Pegs and holes and social care

That’s the question asked by the Casey Commission in their new Big Conversation – and that alongside Andy Burnham’s social care speech and the ensuing buzz and (dare I say hope) amongst colleagues, allies alike.

I know that social care is really relevant to people of all ages but today I want to focus on older people.

The biggest buzz has been about the money – who pays, how much, tax…or not etc. I have to confess that really frustrates me. We really need to start with people and their experiences and not with pounds. The money needs sorting…of course it blinking does…but right now that feels longer term and systemic or structural. A ‘look over here’ distraction rather than the great big, in your face issue we should have firmly in view.

I have 2 big ‘busies’ in my life right now – WIGO, our vision and how to influence its realisation, alongside a lovely, active Dad who lives with dementia and a brilliant Mam, whose life has been thrown in the air. My unexpected carer role takes up much heart, head and hand space. The juxtaposition between my 2 busies is not lost on me. I should know how to navigate this space, to get him/them the help they (and I) need…but I find I don’t.

The way I see it the ‘social care’ available for most older people is help with personal care ‘tasks’ at home or a ‘bed’ in a (however lovely, probably large) institution.  Whenever I consider this and my Dad all I can see is a great big square peg and lots of round holes. He needs help, we need help…lots of help…BUT NOT THAT.

When I say that to people and on socials, I find myself down a bit of a rabbit hole. There is an assumption that the need is somehow small – people use language like ‘pre’ or early or low. As an aside I can’t bring myself to use the ‘prevention’ word in this content – I am never quite sure what is being prevented – Bryony Shannon articulates this so much better than I. All of us need understanding friends, hospitable communities and places and people that accommodate us even when we are not quite who we were. There is, or should be if the Social Care Future Vision  is adopted, a need for any rethink of social care to start in this space and not in service land.

BUT what if we need a lot of help to live our lives, help that is hard for family, friends and neighbours, what happens then? Relationships creak and even crumble. Current social care services are not what is needed…but they are all that there is.

Pegs and holes, pegs and holes. The impossible, frustrating choice of whether to bash the square peg until it fits the round hole or whether to spend endless time and energy trying to find the kind of square hole ‘service’ or initiative that might not even exist. It’s exhausting – physically and mentally.

Thankfully we have found or created some great stuff. His own PA/buddy, a peer with similar interests; volunteering, with support, for an excellent local charity; days out with a small ‘outdoors’ charity; playing sport as a member of an innovative, inclusive social enterprise. Not enough, but something…purpose, contribution, connection, laughs and keeping active.

SO here are my takeaways from all this. Calls and beds are social care. Third sector organisations, some creative, some much less so fill most of the other space – offering social and care…BUT not ‘social care’. No one questions that daftness.

With all this in mind my initial gut response to the Casey question is ‘someone…anyone…should support us to live our lives, doing things, going places, loving, contributing…LIVING’. Supporting people’s natural scaffolding should get first dibs. Quickly followed by the imagining, creating and sustaining of services and supports that are square, round, triangular and every other blinking shape.

As a creaking family member of a large square peg, my plea for Casey, Burnham…and my wider sector is for real choice and some vision and creativity. Then the money. Please