chapter 5 Ideology and Policy Development of Personal Social Services

Although personal social service has played viral part for more than 50 years, it has been one of the most under appreciated and neglected area of welfare state (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). This might has been because it has been viewed as residual services caring the most vulnerable member of society. It is usually understood as a last resort services for extraordinary individual needs, for example handicapped, neglect, or abused children or adults rather than all (or most) of them like other policy area such as health and education (Hill, 2000). This has been the reason why personal social service has been relatively poorly understood within social policy areas (Adams, 1996). In central politics, additionally, personal social services had hardly been an issue in British general elections, at least until 1992 partly because this is mainly regarded local government matters (Baldock, 1994).

However, this would be no longer true. As the Government already admitted, in fact, ‘Social Services are for all of us. At any one time up to one and a half million people in England rely on their help. And all of us are likely at some point in our lives to need to turn to social services for support, whether on our own behalf or for a family member.’ (DH, 1998, para 1.1). As people lives longer while family breaks down, social needs for support to their daily lives becomes common in contemporary society (This is discussed more at the end the Chapter). Personal social service is more and more being appeared as a central issue of people’s lives and this obviously make it more central political issue.

These two contradictory features provide critical points of this study about role of political ideology on policy development. It might be more difficult to find out causal role of political ideology on policy development in other policy areas occupying central political agenda for long time because cause and effect relationship between political debate and policy change is always mixed up. Personal social service shows relatively clear timeline of policy development through government changes, as this has tended to be free from central political battle before relating problems or policy changes are evidently emerged.

Secondly, the more personal social service becomes important matters for most of people, the more it becomes crucial that how this policy could be developed in the future. Researching role of ideology on social services development will contribute vital part of this issue as this focus far more on changes comparing to other approaches such as institutionalism and structuralism.

This Chapter, as an introductory part of second half of the research, start with definition of personal social services. Competitive potential factors which can influence policy development of personal social services, such as needs and resources are discussed comparing to politics in social services. This follows outline of the development after the Second World War before influence of political ideology on each period of the development is examined from next chapter.

What is personal social service?

Since personal social service has been relatively neglected area in social policy, it also ill defined sector (Lowe, 2005). Its definition is particularly problematic as its area often overlaps those of health, crime (juvenile justice, in particular), and housing (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000). So it is important to clarify what personal social service actually means in this research before further discussion in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion or uncertainty.

Adams (1996) provides useful tools to limit its meaning by literal words: ‘personal’, ‘social’, and ‘service’. It is ‘personal’ because personal social services deal with personal issues of lives when additional support requires rather than have a universal role for every one like health and education. Also it is personal because each contents of services vary depending personal situation from domiciliary support to residential care or mixed package of services. This indicate distinguishing point between health and social service because, for example, each patient having the same medical condition may need different package of social service depending on personal circumstance such as housing condition, available support from other family members, and level of income, while require the same healthcare treatment.

It is ‘social’ since it tackles particular individual needs because those needs have social dimension. Protecting vulnerable children against any form of abuse and neglect, caring elderly people no longer able to care themselves, and supporting disabled people to enjoy independent lives, all have personal form of needs but they can be developed as a social problem threatening stability of lives among general public if those needs are significantly unfulfilled. Moreover, personal social services address social inequality issues by focusing their effort on the most vulnerable members of society in particular.

Finally, it provides with various forms of ‘service’ or includes them as a major part of its provision. This features help distinguishing personal social service from other social security benefits – providing cash -, and even housing supplied with form of product.

However, it is true that many issues relating to definition of personal social service still are not very clear. The area between juvenile justice and social service is not clearly cut in particular. Yet this relates to different approach on juvenile justice issue rather than social services. In the approach more focusing on rehabilitation of young people, juvenile delinquency is more close to personal social service area while it would be more crime issue if punishment is a central concern of the policy.

This is the part of matters we need to discuss in this study. Personal social service cannot be defined adequately just within its own manner. This should include consideration of perspectives or context of policy development. So the domain of personal social service is limited depending on each government approaches in this study. This would be much clearer through outlining development of personal social services policy since the World War Two.

