Writing And Reporting News 6th Edition

Progress That Social Work Practice Has Made In Supporting People With Learning Disabilities In Attaining And Enhancing Independence Through Receiving

Introduction

The essay will examine the implementation of direct payments within four States in the United Kingdom i.e. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Direct payments were created with the intention of increasing the level of independence among needy members in society. The scheme was introduced so as to allow them to have an active form of utilising community services. However, there is considerable evidence that certain groups included in this scheme have been considerably sidelined. Persons with learning disabilities, ethnic minorities and persons with mental disabilities have not been prioritised. The essay will look at the progress of this scheme so far especially with regard to persons with learning disabilities. (Jolly, 2005)

Background

Disability Alliance (2005) claim that direct payments were established with the aim of providing a suitable alternative for people within the community who are in need of care. These cash payments enable persons with disabilities; including learning disabilities to enjoy care services without having to include the Local Authority directly. It helps them in attainment of independence. The Social Works 1968 Act gives a guide on how community care services can be conducted by local authorities including administration of direct payments. Furthermore, the 2001 Regulation of care Act amended some of the prior definitions of community services such that other vulnerable groups were to be included. All the above legislations form a backdrop against which local authorities, service users, social workers and other stakeholders can go about their activities as asserted by Clements (2006).

Scope (2004) affirms that there are certain parties that may be deemed needy and hence eligible for direct payments. These include anyone over the age of sixteen who may have physical, mental or learning disabilities and others may also have other forms of sensory impairments. However, for this particular essay, more emphasis will be placed on persons with learning disabilities. There are numerous alternatives for the latter mentioned groups. Disabilities Alliance (2005) gives a guide on some of these alternatives. Service users have the choice of using direct payments exclusively. Alternatively, they may decide to combine direct services from local authorities with direct payments. It is also possible to leave out direct payments completely and settle on community care services from the local authorities alone. All these choices are in the hands of both the local authority and the service user.

Evans (2000) explains that local authorities must first asses the situation and determine whether or not that particular applicant should or should not receive direct payments. Before consent is given, the service user must demonstrate the ability manage their own direct payments. This normally entails accountability in usage, ability to act as an employer for service providers and an ability to ensure that god quality services are received. After the person has demonstrated that they meet all the above criteria, then they are eligible to payments. (Clements, 2006)

How direct payments are offered

Statistics from Riddell et al (2005) indicate that between the years 2001 and 2005, there have been significant increases in the number of service users under the direct payments scheme. In Scotland, the numbers have increased by about seven times to 1400 persons. However, there are some worrying trends in those Statistics. This is because they indicated that more priority was given to people with physical disabilities rather than those with learning disabilities. Over forty percent of the direct payment scheme covered persons with physical disabilities. (Riddell et al, 2005). Although the amounts paid to individuals through this scheme have significantly increased; from two point one million to thirteen point seven million as of 2005, the specific amounts located to persons with learning disabilities still covers a small percentage of the total. Priestley et al (2006) goes on to add that the elderly are taking up a huge chunk of the direct payments. In Scotland, over a third of the members in the direct payment scheme incorporate members who fall in the over-sixty-five bracket. However, there are still worrying numbers within this mode of payment. More and more people need to be recruited into the direct payments scheme. Barnes and Mercer (2004) indicate that some countries like Scotland have lower numbers than others like England. It was found that England has double the number of users in Scotland. This means that Scotland has not utilised its potential and needs to do something to improve.

It is quite a daunting task to try and asses the effectiveness of the direct payments scheme to persons with disabilities. This is because different service users have different perceptions about it and different levels of satisfaction. Pearson et al (2006) expected that direct payments would fall in line with earlier perceptions about community welfare. Barnes (2005) asserts that direct payments are supposed to be users focused and personalised in nature. Besides this, direct payments were also introduced so as to increase cost effectiveness for the local authorities (Person et al, 2006).

