Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.1017/S1474746422000562
Kirsty McKenzie, Jennifer Smith‐Merry
Background: Personalisation in disability support funding is premised on the notion that services come together through the individual. Where people have very complex needs, many individuals and their supporters find it difficult to facilitate services themselves. This article examines the Integrated Service Response (ISR), an Australian response to complexity implemented during the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) roll-out. We explore its facilitation of collaboration in the context of the NDIS. Results: Results from interviews and observation of collaboration suggest there are multiple challenges with effective inter-organisational collaboration under the NDIS, including communication between services, and the loss of previous ways of addressing complexity and crisis. Participants valued ISR as a response to complexity, including its ability to facilitate collaboration by ‘getting the right people at the table’. Conclusions: While programmes such as ISR may improve inter-organisational collaboration around specific clients, broader ongoing systemic approaches are required to address system-wide issues.
{"title":"Responding to Complexity in the Context of the National Disability Insurance Scheme","authors":"Kirsty McKenzie, Jennifer Smith‐Merry","doi":"10.1017/S1474746422000562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000562","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Personalisation in disability support funding is premised on the notion that services come together through the individual. Where people have very complex needs, many individuals and their supporters find it difficult to facilitate services themselves. This article examines the Integrated Service Response (ISR), an Australian response to complexity implemented during the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) roll-out. We explore its facilitation of collaboration in the context of the NDIS. Results: Results from interviews and observation of collaboration suggest there are multiple challenges with effective inter-organisational collaboration under the NDIS, including communication between services, and the loss of previous ways of addressing complexity and crisis. Participants valued ISR as a response to complexity, including its ability to facilitate collaboration by ‘getting the right people at the table’. Conclusions: While programmes such as ISR may improve inter-organisational collaboration around specific clients, broader ongoing systemic approaches are required to address system-wide issues.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"139 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57005949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-07DOI: 10.1017/S1474746422000598
M. Titterton
Sources on aspects of social policy and welfare change in the Russian Federation and suitable comparisons with welfare states in the European Union and non-EU countries can be hard to pin down. Here are provided some helpful sources that should give useful pointers for interested readers and students. These have been arranged under four key headings: welfare state challenges and changes; welfare models; globalisation; and inclusion.
{"title":"Some Useful Sources","authors":"M. Titterton","doi":"10.1017/S1474746422000598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000598","url":null,"abstract":"Sources on aspects of social policy and welfare change in the Russian Federation and suitable comparisons with welfare states in the European Union and non-EU countries can be hard to pin down. Here are provided some helpful sources that should give useful pointers for interested readers and students. These have been arranged under four key headings: welfare state challenges and changes; welfare models; globalisation; and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"391 - 392"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42756995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1017/s1474746422000501
Edith England
That domestic abuse is a human rights infringement has become recognised at policy, practice, and legislative level globally. Homelessness services are critical in averting and mitigating harm to those who have experienced domestic abuse. The British homelessness system achieves this, in part, through offering a legal right to housing in some circumstances. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 integrates a human-rights based understanding of domestic abuse yet reduces legal rights to assistance. Based on analysis of interviews with fifty-two homelessness workers and twenty-four applicants I argue that moral commitments cannot compensate for legal rights; rather, they deresponsibilise homelessness services for addressing domestic abuse. I show (1) that workers saw cases where homelessness arose from domestic abuse as functionally beyond the remit of homelessness services (2) that empowered women were understood as undeserving by the system and (3) that workers saw domestic abuse cases as a broad and undefined threat to resources.
