Unfortunately you're never likely to find
out such information.
Most homes are run by Limited companies and you'll only get a very faint idea of what's going on even if you check the accounts at Companies House (I'll tell you now that the accounts will not give you a realistic picture at all).
Spending on staff is always a confidential subject. It's a trade secret for each business, but approximately 65-75% of all income is spent on staffing as a general rule. Places with more staff (I don't always equate this with better care, but there is normally a close enough link) spend up to 80%.
Profits. As a general rule, next to none, except under those which are run purely as processing units. To give you an idea, I run a business worth well over a million pounds, but some of my staff earn more than me, and I'm a lucky one! Many operators are losing money hand over fist, and they are hoping that the Government will realise before the whole sector goes into crisis.
As a side note to whoever said they shudder when they think that these places are run 'for profit'. I'd rather be in a 99% of privately run homes than in an institution run by the NHS or the local council. The dementia care in those places is shocking. I mean SHOCKING. They are ill equipped to look after people with dementia.I wish CQC would actually hold them to the same standards as us, because they'd get shut down. One rule for them, one for the rest....
Only charities tend to offer superior care, and even those normally ask for 'top-ups' to state funding.
When a local charity asked me why I don't do the same as them, the answer was easy. Many public sector staff, whose job it is to help place individuals, sneer at privately run places, and think asking for a top-up is profiteering, without having a clue about the parlous state of the sector.
One person asked why care homes cost so much. I get paid less all but the very cheapest local B&Bs each week by the Government /Council /NHS. With that money, I have to provide 24/7 nursing care, 3 meals a day, snacks, personal care, a heating bill which would make you cry. The staff also have to be constantly trained, and there is a huge administrative burden from looking after people, documenting it all and meeting the 'needs' of local officials who change the rules on a personal whim.
Sorry for digressing so much! As for staffing ratios. They change constantly according to the needs of residents. Sadly the fee we receive does not reflect this.
Care, care, care
On the issue of care in the community. Care in the Community is a cost saving device. I'm sure some people do benefit from it, but the majority don't. When you add up the administrative costs, the contractor costs, housing benefit and other welfare payments, there is actually very little saving for people who might receive 10 hours care a week in the community, compared to 24/7 care in a home. Thing is that it's different budgets and they don't total up the actual cost.
I'd also like to add that people are only entitled to state funding for dementia care at a far later stage than a few years ago. People who come in for care now have far greater needs than those just a few years ago, but the funding has shown that. They've simply moved the goal posts. I have people who moved in 6-8 years ago who are far fitter and healthier than the people who move in now.
Sorry for such a long winded answer and for trying to answer so many issues in one go, but I hope some people gain a better understanding of the situation in the UK.
Most homes are run by Limited companies and you'll only get a very faint idea of what's going on even if you check the accounts at Companies House (I'll tell you now that the accounts will not give you a realistic picture at all).
Spending on staff is always a confidential subject. It's a trade secret for each business, but approximately 65-75% of all income is spent on staffing as a general rule. Places with more staff (I don't always equate this with better care, but there is normally a close enough link) spend up to 80%.
Profits. As a general rule, next to none, except under those which are run purely as processing units. To give you an idea, I run a business worth well over a million pounds, but some of my staff earn more than me, and I'm a lucky one! Many operators are losing money hand over fist, and they are hoping that the Government will realise before the whole sector goes into crisis.
As a side note to whoever said they shudder when they think that these places are run 'for profit'. I'd rather be in a 99% of privately run homes than in an institution run by the NHS or the local council. The dementia care in those places is shocking. I mean SHOCKING. They are ill equipped to look after people with dementia.I wish CQC would actually hold them to the same standards as us, because they'd get shut down. One rule for them, one for the rest....
Only charities tend to offer superior care, and even those normally ask for 'top-ups' to state funding.
When a local charity asked me why I don't do the same as them, the answer was easy. Many public sector staff, whose job it is to help place individuals, sneer at privately run places, and think asking for a top-up is profiteering, without having a clue about the parlous state of the sector.
One person asked why care homes cost so much. I get paid less all but the very cheapest local B&Bs each week by the Government /Council /NHS. With that money, I have to provide 24/7 nursing care, 3 meals a day, snacks, personal care, a heating bill which would make you cry. The staff also have to be constantly trained, and there is a huge administrative burden from looking after people, documenting it all and meeting the 'needs' of local officials who change the rules on a personal whim.
Sorry for digressing so much! As for staffing ratios. They change constantly according to the needs of residents. Sadly the fee we receive does not reflect this.
Care, care, care
On the issue of care in the community. Care in the Community is a cost saving device. I'm sure some people do benefit from it, but the majority don't. When you add up the administrative costs, the contractor costs, housing benefit and other welfare payments, there is actually very little saving for people who might receive 10 hours care a week in the community, compared to 24/7 care in a home. Thing is that it's different budgets and they don't total up the actual cost.
I'd also like to add that people are only entitled to state funding for dementia care at a far later stage than a few years ago. People who come in for care now have far greater needs than those just a few years ago, but the funding has shown that. They've simply moved the goal posts. I have people who moved in 6-8 years ago who are far fitter and healthier than the people who move in now.
Sorry for such a long winded answer and for trying to answer so many issues in one go, but I hope some people gain a better understanding of the situation in the UK.