The £9 billion question: How to care for the UK’s minority ethnic elderly?

The UK is getting older. More of us are living into our seventies and eighties and this trend is projected to continue throughout the twenty-first century.  One consequence will be a substantial increase in the market for long term care.  But are care homes ready for the opportunities of the future?  In one important respect a wake up call is needed.  The UK’s population is not just getting older; it’s also becoming increasingly ethnically diverse. But the reputation of care homes among ethnic minorities is so poor that a market worth £9 billion by 2051 could go begging. 

A study by Linstock Communications and research partner Stimulating World reveals that UK care homes need to improve their understanding of, and reputation amongst, Britain’s minority ethnic communities. We staged focus groups with people of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian (Hindu) and Black Caribbean ethnicity, who were all considering long term care options for elderly relatives.

We found that in many respects a community’s attitudes to care in old age can be determined by the length of time they have spent in the UK. So people in the Caribbean community, for example, are more open to the idea of paid for care and want to take control of personalised care budgets, whereas more recent arrivals, such as some from the Bangladeshi community, are more reticent and have less desire to control their own finances for care. We also uncovered a stigma amongst communities of South Asian ethnicity (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi), where putting older members of the family into care is seen as a dereliction of duty.

Furthermore, across the board the minority ethnic communities we spoke to believe that care homes won’t cater to their specific cultural, dietary or religious needs. Some fear that regular prayer won’t be possible or that care staff won’t speak the same language as the people in their care.

The truth is that there is good practice out there. Some care homes are specifically targeting this market and others have good practices in place to support people from minority communities, but their measures are not well understood. The UK care industry clearly needs to understand and tackle some widely held opinions if it wants to serve an increasingly diverse community. Care homes need to stop being a last resort and start presenting themselves as a positive choice.

To see the full research summary by Linstock and Stimulating World please click here.

Tom Yazdi, Linstock Consultant (tom@linstockcommunications.com)

http://www.linstockcommunications.com

What now for Special Educational Needs?

This month should see the publication of the Government’s green paper on Special Educational Needs (SEN). The development of the long awaited paper has been anything but straightforward. Announced by the Government as far back as last July, it has subsequently been frequently delayed. Yesterday’s publication of the Wolf Report, and Michael Gove’s subsequent glowing praise for its findings, suggests this is a Government keen to exercise greater control over the educational and career paths of lower achieving students. But how does this apply to those with SEN, given the Report only mentions these people in passing. More specifically, what are the Government’s plans for the education and employment of SEN students with complex disabilities?

The green paper will need to cover these questions and others, but the concern for Government is that whatever is proposed, significant communications challenges will present themselves. Special educational needs is an emotive topic. This is amplified when narrowed down to discussions on those with multiple and complex disabilities. For a Government struggling to address criticism over its programme of spending cuts, SEN is a real minefield. Cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance and the possible reform of the Disability Living Allowance, have led to accusations that the Government is unwilling to protect society’s most vulnerable while belts are being tightened. Another delay to the green paper may be seen as a snub too far and risks sending a message to parents that their children are an afterthought on the political agenda. Given Cameron’s very public statements of commitment on SEN, including pledging to remove the perceived ‘inclusion bias’ within the system, this could be especially damaging. Equally, if proposals are perceived as too hard on those with the most complex learning difficulties, there is a danger the Government will be portrayed as callous. Given the lengths the Conservatives in particular have gone to ‘detoxify’ their image, the green paper therefore presents a substantial challenge.

This is clearly a Government with a number of pressing issues, but there are increasing murmurs that it has bitten off more than it can chew with its legislative programme. Last week’s announcement that the Higher Education White Paper would be delayed demonstrates the difficulty the Government is having juggling a collection of contentious issues. Time isn’t the only factor here of course. Delays also point to the inherent difficulties associated with developing legislation as part of a Coalition, even when all parties appear to be singing from the same sheet.

For those working within the realm of SEN, the green paper cannot come soon enough. Department for Education statistics show last year nearly 1.5 million students with SEN were yet to receive statements outlining the support they would receive. This of course doesn’t include the numerous tribunal cases involving parents unhappy with their child’s statement. The system, if not at breaking point, is being severely bent. Details of exactly what will be in the green paper remain, unhelpfully, shady. Proposals such as the introduction of personal budgets have proved hard to reach a consensus on, not least among parent representative groups. Whether or not the green paper includes more ambitious arrangements regarding SEN employability remains unclear. What is certain is that SEN services need clarity of purpose and direction. The Government will need to ensure its messaging offers similar clarity when the paper is finally revealed.

John Hood, Linstock Consultant (john@linstockcommunications.com)

http://www.linstockcommunications.com/

Davos – more than just an economics conference?

Earlier this year 2,000 of the world’s richest and most powerful people descended on Davos for the 41st annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. More than twelve hundred senior executives from 69 countries rubbed shoulders with leading politicians including David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as Bill and Melinda Gates, Google co-founder Larry Page, steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal and even the odd celebrity. But despite the high profile attendees, you could be forgiven for asking just what the point of Davos is.

The media coverage of Davos starts weeks before the conference begins, as companies and spokespeople talk about what they expect to see on the Davos agenda and potential outcomes of the event. The conference is probably the biggest platform in the world for commentary on global trends and development of new ideas, and the discussions start early. Indeed, this advance coverage is arguably more insightful and effective than anything that comes out of the conference itself: for all the hype, Davos produces very little in concrete terms. Despite the most powerful politicians and business leaders in the world gathering together, there are almost never any major policy decisions or product launches made at the conference itself.

However, that is not to say that the conference is not a worthwhile endeavour or an important meeting on the global calendar. One of the most important aspects of Davos is the networking opportunities it affords, and one can only guess at the number of business deals governments and companies agree in the mountain air. But the event also provides a unique opportunity for smaller organisations to draw attention to important issues. By lobbying key figures who will be attending and offering journalists insightful and timely commentary on global topics, firms can ensure that the world’s leaders are aware of and discussing the subjects that are important to them.

Davos also provides an opportunity for organisations to be creative in approaching key influencers in their fields. Hosting parties, running workshops or organising unusual events can provide otherwise almost impossible access to the world’s most powerful people. For instance, for the past few years Crossroads Global Village, which works to support welfare organisations around the world, has partnered with UNHCR, the United Nations’ refugee agency, and Global Risk Forum to host Refugee Run. Through this simulation event, world leaders such as Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon have experienced life as a refugee.

Likewise, Davos can provide a unique platform for leaders to change the world for the better. For instance, former Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal claims that his country did not go to war with Greece when tensions between the two countries escalated in 1987 because he had met his Greek counterpart Andreas Papandreou at Davos the year before and knew he could trust him. More recently, rock star Bono and billionaire couple Bill and Melinda Gates used this year’s meeting to secure millions of pounds of investment for polio vaccinations.

Critics still argue that despite all the publicity and media coverage, Davos achieves very little in terms of solving the world’s problems. But as BBC Business Editor Tim Weber points out “that’s not what it’s been designed for. The event is a talking shop, a networking event – but one that can set the agenda, generate new ideas, build bridges.” By having the kinds of discussions that are possible at Davos, global leaders can be inspired to act differently and maybe, just maybe, transform the world in the process.

Jo Nussbaum, Linstock Consultant (jo@linstockcommunications.com)

http://www.linstockcommunications.com/