Implementing individualised funding – Taking account of diversity’     Professor Christine Bigby School of Social Work and...
Background <ul><li>2009 Roundtable on Intellectual Disability Policy  </li></ul><ul><li>ACHIEVING THEIR OWN LIVES: THE IMP...
Individualised – Person Directed Funding or ?  <ul><li>Different language – programs  & terminology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>...
Key Characteristics   <ul><li>Separation of functions </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>eligibility & $ allocation - govt </li></u...
Undermined or Supported by Context  <ul><li>In context of limited and rationed funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expose defici...
Evidence so far <ul><li>Recent UK work on IB </li></ul><ul><li>Greater sense of control  </li></ul><ul><li>‘ People with l...
Sine qua non’s <ul><li>Necessary Infrastructure  </li></ul><ul><li>Support for people to articulate their claims </li></ul...
<ul><li>Mechanisms to provide control over the resources  (Stainton, 2007; 2005). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fiscal intermediar...
Program Design Take Account of Variability  <ul><li>Sufficiently flexible to take account of the diversity of people with ...
Frank and Paul  <ul><li>Very similar needs  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Long history challenging behaviour. Self injury, restric...
  Differences in experiences, capacity to express choice, make decisions   <ul><li>Not the activity or outcome but what ha...
Distributed or Supported Decision Making  <ul><li>UN Principles Articles 1 – Equality before law right to supported decisi...
<ul><ul><li>Plans for who makes which types of decisions should be reviewed and updated.  </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mechanism...
 
Difference in complexity and nature of needs supported <ul><li>More complex than user directed personal care  </li></ul><u...
Differences in change over time and need for  case management, coordination, monitoring and review  <ul><li>Creative patch...
Differences in Place <ul><li>Differences in community and service infrastructure  </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring choice will r...
Only a partial solution  <ul><li>Overall lack of public commitment to disability services in liberal welfare states contin...
Build Supply Side Indivdualised Funding a Component not a Competitor of the Broader System.   <ul><li>Felce 2004 & Mansell...
Doubters: Problematic Outcomes <ul><li>Greater inequality – choice for some and not others </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Professor Christine Bigby - Implementing individualised funding – Taking account of diversity’

1,301 views
1,218 views

Published on

Presentation by Professor Christine Bigby:
Implementing individualised funding – Taking account of diversity’   

At the

SELF DIRECTED FUNDING FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES

‘Benefits and Challenges’

Friday 27 November 2009

www.field.org.au

Published in: Education, Career
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,301
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
64
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is the Presentation Title page. Type over the existing content to add your title and subtitle. This page uses the slide master for the Heading page. It is recommended that you always include the date of your presentation in the subtitle.
  • Example title for notes and handouts 7 December 2009 Example footer for notes and handouts This slide uses the Title and text slide layout. Add a title by clicking on the title box Add information into the bulleted list area by typing the text, and pressing RETURN to create new bullets. The look of the bullets and the text is defined by the design template. To indent your bullet points press the &lt;tab&gt; key. To change the footer information Select View / Header and Footer and change the “Example presentation title” information.
  • Professor Christine Bigby - Implementing individualised funding – Taking account of diversity’

