Shocking care politics

Toby's been living in a Residential Care Home now for just over a week, and I'd love to tell you everything is settled and happy, but it's still very early days. I've seen him lots, and each time all he says is "Mummy's House" over and over again, meaning the exact same place he always used to call "Home" when we were out and about and he just wanted to get back and chill. 

I know he's having some happy times there, because when I ring up (which I can't seem to stop myself doing several times a day) I can often hear him in the background laughing or making his very own distinctive whooping noises, but it still feels like I've lost a limb. We're taking it a day at a time, and at the moment I'm going to visit every second day, but I don't think it's a good idea for him to come and visit us just yet, because he would think we've collected him and brought him back home for good. 

We get a lovely welcome when we visit, not just from Toby, but from all the residents. They don't get many visitors in the home, and so they have all adopted WM and I as their own. If Toby gets a hug, they all want one. There is a bit of a fascination with the fact that Toby has actually got a "Mummy" at all. The residents who can talk all chat very openly about how their Mums and Dads died, and then they moved there. One resident told me that you have to have a dead mummy to live there, and another one asked me "Are you going to die soon, then?". I find it quite hilarious, luckily, considering that Toby's only had to move out because I've got incurable breast cancer. One lady was chatting on about her parents, and I asked her if she missed them. She said, "No, course I don't miss them, they're dead, so they're gone". The matter of factness that sometimes accompanies learning disability can sometimes just break your heart. 

Their openness is also very reassuring. They all seem to want to take Toby under their wing, and it's obvious that they are looking out for him, just as they clearly look for each other.  They also talk about how lovely the home is, and how kind the staff are, all things that you just hope against hope are true even when you're not there to see what goes on, but it's clear that everyone is well cared for, and they all seem to have a very relaxed, happy rapport with the staff. 

I'm trying to get a new perspective on Toby's move. Instead of comparing it to how his life was a couple of weeks ago, still living at home, I'm trying to compare his arrival in new circumstances with the experiences of his new house-mates. It must be so awful arriving somewhere completely new and alien, within hours of losing a parent. These people don't have the understanding or the awareness that most of us have, they must be so bewildered and bereaved, but without the capacity to be comforted and reassured. It must be so frightening, and so desperately sad too. 

By comparison, Toby's had the opportunity to spend a lot of time there over the past few weeks, staff at his college have supported him in buying things for his room and decorating it with lots of photos and things he likes, he knows we live directly opposite and that we'll see a lot of him, and he is still in exactly the same community he grew up in. Yet it's still hard, and he is still bewildered and confused, so goodness knows how hard it must be for most people in his situation. 

I had a really tough time in getting our local authority to agree to fund his place there. The current sociological ideology is that all adults with learning disabilities must be placed in a new type of housing called "Supported Living", and the very concept horrifies me, along with thousands of other parents in my situation. 

The sad thing is that nearly every individual you come across within Social Services is coming from a good place in their hearts, and they are striving to do their best. They must often share the same frustrations we parents feel, and too often, they get cast in the role of the "bad guys". The real bad guys are the ones that simply don't pump enough money, resources, thought and infrastructure into the system they have to work within. They have too many vulnerable people to support, with nowhere near enough funding. So it's often the Social Workers themselves who have to be the messenger, the one who says no to something that the family feel is totally essential. There are no winners in this awful situation, the Social Worker feels dreadful and the family too. 

We were very lucky, we had a very pro-active Social Worker who understood immediately why I wanted what I did. Her honesty really helped make the whole process easier, she was very upfront and told me not to get my hopes up, and explained all the hurdles ahead, but she promised she'd try. Somehow she helped to make it happen. I'd love to buy her chocolates, flowers and champagne as a Thank-you, but sadly, I'm not allowed to. Social Workers have to work within such restrictively tight rules and regulations, that even the tiniest box of chocolates is seen as bribery and corruption, and could lose her her job. 

