Advertisement

National Reforms in Mental Health and Social Care Services: Comparative, Text-Based Explorations of Consumer Involvement and Service Transparency

  • Lia LevinEmail author
  • Adi Amram Levy
Original Paper
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Consumer involvement and service transparency have, in recent years, become inherent components of policy guiding the provision of public mental health and social care services. The current study wished to deepen insights on these issues, as they unfold in public services reforms in Israel and England, through an examination of key policy documents describing reforms in both countries. The results of this research show the often tacit ways policy can “talk the inclusive talk”, but only limitedly “walk the inclusive walk”, offering some interesting observations regarding the linkage between involvement and transparency in mental health and social care services.

Keywords

Reforms Israel England Consumer involvement Service transparency 

Notes

References

  1. Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2019). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ press.Google Scholar
  3. Carothers, T., & Brechenmacher, S. (2014). Accountability, transparency, participation and inclusion: A new development consensus?. Washington, DC: CEIP.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, S. (2007). Participation, power, conflict and change: Theorizing dynamics of service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales. Critical Social Policy, 27, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunn, W. (2015). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman, R. (2006). The work the document does: Research, policy and equity in health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeman, R., & Maybin, J. (2011). Documents, practices and policy. Evidence & Policy, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research, 3, 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoggett, P. (2006). Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public organizations. Human Relations, 59, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughey, M. (Ed.). (2016). New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Katan, J. (2012). Personal social services - Functions, elements and main characteristics. In H. Hovav, E. Lawental, & J. Katan (Eds.), Social work in Israel (pp. 419–437). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.Google Scholar
  12. Kirkpatrick, I., & Ackroyd, S. (2003). Transforming the professional archetype? The new managerialism in UK social services. Public Management Review, 5, 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lecca, P., Quervalu, I., Nunes, J., & Gonzales, H. (2014). Cultural competency in health, social & human services: Directions for the 21st century. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, L. (2012) Towards a revised definition of client collaboration: the knowledge–power–politics triad. Journal of Social Work Practice, 26(2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levin, L. (2015) Involvement as inclusion? Shared decision-making in social work practice in Israel: a qualitative account. Health & Social Care in the Community, 23(2), 208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Social Affairs. (2011). Project book: Social services reform. Jerusalem: The author.Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Social Affairs. (2017). Reform in the social services, Retrieved 23 August 2017 from http://www.molsa.gov.il/SocialServicesReform/Pages/SocialServicesReformPage.aspx.
  18. National Health Service (NHS). (2014). Five year forward view. London: The author.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shnit, D. (2001). Confidentiality, privacy and the right to know in Social Work. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
  22. Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2005). A joined-up approach to user participation in public services: Strengthening the ‘Participation Chain’. Social Policy & Administration, 39, 260–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. The Secretary of State for Health. (2012). Caring for our future: Progress report on funding reform. London: The author.Google Scholar
  24. Walther, B. (2004). Discussion of information transparency and coordination failure: Theory and experiment. Journal of Accounting Research, 42, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yanow, D. (2006). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 405–416). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bob Shapell School of Social WorkTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations