Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:54:49.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personalisation and Partnership: Competing Objectives in English Adult Social Care? The Individual Budget Pilot Projects and the NHS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2011

Caroline Glendinning ,
Nicola Moran ,
David Challis ,
José-Luis Fernández ,
Sally Jacobs ,
Karen Jones ,
Martin Knapp ,
Jill Manthorpe ,
Ann Netten  and
Martin Stevens
...Show all authors
Caroline Glendinning
Affiliation:
Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Nicola Moran
Affiliation:
Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, UK E-mail: [email protected]
David Challis
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Manchester
José-Luis Fernández
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics
Sally Jacobs
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Manchester
Karen Jones
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent
Martin Knapp
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics
Jill Manthorpe
Affiliation:
Social Care Workforce Research Unit, Kings College London
Ann Netten
Affiliation:
Social Care Workforce Research Unit, Kings College London
Martin Stevens
Affiliation:
Social Care Workforce Research Unit, Kings College London
Mark Wilberforce
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As in other countries, improving collaboration between health and social care services is a long-established objective of English social policy. A more recent priority has been the personalisation of social care for adults and older people through the introduction of individualised funding arrangements. Individual budgets (IBs) were piloted in 13 English local authorities from 2005 to 2007, but they explicitly excluded NHS resources and services. This article draws on interviews with lead officers responsible for implementing IBs. It shows how the contexts of local collaboration created problems for the implementation of the personalisation pilots, jeopardised inter-sectoral relationships and threatened some of the collaborative arrangements that had developed over the previous decade. Personal budgets for some health services have subsequently also been piloted. These will need to build upon the experiences of the social care IB pilots, so that policy objectives of personalisation do not undermine previous collaborative achievements.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 151 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Cabinet Office Strategy Unit (2005), Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E. and Westmarland, L. (2007), Creating Citizen-Consumers, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
DH (2000), The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, A Plan for Reform, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
DH (2001), National Service Framework for Older People, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
DH (2007a), The National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
DH (2007b), Putting People First: A Shared Vision and Commitment to the Transformation of Adult Social Care, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Dowling, B., Powell, M. and Glendinning, C. (2004), ‘Conceptualising successful partnerships’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 12, 4, 309–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, J.-L., Kendall, J., Davey, V. and Knapp, M. (2007), Direct payments in England; factors linked to variations in local provision, Journal of Social Policy, 36, 1, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendinning, C., Halliwell, S., Jacobs, S., Rummery, K. and Tyrer, J. (2000), Buying Independence: Using Direct Payments to Integrate Health and Social Services, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C. and Clarke, J. (2002), ‘Partnership and the remaking of welfare governance’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds.), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C., Hudson, B., Hardy, B. and Young, R. (2003), ‘The Health Act 1999 section 31 partnership “flexibilities”’, in Glasby, J. and Peck, E. (eds.), Care Trusts: Partnership Working in Action, Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C. (2006), ‘Direct payments and health’, in Leece, J. and Bornat, J. (eds.), New Developments in Direct Payments, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 253–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendinning, C., Challis, D., Fernández, J.-L., Jacobs, S., Jones, K., Knapp, M., Manthorpe, J., Moran, N., Netten, A., Stevens, M. and Wilberforce, M. (2008), ‘Evaluation of the Individual Budgets Pilot Programme: Final Report’, IBSEN Network, downloadable from www.york.ac.uk/spru.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. (1999), ‘Dismantling the Berlin Wall: developments at the health-social care interface’, in Dean, H. and Woods, R. (eds.), Social Policy Review 11, Luton: Social Policy Association, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. and Hardy, B. (2002), ‘What is a successful partnership and how can it be measured?’, in Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds.), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. (2004), Personalisation through Participation: A New Script for Public Services, London: Demos.Google Scholar
Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., Challis, D., Netten, A., Glendinning, C., Knapp, M., Wilberforce, M., Jacobs, S., Jones, K., Moran, N. and Fernández, J. L. (2008), ‘Individual budgets come under the microscope’, Mental Health Today, 22–26 December.Google Scholar
Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., Rapaport, J., Jacobs, S., Challis, D., Wilberforce, M., Netten, A., Knapp, M. and Glendinning, C. (2010), ‘Gearing up for personalisation: training activities commissioned in the English pilot Individual Budgets sites 2006–2008’, Social Work Education, 29, 3, 319–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, R. and Smith, R. (1998), From Poor Law to Community Care: The development of welfare services for elderly people, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Moran, N., Glendinning, C., Stevens, M., Manthorpe, J., Jacobs, S., Wilberforce, M., Knapp, M., Challis, D., Fernández, J.-L., Jones, K. and Netten, A. (2010 forthcoming), ‘Joining up government by integrating funding streams? The experiences of the Individual Budget Pilot Projects for older and disabled people in England’, International Journal of Public Administration.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J., Glendinning, C. and Hughes, M. (2008), ‘Beyond modernisation? Social care and the transformation of welfare governance’, Journal of Social Policy, 37, 4, 531–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NHS (2009), ‘Primary care and community services: personal health budgets, first steps’, downloaded from www.dh.gov.uk.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (2008), High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report, London: The Stationery OfficeGoogle Scholar
Tyson, A., Brewis, R., Crosby, N., Hatton, C., Stansfield, J., Tomlinson, C., Waters, J. and Wood, A. (2010), A Report on In Control's Third Phase: Evaluation and Learning 2008–9, London: In Control.Google Scholar
University of Leeds (2005), An Evaluation of Intermediate Care for Older People, Leeds: Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research.Google Scholar