BJSW Advance Access originally published online on July 19, 2006
British Journal of Social Work 2007 37(7):1189-1204; doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl063
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Direct Payments and Disabled People in the UK: Supply, Demand and Devolution
Mark Priestley is Reader in Disability Studies, and Pro-dean for Research in the Faculty of Education, Social Sciences and Law, at the University of Leeds.
Debbie Jolly is a Research Officer at the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds.
Charlotte Pearson is a Lecturer in the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow.
Sheila Ridell is Professor of Inclusion and Diversity at the Centre for Research in Education, Inclusion and Diversity at the University of Edinburgh.
Colin Barnes is Professor of Disability Studies and Director of the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds.
Geof Mercer is Reader in Disability Policy and Research at the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds.
Correspondence to Dr Mark Priestley, Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: m.a.priestley{at}leeds.ac.uk
Direct payments have brought new opportunities for self-determination and independent living to disabled people in the UK, featuring prominently in government strategy and the 2006 White Paper, ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’. However, ten years after direct payments legislation, take-up remains low and implementation varies greatly. Rates of take-up in England remain more than double those in other parts of the UK, raising questions about devolution and equity. This paper presents data from a national study to examine some of the mechanisms underlying uneven outcomes for disabled people in different parts of the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the politics of devolved governance. The analysis focuses on scope for interpretations of policy; resources for information and training; the impact of mandatory duties and targets; extensions to new user groups; and the role of support organizations and disability activism. The evidence suggests that local variations have been produced not only by ‘local’ factors, but also by different opportunity structures for policy development in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This raises questions about the impact of devolution on equity and opportunity for disabled people in the UK.
Keywords: disability, policy implementation, direct payments, devolution
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Kemshall Risk Rationalities in Contemporary Social Work Policy and Practice Br. J. Soc. Work, January 4, 2010; (2010) bcp157v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|