Changing English Local Authority Duties by the Adoption of Easements in the COVID-19 Pandemic;Findings from an Interview-Based Study

ABSTRACT

As part of the government's response to the Coronavirus pandemic, temporary changes were made to the 2014 Care Act. These changes-called 'easements'-reduced the requirement on English local authorities (LAs) to meet some of their usual duties where they were not able to do so either as a result of increased demand or where a large proportion of their workforce was absent. Only eight LAs chose to adopt easements. In the five LAs we studied the decision had been taken in the early stage of the pandemic when there was a considerable degree of uncertainty about how society would be able to respond. LAs were required to provide reasons for the decisions although it appeared that most of the five LAs studied had not faced overwhelming demand and had decided to adopt easements as a precaution. By the end of June 2020, no LA was still using easements. The five LAs in this study concluded they could manage without them, as the majority of LAs were doing. They had dealt with considerable opposition in the press and social media as well as Freedom of Information requests in the face of accusations that by using easements they were denying entitlements to care. With the benefit of hindsight, it is unlikely that they did anything very different from LAs that had not used easements. This article reports findings from a study on the effect of the adjustments or 'easements' that were made to the 2014 Care Act when measures to manage the impact of COVID-19 were introduced in England in 2020. Only eight local authorities (LAs) implemented the changes permitted. The experiences of five are explored in this article. Data were collected in 2021 through interviews with Directors of Adult Social Services and other senior managers in these LAs and analysed using a thematic approach. Participants referred to the challenges under which they were working pre-pandemic, including resource pressures and problems recruiting and retaining staff. Despite the conditions attached to adopting easements these LAs had done so because of the uncertainties they were facing. All ceased to use them within a short time because they could manage without them. They had been shocked by the concerted opposition to easements and the time necessitated in responding to this. They contrasted their experiences with the apparent ease with which NHS colleagues had been able to change their practices. The experiences of these LAs may contribute to planning for the continuity of social care in any future emergency.