{"title":"‘You’re having us on … that’s what it felt like.’: Frontline Workers Navigating the Introduction of Moral Commitments to Domestic Abuse Support within a Statutory Homelessness System","authors":"Edith England","doi":"10.1017/s1474746422000501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746422000501","url":null,"abstract":"That domestic abuse is a human rights infringement has become recognised at policy, practice, and legislative level globally. Homelessness services are critical in averting and mitigating harm to those who have experienced domestic abuse. The British homelessness system achieves this, in part, through offering a legal right to housing in some circumstances. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 integrates a human-rights based understanding of domestic abuse yet reduces legal rights to assistance. Based on analysis of interviews with fifty-two homelessness workers and twenty-four applicants I argue that moral commitments cannot compensate for legal rights; rather, they deresponsibilise homelessness services for addressing domestic abuse. I show (1) that workers saw cases where homelessness arose from domestic abuse as functionally beyond the remit of homelessness services (2) that empowered women were understood as undeserving by the system and (3) that workers saw domestic abuse cases as a broad and undefined threat to resources.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44442772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-10DOI: 10.1017/S1474746422000410
Eloise Hummell, S. J. Borg, M. Foster, K. Fisher, Catherine Needham
The marketisation of disability support driven by individualised funding brings new dilemmas for multi-agency collaboration, in particular how to provide personalised supports while remaining commercially viable. This article explores the challenges, risks and adaptations of organisations to navigate the tensions of personalisation and collaboration. Framed by street-level research and using the context of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), this article draws on interviews with twenty-eight organisational managers. Multi-agency challenges are highlighted when several providers are delivering parts of a NDIS participant’s plan, blurring organisational responsibilities and accountabilities. Interviews also revealed the paradox of organisational disconnection and organisational dependence concerning quality support provision and described the collaborative responses organisations implement to ensure their sustainability. There is commitment among organisations to build a trusted ecosystem of providers, but this is largely discretionary and there is a need for further policy mechanisms to enable organisations to negotiate a way through multi-agency dilemmas.
{"title":"Breaking Up Is Risky Business: Personalisation and Collaboration in a Marketised Disability Sector","authors":"Eloise Hummell, S. J. Borg, M. Foster, K. Fisher, Catherine Needham","doi":"10.1017/S1474746422000410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000410","url":null,"abstract":"The marketisation of disability support driven by individualised funding brings new dilemmas for multi-agency collaboration, in particular how to provide personalised supports while remaining commercially viable. This article explores the challenges, risks and adaptations of organisations to navigate the tensions of personalisation and collaboration. Framed by street-level research and using the context of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), this article draws on interviews with twenty-eight organisational managers. Multi-agency challenges are highlighted when several providers are delivering parts of a NDIS participant’s plan, blurring organisational responsibilities and accountabilities. Interviews also revealed the paradox of organisational disconnection and organisational dependence concerning quality support provision and described the collaborative responses organisations implement to ensure their sustainability. There is commitment among organisations to build a trusted ecosystem of providers, but this is largely discretionary and there is a need for further policy mechanisms to enable organisations to negotiate a way through multi-agency dilemmas.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"155 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41995905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-10DOI: 10.1017/S1474746422000434
Catherine Needham, M. Foster, K. Fisher, Eloise Hummell
This article reviews the design and delivery features of individualised budgets for disabled and older adults to understand the mechanisms for disaggregation and collaboration in the way support is organised and delivered. Individualised funding is often assumed to be a fragmenting force, breaking down mass provision into personalised and tailored support and stimulating diverse provider markets. However, disability campaigners and policy makers are keen that it also be an integrative force, to stimulate collaboration such that a person receives a ‘seamless’ service. The article brings out these tensions within the individualisation of funding and support for older and disabled people in the United Kingdom and Australia, and considers whether there is scope for reconciling these dual forces.