Policy development of personal social services

The origin of modern statutory services titled ‘personal social service’ usually does not go back further than publication of Seebohm Report in 1968 (Adams, 1996). However, not surprisingly, this form of services was not appeared one day. The emergence of the idea and legal foundation on social services provision is back to 1940s when the welfare state begun (Wanless, 2006).

Foundation period of personal social services in 1940s and 1950s

Even though there were significant legislations establishing legal foundation of personal social services in 1940s and 50s such as the 1948 National Assistance Act, Children Act and the 1959 Mental Health Act, many argues this was barren period for the development (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996). This is based on the fact that the concept of personal social service as a unitary policy area was not formed yet. At the central government services for children was oversaw by Home Office and those to the elderly, the sick and the disabled by Ministry of Health (Sullivan, 1996). This was even more complex in the local authorities. Responsibility of the services was usually divided between committees of health, welfare, education, and housing (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996).

Alongside administrational complexity, lack of professional identity in social workers contributed poorly defined social service area. Perceptions basing on Poor Law and Victorian values against vulnerable members of society were still dominant between not only general public and politics but also workers in social services (Adams, 1996). So often the staff tended to adopt judgemental attitude and assumption that needs addressed in social services should be met by self-help or support from family or relatives rather than public provision (Lowe, 2005). Furthermore, there was of an agreed body of theoretical knowledge and criteria as an independent academic discipline for social services (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). So staff was initially recruited from a various range of sources such as private charities and hospitals and each disputed with the others in constant (Lowe, 2005).

The reality that there was not enough resources even to fulfil the requirement of services defined in the 1948 Children Act (Adams, 1996) is also one of the reason this period often regarded as a neglected period of the social services. After the 1948 National Assistance Act was implemented, many elderly people were still living in accommodations inherited from the Poor Law like former work houses until 1950s (Lowe, 2005) and other domiciliary care such as meals on wheels was largely left to voluntary organisation (Means & Smith, 1994) . Moreover, social rights to receive care was less clear cut for the elderly and disabled people (Salter, 1994).

However, it is also true that legislations passed during this period established vital legal ground and basic responsibilities of local government for further development of modern personal social service. It was important transitional period moving away from Poor Law regime of social services limited with a range of custodial institutions (Hill, 2000) to general consensus on preference of ‘community care’ which meant care outside residential setting and in their own homes (Wanless, 2006).

This begun with the 1946 National Health Service Act. Local authorities had legal basis to provide care and aftercare to people suffering from illness and services to prevent health problem by the Act (Salter, 1994). Also this Act made obligatory for local governments to provide services to pregnant women and their child under 6 (Baugh, 1987). The responsibility of local government for provision of social services was set out in broader terms through the 1948 National Assistance Act (Wanless, 2006). The Act gave local authorities the duty to provide welfare services for substantially disabled people and residential care for elderly people who had no alternatives available for them (Salter, 1994).

The 1948 Children Act was pioneering and revolutionary legislation at that time for development of social service for child in particular (Lowe, 2005). It mainly based on the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Care of Children (Curtis Report) in1946 following the inquiry on tragic death of Denis O’neill by ill-treatment of foster father (Baldock, 1994; Baugh, 1987). Children Committee with its own chief officer and staff was set up by the Act and the duty to investigate cases of child neglect and to take formal procedures to bring children protection required into the care of the local government were given to it (Baldock, 1994). These demand of specialist staff undertake this task by the Act was crucial factor to led further development of social work, a new public service profession (Hill, 2000). This was consolidated with introduction of training course for social worker in the London School of Economics from 1954 (Adams, 1996).

Besides these broaden responsibility and services of local government, rights into the social care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped was clearly extended during this period (Salter, 1994). The 1959 Mental Health Act, led by the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency in 1957, built the principle that the mentally ill should be treated in the same way as the physically ill as far as possible and provides the initial basis of current services for the mentally ill (Baugh, 1987).

The emergence and expansion of modern personal social services in 1960s and 1970s

Along with its first official use of the word, ‘personal social service’ in title, the publication of the Seebohm Report ‘Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Service’ (Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, 1968) is usually regarded formal origin of personal social services in modern society. It not only led establishment of integrated social service department in local authority and formed personal social service as one of a unitary public service area, but also dramatic increase of provision of the services at that time.

However, this significant development did not happen one day. Rather this change tended to be limited to administrative reform without any profound expansion of the responsibility of local authority on social services or rights about social care of members of community (Bilton, 1979). These expansions had taken place through a range of legislations in 1960s: the 1962 National Assistance (Amendment) Act, the 1963 Children and Young Person Act, and the 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act. They just followed series of the expansion started from those in 1940s and 50s just discussed above.

The 1962 National Assistance (Amendment) Act allowed local government to provide meals on wheels directly for the first time which was only available from voluntary organisation before under the 1948 National Assistance Act (Means & Smith, 1994). The 1963 Children and Young Person Act was based on the ‘Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons’, Ingleby Report in 1960 (Baugh, 1987). As the Report emphasised preventative role of social service, particularly in juvenile crime issues (Cypher, 1979; Hall, 1976), the Act gave more power and to promote the welfare of children and to take preventative action against family breakdown through children’s department established by the 1948 Children Act (Baugh, 1987) Fostering and adoption gradually replaced residential child care (Adams, 1996). The social care right of the elderly which was introduced by the 1948 National Assistance Act was further strengthened through the 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act by giving local government powers to provide home helps, visiting, and social work and warden services even though actual provision of services still under discretion of provider (Salter, 1994).

These extensions of social services had been mainly driven by the growing concern about rising in juvenile delinquency and in number of elderly people who were occupying hospital beds without any alternative form of residential care (Baldock, 1994; Sullivan, 1996). Lowe (2005) points out some reasons why these concern caused expansion of social services rather than other harsh measures such as more punishments or encouraging family responsibilities. First one was widely disseminated belief of cost-effectiveness of preventive measure. This belief in juvenile delinquency was well reflected in Ingleby Report. As far as the elderly and the disabled were concerned, it was more easily understood that, without any preventive measure, more cost had to be eventually born within the NHS.

This belief was more underpinned by the development of social work profession after the ‘generic’ graining course for social workers had launched in LSE (Lowe, 2005). Following Eileen Younghusband’s proposal, the 1962 Health Visitors’ and Social Workers’ Training Act helped such course became standard and unitary development of the new profession (Adams, 1996). Coinciding with this professional development, the recognition within the social service staff begun to change. The new generation of social service professionals move away from judgemental assumption in 1950s to more understanding social and structural causes behind individual and family problems (Sullivan, 1996). Lowe (2005) also illustrates this development supported by scientific advance such as new drugs which enabled the mentally ill treated safely within community and new approach which enabled Down’s syndrome children educable.

However, the range of expansion of social services in early 1960s had not been sufficient to reverse growing concern of juvenile delinquency which led to set up new committee to review the organisation and the responsibilities of the local authority personal social services in England and Wales’ (Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, 1968, p. 11), the Seebohm Committee in 1965.

The Committee’s (1968) eventual recommendations were threefold. First, each local authority should have a unified social services department which bring together the professional workers from the children’s department and the health and welfare departments they previously deployed. By 1968, the national picture of social services provision was chaotic as some local authority provide welfare service by health committee while others by combined health and welfare department or solely welfare committee (Hall, 1976).

Second, these departments should be headed by a director approved by the Secretary of State for Health of Social Security, whose responsibility was to ensure that the new social service departments were placed as a part of a network of services in the community rather than isolated service provider. The recommendation of approval of the Secretary on the appointment of all director in new unitary department was introduced in spite of tis unpopularity among local government, as the Committee wanted to concentrate the responsibility of the new departments into one Department of State including training and inspectorate (Bilton, 1979). Final one was that generic training and further research should be encouraged.

These recommendations were included in the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act which passed in the last days of the Labour Government with cooperation of the Conservatives (Sullivan, 1996). By the Act, social services departments in local authorities was established; a duty to employ adequate staff to help the director of social services carry out personal social services functions was posed; united specialisms including child care and mental health was introduced; and the rationale for a generically trained and organised social work professions was created (Adams, 1996).

