votes, along with those thought 4.2m got social care support, which is probably nearer the total number of people with social care needs.

Q5. This is the one stat that I think should shock people. Despite the universal acceptance that more people need social care support, the actual number of people getting support fell by 12% between 2008 and 2010. Over 70% of us thought the number had increased.

Now stats are interesting but it’s what you learn from them that gives them power. The answers to the first three questions tell me that most people who get social care support are glad they do and that their quality of lives are improved as a result. So providing social care support is a good thing. The answers to the last two questions tell me that there are more and more people in need who are not receiving this “good thing” – social care support.

Putting these two things together tells me quite simply that we are failing people. The Government has the opportunity to provide a “good thing” to people that would be valued and improve their quality of life. Government must grasp this opportunity, publish their proposals in March as promised and radically improve the social care support system so that more people get more support and use less of their savings to do so. Go on Government, do something good.

Note:

 Government postpones reform until 2025

Take care

Gordon

PS. We’re going to publish on www.carers.org in a few days the results for each council from the survey of social care users, and we will also do so for a survey of carers done in 2009/10. We will try to rank performance so you can see where is doing well and where could do better. I’ll put the link up in a comment to this post once they’re up.

Give carers the break they deserve

I need to ask you a favour.

In 2009,The Labour government did a good thing by including £50m in allocations to English Primary Care Trusts  (organises your local health services) to increase support for carers. In 2010, they included £100m. These were good policies let down by poor implementation as our research showed only 25% of the total £150m was used to increase support for carers.

The new Coalition Government has built on the good policy by including £400m over 4 years in the allocations to PCTs to focus on providing breaks for carers. They have also requested that each Primary Care Trust works with local authorities and carers’ organisations to publish policies, plans and budgets to support carers. This is important because it means PCTs can be held to account for how they spend the £400m.

But this is where I need your favour.

In this era of local decision making, it is local people who must hold PCTs to account. It is local people who must ask their PCTs whether they have spoken with carers and carers’ organisations about providing breaks. It is local people who must request to see the PCT’s policies, plans and budgets to support carers. And if you don’t get answers from your PCT, write to your MP and councillor or visit them at their surgery and explain to them why you are concerned that your PCT is not doing what it should to support carers.

It doesn’t matter if you’re not a carer, I still need this favour from you. And with one in ten people currently providing care and three in five people becoming a carer at some point in their life, it is likely that whether your PCT uses this money to support carers or not may affect you or your friends and family now or in the very near future.

I, and over 5 million carers in England, need your help to persuade PCTs that breaks for carers are not a luxury; that they are desperately needed by people who sacrifice so much to care for others that they often reach breaking point, jeopardising their own health and are simply crying out for some help and a break.

Yesterday in Parliament, we launched a campaign supported by MPs from all parties called Give Carers A Break. Our website has information on this campaign and how you can get involved.

Please, help us to give carers a break.

Thank you

Gordon

Further Information:

• Find out more about the “Give Carers a Break” campaign and learn how local carers organizations and carers can get involved
• Read more on “Government allocates £400m to PCTs”
• Learn more about respite care
• A carer’s blog on finding time for yourself as a carer”

Is Government Considering Credits for Carers?

It’s Saturday morning and I’ve just read on the BBC News website that the Government is considering giving credits to people who provide care. These credits could then be redeemed against that person’s own future or current social care costs. The article then says the Government is praising the Japanese system Fureai Kippu.

Rather stupidly, my immediate thought was “the Government is stealing my ideas!!!”, as if this wasn’t exactly the point of my job.

Last year, I proposed these ideas in Crediting Carers and have also pushed them during the Government’s consultation on refreshing the Carers’ Strategy. I actually recently repeated the idea of redeeming credits against future social care costs in my blog on “Considering Insurance Scheme for Care Needs” as well. So, all very interesting.

Then I get a call from the BBC who want to interview me for their TV news programmes. Interesting becomes quite exciting but quickly turns to puzzlement. The BBC phone back to say the Government are now denying they are considering the idea although it is interesting, so the story is going dead and no interview is needed. The news article is changed to its current format.

So did the Government change their mind? And if so what caused it?

