Joining Up Government by Integrating Funding Streams? The Experiences of the Individual Budget Pilot Projects for Older and Disabled People in England
Joining Up Government by Integrating Funding Streams? The Experiences of the Individual Budget Pilot Projects for Older and Disabled People in England
复制标题
通过整合资金流加入政府？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Netten
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Moran;C. Glendinning;Martin Stevens;J. Manthorpe;S. Jacobs;M. Wilberforce;M. Knapp;D. Challis;José;K. Jones;A. Netten
2005-2007年期间，在13个英国地方当局试行了单项预算。与欧洲其他地区及其他地区的个人预算和“现金换护理”计划类似，IB建立在英国政府先前的倡议基础上，以增加成人社会护理服务用户的选择和控制。IB试点项目的一个主要目标是将个人有权获得的不同资金流的资源集中起来，并整合或调整这些资金流，从而减少评估和审查的数量;然后允许根据个人的愿望和需要灵活使用这些资源。只向有资格获得成人社会护理服务和支助的人提供的间接受益人可包括来自其他五个资金来源的资源，其中三个资金来源由三个不同的政府部门负责：就业机会、残疾人设施赠款、综合社区设备服务、独立生活基金和支助人民。与国际文凭组织领导官员和资金流领导官员的定性访谈构成了对国际文凭组织试点项目更大范围的评估（国际文凭组织高级研究所研究）的一部分，并揭示了深为失望的是，除了支助人员之外，在整合方面只取得了最小的进展。本文探讨了尽管地方和国家层面有着强烈的愿望，但未能整合资金流的可能原因：立法障碍;对个人资金流的持续问责;对市场不稳定的担忧;以及对预期需求增加所涉预算问题的担忧。
Individual Budgets (IBs) were piloted in 13 English local authorities during 2005–2007. Similar to personal budgets and “cash-for-care” schemes in other parts of Europe and beyond, IBs built upon previous English government initiatives to increase choice and control by users of adult social care services. A key aim of the IB pilots was to bring together resources from different funding streams to which an individual was entitled, and integrate or align those funding streams, thereby reducing the number of assessments and reviews; then allow those resources to be spent flexibly according to individual wishes and needs. IBs, available only to those eligible for adult social care services and support, could include resources from up to five other funding streams which, among them, were the responsibility of three different government departments: Access to Work, Disabled Facilities Grants, Integrated Community Equipment Services, Independent Living Funds, and Supporting People. Qualitative interviews with IB lead officers and funding stream lead officers formed part of the larger evaluation of the IB pilots (IBSEN study) and revealed deep disappointment that only minimal progress with integration had been possible, with the exception of Supporting People. This article explores possible reasons for the failure to integrate funding streams despite strong aspirations at local and national levels: legislative barriers; continuing accountability to individual funding streams; concerns over destabilizing the market; and concerns over the budgetary implications of an expected increase in demand.