The UK welfare landscape is increasingly challenging due to ongoing austerity involving public sector cuts, service retrenchment, and withdrawal of statutory responsibilities. This article shows that as the welfare state contracts, precarity increases and responsibility for service provision is progressively devolved to front-line individuals and service users. To illustrate, the article examines the use of assistive and everyday technologies to improve social housing residents’ quality of life based on a longitudinal mixed methods study conducted between 2020 and 2022. The findings highlight how housing providers can support person-led technology interventions for older residents, where minor improvements positively impact day-to-day living. However, interventions are often limited by practicalities, capacity, and cost. This article connects technological engagement in housing to the ongoing ‘responsibilisation’ of many areas of housing provision to social landlords and tenants. This suggests an extension of responsibility where social housing providers are papering over the cracks in the welfare state.

The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of family carers supporting a relative living with dementia during and after the move to technology-enriched supported accommodation (TESA). The paper explores the informal carers (ICs) roles, the factors prompting the move to TESA, alongside their perceptions of their relatives’ experience of the move and of life in a technology-enriched environment. Within a qualitative study 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with ICs and data were analysed following a thematic approach. Four themes were identified, reflecting the shift in roles and identity of both ICs and persons living with dementia. The move to TESA was linked to a perceived reduction in care-giving pressures, with positive outcomes reported for both the ICs and the people living with dementia. Smart home technologies in the facilities did not appear to impact on the decision-making during transition, however, they were valued as part of the lived experience for the people living with dementia within the TESA facilities. These findings are relevant to policy makers, commissioners and providers of services to highlight the engagement of all stakeholders in the provision of care for people living with dementia and their families early from diagnosis in order to facilitate person-centred practices in community settings.

This study is aimed at the importance of social care in rehabilitation. A brief overview of the social care theme is used as the methodology. There is a tension in mental health care between biological and psychological treatments that focus on deficits at the individual level (symptoms, disabilities) and social interventions that try to address local inequalities and barriers in order to improve access for service users to ordinary housing, employment and leisure opportunities. The history of mental health care tells us that social care is often underfunded and too easily dismissed as not the business of health care. But too much emphasis on a health model of individual deficits is a slippery slope to institutionalisation by way of therapeutic nihilism. Rehabilitation services follow the biopsychosocial model but with a shift in emphasis, recognising the vital role played by social interventions in improving the functional outcomes that matter to service users including access to housing, occupation, leisure facilities and the support of family and friends. In conclusion, rehabilitation is framed within a model of personal recovery in which the target of intervention is to boost hope and help the individual find a meaning to life, living well regardless of enduring symptoms.