Well, if they did, it could have been because of slightly negative reaction from some people, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations as quoted in the BBC article. Their criticism is that it won’t motivate people to volunteer, as suggested in the original article, that people who volunteer shouldn’t be rewarded and the statement of a belief that care is and should be provided by the State and not family or friends.

What they completely ignore is that there are already 6 million people providing care that the State otherwise would have to, and that people currently do and will ever more so in the future pay for social care. I’m not sure if those making quick responses actually understand the proposals in detail.

The idea of credits for caring is the only way to ensure that an insurance based system, which is highly likely to be created (see my earlier blog mentioned above), is fair to people who provide care that would otherwise have to be paid for. Ivan Lewis MP at the Labour conference said it was obvious that crediting carers would have to be part of the future system.

Quite simply, if the Government isn’t considering this, then it should be. And if it was considering it but is now more hesitant, the Government must stand up and explain why these changes are necessary and right.

Gordon

What Can the Government Do to Help You?

You may be glad to hear that after spouting forth recently, not even one opinion will be spouted by me in this blog. I want you to spout instead.

In November or December, the Government will outline how they will try support carers between 2011 and 2015. But until 20th September, we all have the chance to influence their thinking. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care will be submitting a response and we’re both keen to hear your thoughts and opinions.

The Government have split their plans into five areas and I want your ideas on what you think the Government could do to help you (or carers generally):

1. Be respected as expert care partners and have access to personalised services they need to support them in their caring role
2. Have a life of their alongside their caring role
3. Be supported so that they care not forced into financial hardship by their caring role (NB benefits are being considered as part of another consultation and not this one, which I’ll come to in a later blog, so it would be more useful to focus on other things here)
4. Be supported to stay mentally and physically well and treated with dignity.
5. Children and young people will be protected from inappropriate caring and have the support they need to learn, develop and thrive, to enjoy positive childhoods and to achieve against all the Every Child Matters outcomes

So, flood me with comments and it would be great if you could explain to me why you think the Government should prioritise what you’re suggesting, rather than other areas. And also why it would help achieve one of the five aims outlined above.

Thanks folks

Gordon

Do Carers Fit Cameron’s Big Society?

Whilst you’ve been treated to a few guest bloggers, I’ve been doing some thinking. This could be dangerous but please stay with me!!!

Cameron’s Big Society is all about redefining the relationship between individuals, communities and Government/the State. But what does, or should, this mean in relation to carers?

I actually think carers don’t fit Cameron’s view of current society. His view is that Government is too involved; does too much in people’s lives; and has extinguished the do-it-yourself (or ourselves) attitude. We have become reliant on the government.

David Cameron announced a Big Society plan

How many carers feel that they are reliant on Government? Or that Government in the form of social and health services are too involved? Or that carers don’t very often do it for themselves?

No, it seems that carers fit the society that Cameron wants to create. Individuals, families, friends and neighbours taking responsibility for the care of each other. Carers are not people passing the buck to the State, they are people doing it for themselves.

But that’s not the end of the story. There are fundamental questions that follow from this:

• Should Government be more involved – what is or should be their responsibility?
• Carers are taking responsibility, but is it their responsibility to do so in the first place?

Legally speaking, Government does have responsibilities regarding people requiring care and support, but there is not a law saying that people have to provide care.

From this, you could say that carers are doing what Government should be. You can see this feeling contained within some of the campaign messages that we/carers/carers’ organisations use: carers save the Government £87bn from the care they provide; carers only get paid £53.90 (Carer’s Allowance for which you have to care at least 35 hours p/w) which is well below the legal minimum wage.

But these two messages raise two questions:

Are we saying that people should not be providing any care and the Government provide it all? Are we saying that people should be paid to care for spouses, parents, children or siblings rather than expecting families to provide some element of care for each other because they want to?

I don’t think many people believe that the Government should provide all care, with many wanting to be the one who cares for their wife/husband/father/mother etc. And I think many would say that families should be there for one another, and not need to be paid to do so.

So, there should be responsibilities on both individuals and Government. What should those be and what does that mean in terms of policy? That’s for the next blog.

Take care,

Gordon