Resource allocation and empowerment practices

Resource Allocation and Empowerment Practices: Evidence from
Disability Support Services

Abstract

This paper investigates the implications of empowerment practices within the Disability
Support Service (DSS) sector in New Zealand. The DSS framework is designed as part of the
public sector reform process to promote empowerment for the disabled people so that they
can lead independent lives in their communities. Implementation of empowerment principles,
however, depends on resources to create a support structure at the community level and an
atmosphere where there is a choice and flexibility for disabled people to access essential
services. The empirical evidence suggests that we need to see such concepts as empowerment
as problematic, because it can be perceived as a manipulative strategy where empowerment
principles may be only notionally applied when services are offered by following
managerialist principles.

Key Words: Empowerment, New Public Management, Disability, Support Services

1

Resource Allocation and Empowerment Practices: Evidence from
Disability Support Services

INTRODUCTION
Welfare restructuring was introduced during late 1980s in different countries and such
reforms were primarily aimed at efficiency gains and better utilisation of resources
(Lawrence et al. 1997). Even though the overall thrust of such changes was to introduce
market values, underpinned by an increased emphasis on efficiency gains, the manifestation
of the reform process also included customer choice, empowerment, and self-determination
(Boston, J. 1995, Southon, G. 1996, Southon, G. 1996).. Instead of health care being
provided solely by the state, the reform suggested a pluralistic approach whereby different
groups would share responsibilities for the provision of heath care (Bruegel, R.B. 1998,
Hodge 1996). The reform also recognised individual rights within a market place in which
service recipients could make choices as to what they wanted to purchase and on what
terms. This line of thought closely paralleled what disability rights activists were lobbying
for over a long period of time (Hales, G. 1996). The current discourse on disability has the
appearance of promoting empowerment but it can also be seen as a manipulative device
which can be used by the New Right as a means of introducing market values into public
services (Mannion 1991). Empowerment in disability aims to involve disabled people in all
aspects of decision making by reducing the role of state in the provision and management of
disability services. Critics are suspicious of how empowerment concepts are introduced in
DSS areas and how it is superficially conceived. Underpinning this conception may the
motivation to privatize of public services and to give disabled people a notion of
empowerment so that they make fewer demands on the welfare state. Even though such
concepts are consistent with the demands of disability groups, critics question how the
concepts are operationalised.

This paper focuses on Disability Support Services (DSS) in New Zealand, which include
individual needs assessment and provision of support, rehabilitation and general services. The
DSS reform was aimed at achieving the best support for these people in a natural
environment, embedded in community- and family-based relationships. Such an environment
was viewed as conducive to disabled people feeling more confident and gaining competence
in problem-solving (Adams, 1996). The rationale of the DSS reform was promotion of

2

empowerment for disabled people so that they could choose the services that best suited their
particular circumstances (Parker 1990).

This paper specifically looks at the nature of empowerment within the current DSS
framework from resource allocation perspectives. A resource focus is important; since it is
often recognised that establishment of empowerment-based care may worsen the wellbeing of
disabled people if appropriate resources and facilities are not created at the community level.
It is apparent that the changes in the New Zealand health sector have concentrated on
efficiency gains and better utilisation of resources (Lawrence et al. 1997). Disabled people
understand that there will always be funding restrictions which will ultimate affect the
availability of services in the community. However, from an empowerment point of view,
better results can be achieved if full disclosure is made on the availability of funding and a
joint decision-making process that can be achieved within budget constraints. Such an
approach will include: a) a system of budget disclosure and supported decision making; and
b) a genuine flexibility in the utilisation of resources. Without economic improvement and
better utilisation of resources, disabled people may find it difficult to develop all aspects of
their lives.

The main objectives of this paper are:
a) To evaluate whether the nature of empowerment provided within the New Zealand
model is merely procedural, or whether it leads to substantial control by service
recipients over economic resources and programs that determine the material well-
being of disabled people.
b) To evaluate the nature of service design and service availability from budgeting and
resource availability perspectives.

This paper is organised as follows. The first part of the paper evaluates the role of budgeting
in service design and then disability reforms in New Zealand are described. The context of
the case study is described, and a methodological note provided. Next, empirical evidence
concerning empowerment and disability support services is examined. The paper concludes
with observations on the issues surrounding empowerment principles in New Zealand.