But these new concepts to community care have posed certain serious problems among members of the community. There is a difficulty among service users in viewing community services as ‘commodities' that can be purchased rather than passively receiving community care from local authorities. There is a need for consumers to acclimatise to the idea of direct payment. Barnes (2005) asserts that Persons with learning disabilities are among the most vulnerable group with regard to acclimatisation since most of them had not been fully embraced into the direct payment scheme until recently. Consequently, social work practice is hampered because of the users' attitudes.

Pearson et al (2006) highlights some significant differences between the conditions and terms of practise offered by personal care providers as opposed to agency staff or council workers. This means that persons with learning disabilities are now settling for uneconomical service provision that they used before the introduction of direct payments. Pearson et al (2005) explains that Service users who have discovered that defect rarely use the direct scheme again. They usually go back to dependency on the local authorities which undermine the very reason why the scheme was introduced in the first place.

A survey conducted by the Health Committee for the Elderly Inquiry (2008) highlighted some of the problems that have cropped up concerning the mode of offering direct payments. Local authorities are expected to charge for services to be received by persons with learning disabilities. (Disability Alliance, 2005) However, there is a list of discrepancies about their charging criteria. This is because some service users have complained that Local Authorities interpret social and personal care differently. There is a very different understanding of what constitute personal and social tasks. This is because Local authorities do not have a suitable guideline especially from the 2001 Regulation of care Act. Some of the definitions in this piece of legislation are quite ambiguous thus implying that different parties can interpret them in different ways. Consequently, the Health Committee for the Elderly Inquiry (2008) made suggestions that there should be some explicit definitions of tasks constituting personal or social care. For example, food preparation for persons with disabilities is something that should not be charged but this is what is happening currently. (Evans, 2000)

The Health Committee for the Elderly Inquiry (2008) also highlighted some other problems in the way direct payment are offered. For example, if the person with a disability is working, then they may not receive benefits of Income Support levels on the charges made for community care services bought through direct payments. Consequently, such people are discouraged from working since the incentives are minimal.

Clements (2006) affirms that local authorities have the option of seeking help from other bodies in the process of administration of their direct payments. However complaints have arisen among recipients that there may be duplication of services by the local authorities themselves and other groups such as care commission yet at the same time, these latter two parties have different standards for assessing service user conditions. Consequently, this has created a lot of confusion among members of the population. On top of this, the Care Commission are supposed to finance their own expenses. This implies that they will look for other alternatives to keep them above the tide. Therefore, this translates to higher charges for service users on the ground. These fees are always increasing and reduce the choices available to the persons with disabilities. This is because they may prefer purchasing only few services since direct payments are usually given for essential services. (Pearson et al, 2006)

The registration system is sometimes too complex. People who may want to use direct payments may be prevented from doing so by having to deal with all the bureaucracy involved in the process. Consequently, most of them end up using care services directly from local authorities rather than making use of the direct payment scheme. This implies that the persons with learning disabilities will be so dependent on the local authority and little if any independence will be attained.(Riddell, 2006)

There is a lot that needs to be done to improve the level of satisfaction with direct payments. For example, when service users have problems or complaints about how the scheme is offered, there should be a hotline or whistle blowing mechanisms. The problem is made worse by the lack of advocacy services. This will go a long way in supporting persons with learning disabilities who may be dissatisfied with the scheme. Instead, the system has instituted a complaint procedure that may take too long before anything is done about the problem at hand. As a result, consumers may be so disgruntled about the direct payments scheme that they choose to terminate it. In the end, what this means is that the person with learning disabilities will still be dependent on the local authority and they will have very little choice in administration, monitoring and using community care. (Barnes and Mercer, 2006)

The direct payments scheme may not be properly understood by some of the service users. This is especially in relation to persons with learning disabilities. Consequently, there is need to ensure that such person are aware of what is available for them, what alternatives they have and what they can do when unhappy with the situation. As it is today, local authorities simply offer the information directly to the service user prior to their assessment. If there were training schemes, in place even for those who have not approached their local authorities, then community members would be aware of what is out there and they can therefore maximise their options. (Jolly, 2005)

