Report on Modernising Social Services

spread abroad on Modernising fond functionIntroductionThe Modernising Social operate reputation (Secretary of put up for Health 1998) concerns New proletariats policy for improving amicable work that accentes the important role this plays in helping people stilt with personal crisis and life-changing events. In this report, social works were criticised for not previously opposition public expectations in key areas includingInconsistencies in provision across the country.Inefficiencies in effective use of financial budgets.A lack of public knowingness of what operate should be available by whom.Insufficient safeguards to protect assailable children.Failures in co-ordination where, for example, local anesthetic regime disagreed on which body should be obligated for upkeep.Inflexibility as regards individual needs and circumstances.To rectify these deficiencies, the report recommended improvements in all the areas listed. For example, with the elderly, this was to invo lve awarding payments directly to those aged 65 and over, consequently promoting greater personal control as well as reshaping suffices to initiate greater independence and reduce inactivity. A gigantic-term care charter was besides to be introduced to further individual needs with assessments to approximate customer satisfaction. Childrens services were to be improved by introducing lively new inspection regimes for care with a national register to rule out undesirable individuals from working and coming into contact with children. Similar safeguards were to be introduced for the mentally ill. To achieve the required standards, new qualifications and training of staff were to be introduced and legislation enacted to improve liaison between sundry(a) relevant bodies such as health and social services. An annual establishment report was to be naturalized monitoring service delivery by twain local authorities and social services with action taken where standards failed to meet requirements. To finance these changes, annual funding was to be raised by 3.1 per cent per annum over lead years and a Social Services Modernisation Fund inaugurated where cash in hand were to be focussed on key areas. The report hoped that these initiatives would lead to real numberly improvements in services covering all the sectors specified wind to a restoration of the publics confidence but concluded that this modernisation would be a long term process of which the report correspond just one step towards attaining significant improvements during the early part of the twenty-first century (section 8.1 and 8.2).Previous policy towards social careAlthough the health service had been comparatively successful in improving health up until the startle of the 1980s, it became a victim of its own success as those cured of express illnesses became ill at an older, more vulnerable, age (Glasby, 2007 p. 33) leading to greater storm on social services in command. To offset t he spiralling costs, the Thatcher governing body, which came to power in 1979, thus gestured a carriage from care provided by government bodies to a system based more on self belief predicated on the notion that the demands of welfare was affecting the UK economy (Alcock 1996). This led to various market-based reforms in response two reports (Griffiths 1983, 1988) where integrated management structures were recommended at all levels of both the NHS and social services where the emphasis was to be on energy. In addition, the occur of funding available for the NHS reduced and ways were implemented to improve efficiency and service provision that culminated in a government White story (Dept. of Health 1989a) that saw the introduction of the inseparable market and the purchaser/ supplier divide. Similarly, in social care, social service departments were to both plan and bring up residential district care with local authorities acting as purchases of the contrasting care facili ties available a scheme that has been criticised for transferring the increasing government budget onto local authorities despite the apparent aim of the Caring for mass reforms (Dept. of Health 1989b) that sort to empower individuals by providing greater choice. The extent of the governments limited response to these and other recommendations can be gauged by Griffiths (1992) the author of the two Griffiths reports criticism of the lack of positive action. The governments policy was also criticised because, with a shift of responsibility to families, voluntary organizations and individuals themselves, a means was provided whereby privatisation could be promoted and free care reduced (Baggot 2004, p.276). The result of these policies was that by 1989 the share of private and voluntary organizations had expanded to cover half the long term provision for care of the elderly. Moreover, those reforms introduces as a result of the Griffiths Report led to defensive management and red uced morale among professionals working in social care during the 1990s (Baggot 2004 p. 279).Policy under New LabourWith the election of New Labour in 1997 a third way was offered as a means of bridging the divide between right-wing reliance on market forces and the more socially driven attitudes of the left. This culminated in the 1998 report on social care that came out of the Labour parties wish for conjugated up government that endeavoured to link the various agencies together, especially services to do with health and social welfare two departments that had previously operated as relatively separate entities (Glasby 2007, p. 7). Thus, interagency