EMPOWERMENT AND DECISION MAKING
3

Empowerment is an abstract concept with different interpretations and meanings. From a
normative perspective, empowerment concepts are seen as providing opportunity so that
individuals can be independent and gain a sense of effectiveness (Conger and Kanungo,
1988). Such concepts are close to the principles of citizenship, such as, the establishment of
universal rights and the right to freedom of choice. Empowerment is often seen in terms of
oppressive relationships and power imbalances. Such imbalances are moderated by
relocating decision-making power to those who are oppressed (Vogt and Murrell, 1990;
Johnson, 1992; Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988). Such a power relationship is a political
process for gaining and transforming needs into rights (Cochrane, 1989). At the political
level, empowerment concepts may also be seen as creating structures, such as, the
introduction of market forces and the introduction of support structures so that the
empowerment process can take place. Other writers view empowerment from a cognitive
sense – how individuals feel psychologically when they are empowered (Shor and Freire,
1987). While empowerment has several meanings, we shall adopt an interpretation that has
been explicitly promoted in the disability sector and takes several attributes into account,
such as, involving service recipients in decision making, introducing market principles, and
creating an opportunity for choice.

Empowerment in disability services is supposed to promote self-determination for disabled
people so that they can improve their lives. Before the recent health sector reform, disability
services were managed by health professionals under an allocated budget, where the main
concern was to stay within budgeted allocations rather than providing services in accordance
with the desires of disabled people. Resource allocation and policy decisions were taken in a
bureaucratic manner. However, such a basis of service provision was deemed unsustainable
because of inherent problems of public sector inefficiency (Alam and Lawrence, 2006,
Stewart and Alam, 2000). The recent reforms, especially the New Right’s commitment to
resource allocation and service management, brought significant changes in organizational
design and in the structure of health service provision.

4

In the areas of disability support services, such reforms introduced de-institutionalisation of
disability services in favour of community-based supported living. A new discourse of
participation and empowerment has entered the vocabulary of service delivery functions for
disability support services. With the dismantling of professional- and medical-based support
services, neo-liberalist ideals supported empowerment and client-centred support structures
where disabled people can be integrated into communities. However, several critics have
commented that such a discourse on empowerment can be meaningless, unless adequate
resources are provided and support structures created that meet the diverse needs of disabled
people so that they can be truly integrated within the community. In order to evaluate
different modes of service delivery in the disability sector it is necessary to analyse how
different paradigms view disability and support services.

The traditional approach to disability, often referred as the professional and medical model,
emphasises disability as an individual deficit (Marks, 1997; Wicks, 1994; and Munford,
1994). Such an approach concentrates on the medical diagnosis of physical impairment or
intellectual limitations of individuals so that services can be arranged for treating individual
deficits. The extent of disability is determined through a series of medical and
psychological tests. Different policy guidelines were designed within the professional
model to compensate disabled people by offering medical treatment and therapies after a
process of identifying the nature of the disability (Judge, 1987). People with disabilities
were often prescribed different levels of services, which could take care of specific aspects
of their disability rather than viewing that disability from a holistic perspective. The
medical model of disability came under criticism from different minority groups, including
disability groups, which began to claim the right to control their own affairs and to
participate in decisions affecting their well-being (Georgeson 1993; Davis, A., Ellis, K. &
Rummery, K. (1997).

The managerial models of empowerment tend to move from the position of a negative
stereotype view of disability to a position where disabled people are included in society as
valued individuals (Oliver, 1990; Munford, 1994). The managerial approach to disability
support services implies managing such services within the service objective to achieve
efficiency in terms of achieving value for money for each dollar spent. The managerial view
supports market principles, which are supposed to provide a choice for disability services.

5

Such managerial views have been criticised, because service provision is often influenced by
financial constraints and, moreover, they fail to address fairness and personal choice. In the
private sector the pricing mechanism provides a signal for providing the desired quality of
services. As such signals are absent in the public sector, the managerial model tries to
maximise the use of the budget allocation by offering a mediocre service. It is questionable
whether market principles can be applied to social services where choice and availability of
services are limited.

Professionalism Managerialism Empowerment

Problem Defined by professional Defined by sponsors Problems defined from
Definition groups, with some with financial targets the personal experience
negotiation with clients of the clients
Problems seen from a
Problems seen from a resource management
pathological focus point of view

Method of
Problem Positivism Positivism Participative
Definition

Service Organised on the basis Organised from Organised from the
Design of medical treatment corporate objective client’s point of view
and rehabilitation achievement
Services are designed
No involvement from according to the needs
clients in the design of felt by disabled people
services

Resource Patient and treatment Budget focused Consultative resources
Allocation focused allocation and
utilisation

Table 1: Disability service design from three perspectives

The empowerment and social model places disability within the social context where people
with disabilities can take an active part within the social environment. Such a view projects
disability as socially constructed rather than focussing on individual’s deficits. Disabled
6

people can go through a re-adaptation process to community living in a situation of acquired
injury impairment. In a situation where a person is born with disabilities, he/she can go
through a learning process for independent living within the society. Unlike medical model of
disability, where the medical profession has held considerable influence over the lives of
disabled people, the social model emphasises on ‘having a voice’ (Munford, 1994). People
with disabilities can be involved in decision making about their lives rather than passively
accepting services as diagnosed on the basis of disabilities. Active involvement in decision
making usually involves regular consultation with disabled people while making social
policies affecting the lives of disabled people.

Resource Allocation and Empowerment
The professional, managerial, and empowerment models differ conceptually. They exhibit
different views on how needs assessments and resources can be allocated before services are
offered to disabled people. The nature of the resource allocation system has a number of
perverse consequences, as it helps to create a supported environment where disabled people
can develop their full potentiality. Empowerment in a community setting would involve the
integration of individual preferences with information about the formal or paid supports that
people may need. The resource implication is critical since no meaningful planning can be
done without the creation of a support structure, which depends on funding levels. Even
though funding entitlement sets constraints for arranging services for disabled people, the
empowerment model can be used for a creative service design. An empowerment model of
resource allocation can lead to a better understanding of the availability of funding and the
ways of getting a better arrangement from the service recipient’s points of view.

The existing funding model sets a constraint in creating new services. A sense of decoupling
exists between resource availability and assessment process. Resources are more tied towards
existing level of services. Individual service recipients are assessed before they can obtain
services that are on offer. The assessors are aware of the existing services through resource
allocation process. It is true that there is paucity of funding as compared to increased demand
for services. In times of resource constraints, services are cut across the board. Such a
situation often leads to service cancellation or offering only little service to a large number of
people in small quantities. A move from service based resource allocation to individual
client-based allocation will free up resources where services can be developed based on

7

individual needs. Rather than viewing financial resource constraints as a hindrance, it can be
an opportunity for creative service design. When all parties, including assessors, disabled
people and service providers are aware of the level of funding, all can work together for
designing service within the financial limits. A sense of trust and realism can develop where
service design can take inputs from all relevant parties. Such an approach to service design
brings all parties together to look beyond the traditional boundaries of service arrangements.

It is possible that a full information on resource availability can lead to a better decision
making on the part of disabled people. In situations of financial restrictions, there may be a
tendency to provide either mediocre or restricted number of services to as many people as
possible. Here, quality may be sacrificed to provide a small number or partial services to a
large number of disabled people. Empowerment models make sense only when people with
disabilities are given choice to manage their own activities with a sense of direction. The
managerialist approach to empowerment is often seen as a manipulative strategy unless
choice opportunities are created through allocated budgets. An understanding of resources
can be useful in deciding what is feasible and how different services can be arranged. As we
intend to evaluate whether the nature of empowerment provided within the New Zealand
model is merely procedural or whether it leads to substantial control by service recipients
over economic resources, empirical findings will help us to determine which empowerment
models (professional, medical, and empowerment) are operating in practice.

RESEARCH METHOD
This research aims to provide a rich description of people’s perception of empowerment
within the current structure of DSS in New Zealand. Such an approach would require in-depth
case studies to reveal individual life experiences. Disability research has been dominated in
the past by a positivist paradigm and such research findings were used subsequently to design
disability support services.

We are interested in the meanings attributed to disability support services by various people
and groups of people. It is not possible to achieve an objective, value-free position from
which to evaluate the truth of the matter (Barnes, C. & Mercer, G., 1997). Facts are always
value-laden, and researchers have their own values reflected in their research. Even though
survey research can provide overall measures of different dimensions of service provision

8

within disability support services, it fails to reveal the personal circumstances of individual
lives.

The positivist methodology attempts to view disabled people and their circumstances from a
non-involved stance, with no awareness of their own perspectives. Such an approach tends to
be based on objectivity, and such a view provides a fundamental attitude or mind set which
enables the researcher to investigate disability from a ‘value free’ perspective. Such a
framework led to the establishment of the view that researchers are ‘experts’. The main
features of such an approach are: a) there is only one ‘truth’ and it needs to be discovered; b)
it promotes factors such as ‘reliability’ ‘validity’ and generalizability; and c) it requires no
input from the researcher to enter into the research process. Many authors question such an
approach to studying any social phenomena since it ignore contexts which influences
people’s lives.

As we are interested in the meanings attributed by various people and groups of people to
disability support services, it is thought that a positivist approach will provide a partial picture
of disability issues. A more interpretive approach would allow the researchers to listen
carefully to how people interpret their worlds and give meaning and significance to their daily
activities.

The researchers were fortunate to be welcomed into the organisation and were allowed to
accompany service assessors in order to observe assessment procedures. This organization,
known as the Managed Access to Integrated Services (MAIS), was established in 1996 as a
‘one-stop’ shop where peoples’ needs could be assessed and services offered. In total, ten
assessments were attended. These personal lived experiences with the clients within their
home environment enabled the researchers to glean insights into experiences with disability.
Following these assessment interviews, we carried out a series of semi-structured interviews
with the assessors. The interviewees were given a set of questions as a basis for discussion,
but they were also encouraged to provide their opinions on any other matters if they wanted
to. The assessors were encouraged to reflect on their personal views of the assessment
procedures. It was felt important to listen carefully to the clients, because the whole process
was designed to offer a better service for their needs. The aim was to accompany assessors on
successive visits to undertake needs assessments of clients. In particular, it will be explained
9

that 1) we wish to be observers at the assessment procedure, and 2) we will seek clarification
from assessors about the support that they recommend, what ideally they would like to
recommend, and what they do recommend in practice.

EMPOWERMENT AND DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES

Since the introduction of the Health and Disability Service Act 1993, changes in the New
Zealand health sector have concentrated on efficiency gains and better utilisation of
resources (Lawrence et al., 1997). The social policy changes in the early 1990s were
underpinned by neo-liberalist ideas that the state should provide no more than a modest
safety net for those who are unable to meet their own needs (Shipley, 1991). The reform was
seen as a part of a broader scheme whose aim was to dismantle or fundamentally redesign
the welfare state in New Zealand (Kelsey, 1996). Inherent in these social policy changes was
a schema set by government to reduce public sector expenditure from about 40% of GDP in
1984 to about 35% in 1998. This implied drastic cuts in government expenditure on social
welfare, health, and education.

Consistent with neo-liberal ideas, market mechanisms was used to introduce an element of
competition between health service providers. Instead of health care being provided solely
by the state, the reform suggested a pluralistic approach where different groups would share
responsibilities for the provision of health care. Heath care services were provided through
community-based care services, which significantly changed the nature of disability support
services from direct provision to organisation of services (Hodge, 1996). The reform also
recognised individual rights by which disabled people can make choices as to what they
want to purchase and on what terms. This line of thought closely parallels what disability
rights activists have been lobbying for over a long period. The shifts identified are often
presented as unproblematic.

DSS was restructured through de-institutionalisation programmes and the development of
community care networks. Prior to such reform DSS was provided in a fragmented way,
different aspects of services were assessed by at least three organisations, such as the
Department of Social Welfare, hospitals and disability institutions, and the Area Health
Board. A number of institutional reforms were undertaken to provide access, participation,
and empowerment within an integrated rehabilitation program.
10

Health sector reform in New Zealand promoted a community-based care for disabled people,
as compared to institution-based care, and it introduced a market environment for the
provision of services. The premise of the market is that it is supposed to provide accessible
and appropriate support services in a flexible manner. In this part, therefore, we will evaluate
the principles of the market environment and see how these principles can provide
empowerment to disabled people, because we know that to be empowered under a market
model disabled people need to know what services are available, where these services are
available and at what price.

