Further, if look back to the development of the social services and the then Charity Organisation Society (COS) founded in 1869 we see evidence of similar practice in relation to current assessment of needs. This was also done by a COS worker who made judgements based on his of her knowledge, this is clearly an earlier form of means testing (Glasby & Littlechild (2002)). From this assessment a payment was given to the person or which then was referred to as ‘relief.’
This was technically abolished in 1834; it continued to be paid in practice well into the twentieth centaury, as a range of complex measures for the support of the poor as unemployment soared (Thane. P (1996).
The Poor Law was finally abolished in 1948 putting an end to payments to the poor by social services departments, and replaced by a national scheme for the payment of social security benefits and the provision of welfare services to the elderly and the Disabled.
This allowed the practitioner to distance themselves from cash payments and the stigma of poverty, further this led to as Becker (1993) states ‘practitioners having little poverty awareness (p93) and further viewing money problems as being the problem of other agencies (Davies & Wainwright (1997) quoted in Glasby & Littlechild p 61)
This desire for the social work profession to distance it self from the nineteenth centaury roots has, resulted in the resistance to the implementation of the Direct Payment Schemes. Although the Direct Payment Scheme is very different from the early payments made by the COS and earlier forms of social services departments.
This resistance has been from the shop floor social workers to MPs such as Virgina Bottomly, who wrote to the MP introducing the Private members bill prior to its introduction to legalise direct payments
“Social services legislation is concerned with….services and not with direct payments which is the province of the social security system”
(Quoted In Hatchett W, (1991): pp 14 – 15).
Governmental ideology for the implementation of the Direct Payments scheme was to reflect the principles of participation, inclusion and equality through offering choice and independence.
Because of the lack of clear guidance on interpretation this agenda has been misinterpreted and further resulted in the slow take up of the scheme.
Roles and procedures have changed in departments which require operational changes, and a further shift in the approach to the concept of risk and control (Dawson (2000) quoted in Carmichael & Brown (2002) p.804)
The involvement in service users lives by social workers has shifted away form one of assessment and the in house provision of services, to one of assessment and the provision of monies to purpose individual care form the quasi market place. This can be tailored to meet the individual needs and life of a person, rather than the one ‘size fits all’ attitude of previous service provision (Glasby & Littlechild (2002)) this is in comparison to earlier payments being made by the Independent Living Fund indirectly through third parties (Brindle, D. (2000))
further key points to the misinterpretation and slow take up of the scheme is due to the ambiguous wording of the legislations guidance the ‘willing and able criteria’ (Clark & Spafford (2002)) this point argues the service users must be able to ‘choose’ direct payments, problems such as ability the to choose have arisen from this guidance as well as to whom the allocation of payment should be made.
Who should have control over the money? Is a question the local authorities have struggled with when assessing people with severe disabilities and people with mental incapacitates. Authorities have taken this grey area of the legislation and effectively excluded people with mental incapacities because of the legal implications which resulted in the rejecting of an application.
Further to this councils have adopted a top down model in which local disability organisations are not closely enough involved within.
This bureaucratic model is arguably necessary because of the complexity of the system, the workforce need clearly structured role, responsibilities and lines of command for effectiveness (Coulshed & Mullender (2001)) this is for the purposes of accountability and stability in the system (Ibid).although this can restrict professional autonomy and offer further resistance to change (Aldridge (1996) quoted in Coulshed & Mullender, p 31)
With the implementation of this scheme, there was a shift away from the old system of social worker control to that of user control, which social workers saw as a danger and who have voiced concerns of “vulnerable people managing their own services and whether it is right to risk such payments’ (Snell, J. (2000)).
This is clear indication as Cyert & March (1963) state ‘confusion over how political constraints on policy make a rationalist approach to decision making impossible (quoted in Burnes. B (2000))
This has led to social workers becoming uncertain as to what is needed from them, because of the role and responsibility change, as well as the cultural change in the departments, which has further left social workers feeling disempowered. Power and control is reduced from the social worker, and rebalanced with the service user, social workers have seen this as a perceived loss of their identity and status. (Clark & Spafford (2002) p 252)
Confusion and lack of participation in the planning stages of the delivery of services has left social workers resenting the direct payments scheme, this has further led to slow take up and slow information distribution to service users.
Etienne d’Abouuville (1999) states the schemes are floundering because local authorities are using social workers to advice on direct payments, rather than Disabled peoples organisations which can provide peer support. This is further evidence in the change of role change in the role of the care manager Glasby & Littlecihild (2002) argue workload implications and the low ratio of staff is a strong and potential barrier to the independence of disabled people. Mullins (1993) comments on this and states ‘commitment and cooperation to organisational goals will depend on how these are perceived to be in their own interests’.
If we look at this in the context of the social worker who has been giving advice to the service user on, employers’ responsibility, obligations and legal ramifications without training and on top of their ‘normal’ workload we see why social workers are feeling stressed. Further too this reluctant to work in with the scheme (Hosler (1999)).
Social worker having little involvement in the change has led to this resistance; this is perpetuated with the burdening of further responsibility on the worker. Mullender and Coulshed argue ‘where structures are going through change this is adapted to more quickly where there are open lines of communication and decentralised structures.
If we analyse the impact of the organisational change to the service user we see a clear recondition of the social model of disability which as Oliver argues
‘It is not people impairments which limit people’s ability to participate in society and to exercise their rights, but the organisation of society it self which causes the disability”
(Quoted in Stainton, T. (2002) p 752)
This social model articulates not how to find a way of compensating for the natural disadvantage, but how society can accommodate a range of differences (Ibid).
Service users have stated they have rights and autonomy furthering the ability to be recognised as full citizens (Stainton, T (2002)). Many disabled people prior to the introduction of the Direct Payments Scheme were given little or no choice in relation to who provided the care, and to what extent. This was reflective of the funding structures and mechanisms of the social services departments (Statinton, T (1998)), here the departments or the family would access and commission the service, which resulted on many occasions being put on a waiting list.
In this analysis we see little or no choice or control on the part of the service recipient, and further if criteria for service were not met then no service was offered. This coupled with resource constraints and tightly specified service contracts can together restrict the remits and activities of services (Glendininig, C, (2000))
With the new system the service user retains overall control on who to commission to carry out the work and for what period of time, the service user defines what needs are to be met and to what extent. A shift away from the social worker led assessment.
With a recondition of the Disabled person’s rights the Direct Payments Scheme also brought with it the responsibility of being an employer and with that obligation to contractual agreements. This could be seen as a potential barrier, but many disabled people have commented, “All the stress is worth having control of your own care” (Clark and Spafford (2002))
In conclusion we see how the change has resulted in a cultural change within the social services departments and further a shift away from the ethos of the social worker as the expert.
This is welcomed by Disability groups who have campaigned for the Direct Payments Scheme, but resented by those whose job’s it has affected with added workload and change in role.
Change is a natural occurrence and some would argue inevitable to human evaluation, it is about recognising where sociality shortfalls are and actively seeking to rectify them.
As with a majority of pieces of legislation they are based on social justice principles, but interpretation results in oppression and discrimination
