Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jepson, Marcus; Laybourne, Anne; Williams, Val J; Cyhlarova, Eva; Williamson, Toby; Robotham, Daniel (2016)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R, /dk/atira/pure/researchoutput/pubmedpublicationtype/D016428, /dk/atira/pure/researchoutput/pubmedpublicationtype/D013485, learning disabilities and dementia, personalisation, direct payments, Journal Article, Mental Capacity Act, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
This paper reports findings from a study that aimed to explore how practitioners were bringing together the demands of the personalisation agenda, in particular the offer of direct payments (DPs), with the Mental Capacity Act, and to investigate current practices of offering and administering indirect payments for people who lack capacity to consent to them, including the use of 'suitable person' proxies under the new regulations (DH, 2009). The study adopted a qualitative interview-based design; participants were social work practitioners (67) and recipients of 'indirect' payments (18) in six local authorities in England in 2011-2012. The paper reports on five key decision-making points in the indirect payments process: the decision to take on an indirect payment, the assessment of mental capacity, the identification of a suitable person, the establishment of the care recipient's best interests and the decisions about how to execute the indirect payment. We found that practitioners and suitable people had different experiences of the system, although in both cases, there was overarching support for the benefits of enabling people who lack capacity to consent to a DP to receive their social care funding in the form of an 'indirect' payment via a proxy suitable person.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Beresford P. (2001) Service users, social policy and the future of welfare. Critical Social Policy 21 (4(69)), 494-512.
    • Boyle G. (2008) The Mental Capacity Act 2005: promoting the citizenship of people with dementia? Health and Social Care in the Community 16 (5), 529-537.
    • Boyle G., Williams V.J., Jepson M.J., Swift P., Williamson T. & Heslop P. (2012) Making best interests decisions - are professionals getting it right? Journal of Dementia Care Nov-Dec, 19-21.
    • Carr S. (2009) Personalisation: A Rough Guide. SCIE, London.
    • Coles B. (2013) Suitable People? An (auto)ethnographic Research Study about the Role of Parents in Managing Direct Payments for Their Son or Daughter with Complex Needs. PhD Thesis. University of Bristol.
    • Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. TSO, London.
    • Department of Health (2006) Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services. HM Government White Paper. Department of Health, London.
    • Department of Health (2008) Support Planning and Brokerage. Department of Health, London.
    • Department of Health (2009) Guidance on Direct Payments: For Community Care, Services for Carers and Children's Services. Department of Health, London.
    • Department of Health (2010) A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens. Department of Health, London.
    • Department of Health (2012) Caring for Our Future. White Paper. Department of Health, London.
    • Dowse L. (2009) “Some people are never going to be able to do that”: challenges for people with intellectual disability in the 21st century. Disability and Society 24 (5), 571-584.
    • Duffy S., Waters J. & Glasby J. (2010) Personalisation and adult social care: future options for the reform of public services. Policy and Politics 38 (4), 493-508.
    • Glasby J. & Littlechild R. (2009) Direct Payments and Personal Budgets: Putting Personalization into Practice. Policy Press, Bristol.
    • Great Britain. The Care Act (2014) Chapter 23. The Stationary Office, London.
    • Hasler F., Campbell J. & Zarb G. (1999) Direct Routes to Independence: A Guide to Local Authority Implementation and Management of Direct Payments. Policy Studies Institute, London.
    • Houston S. (2010) Beyond homo economicus: recognition, self-realization and social work. British Journal of Social Work 40, 841-857.
    • Leece J. & Peace S. (2010) Developing new understandings of independence and autonomy in the personalised relationship. British Journal of Social Work 40, 1847-1865.
    • Lymbery M. (2012) Social work and personalisation. British Journal of Social Work 42, 783-792.
    • Slasberg C., Beresford P. & Schofield P. (2012) Can personal budgets really deliver better outcome for all at no cost? Reviewing the evidence, costs and quality. Disability & Society 27 (7), 1029-1034.
    • Slasberg C., Beresford P. & Schofield P. (2013) The increasing evidence of how self-directed support is failing to deliver personal budgets and personalisation. Research, Policy and Planning 30 (2), 91-105.
    • Williams V., Porter S. & Marriott A. (2014a) Your life, your choice: support planning led by disabled people's organisations. British Journal of Social Work 44, 1197-1215.
    • Williams V., Boyle G., Jepson M., Swift P., Williamson T. & Heslop P. (2014b) Best interests decisions: professional practices in health and social care. Health and Social Care in the Community 22, 78-86.
    • Williamson T., Boyle G., Heslop P., Jepson M., Swift P. & Williams V. (2012) Listening to the lady in the bed: the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in practice for older people. Elder Law Journal 2, 185-192.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article