Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:39:00.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationed Care: Assessing the Support Needs of Informal Carers in English Social Services Authorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2002

HILARY ARKSEY
HILARY ARKSEY
Affiliation:
SPRU, University of York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The passing of the Carers (Recognition and Services Act) 1995 was a step forward in trying to ensure that people who provide informal care to disabled, sick or elderly relatives or friends are properly recognised and properly supported. The Carers Act gave informal carers the right to an assessment of their own needs, and this article is based on a study into the impact of the legislation in four local authority social services departments. It is argued that the vision of supporters of the Carers Act, namely to achieve real benefits for many carers, has yet to be realised. The analysis draws on Klein et al.’s (1996) framework of service rationing strategies to demonstrate that decisions about priority setting and different forms of rationing of social care took place at three different levels: national government, local authority and front-line practitioner. Evidence is presented to show that some carers chose to impose rationing on themselves by reducing their demands. The article concludes with comments on the implications of rationing decisions for policy and practice.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 81 - 101
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: The research on which this article is based was funded by the Department of Health’s Outcomes of Social Care for Adults research programme (OSCA), and undertaken by researchers from the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily shared by any individual, government department or agency. I am particularly grateful to Claire Bamford, Jennifer Harris and anonymous referees for their advice and comments on the article. Rachel Ormston’s contribution to the analysis was very helpful.