Sometimes some groups may feel isolate when they receive care from home. Jolly and Priestley (2006) indicate that the mode of offering direct payments is itself is quite personal. Although this may have certain advantages, one must not under look the fact that persons with disabilities improve greatly when placed in the company of others, i.e. when there is social interaction. Social interaction is minimised greatly when an individual has enrolled in the direct payments scheme. Some of these persons with learning disabilities were able to learn from others when they were accessing community care directly from local authorities. But with the introduction of direct payments, those persons may feel alone. This was a fear that was highlighted by a number of social workers interviewed by Glasgow (2006)

Edgel et al (1996) highlighted the fact that there would be more problems if direct payments were still to be treated as separate entities from other community services. Presently, there is a separate budget for direct payments. This hampers the treatment of direct payments as part of the mainstream policy option within any local authority. This could probably be the reason why some of the local authorities still have a negative attitude towards direct payments calling it ‘privatisation of social care' (Clement, 2006)

Some local authorities have not been engaging in active campaigns or direct payments. When Barnes and Mercer (2006) sought to investigate the reason why; they found that most local authorities felt that there were already a lot of budgetary constraints when trying to cope with direct payments that they did need not nay more users. This should be a serious warning to all the stakeholders in the scheme. These range from the executive who allocate funds, the administrators and recipients. Local authorities should be given more funds such that most of them can cope with the load. Edgel et al (1996) also claimed that this is the reason why some of the applicants for direct payments have to wait for very long periods of time in order to gain some access to the funds.

How direct payments are monitored

Local authorities have been given the duty of monitoring the direct payments scheme as stipulated by the 2002 Community care and Health Act. However, there are certain inefficiencies reported by Barnes and Mercer (2004) about the manner in which direct payments are monitored. They claim that there are only about fifty percent of all local authorities that have designated specific posts for the direct scheme payments. This is a very worrying trend because all the persons with learning disabilities within those local authorities would receive direct payment services that fall below standard. Also, the local authorities without designate posts will not confirm that service users are administering their community care services properly. (Leece & Bornat, 2002)

However, there is some good news in relation to this; there are about fifty percent of all the local authorities within the UK that have selected a budget for the administration and operation of direct payments. This goes a long way in ensuring that vulnerable groups including persons with disabilities have the right levels of support from their authorities. (Davey et al, 2006) Similarly, Pearson and Williams (2006) report that there are a large majority of local authorities that have set aside some room for support organisations led by users. Therefore, such local authorities have seen the need to involve more users in the direct payments process. When Davey et al (2006) asked some of the local authorities why they adopted a user led approach, some of the local authorities indicated that they wanted to find out what users felt about their experience. This also covers persons with learning disabilities. On the other hand, other local authorities claimed that they did this in order to share information.

Leece and Bornat (2002) reported that most service users who shared their information within support groups did not represent the views of majority of the service users. Other complaints made by local authorities included the issue of extremely high expectations. Most of the members of the support groups wanted much more than local authorities could ever hope to deliver. All in all, the idea of monitoring service delivery by getting information first hand from its recipients is quite a good one since most of the consumers can air out their grievances. (Riddell et al, 2005)

From those support group meetings, local authorities are able to identify what are the inhibiting factors in their delivery of services. Pearson and Williams (2006) reported that about half the number of local authorities saw those suggestions in a positive light while the other half felt that those factors were important but they were not enough to be prioritised into their daily operations. In these surveys there were certain factors that were identified as promoting service provision. Some of them include;

• policy and guidance


• national legislation


• positive attitudes towards payments

On the other hand, there were also factors that were identified as hindering service provision like; availability of carers to provide personal assistant services and difficulties in the management of direct payments. Davey et al (2006) reported that there were certain advantages that those individuals utilising direct payments experienced i.e;

-control

-flexibility

-choice

These same consumers felt that there were disadvantages to the direct payments scheme that include Management problems and recruitment of personal assistants; that is being an employer. Consequently, such consumers did not fully utilise the services that ere supposed to be provided by local authorities.

