MITCHELL Wendy, et al
Summarises the findings of a study on approaches to supporting physically disabled young adults to achieve their preferred levels of control over care and support arrangements. The study took place between July 2012 and January 2014 and involved semi-structured interviews with young adults, parents and social care professionals. It examined physically disabled young adults experiences of managing their care and support arrangements and explored how they can be better supported. Key findings and practice implications are included. While welcoming the opportunities afforded by personalised approaches within adult social care, almost all the young adults described feeling daunted by the associated responsibilities, with managing personal assistants/carers consistently identified as the most difficult aspect of having a Direct Payment. Young adults found information from statutory services was typically targeted at other audiences, for example, older people and only a minority believed transition planning/support services had played a significant role in preparing them for taking on a Personal Budget. Social workers with more experience of working with young adults identified specific issues that need to be accommodated including: young adults’ relative lack of life skills and experience; young adults’ preferences regarding parental involvement; and addressing parents’ support needs.
ROUTLEDGE Martin, et al
Presents the latest information about personal budgets for older people, showing that older people experience positive benefits from having a personal budget, although these are not as marked as for other groups. The first section reflects briefly on recent changes to the policy context and then highlights new data about the performance of councils from the recent 2014 ADASS survey, and the third National Personal Budget survey from In Control. It then draws on research and recent TLAP events, which considered minimum processes and self-directed support, to review what does and doesn't work best for older people. The second section of this report presents some examples of what councils are doing to address the ongoing challenges both of the initial report and the current policy context. The case studies are summarised in Table. Section 3 examines personalisation and safeguarding, and specifically, whether personal budgets increase risks to older people whilst section 4 considers integration and the opportunities that government policy affords older people in relation to personalisation. In its conclusion, the report recommends that there needs to be further evidence of what is being done to support the use of personal budgets by older people.
KNAPP Martin, et al
This study provides economic evidence to support the case for investing in effective, recovery-focused services for people with schizophrenia and psychosis. Drawing on a wide range of data, it sets out the evidence for the cost-effectiveness for a range of interventions and service. Those discussed are: Early Detection (ED) services; Early Intervention (EI) teams; Individual Placement and Support (IPS); Family therapy; Criminal justice liaison and diversion; Physical health promotion, including health behaviours; Supported housing; Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment (CRHT) teams; Crisis houses; Peer support; Self-management; Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); Anti-stigma and discrimination campaigns; Personal Budgets (PBs); and Welfare advice. For each intervention the report provides information on the context, the nature of the intervention, the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and the policy and practice implications. The report finds evidence to suggest that all of the interventions contribute to recovery outcomes, reduced costs and/or better value for money. Examples of the savings incurred through particular interventions are also included. The study was undertaken by a team from the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the Centre for Mental Health, and the Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health (CEMPH) at King’s College London.