Current developments in social care require resource allocation mechanisms in adult social care which promote choice and self-direction and are demonstrably fair and objective in their determination. The study was designed to promote a greater understanding of this process. Areas of enquiry comprised: existing approaches to resource allocation; identification of variation in approaches both between and within user groups; and perceptions of stakeholders on the most appropriate factors to be taken into account in resource allocation.
A mixed methods approach was employed incorporating a literature review, analysis of secondary data at both the individual and authority levels; and primary data collection. The latter comprised a survey of local authorities and a study with a cohort of budget holding managers together with a brief questionnaire administered to a large cohort of users, carers and citizens to ascertain their views on the components of a resource allocation model and the relative importance afforded to each. The project was undertaken in collaboration with Paul Clifford from FACE Recording & Measurement Systems. Public involvement in the process was facilitated by Age UK Cheshire and two advocacy groups, OSCA and Taking Part. This study took place between July 2011 and March 2014. More information can be found on the NIHR SSCR project page.
Publications
Clifford, P., Saunders, R., and Gibbon, L. (2013). Modelling the relationship between needs and costs: how accurate resource allocation can deliver personal budgets and personalisation. Research, Policy and Planning, 30, 2, 107-120.
Davies, S., Clarkson, P., Hughes, J., Stewart, K., Xie, C., Saunders, R., and Challis, D. (2015). Resource allocation priorities in social care for adults with a learning disability: an analysis and comparison of different stakeholder perspectives. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 20, 4, 199-206.
Stewart, K., Hughes, J., Challis, D., Worden, A., Davies, S., Xie, C., Asthana, S. and Gibson, A. (2021). Understanding Resource Allocation Processes in Social Care for Frail Older People: Lessons from a National Survey. Journal of Long-Term Care. 43-57. https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/articles/10.31389/jltc.21/
Clarkson, P, Davies, S, Hughes, J, Xie, C, Stewart, K., Challis, D and Clifford, P, 2018. Priorities for long-term care resource allocation in England: Actual allocation versus the views of Directors of Service and older citizens. Journal of Long-Term Care. 1, 13-23. https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/articles/abstract/2/
Hughes J, Davies S, Chester H, Clarkson P, Stewart K. and Challis D. (2018). Learning disability services: user views on transition planning. Tizard Learning Disability Review. 23(3): 150-158.
Research Summaries
The purpose of this study is to explore practice and procedures which facilitate the flexible use of resources within local authorities. It will investigate the relationship between this flexible use of budgets and other aspects of care management. Additionally, it will explore areas intrinsic to the development of the flexible use of budgets in the sub-set of authorities reporting this innovative practice. The study was funded by the Department of Health PRP in 2010 to 2011.
Publications
Xie C, Hughes J, Sutcliffe C, Chester H, and Challis D (2012). Promoting Personalization in Social Care Services for Older People. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(3), 218-232.
Sutcliffe C, Hughes J, Xie C, Chester H, and Challis D (2012). Social care in older people's services: Facilitating the flexible use of Resources. Care Management Journals, 13(3), 100-107.
Individual budgets were piloted as a new way of providing support for older people, disabled adults and adults with mental health problems eligibile for publicly funded social care. Individual budgets (IBs) are intended to provide greater clarity about the resources available for support and more flexibilty, choice and control over how needs are met. IBs were designed to bring together the resources from several funding streams for which an individual is eligible; these were to be used flexibly according to individual priorities and desired outcomes.
The Department of Health established IB pilots in 13 English local authorities, running from November 2005 to December 2007, and commissioned a national evaluation. This was undertaken by staff from the five social care research units receiving support from the Department of Health:
PSSRU at the University of Manchester
PSSRU at the London School of Economics and Political Science
PSSRU at the University of Kent
Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York
Social Care Workforce Research Unit at King's College London
Reports
Publications
Glendinning C, Challis DJ, Fernandez J. L, Jones K, Knapp M, Manthorpe J, Netten A, Stevens M, Wilberforce M. (2007). Evaluating the Individual Budget Pilots. Journal of Care Services Management, 1, 123-128.
Manthorpe J, Stevens M., Challis DJ, Netten A, Glendinning C, Knapp M., Wilberforce M, Jacobs SR, Jones K, Moran N, and Fernandez J-L (2008). Individual budget projects come under the microscope. Mental Health Today, Jan, 22-26.