However, the Act did not include every thing originally recommended by the Committee (Bilton, 1979). It did not enlarge the responsibilities of local authority and exclude child guidance, education welfare and housing welfare services. It would not intended to entail additional expenditure apart from some cost by appointment of Directors of Social Services and other supporting staff (Bilton, 1979). Nevertheless, as soon as the social services departments were set, a dramatic increase in service provision was experienced arguably because general accessibility of services was significantly improved (Cypher, 1979). Dramatic increase was not limited in the amount of service provision. It happened with in great growth of the number of social workers mainly by two administrative upheavals – the local government reorganisation of 1971 and 1974 (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005).

Furthermore, new duties of the new department had been given not by the 1970 Act but by a series of legislations passed just before and after the establishment of the Act (Cypher, 1979; Hall, 1976). The power to provide domiciliary service for the elderly introduced to the local authorities by 1968 Health Service and Public Health Act was taken by the new united social services department.

The responsibility given by the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act to decide whether to send the child committed to local authority by the juvenile court to a residential community home, to foster parents or to return him or her (Baugh, 1987) became another duty of the department likewise. The Act was the attempt to divert young offenders from labelling as criminals to more integrative and community-based alternative system focusing on responsibility for care rather than punishment for crime (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000). It was the most significant legislation in its kind but it was peak rather than start of new era as the direction of the juvenile delinquency policy was reverted in the future (Adams, 1996).

The expansion of responsibility of new social services departments went on with the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Person Act which make it mandatory on local authorities to find out who the disabled are and to let them know what services are available to them (Means & Smith, 1994). It lasted until the 1973 National Health Service Re-organisation Act which put social workers in hospital under the umbrella of the social service department and placed a statutory duty on the local government to coordinate with the health authority in order to improve the health and welfare of residents requiring both service (Hall, 1976; Hill, 2000). This was the Act to tackle increasingly problematic issue in cooperation between the health authority and local government as the responsibility of health services overlapped between them (Adams, 1996; Wanless, 2006).

While these series of expansion of personal social services led general standard of care rose and some evidence said satisfaction of the services was improved (Lowe, 2005), they made the gap far more evident between universalist aim of social services introduced by the legislations and available resources from the government. The spending on personal social services increased by 12 per cent per annum between 1970 and 74 (Sullivan, 1996) but it was far behind people’s expectation risen by expended right of social care. Particularly, the new duty of local government to publicise to registered disabled people the services they had a right to expect drew anger rather than satisfaction due to failure to make available sufficient fund to provide the services (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). The death of Maria Colwell in 1973 was symbolic incident showed restrictions of new system.

Marketisation of personal social service from 1980 to 1997

The main concern in personal social services development dominated in this period was financial pressure. As economic difficulties begun from mid-1960s had been deepen through 1970s, the pressure on welfare state budgets increased considerably not only from supply which was limited by declined revenue from slumped economy, but also from demand side which was increased by, for example, growing unemployment (Ellison, 1998). It became more serious concern in term of personal social services because it was after experience of the sharp increase in the expenditure following a series of expansion of the social care right and accessibility of services among children, the elderly and the disabled during 1970s.

The trend of expansion was reversed. The extension of local government responsibility on personal services was turned to that of individual and family responsibility on their own care. This conversion was evident in the 1989 Children Act. While the Act was one of the most comprehensive legislation for children consolidating previous laws and ensuring protection and interests of children (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000), it made it clear that the prime responsibility for the care of children should lie with parents rather than with government (Lowe, 2005).

The other response of Conservative Government to the financial pressure was to cap local government capital expenditure and it entailed shortage of residential accommodation of local authority to the elderly and rapid growth in number of those form voluntary and private agencies (Lowe, 2005). Then situation got worse. The Department of Health and Social Services amended the Supplementary Benefit regulations to make it easier for Income Support recipients to claim fees of the increased private and voluntary care (or nursing) home from the social security system in the early 1980s. This triggered not only further dramatic growth of new homes in private sector but also social security expenditure as the money for this residential care came not from limited local government budget but from open-ended social security system (Wanless, 2006). The expenditure on Supplementary Benefit rocketed from £10 million in 1979 to £459 million per annum by early 1986 as the number of the beneficiaries jumped from 12,000 to 90,000 (Means & Smith, 1994).

The Government turned for advice on this problem to the managing director in Sainsbury, Sir Roy Griffith and asked to review the way of public funding for community care and provide options for action in 1986 (Lowe, 2005). Eventually, he published his report (Griffiths, 1988) and recommended that the funding for residential accommodation should be transferred from the social security budget back to local authority which should be the institution having core role in community care including the assessment of community care needs and the formulation of community care plan in their community; the financial management of community care; the provision of information to consumers and providers of care; and the assessment of individual needs and the design of packages of care to meet the needs (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). Griffiths also emphasised that local government should no longer be a major provider of social services but an ‘enabler’ while have a responsibility to ensure that individuals receive care to meet assessed needs either from the public or private sector (Hill, 2000; Lowe, 2005). This idea was revolutionary at that time (Wanless, 2006).

These recommendations were enacted in the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act. Local authority social services department have become the central coordinating and strategic agency for community care various provider from public as well as voluntary and private sector involved (Sullivan, 1996). Yet it also means local authorities lost its statues as a near-monopoly provider and became purchaser of the services. The two key features of the community care reform were, in fact, the ‘purchaser-provider split’ and a shift in the balance of provision from the state to voluntary, private and informal sectors (Langan, 1998) in order to promote efficiency and consumer choice through market principle in personal social services. It was, in other words, maketisation of personal social services.

Efficient services could be encouraged through the marketisation but guaranteeing service standard was different matter. Actually, as maketisation means more involvement of private and voluntary sector and less direct control of government on service provision, more stringent regulation on service standard was the other side of coin in the community care reform. More centralised control and regulation on social serviced introduced through the 1984 Registered Home Act and monitoring system by the Audit Commission and a new Social Service Inspectorate (Adams, 1996; Lowe, 2005). All private nursing homes for the mentally handicapped have to be registered with the district health authority and residential homes with the local government under the 1984 Act. Systematic monitoring with statistics and qualitative data on management structure, staff, financial resources, service management and delivery process had been conducted since establishment of Social Service Inspectorate in 1985.

Many argues the community care reform – marketisation of social services and adaptation of case management - was more about transition of paradigm of social service from supply-led or provider-led services to user-led or need-led service (Adams, 1996; Payne, 2000). While this claim is still contentious as one of the direction of the reform was to strengthen the control of spending on social service, which entails restriction on the social care right of service user, it is true that rights and voices of service users’ more explicitly improved through some legislations during this period.

The most beneficiaries were mental health patients. The 1983 Mental Health Act stressed provision of community services to meet their individual need and encouraged voluntary admission to hospital where possible (Means & Smith, 1994). Also Mental Health Tribunals set up by the Act improved the interests and rights of them (Adams, 1996). Also financial support became available to help them to leave hospital and to be treated in the community by the 1983 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act (Baugh, 1987).

The 1996 Community Care (Direct Payments) Act allowed certain categories of people to receive a cash payment for arrangement of services they need by their own. Although its take-up rate remained extremely low at that time, it was important step forward in terms of user’s involvement as it gave genuine choice directly to service users rather than odd ‘consumer choice’ encouraged in the community care reform in 1990 practiced by different purchaser rather than consumer.

Modernising personal social services under New Labour

After the first landslide victory of the New Labour Government in 1997, the most evident change in public service including personal social service took place in political lexicon from market and competition to cooperation and partnership. ‘Modernisation’ has been the umbrella word representing major changes in public services still in progress (Benington, 2000). As far as personal social services concerned, while the importance of social services was recognised through the modernisation reform, this has been not marketisation or privatisation in 1980s nor back to monopolistic state provision of the public services in 1970s (Heron & Dwyer, 1999; Martin, 2000; Wanless, 2006). Initially, in practice, New Labour Government not only made its distance from marketisaion of former Government by abolishing Compulsory Competitive Tendering which was the toughest measure for that of local government services but also made it clear not to returned to universalist expansion of social care rights by rejecting majority report of Royal Commission on Long Term Care which suggested free personal care.

Original reform plan of New Labour Government on personal social services appeared in it’s the White Paper, Modernsing Social Services: Promoting Independence, Improving Protection, Raising Standard (Department of Health, 1998). When the reforms put into practice hitherto are considered, the plan could be outlined into three directions. The first one has been cooperation and partnership not only between different public authorities by joint-up services but also between public authorities and other private sectors. This comes with more rigorous centralist and managerialist measurement to improve their standard of the services with massive number of and various kinds of targets. The final direction has been to encourage rights and independence of vulnerable people.

