4.3 Article

'Nearly gave up on it to be honest': Utilisation of individualised budgets by people with psychosocial disability within Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme

Journal

SOCIAL POLICY & ADMINISTRATION
Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 1056-1073

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/spol.12838

Keywords

individualised budgets; individualised funding schemes; National Disability Insurance Scheme; psychosocial disability

Funding

  1. Victorian Department of Health and Human Services

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The utilization of budgets is crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of individualized funding schemes. Under-utilization by certain cohorts may indicate issues with the schemes. People with psychosocial disability in Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme have been identified as one such cohort experiencing barriers to effective budget utilization. Our mixed-methods research confirms that while this cohort receives sufficient budgets, their spending is lower compared to other participants. Addressing under-utilization drivers requires intervention within individualized funding schemes and the broader policy environment.
Utilisation of budgets provides important insights into the effectiveness of individualised funding schemes. Significant under-utilisation by certain cohorts may indicate schemes are not working as intended. People with psychosocial disability have been identified as one such cohort experiencing barriers to effective budget utilisation within Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme. Our mixed-methods research confirms that while this cohort receive sufficient budgets, their spending is lower in comparison to other participants. Addressing under-utilisation drivers arising from complex interactions between individual, systems, and contextual-level factors, requires intervention within individualised funding schemes and the broader policy environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available