T Kinder

Bio: T Kinder is an academic researcher. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 16 citations.

Evaluation of self directed support test sites in Scotland

Abstract: ■ Those who accessed SDS packages during the test sites, were positive about their support and satisfied with the flexibility and choice that SDS had provided. ■ The test sites improved access to SDS especially for people with learning disabilities, but did little to promote SDS to other groups, for example, those with mental health problems, from Black or Minority Ethnic groups, older people, those who have addictions or homeless people. ■ In spite of considerable Scottish Government investment in SDS test sites, fewer than 150 new individual SDS arrangements were set up. This suggests that significant time and investment in infrastructure are needed to implement major policy initiatives. ■ None of the test sites had directly addressed issues around mixed funding packages, so the potential to integrate or join up funding streams e.g. with the NHS, could not be assessed. ■ The paradox at the heart of SDS was a (mis)perception by staff, service users, and carers of SDS as an alternative to, direct services and even, Direct Payments (DPs). New and parallel SDS systems to those delivering DPs were created by the test sites. ■ Active promotion of SDS, including DPs, increased the numbers of people opting for payments instead of direct services to pay for more flexible, individualised care and support. ■ All test sites invested in specialist SDS teams and project managers to support development of new systems and administrative processes, as well as generating a body of practice expertise. Consequently, some service users, carers and professionals perceived SDS as separate to both Social Work support and DPs. ■ None of the test sites was able to cut ‘red tape’ or reduce bureaucratic or administrative requirements. Instead, by designing new support systems for SDS, they experienced a (possibly temporary) increase in bureaucracy associated with assessment and resource allocation. ■ Only one of the test sites used test site monies to invest in strategic service development. ■ By the end of the test site period the 3 local authorities had resolved to move towards mainstreaming SDS with support from their senior management and Councillors. Evaluation of Self-Directed Support Test Sites in Scotland

Evaluation Methodology Basics: The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation

Abstract: Our online web service was introduced by using a wish to work as a comprehensive on the web electronic digital collection that gives access to many PDF file e-book catalog. You could find many kinds of e-guide as well as other literatures from your documents data base. Particular preferred subjects that spread out on our catalog are famous books, solution key, assessment test questions and solution, guide sample, training information, test test, user handbook, consumer guidance, support instruction, repair handbook, and so forth.

Embarking on self-directed support in Scotland: a focused scoping review of the literature

Abstract: This article presents findings from a focused scoping review of the published literature on self-directed support (SDS), the term adopted by the Scottish Government to refer to its policy to improve social care outcomes and choices for people using publicly funded services and to distinguish it from personalisation, the term more commonly used in England, and from consumer-directed-care and cash for counselling. The review was undertaken to inform an evaluation of the early adopters of SDS, funded by the Scottish Government 2009–2011, and was updated with later literature. It focused on the evidence base available to inform the Test Sites' (pilot local authorities) efforts to reduce bureaucracy or ‘red tape’ for people choosing their own social care and support; the available evidence about leadership and training to support these changes and about the use of specific transitional funding to ease the process of implementation. The findings of the literature review around these three themes are presented a...

Individualized funding interventions to improve health and social care outcomes for people with a disability: A mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract: The World Health Organisation estimates that 15% of the world’s population live with a disability and that this number will continue to grow into the future, but with the attendant challenge of increasing unmet need due to poor access to health and social care (WHO, 2013). Historically, the types of supports available to people with a disability were based on medical needs only. More recently, however, the importance of social care needs, such as keeping active and socialising, has been recognised (Malley et al., 2012). There is now an international policy imperative for people with a disability to live autonomous, self-determined lives whereby they are empowered and as independent as possible, choosing their supports and self-directing their lives (Perreault & Vallerand, 2007; Saebu, Sorensen, & Halvari, 2013). One way to achieve self-determination is by means of a personal budget (United Nations, 2006). Personal budgets are just one example of many terms used to describe individualised funding – a mechanism to provide personalised and self-directed supports for people with a disability, which places them at the centre of decision-making around how and when they are supported (Carr, 2010). Individualised funding – which is rooted in the Independent Living Movement (Jon Glasby & Littlechild, 2009) - has evolved to take many forms. These include, for example, directpayments, whereby funds are given directly to the person with a disability who then self-manages this money to meet their individual needs, capabilities, life circumstances and aspirations (Aiseanna Tacaiochta, 2014a). Alternatively, a microboard, brokerage model, or ‘managed’ personal budget provide a similar amount of freedom for the person with a disability, but an intermediary service assumes responsibility for administrative tasks, while sometimes also providing support, guidance and information to enable the person to successfully plan, arrange and manage their supports or care plans (Carr, 2010). Other types of models also exist, largely guided by country-specific contexts, such as social benefits systems.

Changing the culture of social care in Scotland: Has a shift to personalization brought about transformative change?

Abstract: In April 2014, the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 (SDS Act) was implemented in Scotland. This marked a major shift in how social care is delivered and organized for both users and professionals across the country. Whilst it emerged through the personalization agenda—which has dominated international social care systems over recent years—self-directed support (SDS) represented a significant shift in thinking for service provision in Scotland. In this article, we review the initial stages of policy implementation. Drawing on two Freedom of Information requests from 2015 and 2016 and a series of interviews with local authority practitioners, we argue that, to date, SDS has yet to produce radical transformative change. We explore the reasons behind this through four key themes. First, we highlight the challenges of promoting the principles of co-production in policy and suggest that, in reality, this has been compromised through SDS implementation. Second, we suggest that SDS has been caught up in a policy overload and ultimately overshadowed by new legislation for health and social care integration. In looking at the impact of this relationship, our third theme questions the role of new partnership working. Lastly, we argue that the timing of SDS in a period of acute austerity in social care has resulted in disabled people being offered limited choice rather than increased opportunities for independent living.