It seems to me that Government policy in exnouraging Local authorities to go out to tender for care services,and at the same time encouraging them to go in for "personalization" are internally inconsistent. This is demonstrated clearly in Edinburgh, where the Local Authority has gone out to tender for care services. Both care workers and those in receipt of care are protesting. Recipients of care services want to go over to Direct Payments rather than transfer to the low cost private care providers successful in the tender.
an anyone explain the logic of the Governmenjt's apparently internally inconsistent policies? (I know that this case is occurring in Scotland, but it is also happening in relation to at least one Local Authority in England at present.)
I suspect that there is no logic!
Tendering is driven by the desire to save money on service costs.
Personalisation is driven by the desire to give service users more choice and control over the services they receive.
During a time of significant reductions in public spending the two are unlikely to be reconciled.
Its the logic known as arses and elbows.
Tendering is a response by local councils who want to cut costs - at least superfical costs by reducing the number of providers and by imposing a maximum cost per hour - both evident in the Edinburgh case. This is short-termism writ large as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of supply and demand will tell you that a reduction in supply leads to an increase in cost. Moreover it is cost driven at any expense to quality of delivery as delivery becomes "do the best you can for that amount!" Cost centred not person-centred or need centred that also leds to higher cost as the intensity of care and support need increases due to less intensive service delivery because of that cost. Hence user needs increase and those higher needs require higher delivery in terms of time and intensity - yet specialist high needs providers have already exited the market as they cant or wont compromise service for a miserly £15 per hour.
The same principles of short-term myopia are found in Supporting People with the rush to adopt the panacea of floating support (national average price in 2006 was £23.02 per hour interestingly!!) But hey it meets the ludicrously superficial principle of support following the person and separates the support from the accommodation so it must be ok!!!!
Both Personalisation and Tendering have great theory. Both seemingly yet superficially reduce costs but only in the short term and this is where the theories collapse. They both create higher costs eventually to the public purse.
What gives in each case is service quality and specialist delivery becomes relegated to the generic because they are both price driven. Tendering as in Edinburgh above is no different to Personalisation - Dear Mrs Vulnerable, your assessment says you can have 20 hours per week at £12 (see pilots 2009) - go out and find provision!
Dear Mr Assessment Person at SSD - but there isnt a provider out there who (a) can support my needs, (b) is willing to do it for £12 per hour or (c) the ones that are willing look a bit dodgy to me - Please help!!
That said the Edinburgh case is fascinating. The council wished to impose providers on service users who in response to this bombarded the council with direct payment requests to try to keep their existing ones (and presumably ones that they have a relationship of trust necessary as key to successful delivery - a point never mentioned in tendering or Personalisation!!) The service users of Edinburgh have demonstrated direct action and given a massive stratgey hint to any council that overtly seeks to find short-term savings at the expense of the vulnerable.
Im minded of another Scottish classic case of direct action with the poll tax. Here the SNP advocated everyone paying it in copper coinage (as ones paying the Crown they cant refuse or impose maximum limits on how much they will take unlike shops.) The reality was the cost of collecting was more than the benefits from the dreaded tax that was imposed on the Scots before the English.
Another interesting point in the Edinburgh case is the percentage of direct payments claims - well in excess of 50%. Unfortunately the cost of doign all these assessments for DPs was not mentioned - a further unexpectedd cost to the council to go alongise the potential of legal costs defending their shameful actions in suspending DPs and from the providers they had already awarded these contracts to.
Interesting too is the fact the council admit they will be paying more in overall costs through DPs - arent they supposed to be cost saving measures?
Overall, a lesson for the council in real costs!
My apologies as i failed to answer directly.
The apparent inconsistency is not an internal central government one its an external local government one. This is because WHEN (not if) the proverbial hits the fan with either Tendering or Personalisation that fan is pointing externally from central government onto local government! Hence both according to central government are very consistent indeed