I work in the world of social care.
I attended an event today which was focussed upon the changes that are coming about in the world of social care.
Put in a nutshell, the emphasis will shift away from providing a range of services which you then slot people into according to their needs, to the whole process being driven with the individual where they get allocated a budget according to their assessed need but can then use it pretty much as they want to buy the care and support they need.
Anyway, as part of this, we were given the example of where the approach has been used in an area piloting the scheme. A man who became severely disabled and needed a high level of care provided by his partner chose to spend his allocated budget on two season tickets for his football club. One for him and one for his neighbour.
This might seem bizarre to start with but it meant he could do something he really loved (i.e. watch live football), cared for by his neighbour, who's reward was seeing the football too. His partner in the meantime regularly got an afternoon off, providing her with valuable respite from his full-time care.
Clever huh!
Anyway, I overheard a conversation about this case during the lunch break. A small group were discussing the pros and cons of the approach.
I leaned forward and said " It strikes me that there is one critical question to ask here to determine if this use of public money is reasonable. Which team does the man support?"
They looked at me then someone said " It's Rotherham".
"Then I think it is OK", I said.
Needless to say my view might have been different had he been a Leeds United fan.
