Burdensome Administration and Its Risks: Competing Logics in Policy Implementation

• Date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399720908666
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720908666

Administration & Society

2020, Vol. 52(9) 1362 –1381

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399720908666

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Burdensome

Administration and Its

Risks: Competing Logics

in Policy Implementation

Gemma Carey1, Helen Dickinson1,

Eleanor Malbon2, Megan Weier2,

and Gordon Duff3

Abstract

Australia is currently undergoing significant social policy reform under the

introduction of a personalized scheme for disability services: the National

Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This article explores the growing

administrative burdens placed on disability providers operating under the

new scheme, using an Australia-wide survey of the disability sector. The

2018 National Disability Services survey of the disability sector reveals that

administrative burden is the most commented on challenge for providers.

Moreover, providers linked this burden to questions concerning their

financial sustainability and ability to continue to offer services within the

NDIS. In this article, we explore the sources of these administrative burdens

and their relationships with the institutional logics at play in the NDIS. In

addition to documenting the impact of system change on the Australian

disability service sector, this article raises questions regarding institutional

hybridity within personalization schemes more broadly and whether they

are a source of tension, innovation, or both.

1UNSW Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

2UNSW Sydney, Australia

3National Disability Services, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Gemma Carey, Centre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Email: Gemma.carey@unsw.edu.au

908666AASXXX10.1177/0095399720908666Administration & SocietyCarey et al.

research-article2020

Carey et al. 1363

Keywords

personalization, institutional logics, hybridity

Introduction

In many industrialized welfare states, disability policy is increasingly being

reformed around a personalization agenda (Dickinson, 2017; Needham &

Glasby, 2014). Personalization is argued to deliver more effective services that

meet the needs of individuals and also to be a more efficient use of resources,

particularly over the long term (Mladenov et al., 2015). However, the personal-

ization approach also involves both the creation of new transaction costs and

the devolution of administrative burdens outside of government to the indi-

vidual budget holder or service provider, such as budget management and

responsibility for decision-making (Gadsby, 2013). In this article, we focus on

the transference of administrative burden to service providers in Australian

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), one of the newest and most

ambitious personalization reforms internationally (Carey, Malbon, et al., 2018).

The vision of the NDIS is to shift and expand from a block-funded state-

based service approach, to a federally run “personalization” approach. Here,

individuals are given budgets from which they purchase services from a dis-

ability market that meets their needs (Australian Productivity Commission,

2011). The NDIS is being implemented over a period of 5 years and this rapid

implementation has raised concerns among policymakers, disability sector

providers, and representatives regarding the sustainability of the scheme

(National Disability Services [NDS], 2016, 2017; NDS & NDIS, 2017), that

is, whether providers can remain profitable and open during the transition to

the NDIS, and even after the NDIS is fully implemented.

In this article, we draw on the most comprehensive data set available on

provider experience under the new scheme—the Annual Market Survey by

the disability sector’s peak body NDS. The survey garnered more than 600

responses from across the country, exploring challenges facing the sector

during the rollout of the NDIS. The response rate is unknown, there are

around 5,000 organizations registered to provide services within the NDIS,

but many of these are not actively providing services. The survey was admin-

istered through a wide range of channels with no way to determine how many

active providers were reached.

The survey found that administrative burden associated with the new NDIS

program is a serious and growing issue for the sector. We explore the distribu-

tion of administrative burden within the NDIS, as presented by service provid-

ers. Administrative burdens have very real consequences—shaping the

effectiveness and outcomes of public programs (Herd & Moynihan, 2019). In