Care Crisis in a Shrinking Town
The town of Kyritz in Brandenburg has 17,500 inhabitants; 27% are over 65. Its only care home has 74 beds, but 12 beds are closed because 9 of 31 nursing posts are vacant. The municipal home runs an annual deficit of EUR 1.8 million; the town budget is EUR 3.4 million in deficit. A private equity firm offers to buy the home, invest EUR 2.5 million, but cut the night staffing ratio from 1:2.5 to 1:3.2 and leave the collective agreement. The county must decide by June whether to sell, close, or restructure the home. A relatives' group wants municipal ownership; the staff union demands collective pay; the state says no extra care funds before 2027. The federal care insurance pays fixed rates that cover only 78% of actual costs.
1. Analyse the conflict using the social state principle and the goal of intergenerational justice, and identify the criteria the county should use.
Read the worked answer
The social state principle in Articles 20(1) and 28(1) of the Basic Law requires public authorities to ensure a minimum of social provision, including care for older people. It does not dictate who owns the care home, but it does require that access, quality, and human dignity are protected. Intergenerational justice adds a second test: the costs of care should not be shifted unfairly onto younger taxpayers, but the needs of the older generation should not be sacrificed to short-term budget consolidation. The county should use five criteria. Access means whether residents can remain near their families and social networks. Quality means staffing ratios, training, and time for personal care. Dignity means privacy, participation, and protection from neglect. Fiscal sustainability means the long-term cost to the town, including social assistance and hospital costs if the home closes. Staff justice means collective pay, manageable workloads, and the ability to fill vacancies. The private equity offer may bring capital, but cutting the night ratio and leaving the collective agreement threatens quality and staff retention. Closing the home may push residents 30 kilometres away. Municipal ownership preserves control but may not solve the structural funding gap. The conflict is therefore not simply public versus private; it is about which model can meet the criteria under the current financing rules.
2. Evaluate the three options of sale, closure, and restructuring, and recommend a decision with justification.
Read the worked answer
Sale to private equity. The EUR 2.5 million investment and continued operation are attractive, but the lower night staffing ratio and the end of the collective agreement create risks of quality decline, staff exit, and higher future social costs. A sale could be acceptable only with enforceable quality conditions, staffing floors, transparency, and a right of repurchase if targets are missed. Closure. This saves the town the EUR 1.8 million annual deficit but shifts costs to families, hospitals, and the county. It also contradicts the social state principle if no adequate alternative places exist. Closure should be a last resort, with a managed transfer of residents. Restructuring under municipal or cooperative ownership. This preserves local control and dignity but requires a funding solution: the state must provide bridge funding, the county must raise its contribution, and the home must improve recruitment through pay and training. Judgement. A regulated sale is better than closure only if quality is guaranteed; otherwise, a county-led restructuring with state bridge funding is preferable. The decisive criteria are quality and access for residents, not the headline purchase price. The county should also press for federal care insurance reform, because the 78% cost coverage is the structural cause of the deficit.