Flexible Working Policy Issues - Essay Example

Contemporary Social Policy in Health and Social Care: Flexible Working Policy Social healthcare, whose responsibility is it In society, are people instinctively their brother's keeper This is a question that has been examined for decades in the British political arena. Does the government have the responsibility to provide a free and universal healthcare Is it the responsibility of friends, relatives, and neighbours to take care of those in need What is interesting is that most people believe that the burden should belong to someone other than themselves. The Flexible Working Policy is a result of a long history of social policy that is connected to almost every aspect of the social healthcare system. It affects employers and eligible employees who are parents with children under the age of 6, or with disabled children, or eligible employees who are carers of adults. The policy also affects all individuals who receive care from eligible employees, including adult patients, disabled individuals, and children under 6 years old. The Flexible Working Policy impacts the success of businesses by providing an opportunity for employers to be more efficient through satisfying the needs of their workforce. The Flexible Working Policy impacts the entire social healthcare system because it addresses the needs of carers. Carers are the most important component of the British healthcare system and need the legislation and support of the government. The Flexible Working Policy is simply another attempt to provide services for carers. This is also the government's attempt to not have to provide a free and universal healthcare system. The purpose is to have the community take care of itself in terms of social healthcare. Whether this is right or wrong is debatable. What is certain is that the government is responsible for providing adequate benefits and services for carers. Employees who are parents of young children or disabled children or who are carers of certain adults may have the right to request flexible working schedules. According to the Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, carers are defined as "adults who expect to be caring for a spouse, partner, civil partner or relative; or if not the spouse, partner or a relative, live at the same address as the adult in need of care" (DFBERR, 2009, Part 1). This is a rather broad definition that illustrates that in legislation today, government recognises carers who are not just relatives. Parents are defined as the mother, father, adopter, guardian, special guardian, foster parent or private foster carer of the child or a person who has been granted a residence order in respect of a child; or married to or the partner or civil partner of the child's mother, father, adopter, guardian, special guardian, foster parent or private foster carer or of a person who has been granted a residence order in respect of a child (DFBERR, 2009, Part 1). The flexible working policy provides an opportunity for an improved quality of life for eligible individuals. Employees who are parents and carers of adults can have a better work-life balance, with less fear of losing their job. Prior to the flexible working policy, parents only had a limited amount of time off through their maternity/ paternity leave policies. Once the benefits for these policies were used up, parents were faced with a tough decision. One parent, usually the mother, could decide to stay at home to take care of the child. This can be a debilitating experience for a parent, who may feel that their self-worth as a working member of society is diminished. The concept of a housewife or househusband in today's society is not favourable. The adjustment is not just psychological. Families with only one working parent have a significantly smaller income. This has a direct affect on the economy through less tax revenues. This also may put more pressure on the parent who is working to be the sole provider. The parent who is working may work extra hours to meet the family's financial obligations. Children may also suffer from having one parent at home while the other one is at work. They may not have the same disadvantage of a single parent home, but they may feel a level of estrangement from the parent that goes to work all day. The relationship between the parent who is working and the parent who stays at home may suffer also. The two parents may not be able to relate to the different challenges that each one faces, whether in the home or in the workplace. This psychological and financial sacrifice is a choice that a parent has to make if they choose to stay at home with their child. It may provide parents with the joy of experiencing their family, but often at the cost of possibly losing their self worth, relationships and socio-economic status. Another option for parents is that they could decide to place their child in some form of childcare. It can be argued that it is better for the child to be raised by the parent for the first developmental years. This may result in a more well-balanced childhood. It can also be argued that the opportunity for parents to spend time with their children provides an increase in their quality of life. An increased quality of life for both parents and children has an overall positive impact on the economy. It is debatable whether early childcare for young children is better for their education. What is not debatable is that employees who are parents of children under six years of age benefit from the Flexible Working Policy. However, according to a publication by the Department of Health (2007, p 48), an increased work-life balance may not be enough to dismiss employee feelings of inadequacy. Employees who are carers might feel inferior to employees who attend work more regularly. Carers may feel as if they don't