SOCIAL WORK WITH ADULTS

SOCIAL WORK WITH ADULTS

Legal and Historical Context

Adults with disabilities face a myriad of challenges in their quest to have a sustainable lifestyle. As such, the development of the Care Act 2014 has led to advancement in how to care for adults with disabilities can be addressed. The Act repealed various other regulations which were used as guidelines by social workers to care for adults with disabilities. However, the Act is used together with the Community Care Act 1990 (Boer et al., 2018, p.44). Care Act 2014 provides the principles in which caregivers have to follow in their delivery of social work services to the adults living with disabilities (Mandelstam, 2017, p. 77). The Act gave the social care providers an opportunity to asses and provided a personalized dimension through which adults with disabilities can be helped. Primarily, The Care Act 2014 provides the framework for the well-being of adults with disabilities. The care is centred on the individual based on their needs, goals and aspirations. As such, the law requires that the needs of individuals be met since people have different demands in life. Therefore, the Act depicts an individualized way of service delivery of social workers to adults. The principle builds on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 since it assumes that disabled people are aware of their needs, goals and outcomes which can facilitate their well-being. The Care Act 2014 also stipulates that people with disabilities should be supported to achieve independent living.

The people with disabilities, in some instances, are viewed as only the receivers of services from social workers. However, through the CA2014, It provides for resilient development and promotion of individual strength. Such helps in ensuring that the disabled adults are not only seen as beneficiaries but also contributors. The local authorities are the powers to promote interventions geared towards co-production. As such, the caregivers, families, friends, individuals and the community can participate in influencing ways on how services are delivered. Such facilitates the development of self-reliance, resilient and reflect what adults with disabilities use. Through the initiatives, the social, political and economic development of such people can be achieved. This is attributed to the direct contact which the community, including caregivers and individuals with local authorities, can use discuss ways of promoting self-reliance and resilience. For instance, such meetings can lead to questions such as “what does a good life look like for you and your family, and how can we work together to achieve it?” (Zigmond, 2014, p.11). Allowing individuals to address their desires e5nables them to develop control and access to information vital for their well-being. Such builds their social capabilities since they can maintain independence and also caring roles for long. People living with disabilities in most cases are Isolated, as such, such initiatives improve their self-esteem.

Second 4 of the CA2014 require that social workers should provide information and advice to people with disabilities (Great Britain & Efford, 2014, p. 83). Advice and information are crucial to people with disabilities. It enables them to identify the essential needs they require. Information covered should also cover Issues related to response one should take in case of abuse or being neglected. Legal factors such as Care and Support Business failure are also regulated under CA2014. Business failure involves the development of crisis which may subject adult with disabilities to fail to receive the services required. Such can be attributed to appoint of a new administrator, social worker or administrator. The local authorities are mandated to have in place temporary duties to ensure consistency and avoid the chaos which such may lead.

The development of the Care Act 2014 has been attributed to the discrepancies in which the various legislations on social work for adults with disabilities had in its provision (Brammer, 2014, p. 92). Disability Discrimination Act 1990 received little attention due to failure to address the rates of unemployment among the disabled adults triggering a substantial academic debate regarding its usefulness. Various scholars attributed that the Act worsened the state of unemployment among disabled adults. For example, the Act led to higher uncertainty litigation cost lack of financial support and general awareness on employers and people who are disabled. Later in 2001, the UK government legislated on White Paper Valuing People Act 2001, which was developed by the department of health (Simpson & Price, 2010, p.44). The law was based on civil rights, inclusion, independence and choice. However, the law mandate failed to result from the lack of a framework that the four principles were to be met. Its failure was attributed to the inability of the statutory agencies to provide the necessary assistance to the caregivers. Such led to its loss of value.  It led to the development of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which was developed to empower and protect people with disabilities on decisions they make (Brown et al., 2015, p.74). The law focused mainly on caregivers such as nurses on the decisions regarding adults with disabilities. Just like the CA2014, the Act was based on various principles which outlined how it addressed issues on adults with disabilities.

