Flexibility in individual funding schemes: How well did Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme support remote learning for students with disability during COVID-19?

care children and young people coronavirus disability early years and schooling education individualized funding schemes personal budgets for, and purchaser–provider relations

Journal

Social policy & administration
ISSN: 0144-5596
Titre abrégé: Soc Policy Adm
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7908249

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 14 09 2020
revised: 30 10 2020
accepted: 12 11 2020
pubmed: 29 12 2020
medline: 29 12 2020
entrez: 28 12 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Individualized funding schemes are designed to offer people with disability greater choice and control over the services they receive. In this research, we report on a survey of over 700 families to explore how Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) supported children and young people and their families to learn remotely during COVID-19. NDIS funding to support education during the first COVID-19 lockdown period forms an important case study of the flexibility of individualized funding schemes. Our results suggest that participant experiences varied widely, with some people able to make the changes they required and others left with a significant service gap. This shows that individual funding schemes are not necessarily more flexible than traditional systems in an emergency situation-useful flexibility depends on many factors, such as clarity of information giving, all actors having a shared message, proactive support of flexibility initiatives, and participants' ability to quickly navigate a complicated system. This research also highlights problems with the interface between the NDIS and mainstream services such as education.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33362318
doi: 10.1111/spol.12670
pii: SPOL12670
pmc: PMC7753504
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

906-920

Informations de copyright

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Biosecur Bioterror. 2014 Sep-Oct;12(5):263-73
pubmed: 25254915
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Nov 6;16(1):192
pubmed: 29110663
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Feb;40(1):16-21
pubmed: 26714039
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Nov;68(11):1064-71
pubmed: 25053615
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 24;19(1):805
pubmed: 31234807
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Aug 3;19(1):131
pubmed: 32746851
Public Adm Rev. 2020 Sep-Oct;80(5):827-831
pubmed: 32836452
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Feb;126:26-35
pubmed: 25500164
Public Adm Rev. 2020 Sep-Oct;80(5):839-844
pubmed: 32836464
Soc Policy Adm. 2021 Sep;55(5):906-920
pubmed: 33362318
Int J Equity Health. 2013 Aug 29;12:73
pubmed: 23985044
Disabil Rehabil. 2021 Oct;43(21):3021-3030
pubmed: 32064951

Auteurs

Sophie Yates (S)

Public Service Research Group, School of Business UNSW Canberra Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.

Helen Dickinson (H)

Public Service Research Group, School of Business UNSW Canberra Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.

Catherine Smith (C)

Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Massimiliano Tani (M)

Public Service Research Group, School of Business UNSW Canberra Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.

Classifications MeSH