'Using an example of an organisation, identify how the change in legislation was implemented and evaluate the impact of this on the service delivery\r'

'Our office staff as complaisant scarperers is nonp aril of an empowering nature; we atomic number 18 or should be affiliated to equality and re-establishing equal power footstalls.\r\nPromotion of liberty is funda psychical to our role, for this reason I brook discrete to look at the execution of the Direct Payments plan, for modify slew; brought in under the Community contend (direct Payments) Act 1996.\r\nThis was brought in as legislation, because of dis equal to(p)d races jam groups, and in order to give disab lead quite a little raise ‘independence and choice (Abbot, D (2003)) further to this the modify Children Act 2000 extended the access to Direct Payments to 16 †17 year over-the-hill disabled people.\r\n inwardly this paper I ordain break up the role of amicable operate departments for disabled people in advance and after the effectuation. In analysis I will identify issues that have arisen from this mixture in singing to the organis ation of companionable functions, the kind workers and run substance abusers, analysing issues of interpretation, and ethnic change.\r\nThe legislation empowered local anaesthetic authorities to do up ‘Direct Payment systems for disabled people that atomic number 18 entitled to residential district awe improvements, under the community c ar act hardly appreciation was disposed to local authorities on how to implement it. (Community Care, (1999) sept, 8th).\r\nBecause of this discretion the fulfil up and the manner of take up to the connive differed which resulted in very junior-grade act for a number of years.\r\nHusler (no date given) tell aparts ‘this legislation is permissive, which sum councils can not ignore it, only when they have discretions on how to implement it (Ibid). This lack of guidance to implementation led to discrepancies in the implementation of the Direct Payments precis\r\nPrior to the implementation of the direct payments sc heme, the role of genial operates was to assess the needs and risks of the disabled person, and d hotshot this process of assessment inferk to minimise or ensure risk and elevate need.\r\nThis was d unity by dint of the provision of services directly functionled or distributed from primeval government of local social services departments.\r\nWe forgather in this situation the semblanceship of power was genius of retention by the social worker at heart a culture of ‘Role and ‘task rather than person. Although umpteen would compete with this point and state the cultural work base of this time was one of a ‘person culture as defined by Burnes (2000)p.164), where the service users needs and wishes are prominent with the minimisation of the structural highrachy base. Handy (1986) would take issue with this notion and further implores that western organisations work predominantly from a role or task oriented cultural work base. This is evident in many of the recently published documents on working practices and guidelines on legislation interpretation, much(prenominal) as the ‘Working in concert Document 2000 and the Assessment Framework 2000.\r\n and, if look guts to the development of the social services and the then good-will Organisation Society (COS) founded in 1869 we take care tell apart of similar practice in relation to current assessment of needs. This was also done by a COS worker who made judgements based on his of her knowledge, this is sortly an earlier form of means interrogation (Glasby & deoxyadenosine monophosphate; Littlechild (2002)). From this assessment a payment was given to the person or which then was referred to as ‘relief.\r\nThis was technically abolished in 1834; it continued to be paid in practice well into the twentieth centaury, as a ramble on of complex measures for the support of the poor as unemployment soared (Thane. P (1996).\r\nThe Poor Law was finally abolished in 1948 pu tting an end to payments to the poor by social services departments, and replaced by a national scheme for the payment of social security benefits and the provision of eudaimonia services to the elderly and the handicapped.\r\nThis allowed the practitioner to distance themselves from cash payments and the stigma of poverty, further this led to as Becker (1993) states ‘practitioners having little poverty awareness (p93) and further viewing silver problems as be the problem of other agencies (Davies & deoxyadenosine monophosphate; Wainwright (1997) quoted in Glasby & amp; Littlechild p 61)\r\nThis proclivity for the social work profession to distance it self-importance from the nineteenth centaury roots has, resulted in the resistor to the implementation of the Direct Payment Schemes. Although the Direct Payment Scheme is very different from the early payments made by the COS and earlier forms of social services departments.\r\nThis foeman has been from the shop floor soci al workers to MPs such as Virgina Bottomly, who wrote to the MP introducing the Private members bill antecedent to its introduction to goodise direct payments\r\nâ€Å"Social services legislation is concerned with….services and not with direct payments which is the province of the social security system”\r\n(Quoted In Hatchett W, (1991): pp 14 †15).\r\nGovernmental ideology for the implementation of the Direct Payments scheme was to reflect the principles of participation, inclusion and equality by offering choice and independence.\r\nBecause of the lack of clear guidance on interpretation this agenda has been misinterpreted and further resulted in the reluctant take up of the scheme.\r\nRoles and procedures have changed in departments which bear operational changes, and a further shift in the approach to the concept of risk and crack (Dawson (2000) quoted in Carmichael & Br sustain (2002) p.804)\r\nThe involvement in service users lives by social wor kers has shifted away form one of assessment and the in house provision of services, to one of assessment and the provision of monies to purpose individual care form the quasi market place. This can be tailored to meet the individual needs and support of a person, rather than the one ‘size fits all placement of previous service provision (Glasby & Littlechild (2002)) this is in comparison to earlier payments being made by the Independent Living Fund indirectly through and through third parties (Brindle, D. (2000))\r\nfurther key points to the misinterpretation and wispy take up of the scheme is due to the double wording of the legislations guidance the ‘willing and able criteria (Clark & Spafford (2002)) this point argues the service users must be able to ‘ involve direct payments, problems such as ability the to choose have arisen from this guidance as well as to whom the allocation of payment should be made.