Care: Mental, Social and others - CHAMPIONS

I would just like to set the record straight regarding what I feel about those who provide care for those who suffer from various needs of the mental, social, housing, medical and benefits kind. For those who devote their lives to addressing the needs of those with problems I have nothing but respect and admiration. I chance across many who are committed to their role and see them struggle against decreasing budgets, diminishing staff numbers, increased workloads and restrictions that would make a saint swear like an East End docker and they deserve, no demand, applause and respect by the bucket load.

BUT (has to be a but) to reflect on 2013's experience to date:

I have seen first hand those people who make decisions long before they've engaged with their client and the reason for this has nothing to do with proper or effective care. The reason is merely a desire to make the problem go away. The reason for this is the fact that they are no longer doing what they joined up to do (and most of the social workers did join to make a difference) but are merely pumping out the clients in an effort to keep their own heads above water. The need to rationalise their own jobs means that many who are client-facing are no longer proving care but merely attempting to contain things.

I happened across a case where someone was presenting serious mental health issues but when one of the family called their local unit for help they were told that they'd been 're-diagnosed' and so they were no longer on the unit's list. 'But they are a danger to others and themselves,' pleaded the family member. 'In that case here's the other team's duty crisis number,' said the voice on the other end. The number duly given, they hung up. Worse than useless as the number they were given turned out to have been changed last year! By the time they found someone from the 'right' team the person with problems had been picked up by the police (who could do nothing but bring them home to be a problem to the family and not the community - not a knock at the police, they had no power to do anything else as the local team wouldn't come out!).

I found a child who had been removed and placed for adoption before conditions such as getting support and undertaking training had even been started. 'Best for the child'? I hope so because it looked like it was simpler for the caseworker and the team involved from where I stood. Another example of what might well be poor outcomes coming about because it required less effort and energy from those who are supposed to be supportive and caring.

Another case meant I found myself coming into contact with involved someone about to be made homeless with their partner and children. There were health issues and yet when they went to their local housing people they were told that they were at the very bottom of the pile because one of the couple had some income from a part-time job. The answer? They were made 'redundant' by the person they did five hours for and now at least they are moving up the list. Not so the person who left the army and was told that they 'were someone else's problem as they'd lived in married quarters in the SW and so were that council's problem!' Of course the rules regarding priority (mental and other health issues, released from prison, left the armed forces) are rarely considered because of the 'yes/no' game that many play to mitigate their workload and protect a non-existent social housing stock (yes - it's great selling houses to people but the money should have built new social housing stock!!!).

A plea to my clergy colleagues regarding the creation of 'Champions' in their congregations:

Build up a group of local 'champions'. People who can become experts (or at least be informed) regarding the various areas of need, which I suggest are, as a minimum:

1. Mental Health - one of the greatest and least addressed needs that face us.
2. Housing - Not just homelessness, because many who are housed will soon be homeless unless they find champions.
3. Debt - Debt coaching courses and support are essential parts of the pastoral care role of Church and yet, amazingly, few are equipped to come alongside and engage with it!
4. Family Issues - Yes, I know we do this as pastoral care but we need to know the law and the ways of protecting people at risk and we need to do it intelligently.
5. Old Age - one of the areas where provision is being withdrawn and where, even though people think the 'old' are always complaining, little is said as services disappear.
6. Addiction - and not just drugs and alcohol. It's amazing how sex and gambling often fall below the radar and how compulsive spending and other issues just don't feature at all.
7. Relationship and Reconciliation - can cover so many areas from providing a neutral place for engagement through to training and counselling
8. Health Issues - and this can include preparation for death, palliative and bereavement issues (including how to fund a funeral when the bereaved have no money!).

Eight areas which I reckon takes at least ten to twelve people to engage with if a church is going to offer support to the community outside (and within) its walls. It needs coordinators and someone who will keep the minister in the loop without making them the sole point  of contact.

When I have broached this with some clergy the response has been, 'Well that's what CAb and others are there for!" And indeed they are but I have to ask whether or not we have given up our pastoral birthright for a mess of 'other agencies' potage and I fear that the answer is 'Yes!'.

So feel feel to disagree (or add areas that you feel I've missed) but if you've read this then take it back to the church or team and see who and what you have to meet the needs for as money becomes even more tight the services will feel even more of the squeeze and clients less of the care and support.

Pax

Clearing the air (2a) - they're shooting the horses!

Following on from the 'shoot horses' theme I see in today's news that there has been as drop of almost 25% in the number of older people using day care centres in England over the past three years. This figure comes from Age UK who say that the numbers of those availing themselves of lunch clubs and other day care provision is due in the main to financial pressure on councils.

The report highlights the potential for the elderly to find themselves "'Living out their last years in loneliness'. Meanwhile, the government says that councils received sufficient funding to protect services and that there was no justifiable reason for such services* to be cut.

It seems to me that removing services from the elderly is a simple exercise for these are one group who rarely have a consistent or effective voice. Something is closed and all that happens is that the people who used the services are confined to home and their voice is unheard. It is an easy win for those who are seeking to cut costs as the people affected just appear to vanish and, because there is little outcry, the deed goes relatively unnoticed.

