Promoting human rights or increasing expectations? Effects of Self-Directed Support on the realisation of human rights in Scotland

Abstract This research investigated Scottish practitioners’ reflections on how local Self-Directed Support (SDS) implementations have affected the realisation of human rights. The findings indicate that SDS increased service users’ awareness of their rights but often in rather abstract ways, with service users (and practitioners) not getting information about SDS-related systems, processes, and procedures needed to make informed choices that support their human rights. The practitioners participating in this study found SDS systems and processes overcomplicated and struggled with accessing information needed for guiding service users. Although there is evidence that some processes are gradually becoming simpler, a focus on controlling resources has created a gap between the human-right-based ethos of SDS and its local implementations, reducing the ability of SDS to promote human rights and, according to some practitioners, just increasing service users’ expectations. This gap might be further widened by insufficient engagement with independent support and advocacy organisations. Points of interests: This article looks at whether Self-Directed Support in Scotland has achieved its aims to promote the rights of people with disabilities. Self-Directed Support is legislation that aims to promote human rights, such as dignity and self-determination, by giving people with disabilities more choice and control over the care they receive. Many practical obstacles make this challenging. This study found that people with disabilities have become more aware of their rights in general, but this often has not translated into getting care in a way that promotes their human rights. This study found that limited resources have meant in practice that local social work departments have focused on how to control their spending on meeting the needs of people with disabilities. This often has meant that the rights of people with disabilities have received less attention and have been neglected.

[1]  G. Williams,et al.  Does Language Matter? Identity-First Versus Person-First Language Use in Autism Research: A Response to Vivanti , 2020, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[2]  G. Vivanti Ask the Editor: What is the Most Appropriate Way to Talk About Individuals with a Diagnosis of Autism? , 2019, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[3]  Susan Smith,et al.  Person-first language: are we practicing what we preach? , 2019, Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare.

[4]  K. Manji ‘It was clear from the start that [SDS] was about a cost cutting agenda.’ Exploring disabled people’s early experiences of the introduction of Self-Directed Support in Scotland , 2018, Disability & Society.

[5]  N. Watson,et al.  Changing the culture of social care in Scotland: Has a shift to personalization brought about transformative change? , 2018 .

[6]  P. Beresford,et al.  The need to bring an end to the era of eligibility policies for a person-centred, financially sustainable future , 2017 .

[7]  Kari Velzke Exploration of Choice for Older People with Daily Care Needs: Scottish Professionals’ Perspectives on Self-Directed Support , 2017, Journal of gerontological social work.

[8]  P. Beresford,et al.  The eligibility question – the real source of depersonalisation? , 2016 .

[9]  James Elder-Woodward Disabled people’s Independent Living Movement in Scotland: a time for reflection , 2016 .

[10]  K. Ritters,et al.  Do direct payments improve outcomes for older people who receive social care? Differences in outcome between people aged 75+ who have a managed personal budget or a direct payment , 2016, Ageing and Society.

[11]  James Elder-Woodward,et al.  Normalisation and personalisation: an independent living movement critique , 2015 .

[12]  Colin Slasberg Self-directed support. Personalisation, choice and control , 2015 .

[13]  A. Cameron,et al.  Personalisation of adult social care: Self-directed support and the choice and control agenda , 2014 .

[14]  James Elder-Woodward ‘Living Well’ vs Neoliberal Social Welfare , 2014 .

[15]  Luke Clements,et al.  Putting the cart before the horse: resource allocation systems and community care , 2013 .

[16]  K. Jones,et al.  Older people's experiences of cash-for-care schemes: evidence from the English Individual Budget pilot projects , 2012, Ageing and Society.

[17]  C. Hedges Disability Rights UK , 2012 .

[18]  J. Ridley,et al.  Evaluation of self directed support test sites in Scotland , 2011 .

[19]  Catherine Needham Personalising Public Services , 2011 .

[20]  Janet Leece,et al.  Personalisation: Perceptions of the Role of Social Work in a World of Brokers and Budgets , 2011 .

[21]  S. Duffy The Citizenship Theory of social justice: exploring the meaning of personalisation for social workers , 2010 .

[22]  L. Lloyd The Individual in Social Care: The Ethics of Care and the ‘Personalisation Agenda’ in Services for Older People in England , 2010 .

[23]  Ajtc Communications team AJTC Scottish Committee response - Scottish Government's consultation on the Review of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 , 2009 .

[24]  M. Webb Deafblind people and families' experiences of direct payments , 2009 .

[25]  M. Carey The Social Work Dissertation: Using Small-Scale Qualitative Methodology , 2009 .

[26]  Alan Roulstone,et al.  Neo-Liberal Individualism or Self-Directed Support: Are We All Speaking the Same Language on Modernising Adult Social Care? , 2009, Social Policy and Society.

[27]  Iain Ferguson,et al.  Increasing User Choice or Privatizing Risk? The Antinomies of Personalization , 2007 .

[28]  C. Barnes,et al.  Independent Futures: Creating user-led disability services in a disabling society , 2006 .

[29]  Karen Jackson,et al.  Personalised social care for adults with disabilities: a problematic concept for frontline practice. , 2006, Health & social care in the community.

[30]  L. Wells Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People , 2005 .

[31]  Jenny Morris Independent living and community care: a disempowering framework , 2004 .

[32]  D. Brandon,et al.  Making Direct Payments a Choice: A report on the research findings , 2000 .

[33]  J. Dalrymple,et al.  Self-Directed Support : Your Choice , Your Right , 2017 .

[34]  Peter R. Schofield,et al.  The increasing evidence of how self directed support i s failing to deliver personal budgets and personalisation , 2013 .

[35]  Marilyn L. Mitchell,et al.  In-Depth Interviews , 2013 .

[36]  J. Ridley,et al.  Self-Directed Support: A Review of the Barriers and Facilitators , 2011 .

[37]  A. Young Direct payments. , 2009, Mental health today.

[38]  H. Arksey,et al.  Dimensions of Choice: A narrative review of cash-for-care schemes , 2008 .

[39]  R. Hugman The Place of Values in Social Work Education , 2007 .

[40]  C. Pearson Direct payments and personalisation of care , 2006 .

[41]  Gerald N. Rosenberg The 1964 Civil Rights Act: The Crucial Role of Social Movements in the Enactment and Implementation of Anti-Discrimination Law , 2004 .

[42]  J. Ridley,et al.  Direct What? - A Study of Direct Payments to Mental Health Service Users , 2002 .

[43]  M. Marshall Sampling for qualitative research. , 1996, Family practice.

[44]  I. K. Zola,et al.  Self, identity and the naming question: reflections on the language of disability. , 1993, Social science & medicine.

[45]  T. Shakespeare Disabled people's self-organisation: a new social movement? , 1993 .