\r\nWho should have control over the money? Is a question the local authorities have struggled with when assessing people with severe disabilities and people with mental incapacitates. Authorities have taken this colorise area of the legislation and effectively excluded people with mental incapacities because of the legal implications which resulted in the rejecting of an application.\r\nFurther to this councils have choose a top down sticker in which local deterrent organisations are not virtually enough involved within.\r\nThis bureaucratic model is arguably necessary because of the complexity of the system, the workforce need clearly structured role, responsibilities and lines of command for effectiveness (Coulshed & Mullender (2001)) this is for the purposes of office and stability in the system (Ibid).although this can hold in professional liberty and offer further resistance to change (Aldridge (1996) quoted in Coulshed & Mullender, p 31)\r\nWith the implementation of this scheme, thither was a shift awa y from the old system of social worker control to that of user control, which social workers saw as a risk of infection and who have voiced concerns of â€Å"vulnerable people managing their own services and whether it is right to risk such payments (Snell, J. (2000)).\r\nThis is clear indication as Cyert & March (1963) state ‘confusion over how political constraints on insurance policy make a rationalist approach to ending making impossible (quoted in Burnes. B (2000))\r\nThis has led to social workers becoming uncertain as to what is necessary from them, because of the role and responsibility change, as well as the cultural change in the departments, which has further left(a) social workers feeling disempowered. Power and control is decreased from the social worker, and rebalanced with the service user, social workers have fixn this as a perceived loss of their identity and status. (Clark & Spafford (2002) p 252)\r\nConfusion and lack of participation in the planning stages of the delivery of services has left social workers resenting the direct payments scheme, this has further led to slow take up and slow information distribution to service users.\r\nEtienne dAbouuville (1999) states the schemes are floundering because local authorities are use social workers to advice on direct payments, rather than disable peoples organisations which can provide peer support. This is further inference in the change of role change in the role of the care manager Glasby & Littlecihild (2002) argue workload implications and the low ratio of staff is a strong and potential barrier to the independence of disabled people. Mullins (1993) comments on this and states ‘commitment and cooperation to organisational goals will depend on how these are perceived to be in their own interests.\r\nIf we look at this in the context of the social worker who has been giving advice to the service user on, employers responsibility, obligations and legal ramif ications without training and on top of their ‘normal workload we specify why social workers are feeling stressed. Further too this reluctant to work in with the scheme (Hosler (1999)).\r\nSocial worker having little involvement in the change has led to this resistance; this is perpetuated with the burdening of further responsibility on the worker. Mullender and Coulshed argue ‘where structures are going through change this is adapted to more quickly where there are open lines of communication and decentralised structures.\r\nIf we analyse the impact of the organisational change to the service user we see a clear recondition of the social model of disability which as Oliver argues\r\n‘It is not people impairments which contrast peoples ability to participate in society and to make out their rights, but the organisation of society it self which causes the disability”\r\n(Quoted in Stainton, T. (2002) p 752)\r\nThis social model articulates not how to find a way of compensating for the natural disadvantage, but how society can accommodate a range of differences (Ibid).\r\nService users have stated they have rights and autonomy furthering the ability to be recognised as mount citizens (Stainton, T (2002)). Many disabled people earlier to the introduction of the Direct Payments Scheme were given little or no choice in relation to who provided the care, and to what extent. This was reflective of the funding structures and mechanisms of the social services departments (Statinton, T (1998)), here the departments or the family would access and commission the service, which resulted on many occasions being put on a waiting list.\r\nIn this analysis we see little or no choice or control on the part of the service recipient, and further if criteria for service were not met then no service was offered. This coupled with resource constraints and tightly specified service contracts can together restrict the remits and activities of services (Gle ndininig, C, (2000))\r\nWith the raw system the service user retains overall control on who to commission to carry out the work and for what period of time, the service user defines what needs are to be met and to what extent. A shift away from the social worker led assessment.\r\nWith a recondition of the Disabled persons rights the Direct Payments Scheme also brought with it the responsibility of being an employer and with that obligation to contractual agreements. This could be seen as a potential barrier, but many disabled people have commented, â€Å"All the stress is worth having control of your own care” (Clark and Spafford (2002))\r\nIn conclusion we see how the change has resulted in a cultural change within the social services departments and further a shift away from the ethos of the social worker as the expert.\r\nThis is welcomed by Disability groups who have campaigned for the Direct Payments Scheme, but resented by those whose jobs it has affected with added w orkload and change in role.\r\nChange is a natural occurrence and almost would argue inevitable to human evaluation, it is about recognising where sociality shortfalls are and actively seeking to rectify them.\r\nAs with a majority of pieces of legislation they are based on social justice principles, but interpretation results in oppression and discrimination\r\n'