In the same way as many Statutory organisiations, the individuals within the system are fighting too, to somehow make sense out of a framework that simply cannot work. They are fighting to make a difference to people like Toby, and so often, despite their very best efforts, nothing changes. The policy makers base their decisions on evidence-based research, but sometimes this means taking a broad-based stroke and applying it to everyone, without the flexibility to see that one size really often doesn't fit all. At individual Local Authority level, sometimes this ideological thinking is adopted too quickly, or without the financial resources to really make it happen the way it should, and then the Social Workers have to deliver a watered-down version of something that could have been really good, but actually doesn't work that well for many of their clients at all. They can see this. The clients can see this, and their families can see this. Yet it's always the poor Social Workers that get the blame. 

The ideas behind Supported Living come from a good place, but are being interpreted too widely, and much too quickly, with little long-term thought seemingly being applied. Basically, the idea is that everyone deserves to live autonomously in their own home, with carers coming to them and doing the things with them that they need to be done or that they want to do. It's a fabulous idea if you apply it to the frail elderly, because it means that they can keep their independence and still maintain their own home. However, even with the elderly, the way it is being administered leaves a lot to be desired - a lot of them are trapped in bed until somebody arrives, flustered, overworked and running late, with a 15 minute window of time to get them out of bed, toileted, washed and breakfasted before moving on to their next frail client. The poor care workers don't have time to do what these old people really want, to stop and chat and pass the time of day. They are so time-pressured, and they are working alone and unsupervised, so with the best will in the world, impatience verging on the abusive must occur sometimes. 

The ideology behind it is quite frankly, superb. Let the elderly live longer in their own homes with support. However, the support is lacking, because it is so badly underfunded, and until we, as a society, can prioritise the vulnerable and demand excellent care-standards for all, this situation will continue. 

Supported Living also works reasonably well for those who are physically disabled, but need practical help either with personal care or with their chores. It has to be a much better way forward for these people than consigning them to a care home with no bright future to look forward to. 

In Supported Living placements, the person with disabilities is in the driving regarding all aspects of their finances, paying their own bills and rent, and even becoming the direct employer of their carers, so applying it to people who have severe learning disabilities like Toby will always need a bit more thought, and sometimes it's the thought that goes missing. 

Researchers have surveyed people about what they want, and of course, most people do want a home of their own with as much independence as possible. However nobody asks the young people like Toby, simply because they cannot talk fluently, or even if they can, they lack the capacity to understand the full implications of what Supported Living means. 

However, because they have so much so-called "evidence-based research" at their disposal that this is the sort of housing model "disabled" people want, the policy makers then extrapolate the findings and apply them even to the Tobys of this world. It is so plainly wrong. 

In Toby's case, with the severity of his condition, he would get 24 hour care in a Supported Living environment, but he would be living alone and isolated from the world. I've seen some of the specially designed Supported Living housing units built in the last few years by our local authority, and they are stunning, self-contained flats in a beautiful block with an impeccably landscaped garden. However, all seven residents in the building live alone, and there isn't even a communal living room. The block is staffed by 5 staff during the day, and as part of this new so-called independence, all meals must be individually cooked in the individual's own kitchen. So you can just imagine, instead of being able to produce one nice home-cooked meal for all seven residents, the staff are running up and down the stairs, in and out of the flats, trying to cook like crazy. How could you leave Toby alone in his flat with the cooker on and pots boiling while you rush to turn someone else's sausages in another flat nearby? Well you simply can't, or you shouldn't, or you have to compromise. I wondered how often these people actually managed to get decent, tasty, nutritious meals, or if they instead had to make do with quick and easy ready meals or cheese on toast most of the time. They are also living yards away from each other, but totally isolated, with chances to meet each other few and far between.  Meanwhile, what of these people's mental well-being? Never seeing anyone other than a rushed-off-their-feet carer? Lonliness and isolation leads to major depressive symptoms, which can escalate into very serious mental health issues in people with learning disabilities, but unfortunately, much much harder to spot. 

