Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:11:56.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: Personalisation and Collaboration: Dual Tensions in Individualised Funding Policy for Older and Disabled Persons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2022

Michele Foster
Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Catherine Needham
The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Eloise Hummell*
Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Samantha J. Borg
Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Karen R. Fisher
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Themed Section on Personalisation and Collaboration: Dual Tensions in Individualised Funding Policy for Older and Disabled Persons
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Australian Government (2013) National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, No. 20, Australia, 2013, [accessed 27.06.2022].Google Scholar
Carey, G., Malbon, E., Gilchrist, D., Chand, S., Kavanagh, A. and Alexander, D. (2019) Submission to Consultation on NDIS Thin Markets, [accessed 27.06.2022].Google Scholar
Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J. and Schalock, R. L. (2010) ‘Person-centered planning: analysis of research and effectiveness’, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 6, 432–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, H. and Glasby, J. (2010) ‘The personalisation agenda: implications for the third sector’, Third Sector Research Centre, Working Paper 30, [accessed 27.06.2022].Google Scholar
Earle, T. and Boucher, N. (2020) ‘Disability policy and active citizenship: the case of the National Disability Insurance Scheme’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 32, 1, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, B. and Plath, D. (2014) ‘A National Disability Insurance Scheme: what social work has to offer?’, British Journal of Social Work, 44, 3, 747–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, I. (2012) ‘Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 26, 1, 5573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, P., Gilloway, S., Hernon, M., Furlong, M., O’Doherty, S., Keogh, F. and Stainton, T. (2019) ‘Individualised funding interventions to improve health and social care for people with a disability. A mixed-methods systematic review’, Systematic Review, 15, e1008.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 118.Google Scholar
Green, C., Malbon, E., Carey, G., Dickinson, H. and Reeders, D. (2018) Competition and Collaboration between Service Providers in the NDIS, Centre for Social Impact, UNSW Sydney, [accessed 27.06.2022].Google Scholar
Hummell, E., Venning, A., Foster, M., Fisher, K. and Kuipers, P. (2021) ‘A rapid review of barriers and enablers of organisational collaboration: identifying challenges in disability reform in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 57, 2, 117.Google Scholar
Kaehne, A. (2015) ‘Multi-agency protocols as a mechanism to improve partnerships in public services’, Local Government Studies, 41, 3, 321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laragy, C., Fisher, K., Purcal, C. and Jenkinson, S. (2015) ‘Australia’s individualised disability funding packages: when do they provide greater choice and opportunity?’, Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 9, 3, 282–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mladenov, T., Owens, J. and Cribb, A. (2015) ‘Personalisation in disability services and healthcare: a critical comparative analysis’, Critical Social Policy, 35, 3, 307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C., Watson, N. and Manji, K. (2018) ‘Changing the culture of social care in Scotland: has a shift to personalization brought about transformative change?’, Social Policy and Administration, 52, 3, 662–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandini, R. and Orlandini, M. (2018) ‘The morphogenesis of disability policies and the personalisation of social services. A case study from Italy’, International Review of Sociology, 28, 1, 86109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Government (2014) Statutory Guidance to Accompany the Social Care (Self-Directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, Edinburgh: Scottish Government, [accessed 27.06.2022].Google Scholar