In contrast to CA2014, it was mainly care provider centred (Day & Schiele 2013, p. 78). As such, the regulation mandated that the care providers should safeguard on the dignity, communication, privacy, safety and dignity of the disabled adults. It failed to help in addressing issues such as the need for empowerment.  The disabled adults were not given also the platform regarding proposing how they can be helped to achieve their best outcome on the issues they face.

The development of CA2014 was the most crucial legislation for adults with disabilities (Sandu, 2018, p. 21). The Act was despite that it was developed to help in the achievement of best outcomes for disabled adults. It also facilitated strengthened the roles of both the community and care providers. The program has enhanced Individual support by providing a guideline on how personalized care can be provided. It led to the shifting of local authorizes services from specific groups, thus ensuring individuals receive services which address their precise problems. Regardless of its essential impacts for disabled people, the CA2014 does not define what local authorities should do in order to achieve the individual needs has outlined.Top of Form

Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form
Practice and Theory

Various studies have shown that disabilities among the adults have numerous negative impacts especially if they are not given the desired support. Despite that the phenomena are natural in most cases, such people are disadvantaged when subjected to competitive social situations (University Of Chester, & Ogden, Cassandra, 2014 p. 17). As such, to address their issues on a framework which can lessen the effects of their disability, the social workers have helped in addressing their problems. Most of them have been able to receive people who understand and provide a mechanism which can address their issues.

The social model of disability demonstrates how disabled people view the world. The model outlines that people are disabled due to the barriers existing in society. Being disabled in actual sense does not relate to the actual impairment; instead, it is from the physical barriers, which makes one disable.  Nonetheless, disabilities among people are related to attitudes in which one is subjected due to ways in which society assumes one’s incapability. As such, the model was developed to enable social workers to recognize barriers making lives of the disabled people hard. Removal of obstacles facing the disabled people helps in the creation of equality and enabling the disabled people to be more independent and have control over issues surrounding their lives. Barnes (2018, p. 106) opposes such an idea since most people with disabilities and the social idea on the same will not change. Regardless of interventions such as challenging on the discrimination, linking political and civil rights activism, challenging marginalization and enabling them to claim their rights as disabled individuals, most of such dimensions are only for public reaction. Through the CA2014, the mandate for its development was the achievement of disabled well-being. However, Banting, Butler & Swift (2018, p.188) highlight that it was the only document since the budget does not stretch to offer the desired care. Thus Roeden et al. (p. 250) refute the idea of the placement of disabled people to various responsibilities in the society.

In the United Kingdom, the model is viewed as a social construct intervention. As such, issues which bring differences for the disabled such as cognitive, physical or behavioural are only applied based on how it is implied. However, the idea has been refuted by Barnes (2018, p.98) since they view that one’s impairment causes disability. Such contrasts with views of authors such as Hadley & Mcdonald, D. (2018, p. 104) who have predominantly highlighted that disability is based on the views from the society based on their prejudice, labelling and ignorance. Feltham & Horton (2012 p.40) views that the social model does not adequately theorize disabled. However, instead of addressing the ethical issues affecting the disabled due to prejudice from society, the model facilitates the politicizing of their struggles.

In contrast with the social model, the solution-focused theory focuses on behavior change among adults with disabilities. It utilizes goal-directed and collaborative approaches in helping people with disabilities to change their behavior. It is a goal-driven model which focuses on the solution, strengths and health of the adult with a disability. It is based on what the client can perform versus what they cannot perform. As such, the social worker only focuses on the client’s accomplishments and successes rather than exploring the issues affecting an adult with disabilities. The social workers focus on how to identify and use the achievement of the individual by emphasizing success and solutions. From a practical perspective, refutes the existence of such due to the way people view disabilities. The society is judgmental; thus, Lipchik, E. (2011, p. 104) suggests that facilitating positive change using the method is not practical.  Just like any other person, adults living with disabilities will love to share their painful journey. Thus, this negates the notion that the therapy based on solution-focused ideology can help in achieving behavior changed. The therapeutic choice is obtained by various clinical observations to facilitate positive change among adults with disabilities. As outlined by Haegele, Brian & Lieberman (2017, p. 913), the positive changed desired from the client is achieved through a system perspective and language role in creating reality.

