Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:53:25.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes over time: the motivations of independent-sector care-home managers and owners in England between 1994 and 2003

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2011

TIHANA MATOSEVIC ,
MARTIN KNAPP ,
JULIAN LE GRAND  and
JOSE-LUIS FERNANDEZ
TIHANA MATOSEVIC*
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
MARTIN KNAPP
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
JULIAN LE GRAND
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
JOSE-LUIS FERNANDEZ
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Tihana Matosevic, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK E-mail: t.matosevic@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the provider side of the care-home sector and focuses on managers' and owners' motivations for providing care-home services for older people, and whether those motivations changed between 1994 and 2003. There were a number of significant policy changes over that time, including an increased ‘marketisation’ of the sector, coupled with an increase in regulation. Critics of these changes argued that they could adversely affect the motivational structure of the principal provider agents. Previously altruistic or public-service motivations might turn into more self-interested concerns: ‘knights’ might become ‘knaves’. To test this proposition, data were collected across eight English local authorities using face-to-face interviews and postal questionnaires. The results indicate that, although local care-home markets underwent some major changes, individuals' motivational profiles remained relatively stable. Further analysis of the relationship between motivations and the social-care market environment suggests that, while voluntary-sector providers are primarily driven by caring motivations and less concerned with income maximising and professional development, private-sector home manager and owners seemed to be more focused on the financial aspects of providing care services, professional motivations, and on their independence in running a care home. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

motivationscare-home managerscare-home ownersknightsknavesolder peoplemarketisationindependent sector
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 8 , November 2011 , pp. 1389 - 1405
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baltagi, H. B. and Song, S. H. 2006. Unbalanced panel data: a survey. Statistical Papers, 47, 493–523.Google Scholar
Bartlett, W. and Le Grand, J. 1993. The theory of quasi-markets. In Le Grand, J. and Bartlett, W. (eds), Quasi-markets and Social Policy. Macmillan, London, 13–34.Google Scholar
Department of Health 1994. Personal Social Services: Residential Accommodation in England 1994. Statistical Bulletin 1994/13, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 1997. Community Care Statistics 1997: Residential personal social services for adults, England. Bulletin 1997/26, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2001. National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People. Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2003 a. Community Care Statistics 2003: Supported Residents (Adults) England. Bulletin 2003/19, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2003 b. Care Homes for Older People: National Minimum Standards, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2004. Personal Social Services Expenditure and Unit Costs: England: 2002–2003. Bulletin 2004/02, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Eborall, C. 2005. The State of the Social Care Workforce 2004. The second skills research and Intelligence Annual Report, Skills for Care and Development.Google Scholar
Forder, J., Knapp, M. and Wistow, G. 1996. Competition in the mixed economy of care. Journal of Social Policy, 25, 2, 201–21.Google Scholar
Hardy, B., Young, R. and Wistow, G. 1999. Dimensions of choice in the assessment and care management process: the views of older people, carers and care managers. Health and Social Care in the Community, 7, 6, 483–91.Google Scholar
Henwood, M. 2001. Future Imperfect? King's Fund, London.Google Scholar
Hsiao, C. 2006. Panel data analysis – Advantages and Challenges. IEPR Working Paper 06.49. Institute of Economic Policy Research, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Kendall, J., Matosevic, T., Forder, J., Knapp, M., Hardy, B. and Ware, P. 2003. The motivations of domiciliary care providers in England: new concepts, new findings. Journal of Social Policy, 32, 4, 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M., Hardy, B. and Forder, J. 2001. Commissioning for quality: ten years of social-care markets in England. Journal of Social Policy, 30, 2, 283–306.Google Scholar
Laing, and Buisson, 2007. Care of Elderly People Market Survey 2007. Laing and Buisson, London.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. 1991. Quasi-markets and social policy. The Economic Journal, 101, 408, 1256–67.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. 1997. Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 26, 2, 149–69.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. 2006. Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Second edition, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. and Bartlett, W. (eds)1993. Quasi-markets and Social Policy. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Matosevic, T., Knapp, M., Kendall, J., Henderson, C. and Fernandez, J. 2007. Care-home providers as professionals: understanding the motivations of care-home providers in England. Ageing & Society, 27, 1, 103–26.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. 1970. The Gift Relationship. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Wanless, D., Forder, J., Fernandez, J. L., Poole, T., Beesley, L., Henwood, M. and Moscone, F. 2006. Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-term View. King's Fund, London.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Netten, A., Hardy, B., Matosevic, T. and Ware, P. 2002. Care Home Closures: The Provider Perspective. Discussion Paper 1753/2, Personal Social Service Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.Google Scholar
Wistow, G., Knapp, M., Hardy, B., Forder, J., Kendall, J. and Manning, R. 1996. Social-care Markets: Progress and Prospects. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar