We supposedly live in a world where choice is deemed to be 'a good thing'. In fact successive governments have made choice in public services such as housing, health and education absolute top priorities in their political pitch to the electorate. All this in addition to the consumer choices that have increased exponentially during my lifetime and since the end of the Second World War. Personally I've never been that impressed with significant amounts of choice and suspect many other people may feel the same, but that might merely be a reflection of our age and nostalgic memories.
In addition to politicians feeling that choice is what the public want, there has been an increasingly politically correct view about 'choice' and this impinges directly upon our client group. The ethos seems to be that all citizens should be treated as being essentially responsible and should be trusted and encouraged to make decisions for themselves and that those choices will be in their own best interests. In essence the view is that we should move away from an essentially paternalistic approach by the state to one of enabling instead. Now, like many social policies, it sounds great in theory, but the effect in practice is often quite different, leads to unintended consequences, but worst of all some might be deemed as just plain cynical because they involve hidden agendas.
Following on from the whole 'Community Care' agenda in the 1990's which many would say was simply about saving money, another cynical example I would cite is the current trend to give people with Learning Disabilities control and choice about their care as part of Personalised Care Budgets. Under this system, staying with the status quo is not one of the choices on offer and yet many individuals would choose that option if it were available. They don't want change and cannot comprehend all the factors involved in making alternative care decisions. Many lack true capacity to understand fully, and even with careful and professional mentoring, the whole process is really just about saving money, but dressed up as delivering 'more choice'.
It will be patently obvious to any probation officer that many of our clients are often in trouble and have great difficulty resolving their chaotic lives precisely because they are not very good at making decisions and quite often make the wrong decisions. I have lost track of the number of times in a PSR I have used the phrase 'Mr X has clearly not acted in his own best interests' in a PSR. It is often astonishing and depressing when we learn of a clients spending decisions when they have so little money by virtue of living on State Benefits. Now I appreciate that this is dangerous territory for someone who is middle class and has always been reasonably well off and it is not my intention to conjure up the stereotypical tabloid image of flat screen TV's, fags and booze. All these might well be deemed important for individuals with little other cheer in their life. I think it's much more fundamental and one reason why programmes like Enhanced Thinking Skills are so important for many of our clients.
But as a society, why do we compound the problems facing so many clients and feel it's sensible or fair to set many of them up to fail by giving choices such as that relating to Housing Benefit? At present it is not possible to elect to have Housing Benefit paid direct to a private landlord, until at least 8 weeks arrears of rent have accrued. I feel this is such a cruel situation to put many clients in when many have difficulty with managing a budget on a restricted income. Having the money paid direct into a personal bank account when they are quite likely to be facing other competing financial demands such as utilities and food is going to add considerably more stress and temptation to an already difficult situation. They may well have money owing to dodgy local money lenders who often threaten violence for repayment and who could blame someone for giving that priority over rent payments? For our clients, it almost seems to be a system designed specifically to encourage debt to build up. Quite understandably it annoys landlords and does nothing to increase the pool of properties available to clients. Indeed it simply serves to encourage many to turn claimants away.
I find it particularly galling from a politically correct point of view to see that Social Landlords have very recently won reversal of the decision to pay their tenants direct under the proposed new Universal Benefit coming into effect in 2013. I notice they didn't complain that tenants might not be trusted to hand the money over, rather they were concerned that it "would jeopardise the stable income they receive from housing benefit". Now just how disingenuous is that?
In addition to politicians feeling that choice is what the public want, there has been an increasingly politically correct view about 'choice' and this impinges directly upon our client group. The ethos seems to be that all citizens should be treated as being essentially responsible and should be trusted and encouraged to make decisions for themselves and that those choices will be in their own best interests. In essence the view is that we should move away from an essentially paternalistic approach by the state to one of enabling instead. Now, like many social policies, it sounds great in theory, but the effect in practice is often quite different, leads to unintended consequences, but worst of all some might be deemed as just plain cynical because they involve hidden agendas.
Following on from the whole 'Community Care' agenda in the 1990's which many would say was simply about saving money, another cynical example I would cite is the current trend to give people with Learning Disabilities control and choice about their care as part of Personalised Care Budgets. Under this system, staying with the status quo is not one of the choices on offer and yet many individuals would choose that option if it were available. They don't want change and cannot comprehend all the factors involved in making alternative care decisions. Many lack true capacity to understand fully, and even with careful and professional mentoring, the whole process is really just about saving money, but dressed up as delivering 'more choice'.
It will be patently obvious to any probation officer that many of our clients are often in trouble and have great difficulty resolving their chaotic lives precisely because they are not very good at making decisions and quite often make the wrong decisions. I have lost track of the number of times in a PSR I have used the phrase 'Mr X has clearly not acted in his own best interests' in a PSR. It is often astonishing and depressing when we learn of a clients spending decisions when they have so little money by virtue of living on State Benefits. Now I appreciate that this is dangerous territory for someone who is middle class and has always been reasonably well off and it is not my intention to conjure up the stereotypical tabloid image of flat screen TV's, fags and booze. All these might well be deemed important for individuals with little other cheer in their life. I think it's much more fundamental and one reason why programmes like Enhanced Thinking Skills are so important for many of our clients.
But as a society, why do we compound the problems facing so many clients and feel it's sensible or fair to set many of them up to fail by giving choices such as that relating to Housing Benefit? At present it is not possible to elect to have Housing Benefit paid direct to a private landlord, until at least 8 weeks arrears of rent have accrued. I feel this is such a cruel situation to put many clients in when many have difficulty with managing a budget on a restricted income. Having the money paid direct into a personal bank account when they are quite likely to be facing other competing financial demands such as utilities and food is going to add considerably more stress and temptation to an already difficult situation. They may well have money owing to dodgy local money lenders who often threaten violence for repayment and who could blame someone for giving that priority over rent payments? For our clients, it almost seems to be a system designed specifically to encourage debt to build up. Quite understandably it annoys landlords and does nothing to increase the pool of properties available to clients. Indeed it simply serves to encourage many to turn claimants away.
I find it particularly galling from a politically correct point of view to see that Social Landlords have very recently won reversal of the decision to pay their tenants direct under the proposed new Universal Benefit coming into effect in 2013. I notice they didn't complain that tenants might not be trusted to hand the money over, rather they were concerned that it "would jeopardise the stable income they receive from housing benefit". Now just how disingenuous is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment