Premium
Halfway There? Policy, Politics and Outcomes in Community Care
Author(s) -
Henwood Melanie,
Wistow Gerald,
Robinson Janice
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
social policy and administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1467-9515
pISSN - 0144-5596
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9515.1996.tb00480.x
Subject(s) - white paper , promotion (chess) , politics , quality (philosophy) , service (business) , public relations , health care , independence (probability theory) , business , political science , economic growth , public administration , economics , marketing , statistics , mathematics , law , philosophy , epistemology
The community care reforms which followed the 1989 White Paper “Caring for People”were apparently focused on addressing the needs of people requiring long‐term care, and on achieving improved outcomes and better quality of life. The agenda set out by the White Paper was for community care in the next decade and beyond. Half way through this decade, we question the extent to which the objectives of promoting choice and independence for users and carers have been achieved. The paper draws particularly on a programme of monitoring conducted jointly by the Nuffield Institute for Health and the King's Fund, based on national and local focus groups meeting over a two‐year period. It proposes a framework for evaluation which consists of four components: the definition of desired outcomes; specification of service systems necessary to deliver such outcomes; promotion of access to services; and the development of supporting operational policies and resource allocation mechanisms. This framework offers a substantial step beyond much of the monitoring of the community care reforms which has taken place to date. This has assessed progress largely in terms of the establishment of new systems and processes. We conclude that such changes were essential building blocks for delivering better‐quality community care services, and in the short term it may have been legitimate to view their establishment as proxies for progress towards delivering user‐centred services. However, monitoring and evaluation should now be increasingly oriented towards ensuring that these changes are in fact producing the desired service outputs and urn outcomes. We propose that our framework offers one such way forward.