‘Make Or Break’ For Social Care As Councils Warn Of A ‘Triple Whammy’ Of Risks From Government Reorganisation Plans

Splitting county councils into multiple small unitary councils could hit millions of vulnerable people with a triple whammy of worse services, higher costs for care, and not enough staff to deliver support, a new report warns.

The County Councils Network (CCN), which commissioned the research, say the report’s findings are a stark warning for the government if it does not stick to its original plans of creating councils with populations over half a million, with the first wave of councils submitting competing proposals to ministers two weeks ago.

The network argues that these plans to overhaul local government structures will ‘make or break’ care services depending on which proposals ministers decide to implement. But a survey contained in the report reveals that the most senior care professionals in England, have little to no confidence that the risks of breaking up vital care services into smaller councils will be fully considered by ministers.

Last year’s English Devolution White Paper outlined plans for a radical overhaul of council structures, with government committing to end ‘two-tier’ local government: replacing 185 county and district councils with new unitary authorities in 21 areas.

Official government guidance had set out that new unitary councils should have a population of 500,000 or more and ‘avoid’ the fragmentation of vital care services. However, this guidance outlined that there may be ‘flexibility’ on this number in certain scenarios. District councils across the country are proposing to break up county councils who deliver social care into new unitary councils with populations of 300,000 or lower. Each of these new authorities will deliver care services, rather than one single upper tier council as is the case today.

The report by Newton concludes that the government’s forthcoming decisions about the size of new unitary councils will have ‘profound, long-lasting impacts on the most vulnerable members of society’. It argues that the evidence strongly suggests larger-scale councils are ‘essential’ to preserve service quality, prevent rising costs, and ensure financial sustainability of people-based services.

Previous research for the network by PwC has shown that splitting county councils into multiple authorities as small as 300,000 could result in hundreds of millions extra costs every single year for local taxpayers.

And now current research, which draws on local data from half a million residents across 146 possible new unitary footprints, lays bare a further triple whammy of risks for care services and special educational needs:

• New unitary councils with populations substantially below 500,000 people will increase the price councils pay for care, putting further financial costs on these under-pressure services. Modelling suggests that if all new unitary councils had a population below this figure, this would result in additional unit costs of between £180m and £270m annually solely as a result of reductions in purchasing power. In contrast, if all new unitary councils had a population above 500,000, it would reduce care fees by £65m a year across England.
• Splitting county councils into smaller local authorities will require hundreds of new senior roles as councils already grapple with a shortfall in care staff. Modelling shows that if all new unitary councils had a population of below 500,000, this would result in a requirement of between 500 – 1,100 additional management and senior roles in care services – which the CCN warns will be impossible to fill. In contrast, if all new unitary councils had a population of above 500,000, fewer senior managers than are currently in place will be required, saving those areas money to reinvest in care services.
• Breaking up ‘high-performing’ county councils into substantially smaller councils could lead to worse services. The report reveals that larger authorities are more likely to receive ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ ratings from Ofsted for children’s care services and currently 16 of the 21 county councils are already Good or Outstanding for these services. Consequently, directors of care and special needs services warn in the report that smaller services could struggle to attract staff and invest in improving services.
• Splitting county councils into smaller unitaries covering populations as small as 300,000 or lower could see some of these new authorities overwhelmed with demand. The report finds that the smaller the council, the more they could experience extreme concentrations of care users: effectively meaning care costs are highly variable between new authorities and may exceed planned budgets. This could leave some councils exposed to unaffordable costs and the use of expensive out of area placements. This could challenge their financial sustainability from inception.

The CCN says that instead of running the risk of worsening services, government should grasp the nettle and ensure that the reforms are a catalyst to transform the way in which vulnerable people are supported with local authority care. However, they say this research shows this can only be achieved by ensuring the government stick to their own statutory criteria and ‘rigorously evaluate’ all proposals against it.

A survey carried out for the research reveals that whilst senior care professionals are cautiously optimistic about the potential benefits of reorganisation – if delivered in the right way – there are widespread concerns that the risks to care services will not be adequately considered by ministers when they make their decisions on competing proposals. Less than one in 10 (6%) of county council chief executives and directors of adult social care and children’s services are confident they will be fully recognised.

The report recommends that the government avoid, where possible, splitting up people-based services. Where this cannot be avoided, the government must ensure that all new authorities are above their stated criteria of 500,000 or more.

The study also recommends that given the level of competing proposals, and the risks highlighted by the report, minister should give a heavy weighting towards the impact on splitting up these care services when they decide on proposals and should even consider appointing an independent body to evaluate the proposals.

Cllr Matthew Hicks, Chair of the County Councils Network said:
“Local government reorganisation has the potential to deliver significant benefits for local taxpayers and improve every day services residents rely on. However, it also carries with it significant risks if it’s not delivered in the right way. This report should focus minds on the impact that these proposals will have on the lives of the most vulnerable people who depend on local authority care and support day in, day out.

“With several areas now submitting competing proposals, the study clearly shows the stark choice facing the government. It provides clear evidence that there are very real risks to care services if county councils are split into multiple small unitary councils. Those that depend on care could face worse services, be met with significant upheaval, and have too few staff to adequately deliver their support. At the same time, councils and local taxpayers could be loaded with substantive extra costs.

“Put simply, reorganisation plans could make or break care services unless the government gets these reforms right.

“It is therefore vital that the government sticks to the criteria it set out earlier this year whereby new councils cover populations of over 500,000 people. Considering these are the most important and expensive local authority services, ministers must ensure they rigorously evaluate all proposals and heavily weight their decisions based on the risks to people-based services.”

President of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS), Jess McGregor said:
“This report reinforces concerns we raised with Ministers in August about the risks local government reorganisation poses to hundreds of thousands of people who are older-aged, disabled or in vulnerable situations that draw on care and support. The findings highlight important issues government must address: developing a pipeline of Directors of Adult Social Services, a plan to address disproportionate impacts of ordinary residence decisions, and ensuring adult social care can contribute to the shift from hospital to community care.

“New councils must be financially sustainable from day one and able to meet their legal duties to provide care and support. It’s vital that Ministers engage adult social care leaders in this process by inviting them to sit on Joint Committees and help assess all proposals. ADASS will continue to work with Ministers and civil servants as so many of the people our members serve rely on us getting this right.”