‘I have got my life back’: users' experience of direct payments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After years of activism by disabled people's organizations, the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 made Direct Payment (DP) schemes a reality. Proponents of DP argue that it allows greater freedom and control for those people using it, but as these programmes only came into effect in 1997, few studies have tried to substantiate these claims. This paper reports on a two‐year evaluation of two DP schemes in Wales. Using primarily users' feedback the paper focuses on the effects of DP and difficulties encountered, as well as why people chose—or did not choose—DP in the first place. User responses indicate a broad range of beneficial outcomes, including improved self‐esteem, increased control over lives, deeper and more lasting relationships, and new interpersonal, vocational and lifestyle opportunities, as a result of the greater flexibility and freedom of choice enabled by DP. Family carers expressed similar satisfaction with DP schemes, also citing greater freedoms as a result of increased flexibility. While some potential users expressed concern over the administration of a DP scheme, users found that, with support from a user driven Independent Living Scheme, the administrative burden was manageable, and that ultimately the DP scheme was a welcome approach to support. Notes Corresponding author: School of Social Work and Family Studies, 2080 West Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z2. Email: timst@interchange.ubc.ca One couple (C3) were interviewed together, and both are DP users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it