| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2121 | 809 | 38 |
| Full Text Views | 247 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 113 | 15 | 0 |
| EPUB Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Why is lived experience important for market stewardship? A proposed framework for why and how lived experience should be included in stewarding disability markets
Search for other papers by Ariella Meltzer in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Helen Dickinson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Eleanor Malbon in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Gemma Carey in
Current site
Google Scholar
Background:
Many countries use market forces to drive reform across disability supports and services. Over the last few decades, many countries have individualised budgets and devolved these to people with disability, so that they can purchase their own choice of supports from an available market of services.
Key points for discussion:
Such individualised, market-based schemes aim to extend choice and control to people with disability, but this is only achievable if the market operates effectively. Market stewardship has therefore become an important function of government in guiding markets and ensuring they operate effectively.
The type of evidence that governments tend to draw on in market stewardship is typically limited to inputs and outputs and has less insight into the outcomes services do or do not achieve. While this is a typical approach to market stewardship, we argue it is problematic and that a greater focus on outcomes is necessary.
Conclusions and implications:
To include a focus on outcomes, we argue that market stewards need to take account of the lived experience of people with disability. We present a framework for doing this, drawing on precedents where people with disability have contributed lived experience evidence within other policy, research, knowledge production and advocacy contexts.
With the lived experience evidence of people with disability included, market stewardship will be better able to take account of outcomes as they play out in the lives of those using the market and, ultimately, achieve greater choice and control for people with disability.
-
Adnett, N. and Davies, P. (2003) Schooling reforms in England: from quasi-markets to co-opetition?, Journal of Education Policy, 18(4): 393–406. doi: 10.1080/0268093032000106848
-
Balcazar, F.E., Keys, C.B, Kaplan, D.L. and Suarez-Balcazar, Y. (1998) Participatory action research and people with disabilities: principles and challenges, Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12(2): 105–12.
-
Baxter, K. (2013) Changing choices: disabled and chronically ill people’s experiences of reconsidering choices, Chronic Illness, 9(2): 116–32. doi: 10.1177/1742395312460410
-
Beresford, P. and Branfield, F. (2006) Developing inclusive partnerships: user-defined outcomes, networking and knowledge: a case study, Health and Social Care in the Community, 14(5): 436–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00654.x
-
Blomkamp, E. (2018) The promise of co-design for public policy:, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4): 729–43. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12310
-
Braithwaite, V. (2013) A regulatory approach for the Australian charities and not‐ for‐profit commission, Occasional Paper 19, Regulatory Institutions Network Occasional Papers Series, Australian National University.
-
Carey, G., Crammond, B. and Malbon, E. (2019) Personalisation schemes in social care and inequality: review of the evidence and early theorizing, International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1): 170. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-1075-2
-
Carey, G., Dickinson, H., Fletcher, M. and Reeders, D. (forthcoming) Australia’s national disability insurance scheme: the role of actuaries, in The Oxford International Handbook of Public Administration for Social Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Carey, G., Dickinson, H., Malbon, E. and Reeders, D. (2017) The vexed question of market stewardship in the public sector: examining equity and the social contract through the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, Social Policy and Administration, 52(1): 387–407. doi: 10.1111/spol.12321
-
Carey, G., Malbon, E., Green, C., Reeders, D. and Marjolin, A. (2020) Quasi-market shaping, stewarding and steering in personalization: the need for practice-orientated empirical evidence, Policy Design and Practice, 3(1): 30–44. doi: 10.1080/25741292.2019.1685729
-
Change People (nd) How to Make Information Accessible: A Guide to Producing Easy Read Documents, Leeds: Change People, https://www.changepeople.org/getmedia/923a6399-c13f-418c-bb29-051413f7e3a3/How-to-make-info-accessible-guide-2016-Final.
-
Considine, M. (1999) Markets, networks and the new welfare state: employment assistance reforms in Australia, Journal of Social Policy, 28(2): 183–203. doi: 10.1017/S0047279499005607
-
Considine, M., Lewis, J., O’Sullivan, S. and Sol, E. (2015) Getting Welfare to Work: Street-Level Governance in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Dickinson, H. (2017) Individualised funding: what works?, Evidence Base, 3: 1–18.
-
Disability Leadership Institute, https://disabilityleaders.com.au/)
-
Dowse, L. (2009) ‘It’s like being in a zoo’: researching with people with intellectual disability, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3): 141–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01131.x
-
Durose, C. and Richardson, L. (2016) Designing Public Policy for Co-Production: Theory, Practice and Change, Bristol: Policy Press.
-
Earnst and Young Consulting (2019) NDIS Thin Markets Project, Discussion Paper, Canberra: Department of Social Services, Commonwealth Government of Australia.
-
Fleming, P., McGilloway, S., Hernon, M., Furlong, M., O’Doherty, S., Keogh, F. and Stainton, T. (2019) Individualised funding interventions to improve health and social care outcomes for people with a disability: a Mixed-methods systematic review, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1–2): e1008. doi: 10.4073/csr.2019.3
-
Garcia-Iriarte, E., Kramer, J.C., Kramer, J.M. and Hammel, J. (2009) ‘Who did what?’: a participatory action research project to increase group capacity for advocacy, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(1): 10–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00431.x
-
Gash, T. (2014) Professionalising Government’s Approach to Commissioning and Market Stewardship, London: Institute for Government.