Believe it or not, the people imprisoned in those self-contained flats are probably the lucky ones. The others are often encouraged to take on a tenancy agreement and rent a flat wherever they can afford. They are cared for round the clock by a series of lone care workers, with no supervision, often no training, and no safety net of colleagues for the care worker to share the stresses and the frustrations or concerns. 

Meanwhile, who takes overall control to manage all the medical appointments, plan his activities, ensure his finger nails are trimmed and his hair is cut? How can being cared for by one lone carer after another prevent all the little things from falling between the cracks, and how can his health and well-being be properly monitored? Most of all, how can abuse be prevented? A whole parade of carers would have uninterrupted time alone with Toby, who knows how they might really behave towards him? Some of them would also have to have access to his money too, it just is too frightening a thought to even go there as to how he may be treated. 

 However, I've talked my concerns over with social workers in the past, and it's all OK actually. Guess why? Apparently, there are virtually no incidences of abuse reported in Supported Living schemes. So that's alright then. Actually no, it is not. The operative word here is "reported". These vulnerable people are incapable of reporting abuse, and unless it gets reported it doesn't exist. In a meeting a couple of years ago, a very senior Social Worker who I have enormous respect for, and who is a very intelligent and caring person assured me that people in supported living arrangements are proven to be much safer from abuse. We discussed it at length, bantering it backwards and forwards, but without finding any common ground at all on this issue. Sometimes, I think that Social Workers are prevented from expressing their own views, but are expected to swallow the latest ideology hook, line and sinker, for fear of seeming to be letting the team down in some way. Either that, or those at the top really do believe it all.  

Another aspect of this new style of care is the social services ideology that these adults with Learning Difficulties must "access the community" as much as possible. That means going out and about to you and me. However, the community these vulnerable people access is often hardly welcoming to them, and there is little for them to do once they are accessing it. You have almost certainly seen a lone adult looking very bored and disengaged while drinking a cup of coffee and eating a slice of cake in a coffee shop, sitting opposite someone, equally bored and dispirited, with obvious learning difficulties. You may have also seen them leave the coffee shop, a mismatched pair who obviously have nothing in common, barely talking, often with the carer striding ahead, maybe talking animatedly into their mobile phone, while the learning disabled adult shuffles some paces behind, looking lost, sad and dejected. Yes, you too have seen the brave new world of care in the community, and it makes a fallacy of the word "care". This is everything I never want for Toby.

Up until 15 or 20 years or so ago, people like Toby would live in large, Victorian style mental institutions, locked away from society. They are remembered as barbaric, cruel places where abuse was rife and the vulnerable were infantilised and treated abominably.

 However, when I was a teenager, our school used to arrange for volunteers to help out at one of these places every Sunday, and I was often on the team. I remember them differently, and with fondness. Obviously, staff are all going to be on their best behaviour when there's a team of 16 year olds with their teacher on the premises, but I remember all the activities they had on offer. It was huge, like a village, but they organised a whole range of activities for their residents, football, gardening, discos, games, drama, singing... all sorts of things. Yes they were locked away, but that also meant that they never got bullied or taunted or laughed at in the street. In some ways, I think Toby would have loved some of the aspects of that large scale care, certainly due to the economies of scale they were able to offer their residents a very full and active life on some levels. 

However, there were some appalling abuses going on virtually unchecked behind closed doors too, but we must never forget that the vast majority of the staff were doing their best with kindness, in exactly the same way that staff behave now. 

So we moved all these people into the community, in small scale homes and units. Most of them were and still are lovely. Some though, guess what? Abuse happened. The Panorama Documentary which uncovered the vile cruelty of Winterbourne View lives with me forever. 

So now, the policy makers are using abuse as another reason why these vulnerable adults should be placed in supported living isolation. Guess what? Abuse will happen, but in supported living settings we run the risk that it will happen far more invidiously, far more privately, and with the perpetrators being given free access in a way they have never have before, which means that any abuse will be harder to detect than ever. 

