The promotion and disruption of community service delivery systems

In this paper, we report data drawn from a larger project on the functioning of the Queensland community service delivery system, particularly that providing services to people with disabilities. Our reasoning for focusing at this level is that, from the service user's perspective, support is derived from the service delivery system, not just individual service providers. Defining the service delivery system as formal services and informal support networks, we undertook interviews and focus groups with service providers in six areas in Queensland: inner urban, outer urban, rural and remote. The period on which we report is one in which considerable reform activity had been undertaken by funding bodies of the Commonwealth and State governments. We report on those factors we identified which promote the integrated functioning of the service delivery system, as well as those factors that disrupt it. We conclude with a brief evaluative analysis of the current status of the system.

Fixing the system? The experience of service users of the quasi-market in disability services in Australia

A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 31 people with disabilities and 32 carers in the state of Queensland, Australia, found that their experience of supportive service delivery had not improved despite reforms of the service delivery system driven by a version of the quasi-market model. Instead of delivering increased consumer choice and improved efficiency in service delivery, service users experienced inadequate service supply, service cutbacks, and an increased emphasis on cost subsidisation and assessment processes. Additionally, few consumers felt that individualised funding arrangements had personally delivered the benefits which the quasi-market model and associated policy paradigm had indicated that they should receive. For many consumers, the notion of consumer 'choice' around service provision was fictitious and they felt that any efficiency gains were at the agency level, largely at the consumers' cost. It is concluded that there appears to be no particular benefit to service users of quasi-market reforms, particularly in policy contexts where service delivery systems are historically under-funded.