The most significant areas the Government has been trying to improve the partnership has been social services and health. The 1999 Health Act was a remarkable step as the Act tackled many organizational obstacles which permitted pooled budget, lead commissioning, and integrated provision with ‘one-stop’ package between health and social services authorities (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001). They has put a range of administrative and institutional measures into practice such as responsibility of social services department to involve planning and managing health care provision by representation in Primary Care Trust (PCT), to participate Intermediate Care initiative, and to operating Single Assessment Process (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001; Wanless, 2006). Care Trusts which are single multi-purpose statutory bodies to be responsible for all health and social care in the community are one of the organisational developments to guarantee great level of integration.

Health and social care are not only area which partnership is problematic. Also this issue is not restrict to statutory organisations. A series of comprehensive local initiatives to promote social inclusion such as Health Action Zones, and Sure Start have not been limited partnership project within state authority. Various private sectors including voluntary and community organisations have been involved to tackle health and education inequality in their community (Bywaters & McLeod, 2001; Painter, 1999). This wide range of partnership has also been encouraged through sets of standard led by central government such as National Service Framework and Local Area Agreement (Wanless, 2006).

However, a number of centrally-led frameworks with rigorous targets and measurement system are not only to encourage partnership. Rather it has developed to improve standard of social services alongside of dramatic increase in number of voluntary and private organisations involved in service provision since 1980s. Principal ground for minimum standard and monitoring system was set by the 2000 Care Standard Act (Lowe, 2005; Wanless, 2006). National Care Standard Commission was established as a responsible body for the registration and regulation of care services. The Commission, Social Services Inspectorate, and Joint Review with the Audit Commission were consolidated into the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) which become a single body to evaluate and regulate all public and private providers in social care by the 2003 Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standard) Act (Department of Health, 2003).

While minimum standard and the CSCI is more about protection of service users, National Service Frameworks (NSFs) lunched in 1998 are much wider range of measurement to improve level of standard of specific service in long term (Department of Health, 2007). NSFs provide a set of national standard developed with the assistance of an external reference group composed by various professionals and stakeholders for each service or care group including mental health, older people, and children. Local Area Agreement (LAA) and Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) are the other example of proactive initiative for better social service particularly at local level by improving local public service delivery system, providing framework for new relationship between central and local government, and encouraging greater partnership between various organisations in the community (Department of Health, 2005).

Finally, development of direct payment system and carer’s rights could be regarded the other direction of social services policy of New Labour. Direct payment, which was introduced former Conservative Government but remained extremely low take-up rage, was extended as new guidance made it a duty for local government to offer direct payment for eligible people. More service users could enjoy greater control on their own services through direct payment.

Carers had been neglected although they play vital role in personal services as the majority needs actually fulfilled by them rather than other formal provider. Yet they could have their own rights to be assessed and get services including direct payment in the 2000 Carers and Disabled Children Act. Furthermore more carers’ needs such as employment, life-long learning, and leisure activities had to be taken into account in the assessments and this rights and available services for them had to be informed by local authorities under the 2004 Carers (Equal Opportunity) Act.

What drives policy development in personal social services?

We can find some remarkable changes in terms of policy development in personal social services, for example, from focus on civil right on social care in 1960s and 1970s to control on cost of care in 1980s and 1990s; extension of social services in state provision by 70s and rapidly growing involvement of private and voluntary sector together with more powerful control from the centre on services quality from 1980s onward; and more emphasis on service users’ choice and involvement in services provision from 1990s.

There are two contradictory interpretations summarising this process of policy development of personal social services in Britain from 1940s to current. Establishing but suddenly diminishing rights for social care favour to free-market society (Baines, 2004; Ellison, 1998; Esping-Andersen, 1996) is the one side and growing empowerment of service users away from state- and market-led services toward more responsive service to them and more their involvement in shaping, delivering, and evaluating services (Adams, 1996; Wanless, 2006).

