The portability of publicly-funded adult social care across local authority boundaries received recent policy attention in England and was addressed in the Care Act 2014. This article presents the findings of a scoping review conducted between July–September 2012 that searched selected journals and online databases for relevant material. The aim of the review was to identify what is known about the experiences of adults entitled to publicly-funded social care who move between local authorities, and the support provided by social workers to those planning to relocate. The review focused specifically on disabled adults and carers, eligible for and in receipt of social care support, who relocate for work or education in England.
Findings
The review identified little direct research covering experiences of moving between local authorities. However, six specific barriers, challenges and facilitators to relocation were identified; these included the portability of social care support, variations in policy and practice between local authorities, and housing availability. The review concludes that the process of relocation may be complex, challenging, and uncertain, although individuals may experience benefits and positive outcomes.
Applications
The review outlines areas for good social work practice in supporting people using social care services to relocate. These include: ensuring the provision of information; close working between local authorities and social workers; the development of interim plans to address potential delays in setting up support; proactive and rapid monitoring and reassessment following a move to address potentially changed support needs arising from changed housing circumstances.
ArkseyH.BaxterK. (2012) Exploring the temporal aspects of direct payments. British Journal of Social Work42(1): 147–164. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr039.
3.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology8(1): 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
4.
BeckerF.BeckerS. (2008) Young adult carers in the UK: Experiences, needs and services for carers aged 16–24, London, England: Princess Royal Trust for Carers.
5.
BochelC.BochelH.PageD. (1999) Housing: The foundation of community care?Health and Social Care in the Community7(6): 492–501. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00216.x.
6.
ButtJ.DhaliwalS. (2005) Different paths: Challenging services: A study of the housing experiences of black and minority ethnic disabled and D/deaf people, London, England: Habinteg Housing Association.
CestariL.MunroeM.EvansS.SmithA.HuxleyP. (2006) Fair Access to Care Services (FACS): Implementation in the mental health context of the UK. Health and Social Care in the Community14(6): 474–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00632.x.
11.
CharlesN.ManthorpeJ. (2007) FACS or fiction? The impact of the policy Fair Access to Care Services on social care assessments of older visually impaired people. Practice: Social Work in Action19(2): 143–157. doi: 10.1080/09503150701393692.
12.
Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). (2008). Cutting the cake fairly: CSCI review of eligibility criteria for social care. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/cutting_the_cake_fairly.pdf.
13.
CoyleD. (2011) Impact of person-centred thinking and personal budgets in mental health services: Reporting a UK pilot. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing18(9): 796–803. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01728.x.
14.
DalyG.RoebuckA.with DeanJ.GoffF.BollardM.TaylorC. (2008) Gaining independence: An evaluation of service users’ accounts of the individual budgets pilot. Journal of Integrated Care16(3): 17–25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14769018200800021.
15.
Department of Health (DH). (2003). Fair Access to Care Services: Guidance on eligibility criteria for adult social care. London, England: Author.
16.
Department of Health (DH). (2010). A vision for adult social care: Capable communities and active citizens. London, England: Author.
DilnotA. (2011) Fairer care funding: The report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, London, England: Commission on Funding of Care and Support.
19.
EsmondD.GordonK.McCaskieK.StewartJ. (1998) More scope for fair housing: A good practice guide to the provision of housing and support – putting disabled people at the centre, creating sustainable environments and achieving best value, London, England: Scope.
Fernandez, J. L., & Snell, T. (2012). Survey of Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) assessment criteria among local authorities in England: Final report (PSSRU discussion paper 2825). London, England: PSSRU, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/FACS-eligibility-report-dp-2825f.pdf.
22.
HenwoodM. (2012) Crossing the threshold: The implications of the Dilnot Commission and Law Commission reports for eligibility and assessment in care and support, London, England: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
23.
HenwoodM.HudsonB. (2008) Lost to the system? A report commissioned by the Commission for Social Care Inspection for the production of ‘The state of social care in England 2006–07’, London, England: Commission for Social Care Inspection.
24.
HM Government (2012) Caring for our future: Reforming care and support, London, England: The Stationery Office.
25.
HowardM. (2002) Not just the job: Report of a working group on disabled people using personal assistance and work incentives, York, England: Joseph Rowntree FoundationRetrieved from http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859351255.pdf.
JacobsS.AbellJ.StevensM.WilberforceM.ChallisD.ManthorpeJ.NettenA. (2013) The personalization of care services and the early impact on staff activity patterns. Journal of Social Work13(2): 141–162. doi: 10.1177/1468017311410681.
KingD.PickardL. (2013) When is a carer’s employment at risk? Longitudinal analysis of unpaid care and employment in midlife England. Health and Social Care in the Community21(3): 303–314. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12015.
30.
Law Commission. (2011). Adult social care. London, England: The Stationery Office.
31.
LoganP. A.BatchvarovaM.ReadC. (1997) A study of the housing needs of disabled applicants to the Nottingham City Council Housing Department and the problems faced by local housing providers in meeting these needs. British Journal of Occupational Therapy60(3): 129–131. doi: 10.1177/030802269706000309.
32.
Lymbery, M. (2012). Social work and personalisation: Fracturing the bureau-professional compact? British Journal of Social Work. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs165.
33.
LymberyM. (2014) Understanding personalisation: Implications for social work. Journal of Social Work14(3): 295–312. doi: 10.1177/1468017313477326.
34.
ManthorpeJ.MoriartyJ. (2014) Examining day centre provision for older people in the UK using the Equality Act 2010: Findings of a scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community22(4): 352–360. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12065.
35.
ManthorpeJ.PhilipsJ. (1998) Working carers: Working with people who juggle both roles. Practice: Social Work in Action10(2): 37–48. doi: 10.1080/09503159808411484.
National People with Disabilities and Carer Council. (2009). Shut out: The experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia. National Disability Strategy Consultation Report prepared by the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council. Canberra, Australia: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/nds_report.pdf.
41.
National Union of Students (NUS). (n.d.). Life not numbers: A report into the experiences of disabled students in higher education using personal care packages. London, England: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/life-not.pdf.
42.
NewbronnerL.ChamberlainR.BosanquetK.BartlettC.BerndS.GlendinningC. (2011) Keeping personal budgets personal: Learning from the experiences of older people, people with mental health problems and their carers, London, England: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
43.
NewtonJ.BrowneL. (2008) How fair is Fair Access to Care?Practice: Social Work in Action20(4): 235–249. doi: 10.1080/09503150802532305.
44.
NoconA.PleaceN. (1998) The housing needs of disabled people. Health and Social Care in the Community6(5): 361–369. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.1998.00130.x.
Priestley, M., Riddell, S., Jolly, D., Pearson, C., Williams, V., Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Cultures of welfare at the front line: Implementing direct payments for disabled people in the UK. Policy and Politics, 38(2), 307–324. doi: 10.1332/030557309X477956.
47.
SapeyB. (1995) Disabling homes: A study of the housing needs of disabled people in Cornwall. Disability and Society10(1): 71–86. doi: 10.1080/09687599550023732.
48.
SayceL. (2011) Getting in, staying in and getting on: Disability employment support fit for the future, Norwich, England: The Stationery Office.
SlasbergC. (2011–12) Towards a new eligibility framework that serves the interests of both service users and councils. Research, Policy and Planning29(1): 45–59. Retrieved from http://ssrg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Slasberg.pdf.