System perspective is based on the notion that change is a constant process in the achievement of the potential solution regarding the disability problem. The social workers address disability among their clients by engaging them to cultivate their behavior existing outside their disabilities. In a nutshell, the University Of Chester, & Ogden, Cassandra  (2014),  highlight that regardless of the disabilities, disabled people in some cases have the abilities to handle life situation in different ways. Such an idea, as outlined by Hadley & Mcdonald, D. (2018p. 107) do not materialize due to issues such as mental construct relating to disabilities. As much as the social workers are endowed with the knowledge and skills, they are part of the society who can also judge their clients though silently (Lipchik, 2011 p. 98). The social workers in solution-focused help their clients to realize, amplify, sustain and reinforce their unnoticed strength. Similar to the social model, the idea regarding challenging issues such as marginalization and stereotypes affecting the disabled can be integrated into the model. For instance, solution-focused practitioners can help in addressing their clients that the disability is only existing in the views of others. However, they should break the marginalization and discrimination by engaging in measures which can help in changing the system (Purdy, 2012 p. 100). The solution-focused addresses the issues in the present context rather than issues which caused the problem. Therefore, as outlined by Haegele, Brian & Lieberman (2017 p.29), the solution-focused model and social model can be integrated by addressing the issues by focusing on breaking the cycles, which further the disability.

Another intervention used in the solution-focused approach is language in the creation of reality (Krinsky-Mchale & Silverman, 2013, p. 38). It is a conscious effort which focuses on addressing issues affecting disabled adults through dialogue. It is based on the conversation of change. The client communicates with the expert invited by the practitioner. The expert and the practitioner communicates intensively, thus allowing a co-construct for a desirable future without problems. Communicating one’s issues shows that one is willing to explore possibilities to change from the ideology of disability captivity. Hadley & Mcdonald (2018 p. 91) outlines that the model is different from the social model in that, the client is responsible for ethically and responsibly to the solutions towards the disability issues. However, the social model solves issues of the disabled through activism mostly from third parties such as politicians and activists.  Solution-focused is essential in that; it is client-centred. It helps disabled adults to achieve the goals they aspire to achieve. However, the model is recent, and thus it faces measurement problems, and it lacks randomized control procedures thus goal achievement may not be realistic (Barnes, 2018 p. 102)

Top of Form

Diversity, Collaboration and Conflict

Interrelationship existing between disabilities and other variables such as mental health, the ageing process, gender and culture is not always clear. For instance, one may develop a disability, such as mental retardation due to the ageing process. As such, this poses challenges to the social workers regarding the management of the situation. As such, to enhance the well-being as outlined by CA2014, the social workers and other agencies should engage in the management of the multiple issues affecting the service user Petitpierre et al., 2017, p.94). Such can only be achieved through effective collaboration between various stakeholders in place.

Although the multi-agency program being viewed has key towards the achievement of the desired outcome for the service user.Mcgoldrick, Carter, & Garcia-Preto, N. (2016, p. 96) view that the entire process has various difficulties to the clients. For instance, most of them are not comfortable being attended to by various agencies. Majority of the clients desire to be taken care of by a specific care provider rather than different ones concurrently. From Raval & Tribe (2014, p. 78), clients view that that various agencies share the confidential information obtained during the assessment period. As such, the author emphasizes that in most cases, the clients find it challenging to share their private information with the caregivers. As such, their well-being may not be realized due to the inability to open up, leading to an increase in overlapping issues. Nonetheless, clients develop discrimination while they are being attended. The clients have feelings and emotions. As such Feltham & Horton (2012, p. 130) claims that due to the better services from a particular agency, they end up disliking other agencies, causing concerns in service delivery.