working became one of the main areas of concern after 1998. The reality, however, seems to luff that thither were important changes as well as continuities with previous policies (ibid p. 36). Thus, at that place was an undertaking to stay within previous spending limits but the versed market was abolished. Later, however, spendi ng limits were broken with large increases in expenditure and the internal market was replaced with a similarly functioning primary care equip system. In this respect, the government expressed the wish to build only on that which had previously proved effective (Dept. of Health 1997). One policy that continue accordingly involved the closing of large institutions that helped to deinstitutionalise the attitudes of inmates and staff (Baggot 2004). The policy of union care was hence strengthened whereby individuals from groups such as the mentally ill, the elderly, those with instruction difficulties, etc., were given more say in decisions about(predicate) care and the various options for living in the community or at home. Glasby (ibid), however, has criticised the concept of community care because, although facilities became more human in scale and community oriented, they unchanging tended to be institutional in outlook with the previous ethos in intercourse to providers and u sers continuing to prevail well into the 21st century. In addition, up to 2001, there were take over obvious disparities in delivery of policies across local authorities. notwithstanding this negativity, government publications such as Valuing hatful (Dept. of Health 2001) had, at least, shifted emphasis by highlighting the main issues.The trend whereby the independent sector took keeping of residential and nursing homes act, however, to the extent that nearly all commercial and voluntary organizations now came under independent control a trend also reflected in home care where independent involvement had increased to about fifty per cent by 2002 (Baggot 2004, p.282). The tendency towards more central government control in monitoring social care and the integration of services also continued but there were strong criticisms as regards the economy of care homes (Fahey et al 2003). A series of regulatory acts during from 2000 onwards, however, attempted to let off this situati on (Baggot 2004, p. 292) and a performance framework was introduced with a Best think of system to gauge efficiency that was later censured for emphasising cost over quality. expiryAlthough there have been many recommendations for change to social services since the 1980s, the industriousness of these to the real world has been piecemeal and often influenced by political expediency. The move towards independent provision during the Conservative period, although well intentioned, led to a cutback in funding with problems concerning standards and monitoring with the move towards care in the community leading to difficulties of integration of services across providers and communication between professional groups. With the comer of New Labour, the policy of care in the community continued with attempts at greater integration, improvement of standards, and increased monitoring leading to different levels of success. regional variations in provision continued and the rhetoric was not a lways met with real change that may be a consequence of the fact that long-standing attitudes continued to influence actual policy. Moreover, the move towards care in the community has still not been matched by corresponding high quality services or adequate liaison between professional groups and providers to the extent that the aims of the Modernising Social Services report still remain to be achieved. Ultimately, it seems a paradox continues to come through between an approach where people are regarded as citizens having equal rights to service that is opposed to the alternative whereby individuals are viewed as customers with the right to choose a product. Continuing tensions relating to this dichotomy may be the source of on-going shortfalls in provision that have led to ongoing problems with regard to local health and social service integration. Nevertheless, as the report on Modernising Social Services has emphasised, improvements to the system were expected to be a gradual bit by bit process which seems to be confirmed by the various measured enhancements in services to date.BibliographyAlcock, P. Social Policy Themes and issues. Basingstoke Macmillan.Baggot, R. 2004. Health and Health Care in Britain. Palgrave Houndmills.Dept. of Health. 1989a Working for patients. HMSO London.Dept. of Health. 1989b Caring for people. HMSO London.Dept. of Health. 1997. The new NHS Modern, dependable. The Stationary fleck London.Dept. of Health. 2001. Valuing People A new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century. The Stationary Office London.Fahey, T., Montgomery, A., Barnes, J. and Protheroe, J. 2003. Quality of Care for Elderly Residents. in Nursing Homes and Elderly People Living at Home Controlled Observational Study. British Medical Journal. 326. pp. 580-583,Glasby, J. 2007. accord Health and Social Care. The Policy Press Bristol.Griffiths R. 1983. NHS management inquiry (The Griffiths Report). DHSS London.Griffiths, R. 1988. biotic community ca re Agenda for action (The Griffiths Report). HMSO London.Griffiths, R. 1993 Seven years of progress general management in the NHS. Health Economics. 1 (1) pp. 67-70.Secretary of State. 1998 Modernising Social Services Promoting independence. Improving protection. Raising standards. The Stationary Office London.