{"title":"Tailored and Seamless: Individualised Budgets and the Dual Forces of Personalisation and Collaboration","authors":"Catherine Needham, M. Foster, K. Fisher, Eloise Hummell","doi":"10.1017/S1474746422000434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000434","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the design and delivery features of individualised budgets for disabled and older adults to understand the mechanisms for disaggregation and collaboration in the way support is organised and delivered. Individualised funding is often assumed to be a fragmenting force, breaking down mass provision into personalised and tailored support and stimulating diverse provider markets. However, disability campaigners and policy makers are keen that it also be an integrative force, to stimulate collaboration such that a person receives a ‘seamless’ service. The article brings out these tensions within the individualisation of funding and support for older and disabled people in the United Kingdom and Australia, and considers whether there is scope for reconciling these dual forces.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"127 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46996867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-13DOI: 10.1017/S1474746422000471
Eloise Hummell, M. Foster
Billings, J. and De Weger, E. (2015) ‘Contracting for integrated health and social care: a critical review of four models’, Journal of Integrated Care, 23, 3, 153–75. Brophy, L., Hodges, C., Halloran, K., Grigg, M. and Swift, M. (2014) ‘Impact of care coordination on Australia’s mental health service delivery system’, Australian Health Review, 38, 396–400. Carey, G. and Crammond, B. (2015) ‘What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis’, International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 13–14, 1020–129. Carey, G., Malbon, E., Olney, S. and Reeders, D. (2018) ‘The personalisation agenda: the case of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme’, International Review of Sociology, 28, 1, 20–34. Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2014) ‘Policies of personalisation in Norway and England: on the impact of political context’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 3, 479–96. Crocker, H., Kelly, L., Harlock, J., Fitzpatrick, R. and Peters, M. (2020) 'Measuring the benefits of the integration of health and social care: qualitative interviews with professional stakeholders and patient representatives', BMC Health Services Research, 20, 1, 515. Dickinson, H. and Carey, G. (2017) ‘Managing care integration during the implementation of large-scale reforms: managing community care’, Journal of Integrated Care, 25, 1, 6–16. Dickinson, H. and Glasby, J. (2010) “Why partnership working doesn’t work’: pitfalls, problems and possibilities in English health and social care’, Public Management Review, 12, 6, 811–28. Fisher, M. P. and Elnitsky, C. (2012) ‘Health and social services integration: a review of concepts and models’, Journal of Social Work in Public Health, 27, 5, 441–68. Fleming, P., McGilloway, S. and Barry, S. (2016) ‘The successes and challenges of implementing individualised funding and supports for disabled people: an Irish perspective’, Disability and Society, 31, 10, 1369–84. Foster, M., Henman, P., Tilse, C., Fleming, J., Allen, S. and Harrington, R. (2016) ‘'Reasonable and necessary’ care: the challenge of operationalising the NDIS policy principle in allocating disability care in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1, 27–46. Foster, M., Hummell, E., Fisher, K., Borg, S. J., Needham, C. and Venning, A. (2021) ‘Organisations adapting to dual aspirations of individualisation and collaboration in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) market’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81, 1, 1–18. Glasby, J. (2017) ‘The holy grail of health and social care integration’, British Medical Journal, 356, j801. Glasby, J., Dickinson, H. andMiller, R. (2011) ‘Partnership working in England—where we are now andwhere we’ve come from’, International Journal of Integrated Care, 11(Special 10th Anniversary Edition), 1–8. Glendinning, C. (2003) 'Breaking down barriers: integrating health and care services for older people in England', Health Policy, 65, 2, 139–51. Green, A., DiGiacomo, M., Luckett, T., Abbott, P., Davidson,
{"title":"Some Useful Sources","authors":"Eloise Hummell, M. Foster","doi":"10.1017/S1474746422000471","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746422000471","url":null,"abstract":"Billings, J. and De Weger, E. (2015) ‘Contracting for integrated health and social care: a critical review of four models’, Journal of Integrated Care, 23, 3, 153–75. Brophy, L., Hodges, C., Halloran, K., Grigg, M. and Swift, M. (2014) ‘Impact of care coordination on Australia’s mental health service delivery system’, Australian Health Review, 38, 396–400. Carey, G. and Crammond, B. (2015) ‘What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis’, International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 13–14, 1020–129. Carey, G., Malbon, E., Olney, S. and Reeders, D. (2018) ‘The personalisation agenda: the case of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme’, International Review of Sociology, 28, 1, 20–34. Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2014) ‘Policies of personalisation in Norway and England: on the impact of political context’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 3, 479–96. Crocker, H., Kelly, L., Harlock, J., Fitzpatrick, R. and Peters, M. (2020) 'Measuring the benefits of the integration of health and social care: qualitative interviews with professional stakeholders and patient representatives', BMC Health Services Research, 20, 1, 515. Dickinson, H. and Carey, G. (2017) ‘Managing care integration during the implementation of large-scale reforms: managing community care’, Journal of Integrated Care, 25, 1, 6–16. Dickinson, H. and Glasby, J. (2010) “Why partnership working doesn’t work’: pitfalls, problems and possibilities in English health and social care’, Public Management Review, 12, 6, 811–28. Fisher, M. P. and Elnitsky, C. (2012) ‘Health and social services integration: a review of concepts and models’, Journal of Social Work in Public Health, 27, 5, 441–68. Fleming, P., McGilloway, S. and Barry, S. (2016) ‘The successes and challenges of implementing individualised funding and supports for disabled people: an Irish perspective’, Disability and Society, 31, 10, 1369–84. Foster, M., Henman, P., Tilse, C., Fleming, J., Allen, S. and Harrington, R. (2016) ‘'Reasonable and necessary’ care: the challenge of operationalising the NDIS policy principle in allocating disability care in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1, 27–46. Foster, M., Hummell, E., Fisher, K., Borg, S. J., Needham, C. and Venning, A. (2021) ‘Organisations adapting to dual aspirations of individualisation and collaboration in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) market’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81, 1, 1–18. Glasby, J. (2017) ‘The holy grail of health and social care integration’, British Medical Journal, 356, j801. Glasby, J., Dickinson, H. andMiller, R. (2011) ‘Partnership working in England—where we are now andwhere we’ve come from’, International Journal of Integrated Care, 11(Special 10th Anniversary Edition), 1–8. Glendinning, C. (2003) 'Breaking down barriers: integrating health and care services for older people in England', Health Policy, 65, 2, 139–51. Green, A., DiGiacomo, M., Luckett, T., Abbott, P., Davidson,","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"205 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46293309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1017/s1474746422000422
Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg
Universal Basic Income (UBI) reached political agendas as a proposal to radically reform welfare systems, followed by scholarly interest in its public legitimacy. While surveys find UBI support to be mostly redistribution-driven, the discussion in science and media suggests a more nuanced understanding. To comprehensively grasp the public response to UBI policy, this article explores the controversies surrounding UBI policy through a content analysis of Dutch tweets. In addition to identifying established controversies, our analysis points to two avenues for the study of UBI legitimacy. First, a multidimensional measure of UBI support should include redistributive, conditionality, and efficiency aspects. Second, dissatisfaction with targeted activation policy and ‘post-productivist’ attitudes should receive greater attention as drivers of UBI support. Overall, we find the pressure to reform welfare is more than the promise of a ‘free lunch’: it is anchored in fundamental critiques of economic and welfare institutions.
{"title":"More than a Free Lunch: A Content Analysis of the Controversies Surrounding Universal Basic Income on Dutch Twitter","authors":"Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg","doi":"10.1017/s1474746422000422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746422000422","url":null,"abstract":"Universal Basic Income (UBI) reached political agendas as a proposal to radically reform welfare systems, followed by scholarly interest in its public legitimacy. While surveys find UBI support to be mostly redistribution-driven, the discussion in science and media suggests a more nuanced understanding. To comprehensively grasp the public response to UBI policy, this article explores the controversies surrounding UBI policy through a content analysis of Dutch tweets. In addition to identifying established controversies, our analysis points to two avenues for the study of UBI legitimacy. First, a multidimensional measure of UBI support should include redistributive, conditionality, and efficiency aspects. Second, dissatisfaction with targeted activation policy and ‘post-productivist’ attitudes should receive greater attention as drivers of UBI support. Overall, we find the pressure to reform welfare is more than the promise of a ‘free lunch’: it is anchored in fundamental critiques of economic and welfare institutions.","PeriodicalId":47397,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44282363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：