al (2015) found substantial disparities in the priorities placed on different outcomes by people with learning disabilities compared to the views of social services departments’ Directors (p.203).“Psychological well-being” was the most important outcome for adults with learning disabilities but this was only of moderate importance to the Directors and in resource allocation. The extent to which care users and care workers also share or differ in their notions about choices and values is often lost in consideration of the widespread problematic employment terms and conditions of care workers and of eligibility and funding concerns. This is so powerful an effect that it can be hard to focus on one aspect and to separate individual values related to morality or personal beliefs from ‘value’ in terms of cost, productivity, and efficacy. Drawing on part of a wider research study in this present paper (Manthorpe and Harris 2014) we focus on the individual level by exploring care users’ views of care workers’ values and characteristics, as evident in relationships and receipt of care (see also De Silva 2011; Gridley et al, 2012; Demos 2014). Further papers have considered data from the study relevant to personalisation (Stevens et al, under review) and safeguarding (Manthorpe et al 2016). In the English social care context, the meaning of the amorphous term values has been further complicated by increasing interest in ‘values based recruitment’ of staff. This stems from an attempt to redress problems observed in diverse reports about the deficiencies of care services and health care provision (for example, Cavendish 2014). Social care employers have been encouraged to consider formal or informal expressions of job applicants’ values (see Skills for Care 2014a) in the expectation that widespread promotion and take-up of ‘values based recruitment’ approaches by employers will enhance recruitment of people with the values and skills required to deliver good care and furthermore will increase their retention. Evaluation of a pilot ‘recruitment for values’ toolkit (Goode 2014) (incorporating a personality-profiling questionnaire based upon psychometric profiling systems) concluded that this was a ‘promising’ approach, particularly if a range of assessment techniques is combined to enhance the recruitment process. Skills for Care, the sector skills council, subsequently produced a values based recruitment and retention guide for employers (Skills for Care 2014b) and use of this was evaluated by Consilium (2016) who compared the views and experiences of employers who had used various
included details of our confidentiality policy and our need to inform authorities if we were made aware of potential serious safeguarding concerns. Findings Three overarching themes emerged from interviews (Table 3). Table 3: Overarching interview themes Presentation and performance Care worker relationship Conceptualisations of training Innate positive personality traits valued Commitment to work and reliability appreciated Foundation of respect and trust important Mutuality of relationship acknowledged Different views on balance to be struck between friend and employer Spectrum between essential starting point and training as not essential Presentation and performance All participants at some point in their interview discussed the importance of the innate characteristics of the care worker they had or desired. Positive personality traits noted included being respectful, kind, ‘naturally’ compassionate, warm, and genuine. Friendliness was highly valued, especially in cases where service users were living by themselves and led relatively isolated lives. To some, friendliness seemed to denote underlying values of respect and equality. The company of the care worker could be one of the largest social components of their week. This was evident in some of the participants’ remarks: “That he’s friendly… and enjoys his job… you know that they are going to care well and they don’t mind having a chat with you”