Do we need more men working in the care sector?

Jane Ashcroft, chief executive of Anchor

John MacInnes and Jeroen Spijker, researchers at Edinburgh University

YES

A report published by the International Longevity Centre-UK (ILC-UK) and Anchor has called for more men to be recruited into the care sector to tackle a ‘staffing time bomb’ caused by a predicted rise in older people requiring social care in the near future.

The Future of Care Workforce has predicted one million extra care workers need to be recruited to ensure the UK can meet the growing needs of its ageing population.

The charity Anchor warned if current trends continue, England could face a shortfall of 718,000 care workers by 2025.

Jane Ashcroft, chief executive of Anchor, said: “We must address this workforce time bomb. The care sector needs to attract a wider range of staff: young and old, and we need more men to consider care as a potential career – particularly as men are living longer. Our workforce should reflect the diversity of our customers.

“At Anchor we are creating roles ranging from care assistants through to managerial positions at our new developments. We offer extensive training and promotion prospects that we hope will continue to encourage people to consider joining and staying in the care workforce.” Anchor has committed to create 1,000 extra jobs over the next three years to meet the demands of the ageing population."

The report claims the gap in carers could be filled by men and older workers, who might have not previously considered a working in care as a career for them.

NO

There is no need to fill the gap in carers with men and older workers as the ‘staffing time bomb’ does not exist, according to researchers from Edinburgh University.

Professor John MacInnes and senior research fellow Jeroen Spijker said projections on the number of ageing people who are likely to be in need of social care are lower than expected, and dismissed the threat of a future care crisis.

The ‘old age dependency ratio’, calculated by dividing the number of people who have reached state pension age by the number of people of working age, which is relied on by demographic experts to indicate the number of people who might require extra care, has been criticised by the researchers.

They said: "[The measure] counts neither the number of dependent older people nor the number who sustain them. It merely takes a cut-off point (the state pension age) and assigns adults to the two sides of the ratio accordingly.

“This might be a useful rule of thumb if the relative size of these two age groups tracked the volume of old age dependency, but it does not.

“We propose an alternative measure that gives a more accurate and very different picture and consider the implications of our results for health policy."

The study pointed out previous assessments have overlooked the impact of technological advances in the healthcare sector and the positive effect of developing professional approaches on the number of people requiring levels of social care.

Researchers have created a new way to calculate what they believe to be a more accurate prediction of the size of the dependent older population, after claiming the number of people dependent on care has actually fallen in recent years.