A quick, genuine question. Can someone please explain to me why ‘social investment’ is such a boon to cash-strapped social care commissioners?
Take this ‘case study’, highlighted in the NHS England-led October 2015 reboot of ‘Transforming Care’, ‘Building The Right Support’ (see https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ld-nat-imp-plan-oct15.pdf
1) Bonds in my simplistic view are in effect requests for loans guaranteeing a particular rate of return over a fixed period of time – if you lend us £X, then we guarantee you’ll get £X + £Y% over Z years. If investors, whether social or not, think the risk isn’t too high for the rate of return they’ll get (compared to what is on offer elsewhere) then they’ll go for it.
3) People then move into these ‘specialised’ properties, presumably mostly funded by local authorities (and maybe CCGs if they’re ‘specialised’ enough).
5) Once the bond has been paid off (by the public purse), the investors have ended up with their slice of interest and the organisation who leveraged the money end up with the properties and the business.
1) Scrap the financial distinction between supported living and residential care, because...
3) Through meaty personal budgets (which need to sufficient to include a housing element) and/or Individualised Personal Commissioning, every person gets a long-term (10 years at least), guaranteed budget to help them plan their life.
4) People living with their families have a similarly guaranteed budget.
10) And … people with learning disabilities and families should be in charge of commissioning strategy while we’re at it.