However, interpretation on the policy development and analysing determining forces of the development are different matters although both are partly related. While these two issues often confused in academic discussion, in other word, defining features or directions of policy development process and causal factors to determine them should be distinguished in order to find out how the development taken place.

Within the literatures about policy development of social care, there are two distinguishing stances saying what are major forces to determine the particular direction of the development. One is to explain process of policy development with continuing tension between growing social needs on personal care and limited resources available. Showing more complex political dynamics between various actors and under certain environmental factors is the other. However, there are significant limitations in these explanations and this provide the reason why we need to look at ideological changes of governments for the better understanding of the policy development.

Constant tension between growing needs and limited resources

Many argue that, while describing developing process of social care policy, it is eventually or partly determined by government control on growing needs on personal support due to financial constraint for the services (Baugh, 1987; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lewis, 1999; Salter, 1994). Salter (1994) demonstrates that, in particular, personal social service policy has been developed through government control of demand by changes in the way how needs identification and services accessed on one side and control of supply by finance and resource allocation on the other while they confront with the effect of continuing expansion of rights to social care.

These claims have two assumptions. Social needs to social services are continuously growing and available resources to fulfil these needs are highly limited. Growing social needs are usually described with a range of social changes has been continued since post-war period. Demographic changes in aging population and low birth rage would be more directly influential factors on growing needs as the elderly are one of the conventional client groups of social services (Adams, 1996; Hill, 2000; Wanless, 2006). Other social changes including family structure such as increasing family break-up, single member family, and lone parent, have an impact on rising need to social services and these diminish capacity of care for individuals (Hill, 2000; Wanless, 2006).

While there is some frustrating trends in these figures from 1940s to current, it is fair to say that there are, overall, far more factor would have effect on growth in needs. A range of figures showing changing structure of family indicate the significant decline of the care capacity in families (see, for example, Babb, Butcher, Church, & Zealey, 2006). Moreover, in fact, there are more changes to diminish family care capacity such as growing employment in female, as traditionally female member of family have central role in informal care.

However, the level of available resource for social care is highly political issue rather than inevitable environmental factors determining development social services. Limited resources in personal social services are usually illustrated with limited level of social expenditure on it comparing to growing social needs (Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996) but the amount of expenditure on personal social services is rather ‘effect’ determined by government decision than ‘cause’ influencing level of social services.

In fact, strictly speaking, total available resources in contemporary society for social services is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) referring to the whole the amount of value produced within national boundary, which means total mount of money can be spend not the spending on the social care already determined within GDP. The fact that current level of spending on social care is just around 1 per cent says there are sufficient places the level can be significantly increased. So there has been highly limited spending on social services causing profound gap between need and resources not because there has been limited resources available at the first place but because it is limited by government decision.

Political dynamics in the policy development

As Payne (2000) argues that social work (or care) changes result from interaction between various social groups basing on power relation among them, this tend to be common practice that a number of political interaction during policy making process and its enforcement or implementation in the literatures about the social services policy development (Adams, 1996; Baldock, 1994; Ellison, 1998; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lowe, 2005; Means & Smith, 1994; Powell & Hewitt, 1998; Sullivan, 1996; Wanless, 2006). This shows political dynamics in the policy development of personal social services.

This is relating to social care professions, for example, development and movement of social workers’ organisations (Adams, 1996; Bilton, 1979; Evandrou, Falkingham, & Glennerster, 1990; Lowe, 2005; Sullivan, 1996); Ideological terrain in the contemporary society such as rising radicalism in 1960s (Adams, 1996); general concern of public at that times such as juvenile delinquency issues in 1960s (Adams, 1996; Baldock, 1994); influence of new theory such as new public management in 1980s (Ellison, 1998); and political accidents triggered a certain institutional changes, for example, regulatory change to allow funding residential care by social security system in 1980s (Baldock, 1994).

It is true that there have been a lot of political stories behind major changes in the policy development in social care as same as any other policy areas. However, if we just list up a range of events relating to a certain changes it would be descriptive approach and this does not help systematic understanding of casual factors on the policy development. In fact, these events never directly led to policy change. In other to change any major policy, there must be political interpretation by government before they appeared any legislative form to lead actual implementation.

