Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:02:52.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personalisation and Austerity in the Crosshairs: Government Perspectives on the Remaking of Adult Social Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2014

ANDREW POWER
ANDREW POWER*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Personalisation has now become centre-stage in adult social care and continues to have an enduring level of political commitment and on-going appeal for many disabled people. And yet its roll-out has taken place during a time of austerity where central governments in many neo-liberal countries are re-imagining (read: shrinking) their role in social care provision. This paper reports on findings from an empirical study of relevant government officials from different countries which have advanced personalisation: Canada, England and the US. It reports on their views on personalisation and the remaking of adult social care, and managing expectations for change. Despite the relative success of personalisation, the findings reveal a tempered, cautious account, with respondents aware of the pitfalls and risks inherent in self-led support, government limitations in changing systems and an end to the primary involvement by the state in the creation of a social care market. With this in mind, the study's findings make a strong case for forms of ‘progressive localism’, as imagined by Featherstone et al. (2012), in galvanising local community resources alongside more radical politics in order to make self-led support achieve its desired outcomes on the ground.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 829 - 846
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W. and Wood, W. M. (2001), ‘Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities’, Review of Educational Research, 71: 2, 219–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, A. (2006), Citizenship and Vulnerability: Disability and Issues of Social and Political Engagement, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2012), ‘From “vulnerable” to vanguard: challenging the Coalition’, Soundings, 50: 50, 46–57.Google Scholar
Bishop, K. (2013), ‘What cuts? US austerity “tougher than in Europe”’, Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC), 15 November 2013.Google Scholar
De Angelis, M. (2010), ‘The production of commons and the “explosion” of the middle class’, Antipode, 42: 4, 954–77.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2007), Putting People First: A Shared Vision and Commitment to the Transformation of Adult Social Care, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Doty, P. (2000), Cost-Effectiveness of Home and Community-Based Long-Term Care Services, US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. (2012), Is It All About the Cuts? Centre for Welfare Reform.Google Scholar
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Eurofound (2007), Personal Budgets and Direct Payments: Amsterdam, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/socialprotection/casestudies/ne1.htm (accessed 2 March 2014).Google Scholar
Featherstone, D., Ince, A., Mackinnon, D., Strauss, K. and Cumbers, A. (2012), ‘Progressive localism and the construction of political alternatives’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37: 2, 177–82.Google Scholar
Ferguson, I. (2007), ‘Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalisation’, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 3, 387–403.Google Scholar
Gewirtz, S. and Ozga, J. (1994), ‘Interviewing the education policy elite’, in Walford, G. (ed.), Researching the Powerful in Education. London: UCL Press, pp. 186–203.Google Scholar
Glasby, J. (2014), ‘The controversies of choice and control: why some people might be hostile to English social care reform’, British Journal of Social Work, 44: 2, 252–66.Google Scholar
Glasby, J. and Littlechild, R. (2009), Direct Payments and Personal Budgets: Putting Personalisation into Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Global Unions (2013), ‘Three years of destructive austerity and labour market deregulation are enough’, statement to the 2013 Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, Washington, DC, 11–13 October 2013.Google Scholar
Hall, E. (2011), ‘Shopping for support: personalisation and the new spaces and relations of commodified care for people with learning disabilities’, Social and Cultural Geography, 12: 6, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, S., Massey, D. and Rustin, M. (2013), ‘After neoliberalism? The Kilburn Manifesto’, Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture.Google Scholar
Houston, S. (2010), ‘Beyond homo economicus: recognition and self-realization and social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 40: 3, 841–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A. (1993), ‘Local knowledge and local power: notes on the ethnography of local community elites’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22: 1, 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. and Lolle, H. (2013), ‘The fragmented welfare state: explaining local variations in services for older people’, Journal of Social Policy, 42: 2, 349–70.Google Scholar
Jordan, B. (2012), ‘Making sense of the “Big Society”: social work and the moral order’, Journal of Social Work, 12: 6, 630–46.Google Scholar
Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L. (2011), ‘Local governance under the Coalition Government: austerity, localism and the “big society”’, Local Government Studies, 38: 1, 21–40.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. (2007), ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: new era or false dawn?’, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 34: 2, 101–58.Google Scholar
Leece, J. and Peace, S. (2010), ‘Developing new understandings of independence and autonomy in the personalised relationship’, British Journal of Social Work, 40: 6, 1847–65.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. (2007), Participant Action Research, London: Sage.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. (2008), Participatory Action Research, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mickelson, R. A. (1994), ‘A feminist approach to researching the powerful in education’, in Walford, G. (ed.), Researching the Powerful in Education, London: UCL Press, pp. 132–50.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. and Sapey, B. (2006), Social Work with Disabled People, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
O'Mahony, C. and Quinn, G. (2014), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Comparative, Regional and Thematic Perspectives, Brussels: Intersentia.Google Scholar
Osbourne, S. (ed.) (2009), The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Power, A., Lord, J. and DeFranco, A. (2013), Active Citizenship and Disability: Implementing the Personalisation of Support, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, J. and Prince, M. (2013), Changing Politics of Canadian Social Policy, 2nd edn, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, J., Spandler, H., Rosengard, A. and Menhennet, A. (2012), Follow up Evaluation of Self-Directed Support Test Sites in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Roulstone, A. and Morgan, H. (2009), ‘Neo-liberal individualism or self-directed support: are we all speaking the same language on modernising adult social care?’, Social Policy and Society, 8: 3, 333–45.Google Scholar
Slasberg, C., Beresford, P. and Schofield, P. (2012), ‘Can personal budgets really deliver better outcome for all at no cost? Reviewing the evidence, costs and quality’, Disability and Society, 27: 7, 1029–34.Google Scholar
Winchester, M. and Frydman, D. (2003), Home and Community-based Long-Term Care Financing and the Woodwork Effect, The Policy Resource Center (PRC), Institute for Health, Law’ and Ethics.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2012), ‘Welfare-to-work: agency and personal responsibility’, Journal of Social Policy, 41: 2, 309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar