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.

No abstract

Negative attitudes are a major barrier to the equality of people with disabilities. Governments and other organizations have implemented numerous programmes to change attitudes towards people with disabilities. We analyse published evidence about the effectiveness of such programmes using a framework of the interrelationship among three levels of policy intervention to change attitudes: personal leveldirected at changing the attitudes of individuals; organizational levelconcerning attitudinal barriers in domains such as employment, education and health; and government levellegally mandating behaviour change. The analysis finds that the following policy types can be effective if used together: policies that involve direct contact with people with disability; information and awareness campaigns; education and training about disability; and antidiscrimination enforcement. Policy characteristics that contribute to effectiveness include a positive programme experience for participants; multifaceted and prolonged interventions; and adequate programme resources. Policy effectiveness to change attitudes relies on corresponding reinforcement at all three policy levels. ARTICLE HISTORY

Young people who provide unpaid care for a relative with chronic illness or disability are a growing focus of public policy and research in Australia and internationally. Support services for these young carers have emerged, but not enough is known about their effectiveness. This article develops an analytical framework that categorizes young carer support services according to their goals and the types of intervention provided. The analytical framework is based on Australian data. It is applied to young carer support services available in Australia but may be applicable to other countries. The aim of the framework is to provide a structure for assessing the effectiveness of current services in supporting young carers by clarifying service goals and identifying gaps in existing service provision. The framework contributes to conceptual discussions about young carer supports, and it can be used to guide future policy development. The article draws on Australian and international literature as well as findings from a recent Australian study on young carers. The proposed framework groups young carer support services according to three overarching goals: assisting young people who provide care; mitigating the care-giving responsibility; and preventing the entrenchment of a young person's caring role. The framework is applied to an audit of Australian support services for young carers, illustrating how it can be used to assess existing supports for young carers and inform future policy development. The findings suggest that most services in Australia fall into the categories of assistance and mitigation, while few contain preventative elements.

Australia is implementing an ambitious new approach to individualised disability support based on a social insurance model. In a world first, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is funded through a levy on income and general taxation and gives Australians with disability an entitlement to social service support. This chapter describes the NDIS approach and implementation so far and summarises concerns and challenges about the NDIS discussed in the literature. It uses data from an action research project to inform feasibility questions about how people find out about and receive the individualised support they need. The chapter highlights a basic gap in people’s familiarity with what individualised support is, how it works and how they might benefit from the new approach. A policy implication is that, with the expansion of individualised support, the public is likely to need various opportunities and forms of information sharing, to explore and learn from each other about what the new approach is and what its possibilities are.

and Community Services (FaCS) merged to form the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA). Following this, in December 2007, Administrative Arrangements Orders were announced that created a new Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) to replace the former FaCSIA. The acronym FaHCSIA has been used in most instances to refer to the department.

Australia's new National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) uses individualised funding packages instead of traditional block-funded disability services to support people with disability. The NDIS works with the person and their family to assess the person's needs and develop a plan that determines their funding allocation. Funding can be used to purchase support from a disability service or from the open market. People can purchase support that suits their cultural and personal preferences. This paper examined whether individual funding packages met their aims in Western Australia, where they had been the primary mechanism of disability support for over 25 years. An exploratory case study was conducted consisting of face-to-face, in-depth interviews with 11 key participants: people with disability, senior government administrators, service provider managers, and a support worker. Complex systems theory was used to review the data and findings showed that individualised funding packages did not automatically result in more choice and greater opportunities. People needed information to make informed decisions; supportive and creative support from social workers and other professionals; and welcoming communities. The findings can inform policies and assist social workers facilitate maximum choice and opportunities for people with disability and their families.

No abstract