The closure of the day centre at Wellington House, in Brighton, risks costing much more than the £340,000 saving outlined in a Brighton and Hove City Council report.
Brighton and Hove Unison has warned the council about the financial and other risks in response to a consultation about the proposed closure of Wellington House.
We have also seen evidence that suggests that the council may have “predetermined” the decision, contrary to the law governing consultations, and has ignored ways to generate extra revenue.
It looks to have loaded the costs to make the day centre at Wellington House seem more expensive than private sector and third sector alternatives.
The council’s cabinet is due to decide the day centre’s future at a meeting tomorrow (Thursday 17 September).
At Brighton and Hove Unison, we represent the majority of staff at the day centre and we strongly oppose the proposal to close Wellington House for a number of reasons.
We have held several meetings with the staff, parents and carers who look after some of the most vulnerable adults in Brighton and Hove.
But this is not just about individuals. Wellington House is a family and a community that has grown over decades. This simply cannot be replicated by farming service users out to a number of external providers.
We believe there is a strong risk in cutting this provision without having properly done a needs assessment of adults with learning disabilities in the city who aren’t currently engaging with day services and the financial implications of them not accessing quality day care. This cohort can and should be identified and encouraged to access Wellington House.
The financial risks associated with often-fragile home-care relationships breaking down and the council then having to fulfil its statutory duty to provide residential care are considerable. Just one premature breakdown in home-care would wipe out most of this saving in one year.
The workforce at Wellington House is one of the most experienced and skilled teams in terms of supporting service users with complex needs. Losing this team would be a huge drain of talent and organisational knowledge.
There is considerable evidence that the potential of Wellington House has not been explored and that there has been neglect and decline in the management and support of the service.
There is a huge amount of untapped potential and that should be given time to be explored and developed.
The risks include
- External providers will not have the capacity and experience both in terms of infrastructure and workforce to deal with the level and complexity of need of this service user group.
- That any needs assessments will be invalid by the time the current Wellington House service users access another service.
- The medium and long-term cost increase risks due to subsequent breakdown in home-care relationships.
- Reputational damage at a time where insourcing and excellent provision of community owned services and provision is seen so favourably by the public.
As a trade union that also represents hundreds of Brighton and Hove members working in the private / charitable / voluntary sector in the city we know that many not-for-profit and charitable providers are struggling with the increased costs of national insurance and the spike in the cost of some goods and services.
We are aware that many providers are in financial stress, reducing their workforces and liquidising some of their assets.
This means the sustainability and quality of the service is harder to ensure than keeping delivery in house.
There is also a risk of providers ‘over-promising’ to win contracts that they then struggle to deliver on.
In terms of promoting equality and inclusion, the council opens itself up to several risks if it closes the centre.
The people who use the centre are not just unit costs. They are human beings. This decision should be based on what is best for them, not what saves money.
This is one of the most vulnerable and potentially isolated groups in society and the council has already experienced reputational damage around this suggested closure.
The health and wellbeing outcomes for people with severe learning disabilities are profoundly worse than for the general population.
Staff at Wellington House are already raising alarm that some of the service users will be profoundly affected by a decision to close and their behaviours and wellbeing are likely to sharply decline.
They are also significantly more likely to experience poor mental health, loneliness, social isolation, bullying and poverty. Wellington House is quite simply the best and most protective place for them to be.
This closure should be stopped or at least shelved until a proper assessment of alternative models and ideas can be fully explored, actioned and assessed.
We know that stakeholders, including the workforce, learning disability organisations in the city and parents, carers and family members have given some excellent alternative suggestions.
We believe these have included making Wellington House a centre for excellence around learning disabilities which could include proactively attracting more referrals to bring down costs per head, allowing external providers to spot purchase spaces for more challenging service users and the potential to hire out space and resources for activities.
From talking to staff and evidence we have seen from emails and communications from managers, the centre has, intentionally or not, been allowed to slowly decline by managers outside of the frontline workforce.
There is also evidence that parents who have expressed a desire for their children to attend the centre have had their requests not actioned raising serious questions around transparency and intent.
While the workforce has become demoralised over time, their commitment and passion for the work they do has not dimmed.
If given the opportunity they would be skilled and active participants in developing and growing the service and improving its efficiency. More than anything, they want to see their family kept together.
Corinna Edwards-Colledge is the joint branch secretary of Brighton and Hove Unison.
Thanks for your excellent article Corrine. I agree with everything you say here. I have written letters to Councillors about this and I will be writing more in the coming days.
Corrine arguments here relies heavily on emotional appeals, overgeneralisations, and unsubstantiated claims; such as asserting external providers lack capacity or that closure would inevitably increase costs, without providing comparative evidence, addressing opportunity costs, or engaging constructively with proposed alternatives, although she does highlight important human and organisational considerations.