Freedom from Choice? The Rollout of Person-centered Disability Funding and the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Person-centered funding models are replacing block-funding models in the disability services sector. Australia is part of this international trend. Concerns have been raised by service providers, suggesting that people with disabilities are not benefiting from this system. This paper evaluates the views of service providers from a large non-government organization in South Australia, responsible for leading the transition from a block-funded model of support to a person-centered model of support. Two focus groups were conducted. Two themes emerged from these focus group discussions: customers with disabilities are vulnerable in the market, and marketizing disability services compromises quality. Neoliberal ideologies and market-based values frame the challenges and opportunities for not-for-profit organizations when transitioning to person-centered funding for disability support. This research both enlivens and confirms the existing research literature. Although person-centered funding models offer a socially just model, there is evidence that unintended consequences emerge in an open and competitive quasi-market. This study reveals that the competitive market design had stopped trans-sector collaboration.
[Saat ini, model pendanaan berbasis orang banyak menggantikan model pendanaan-blok di sektor layanan disabilitas. Australia adalah bagian dari tren internasional ini. Lembaga layanan sosial khawatir bahwa para difabel tidak akan mendapatkan manfaat dari sistem ini. Artikel ini meninjau pandangan penyedia layanan dari organisasi non-pemerintah besar di Australia Selatan. Dua FGD dilakukan dalam riset ini. Dua tema muncul dari FGD: pelanggan difabel mengalami kerentanan di pasar dan ‘swastanisasi’ layanan disabilitas mengganggu kualitas. Ideologi neoliberal dan nilai berbasis-pasar menyajikan tantangan dan peluang bagi organisasi nirlaba ketika beralih ke pendanaan berbasis orang dalam layanan disabilitas. Penelitian ini mengonfirmasi literatur penelitian yang sudah ada. Meskipun model pendanaan berbasis orang menawarkan model yang adil secara sosial, ada bukti bahwa konsekuensi yang tidak diinginkan dapat muncul dalam pasar kuasi terbuka dan kompetitif. Studi ini mengungkapkan bahwa desain pasar yang kompetitif telah menghentikan kolaborasi lintas sector.]
Downloads
Article Details
* Author(s) are the copyrigth holder(s) of their published articles and to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
References
Arksey, H., & Baxter, K. (2012). Exploring the Temporal Aspects of Direct Payments. The British Journal of Social Work, 42(1), 147–164. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr039
Australian Association of Social Workers. (2010). Code of ethics: Australian Association of Social Workers : 2010. Australian Association of Social Workers.
Baines, D., Kent, P., & Kent, S. (2019). ‘Off My Own Back’: Precarity on the Frontlines of Care Work. Work, Employment and Society, 33(5), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018817488
Becker, S., McCutcheon, H., & Hegney, D. (2010). Casualisation in the Nursing Workforce – the Need to Make It Work. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 7.
Collins, K. (2014). Preparing for change and planning for the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the experience of policy implementers, stories from regional NSW [Thesis]. Murdoch University.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, Pub. L. No. 20, C2013A00020 (2013). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00020/Html/Text, http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00020
Cortis, N., & Chan, S. (2013, May 16). Reliance on 457 Visas Blunts the Vision of the NDIS. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/reliance-on-457-visas-blunts-the-vision-of-the-ndis-14194
Department of Social Services. (2015). Sector Development Fund Strategy and Operational Guidelines. Australian Government.
Dew, A., Bulkeley, K., Veitch, C., Bundy, A., Lincoln, M., Brentnall, J., Gallego, G., & Griffiths, S. (2013). Carer and Service Providers’ Experiences of Individual Funding Models for Children with a Disability in Rural and Remote Areas. Health & Social Care in the Community, 21(4), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12032
Fisher, K., Gleeson, R., Edwards, R., Purcal, C., Sitek, T., Dinning, B., Laragy, C., D’eagher, L., & Thompson, D. (2010). Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support. Department of Familities, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:50042
Gordon, L., & Zuffery, C. (2013). Working with Diversity in a Neoliberal Environment. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 15(1), 21.
Green, J., & Mears, J. (2014). The Implementation of the NDIS: Who Wins, Who Loses? Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(2), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v6i2.3915
Harrison, M. (2013). A Critique of the Productivity Commission’s Cost-Benefit Analysis in the “Disability Care and Support” Report. Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 20(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.20.02.2013.05
Henman, P., & Foster, M. (2015). Models of Disability Support Governance: A Framework for Assessing and Reforming Social Policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2015.tb00348.x
Kirkman, M. (2010). Literature Review. Person-Centred Approaches to Disability Service Provision, 56.
Lord, J., & Hutchison, P. (2010). Individualised Support and Funding: Building Blocks for Capacity Building and Inclusion. Disability & Society, 18(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/713662196
Mathews, R. (2014). The Opportunities and Challenges of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. InPsych: The Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 36(4), 36–37.
National Disability Services. (2015). Annual Report 2015 (p. 52). National Disability Services.
National People with Disabilities and Carers Council (Australia). (2009). Shut Out: The Experience of People with Disabilities and Their Families in Australia: National Disability Strategy Consultation Report. Dept. of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7. ed., Pearson new internat. ed). Pearson.
Park, S., & Humphry, J. (2019). Exclusion by Design: Intersections of Social, Digital and Data Exclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 934–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606266
Reddihough, D. S., Meehan, E., Stott, N. S., & Delacy, M. J. (2016). The National Disability Insurance Scheme: A Time for Real Change in Australia. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 58(S2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13007
Schwartz, R. A., Carew, M. G., & Maksimenko, T. (2010). Micro Markets: A Market Structure Approach to Microeconomic Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Stampoulis-Lyttle, B. (2019). Where Has the Community Gone? A Critical Analysis of the Disability Community Services System in a Post-NDIS World. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory, 2(1), 1–14.
The Productivity Commission. (2010). Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector: Productivity Commission Research Report. Productivity Commission.
The Productivity Commission. (2011). Disability Care and Support: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report. Productivity Commission.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (2006). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html
Walter, M. (Ed.). (2013). Social Research Methods (Third edition). Oxford University Press.
Welsh, I. (2000). Post-punk junk. In S. Redhead, Repetitive Beat Generation (pp. 145–146). Rebel Inc.