Search results
1 – 10 of over 66000Cecilie Bingham, Linda Clarke, Elisabeth Michielsens and Marc Van de Meer
Based on the nursing occupation within the UK and The Netherlands' health sectors, which are both highly regulated with policies to increase inclusiveness, the purpose of this…
Abstract
Purpose
Based on the nursing occupation within the UK and The Netherlands' health sectors, which are both highly regulated with policies to increase inclusiveness, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the interplay between employment conditions and policy measures at sectoral level, in order to identify how these both facilitate and limit employment participation for disabled workers.
Design/methodology/approach
The research was exploratory in character using qualitative and comparative methods within a case study approach. It draws on statistical data, document analysis, focus group discussion and interviews with key actors in the health sectors in both countries.
Findings
Whether the social or medical model predominates, their combined use encourages the employment of disabled persons in the health sector. Arguably the social model, focusing on structural changes, can be seen as more enabling. The Dutch comparison shows that encouraging a sector‐specific approach, with increased social partnership dialogue, facilitates the implementation of the social model, resulting in sectorally‐appropriate enabling measures.
Practical implications
This research highlights the need for a sector‐specific approach to disability policy, with development of sectoral monitoring data and evaluation of impact by the social partners.
Originality/value
While previous academic research focused on the aggregated (national) level only, this research investigates the interplay between training, employment, working conditions and policy measures at sectoral and occupational levels, with a view to identifying their influence on employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
Details
Keywords
Paul Sandford, Ed Cooper and Jim Shepherd
This is the first part of a two‐part paper that considers the assessment criteria for incapacity benefit (IB) and employment and support allowance (ESA) and how these benefits…
Abstract
This is the first part of a two‐part paper that considers the assessment criteria for incapacity benefit (IB) and employment and support allowance (ESA) and how these benefits apply to claimants who are unable to work because they experience episodes of lost or altered consciousness.Part one considers how the IB/ESA appraisal system works in practice and looks specifically at the legal interpretation of lost and altered consciousness. Part two, which will be published in a future issue, will give practical guidance to advisers.
Details
Keywords
Paul Sandford, Ed Cooper and Jim Shepherd
This is the second instalment of a two‐part paper that aims to consider the assessment criteria for incapacity benefit (IB) and employment and support allowance (ESA) and to…
Abstract
Purpose
This is the second instalment of a two‐part paper that aims to consider the assessment criteria for incapacity benefit (IB) and employment and support allowance (ESA) and to analyse how this benefit applies to claimants who are unable to work because they experience episodes of lost or altered consciousness.
Design/methodology/approach
In the first part of the paper, which featured in Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 2 No. 1, the authors considered the legal meaning of lost or altered consciousness and explained how the IB/ESA appraisal and appeals system operates. This second instalment gives practical guidance to advisers who are assisting their clients in applying for ESA and appealing negative decisions to the tribunal (given its ever increasing importance, this paper focuses on ESA; however, the same considerations apply to IB cases).
Findings
The paper highlights the complexities and limitations of the benefit system for those suffering with lost and altered consciousness.
Practical implications
Advisers need to think laterally when assisting their clients.
Originality/value
The paper should provide a useful reference point for advisers.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to examine the preventable harm created by the adoption of austerity measures in 2010, added to the welfare reforms introduced in 2008 which…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the preventable harm created by the adoption of austerity measures in 2010, added to the welfare reforms introduced in 2008 which, collectively, have negative implications for population mental health in the UK.
Design/methodology/approach
A critical reflection of published research papers and key policy documents in this area.
Findings
Negative mental health consequences of the combined impact of welfare reforms and austerity measures in the UK since 2010 are identified when relating to disability benefit assessments, and to the increased punitive conditionality applied to disability benefit claimants, as those in greatest need now live in fear of making a claim for financial support from the state or of losing benefits to which they are entitled.
Research limitations/implications
This paper identifies the creation of preventable harm by social policy reforms, commonly known as “welfare reforms”. The implications for social scientists are the disregard of academic peer-reviewed social policy research by policymakers, and the adoption of critically challenged policy-based research as used to justify political objectives.
Practical implications
The negative mental health impact of UK government social policy reforms has been identified and highlights the human consequences of the adoption of the biopsychosocial model of assessment.
Social implications
Reducing the numbers of sick and disabled people claiming long-term disability benefit has increased the numbers claiming unemployment benefit, with no notable increase in the numbers of disabled people in paid employment and with many service users in greatest need living in fear of the next enforced disability assessment.
