Search results

The paper comments on the preceding Service Feature, drawing on research carried out by the authors, and finds that there is still a long way to go to achieve two SAY objectives.

This article arises from the authors’ experience of undertaking research on behalf of the Scottish Executive, following the deliberations of a national working group focusing on employment (Scottish Executive, 2003) set up to progress the recommendations of the Same as You? review (Scottish Executive, 2000), Scotland's equivalent of Valuing People (DoH, 2001). The detailed findings of the research study and its methodology can be found elsewhere(Ridley et al, 2005); only a brief summary is given here. The main purpose of this article is to contribute to a debate about the achievements and under‐achievements of supported employment in the contemporary Scottish context. The research findings are used to discuss where we are now, some of the main problems, and how policy and practice need to move forward and develop. We suggest that the time is ripe to initiate strategic change in policy and professional practice. Supported employment must be firmly embedded in the wider employment landscape and the practice agenda of professionals, in order to ensure that real, paid jobs in integrated settings become a routine option for people with learning disabilities who express these aspirations.

This paper aims to explore the possible connections between self‐directed support and adult support and protection, both of which are important policy developments in Scotland.

The authors draw on findings from the national evaluation of the test sites or pilots of self‐directed support in Scotland and interviews at two time points with adult protection leads in the test sites. These interview data are set in the context of Scottish developments in adult support and protection.

Self‐directed support and adult protection had not been joined up initially. In the three Scottish test sites those responsible for adult safeguarding had not been engaged with the changes. They were unclear about the new systems and were concerned about the implications of reduced monitoring of risks. Shared training between those implementing self‐directed support and those carrying out adult protection work was viewed as a way of bridging these different areas of practice through enhancing mutual understanding and communication.

Policy and legislation have used the word support to provide reassurance of social protection for adults in need of care services. This paper provides new opportunities to consider the ways in which early enthusiasm for self‐directed support in Scotland may have neglected the support inherent to support and protection and the ways in which some adult support and protection stakeholders seemed to be acting as “bystanders” rather than influencing new systems of self‐directed support.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of housing and housing support services in working with systems of self-directed support (SDS). The paper draws upon findings from an evaluation and follow up study of three SDS Test Sites in Scotland and wider research.

The evaluation of the SDS Test Sites took place in 2009-2011 with a follow up study in 2011-2012. Methods included a literature review; an analysis of secondary data on the use of SDS in Scotland; interviews with key stakeholders; learning sets in the three areas; 30 depth individual case studies and a large-scale stakeholder event prior to finalising the report. These data are drawn upon to reflect on the implications for housing providers and practitioners.

The interviews revealed that some SDS users had housing and related support needs, such as to prevent or resolve homelessness, to facilitate resettlement, to prevent hospital admissions, to access supported accommodation or to move from shared to independent housing. For some people flexible housing support seemed to enhance community living, also well-informed independent advocacy could make a difference to outcomes. While there was policy support for the Test Sites, it was notable that linkages between agencies at strategic level were limited, with neither housing nor health services greatly involved in strategic planning. Training, alongside liaison and partnerships, may help to broaden SDS.

While housing and related support needs and services were not specifically investigated in this evaluation, data suggest that the contribution of housing services may be both under-developed and under-researched in the context of SDS. There are indications that SDS may act as a catalyst for improving housing opportunities provided that collaboration between housing and care services is maximised.

This paper suggests approaches that may improve and consolidate the role of housing in achieving SDS objectives of maximising user control and choice, improving outcomes and sustaining ordinary living.

This paper considers the less charted territory of the implications of SDS for the role of housing services. While drawing primarily on recent research in Scotland the themes raised will have wider relevance to housing and care services generally.

Explores the prospects for constructing a feminist contractarian moral theory. Argues that the social contractarianism championed by John Rawls and feminized by Susan Okin is unlikely to succeed in offering feminists an alternative theory of justice which can compete with utilitarianism. However, an appropriately modified economic contractarianism, such as that championed by David Gauthier, offers more promise for producing a successful liberal feminist theory of justice. Holds that a feminist ethic of care based on an economic contractarian model must move from an exclusive concern with game‐theoretic bargaining to solve prisoners’ dilemma problems to a bargaining game which also deals with the assurance problem. Offers speculation of how such a theory could be rigorously developed.

The paper has two purposes: to introduce a new perspective on power and resistance in equalities work; and to trouble either or theorisations of success and failure in this work. Instead it offers a new means of exploring micro‐practice.

The paper applies/develops an “actor network theory” (ANT) analysis to a single case study of Iopia, a Black woman equalities practitioner working in a prison education context. It uses this to explore the ways in which Iopia interacts with a variety of human and non‐human objects to challenge racism in this context.

Iopia, from an initial position of marginality (as a Black woman experiencing racism) is able to establish herself (by virtue of this same identity as a Black woman combating racism) as central to a “new” network for equality and diversity. This new network both challenges and sustains narrow exclusionary definitions of diversity. Thus, Iopia's case provides an example of the contradictions, and paradox, experienced by those working for equality and diversity.

In the future, this type of feminist ANT analysis could be more fully developed and integrated with critical race and other critical cultural theories as these relate to equalities work.

The approach, and, in particular, the notion of translation, can be used by practitioners in thinking through the ways in which they can use material objects to draw in multiple “others” into their own networks.

The article is one of the first to explore equalities workers via the lens of ANT. It is unique in its analysis of the material objects constituting both diversity workers and diversity work and thus its analysis of diversity workers and their work as part of a complex set of social and “material” relations.