Caring communities: How local support can succeed

SBC: You recently organized a symposium on the topic of caring communities: What is meant by “caring communities” – what elements make up a caring community at its core?

Freymuth: Caring communities are not a single project or a fixed measure. Rather, it is a model for how care, support and participation can be shared locally. It is therefore not a question of shifting responsibility either to the state, families or professional services, but of consciously shaping the interaction between the municipality, civil society, neighborhoods, initiatives and professional services.

At its core, this includes six elements: firstly, a broad understanding of care that goes beyond care and focuses on the good life in the community as a whole. Secondly, shared responsibility in the interplay of informal support, voluntary commitment and professional services. Thirdly, a clear reference to the social space, because caring communities always arise in specific places. Fourthly, participation and co-creation instead of mere provision. Fifthly, reliable structures, coordination and resources. And sixthly, the clear boundary that professional care can be supplemented but not replaced.

In short, caring communities stand for a local care practice that strengthens participation, organizes support at an early stage and shares responsibility – publicly framed, but close to people’s living environments.

SBC: Professional care and supply structures are coming under increasing pressure due to a lack of funding and skilled workers. What role do you think caring communities can play in the future – and where are their limits?

Freymuth: In future, caring communities can play a particularly important role where support is needed in everyday life, social integration and orientation in the help system. Their potential lies in reaching people earlier, counteracting loneliness, relieving the burden on family members and creating bridges between advice, care, social support and local life. They can therefore stabilize, network and make care more reliable, especially in the run-up to and around care.

However, their limits are just as clear. Caring communities must not be misunderstood as a cost-cutting model or as a substitute for professional care. The state remains responsible for creating sustainable framework conditions, and professional care remains indispensable where professionalism, responsibility and quality assurance are required. Where these boundaries are blurred, there is a risk of excessive demands, social inequality and a shift of responsibility to private areas.

SBC: The possible applications of Caring Communities sound very diverse. Where do you think the greatest leverage currently lies?

Freymuth: I see the greatest leverage in well-coordinated local support. This is precisely where several decisive effects come together: People find suitable help earlier, transitions between hospital, counseling, care and home become more reliable, and relatives and loved ones are relieved. If there are fixed contact persons, clear information and well-coordinated services, gaps in care can often be avoided before they become crises.

But there is more to it than organization. It is also about a different culture of care: ensuring that people with support needs can live independently in their familiar surroundings for as long as possible and that help does not only come into play when they are already overwhelmed. Prevention is therefore an explicit part of this – i.e. strengthening social integration, preventing loneliness, making needs visible at an early stage and supporting people in doing what they can do for themselves and for others.

I would therefore say that the greatest leverage lies in coordinated, preventative and participation-oriented local support.

SBC: If you look at Germany and Austria, professional structures appear highly regulated (quality assurance, specifications, documentation) – at the same time, an informal area is growing that is difficult to keep track of. Where do you think we currently stand?

Freymuth: We find ourselves in a challenging and tense situation. On the one hand, there are highly regulated professional structures, and for good reason: care is a professionally demanding and responsibility-intensive task. This is precisely why professional resources must be deployed where they are really indispensable. On the other hand, in many places the formal system is already no longer sufficient to reliably cover the growing demand.

At the same time, the informal sector is huge and already provides a great deal of support. Relatives, friends, neighbors and other close people provide a considerable amount of support. Without this informal care, the system would no longer function. The real question is therefore not whether it is professional or informal, but how this interaction can be made fair, reliable and sustainable.

However, I would not deduce from this that the informal sector should be increasingly regulated. Qualification, support, advice and reliable coordination structures are more important. People who take on care need orientation, professional support and contact points that are not only available in the event of a crisis. The key question for the future is therefore: how can professional responsibility, informal care and communal infrastructure work together in such a way that no one is overwhelmed and support remains reliable?

SBC: What developments do you see as particularly critical when you look at the next five years?

Freymuth: I am particularly critical of the fact that we are still acting as if security of supply in care and support can simply be continued with the existing structures. That won’t work. Needs are increasing, the shortage of skilled workers is worsening, family care arrangements are becoming more fragile and social security systems are coming under increasing pressure. If we do not change course here, gaps in care will widen and responsibility will quietly shift to private areas of life.

It is not only the professional dimension that is critical, but also the social dimension. If people lose confidence that they will receive reliable support if they need help or care, this has a very direct impact on social cohesion. That is why we now need to take a realistic view: Neither appeasement nor alarmism, but an honest identification of risks and at the same time the courage to open up scope for action.