Barnes (2005) asserts that there are also numerous problems encountered by local authorities in the monitoring process. It is important to examine these problems because they affect the way services are implemented by those local authorities. For example, some of them had no way of controlling the administration of these funds. This is because the scheme required some complex forms of arrangements and see of these local authorities were not as well prepared for it as they should be. Consequently, this severely undermined the quality of service provision. (Barnes, 2006)

Similarly, some local authorities have difficulties leaving out enough time for direct payments as explained by Jolly and Priestley (2006). Consequently, such groups had difficulty in dealing with all the large numbers that present themselves before the councils. This will also mean that those local authorities need to outsource some of their activities. If offering direct payments in general has becoming a serious problem for some of these local authorities, then it implies that it is even worse for certain vulnerable groups like persons with learning disabilities. Barnes (2005) indicates that whenever there are general problem in the monitoring process of direct payments, then there are even more severe ones among sidelined groups who are further ignored. We can therefore say that if the problems among local authorities are not resolved as soon as possible, then there will be great difficulties in service delivery for those persons with disabilities especially learning disabilities.

Some local authorities have also complained that there are problems with the way cost are administered in this scheme (Jolly and Priestley, 2005). These local authorities claim that finances allocated towards payments of this scheme are not adequate enough to deal with all the numerous cases of persons with disabilities. What this means is that priority will be given to certain vulnerable groups while others will be left hanging. Such is the case for persons with learning disabilities. On top of that, those persons with learning disabilities who do get consent from the local authorities may be given minimal funds. Barnes (2006) explains that when local authorities consider certain services less important even when the service users disagree, then this will come in the way of obtaining satisfaction from the service. Most of the service users who are restricted from accessing certain aspects of personal care will develop a negative attitude towards the scheme and may shift to more dependency rather than independence.

Barnes (2005) insists that most of the service users within Scotland, Northern Ireland and England were not content with the monitoring process. They felt that local authorities were not doing enough and more improvements were needed. This also applied to those who were providing personal services. They were also dissatisfied with the monitoring process. Perhaps local authorities could hire outside help to assist them with certain tasks so as to improve on the service delivery rates. Barnes (2006) further adds that personal care providers should be given the responsibility of monitoring the financial assets of the scheme as this does not fall under their jurisdiction. Yet this was something that is not going on in most local authorities. Perhaps the blame can be placed on local authorities as they have not efficiently managed their responsibilities. If they would take up all their full responsibilities then personal care providers can be left only with the duty of dealing with personal care and they can perform this to their best. Financial monitoring comes in the way of execution of their original tasks. (Jolly and Priestley, 2005)

It was found by Barnes and Mercer (206) that most practitioners had discrepancies with how to process direct payments. Although most practitioners were given a lot of material relating to case studies and other issues relating to direct payments, it was found that most of these practitioners had little if any training in the direct scheme payments. This could probably the reason why it takes so long for the scheme to be processed. Some senior managers who were asked about this claimed that they provide training to team leaders. But as it can be seen from the practical aspects, training is necessary for al practitioners whether or not they are team leaders. Blakemore (2002) also highlight that practitioners felt that most of them had very unreliable sources of information. This implies that their decisions were also not that reliable. Some of the problems they highlighted about the information received form personal assistant advisers and others were

• inaccuracy


• partiality


• lack of clarity

According to Blakemore (2002) most practitioners felt that there is too much paperwork that needs to be done in the processing of a direct payment. Consequently, most of these practitioners had to make applicants (persons with learning disabilities) wait for too long and this undermined their efficiency. Some of the paperwork involved was not necessary and should be trimmed down. Or alternatively, the paperwork could be substantially reduced by the introduction of other parties who could manage it.

There are also certain concerns that have been raised by care mangers. Before the introduction of direct payments, care managers had the opportunity to interact directly with their service users. They could asses the level of satisfaction by their consumers and ensure that most of them were happy with the service provided. According to Person et al (2005) it was found that most of the care manages are now feeling sidelined by the policy. They no longer have direct access to their service users and are now a distant third in the user's priorities.

Sometimes some practitioners were not as confident as they should be when tackling direct payment cases. This was mentioned by Pearson and Williams (2006). Most practitioners complained about this claiming that there was some preferential treatment when it came to this issue as most members of staff were not taken through the training process. It was only a few who were selected.

