Search

Personalisation has dominated social care across OECD countries over the past 20 years. UK policy evolved from the efforts of disabled peoples' organisations (DPOs) to secure the availability of cash payments as part of a wider drive to enable independent living. Implementation of personalisation across the UK has seen significant divergence in how governments have developed their own responses, but in each country the DPOs' role and impact has shifted from campaigning and promoting the voices of disabled people to a more muted focus on service provision and limited policy engagement. This article draws on a series of interviews with DPOs and leading disabled activists. It highlights concerns raised related to themes around austerity, changing relationships with local government and the role of co-production in developing policy. We conclude the article by discussing the future directions for personalisation and developments in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In April 2014, the Social Care (Self‐directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 (SDS Act) was implemented in Scotland. This marked a major shift in how social care is delivered and organized for both users and professionals across the country. Whilst it emerged through the personalization agenda—which has dominated international social care systems over recent years—self‐directed support (SDS) represented a significant shift in thinking for service provision in Scotland. In this article, we review the initial stages of policy implementation. Drawing on two Freedom of Information requests from 2015 and 2016 and a series of interviews with local authority practitioners, we argue that, to date, SDS has yet to produce radical transformative change. We explore the reasons behind this through four key themes. First, we highlight the challenges of promoting the principles of co‐production in policy and suggest that, in reality, this has been compromised through SDS implementation. Second, we suggest that SDS has been caught up in a policy overload and ultimately overshadowed by new legislation for health and social care integration. In looking at the impact of this relationship, our third theme questions the role of new partnership working. Lastly, we argue that the timing of SDS in a period of acute austerity in social care has resulted in disabled people being offered limited choice rather than increased opportunities for independent living. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 enables local authorities to make cash payments to service users with physical and sensory impairments and learning difficulties under the age of 65. This gives users control over money spent on meeting their community care needs, rather than receiving services arranged for them by the local authority. The policy is often represented as a victory for the disability movement and as a push towards user empowerment and social justice. However, direct payments also need to be understood as part of a wider market discourse prominent in the restructuring of welfare. Therefore, a growing culture of localized care markets with increasing ideological diversity may ultimately erode its scope for a meaningful level of user empowerment. By examining these market and social justice discourses, this article draws on analysis of two local authority approaches to direct payments and examines the level of meanings of control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]