Introduction

In earlier chapters, we explored the various positions occupied by people with learning difficulties in relation to lifelong learning in education and the labour market. For the general population, lifelong learning programmes are funded from personal education and employment budgets. For people with learning difficulties, however, lifelong learning is often funded by social or health services. To understand the shape of lifelong learning for people with learning difficulties, it is therefore essential to understand the operation of local social care markets. This, therefore, is the focus of the present chapter.

Current community care policy places a strong emphasis on the principles of normalisation (Stalker et al, 1999b), including an opening up of mainstream daytime opportunities (Scottish Executive, 2000a). In addition a “Close and harmonious working within social work, with other statutory agencies, with the voluntary and private sectors…” is advocated (Scottish Office, 1999, p 9). In this chapter we first analyse community care policies as they developed over the last decade. The nature of contracting arrangements between service purchasers and providers is then explored to identify the locus of power. We finally question the extent to which social care markets are delivering choice and diversity of provision, empowering service users to exercise control over their future life course, through case studies of three adults with learning difficulties in a market town in our rural study area.

Social care markets: purchasers, providers and contracts

The 1990 NHS and Community Care Act placed the responsibility on local authorities to assess individuals’ care needs, design an appropriate package of care and ensure that this was delivered. In the policy guidance document Caring for people (DoH, 1989) the government indicated the way in which local authorities were to effect change. Central to the process was transforming the role of local authorities from service provider to service purchaser. Local authorities were required to stimulate the growth of the independent, voluntary and private sectors, thereby creating a market in service provision that would increase consumer choice, provide better value for money and higher quality services. However, what was created was not an open or pure market but a ‘quasi market’ of care provision (Le Grand, 1991).