Scaling up early interventions to prevent social care needs escalating could save the public purse £11 billion within six years, according to research.
But despite a boost in council funding next year, local authorities warn that demand for urgent care alongside increases in wages and national insurance mean they will find it difficult to invest in key initiatives to help people maintain health, independence and avoid crisis.
Analysis by the Labour-led Local Government Association of the impact of 10 early interventions, including physical activity, social prescribing, housing support and community-based care, showed they delivered savings of £3.17 for every pound spent on them.
If this performance was scaled up across all local authority areas, the interventions would generate a net benefit of approximately £7.6 billion, the study published to coincide with the National Children and Adult Services Conference found.
This scenario would cost an estimated £3.5 billion for all single-tier and county councils in England to implement at an average of £25 million per council, but it could provide an estimated return of up to £11.1 billion in overall savings to these councils, the NHS and the voluntary sector.
The analysis found that almost all the savings would be delivered within six years of implementation, with more than 90% of forecasted savings made in the first three years.
The Time to Act Reform Board, which includes local government and care organisation leaders, said the forthcoming spending review “presents a critical opportunity” for the Government to invest in prevention to secure significant long-term savings across the public sector, while supporting people “to live the lives they want to lead”.
Preventing ill health and crisis is a key feature of the Government’s “mission-led” approach to national renewal.
But the LGA said it was “disappointing” that the Chancellor did not provide dedicated funding in the Budget for preventative initiatives that would improve lives and reduce costs.
It added that additional funding was also needed to address “urgent care challenges”, such as long assessment waits, and councils’ “severe and unprecedented” funding and demand pressures.
The LGA said the additional £600 million announced in the Budget for 2025/26 would be largely absorbed by the rising costs of the national living wage and and national insurance increases.
“Immediate adequate investment is needed in order to address unmet and under-met need and ensure timely access to social care for all who need it,” it added.
David Fothergill, chair of the LGA’s community well-being board, said: “Properly funded preventative services would mean councils, working closely with partners and people drawing on support, can maximise the impact of their resources and address community needs.
“This will also drive down demand for more expensive acute health and social care support.
“This report brings together a coalition of support for people with lived experience and other partners in the sector, which shows the importance of prevention being embedded as a core element of health and care systems, rather than being treated as a supplementary service only supported when budgets allow.”
Clenton Farquharson, associate director at Think Local Act Personal, said investment was not just about reducing future costs.
He added: “It’s about supporting people’s ability to live the lives they want and to flourish.
“By focusing on earlier action and support, we can build a system rooted in independence, resilience and equity.
“This is our moment to align vision with action, empowering councils, communities, and people to co-create a future where everyone thrives.”
The Government has been approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here