Social workers are also not happy with the fact that management responsibilities for care have been handed down to service users. Davey et al (2006) explains that most of these social workers feel that it is very difficult to ensure that service users are able to access care. Similarly, concerns were expressed by stakeholders about what would happen to some community care services like day centres. (Glasgow, 2006) it was found that as direct payments grew in demand and more and more people enrolled into the program, there would be cases of diminishing community care generally.

Research conducted by Riddell (2005) found that most service users felt that local authorities exercise too much control in the administration of the funds. This means that service users could display some creativity during implementation of scheme. Most of these users claimed that it would have been better if they ere allowed to exercise more discretion in the management and use of the direct payments given.

Jolly and Priestley (2006) report that some social workers were worried about the direction direct payments were heading. They were concerned that some of these payments may sometimes be used by the needy persons to access social activities. These were not issues that were previously included in well know care packages. Consequently there is cause for concern in this regard.

How direct payment are supported

Given some of the problem reported by service users and local authorities, there is need to introduce more devolution within the process. Jolly (2006) claimed that most of the local authorities that had adopted a devolved system of management were more efficient than those ones that did not.

Devolution in this sense means spot contracting. This can apply to various aspects of service provision; some of which include the process of assessment and giving out information about care packages. Spot contracts go a long way in supporting the direct payment scheme because it introduces other parties into the situation. When the local authorities are left alone to deal with all aspects of the scheme, then there may be problems in completing all the tasks stipulated n relevant legislations. (Jolly 2006)

Caerphilly (2006) indicated that one of the major sources of support for the direct payments schemes are the support organisations. These were a very reliable source of information for local authorities. They were able to learn what is needed to improve their service provision as they could hear from concerned parties directly. (Jolly 2005) It was also found by Caerphilly (2006) that it was not only the local authorities that were benefiting from the establishment of support groups. There were also several practitioners who were content with the service. This trickles down to the consumer who may be a person with a learning disability. Their options are improved and they may have better options.

However, just because there are certain support groups presently that may be receiving attention from stakeholders, it does not mean that all is said and done in the practice. Jolly (2005) reported that most service users especially sidelined groups like persons with learning disabilities felt the need for introduction of more support for the direct payments scheme. Jolly (2005) further claims that initially, service management and administration by persons with disabilities may be too strenuous if they try to go at it alone. However, whenever there is provision of more support service, service users are better at it and practitioners are also satisfied in the end. (Caerphilly, 2005)

Support organisations are sometimes given the task of conducting financial monitoring as explained by Glasgow (2006). However, there are certain indications that this may hamper the process of service delivery since it presents a conflict of interest for the group. It should be noted that this issue received approval from both the service users and also social workers.

Riddell (2006) also indicates that there is a serious problem in the management of direct payments by service users especially persons with learning disabilities. This is evident in the fact that most of the persons with disabilities had to leave the administration of funds in other people's hands in order to efficiently manage the scheme. This was also topped up by the fact that those who tried to manage the scheme by themselves had to get support from other parties in order to be completely efficient at it.

Some persons with learning disabilities may not have the ability to cope with stresses of managing or administering the funds. Consequently, they require assistance from their family members. Riddell (2006) exported that most of the family members who provided support seemed to think that they had full control of the scheme. They were seen controlling everything and acting as if the direct payments were theirs instead of the person with learning disabilities. As a result, those persons were now dependent on their family members. Jolly and Priestley (2006) assert that the foundational principles behind the direct scheme payment was independence. However, this is seriously undermined when family members want to control everything.

However, when Glasgow (2006) asked some of these family members what they thought about the scheme, they were very positive about it. They felt that direct payments gave them the independence and autonomy to decide which services were appropriate for their needy family member. They also enjoyed the fact that they had more control in this regard. This is a view that is not just held by family members; it is something that many other stakeholders feel. However, Jolly and Priestley (2006) claimed that those same groups expressed serious doubts about the ability of the direct payment scheme to achieve this sort of independence. These groups were found in almost all levels of the scheme- from administrators, recipients, providers and support groups.