‘We can do it’ is possible – but not if we carry on as before. We need a different understanding of care, more coordinated responsibility and a political framework that reliably secures local care.

SBC: You mention that fewer and fewer people are available to provide informal care and support, while demand is increasing. To which target groups is the burden shifting specifically – and who is already bearing it today?

Freymuth: The burden is not being shifted to a single group, but to several levels simultaneously. A large part of the burden is already borne by relatives and other close people who provide support in everyday life and often also provide guidance within the support system. At the same time, this form of support is becoming more fragile – due to demographic changes, employment, mobility and changing family structures.

The pressure is particularly evident for older people with support needs, especially if they live alone and there are no sustainable networks in their immediate environment. At the same time, local authorities are coming under greater pressure because they have to ensure security of supply, advice, coordination and social infrastructure locally – often with limited financial and structural scope.

There is also a social imbalance: additional support, self-organization and good access to help are unevenly distributed. When we talk about shifting the burden, we are therefore not only talking about an increased burden, but also about the risk that it will be borne more unequally in social terms

SBC: What do you think is needed politically and organizationally? In your opinion, what requirements or framework conditions are necessary for caring communities to work?

Freymuth: Politically, what is needed above all is clear public responsibility. Caring communities do not work by themselves and must not be misunderstood as a savings formula. They need reliable funding, professional support and institutional security. Caring communities therefore do not mean a withdrawal of the state, but rather a state that takes its role as guarantor, framework setter and structure provider seriously.

At federal and state level, this means creating a sustainable legal, institutional and financial basis so that integrated approaches are not limited to model projects. This also includes understanding and promoting elderly care and work with the elderly much more strongly as an independent infrastructure of the social space.

For local authorities, the leverage lies in the local social infrastructure: Integrated care and social planning, fixed contact persons, low-threshold advice, visible information, good networks and public meeting places. It is also crucial to overcome silos of responsibility and connect services in such a way that people do not have to navigate laboriously between systems themselves.

Civil society can create relationships, enable participation, strengthen self-organization and support local networks. Their contribution is important – but it must not become an obligation and must not replace professional responsibility.

SBC: Are there any models or practical examples that you consider to be particularly successful? And how do you see what makes a caring community successful?

Freymuth: The practice of caring communities is very heterogeneous. It ranges from small initiatives and neighbourhood networks to districts and social spaces in which the idea of a caring community is implemented more systematically. This diversity is not a shortcoming, but an expression of the fact that such approaches are linked to local conditions, needs and actor constellations.

Such developments can grow from the bottom up, from self-organization and civil society involvement. However, they can also be initiated by local authorities, sponsors or other institutions. It is often a combination of both. The decisive factor is not so much where the impetus comes from, but whether reliable structures emerge from it.

The most important conditions for success are therefore coordination, funding, support, clear roles, accessible information and sufficient time for development and consolidation. If everything depends on highly committed individuals, approaches often remain fragile and end with their commitment. They only become sustainable when responsibility is structurally secured and a new culture of responsibility and care gradually develops.

SBC: Finally, a question about the role and limits of technology: What role can digitalization and technologies play in supporting care and caring communities – and where do you see clear limits?

Freymuth: Digital solutions can support care and caring communities, particularly in terms of information, coordination and access. They can facilitate communication, make services more visible, supplement advice and help to better bring together the need for help and support services.

However, its limits are clear: digitalization is a tool, not a caring community. It can support relationships, but not replace them. Nor can it solve structural problems such as a lack of responsibilities, insufficient funding or inadequate local infrastructure.

For digital solutions to be accepted, they must be low-threshold, suitable for everyday use and recognizably useful. They need easy-to-understand access, real connectivity to local advice and support and people or agencies that provide support in their use. Technology is accepted where it provides concrete relief – not where it creates additional hurdles.

SBC: What are your hopes for the next few years?

Freymuth: I hope that in the coming years, caring communities will no longer be treated as a project idea, but as a permanent task of public services. This requires significantly stronger support for the elderly and work with senior citizens as a reliable, socially anchored infrastructure that enables participation, organizes support at an early stage and prevents crises as far as possible.

At the same time, I would like to see a new culture of responsibility and care: with clear public responsibility, but also with more awareness of what people can do preventively for themselves and for each other. Then a realistic ‘we can do it’ is possible – not by glossing over, but through reliable framework conditions, coordination and the political will to change course.

Thank you very much for the interview!

Click here for the Forum Seniorenarbeit NRW https://www.forum-seniorenarbeit.de

You might also be interested in these articles:

Bruges shows how it’s done: A city becomes dementia-friendly