|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Friend or Foe? Towards a Critical Assessment of Direct Payments
Helen Spandler
Kings College, London
Direct payments enable individuals to purchase their own care rather than have directly provided services. This article unpacks the complexities involved in the implementation of direct payments by addressing the need to reconcile the strong evidence of their benefits with emerging concerns about the wider consequences of their implementation. One practice that highlights the conflicts at the heart of direct payments is the employment of personal assistants. While directly employing personal assistants offers maximum benefit for recipients, it also produces the strongest concerns. Therefore, an understanding of the context of direct payments, specifically the practice of employing personal assistants, is used to explore these complexities in greater depth. The discussion concludes by arguing for a more critical awareness of the wider context in which direct payments are being developed in order to understand how this context can open up or limit opportunities for greater self-determination. It suggests a number of factors that need to be addressed to ensure that direct payments continue to be a progressive strategy. These include reconciling conflicting ideologies such as those advocating individual choice and/or collective provision; the need for political action to secure adequate resources; and the development of alternative strategies such as cooperatives to address the collective needs of direct payment recipients and workers.
Key Words: consumerism cooperatives personal assistants selfdetermination user movement
Critical Social Policy, Vol. 24, No. 2,
187-209 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0261018304041950

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. McLaughlin
What's in a Name: 'Client', 'Patient', 'Customer', 'Consumer', 'Expert by Experience', 'Service User'--What's Next?
Br. J. Soc. Work,
February 21, 2008;
(2008)
bcm155v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Priestley, D. Jolly, C. Pearson, S. Ridell, C. Barnes, and G. Mercer
Direct Payments and Disabled People in the UK: Supply, Demand and Devolution
Br. J. Soc. Work,
October 1, 2007;
37(7):
1189 - 1204.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Ellis
Direct Payments and Social Work Practice: The Significance of 'Street-Level Bureaucracy' in Determining Eligibility
Br. J. Soc. Work,
April 1, 2007;
37(3):
405 - 422.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
I. Ferguson
Increasing User Choice or Privatizing Risk? The Antinomies of Personalization
Br. J. Soc. Work,
April 1, 2007;
37(3):
387 - 403.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Scourfield
Social Care and the Modern Citizen: Client, Consumer, Service User, Manager and Entrepreneur
Br. J. Soc. Work,
January 1, 2007;
37(1):
107 - 122.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. Leece and J. Leece
Direct Payments: Creating a Two-Tiered System in Social Care?
Br. J. Soc. Work,
December 1, 2006;
36(8):
1379 - 1393.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Lyon
A systems approach to direct payments: a response to 'Friend or foe? Towards a critical assessment of direct payments'
Critical Social Policy,
May 1, 2005;
25(2):
240 - 252.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|