Provision of services between multi-agencies is good since the client can receive the services on the various issues one is experiencing. Regardless of that, Hadley & Mcdonald, (2018, p. 162) clarifies that it is a risky endeavour for various agencies to work together. Policies from independent agencies usually guide service provision. As such, in trying to enhance the well-being by offering a dual service to the user, one may fail due to lack of funding. The effectiveness of dealing with service users with interrelated issues cannot only be adequately achieved by an enhanced care program. However, Mcginley & Alexander (2018, p. 212)refutes such claims since the services one gets within a multi-agency is effective due to specialization. The multi-agencies also face clarity issues regarding their roles and responsibilities. Mcgoldrick, Carter & Garcia-Preto, (2016, p.97) demonstrates that some agencies such as a doctor may prescribe therapy for a disabled adult which the therapist may feel is not appropriate. Such leads to the emergence of conflict. As a result, Hadley & Mcdonald (2018, p. 122) supports the ideology my highlighting that the competing priorities in line with the duties and responsibilities in various multi-agencies bring on board the problems. The University Of Chester, & Ogden, Cassandra (2014, p. 122) attributes that such issues lead to the development of conflicts which may subject the entire multi-agency unit to fail in a collaborative working program. Each may desire to have a boundary, thus causing inter-agency mistrust and jealousy. Nonetheless, Feltham & Horton (2012, p. 112) refutes the preceding claims by highlighting that risk in service provision among multi-agencies is mainly caused by “hard to reach” phenomena from the care users and their immediate family members.

Ethnicity, culture and diversity play an integral role in social work care among adults with disabilities. Like other social norms, the aforesaid has been an area of interest among many social workers since it enables them to develop how to ensure quality for disabled adults. Regardless of the significant improvement in how social work towards enhancing care for social groups, Tribe (2017, p.44) describes that the entire process is tedious. Social workers and various agencies are empowered professionally to empower individual regardless of culture, diversity or ethnicity. As such, the idea is supported by Pedrotti & Edwards (2014, p.204) by highlighting that social workers engage in research to understand various ethnic groups, cultures and diversity. The author further argues that the information is used in the development of models which can help the community. Chinn, D. (2017, p. 358) highlights that ethnically diverse community presents multiples issues in social work. For instance, the language and how they communicate pose a challenge. Such can be addressed by understanding how one can approach the ethnicity of the client. As outlined by Petitpierre (2017, p. 154), some disabilities might be related to the stereotypes, marginalization or ethnic markers such as religion. Issues such as those described above are critical.  Mcginley & Alexander, M. (2018 p. 107) argues that Social workers should engage in understanding ethnically generated programs to avoid prompting for further conflicts which may perpetuate the emergence of interrelated disabilities. Research outlines that lack of proper understanding of one’s ethnicity may lead to reducing client’s problems to ethnical perspective. Tribe (2017, p.38) acknowledges that such issues lead to wrong diagnosis and inappropriate diagnosis.

Culture and human diversity are viewed as tenets of interaction between society and individual with psychology. Social workers are viewed as psychologists for people with disabilities. Petitpierre et al., (2017, p. 156)reiterates that gaining better understanding relating to diversity and culture of the service users enables social work to explore issues causing power and oppression. Pedrotti & Edwards (2014, p. 198).argues that in response to aforesaid by highlighting that exploring of such issues facilitates the understanding of individual perceptions and response to their cultural narratives. Diversity, culture and role of power enable the social workers to understand disabilities about the firsthand experience from the society. Understanding of culture, ethnicity and diversity posits the framework through which the social workers can provide their services to the different ages and genders. For instance, Chinn, (2017, p. 350) is based on the idea that understanding of diversity, culture and ethnicity enables the social workers to comprehend how young adults with disabilities struggle to achieve self-liberation. Despite that, Raval & Tribe (2014, p. 178) reiterate that, empirically, very little is known regarding interplay existing between disability and ethnicity. The author highlights that people with disabilities from minority groups struggle to counter stereotypes and discrimination. Thus, Tribe (2017, p. 44) regardless of efforts of the understanding relationship existing between disability and ethnicity, culture or diversity, minority groups have been continuously isolated.

