Cultures of welfare at the front line: implementing direct payments for disabled people in the UK

Priestley, Mark; Riddell, Sheila; Jolly, Debbie; Pearson, Charlotte; Williams, Victoria; Barnes, Colin; Mercer, Geof

doi:10.1332/030557309x477956

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From 1997 to 2003, various attempts were made by the then Scottish Executive and Westminster Governments to reignite policy, but uptake was never more than marginal (Priestley et al . ).…”

Section: From Direct Payments To Self‐directed Supportmentioning

confidence: 97%

Is Personalization the Right Plan at the Wrong Time? Re‐thinking Cash‐for‐Care in an Age of Austerity

Pearson

Ridley

2016

Soc Policy Adm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As personalization has dominated the policy agenda for reform in social care, its roll-out as a mainstream option has coincided with global programmes of austerity which have targeted services for disabled people. Was this simply bad timing or was its implementation always part of the agenda for reform? Whilst the principle of cash-for-care schemes drew strongly on promoting the independence and autonomy of disabled people, early incarnations of direct payments policy in the UK were initially at least in part rolled out in light of potential cost savings to social care budgets. This article explores these and other issues in light of evaluations of the Scottish government's self-directed support (SDS) test sites (2009-11) and implementation of subsequent legislation enforcing models of SDS in Scotland from April 2014. Discussion draws on the authors' recent book (Pearson et al. 2014) to reflect on what the evidence can tell us about radically transforming social care at a time of global austerity.

show abstract

“…From 1997 to 2003, various attempts were made by the then Scottish Executive and Westminster Governments to reignite policy, but uptake was never more than marginal (Priestley et al . ).…”

Section: From Direct Payments To Self‐directed Supportmentioning

confidence: 97%

Is Personalization the Right Plan at the Wrong Time? Re‐thinking Cash‐for‐Care in an Age of Austerity

Pearson

Ridley

2016

Soc Policy Adm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Labour market variations and different patterns of service availability may contribute to delays or difficulties in setting up support (Carers UK, 2008;Daly & Roebuck, 2008;Newbronner et al, 2011). These challenges may affect some areas particularly, for example some rural areas, although personalised funding may improve care worker recruitment, perhaps by offering better terms and conditions to local workers (National Mental Health Development Unit (NMHDU), 2010; Priestley et al, 2010).…”

Section: Personalised Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relocation, portability and social care practice: A scoping review

White

Marsland

Manthorpe

2016

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The portability of publicly-funded adult social care across local authority boundaries received recent policy attention in England and was addressed in the Care Act 2014. This article presents the findings of a scoping review conducted between July-September 2012 that searched selected journals and online databases for relevant material. The aim of the review was to identify what is known about the experiences of adults entitled to publicly-funded social care who move between local authorities, and the support provided by social workers to those planning to relocate. The review focused specifically on disabled adults and carers, eligible for and in receipt of social care support, who relocate for work or education in England.Findings: The review identified little direct research covering experiences of moving between local authorities. However, six specific barriers, challenges and facilitators to relocation were identified; these included the portability of social care support, variations in policy and practice between local authorities, and housing availability. The review concludes that the process of relocation may be complex, challenging, and uncertain, although individuals may experience benefits and positive outcomes.Applications: The review outlines areas for good social work practice in supporting people using social care services to relocate. These include: ensuring the provision of information; close working between local authorities and social workers; the Downloaded from development of interim plans to address potential delays in setting up support; proactive and rapid monitoring and reassessment following a move to address potentially changed support needs arising from changed housing circumstances.

show abstract

“…LAs receive some grants for specified services that are deemed to be national priorities, and as well as general grants. For the latter, LAs have considerable autonomy to decide on the division of funds and the commissioning arrangements among the elements of the service they provide (Priestley et al 2010).…”

Section: Inequity In Social Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the latter, LAs have considerable autonomy to decide on the division of funds and the commissioning arrangements among the elements of the service they provide (Priestley et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Equity in social care for people with intellectual disabilities? A cross-sectional study examining the distribution of social care funding across local authorities in England

Chinn

Levitan

Murrells

2016

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many people with intellectual disabilities rely on social care provision, though little research has looked at how access to such provision is distributed nationally. Evidence from children's services suggests that there are large discrepancies between local authorities (LAs) in terms of the resources expended on interventions with children and families, which can be explained by variations linked to geographical location, namely the level of socioeconomic deprivation between LAs, constituting 'child welfare inequalities'. This study explored relationships between resources allocated to community services for people with intellectual disabilities in England and geographical factors, including deprivation, rurality and political leadership in the LAs where these individuals reside. Data were sourced from publicly available reports of spending of 151 English councils with adult social services responsibilities (CASSRs) for 2013-2014 and from CASSR index of multiple deprivation (IMD) scores and rurality for the same period. We found that more deprived LAs supported more people with intellectual disabilities, per 100,000 of population. We did not find effects for rurality or political party. However, it was not the case that more deprived LAs allocated more funds for expenditure on this group. These findings point to inequities in the distribution of social care resources for people with intellectual disabilities in England, as although more deprived LAs support more people with intellectual disabilities, they do not spend proportionally larger sums of money on this group. We discuss possible explanations for these findings and highlight the need for more research, particularly investigations about allocation of resources within LAs and more detailed explorations of how structural factors such as socioeconomic status of service users effects service access at the local level.

show abstract

Cultures of welfare at the front line: implementing direct payments for disabled people in the UK

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Is Personalization the Right Plan at the Wrong Time? Re‐thinking Cash‐for‐Care in an Age of Austerity

Is Personalization the Right Plan at the Wrong Time? Re‐thinking Cash‐for‐Care in an Age of Austerity

Relocation, portability and social care practice: A scoping review

Equity in social care for people with intellectual disabilities? A cross-sectional study examining the distribution of social care funding across local authorities in England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About