-
Girth, A., Hefetz, A., Johnston, J.M. and Warner, M.E. (2012) Outsourcing public service delivery: management responses in noncompetitive markets, Public Administration Research, 72(6): 887–900.
-
Glasby, J. and Littlechild, R. (2009) Putting Personalisation into Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.
-
Goodley, D. (2011) Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, London: Sage.
-
Jones, K.W. (2004) Education for children with mental retardation: parent activism, public policy and family ideology in the 1950s, in S. Noll and J.W. Trent (eds) Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Reader, New York: New York University Press, pp 322–50.
-
LeGrand, J. and Bartlett, W. (1993) Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, London: Macmillan.
-
Malbon, E., Reeders, D., Carey, G. and Marjolin, A. (2019) Stewardship actions for market issues in the National Disability Insurance Scheme: a review of the evidence, Evidence Base, 14(1): 1–14, doi: 10.21307/eb-2019-001.
-
Malbon, E., Carey, G. and Meltzer, A. (2019) Personalisation schemes in social care: are they growing social and health inequalities?, BMC Public Health, 19(1): 805. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7168-4
-
Meltzer, A. and Davy, L. (2019) Opportunities to enhance relational wellbeing through the national disability insurance scheme: implications from research on relationships and a content analysis of NDIS documentation, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2): 250–64.
-
Miranda, R. and Lerner, A. (1995) Bureaucracy, Organizational Redundancy, and the Privatization of Public Services, Public Administration Review, 55 (2): 193–200.
-
Meltzer, A., Dew, A., Dowse, L. and Dillon Savage, I. (2018) Team Up Evaluation: Final Report, Sydney: UNSW.
-
NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) (2017) 2017 price controls review: consultation on NDIS pricing arrangements. Australian Government, (Accessed: 10 Sep 2017).
-
NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) (2019) Pricing Review 2019–2020, Geelong: National Disability Insurance Agency.
-
Neary, M. (2018) The words on the tin, in Love, Belief and Balls, https://markneary1dotcom1.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/the-words-on-the-tin/, (Accessed: 17 Aug 2020).
-
Needham, C. and Dickinson, H. (2018) ‘Any one of us could be among that number’: Comparing the policy narratives for individualized disability funding in Australia and England, Social Policy and Administration, 52(3): 731–49. doi: 10.1111/spol.12320
-
Power, A., Bartlett, R. and Hall, E. (2016) Peer advocacy in a personalized landscape: the role of peer support in a context of individualized support and austerity, Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 20(2): 183–93. doi: 10.1177/1744629516634561
-
Power, A., Lord, J.E. and DeFranco, A.S. (2013) Active Citizenship and Disability: Implementing the Personalisation of Support, Cambridge Disability Law and Policy Series, New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Productivity Commission (2017) NDIS Costs, Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.
-
Reeders, D., Carey, G., Malbon, E., Dickinson, H., Gilchrist, D., Duff, G., Chand, S., Kavanagh, A. and Alexander, D. (2019) Market Capacity Framework, Sydney: UNSW Centre for Social Impact.
-
Shannon, B. (2019a) Why language matters, in Rewriting Social Care, https://rewritingsocialcare.blog/2019/08/09/why-language-matters/, (Accessed 17 Aug 2020).
-
Shannon, B. (2019b) Words that make me go hmmm: service user, in Rewriting Social Care, https://rewritingsocialcare.blog/2019/11/30/service-user/, (Accessed: 17 Aug 2020).
-
Smith-Merry, J. (2020) Evidence-based policy, knowledge from experience and validity, Evidence & Policy, 16(2): 305–16.
-
Sumsion, J. (2012) ABC Learning and Australian early education and care: a retrospective ethical audit of a radical experiment, in E. Lloyd and H. Penn (eds) Childcare Markets Local and Global: Can They Deliver an Equitable Service, Bristol: Policy Press, pp 209–25.
-
Tune, D. (2019) Review of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013, Australian Government Department of Social Services, Canberra, Australia, https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-programs-services-for-people-with-disability-national-disability-insurance-scheme/ndis-legislative-reforms.
-
UNCRPD (2006) United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
-
Walmsley, J. (2004) Involving users with learning difficulties in health improvement: lessons from inclusive learning disability research, Nursing Inquiry, 11(1): 54–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2004.00197.x
-
Warner, M. and Hefetz, A. (2002) Applying market solutions to public services: An assessment of efficiency, equity and voice, Urban Affairs, 38(1): 70–89.
-
Zarb, G. (1992) On the road to Damascus: first steps towards changing the relations of disability research production, Disability, Handicap and Society, 7(2): 125–38. doi: 10.1080/02674649266780161
Search for other papers by Ariella Meltzer in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Helen Dickinson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Eleanor Malbon in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Gemma Carey in
Current site
Google Scholar
| May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2121 | 809 | 38 |
| Full Text Views | 247 | 12 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 113 | 15 | 0 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here
We are a leading social science publisher
committed to making a difference.
Bristol University Press and
Policy Press
bristoluniversitypress.co.uk