Busy care providers may not have noticed that the biggest shake up of local government since the 1974 Local Government Act is quietly unfolding. District and county councils are being merged into single unitary authorities, effectively bringing together functions such as housing, planning, transport and social care. The intention is to create a more cohesive approach to meeting the population’s needs and to improve efficiency, reduce duplication and save money. Government believes that transitioning away from the two-tier system will enable longer term planning and financial stability. No one would argue with that.
The change is significant. The number of councils is reducing from 317 to 138 (in addition to the creation of 46 Mayor-led strategic authorities). The system will be less fragmented. But what will be the impact on social services?
Currently, our two main national political parties seem more concerned with what they need to do to win the next election than what the country needs from Government. They can be said to be more preoccupied with politics than with policy. There is a danger the reorganisation resulting from the devolution white paper will have the same effect on councils’ performance. When social care is already under pressure and new measures such as Assisted Dying and beefed-up employment rights will need skilful handling, will councils have the bandwidth to give people who rely on support and their carers the attention that they need?
Reducing duplication means that employee roles will be redefined or even made redundant. As councils restructure, employees will be distracted. Local authorities are political organisations. Even in normal times, when I worked for local government, even though I was determined to deliver the best possible services, the allure of discussing who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ was ever present. This might be dismissed as idle gossip, but we are only human. The writer Yuval Noah Harari credits gossip with a fundamental role in human survival. He suggests that our language evolved as a variant of gossip. It is not enough for people to know the whereabouts of lions and bison. It is much more important to know who of their troop hates whom, who sleeps with whom, who is honest and who is cheating.
It is likely that services will be disrupted as budgets are re-allocated. Long contracts may not be let. There will be a passing of council debt between new authorities. There is a risk that institutional knowledge will be lost. As services are merged, will they level-up or level-down?
Over 50% of upper tier local authority revenue is spent on social care, straining council budgets. This is crowding out spending on other services such as libraries and potholes, to name but two. What will be the impact on other departments as demand for care continues to outstrip available funds? This has the potential to create discontent in the local population, because residents expect more from their council tax.
Of course, any major restructure carries these risks. Local government officers and elected members do not want residents to be negatively impacted. Once we come out the other side, there is the potential for commissioning to be less fragmented and services more equitable. But I would suggest that care providers will need to exercise patience during the transition.
Is Government’s local authority restructure positive for adult social care? Comment on this column or join the conversation to share your thoughts.
Sara Livadeas is a social care expert and Founder of Social Care Works. Email: [email protected] X: @saralivadeas