Interestingly, in the literatures about the policy development in social services, while there are more various political interaction described relating to the changes by 1970s, political ideology of government tend to be major concern after 1980s (Adams, 1996; Ellison, 1998; Lowe, 2005; Payne, 2000; Sullivan, 1996; Wanless, 2006). However, there is a profound lack of evidence and analysis about how this ideological changes lead to policy changes and causal relationship in it. This is the core place and question which this second half of the study addresses.

Bibliography

Adams, R. (1996). The personal social services: clients, consumers or citizens? London: Longman.

Babb, P., Butcher, H., Church, J., & Zealey, L. (2006). National Statistics: Social trends (Vol. 36): Palgrave Macmillan.

Baines, D. (2004). Pro-market, non-market: the dual nature of organizational change in social service delivery. Critical Social Policy, 24(1), 5-29.

Baldock, J. (1994). The personal social services: the politics of care. In V. George & S. Miller (Eds.), Social policy towards 2000. London: Routledge.

Baugh, W. E. (1987). Introduction to the social services (5th ed.). London: Macmillan Education.

Benington, J. (2000). The modernization and improvement of government and public service. Public money and management, 20(2).

Bilton, K. (1979). Origins, progress and future. In J. Cypher (Ed.), Seebohm across three decades: social services departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Bywaters, P., & McLeod, E. (2001). The impact of New Labour health policy on social services: a New Deal for service users' health? British Journal of Social Work, 31, 579-594.

Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. (1968). Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. Cmnd 3703: HMSO.

Cypher, J. (Ed.). (1979). Seebohm across three decades: social service departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Department of Health. (1998). Modernising social service: promoting independence, improving protection, raising standards. Cm 4169: The Stationery Office.

Department of Health. (2003). Care home for older people: national minimun standards and care homes regulations 2001 (3rd ed.). London: TSO.

Department of Health. (2005). Local Area Agreements and Local Public Service Agreements. Retrieved 03.12, 2006, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/AboutUs/MinistersAndDepartmentLeaders/ChiefMedicalOfficer/Features/FeaturesArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4116435&chk=BmbaGN

Department of Health. (2007). National service frameworks (NSFs). Retrieved 28. 6., 2007, from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/DH_4070951

DH. (1998). Modernising social service: promoting independence, improving protection, rasing standards: Department of Health.

Ellison, N. (1998). The changing politics of social policy. In N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds.), Development in British social policy: Macmillan.

Esping-Andersen, G. (Ed.). (1996). Welfare states in transition: national adaptation in grobal economies. London: Sage.

Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., & Glennerster, H. (1990). The personal social services: 'everyone's poor relation but nobody's baby'. In J. Hills (Ed.), The state of welfare: the welfare state in Britain since 1974. Oxford: Carendon Press.

Griffiths, R. (1988). Community care: agenda for action. London: HMSO.

Hall, P. (1976). Reforming the welfare: the politics of change in the personal social services. London: Heinemann.

Heron, E., & Dwyer, P. (1999). Doing the right things: Labour's attempt to forge a new welfare deal between the individual and the state. Social Policy and Administration, 33(1), 91-104.

Hill, M. (2000). Local authority social services: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Langan, M. (1998). The personal social services. In N. Ellison & C. Pierson (Eds.), Development in British social policy: Macmillan.

Lewis, J. (1999). The concepts of community care and primary care in the UK: the 1960s to the 1990s. Health and social care in the community, 7(5), 333-341.

Lowe, R. (2005). The welfare state in Britain since 1945 (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, S. (2000). Implementing 'Best Value': local public services in transition. Public administration, 78(1).

Means, R., & Smith, R. (1994). Community care: policy and practice. London: Macmillan.

Painter, C. (1999). Public service reform from Thatcher to Blair: a third way. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(1), 94-112(119).

Payne, M. (2000). The politics of case management and social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9, 82-91.

Powell, M., & Hewitt, M. (1998). The end of the Welfare State? Social Policy and Administration, 32(1), 1-13.

Salter, B. (1994). The politics of community care: social rights and welfare limits. Policy and Politics, 22(2), 119-131.

Sullivan, M. (1996). Personal social services. In The development of the British welfare state: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Wanless, D. (2006). Securing good care for older people: taking a long-term view. London: King's Fund.