Effectiveness of Individual Funding Approaches for Disability Support

Fisher, Karen R.; Gleeson, Ryan; Edwards, Robyn; Purcal, Christiane; Sitek, Tomasz; Dinning, Brooke; Laragy, Carmel; D'aegher, Lel; Thompson, Denise

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1700847

Cited by 43 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Governments worldwide are increasingly offering individuals with a disability the option of receiving funding through individual allocations based on assessment of need (Lynch & Findlay , Fisher et al . , Laragy , Lord & Hutchison , Disability Policy & Research Working Group ). Laragy () suggests this shift in funding process is driven by both a human rights stance in keeping with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations ), giving individuals control over the support they receive and an economic rationalist approach to contain service costs.…”

Section: The International Experience Of Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carer and service providers’ experiences of individual funding models for children with a disability in rural and remote areas

Dew

Bulkeley

Veitch

et al. 2013

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is known about the topic• IF is increasingly favoured by governments globally.• IF has the potential to empower service users with more choice and access to new opportunities.• People with a disability living in rural and remote areas have fewer service choices on which to spend their IF. What this paper adds• Highlights the issues related to accessing IF in a rural and remote area.• Identifies benefits and barriers for rural and remote service users and service providers using IF models.• Suggests strategies for enhancing the experience of IF for service users and providers in rural and remote areas. AbstractThere is a global movement for people with a disability towards personcentred practices with opportunities for self-determination and choice. Person-centred approaches may involve individual funding (IF) for the purchase of required support. A shift to a person-centred model and IF should allow people with a disability and their carers greater choice in therapy access. However, individuals who live in rural and remote areas have less choice and access to therapy services than their metropolitan counterparts. Drawing on data from a larger study into therapy service delivery in a rural and remote area of New South Wales, Australia, this study describes some benefits and barriers to using IF to access therapy services in rural areas. Ten carers and 60 service providers participated in audio-recorded focus groups and individual interviews during which IF was discussed. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison. Greater access to and choice of therapy providers were identified as benefits of IF. Four barriers were identified: (i) lack of information and advice; (ii) limited local service options and capacity; (iii) higher costs and fewer services and (iv) complexity of self-managing packages. A range of strategies is required to address the barriers to using IF in rural and remote areas. Carers indicated a need for: accessible information; a local contact person for support and guidance; adequate financial compensation to offset additional travel expenses and coordinated eligibility and accountability systems. Service providers required: coordinated cross-sector approaches; local workforce planning to address therapist shortages; certainty around service viability and growth; clear policies and procedures around implementation of IF. This study highlights the need for further discussion and research about how to overcome the barriers to the optimal use of an IF model for those living in rural and remote areas.

show abstract

Section: The International Experience Of Ifmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carer and service providers’ experiences of individual funding models for children with a disability in rural and remote areas

Dew

Bulkeley

Veitch

et al. 2013

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individualised funding programs have been piloted in most Australian jurisdictions over the last decade (Fisher et al 2010), but to date the bulk of government spending has remained in the form of block-funding for services. The NDIS will result in the individualisation of most disability support funding in Australia.…”

Section: Choice Mechanism: Individualised Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it would involve a lot of work and they could make mistakes. (PC 2011, p.349) The evidence of research on past programs in Australia and overseas suggests that individualised funding increases consumers' control over service provisions and improves their overall quality of life (Purcal et al 2014;Fisher et al 2010;PC 2011, E11;Head & Conroy 2005). The PC (2011) also expected that consumer choice would stimulate competition between providers resulting in improved quality, greater variety and lower costs of services and products.…”

Section: Choice Mechanism: Individualised Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

NDIS, housing assistance and choice and control for people with disability

Wiesel¹,

Habibis²

2015

AHURI Final Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4 The key features of the system in each State and Territory in 2012 are summarised here and in Fisher et al (2010). There are differences in the extent of individual support packages (ISPs) and consumer control over how their support package is allocated.…”

Section: Current Disability Service Delivery Models and Systems In Stmentioning

confidence: 99%