Key recommendations > Local authorities should implement the full ambition of the Care Act’s prevention duties. > The Government should look again at what resources are required to enable local authorities to implement these new duties in a meaningful way. > Every Health and Wellbeing Board should fully incorporate and prioritise prevention in their joint health and wellbeing strategies. > Decision-makers across health and social care should recognise that prevention is about more than just stopping a condition or illness arising. It is about preventing, reducing and delaying needs and associated costs. > Decision-makers across health and social care should use the Care Act’s triple definition of prevention as the basis of their preventative planning. Key findings > Prevention is an evident consideration in local strategies and plans. All but one of the joint health and wellbeing strategies mention prevention, and more than 80 per cent of local authorities have developed or are in the process of developing a local approach to prevention. > Yet, while prevention is better understood and emphasised than last year, the term ‘prevention’ is still understood differently across the country. This is despite the Care Act’s triple definition of prevention. > Thirty-seven per cent of joint health and wellbeing strategies still do not incorporate a full understanding of prevention. Prevention should be seen as an ongoing consideration and not a single activity or intervention > All too often, joint health and wellbeing strategies fail to recognise tertiary types of prevention. Many of the strategies understand prevention only as minimising the risk of people developing care and support needs (primary prevention), or as targeting people at high risk of developing needs (secondary prevention). > Local authorities have responded to Section 2 of the Care Act in a range of ways. > The majority of local authorities report making changes to the structures and processes that frame their provision of preventative services. These changes include creating new boards and roles, revising procedures, and reviewing guidance and training. > Over a third of local authorities report ‘developing or investing in new services’. However, many have yet to translate structure and process change into enhanced provision. 7 > Local authorities have yet to be ‘truly innovative in the services offered in their area’ . Services cited as ‘new’ tend to be those seed-funded by Government over the last ten to 15 years, such as telecare and handyperson’s services. > And in some cases, local authorities are conflating their duty to provide information and advice with their duty to prevent needs for care and support. These are two distinct duties, which should be distinguished in local strategies and plans. > Local decision makers emphasise the practical difficulties of shifting resources from crisis intervention to prevention, especially in the current economic climate. This Red Cross report is intended to help decision makers make this transition. It provides a national picture of local developments, and highlights areas of good practice. 7. Earl Howe, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health (3 July 2013): publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130703-0003.htm British Red Cross Prevention in action [email protected] l l 7