English policy and practice guidance recommends local authorities offer personal budgets to all adults eligible for social care support using transparent and equitable allocation systems which maximise choice and control for users. This includes family and other unpaid carers as carers in England are entitled to their own personal budget. The Care Act 2014 strengthens carers’ rights and places duties on authorities to assess and meet carers eligible support needs. However, little is known about how authorities assess and allocate resources to carers. This article explores this information gap drawing on data from a survey of English local authorities in two regions completed by carers lead officers and complemented by follow-up telephone interviews with a sub-sample of these officers.
Findings
Survey and interview results demonstrate wide practice variations around how social workers assess, calculate and distribute resources to carers. There is little uniformity across authorities. Carer eligibility criteria are used but thresholds vary and are often unclear. Most grants/personal budgets are allocated as single annual payments but how the level of these grant/personal budgets are calculated varies with little standardisation.
Applications
The article develops the evidence base surrounding resource allocation to carers through carer grants/personal budgets. Findings are timely as the Care Act 2014 will strengthen carers’ rights alongside the continuing personalisation of adult social care. Discussing local authority policy and practice around key objectives of equity, transparency and carer choice, implications for future social work practice and its development are considered in light of the Care Act 2014.
ClarkeH.HughesN. (2010) Introduction: Family minded policy and whole family practice – Developing a critical research framework. Social Policy and Society9(4): 527–531. .
10.
CliffordP.SaundersR.GibbonL. (2013) Modelling the relationship between needs and costs: How accurate resource allocation can deliver personal budgets and personalisation. Research, Policy and Planning30(2): 107–120.
11.
Davidson, J., Baxter, K., Glendinning, C., Jones, K., Forder, J., Caiels, J., … Dolan, P. (2012). Personal health budgets: Experiences and outcomes for budget holders at nine months: Fifth interim report. Retrieved from http://php.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/2222/.
12.
Department of Health (DH). (2010a). Carers and personalisation: Improving outcomes. London, UK: HMSO. Retrieved from www.dh.gov.uk/publications.
EllisK. (2014) Professional discretion and adult social work: Exploring its nature and scope on the front line of personalisation. British Journal of Social Work44(8): 2272–2289.
EvansT. (2013) Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work. British Journal of Social Work43(4): 739–758.
17.
FineM.GlendinningC. (2005) Dependence, independence or inter-dependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘dependency’. Ageing and Society25(4): 601–621.
18.
FletcherM. (2006) Carers and direct payments. In: LeeceJ.BornatJ. (eds) Developments in direct payments, Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 171–185.
19.
GlasbyJ. (2014) The controversies of choice and control: Why some people might be hostile to English social care reforms. British Journal of Social Work44(2): 252–266.
20.
GlasbyJ.LittlechildR. (2009) Direct payments and personal budgets: Putting personalisation into practice, Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
21.
GlendinningC.MitchellW.BrooksJ. (2015) Ambiguity in practice? Carers’ roles in personalized social care in England. Health and Social Care in the Community23(1): 23–32.
22.
HardyM. (2016) Discretion in the history and development of social work. In: EvansT.KeatingF. (eds) Policy and social work practice, London: Sage, pp. 11–30.
HM Government. (2010). Recognised, valued and supported: Next steps for the carers’ strategy. London, UK: HMSO. Retrieved from www.dh.gov.uk/publications.
KeefeJ.RajnovichB. (2007) To pay or not to pay: Examining underlying principles in the debate on financial support for family caregivers. Canadian Journal on Aging26(1): 77–89.
27.
KrogerT. (2009) Care research and disability studies: Nothing in common?Critical Social Policy29(3): 398–420.
28.
LarkinM.MilneA. (2014) Carers and empowerment in the UK: A critical reflection. Social Policy and Society13(1): 25–38.
LymberyM. (2012) Social work and personalisation. British Journal of Social Work42(4): 783–792.
31.
MitchellW.BrooksJ.GlendinningC. (2015) Carers’ roles in personal budgets: Tensions and dilemmas in front line practice. British Journal of Social Work45(5): 1433–1450.
32.
MitchellW.BrooksJ.GlendinningC. (2014) Personalisation: Where do carers fit? In: NeedhamC.GlasbyJ. (eds) Debates in personalisation, London, UK: Policy Press, pp. 67–76.
33.
MoranN.ArkseyH.GlendinningC.JonesK.NettenA.RabieeP. (2012) Personalisation and carers: Whose rights? Whose benefits?British Journal of Social Work42(3): 461–479.
Repper, J., Nolan, M., Grant, G., & Curran, M. (Eds). (2008). Family carers on the margins: Experiences of assessment in mental health. Report to the national Coordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/5632/.
40.
RitchieJ.LewisJ. (2003) Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, London, UK: Sage.
41.
SeddonD.RobinsonC. (2015) Carer assessment: Continuing tensions and dilemmas for social care. Health and Social Care in the Community23(1): 14–22.
42.
SeddonD.RobinsonC.ReevesC.TommisY.WoodsB.RussellI. (2007) In their own right: Translating the policy of carer assessment into practice. British Journal of Social Work37(8): 1335–1352.
43.
SeriesL.ClementsL. (2013) Putting the cart before the horse: Resource allocation systems and community care. Social Welfare and Family Law35(2): 207–226.
44.
ShakespeareT. (2000) The social relations of care. In: LewisG.GewirtzS.ClarkeJ. (eds) Rethinking social policy, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 52–65.
45.
Slasberg, C., Beresford, P., & Schofield, P. (2013). The increasing evidence of how self-directed support is failing to deliver personal budgets and personalisation. Research, Policy and Planning, 30(2), 91–105. Retrieved from http://ssrg.org.uk/research-policy-and-planning-vol-30.
