Individual Fudge-its.


I have tried to embrace the personalisation agenda. Really, client-choice is wonderful. I welcomed Direct Payments and saw a few through to the finish although always keen to emphasise the difficulties as they arose. Basically, the idea of giving the users of services the power and control to purchase services directly is a good one. Money and finance is such a crucial key in the dynamic and it is an almost Victorian and very ‘modern’ adage for the providers of social care to be spreading cash and services like charities rather than according to rights and needs. I always emphasise that any service provided is an absolute right – nothing to be grateful or thankful for. We have a duty to provide for those who need.

That is where the  mindset needs to be changed however, I think the move towards spreading out individual budgets has been wholly focussed on a model that works extremely well with younger physically and learning disabled adults who are able to advocate well for themselves or have active families and networks around them to provide the support and guidance – either formally or informally.

Where the system seems to struggle is firstly that (wrongly in my very humble opinion) choices and more importantly, money is less forthcoming with over 65s. The budgets are tighter and there just isn’t so much money around. There are also less ‘support’ hours available from social workers – in the sense that allocations in over 65s services are MUCH higher than in the other more specialist teams. Whereas someone who has a learning disability may have been known to a particular social worker for many years and have had time to build up relationships with a team and a family, an older adult will likely have much less time to have any form of ‘relationship building’ going on.

Self-assessment questionnaires are all well and good  but from my own experience, I’ve had a couple of people completely freeze up when presented with them (even in the context of me explaining that I would be happy to help) or laughed at (What?? Another Form?? All the questions ask about physical disabilities?? It’s just like a DLA/AA form (accompanied by a disheartened sigh ).

Any time I have raised concerns at meetings or training, I have been shouted down by the trainer as being opposed to client choice and just being an old stick-in-the-mud ‘care manager’ style of social worker who wants to retain all the control myself. I find that offensive for a start as these trainers have no idea what challenges exist and in their minds we have hours to spend constructing care plans for every person that we come across.

The truth is that it is a fudge of the highest degree. There is no more choice than there was for the people who don’t have networks of support. They are still constricted to the same care agencies that charge the lowest amount and pay their staff the minimum wages. Sure, they can employ people directly but there is no safety net or extensive support to recruit that was once promised. Being an employer is not for everyone – especially if it is someone who might be suffering from a cognitive impairment without a family member to actively choose and advocate. There is more flexibility, for sure, but it is found through such a convoluted method to have been painful to reach. The ideas are good but unless the commissioners and project managers listen to those who have experience, there will be no different outcomes for the most vulnerable service users.

That is my concern and has always been my concern. It has been emphasised that no more money will be made available. It is hard to provide a better service without more money coming in and noone seems to be prepared to accept that. Between one party saying they will ‘try and keep people out of residential homes’ and the other talking about insurance plans to ensure that more people go into homes there is a hotch-potch and neither of the main parties seem to have engaged with the personalisation agenda very much through their arguments about funding, fear of the middle classes who feel resentful about having to pay for services for their parents with their own inheritances and the thought of an actual cost being attached to the provision of quality care.

Self-directed support sounds wonderful and it honestly is wonderful for some people. What seems to have been lost is not that I particularly want to choose the services that other people get – I like the idea of choice and flexibility – but really the idea that some people need a lot of support to plan and develop personalised care and support plans and there has been no account whatsoever taken of the time factors in a team that this means.

We are running pilots at present in our borough and I feel almost resentful at the lack of listening that has been done. There is an assumption that is actually ironic when you think about it that the roll-out of individual budgets is about empowering people and not assuming ‘we know best’ however the manner of the implementation is the same through mental health, learning disabilities, physical disabilities and older adult services.

Some people are actively ignoring the growing pace of the agenda – I’ve tried to embrace it so as to be in a better position to add my voice to those who are shaping the policies. I am trying to be positive and think that some elements are really good – it has just increased my paperwork a thousand-fold.  I know complaining about paperwork is old hat  but the extra man hours haven’t been factored in.

We have an option to ask some local advocacy services to help with self-assessment questionnaires and support planning however, in our service where we do have the opportunity to build up relationships with users and carers over a period, I should see it as some kind of triumph that everyone I work with has preferred me, a face that they know and (hopefully!) trust to assist as opposed to someone else new coming in to do these pieces of work. At least they know I’ll be accountable over the longer period.

And so while trying to be positive, I have a certain amount of annoyance with the implementation. Yes, it’s a good idea. Yes, it sounds wonderful on paper. No, noone has actually listened much to ALL the practitioners who work with different user groups and noone seems to have taken note of the barriers that existed to direct payments as a starting point.

I think it is another means to privatise and decentralise services and to give ‘responsibility’ to the service user as a way of diluting responsibilities of the provider. I hope I am wrong and just a little too cynical for my own good.

I still try to be hopeful for the future though. I still intend to make my voice heard by making positive suggestions as opposed to merely grumbling and griping in the corner.

That’s the ‘right’ thing I do, I’m sure of it. I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be something of a theme for me over the coming months.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

3 thoughts on “Individual Fudge-its.

  1. I agree that there does seem to be much less ‘real’ support in respect of older people when it comes to the practical application of Individual Budgets. Having a close and trusted support network is indeed a key component here and this is often not in place with older people in many cases.

  2. 2 out of 3 individual budgets aren’t completed, in our corner.

    Since they affect benefits and can involve contributions from patients, people can lose out through them.

    2 out of 3 lose out, looking at the last 93.

    It’s a different way of orchestrating care which can work really well, but isn’t universally helpful and (financially) can be detrimental.

  3. I think that it’s a real case of you saying the right thing at the wrong time in the wrong place…in the sense that we ‘know you’ through this blog and know how much care, thought, research you put into your arguments, but if the government continues to accept the privatised agenda for the provision of health care for the very old, linked often to ‘families of residential care themselves linked to nursing homes’ then the monopoly developers of this service will gain from any additional monies to those in their care.

    Really, someone should be bending the ear of parliament to debate whether care for the elderly should be provided by social enterprises and co-operatives in the neighbourhoods where people live to underscore ideologically the ideal of direct payments.

    Until the system itself offers many alternatives, breaks the monopoly that locally, regionally and nationally certain groups of already very well pension provided for individuals who set up homes and nursing homes to make even more money for themselves and their heirs, then really it’s just like the British tax payer funding the banking bonuses….people are giving their homes and inheritances to subsidise a monopoly that seems to make rules that we all have to live and die by.

Comments are closed.