"It is encouraging that the Chancellor cited 'fairness' as one of the main principles behind the measures announced in today's Spending Review. He also claimed that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the biggest proportion of the pain, a stance we welcome.
"Yet, when we look at the detail of the measures announced today, the news is mixed for people and places in poverty. The JRF will monitor the impact of today’s decisions closely and will continue to shine a light on what happens to the poorest."
PUBLIC SERVICES AND WELFARE BENEFITS
The increased funding for schools and childcare could have real positive outcomes for children from deprived backgrounds and compensates for cuts to other areas. In contrast, benefit cuts look regressive and will hit the poorest hardest.
The protection of universal benefits for pensioners, along with the increased funding to adult social care is welcome news. However it is disappointing that the plight of childless working-age adults remains ignored.
SOCIAL HOUSING
There is already a serious problem with housing supply, and in particular the supply of affordable housing. We are concerned that the level of funding for affordable housing is now far too low, and that the new approach, which will place all new tenants into a single system, is too rigid.
JRF will publish further detailed analysis of today’s announcement in relation to welfare, education, adult social care, social housing and the environment on http://www.jrf.org.uk/public-spending
http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/jrf-response-to-spending-review-2010
PDF version
Initial relief at an additional £2bn for social care by 2014–15 has evaporated in the wider context of 26% cuts in local government revenue grants and changes to benefits which will affect working-age disabled adults.
Monday's Ipsos Mori report for JRF highlighted anxieties for the future of adult social care – the prospect of increased eligibility criteria, the difficulties of making the right decisions and balancing the short-term (meeting critical needs) with the long-term (investing in preventative support for people who are not in critical need but benefit greatly from 'that bit of help').
£1bn of the additional £2bn will go directly into local authority revenue grants and, with no ring-fencing, there are inevitably concerns about how much of that will end up being spent on social care. Given the historic under-funding of social care and the realities of demographic change, it is not surprising that – whilst breathing a sigh of relief about the £2bn and existing grants rising in line with inflation – there is a growing concern in the social care sector that the Spending Review is just a bit of extra glue to keep the sticking plaster on social care.
Statements from Mr Lansley, Mr Burstow and Mr Behan (Director General for Social Care, in a letter to directors of adult social care services) send clear and welcome messages that this Government recognises the high value of social care to people's outcomes and to the NHS. It knows the importance of prevention and personalisation, and the need for a vibrant social care market. It expects to see no further tightening of eligibility criteria (already only funding 'substantial and critical' cases in 80% of local authorities). All of these messages are well supported by evidence about what disabled people and older people want and value, and what represents good value to the public purse and the private purse.
But the big risk – which came out so clearly in the Ipsos Mori interviews – is that at a time of such drastic cuts, it is going to be very hard for directors of adult social care to secure the resources and retain the expert staff required to make the right decisions. Some are far better placed than others to do so. We will see big variations in how, and how well, local authorities respond.
We also know that much low-level support is currently provided by user-led, voluntary and community sector groups, often through local authority contracts or grant funding. The £100m Transition Fund (one year only) is unlikely to be sufficient to support enough of these organisations to survive and reshape how they operate.
For working-age disabled adults, including people with learning difficulties, the Spending Review could result in increased, not reduced, demand for social care as a result of cuts and changes to welfare benefits (time-limiting Employment Support Allowance and changes to Disability Living Allowance). Whilst continuing the Disabled Facilities Grant and 'Supporting People' is very welcome, this is partially offset by real anxieties about changes to social housing and the lack of funding for new, affordable and adaptable homes.
I know that this Government wants to see reform of social care and how we pay for care. I know also that the Department of Health will have worked extremely hard to secure £2bn of additional funding at a very difficult time. But I am still anxious that the Spending Review – when seen in its entirety, including and beyond social care – is more about cuts and less about a long-term strategy for transformation. This makes it even more important that all of us (and not just local authorities) now try to do what the Government has not done, and can never do alone: take a strategic, long-term and joined-up view with severely restricted resources.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2010/10/spending-review-and-social-care