Unpaid carers - right to breaks and timescales for support plans: consultation analysis

Transitional arrangements - prioritising carers in greatest need

Consultation Paper Question 15

• Minimise significant negative impacts from their caring role on their health and wellbeing; relationships with others; and life balance; and
• help to support their priority personal outcomes in these same areas”.

Do you agree with using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks” as proposed above, to prioritise carers in the greatest need while the new right is bedding in?

• Yes
• No

Please explain the reasons for your answer.”

We received 400 responses to this question.

While two thirds of respondents, including participants in the co-design engagement discussions, agreed with using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks”, there was a significant difference between different respondent groups. A clear majority of individual responses were in favour and 58% of third sector organisations agreed, but the majority of statutory respondents disagreed.

Those in favour of having an interim definition largely offered the same main reasons across the groups:

• It allowed greater prioritisation of carers with the most urgent or significant needs from the outset
• It offered a pragmatic approach for services and staff to adapt and expand continuously while still meeting increased demand
• It supported transition to the new system to begin right away
• It could help reduce occurrences of carer burnout or breakdown of caring arrangements.

Reasons respondents gave for opposing this proposal include the following:

• Concerns about the language of the proposed definition and that this may be open to interpretation, leading to a variation in approach between areas
• It challenges an early intervention approach by focusing on highest need or those experiencing crisis, temporarily creating a two-tier system
• The interim definition alone would not address existing capacity challenges faced and that funding and staff capacity were required as well
• Concerns that the interim definition would become the permanent approach
• The risk of confusion for carers

Consultation Paper Question 16

We received 267 responses to this question, including 5 simply stating that they were unsure.

The most commonly mentioned benefits and risks largely repeat the key reasons mentioned in question 15, however we have included the most common responses below. This also reflects feedback we heard during engagement sessions:

Benefits:

• Allowing prioritisation of carers with the greatest need
• This would support a person-centred approach
• Supporting delivery of a manageable implementation for practitioners
• Reduces risk of high demand by enabling services to increase gradually
• It could minimise the number of carers experiencing burnout or crisis
• It would provide opportunities to test and improve the system for meaningful and effective delivery of the right

These responses tended to highlight the balance between ensuring carers get the right support and enabling services to deliver it in a meaningful way, with scope to prioritise.

Risks:

• This could be seen as moving away from a preventative approach to support
• Concern that the language was too open to interpretation and could risk unclear decision-making
• Concern that an interim approach might become permanent
• Carers who still need support could be excluded or face a longer wait to access support
• This may damage relationships between carers if some are temporarily excluded

There was significant overlap between these concerns and the challenges raised at question 15, highlighting priority areas to be considered, should this approach be followed.

Consultation Paper Question 17

• set at the outset to provide certainty, e.g. 3 years
• guided by monitoring and evaluation of take-up, to ensure systems are geared up to support a greater number of carers?”

We received 384 responses to this question.

Two thirds of responses favoured being guided by monitoring and evaluation versus one third preferring a fixed timeline from the outset. These proportions were similar across all of the response groups. Only one group involved in an engagement event shared feedback on this question. It also supported an evaluation approach.