have the opportunity to advance because of underexposure to opportunities at the workplace. It is not clear whether these feelings of inadequacy are purely based on personal insecurities or whether employers are in fact overlooking carers that they employ for future promotions. It is clear, however, that carers perceive themselves to be viewed as inferior by co-workers and employers. This inferiority complex of employees in flexible working patterns, although not perfect, does offer an improved work-life balance and is a significantly positive benefit for eligible parents and carers. Employers benefit as well from Flexible Working policy. Employers experience an increase in productivity due to an increase in employee satisfaction, retention of valued skilled employees with children, and recruitment of productive workers with family commitments (Blakemore, 200 3 p. 156). Overall the benefits outweigh the costs because a happy workforce means a more efficient workforce. Employers have an opportunity to be more profitable if their employee relations policies make them the employer of choice. This speaks to enhancing the employer / employee relationship. Like any relationship, each participant needs to feel valued by the other. An employee is willing to work harder for an employer if the employee feels that the employer cares. This is the basics for any relationship. The flexible working policy provides an opportunity for the employer and employee relationship to grow through how it handles issues important to both the employees and the employers. Employees have a life outside of work, and employers exist primarily to be profitable. If these two concepts are recognized and supported by both the employer and employee then a more efficient company may result. More employers need to expand the concept of flexible working outside of the statutory requirements. If flexible working were correctly managed for all employees, then the possibilities for efficiency would expand exponentially. Employers can benefit from the Flexible Working Policy, but also are not bound to it, if it would hurt their business. The basis for acceptance should be based only on business reasons (DFBERR, 2009, Part 3). This policy could be a positive experience for both employer and employee. The key is on implementation and management of the process. The concept of need has played a role in the development of the flexible working policy. The need for this policy arose because stay at home parents and carers were not being recognized. As a stay at home parent, it was difficult to get back into the workforce. As a carer, it was difficult to get a job. This could be because employers felt that carers and stay at home parents had outdated skills. This could also be because employers felt that carers would not be a dependable, steady source of labour. It is implied that the attention of a carer would always be elsewhere, even if they were present physically on the job. The employer may have been fearful that at a moment's notice, the carer would leave work to go home to provide care-giving services. Employers may have felt that carers would bring an increase of absenteeism and poor work performance. However, if an employer were to work with the schedule of a carer, they would have circumvented these perceived problems. The concept of need for employment coincides with the definition of the five basic needs that Beveridge (1942) referred to, "want, disease, squalor, ignorance, and idolness." The flexible working policy speaks to the basic need of idleness, or the right to employment. Stay at home parents and carers, when isolated from the workforce, often do not have the opportunity to develop financially, or professionally. This professional idleness can bring about low self esteem, a lower quality of life, and eventually illness. According to the National Assistance Act (1945), need was determined by "age, infirmity, or any other circumstances." The commonality in these two concepts of need is a lack of resources, whether for employment, healthcare, or others. The question is the solution for this need. Should the solution be provided by the government as an "open-ended financial commitment based on entitlement" or should the solution be "a budgeted provision based on priority" (Griffiths, 1988) According to Griffiths, the two concepts are exactly the opposite (1988). The government's solution has been geared towards a well-managed system of community care. The main component to the success of community care is the carer. What is interesting is that the carer's basic needs were not originally recognised or addressed by legislature. Hence, there was a need for government to provide benefits and services for carers, including the Flexible Working Policy. Social policy in Britain did not always exist. "Economic Liberalism," which encouraged, "individualism and free trade," was the political ideology with the greatest influence in the 18th and 19th centuries (Walsh and others, 2000, p 42). This ideology discouraged government from public funding of welfare (Walsh and others, 2000, p 42). This attitude on social welfare changed towards the beginning of the 20th century, as socialism emerged (Walsh and others, 2000, p 42). People began to believe that government should provide sufficient opportunities for everyone in order for them to be happy and healthy (Walsh and others, 2000, p 42). The Flexible Working Policy is an evolution of three ideologies of government since the end of the Second World War, marked by Beveridge, Thatcher, and Blair. Sir William Beveridge influenced the beginning of welfare by developing ideas and principles that led to the development of the National Health Service and national social security (Walsh and others, 2000, p 46). As a result of Beveridge's efforts, the state's role in social policy making and welfare provision became much wider (Walsh and others, 2000, pp 46-48). The National Assistance Act of 1948, which was based on a report by Sir William Beveridge (1942), set out the basis for an insurance based system for healthcare and provisions for the unemployed. This Act established the framework for the establishment of welfare, which made a distinction between local responsibilities for welfare and national responsibilities for social security (Walsh and others, 2000, p 45). After the Second World War, the Labour government, 1945 - 1951, believed that there was a strong moral case for government provision of free, universal healthcare. This was possible because, after the Second World War, there were relatively high levels of employment (Walsh and others, 2000, p 47). This could be because the Labour government nationalised many of the utility companies, such as gas, electricity, water, coal steel, and railways (Walsh and others, 2000, p 47). Although initially on board, the Conservative Party, 1951 - 1979, eventually could not support the concept of a free and universal healthcare when they ran into funding problems (Walsh and others, 2000, pp 52-55). When money became an issue, the government began to question their role. Money is one of the basic tests of philanthropy in any society. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party from 1979-1990, based her administration on a money-based approach to the economy, a reduction in the public funding on welfare, and an increase community provider organisations (Walsh and others, 2000, pp 52-55). Margaret Thatcher shifted the government's responsibility of welfare to personal, private, and volunteer providers (Walsh and others, 2000, pp 52-55). The New Labour Government, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, since 1997, has sought a compromise of the two former governments, referred to as the Third Way. The Third Way is "old-fashioned socialism on the one hand and, on the other, the pro-business, individualistic market liberalism of the political right" (Blakemore, 2003, p 154). Under this system, government looked at satisfying people's need while effectively managing financial resources. This can be considered a fair compromise. Universal and free healthcare is a utopian ideal that will challenge the morals of any society especially when resources and funds are limited. The Third Way sought to compromise this utopian ideal without selling their souls to empty transaction-type government. Social Welfare is no longer provided solely by the government, but now by a multitude of providers. The mixed economy of welfare, also referred to as "welfare pluralism" is "the system of mixed provision using charitable organisations, volunteers, private agencies, state provision and non-profit making organisations" (Moore & Scourfield, 2002, p 256). Instead of just provisions by government, social healthcare is provided by other non-state sources. Eligibility of healthcare, whether public or private, has always been determined by one's ability to pay and their individual need (Wall & Owen, 2002, p 125). Why should it matter, whether the source is public or private The welfare pluralist promotes the concept that it does not matter who provides services as long as individuals are provided for (Wall & Owen, 2002, p 125). Basically they are saying that one sector, whether public or private, will compensate for another. If there is a lack in the public sector, for example, it should be accounted for in the private sector. This is similar to a "not me" form of policy. The responsibility is pushed from one sector to another, and no one is ultimately accountable. This concept speaks to the government's continued attempts at avoiding responsibility for social welfare. It is true that the only important factor is that those in need must get help. However, what is not addressed is that when social responsibility is pushed from one pair of hands to another, there is less of a guarantee for adequate care. According to (Ranson and Stewart, 1994, quoted in Wall & Owen, 2002, p 115), "although the tasks of providing healthcare may be very similar, whether they are carried out in the public, commercial, or voluntary sector, the goals and context will be quite distinct." Each sector may perform differently based on their motivations and ideologies on healthcare. One sector may be more committed to providing a higher level of services than another sector. Who ends up suffering is the person in need of care. Community Care began to take root during Margaret Thatcher's term as Prime Minister. It is the concept that healthcare should be provided by the community instead of by the government. The Thatcher government emphasized the importance of non-state providers in policy documents, and instructed health authorities to work with them (DHSS, 1981c, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 222). The government stressed that the care of those in need was a community responsibility, and that "care in the community must increasingly mean by the community" (Griffiths, 1988). Basically, the government was saying that this was not their responsibility. The truth behind whether this concept that social healthcare was not the government's responsibility is a question of personal ethics, and therefore is debatable. However, even though the government believed that it wasn't their responsibility, they still felt the need to assign it to another entity, the community. If it wasn't their problem then why did they feel the need to get involved at all It can be assumed that Margaret Thatcher's administration was more interested in retracting pre-existing government involvement in social healthcare (Baggot, 1994, p 220). Funding was a major issue that caused government to question whether they could provide, much less if they were responsible for providing free and universal healthcare. What is interesting is that, by shifting responsibility onto the community, the government recognized that there was indeed a need for care. " A main component of community care is its dependence on caregivers, relatives, friends, and neighbours. Healthcare by the community boiled down to healthcare by carers. The bulk of the British healthcare system fell on the shoulders of informal caregivers who were families, friends, and neighbours. Only recently has the government given recognition to the importance of caregivers. Originally the focus of community care was monetary, by shutting down residential care facilities and redirecting public funding (Tinker, 1981, quoted in Blakemore, 2003, p 205). In the 1990 Community Care legislation, no extra provision was made for carers. Yet, the carers were the ones responsible for ensuring that those in care actually received it. In 1995, with the passage of the Carer's (Recognition and Services) Act, carers were given the right to an assessment of their needs if they wished. This would give carers the opportunity to discuss their needs, instead of simply focusing on the person that they were caring for. Legislation has gradually given more benefits and services to carers. The outcome of the Flexible Working Policy, a result of social welfare policy, can be determined by those responsible for its implementation. The Flexible Working Policy can be a very beneficial program to all those involved. Communication, trust and careful management of the process is critical to a successful implementation. The focus of the implementation should be on the working relationship of the employer and the employee. Key factors to consider are the level of trust and communication that existed prior to the request for flexible work, during the decision process, and after a decision has been made. Each party should pay considerable attention to the other party's concerns. Although it is not required by legislation, it is helpful to provide your employer with as much information as possible, including evidence of a caring relationship. If an employer feels that you are working with them, and that you have the interest of the company in consideration, then they will be more willing to work with you. This open communication can begin with a simple explanation of your situation. If the employee is up-front about the details of their care-giving duties then, this may positively impact the critical trust relationship between employer and employee. This trust is based on the idea that the employee demonstrates a continued responsibility to the organization. The employer can then reciprocate by doing everything in their power to help the employee's care-giving needs. An open dialogue between the employer and the employee is the key to a positive outcome. This dialogue is based on a shared commitment to satisfying employer and employee needs. If the employer feels that the employee no longer cares about the goals of the employer, then the employer may respond in a purely bureaucratic way to the request for flexible working patterns. This basic element of communication and trust is critical to the overall employer - employee relationship. If the flexible working request is handled in a way that is sensitive to both parties, then the outcome may be a more dedicated employee and an employer of choice. According to the Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (2009), an employer should consider whether or not a request can be granted on grounds of business reasons rather than on the employee's situation. This would also help avoid future charges against the employer of preferential treatment. The employee should therefore approach the employer from the employer's perspective, on business rationale. They can do this in the manner of their application. The application provides the employee with the opportunity to set out the reasons why their preferred working pattern is compatible with the needs of the business, as far as they are able to tell.This application is another opportunity for the employee to demonstrate their commitment to the goals of the company and desire to continue to be a responsible and valuable employee. Employees can consider suggesting that a trial period or a limited period of working flexibly. This can be to satisfy any concerns that the employee or employer may have about the effects that a permanent change my have on the employee and on the business. Another way to ensure a positive outcome to the flexible working policy is that in order to reach a solution, both the employer and the employee should themselves be willing to be flexible. (DFBERR, 2009, Part 1). If an employer is unable to accommodate a flexible working pattern for an employee, they should be willing to suggest alternatives. If the employer works with the employee to find a solution, this will demonstrate to the employee that the employer is committed to the needs of the employee. If no flexible working pattern can be found, it should be a conclusion that the employer and employee agree upon. The refusal for flexible working should not be a surprise, but a solution that both the employer and employee both decide through analysis of all possible options. An employee who understands a business reason for refusal to allow a flexible working schedule will be able to accept the outcome if they feel that their application was taken with great consideration (DFBERR, 2009, Part 1). If the explanation is not sufficient for understanding, the employee will have a much more difficult time accepting a no decision. Another obvious way for a successful outcome of a request for a flexible working schedule is the proper observation and adherence to policy guidelines by both the employer and the employee. Both should pay particular attention to their individual rights, responsibilities, and the timeline of the overall process. An employee could make a complaint to an employment tribunal based on incorrect facts used by the employer to reject an application (DFBERR, 2009, Part 1). The use of outside sources should not be necessary if the employer / employee relationship was treated with sensitivity. The Flexible Working Policy came about because support services for carers were insufficient and in many circumstances non-existent. Carers themselves could become ill from "the burden of caring," without help from outside sources (Green, H, 1988; Adams, 1991, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). Carers were accepting the responsibility of caring for their loved ones, but ultimately no one was caring for them. Of those who care for the elderly, ten percent of men and twenty-five percent of women, suffer from fatigue (Green, H, 1988; Adams, 1991, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). Around thirty-three percent of carers who are women, as opposed to eight percent of carers who are men, experience a decrease of social opportunities (Green, H, 1988; Adams, 1991, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). A decrease on social opportunities could significantly reduce the quality of life for carers. On average, about ten percent of carers have serious health conditions (Green, H, 1988; Adams, 1991, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). In a survey given by the Carer's National Association, it was shown that sixty-six percent of those surveyed had become ill only after they began to care for others (Guardian 22, May 1992, p.4 quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). Half of those surveyed had financial problems, which is thought to have added to the amount of stress that they were experiencing (Guardian 22, May 1992, p.4 quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). A decrease in social and financial opportunities, compounded with failing health, and money illustrates the weight of the burden that was placed on carers. The Royal College of Nursing stated that 'the quality of life for the carer can be more impaired than the person for whom they are caring" (Royal College of Nursing, 1990, quoted in Baggott, 1994, p 225). The role of a care-giver is a selfless act. However, the carer should be entitled to benefits and services that enable them to provide care. Legislation and support for carers has slowly begun to emerge. Under the Carer's (Recognition and Service) Act 1995, carers were given the right to an assessment of their own needs (Read and others, 2006, p 264). In 2000, the Carer's and Disabled Children Act mandated that local councils provide breaks and direct payments to carers (DFBERR, 2009, Part 3). Employers for Carers, is an interest group, coordinated by Carers UK, consisting of major employers, employers' organisations, and government agencies, that focuses on awareness and support for carers at work (DFBERR, 2009, Part 3). The flexible working policy was needed to address the need for parents and carers of adults the have the right to an improved quality of life. Considering that carers are the most significant component to the British healthcare system, they should have a sound support system through legislation. If carers were not able to provide care-giving services, the entire British healthcare system would be in jeopardy. It is therefore in the best interest of the government to make sure that carers have the resources and policies necessary to be successful. The flexible working policy is in constant revision. This demonstrates that government is beginning to understand how indebted they are to carers for sustaining healthcare in Britain. The success of the Flexible Working Policy is debatable. It is still a fairly new policy that needs to be tweaked. The opportunities for improvement are limitless. Currently, healthcare is adequately made available through the use of carers. Eligible employees are provided with flexible working hours. However, employees who obviously benefit from the system have new issues of self-esteem and demoralization. These issues need to be addressed among others. The Flexible Working Policy is not perfect and does have implementation glitches. This is because much of the implementation depends on the relationship between the employer and employee. It is debatable whether the communication process between the employer and employee can or should be managed in a more efficient, standardized way. The employer and employee must be able to manage through this challenging situation through open communication. Without this communication, the flexible working policy can become unpleasant, bureaucratic, and even based on petty procedural steps. The ball therefore lies in the hands of each individual employer / employee relationship. It might be in the government's interest to provide communication workshops for employers to help develop trust with their employees. This type of team-building between the employer and the employee may prove to be an integral component in implementing family related employee relations policies in the future. Other policies have come to address the implementation issues of the flexible working policy. In 2004, the Carer's (Equal Opportunity) Act required councils to educate carers of their right to an assessment and encourage improved teamwork between councils and the health service in order to streamline the delivery of support for carers (DFBERR, 2009, Part 3). The Work and Family Act 2006 extended the eligibility requirements for the right to request flexible working to include employees who care for an adult. Prior to that Flexible Working Policy only included eligible employees who were parents with children under six years old or who had disabled children. The government also plans on the further review of the definition of carer in the Flexible Working Policy (DOH, 2008, p 99). It is interesting to see what this new definition will include. It is certain that the definition will not include a state provider. The government has launched a campaign to raise awareness of employers around the right to request flexible working (DOH, 2008, p. 99). More employers should begin to understand that the Flexible Working Policy can be used as a competitive advantage to recruit and retain key employees. According to the Part-time Workers Regulations, it is against the law to treat part-time employees "less favourably" than full-time employees, in terms of "contractual terms and conditions," such as opportunities for training, and promotions (DFBERR, 2009, Part 3). Employees who request a flexible working schedule may experience a reduction in hours. They should not lose their full-time employee privileges. Legislation is under constant revision for improvement, now that the importance of the carer is more evident to government. Social healthcare has been in effect, delegated, to families and friends. It is now clear that if this social healthcare system will be successful, the ability of the carers to provide care is critical. The flexible working policy has significant meaning to the work environment. Employees have the opportunity to work on a schedule that complements their life outside of work. The employer has the opportunity to implement programs like this one that addresses the needs of their internal customers, their employees. The value of the employee is weighed against the profitability of the business. If both needs are satisfied, then the work environment will be successful. The work environment has the opportunity to become more efficient, and responsive to the needs of the employer. On the other hand the employer has the opportunity to address the needs of their workforce. Finally, the Flexible Working Policy gives employees the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to their employer. This commitment is demonstrated by expressing concern for business operations. The challenge is to adapt the culture for employees who are not eligible for the Flexible Working Policy. Ineligible employees may feel that eligible employees are given preferential treatment. Ineligible employees may resent eligible employees, their employer, or even the government for excluding them. This may be another reason to expand the flexible working policy eligibility requirements. An informal Flexible Working Policy provided by employers for all employees would be an opportunity to remedy this situation. The Flexible Working Policy is a benefit that is connected to the entire social healthcare system. It should be studied, improved, and definitely continued. It is a step in the right direction by the government to provide legislation and benefits for carers. Families can benefit with an improvement of their quality of life and work-life balance. Businesses can benefit with an improvement in their efficiency and overall profitability. The economy can benefit with an increase in business tax revenues. The challenge is another level of family related employment policies by government and businesses. Another challenge is the ever continuous development of the relationship between the employer and the employee. A free and universal healthcare system may not be an option for today's government. However legislation and benefits for care-givers definitely is today's solution. Bibliography BAGGOTT, R. 1994. Health and health care in Britain. New York, St. Martin's Press BAGGOTT, R. 2004. Health and health care in Britain. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. BEVERIDGE, W. 2000. Social insurance and allied services. 1942. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 78, 847-55. BLAKEMORE, K. 2003. Social policy: an introduction. Buckingham, Open University Press. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE & REGULATORY REFORM. 2009. Flexible working: the right to request and the duty to consider. Part 1. URN 07/1390/A1. Website. http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page35663.html. 2nd January 2009. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE & REGULATORY REFORM. 2009. Flexible working: the right to request and the duty to consider. Part 2. URN 07/1390/A2. http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page35848.html. 2nd January 2009. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE & REGULATORY REFORM. 2009. Flexible working: the right to request and the duty to consider. Part 3. URN 07/1390/A3. http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page35852.html. 2nd January 2009. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 2008. Carers at the heart of 21st century families and communities: a caring system on your side, a life of your own. Website. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_085345. 6th January 2009. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 2007. New deal for carers. Website. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/DH_087078. 6th January 2009. GRIFFITHS, R. 1988. Community care: agenda for action : a report to the Secretary of State for Social Services. London, H.M.S.O. MOORE, S., & SCOURFIELD, P. 2002. Social welfare alive! Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes. READ, J., CLEMENTS, L. J., & RUEBAIN, D. 2006. Disabled children and the law: research and good practice. London, Jessica Kingsley Pub. WALL, A., & OWEN, B. 2002. Health policy. Gildredge social policy series. London, Routledge. WALSH, M., STEPHENS, P., & MOORE, S. 2000. Social policy & welfare. Cheltenham, Glos., U.K., Stanley Thornes. WANLESS, D. 2006. Securing good care for older people: taking a long-term view. King's Fund report. London, King's Fund. Read More