Search results

PurposeThis paper aims to present a digest of the main discussion points and key findings from a recent Social Care Institute for Excellence report on risk enablement and safeguarding in the context of self‐directed support and personal budgets.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explores how the personalisation agenda and adult safeguarding can work together in policy and practice and addresses some of the frontline concerns about empowerment and duty of care.FindingsEvidence on how self‐directed support and personal budgets can be used to enable people to take positive risks while staying safe and emerging practice is examined. It suggests that person‐centred working in adult safeguarding, along with the mechanism of self‐directed support planning and outcome review, can support the individual to identify the risks they want to take and those they want to avoid in order to stay safe. It is clear that if frontline practitioners are overly occupied with protecting organisations and individuals from financial abuse, this will impact on the capacity of those practitioners exercising their duty of care at the front line. This means that practitioners are less able to engage with individuals to identify safeguarding issues and enable positive risk taking. Defensive risk management strategies or risk‐averse frontline practice may then result in individuals not being adequately supported to make choices and take control and, therefore, being put at risk. Practitioners need to be supported by local authorities to incorporate safeguarding and risk enablement in their relationship‐based, person‐centred working. Good quality, consistent and trusted relationships and good communication are particularly important for self‐directed support and personal budget schemes.Originality/valueThe use of "risk enablement panels" and "personalisation and safeguarding frameworks" are two ways to address some of the issues in practice.

Drawing on the findings of a major review on service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales, this paper explores some of the challenging dynamics that are emerging as service users begin to take up strategic power in social care organizations. Analysis of the current situation suggests that such participation is challenging the very fabric of the institutions in which it is taking place, exposing problems with the political, strategic and structural elements of established non-user organizations. On many levels traditional power relations are being unsettled. The conceptual clash between citizenship and consumerism is being exposed as participation becomes more widespread and sites of resistance are revealed. The associated issues of power, conflict and democracy are discussed with reference to the work of the political philosopher Chantal Mouffe.

This article explores the relationship between lesbian activists and the "psy professions" (especially psychology and psychiatry) in England from the 1960s to the 1980s. We draw on UK-based LGBTQIA+ archive sources and specifically magazines produced by, and for, lesbians. We use this material to identify three key strategies used within the lesbian movement to contest psycho-pathologisation during this 30-year period: from respectable collaborationist forms of activism during the 1960s; to more liberationist oppositional politics during the early 1970s; to radical feminist separatist activism in the 1980s. Whilst these strategies broadly map onto activist strategies deployed within the wider lesbian and gay movement during this time, this article explores how these politics manifested in particular ways, specifically in relation to the psy disciplines in the UK. We describe these strategies, illustrating them with examples of activism from the archives. We then use this history to problematise a linear, overly reductionist or binary history of liberation from psycho-pathologisation. Finally, we explore some complexities in the relationship between sexuality, activism and the psy professions.

This article explores the relationship between lesbian activists and the "psy professions" (especially psychology and psychiatry) in England from the 1960s to the 1980s. We draw on UK-based LGBTQIA+ archive sources and specifically magazines produced by, and for, lesbians. We use this material to identify three key strategies used within the lesbian movement to contest psycho-pathologisation during this 30-year period: from respectable collaborationist forms of activism during the 1960s; to more liberationist oppositional politics during the early 1970s; to radical feminist separatist activism in the 1980s. Whilst these strategies broadly map onto activist strategies deployed within the wider lesbian and gay movement during this time, this article explores how these politics manifested in particular ways, specifically in relation to the psy disciplines in the UK. We describe these strategies, illustrating them with examples of activism from the archives. We then use this history to problematise a linear, overly reductionist or binary history of liberation from psycho-pathologisation. Finally, we explore some complexities in the relationship between sexuality, activism and the psy professions.

AbstractAs English social care services reconstruct themselves in response to the personalization agenda, there is increased interest in the contribution of micro‐providers – very small community‐based organizations, which can work directly with individuals. These micro‐providers are assumed to be able to cater for the 'seldom heard' groups which have been marginalized within mainstream social care services. This article reviews recent literature from the UK published in peer‐reviewed journals from 2000 to 2013 on support provision for people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It considers the marginalising dynamics in mainstream, statutory social care support provision, and how far local community, specialist or small‐scale services are responding to unmet need for support and advice among marginalized groups. The review found that there is a tradition of compensatory self‐organization, use of informal networks and a mobilization of social capital for all these groups in response to marginalization from mainstream, statutory services. This requires recognition and nurturing in ways that do not stifle its unique nature. Specialist and community‐based micro‐providers can contribute to a wider range of choices for people who feel larger, mainstream services are not suitable or accessible. However, the types of compensatory activity identified in the research need recognition and investment, and its existence does not imply that the mainstream should not address marginalization.