Scope is proposing to close 11 of its 37 care homes in a move that will affect 190 disabled residents and around 400 staff.
Scope’s chief executive Richard Hawkes admits that the decision is unpopular with some residents and their families, yet he is convinced that it is the best decision for the charity’s beneficiaries and for disabled people more generally.
He said the charity has identified these 11 homes as those that provide the least opportunities for people to live independently, either because of the numbers of people housed in them or because of their physical location in remote areas.
Scope’s new strategic plan envisages a world where disabled people have the same opportunities as everyone else, and its activities are designed specifically to realise this vision. This has led the board of trustees to completely review its services portfolio over the last couple of years and to propose this radical change.
Hawkes said that many of the homes operated by charities and other institutional care providers around the country are a hangover from a previous era when disabled people tended to be housed, schooled and employed only with other disabled people – and often in premises in remote locations. “It was a case of out of sight, out of mind,” Hawkes said.
But Scope is determined to boost the profile of disability and of disabled people, to use its influence and services to create a society where people with disabilities live and work alongside those without, and have the same opportunities to lead fulfilling lives.
Care homes “in the middle of nowhere” where disabled residents have lived for up to 30 or 40 years with other disabled people only, do not fit into this strategy, Hawkes said.
Not only that, disabled people are not choosing to live in such places any more, he added, so as older residents pass on, the homes are gradually becoming economically unviable.
Consulting with residents
Scope has begun consulting with the residents and their families, the staff, and the 90 local authorities that fund the care of the residents. Each resident will be offered a personal advocate, funded by Scope, to help them consider alternative care options.
The homes included in the review currently generate £10.2m in social care fees for Scope and the charity has budgeted to spend £3.8m over the course of the three-year closure programme. This is mainly the cost of planning, running and supporting residents and staff through the 11 consultations and the cost of implementing the outcomes – including redundancy payments for affected employees.
A property consultant will be recruited soon to work with the existing property team to devise a strategy to maximise returns from the homes that are closed.
A tough decision
Hawkes conceded that it wasn’t an easy choice to make. “It’s really hard - some of the service users and their families are traumatised, because it’s massive change for them." That’s why the charity will pay for every resident to have the support of an independent advocate to help them weigh up their future options – even though it has no statutory duty to do so.
“We will do it because it is the right thing to do,” he said. “It’s the right thing for us to spend charitable money on.”
Drop in income anticipated
In tandem with the closure plans, Scope is also beefing up some of its other services and creating new ones that will allow disabled people to live more independent lives. Not all of the affected care home residents will continue to use Scope services so there is a good chance that Scope will lose a big chunk of the income provided by local authorities for the beneficiaries.
But Hawkes is not at all fazed by that prospect. “We will lose some turnover by closing these services and we will increase turnover from some of our other services and fundraising activities. If the net result is that our turnover reduces then so what? I think that is a positive thing, because we are making the right strategic decisions.
“I am really proud that we have got Scope to a place where we have the confidence to make difficult bold decisions like this. Lots of charities would not be prepared to make decisions as big as this.”
