---------------------- Forwarded by Barry Ruffell/SS/WSCC on 08/02/99 09:15
---------------------------
Barry Ruffell
05/02/99 11:20
To: "NICHOLAS ACHESON" <[log in to unmask]>
cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: "Assessment of Needs for Community Care services" (Document
link not converted)
Nick,
Thanks for your correspondence on the topic of Local Authorities'
relationship to user-led disability organisations.
My view (which I hasten to add is a personal one, not necessarily the
official line of my employing authority) is that it is helpful to start
from the position that service users and service providers are necessarily
in conflict. The potential demand is very great, and the actual supply is
rationed. This seems to me to be glaringly obvious, but it is not often
made explicit , nor are the implications adequately explored. I assume
that the reason for hedging round the conflict issue is that it is
politically / managerially inexpedient to do so when credibility depends
upon maintaining the belief that we are all on the same helping-and-caring
side. In my experience, though, there is unquestionably an 'us-and-them'
culture within the welfare industry - this has a long history: read
'Oliver Twist'.
Because of this ambiguity of stance which besets Local Authorities (and
large charities and philanthropic institutions) organisational knickers
have got in a twist. LA's can't simply lose their rationing/managing
functions because they have statutory status and obligations, but there is
a growing awareness that it is ethically and professionally desirable that
consumers should have more influence in the business of welfare - and
moreover that consumers have knowledge and expertise that can be used in
the design and improvement of service systems.
So far, this awareness has had to be squared with (1) the legal obligation
to manage public money, (2) a history of being in charge - buttressed by
a hierarchical organisational culture which reinforces concepts of control
and rank, (3) popularly accepted mind-sets about disability based on
deficit, otherness, dependency and so forth, and (4) institutional thinking
and related practices which tend powerfully to maintain, rather than
challenge, the prevailing way of going about things. Also colonisation -
a lot of people (me included) are paying their rent on the strength of a
job in the welfare industry. Consequently a widespread response to
disability-consumerism has been a rather tokenistic gesture in the
direction of 'consultation'.
There is much to be said on the subject of the paradoxical position of the
LA which, like it or not, is in control of a lot of the business but which
nevertheless wants to promote the empowerment of service users. For
decades, Social Workers have agonised over the extent to which they can be
advocates for clients in negotiations with their own employers. The only
way forward I can see is to be fairly hard-nosed about it, and for LAs to
spell out what's in it for them to encourage user-led organisations to
constitute themselves. You have to deal head on with the irony that, in
times of financial stringency, LAs are actually putting money into the
growth of bodies that could challenge their control.
As I see it, the pay-off for LAs is that (1) they can contract out some
activities pretty cost-effectively, such as Personal Assistance support,
training, or information provision, (2) there is a 'worthiness' dividend
which is of benefit in terms of the public profile and image of the
Authority, (3) it might actually attract good quality expertise into the
service-design process. The downside is that they might have to deal with
more politicised, articulate, organised and informed consumers. While this
is professionally admirable, it is inevitably a bit alarming and challenges
a lot of assumptions and past practices.
But at least if LAs come clean about what they want to get for their money,
it supports user-led organisations in doing likewise. This then has the
possibility of holding the ring for a constructive approach to managing
conflict.
Regards
Barry
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|