Originality/value
This paper demonstrates the preventable harm created by the use of a flawed disability assessment model, together with the adoption of punitive conditionality and the increased suicides linked to UK welfare reforms which are influenced by American social policies.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to explore the main elements of the existing framework of the UK welfare benefit system and the key changes that will be implemented under the Welfare…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the main elements of the existing framework of the UK welfare benefit system and the key changes that will be implemented under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and its socio‐economic effects.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper outlines the structure of the key welfare benefits likely to be encountered by those with a neurological disability, the broad qualifying criteria and the interaction between various types of benefit. By comparison, it examines the elements of key significance that will take effect under Welfare Reform and the resulting impact on the various demographics of benefit claimants.
Findings
Since the merging of the UK's social security system with unemployment services, welfare legislation has seen countless changes, although the core underlying principles have remained largely the same along the way. The Government has committed to overhauling a complex benefit regime whilst counterbalancing the task of addressing the issues of budget deficit. In principle, the Government aims to deliver a more streamlined, cost‐effective benefit system, which will focus the greatest attention on the most vulnerable elements of our society. The most detrimental affect will be on unemployed, working‐age families; those that are perceived to have a greater advantage in the labour market.
Originality/value
The objective of this paper to raise awareness amongst professionals as to the benefits available to their clients to improve their financial and social position and to go some way to prepare for the potential impact of Welfare Reform.
Details
Keywords
Simon Roberts, Bruce Stafford and Katherine Hill
The UK Coalition government introduced a raft of welfare reforms between 2010 and 2015. As part of its response to the financial crisis, reforms were designed to cut public…
Abstract
The UK Coalition government introduced a raft of welfare reforms between 2010 and 2015. As part of its response to the financial crisis, reforms were designed to cut public expenditure on social security and enhance work incentives. Policy makers are required by legislation to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people. This Public Sector Equality Duty is an evidence-based duty which requires public authorities to assess the likely effects of policy on vulnerable groups. This chapter explores the extent to which the Department for Work and Pensions adequately assessed the equality impacts of key welfare reforms when policy was being formulated. The chapter focuses on the assessment of the impact of reductions to welfare benefits on individuals with protected characteristics – age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation – including individual and cumulative impacts. It also considers mitigating actions to offset negative impacts and how the collection of evidence on equality impacts was used when formulating policy. The chapter shows that the impacts of the reforms were only systematically assessed by age and gender, and, where data were available, by disability and ethnicity with no attempt to gauge cumulative impacts. There is also evidence of Equality Impact Assessments finding a disproportionate impact on individuals with protected characteristics where no mitigating action was taken.
Details
Keywords
This article aims to focus on deaths by suicide in relation to UK welfare reform as a case study to question one of suicidology’s most dominant theories – the Interpersonal Theory…
Abstract
Purpose
This article aims to focus on deaths by suicide in relation to UK welfare reform as a case study to question one of suicidology’s most dominant theories – the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005) and its influential ideas on “perceived burdensomeness” – as well as wider ideologies on suicide and mental health reflected in this approach.
Design/methodology/approach
This article draws on evidence from disabled people’s campaigning groups (primary sources) and research literature (secondary sources), which shows the negative psychological impact of burden discourse and how this shows up in people’s accounts of feeling suicidal, in suicide notes and in family accounts of those who have died by suicide. It uses this evidence to problematise the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005), specifically its ideas about “burden” as an individual misperception, and the assumption that suicide is always the outcome of mental health problems.
Findings
The findings highlight the systemic, intersectional and cumulative production of suicidality by governmental “welfare reform” in the UK, through positioning welfare claimants as “burdens” on society. They show that by locating the problem of burdensomeness in individual “misperceptions”, the Interpersonal Theory allows the government’s role in crafting stigmatisation and conditions of suicidality to be overlooked and to be reproduced.
Originality/value
The article raises urgent ethical questions about the application of approaches, such as the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, to benefits-related suicides and calls for approaches to benefits-related harm and suicide to be rooted in social and disability justice.
Details
Keywords
The Policy Watch series reflects on recent and forthcoming developments in mental health policy across the UK. This paper aims to review the impact of welfare reforms on people…
Abstract
Purpose
The Policy Watch series reflects on recent and forthcoming developments in mental health policy across the UK. This paper aims to review the impact of welfare reforms on people with mental health problems. As well as focusing at specific problems with the current system, the paper criticises the general “direction of travel” in welfare policy and calls for a rethink of fundamental assumptions that underpin this.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews and summarizes recent and longer term developments in national welfare and benefits policy in England and Wales and their implications for people with mental health problems.
Findings
The paper describes how key components of the current disability benefits system are not working for people with mental health problems and also how the design of welfare reform over recent years has been ineffective for supporting the health and employment aspirations of people with mental health problems.
Originality/value
The paper updates and discusses knowledge on recent and forthcoming welfare reform and cites recent evidence from Government.
Details