Five factors shaping the policy response

The impact of COVID-19 on social care has been shaped – in part – by the underlying structure of the social care system. Measures to support care homes and other services have been implemented in the context of a system scarred by decades of political and policy neglect. Five factors in particular have influenced the social care policy response in England.

Funding levels

Social care services in England entered the crisis enfeebled by many years of underfunding. Spending per person on adult social care fell by around 12% in real terms between 2010/11 and 2018/19. Spending reductions affect access, with fewer people eligible for state funded services. Estimates suggest that a significant number of adults go without the social care they need., But cuts in spending also affect the ability of providers to deliver high-quality care. The amount local authorities are able to pay for somebody’s care in a care home is less than what it costs to provide it. The Competition and Markets Authority estimate that care homes are underpaid by around £1bn a year. People paying for their own social care typically pay more than those receiving publicly funded services, cross-subsidising the low fees paid by local authorities.

Some care providers are going bust, others are handing back their contracts, and the provider sector is at risk of collapse. Even before COVID-19, an estimated £2.1bn would have been needed by 2023/24 just to meet demand for care. COVID-19 has created additional cost-pressures that appear not to be being met (see section on funding).

Workforce issues

Social care services are also in the midst of a deep staffing crisis. Workforce shortages before the pandemic were estimated at 122,000. Staff turnover is high, many staff are on low pay, and a quarter are on zero-hours contracts. COVID-19 can exacerbate these issues, as staff may need to self-isolate, and the need to manage residents in isolation creates challenges for pre-pandemic staffing ratios. The reliance of many providers on agency staff also adds to the risk of transmission – in one survey, 30% of care homes said they were dependent on staff working across several sites. Staff working on zero-hours contracts may have been faced with the choice of going to work with COVID-19 symptoms or losing income (see section on workforce policies). Early data suggest that care homes using bank and agency staff – and the minority of care homes that did not offer staff sick pay – have seen higher COVID-19 infection rates among residents.

The social care sector is also reliant on international migration. People with non-British nationality make up around 17% of the adult social care workforce, but COVID-19 has severely restricted international mobility. For some people coming from outside the EU, many social care roles are not eligible for work visas because they are low paid. This – and the fragmented nature of the sector – has made it difficult for government to offer the same support to social care workers from other countries that it has provided to NHS workers.

Workforce issues in social care also affect the people delivering it. There are an estimated 1.5 million people working in adult social care. Most staff working in social care are women, and 21% of roles are carried out by people who identify as black, Asian or from other minority or multiple ethnicity groups. The system’s reliance on unpaid carers also creates additional challenges in coordinating support. The majority of people providing social care are the families of people with care needs. Carers UK estimate that there were around 9 million unpaid carers in the UK before COVID-19 – and that millions more people have now become carers as a result of the pandemic.

System fragmentation and variation

The social care system is complex and fragmented. There is no single, national system like the NHS. Services are provided by around 18,500 organisations working in 39,000 locations across England. These providers deliver services in a wide range of settings – including care homes, supported living, retirement and extra care housing, people’s own homes, and elsewhere in the community – to adults of all ages.

The scale and diversity of the sector has posed practical and logistical challenges in organising effective policy responses – for example, in ensuring that providers have timely access to sufficient PPE and to testing. National procurement arrangements for the NHS have not always reflected the needs of local care providers who have faced the challenge of navigating their way through various organisational layers to access clear advice, guidance, and support – including access to testing and PPE. Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in June, Chris Wormald, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, said that he did not think that social care services had been left out of the policy response, but that ‘it is clearly more challenging for us to act in the social care sector, given its fragmentation, than in the NHS’.

Quality and access to social care also varies widely by region. Different local authorities make decisions about how much they spend on which services. Care providers face different recruitment challenges depending on local context. And relationships between social care and the NHS vary across the country – based on historic relationships and other factors. As a result, the ability of social care services to respond to COVID-19 will have varied locally too.

Governance and accountability

These issues have been exacerbated by governance and accountability arrangements in social care. Commissioning of publicly funded social care is done locally, by 151 local authorities. National policy responsibility for social care rests with the Department of Health and Social Care. But responsibility for local authority finances and other issues sit with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The result is a complex web of national and local bodies, with far less national oversight and coordination than the NHS.

There are also historic differences in planning, funding, and decision making between the NHS and social care – contributing to persistent challenges in coordinating services. Local authorities have often not been treated as equal partners by NHS leaders. In this context, the overwhelming priority given to preparing the NHS for COVID-19 and the absence of a clear national strategy for social care in the early stages of the pandemic is – unfortunately – unsurprising.

Lack of data

Quality data on what is happening in social care are lacking. Before COVID-19, there was no system for collecting daily data from care providers. This meant that in the early stages of the crisis, it was difficult to establish an accurate and timely picture of deaths in care homes and other settings. The Office for Statistics Regulation has previously concluded that the social care system is ‘very poorly served’ by data, creating challenges for effective policy development and analysis. And the various data that do exist are not produced in a timely and usable way to inform emergency responses. Matt Keeling told the Science and Technology Committee in June that ‘I remember asking at some point, probably late March, what we knew about care homes, and we did not even know how many people were in care homes at that point. We can only generate models from the data available.’

Previous Next