Manthorpe, J, Stevens, M, Rapaport, J, Harris, J, Jacobs, SR, Challis, DJ, Netten, A, Knapp, M, Wilberforce, M, Glendinning, C. (2008). Safeguarding and system change: early perceptions of the implications for adult protection services of the English Individual Budgets pilots - a qualitative study. British Journal of Social Work.
Manthorpe, J, Jacobs, SR, Rapaport, J, Challis, DJ, Netten, A, Glendinning, C, Stevens, M, Wilberforce, M, Knapp, M, Harris, J. (2008). Training for change: early days of individual budgets and the implications for social work and care management practice: A qualitative study of the views of trainers. British Journal of Social Work.
Manthorpe J, Stevens M, Rapaport J, Jacobs SR, Challis DJ, Wilberforce M, Netten A, Knapp M, Glendinning C. (2010). Gearing Up for Personalisation:Training Activities Commissioned in the English Pilot Individual Budgets Sites 2006-2008. Social Work Education, 29(3), 319-331.
Baxter K, Wilberforce M, and Glendinning C (2011). Personal budgets and the workforce implications for social care providers: expectations and early experiences. Social Policy & Society, 10(1), 55-65.
Glendinning C, Moran N, Challis D, Fernández J-L, Jacobs S, Jones K, Knapp M, Manthorpe J, Netten A, Stevens M, and Wilberforce M (2011). Personalisation and Partnership: Competing Objectives in English Adult Social Care? The Individual Budget Pilot Projects and the NHS. Social Policy & Society, 10(2), 151-162.
Jacobs S, Abell J, Stevens M, Wilberforce M, Challis D, Manthorpe J, Fernandez J-L, Glendinning C, Jones K, Knapp M, Moran N, and Netten A (2011). The personalization of care services and the early impact on staff activity patterns.
Moran N, Glendinning C, Stevens M, Manthorpe J, Jacobs S, Wilberforce M, Knapp M, Challis D, Fernandez J-L, Jones K, and Netten A (2011). Joining up government by integrating funding streams? The experiences of the Individual Budget pilot projects for older and disabled people in England. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4), 232-243.
Stevens M, Glendinning C, Jacobs S, Moran N, Challis D, Manthorpe J, Fernandez J-L, Jones K, Knapp M, Netten A, and Wilberforce M (2011). Assessing the Role of Increasing Choice in English Social Care Services. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 257-274.
Wilberforce M, Glendinning C, Challis D, Fernandez J-L, Jacobs S, Jones K, Knapp M, Manthorpe J, Moran N, Netten A, and Stevens M (2011). Implementing Consumer Choice in Long-term Care: The Impact of Individual Budgets on Social Care Providers in England. Social Policy & Administration, 45(5), 593-612.
Netten A, Jones K, Knapp M, Fernandez J-L, Challis D, Glendinning C, Jacobs S, Manthorpe J, Moran N, Stevens M, and Wilberforce M (2012). Personalisation through Individual Budgets: Does It Work and for Whom? British Journal of Social Work, 42, 1556-1573.
Jones K, Netten A, Fernández J-L, Knapp M, Challis D, Glendinning C, Jacobs S, Manthorpe J, Moran N, Stevens M, and Wilberforce M (2012). The impact of individual budgets on the targeting of support: findings from a national evaluation of pilot projects in England. Public Money and Management, 32(6), 417-424.
Moran K, Glendinning C, Wilberforce M, Stevens M, Netten A, Jones K, Manthorpe J, Knapp M, Fernández J-L, Challis D, and Jacobs S. (2012). Older people’s experiences of cash-for-care schemes: evidence from the English Individual Budget pilot projects. Ageing & Society, 33(05), 826-851.
Wilberforce M, Baxter K, and Glendinning C (2012). Efficiency, choice and control in social care commissioning. Public Money and Management, 32(4), 249-256.
Jacobs S, Abell J, Stevens M, Wilberforce M, Challis D, Manthorpe J, Fernandez J-L, Glendinning C, Jones K, Knapp M, Moran N, and Netten A (2013). The personalisation of care services and the early impact on staff activity patterns. Journal of Social Work, 13(2), 141-163.
Wilberforce M, Jacobs S, Challis D, Manthorpe M, Jasper R, Fernandez J-L, Glendinning C, Jones K, Knapp M, Moran N, and Netten A (2014). Revisiting the causes of stress in social work: Sources of job demands, controls and support in personalised adult social care. British Journal of Social Work, 44(4)812-830.
Jasper R, Wilberforce M, Verbeek H. and Challis D. (2016). Multi-agency working and implications for care mangers. Journal of Integrated Care. 24(2): 56-66.