Analysing Choice in Australian Individual Funding Disability Policies

The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will allocate funding packages to people with disability who are assessed as needing paid support. The NDIS is an example of individual funding, which is currently not the dominant way of organising disability support in Australia. Individual funding aims to increase opportunities for personal choice. We present a framework for understanding current individual funding policies in each Australian jurisdiction according to two policy dimensions that potentially enable greater personal choice for people with disability: who holds their allocated funds and where support can be purchased. The findings show wide disparities in choice across the country, particularly due to constrained funds and the shortage of support to purchase in regional areas. The analysis demonstrates that NDIS implementation will need to consider that, while individual funding can be empowering for some people with disability, enabling choice can be challenging for administrators and service providers

[1]  Michael J. Brown,et al.  Self Directed Support and people with learning disabilities: a review of the published research evidence , 2014 .

[2]  K. Jones,et al.  Assessing the Role of Increasing Choice in English Social Care Services , 2011, Journal of Social Policy.

[3]  C. Glendinning,et al.  Personal Budgets and the Workforce Implications for Social Care Providers: Expectations and Early Experiences , 2010, Social Policy and Society.

[4]  A. Hewitt,et al.  Status and trends in the direct support workforce in self-directed supports. , 2010, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

[5]  B. D. Roit,et al.  Similar and Yet So Different: Cash-for-Care in Six European Countries’ Long-Term Care Policies: Six European Countries’ Long-Term Care Policies , 2010 .

[6]  C. Laragy,et al.  Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support , 2010 .

[7]  C. Laragy Snapshot of flexible funding outcomes in four countries. , 2010, Health & social care in the community.

[8]  Janet Leece Paying the Piper and Calling the Tune: Power and the Direct Payment Relationship , 2010 .

[9]  K. Fisher,et al.  Measuring the Effectiveness of New Approaches to Housing Support Policy for Persons with Disabilities , 2009 .

[10]  C. Barnes,et al.  Disabled people and self‐directed support schemes: reconceptualising work and welfare in the 21st century , 2009 .

[11]  T. Stainton,et al.  Independence pays: a cost and resource analysis of direct payments in two local authorities , 2009 .

[12]  J. Harries Support needs assessment for individuals with intellectual disabilities : an investigation of the nature of the support needs construct and disability factors that impact on support needs. , 2009 .

[13]  C. Glendinning,et al.  Evaluation of the Individual Budgets Pilot Programme: Final Report , 2008 .

[14]  J. Newman,et al.  The Antagonisms of Choice: New Labour and the reform of public services , 2008, Social Policy and Society.

[15]  Hartley Dean Social Policy and Human Rights: Re-thinking the Engagement , 2008, Social Policy and Society.

[16]  K. Mahoney,et al.  The future of Cash and Counseling: the framers' view. , 2007, Health services research.

[17]  S. Riddell,et al.  Personal Assistance Policy in the UK: What's the Problem with Direct Payments? , 2005 .

[18]  S. Boyce,et al.  ‘I have got my life back’: users' experience of direct payments , 2004 .

[19]  H. Spandler Friend or Foe? Towards a Critical Assessment of Direct Payments , 2004 .

[20]  T. Stainton Taking Rights Structurally: Disability, Rights and Social Worker Responses to Direct Payments , 2002 .

[21]  Elizabeth Ozanne,et al.  Shifts in the model of service delivery in intellectual disability in Victoria , 2001 .