    1. 1. Implementing individualised funding – Taking account of diversity’    Professor Christine Bigby School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University
    2. 2. Background <ul><li>2009 Roundtable on Intellectual Disability Policy </li></ul><ul><li>ACHIEVING THEIR OWN LIVES: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF </li></ul><ul><li>INDIVIDUALISED FUNDING FOR PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL </li></ul><ul><li>DISABILITY </li></ul><ul><li>Edited by Bigby and Fyffe </li></ul><ul><li>8 papers and summary of discussion </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.latrobe.edu.au/socialwork/schoolstaff/chris.htm </li></ul>N
    3. 3. Individualised – Person Directed Funding or ? <ul><li>Different language – programs & terminology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>independent Living Schemes - consumer control (physical disability) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>self determined – self directed services (developmental disabilities) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>consumer directed services (older people) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>direct payments – individual budgets (UK & Europe) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>cash and counseling (US) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>support and choice – Flexible support packages- </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Similar philosophies and elements - individual choice & control </li></ul><ul><li>The amount of funding is determined by direct reference to the individual and/or family’s specific needs, and aspirations; </li></ul><ul><li>The individual and/or their family determine how funds are used to meet those needs eligible for funding. (Stainton, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Variability re degree of control – direct- via intermediary- notional via service service </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
    4. 4. Key Characteristics <ul><li>Separation of functions </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>eligibility & $ allocation - govt </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>needs articulation, assessment, planning, prioritisation, identification and negotiation of supports – individual or broker </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>supports provision - contracted or directly employed - purchased </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>control over support - individual </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Shift of power from supply side to demand side </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>supply of services no longer dictated by govt funding decisions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>supply driven by demands of consumers – contingent on funding </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Undermined or Supported by Context <ul><li>In context of limited and rationed funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expose deficits to compete for funding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Restraints caused by amount of funding and availability of support to purchase </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds only partially meet needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forced preferences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compromises to own needs from imperative to share funding with others to gain adequate support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantages people with higher support needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>removes hidden cross subsidisation – Gawith Villa eg </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Market models only work in perfect markets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability & quality of supports to purchase </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Biased against some Groups ? </li></ul><ul><li>Designed and take up much higher among people with physical disabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Older people concerned re administration </li></ul><ul><li>Assumes capacity or support to exercise informed choice and control </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit most those with strong networks and resources </li></ul>
    6. 6. Evidence so far <ul><li>Recent UK work on IB </li></ul><ul><li>Greater sense of control </li></ul><ul><li>‘ People with learning disabilities in the IB group were more likely than those in the </li></ul><ul><li>comparison group to feel they had control over their daily lives, although the </li></ul><ul><li>difference was not quite statistically significant’ . (Glendinning et al Oct 2008, p. 18 </li></ul><ul><li>Requires culture shift and new skills </li></ul><ul><li>Implementing IBs required major shifts in culture, roles and responsibilities of </li></ul><ul><li>existing staff. As with direct payments, front-line social care staff played a key role in introducing people to IBs and helping them through unfamiliar and potentially </li></ul><ul><li>stressful changes. Intensive staff support and extensive training and communication activities, supported by levels of ring-fenced funding, are needed. More specifically, priority needs to be given to developing specialist skills in support planning and brokerage, (p 49) </li></ul><ul><li>Trad use of funds </li></ul><ul><li>Most used funding to purchase conventional support little evidence of use for more innovative purposes as envisaged (Hall, 2009, p.46) </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits particular groups </li></ul><ul><li>People with physical disabilities and milder intellectual disabilities best placed to ta take advantage </li></ul>
    7. 7. Sine qua non’s <ul><li>Necessary Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Support for people to articulate their claims </li></ul><ul><ul><li>quality of independent planning, identify options, time to dialogue and build relationships (Bach, 2000;Lord & Hutchinson, ) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support for people to identify, obtain and manage supports necessary to actualize their claims </li></ul><ul><li>$ insufficient alone, need good PCP, brokerage </li></ul><ul><li>Role of Broker </li></ul><ul><li>‘ as system function and process in which advice, information and technical assistance is made available to individuals who request support to : identify and access needed community services and support and negotiate for and use indivudalised funding’ (Smith, 2003, p295) </li></ul><ul><li>Funded to be independent from govt, employed and serving user. </li></ul><ul><li>Issues of training, funding, morph into b’cry employment, loss of choice </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Mechanisms to provide control over the resources (Stainton, 2007; 2005). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fiscal intermediaries, micro boards, notional allocations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Broader governance : that is, issues of who controls decision making within the system, not simply on an individual level, but on a broader structural level (Stainton, 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Reference grps, advisory boards, more than tokenism </li></ul><ul><li>People with intellectual disability largely left out currently </li></ul>
    9. 9. Program Design Take Account of Variability <ul><li>Sufficiently flexible to take account of the diversity of people with disabilities and their social situations </li></ul><ul><li>Different processes will be needed for different people. </li></ul><ul><li>Take account of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in experiences, capacity to express choice, make decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in strength, composition and potential of informal social networks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in complexity of needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in needs over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in need for external case management, coordination or monitoring and review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differences in place. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Frank and Paul <ul><li>Very similar needs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Long history challenging behaviour. Self injury, restrictive practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Severe intellectual disability - limited communication or comprehension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulty expressing preferences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited life experiences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most of life in institutional or other congregate care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High support needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Both live in a distinct social space – family, others with intellectual disability and paid staff </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Very different social networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Paul - close family, know well, strong advocate, own resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frank -no close family – no advocate, reliant on paid workers, service organisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inequities already clear – Paul lives alone, exercises some choice over day to day life, slowly building acquaintances in community, reducing CB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frank lives with another resident very similar needs, one of a pair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can DF work for these men –challenge system in many ways – illustrate complexity behind the rhetoric </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Differences in experiences, capacity to express choice, make decisions <ul><li>Not the activity or outcome but what has preceded - How do you demonstrate participant has made an informed choice based on knowledge and experience of all potential options or preferences have been taken into account </li></ul><ul><li>Different types of decisions and choices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>complexity, frequency, importance – (moving, occupation, holidays, tea) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>different types and depth of support for different decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Expose assumptions re proxy decision makers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>does family always know best </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what about those with no family </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>how are differences resolved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>who mediates risky or dubious decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what safeguards exist </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Current least restrictive alternative – leaves many without guidance, scrutiny or dispute resolution </li></ul><ul><li>Greater clarity re processes and expectations . </li></ul><ul><li>Either informal or substitute decision maker – not widely used </li></ul><ul><li>Law reform commission -review of substitute decision making </li></ul>