Age UK say that during the previous financial year, council spending on old people's services had dropped by £500m - no doubt diverted to more important services! The reality is that the critical and high-dependancy needs are being met but those who are able to potter on are now being left to their own devices and this, regardless of the financial situation, has to be wrong.

Where I am we offer free tea, coffee, cake and biscuits two mornings a week and have an afternoon club for the older people around us and whilst this is something, it's not enough ('but where do we find those who are willing to come and open the doors and do the stuff?' cries a voice somewhere in the recesses of my mind)).

If you read this (and so apparently will) can I ask you to take an hour from your busy life and check on what is on offer where you live? See what your church, council and other organisations are doings and if the answer is 'nothing' then start making noises - get the councils, the churches and others off their backsides and help to reverse this diminishing provision trend; not because of some charitable thing, but because it is the right thing to be doing.

Happy Friday

*day centres, lunch clubs, exercise classes, hairdressing, podiatry, social activities and respite care all come into this category.

Clearing the air (2) - they shoot horses don't they?

Another of the issues that has caused me great problems this year is the fact that those who now form part of the 'older' generation of our land appear to be regarded as merely spent and expendable. After all, they have little to offer in terms of revenue generation and are another burden that demands time, money and attention from both the state and their own families.

But of course this isn't true and if you start to think about it logically, many of those who are the older generation have many years of work (and paying of taxes and National Insurance) behind them. Not only that but there are many who have paid out for the nation in another way, that of having served it in some form of military (or other) service!

So let's look at what the older people have on their CVs and consider how we should be regarding it:

Eighty (and over) - b. 1933 - 1900
There's the second world war - growing up in a time of depression and many other hardships that were faced by this group. They know the value of family (and are often the glue of their families) and generally worked hard to pay their way. These are the people who paid financially and with their own lives and the lives of those they loved to make the sixties the libertarian and relaxed age that it was. They paid in and now it is surely their turn to reap the respect and care of the nation.

The Seventies - b. 1943 - 1934
Still wars, but not to the same scale as those before them. Still knew the value of stuff and still exist as the focus of the families and communities in which they live. Paid more in many ways as the NHS and other social care and concern provisions became available for everyone in a real and established manner. Accepted that paying NI and taxes meant a lifetime of care both medically, in social housing and in old age.

The Sixties - b. 1953 - 1944
'Sixty is the new forty' (or so I'm told) and this group are now looking at paying, and working, for longer before they get their go onto the provision roundabout, that is if we still have a social health service and anything that looks like 'old age care' by the time the youngest of this group actuallty reaches seventy. Many of these will have paid and worked all their lives (but not all as Thatcher's job cuts and the various trough, trough and recovery have played their part) for something others wish to deprive them of. Trendy and living on credit is a greater reality for this bunch but they've still (in the main) played their part.

What do they have in common?

Unlike horses and other beasts of burden (which used to be shot but now find themselves in 'sanctuaries') these people have worked and contributed to the well-being of our society. they have produced children, been in gainful employment and paid their taxes and National Insurance to provide for those before them.

The State told them that they were entitled to 'cradle to grave' care and support, but no one told them that the grave might just be enticed that little nearer to reduce costs; neither did they realise that services and places of care would mean that we would end up with a 'can't pay - can't live' society (such as that I saw many years ago in a certain Western nation where there was wealth and health and poverty and early demise on the menu).

The Bible tells us that 'we don't muzzle the ox that treads the grain' (Deuteronomy 25) - meaning that when you do the work you should also benefit from it. Well those in the three groups above have done (and in many cases are still doing) that and they have a right to expect the best in care, provision and support. In fact, I would argue that legally, having paid in to the system, if services are withdrawn there must be a case for reimbursement of the financial components for them as they have paid money for something that isn't on offer (it's called 'fraud' when it doesn't relate to the government!).

One of the things that defines a nation is the way that it cares for the poor and needy; well if some of my visits to places around the country are anything to go by, we are to be judged as wanting. If some of the stories I hear (and have seen for myself) are anything other than isolated exceptions then there is a cynical streak that seeks to save money on the lives that actions designate as 'worthless' because of the age of the person.

Be warned - 2013 is the year when I will shout loud and make a stand for the older folk around me and where services are not forthcoming then I will be making this known; where charities fail to uphold their end of the bargain (a bargain which the giving of others has made possible) I will waste no time in pointing to it.

1 Timothy (chapter five) talks about providing for our relatives (and members of our households too) and it says that those who fail to do this  have denied their faith and are 'worse than unbelievers' - sadly in a land where unbelief is applauded and financial probity is championed as a reason for poorer standards in old-age care, these words are appearing truer every day - another reason that we need to make this land a place where faith is applauded and reason, truth, love, justice and mercy are valued.

I close with the words of the apostle Paul as found in Galatians (six) - my words:

"Brothers and sisters, if you find someone acting wrongly, those of you with faith in God (and living by His Holy Spirit) should correct them gently. But take care  that you are not tempted to do that wrongly yourselves.
Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ."

We need to care for the older people of our nation - it is their right and our duty!

If it isn't being done then we need to start doing some 'correcting' (the right way) - don't we?