A fascinating (and important) debate in Guardian Society between Peter Beresford professor of social policy at Brunel University and Julie Stansfield, chief executive of In Control, ‘pioneers of self-directed support’.
Beresford cites two recent research studies to support his argument that the government’s strategy for delivering the personalisation of social care, by giving people a “personal budget” to “self-direct” their support through a resource allocation system (RAS), has created a distraction from the original objective – and at great cost.
Even Stansfield admits that the problem lies in delivery i.e. in the ‘real-life’ experiences of the learning disabled and their carers: “The problem is not personal budgets but rather their poor delivery in too many places… Personal budgets are just a mechanism; the principles of self-directed support are the critical thing. But this is also where the real problem lies.”
The most astounding evidence cited by Peter Beresford is ‘An Apology‘ by Simon Duffy (a conspicuous advisor over the last two decades on government social policy) published on the Centre for Welfare Reform’s website.
This article begins: “Since establishing The Centre for Welfare Reform in 2009 I have been able to work and think with other people about some of the judgements I made in the past. And, I believe I should make a written apology for two mistakes that are having increasingly negative consequences: 1) Complex Resource Allocation Systems (RAS) – using questionnaires, points, weightings and formulas to calculate a fair budget. 2) Support Plans – which are now being abused and which are undermining the autonomy of disabled people and families.” The article should be read in full by anyone intersted in, or affected by, these issues.