More support was also needed form Scotland's executive especially in terms of payments. This was a view held by senior managers. (Riddell, 2006) Consequently, there was a need for more fund allocation. The suggestion stemmed from the fact that there was an alarming increase in demand for the service. Such senior mangers predicted that form the Statistics of previous years, direct payment recipients have been growing, consequently, there was a need to ensure that all the funds allocated to local authorities matched this demand otherwise the present allocations were not sustainable. (Blakemore, 2002)

There are certain concerns that were also raised by important stakeholders within the direct payments scheme. First of all, some of them feel that the scheme itself would encourage a lot of trust being placed on secondary parties. There was a possibility of abuse for vulnerable adults and this would consequently undermine those persons ability to gain independence. Secondly, Barnes (2006) suggests that there may be lack of experience among family members when trying to hire personal assistants. Since some of these family members may not be aware of the best personal care providers out there, they may hire individuals who may inflict harm to the person with learning disabilities and also to other members of his or her family.

Leaving the choice of service providers up to the service users could also pose other serious problems as explained by Riddell (2006). He claims that these groups may not have the ability to treat some of these personal assistants well. Since there is no liability to other third parties, the cases of mistreatment are quite likely. On top of this, there have also been concerns by stakeholders that some of the services given to persons with disabilities may fall below standard since service providers deal directly with certain companies or groups. Consequently, it may become very difficult to keep up. (Leece and Borant, 2002)

Conclusion

Direct payments were introduced with the intention of personalising community care for persons with disabilities. However, the process of implementation has brought about certain problem among members of the community. Perhaps one of the major obstacles to direct payments especially among social workers and employees in local authorities is the fact that most of these groups view direct payments as a sort of privatisation of public services. They were used to the communal welfare perspectives that had become common when dealing with persons with disabilities. This sort of ‘traditional' thinking could be the reason why some of the local authorities have been slow in the processing and implementation of direct payments. Such a mentality adversely affects persons with learning disabilities because they are part of the vulnerable groups. (Disability Alliance, 2005)

Social work practise has a long way to go when it comes to the implementation of direct payments. This is because there is preferential treatment of vulnerable persons during dispensation of the scheme. Persons with physical disabilities have dominated most of these schemes while persons with learning disabilities have been pushed to the periphery. Part of the reason for this observation could be the fact that most if not all the social workers may not know how to interpret relevant legislations. Some these legislations may be ambiguous hence bringing about these differences. For example the clause ‘willing and able' that is found in the 2001 Act may leave a lot of room for misinterpretation. The government should clarify exactly which groups are willing and able to handle direct payments because persons with disabilities should be included. (Barnes and Mercer, 2006)

Some of the other reasons that have brought about poor implementation of direct payments to persons with learning disabilities could be because some of them do not have support groups. It was found that support groups that worked hand in hand with local authorities were quite effective as compared to those who did not. This is because local authorities can find out information about service users that they would not have accessed before. However, concerns have been raised about the level of involvement of some of these support groups. Certain social workers believe that support groups should not be too close to local authorities so that they can serve as watchdogs. There is also a lack of consensus about whether or not support groups should offer assistance to some of the local authorities they are working with. Some support groups offer financial services while other feel that this would cause interference in the watchfulness and objectivity of the support group. (Riddell et al, 2005)

Certain senior managers have voiced concerns that there aren't enough funds allocated towards the implementation of direct payments. Consequently, some of these practitioners have been less enthusiastic about informing the public about direct payments; more so, persons with learning disabilities. They feel that the more the people they enrol, the higher their budgetary constraints. This is also why some local authorities deliberately delay payments so as to discourage consumers. (Pearson et al, 2006)

Direct payments are normally paid to family members especially with regard to persons with learning disabilities. This implies that the service user himself is not directly responsible for their payments. Consequently, family members treat the direct payment package as if it belongs to them and this has brought about some friction between practitioners and family members.

