Direct Payments and Disabled People in the UK: Supply, Demand and Devolution

Crime and risk: Contested territory for risk theorising

“…Similar actuarial trends can be found within social work for example Priestley et al, 2007 on risk assessment in adult care; and the increasing actuarialism of child protection (Kemshall, 2010), and in broader community responses to risk. Risk prevention is also taking place at the level of communities as well as families and individuals, for example Nottingham is now an early intervention city in the UK, and the USA is targeting high-crime 'million dollar blocks' (Simon, 2007;Hilary Armstrong, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thirdsector/news, accessed 7th May 2008).…”

Disabled people and self‐directed support schemes: reconceptualising work and welfare in the 21st century

“…The research was conducted by leading centres for disability research in England and Scotland and it explored national and local variations in the implementation of direct payments and the power relations that underpin these differences. The research concluded that although direct payments represent a major policy and service departure for disabled people, there is a postcode lottery of availability that reflects differential levels of commitment on the part of provider agencies and professionals, rather than reflecting the personal preferences of disabled people at local service levels (Priestley et al 2007). …”

Individual Budgets: Lessons from Early Users' Experiences

“…However, take-up of DPs has been low (CSCI 2005, Priestley et al, 2006 and since April 2003 local authorities have been required to offer DPs to all social care service users.…”

“…There nevertheless remains considerable variation in take-up between different groups of service users (Leason and Sale, 2004;Vick, 2004, 2005) and within and between different parts of the UK (Priestley et al, 2006). The underlying causes of this slow and patchy growth include local differences in political culture, reluctance on the part of local councils to relinquish control, fears of job losses, concerns about cost, risk-adverse professional practice and uncertainties about the capacities of service users (Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2004;Ellis, 2007;Fernandez et al, 2007;Hasler 2003;Priestley et al, 2006).…”

“…The underlying causes of this slow and patchy growth include local differences in political culture, reluctance on the part of local councils to relinquish control, fears of job losses, concerns about cost, risk-adverse professional practice and uncertainties about the capacities of service users (Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2004;Ellis, 2007;Fernandez et al, 2007;Hasler 2003;Priestley et al, 2006). From the perspective of potential users, lack of information and practical support, anxieties about recruiting and employing personal assistants and "paper work" (Spandler and Vick, 2004) are further reasons for low take-up.…”