    12. 12. Distributed or Supported Decision Making <ul><li>UN Principles Articles 1 – Equality before law right to supported decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Should be fundamental feature of IF for people with more severe intellectual disabilities - if it is to be true to intentions </li></ul><ul><li>Principles to guide such thinking (Cramp & Duffy, 2006): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The assumption that an individual has the ability to make decisions. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Restrictions should only be placed on choice when a person doesn’t understand the options, and their choice places them or others at risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If possible an individual should select who supports them in choice making. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different people are used for different types of issues. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A good adviser or agent is someone with a good knowledge of the person, available options, is available when necessary, has no conflicting interests and is available for the long term. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The individual always has the right to be involved and consulted even if someone else makes the decision. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If an adviser or agent acts on behalf of a person the choice is made on the basis of “standing in the shoes of the person” the choice they themselves would make if they were able. </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. <ul><ul><li>Plans for who makes which types of decisions should be reviewed and updated. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mechanisms : extend beyond family or service providers </li></ul><ul><li>micro boards, circles of support , </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>develop models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>build circles around people who have none or elderly parents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where does this building work fit into IF developments and guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Ideas from South Australian Public Advocate – more stepped and supported legal framework includes support for those involved in supported or substitute decision making </li></ul>
    14. 15. Difference in complexity and nature of needs supported <ul><li>More complex than user directed personal care </li></ul><ul><li>Not just additional arms and legs for personal care </li></ul><ul><li>Less specific types of support – building relationships, opportunities for community participation, occupation, skill development </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding person’s communication </li></ul><ul><li>Different roles, creating encounters from presence to participation </li></ul><ul><li>More left to the discretion of personal assistant </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Judgment when to direct or intervene </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less boundaries, practical help, training, guidance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vaguer role (Askheim, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indivdualised does not mean on your own or with one to one worker </li></ul><ul><li>Need for micro level planning of support - breadth of skills </li></ul><ul><li>Who monitors if PA’s outside of regulatory system </li></ul><ul><li>One solution – Swedish Coop – ‘service guarantor’ knows user well, introduces and supports and trains PA’s, additional supervision </li></ul>
    15. 16. Differences in change over time and need for case management, coordination, monitoring and review <ul><li>Creative patchwork finely balanced and fragile (Wilson & Campion, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple providers </li></ul><ul><li>Who coordinates and trouble shoots when necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Which provider takes the lead and bears the cost </li></ul><ul><li>Need capacity to deal with the unexpected – health, staff change, absence </li></ul><ul><li>Particularly important for those without strong family support </li></ul><ul><li>Planning likely an iterative process as experiment with new possibilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>review and monitoring to take account of changed preferences </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Danger coordination functions undervalued if reduce resources for direct support. </li></ul><ul><li>Take account of different levels of planning </li></ul><ul><li>– micro day to day support </li></ul><ul><li>- overarching PCP, whole of life – without this danger of rigidity, missing opportunities, and building in changed – rigidity - safe options </li></ul>
    16. 17. Differences in Place <ul><li>Differences in community and service infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring choice will require place based planning as well as individual </li></ul><ul><li>Allocations need to take account of additional costs for rural and remote, provision, travel </li></ul>
    17. 18. Only a partial solution <ul><li>Overall lack of public commitment to disability services in liberal welfare states continues to undermine the rights and opportunities of individuals with disabilities and their families, (Caldwell, 2007,p 56). </li></ul><ul><li>Still means tested, resource constrained and limited funding available </li></ul><ul><li>Won’t solve short falls – waiting lists – DSR supported accom 1292, community accom, 1095, day time 188 (June 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Need citizens and activists to advocate for change as well as consumers (Spandler, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Who does it leave out, most impaired, without advocates or family </li></ul><ul><li>Success depends on additional elements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Entitlement to support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social solidarity to build circles and networks of support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community development – build commitment and local responsibility (Mansell, 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ whilst empowering the individual in the control of their everyday care arrangements, cannot deliver the individual and social leverage that a disabled. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>person seeking inclusion requires </li></ul>
    18. 19. Build Supply Side Indivdualised Funding a Component not a Competitor of the Broader System. <ul><li>Felce 2004 & Mansell 2005, argue </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to supply as well as demand side via </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Population based strategic directions and planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to build and maintain a system of services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance and potential of block funded services – something to buy and spot purchase those not on IF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O’Brien emphasizes the necessity of providing the ‘best conditions which will evolve and develop services that offer highly customized, specialized, publicly accountable, collective service provision and assistance’ (cited in Spandler 2004, p 203). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Block Funded Services aren’t a lost cause - PCP individual goals, (sense of what want), Activity planning, (lead life) tailoring support,( right help) activity adaptation and skills teaching (build independence) relationship building (increase social inclusion) </li></ul></ul>
    19. 20. Doubters: Problematic Outcomes <ul><li>Greater inequality – choice for some and not others </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantage non direct payment users </li></ul><ul><li>Interface with the rest of the system access to previous services </li></ul><ul><li>Danger of two tier system – one for IF users and one for block funded </li></ul><ul><li>Public see exclusion as solved via PA </li></ul><ul><li>Shift focus from structural/ environmental barriers to inclusion </li></ul><ul><li>Threat to pay and conditions of workers </li></ul><ul><li>Challenging principles of collective and universal services. (Ridell et al., 2005; Spandler 2004, Lyon, 2005) </li></ul>

    ×