Provision of care among the genders based on ethnicity, culture and diversity has always favoured women. However, their intersectionality has led to their discrimination regarding traditional values. Despite receiving the expected care are not allowed to fulfil their traditional role. Lederer et al. (2014, p.260) view that such impact negatively to their response to care since their social position dictates their lack of self-worth. However, understanding the oppressive nature of young adults towards liberation has led to the improvement of their care.  Mcgoldrick, Carter & Garcia-Preto (2016, p.91) argues that their need for self-reliance and liberation leads to a better outcome of care provided due to determination.

Adults with disabilities face different issues resulting from disabilities. As such, it leads to the need for multi-agencies collaboration in order to ensure the well-being of such people is achieved in line with the provision of CA2014 (Lederer et al., 2014, p. 256). Primarily, adults with disabilities also face issues such as mental health; thus leads to the need for multi-agencies in their care program. Such leads to working as a partnership between different stakeholders. Collaborations help in addressing of complex needs of service user due to the range of support services used. For instance, among the disabled adults, the collaboration existing includes social workers, doctors, teachers and therapists. They are specialized in different fields; thus; it helps in advocating for the best outcome among the service user (Tribe, 2017 p.32). Working collaboratively enables the agencies to share similar goals, a mechanism which can facilitate a holistic approach to the needs of the service user. The services provided should factor in the needs of the entire family for those who are cared at home. For example, the agencies should ensure the welfare of the children, parents or spouse is achieved.

Working collaboratively leads to tensions in conflict. Mcgoldrick, Carter & Garcia-Preto (2016, p.200) outline that various agencies have confidential information which is the source of tension and conflict experienced frequently. As such, it is required that they engage in inclusivity to safeguard anti-oppression and anti-discriminatory practices. The various agencies should share information regarding their service delivery openly. Lederer et al., 2014, p. (248) outline that such will help in reducing the tension and conflicts since it leads to inclusivity in decision-making for the service user. Anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practices such as shared communication regarding challenges and achievements made can also facilitate inclusivity. Agency should work towards communicating on an intervention which they can provide to the service user before the phenomena escalate. Such discussion, as recommended by Rothman (2018 p. 48), is vital in the achievement of the desired outcome from the patient.  Inclusivity also is integral in solving ethical dilemmas and complex issues affecting the collaboration and service users respectively. One can highlight on issues they face and collectively discuss the route towards finding the appropriate solution.

Working collaboratively helps in the achievement of the best practices among professionals. It allows them to play the role of whistleblowers in their desire to safeguard the oppressive and discriminatory actions against the service users. Such helps in safeguarding the health and well-being of the adults living with disabilities. It outlines that whistleblowing is not easy for all the agencies. However, those who can raise the alarm have helped in improving the outcome of the service users. Furthermore, Petitpierre et al. (2017, p. 100)view that whistleblowing is vital in the establishment of future frameworks which can improve service delivery to disabled clients. Rothman (2018 p. 122) claims that some service providers do not perform the Act of whistleblowers due to fear. As such, the collaborative mechanism enables them to share their fears with other agencies. As a result, this has helped in improving service delivery due to collaborations existing.

.

Bottom of Form
Reference listTop of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form
Banting, R., Butler, C., & Swift, C. (2018). The adaptation of a Solution Focused Brief Therapy domestic violence perpetrator programme: a case study with a client with a learning disability. Journal of Family Therapy. 40, 489-502.

Barnes, E. (2018). The minority body: a theory of disability.

Boer, D. P., Mcknight, J. M., Kinlyside, A. M., & Chan, J. P. S. (2018). Assessing and Treating Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities.

