Social Policy

Introduction Stigma associated with mental health problems is a significant public health issue. Patterns of stigma and discrimination vary between and within communities and are related to conceptualisations of, and beliefs about, mental health. Population approaches to addressing stigma rarely consider diverse cultural understandings of mental health. Methods 257 members of the major black and minority ethnic communities in Scotland participated in 26 mental health awareness workshops that were designed and delivered by community organisations. Questionnaires measuring knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intent were completed before and after the intervention. Results Community led approaches that acknowledge cultural constructs of mental health were received positively by community groups. The study found significant reported stigma in relation to public protection, marriage, shame and contribution, but also high levels of recovery optimism. The workshops resulted in significant positive change in relation to knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intent amongst participants, with most aspects of stigma showing significant improvement, with the exception of dangerousness. Discussion The paper argues community approaches to tackling stigma are more valuable than top-down public education and could form the basis of national initiatives. Refinements to the evaluation framework are considered.

... Chris Heginbotham Professor of Mental Health Policy and Management, Institute for Philosophy, Diversity and Mental Health, Centre for Ethnicity and Health ... the effectiveness of two one-day events designed to raise awareness of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in BME ...

This article calls for a critical revaluation of the case for asset-based welfare as a progressive strategy for greater social inclusion. Whilst there is a strong case for helping low-income households to build a financial cushion, the idea that there is a stronger ‘asset-effect’ – with positive benefits beyond financial stability and access to goods and services – is unsupported by current evidence. Recent interpretations of that evidence have tended to claim a unique asset-effect that could in fact be achieved by other means. The idea of an asset-effect is also normatively opaque in the current debate, with little clarity on the deeper issue of the individual behaviours that the ‘effect’ is intended to create. This leaves an ambiguity in the relationship between asset-based welfare and the rights and duties of citizenship; a lacuna that is easily exploited by ideologies of self-sufficiency at the expense of more egalitarian accounts of social inclusion.

Thispaperoffersaconstructivecritiqueofarecentaccount,inthisjournal,oftheplaceof compassion as a virtue within social policy. The critique suggests that the ‘compassion thesis’ collapses into an account of duty rather than virtue, and that compassion as a virtue can only beexercisedbyindividuals,andnotbyinstitutions.Thepapergoesontosuggestanalternative account of the relationship between social policy institutions and the virtue of compassion. It develops a broadly Humean account of ‘sympathy’ triggered by proximity to distress. In this alternative account, social policy is used to create the background conditions in which individuals are moved, and able, to exercise the virtues of sympathy and compassion. Special attention is paid to housing and mixed communities policy as a means of creating the social proximity that may underpin a welfare culture of understanding rather than blame.

This paper offers a critical evaluation of the narrative of ‘property-owning democracy’ (POD) in contemporary housing policy and in the political cultures of the UK and the USA. It describes and contrasts two competing interpretations of POD. The dominant interpretation permeates the politics of
housing in Britain and the USA. It is based on the assumption that homeownership creates virtuous and independent citizens, is strongly associated with the conservative ideal of the small state, and is firmly embedded in both policy and the accepted terms of political debate.

In contrast to this, there is a less dominant, egalitarian interpretation of POD, which seeks to promote a view of property and citizenship based more on solidarity and interdependence. This interpretation of POD tends to view property more broadly, including smaller savings and even extending to mass ownership in industry. But it also typically neglects the political reality of POD as a homeownership ideology and the anti-welfare dynamic it has created. This paper therefore argues that the egalitarian (re)interpretation of POD is politically and sociologically naıve, and that it is offers an untenable counter-narrative to the politics of welfare retrenchment. A more egalitarian housing policy needs to start from a different place.

This article explores the role of the state in helping households to save. Using the UK as an example of challenges faced in other developed countries, it develops a framework for comparing saving schemes along two dimensions: apparent normative motivation for the scheme and likely impact on savers of varying income levels. Using this framework, our analysis suggests that there is much greater state support for high-income savers than low-income savers, even after the recent introduction of the ‘Help to Save’ scheme. So, while this scheme has provided some support for this group, we propose ways to expand it through providing initial seed funding to each account and greater marketing and accessibility. We note, however, that an important way to help those on low incomes to save is to increase their incomes so they have more capacity to do so.