| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
02238pab a2200193 454500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
180718b2011 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Moran, Nicola et al |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Joining up government by integrating findings streams? The experience of the individual budget pilot project for older and disabled people in England |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
2011 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.232-243. |
| 362 ## - DATES OF PUBLICATION AND/OR SEQUENTIAL DESIGNATION |
|---|
| Dates of publication and/or sequential designation |
Mar |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
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, lBs built upon previous English government initiatives to increase choice and control by users of adult social care services. A key aim of the LB 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 lB lead officers and funding stream lead officers formed part of the larger evaluation of the lB 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. - Reproduced. |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Disabled persons-Great Britain |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Old age-Great Britain |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Old age |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
International Journal of Public Administration |
| 908 ## - PUT COMMAND PARAMETER (RLIN) |
|---|
| Put command parameter |
N |
| 909 ## - |
|---|
| -- |
96697 |