There are some evil, vile, unpleasant, wicked people who prey on the vulnerable, and there always will be. Our vulnerable adults need all of us to work together to protect them from these vicious people, to keep them safe. Yet according to the policy makers, somehow the size of the accommodation influences whether or not abuse happens. This is dangerous thinking, and it is wrong. Somehow, wherever our vulnerable members of society live, we must do all we can to prevent the abusers working with them or gaining access to them. It's not a failsafe method, but personally I feel there more is safety in numbers, and with other residents and a whole team of staff, at least if abuse is occurring somebody might see something and blow the whistle. 

I'd like to see funding pouring into research to ascertain why abuse happens, what motivates the abusers, and how we can filter out at the interview and selection process, those who are likely to be wanting care-worker jobs for all the wrong reasons. We also need to give Care-Workers a higher status with much more respect. Good ones are capable of transforming lives for the better, and there are thousands of extremely good ones, working for next to nothing while making a huge difference to the quality of life of our most vulnerable people. I would like to see these people recognised, not just by paying them more, but also by valuing them for what they do. 

The other problem I faced with securing a place for Toby in the lovely home directly across the road from where we live was a funding issue. These days it all comes down to money. 

The taxpayer pays for both Supported Living provision and for Residential Care Homes. However the funding for Supported Living is spread across lots of different departmental budgets, both at local and central government level, with elements of the funding coming from the benefits system too. So it isn't such a huge burden on the local social services departments, who have to carry most of the financial burden of the residential care home option. 

Every social services department in the land is having to make tough choices as to where best to spend their very limited finances, so I can completely understand why they are reluctant to place people in care homes. This means that the vulnerable adults in their care may be being shoe-horned into the wrong type of accommodation simply because there is a major funding imbalance. I was often told that Care Home were more expensive by senior social workers. They are not more expensive to the taxpayer, but they are more expensive to the social services department. Equality of funding must be a priority, because decisions must be made on need rather than on cost, and to base a decision on cost when it's not even anymore expensive is quite frankly, stark raving daft.

Financially Toby's placement is safer now that he is in a care home and being funded on a "whole package" basis, because it's an "all or nothing" package, and it can't be tweaked or altered to save a few pounds here or there. Those in supported living are at the mercy of our benefit system. already under attack from Central Government, Those in a supported living situation are also at risk of having their packages cut every time their care package is reviewed, once or twice a year. It would be very easy for a care manager, hearing that a person normally sleeps right through the night, to decide to reduce the hours of the overnight carer, leaving that person alone while they are asleep. But what happens if they have to face an intruder or a house fire alone, without the cognitive skills to understand what is happening and to take action to protect themselves?

While I was working towards getting the very best for Toby, they asked me to look at some alternatives. They were each over 10 miles away, but they were Supported Living units, and therefore I was supposed to be delighted by them. They both actually sounded quite nice, but not as nice as having him on the doorstep. Some of these places actually are quite good, but that's because they have modelled themselves on the sort of care given by care homes, with small groups of adults living together and looked after by a team of care-workers, but somehow they have fiddled the finances so that it ticks the Supported Living boxes. Very clever, but if care homes work so well, why fix em if they ain't broke?  

Even if they had been wonderful places, I already had my perfect solution. A beautiful, specialist care home for adults with learning disabilities, a home I knew well already, and one that I was on first name terms with many of the staff and residents. One that I had watched for 12 years, and had never witnessed anything whatsoever that rang even the tiniest of alarm bells. A home where the residents always look happy, clean, well-dressed and well-cared for, just thirty paces from my own front door. It may as well have had Toby's name already carved in a plaque above the door, I wanted my Toby as close to home, in as nice a place as possible, but still able to be a huge part of our family. 

In the end I had to play my ace card, which I really had wanted to avoid having to do, but it worked. I wrote a letter for the men in grey suits who must work in the basement of our council offices to read. I explained that I had incurable cancer with a limited life-expectancy, and that I needed to live out my last years with Toby close by and still a part of our family. It's the truth, but I still felt very uneasy in spelling it out. However it worked. Within a week, Toby's place was funded. It's great to know that even the council accountants have really kind hearts.