The Development of Direct Payments in the UK: Implications for Social Justice

Abstract

Direct payments have been heralded by the disability movement as an important means to achieving independent living and hence greater social justice for disabled people through enhanced recognition as well as financial redistribution. Drawing on data from the ESRC funded project Disabled People and Direct Payments: A UK Comparative Perspective, this paper presents an analysis of policy and official statistics on use of direct payments across the UK. It is argued that the potential of direct payments has only partly been realised as a result of very low and uneven uptake within and between different parts of the UK. This is accounted for in part by resistance from some Labour-controlled local authorities, which regard direct payments as a threat to public sector jobs. In addition, access to direct payments has been uneven across impairment groups. However, from a very low base there has been a rapid expansion in the use of direct payments over the past three years. The extent to which direct payments are able to facilitate the ultimate goal of independent living for disabled people requires careful monitoring.

Direct Payments in England: Factors Linked to Variations in Local Provision

“…Information exchange, system organisation inflexibilities, concomitant 'excessive bureaucracy' and a lack of management leadership are portrayed as keys to understanding 'poor performance' (Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2004a). Other commentators have tended to emphasise wider resource constraints, process complexities, local party political traditions, surfeits of social movement activism and conflicts between the interests of workers, carers and users as the central disabling factors (Glendinning et al, 2000a;Barnes et al, 2004;Spandler, 2004;Riddell et al, 2005).…”

The Boundaries of Budgets: Why should individuals make spending choices about their health and social care?

“…The National Personal Budget survey found that the 'single most commonly commented upon issue in the survey was a lack of clarity, often regarding how money could or couldn't be used, but also concerning other aspects of personal budgets as well' (Hatton and Waters 2011: 19). Inequalities in the capacity of citizens to navigate complex care systems have been a concern raised by many people, particularly in the context of personal budgets (Riddell et al 2005;Barnes 2008;Glendinning 2008;Slasberg and Hatton 2011). Advocates of personalisation argue that the care systems that predated personal budgets were themselves characterised by complexity, lack of transparency and inequity.…”

End-users, Public Services, and Industrial Relations: The Restructuring of Social Services in Ontario

“…Specifically, Pedlar and her colleagues found that privatization and the emergence of for-profit service providers forced all agencies within the sector to maximize revenues and lower costs. The disabilities studies literature has also considered the implications of government restructuring on direct support workers and acknowledged conflicting social justice frames between disability advocates and union activists (Riddell et al, 2005).…”