Brammer, A. (2014). Safeguarding adults. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4763141.

Brown, R., Barber, P., Martin, D., & Brown, R. (2015). The Mental Capacity Act 2005: a guide for practice.

Chinn, D. (2017). Review of Interventions to Enhance the Health Communication of People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Communicative Health Literacy Perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 30, 345-359.

Day, P. J., & Schiele, J. H. (2013). A new history of social welfare.

Feltham, C., & Horton, I. (2012). The SAGE handbook of counselling and psychotherapy. London, SAGE.

Gant V, & Bates C. (2019). ‘Cautiously optimistic’: Older parent-carers of adults with intellectual disabilities – Responses to the Care Act 2014. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities : JOID. 23, 432-445.

Great Britain, & Efford, C. (2014). A bill to re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty to provide national health services in England, to amend the provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 relating to Monitor, to repeal the Regulations made under section 75 of that Act, to make other amendments to the provisions in that Act relating to competition and provision of private health services, and for connected purposes. London, Stationery Office.

Hadley, B., & Mcdonald, D. (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Disability Arts, Culture, and Media. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=5606274.

Haegele, J. A., Brian, A. S., & Lieberman, L. J. (2017). Social Cognitive Theory Determinants of Physical Activity in Adults with Visual Impairments. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 29, 911-923.

Krinsky-Mchale, S. J., & Silverman, W. (2013). Dementia and mild cognitive impairment in adults with intellectual disability: Issues of diagnosis. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 18, 31-42.

Lederer, V., Loisel, P., Rivard, M., & Champagne, F. (2014). Exploring the Diversity of Conceptualizations of Work (Dis)ability: A Scoping Review of Published Definitions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 24, 242-267.

Lipchik, E. (2011). Beyond Technique in Solution-Focused Therapy: Working with Emotions and the Therapeutic Relationship. New York, Guilford Publications, Inc. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1458199.

Mandelstam, M. (2017). Care Act 2014: an a-Z of Law and Practice. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4784951.

Mcginley, V. A., & Alexander, M. (2018). Parents and Families of Students With Special Needs: collaborating across the age span. https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100041224740.0x000001.

Mcgoldrick, M., Carter, E. A., & Garcia-Preto, N. (2016). The expanding family life cycle: individual, family, and social perspectives.

Pedrotti, J. T., & Edwards, L. M. (2014). Perspectives on the intersection of multiculturalism and positive psychology.

Petitpierre, G., Gyger, J., Panchaud, L., & Romagny, S. (2017). Content of Personalized Socioeducational Programs for Adults with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities. The Risk of Restricting Perspectives in Adulthood. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 14, 154-163.

Purdy, L. (2012). How to fail as a family therapist working with adults with learning disabilities: a paradoxical literature review. Journal of Family Therapy. 34, 419-430.

Raval, H., & Tribe, R. (2014). Working with Interpreters in Mental Health. Hoboken, Taylor and Francis. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1619168.

Roeden, J. M., Maaskant, M. A., Bannink, F. P., & Curfs, L. M. G. (2011). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy With People With Mild Intellectual Disabilities: A Case Series. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 8, 247-255.

Rothman, J. C. (2018). Social work practice across disability. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5323207.

Sandu, A. (2018). Values-Based Social Work.

Schriver, J. M. (2015). Human behavior and the social environment: shifting paradigms in essential knowledge for social work practice.

Simpson, G., & Price, V. (2010). ORIGINAL ARTICLE: From inclusion to exclusion: some unintended consequences of Valuing People. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 38, 180-186.

Tribe, R. (2017). Anti-discriminatory Practice in Mental Health Care for Older People. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4773933.

University Of Chester, & Ogden, Cassandra A. (2014). The Social Model of Disability. Policy Press. http://hdl.handle.net/10034/600601.

Zigmond, T. (2014). A clinician’s brief guide to the Mental Health Act. https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11547461.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form