ORCID Profile
0000-0003-4212-6106
Current Organisation
UNSW Sydney
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2010
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1700847
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 20-10-2011
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 23-05-2021
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1615562
Abstract: In idualized funding of disability support services has implications for people's choices about when to share their home. This paper examines how people with disabilities made choices about who to live with and the factors influencing these choices. This paper discusses data from interviews with 30 people with mostly intellectual disabilities using in idualized support services, 21 interviews with family members, four interviews with service managers, and a focus group with five support workers. The data come from a large evaluation of in idualized housing support programs in New South Wales, Australia. Only some people had the opportunity to choose whether to share and with whom. Their choices were constrained by the range of housing options and their limited experience of them, even when they had support to make choices about shared housing or living alone. In some cases, the choices reflected a conceptualization of people with disabilities as different to other citizens in their rights and expectations about their social arrangements. The results have implications for information sharing, housing stock, and the need to challenge the positioning of people with disabilities relative to other people regarding choices about where and with whom to live. Implications for rehabilitation Many people preferred not to live alone, so as to improve their economic and social circumstances, and their choice and control. The choices about shared housing that many people and their supporters made were constrained by their limited experience of housing options or their familiarity with the range of choices made by other people with disabilities. Being able to draw on the material, social, and information resources of family made a big difference to their housing choices. It raises questions for policy implementation about whether in idualized support may lock some people into shared housing arrangements by failing to include housing costs in the in idual package.
Publisher: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney
Date: 2019
Publisher: Policy Press
Date: 29-06-2016
Publisher: Policy Press
Date: 29-06-2016
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-08-2009
Publisher: Bristol University Press
Date: 29-06-2016
Publisher: UNSW Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney
Date: 2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2010
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1728592
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 08-11-2021
Publisher: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney
Date: 2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2012
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2014423
Publisher: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney
Date: 2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2006
DOI: 10.1177/183693910603100408
Abstract: This paper presents a model of the approaches open to government to ensure that early childhood services are affordable to families. We derived the model from a comparative literature review of affordability approaches taken by government, both in Australia and internationally. The model adds significantly to the literature by proposing a means to understand and assess the numerous options for affordability funding. The model suggests that the options fall into only three basic approaches: operational funding, fee subsidies and tax relief. Application of this simple model helps clarify the costs and benefits of particular choices within these approaches. We predict that the choices affect cost to government, affordability to families, and participation by children in early childhood services.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-09-2023
DOI: 10.1111/BLD.12549
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2010
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 20-04-2018
DOI: 10.1111/AREA.12441
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-2007
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-2014
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-2015
DOI: 10.1111/ASWP.12068
Publisher: Stockholm University Press
Date: 05-09-2016
Publisher: Authorea, Inc.
Date: 15-06-2023
DOI: 10.22541/AU.168679667.78974641/V1
Abstract: Purpose The distribution of specialist health services is usually uneven by location due to limited resources, which is a problem for people with complex needs. In this context, the research addressed the question: How can a hub and spoke model offer appropriate (available, accessible, acceptable and quality) services for people with intellectual disability and mental health needs? Methods The research applied the question to point-in-time qualitative interview data about services for people with intellectual disability and mental health needs in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW). The interview data were from a larger mixed-methods evaluation of a time-limited intervention (2018-2020). Purposeful s ling was used to recruit 25 program consumers, families and service providers for semi-structured qualitative interviews, and 14 other stakeholders for focus groups and interviews. Topics included their experience of the process and outcomes of the intervention. Data were analyzed against a hub-and-spoke model analytical framework. Results The research found that the appropriateness of health services benefited from funded, local positions. These local professionals liaised between local mental health, health and disability providers. They also liaised with other local areas and with centralized, specialist intellectual disability mental health services. Conclusions The implication is that specific local positions can work as a bridge between generic and specialist services to improve the availability, access, acceptability and quality of services for people with specific support needs. This program worked well in a geographically large area with a scattered population and decentralized health system.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-01-2023
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 12-2012
Publisher: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney
Date: 2019
Publisher: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia
Date: 2020
No related grants have been discovered for Christiane Purcal.