Yesterday, I wrote specifically about my reactions to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) without a lot of reference to other commentators. This was intentional as I wanted to spew out my initial thoughts pretty much freeform.
Today some of the dust has settled and a lot more commentary has been shaped and published and I wanted to focus more solidly on the way in which I see the developments and announcements specifically in the areas that I know most about and what impact I see the changes in social work in particular.
My experience is wholly in adult services. I started my working life in the voluntary sector working with adults with learning disabilities. Post-qualification, I have worked with adults with physical disabilities of working age as well as older adults and am currently placed within mental health services so I will focus on the areas I know, possibly to the detriment of children’s’ services but, of course, I welcome comments from those with more experience in that area.
The most notable and obvious/immediate change will be the reduction in funding for local authorities and the removal of ring-fencing. Community Care carries a statement by Paul Burstow, explaining that
“There is no justification for local authorities to slash and burn or for local authorities to tighten eligibility as far as the settlement goes.”
He points to the additional £1 billion to be focused on social care – remember, the other £1 billion is coming from the NHS budget.
However the removal of ringfencing and the costs of an ageing population make this a very vacuous statement. Last night, on Channel 4 News, the Leader of Westminster Council said he would be raising the criteria – tightening eligibility criteria (see the link at 3.37).
The removal of ringfencing of budgets and the massive hit that local authorities will be taking will mean that the bare minimum of services will be provided. Anyone who thinks these stories about wonderfully creative individual budgets will be sorely fooled. Charges for services will increase. Directly provided services will disappear by the wayside.
I’m not overly hopeful.
As for the place of social work departments, I refer to the beginning of the clip above.
Westminster and Lambeth are looking at merging services and departments across neighbouring borough. It’s happening across London. That’s where the job cuts will come in and social services will not be as ‘immune’ as we thought we might be.
The problem is that cuts have already been made. Any further cuts are absolutely at the front-line.
The stigmatisation of disabled adults continues. The Independent Living Fund is on its last legs. Many disabled adults rely heavily on this money to provide for a better quality of life that would have been provided solely depending on local authority’s increasingly tightening criteria. I think this can’t go without a fight as this is A LOT of support for some of the most dependent adults who are able to gain measures of independence through this scheme is looking like it will be lost.
[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=disability&iid=8405354″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8405354/woman-wheelchair-looking/woman-wheelchair-looking.jpg?size=500&imageId=8405354″ width=”234″ height=”235″ /]
I wrote about changes to the ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) yesterday and it reflects the perfidious nature of the cuts and a wholesale stigmatisation of disability and inability to work (which the government seems to want to link with unwillingness to work).
Perhaps one of the more staggeringly mealy-mouthed changes was the removal of DLA mobility from people who are in residential care. These really are the most dependent people.
I can’t say it any better than this Bendygirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum.
I urge you to go and watch the video message she has recorded for David Cameron in response to this.
Additional costs, if the standard of life for those with this benefit is to be maintained, will be pushed to local authorities by profit-making care homes and it doesn’t look like they’ll be any funding to plug this gap. This is callous in the extreme.
And finally housing.
Housing, housing. It sometimes feels like it is the bane of my life. Housing issues affect everyone in social services – adults and children alike. Housing always comes up. Poor housing = poor outcomes.
Where is the housing going to come from? Capital spending will be down. Councils will be able to charge more for new tenancies but that will be taken out of housing benefit which will be subject to the ‘benefits cap’. A fully subsidised rent on housing benefit would therefore leave more of the ‘capped income’ for other living expenses but if housing is going to take out a larger chunk of this ‘capped amount’ because of higher rents – it is giving with one hand and taking away with another (housing benefits would be claimed for the higher rates of rent) but it would also decrease the amount of ‘universal benefit’ allowed to meet the cap.
So the effect I see within the local authority I work in? Pooled services, job losses, higher work pressures, higher caseloads, fewer resources, pushing more to informal carers and that’s if I have a job.
But it isn’t me that I’m concerned about. It is the nature of the NHS and the welfare state in this country and the social fabric and general tenets of social justice that I see being torn apart.
We must hold this government to account and keep fighting for the social justice that brought us into this profession in the first place.
This is why social workers must politicise. We cannot remain neutral as these changes take place. We are obliged to stand by a code of practice and we need to advocate and speak on behalf of those who rely on us for support.
Perhaps the profession’s failing has been its willingness to stand idle as the changes in social policy crept up on us. We need a voice, we need to shout and we need to vocalise some of the voices that can’t be heard so clearly.