All in all, social work practise is heading towards the right direction by advocating for direct payments. However much has to be done for persons with learning disabilities because they are dominated by other vulnerable groups. (Jolly, 2005)

Reference:

Clements, L. (2006): Direct Payments training notes; London: Carers UK training unit

Disability Alliance (2005): Disability Rights Handbook 30th Edition; London: April 2005-April 2006.

Scope (2004): In the driving seat - direct payments for your child; London: retrieved from

www.scope.org.uk/issues/directpayments/index.shtm accessed on 31st March

Evans, J. (2000): Compromise and corruption: moving ahead on the road to citizenship; A presentation at the International Conference on Self- determination and individualised funding, Seattle, Taken from training notes Direct Payments Luke Clements, Carers UK 2006

Health Committee Care for the Elderly Inquiry (2008): Submission from Glasgow Centre for Inclusive living; retrieved form http://www.scottishparliament.uk accessed on 31ST March 2008

Pearson, C. et al (2006): Direct Payments and the Personalisation of Care; Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press

Barnes, C. (2005): Independent Living, Politics and Policy in the United Kingdom: A Social Model Account; Review of Disability Studies, 1(4), pp 5-13

Pearson, et al (2005): Personal Assistance Policy in the UK: What's the problem with direct payments? Disability Studies Quarterly, retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org/login.asp?referer=/_articles_html/2005/winter/pearson.as, accessed on 31st March

Priestley, M. et al (2006): Direct payments and disabled people in the UK: supply, demand and devolution; British Journal of Social Work

Riddell, S. et al (2005): The development of direct payments in the UK: implications for social justice; Social Policy and Society, 4(1), pp75-85

Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2004): Disability Policy and Practice: Applying the Social Model, Leeds; the Disability Press

Leece, J. and Bornat, J. (2002): Developments in direct payments: Comparative perspectives from the UK and beyond; Bristol: Policy Press.

Pearson, C. and Williams, V. (2006): Disabled People and Direct Payments: A UK Comparative Study; retrieved from www.creid.ed.ac.u accessed on 31st March

Davey, V. et al (2006): Direct Payments Survey: A National Survey of Direct Payments Policy and Practice; Personal Social Services Research Unit

Barnes, C. (2005): Disability Activism and the Price of Success: A British Experience; Invited lecture at the Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Western Australia, (31stAugust). Barnes, C. (2006): Disability, Independent Living and Direct Payments; Direct Payments Conference, sponsored by Buckinghamshire County Council, (19thJanuary)

Jolly, D. & Priestley, M. (2005): Capacity, Risk and Direct Payments; workshop for local authority care assessors, 20th September

Caerphilly, D. (2005): Direct Payment Research at the Centre for Disability Studies; presentation to the Hackney Direct Payment Launch

Jolly, D. (2005): The Implementation of Direct Payments across the UK; practitioner workshop presented at ‘Community Care Live'

Jolly, D. (2006): Findings from the ESRC Research Project; presentation to Department of Health seminar, 12 September

Jolly, D. and Priestley, M. (2006): A Postcode Lottery? Explaining the uneven implementation of direct payments, paper presented to the ‘Independent Living and Direct Payments; University of Leeds Seminar

Glasgow Riddell, S. (2006): Direct Payment for Disabled People: The Way Forward or Policy Cul de Sac? Seminar at the Social Policy Research Unit; University of York, 6th May

Riddell, S. (2006): Direct Payments in Scotland, presentation to the Scottish Parliament Health Committee, 16 May

Edgell, S. et al (1996): Consumption Matters: The Production and Experience of Consumption; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2006): Independent futures: Creating user-led disability services in a disabling society, Bristol, Policy Press

Blakemore, K (2002): Social Policy: An Introduction Buckingham: Open University Press.

About the Author

Author is associated with ResearchPapers247.Com which is a global Research Papers and Term Papers Writing Company. If you would like help in Research Papers and Term Paper Help you can visit Custom Essays> and Custom Research Papers> or Term Paper Help>

 

 

Loose Change 2nd Edition (Full Version + Multi Subtitles)


writing and reporting news 6th edition
writing and reporting news 6th edition
writing and reporting news 6th edition