EMPOWERMENT UNDER DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES
Empowerment is usually seen in terms of choice and control where individuals can exert
choice and hence maximize control of their own situation. Research has shown that, for
disabled people to be empowered, they must experience a sense of choice in developing
their own support plan. DSS needs to be organized to ensure a properly integrated support
network, where recipients can exercise their choice to perform their activities in ways that
seem appropriate. Most definitions of empowerment are based basic principles of access,
choice, information and representation. This paper seeks to examine how disabled people
perceive their interactions with DSS systems as consistent with empowerment principles
and it investigates specific issues, such as service design, access to information and services,
and flexibility of services. Even though these principles are the cornerstones of
empowerment, operationalisation of these principles is dependent of financial resources.
Without adequate allocation of funding into disability support services appropriate services
may not developed and introduced so that the disabled people can choose between services.
This paper adopts resource allocation perspectives to evaluate the significance of
empowerment principles.

EMPOWERMENT AND DISABILITY SERVICES

The empowerment model sees services as designed in such a way that they meet the needs of
disabled people. In the past, these services were designed from the perspective of providers
and from a budget focus. The empowerment focus highlights the importance of choice and

11

flexibility. So there is a need for close cooperation between service users and service
providers. The close connection between these two groups is shown below.

Empowerment Service Provision

Involvement of disabled Better service design Service providers become
people aware of the needs of users
Disabled people can be
involved in the design of They seek to develop
services based on their needs servives that are beneficial to
users

Performance Evaluation Better control over service Uses performance measures
performance from both financial and
customer needs
Evaluate service performance
from the disability needs,
such as access, information
and quality

Table 2: Empowerment and service design

Service design under the new systems is supposed to offers a radical change to the design and
delivery of services for disabled people. Under this system service users are not considered as
passive recipients of services, but as active participants in the design of support services. As
they become more involved in the design stage, they can prioritize their needs and hence
improve resource allocation in the DSS sector. Such a DSS design is supposed to empower
service recipients since they are no longer passive recipients of services.

Even though the empowerment framework takes the view that services need to be designed
by identifying consumers’ preferences, disabled people considered that they had little control
over their own future well-being because services were offered without proper consultation.
DSS provision remained the same, especially where service providers either offered a
specialised service or where there was no other service provider. The following quote comes
from a mother of a disabled son:
We need to know what services are available and there has to be a choice of services.
As most of the services are in short supply the service providers make decisions about
services with little or no consultation with them. As such, service providers do not
consider disabled people who should be involved in service design.

12

Our options are restricted and influenced by the services which are offered in the
locality. These services are offered in an inflexible way. The whole approach seems to
me is designed to fit us into the existing services rather than producing services
around our needs (a disabled person).
To be empowered within the market model, service recipients should have choice. However,
marketisation has developed homogeneous services through packaging services. As a result,
only certain categories of services are offered, irrespective of the fact that there are different
needs. The present service design model virtually remained the same as under the previous
system. A disabled person commented:
Even within the home services there are two providers and they are holding contracts
with Health Funding Authority. These two agencies provide almost identical services
and cover a wide geographical area. If you ask for services which they don’t provide,
it is most likely that you will have arranged privately.

In some cases certain services were not offered. The mother of a disabled child commented:
I was adamant that Michael needed speech therapy; however, as this service was in
short supply, the assessor thought he needed more home care rather than therapy. He
is at home, going further and further actually into depression.

The empowerment principle also states that services should be accessible and that clients
should be provided with full information as to where services are available. In the past,
disability services were dictated by professionals and structured according to their own rules
– and often for their own convenience. As discussed previously, disabled people find
problems in accessing services at two levels: firstly, information about services is not
available, and secondly, services are not available in their local community.

Given the changes in the health sector in New Zealand, it is often difficult for the disabled
people to know how the disability support services are structured and their entitlement to
resources. Adequate information can be useful for making informed choices as to options,
restrictions and service availability in the community. Disabled people need clear and
detailed information about service availability to gain access to different services. As part of
the reform process, MAIS was established to make sure that service recipients could get all
information from one point of contact. Access to services can depend on information about
the availability of services. Information on aspects of service delivery is useful, including: a)
Are they services that meet universal accessibility guidelines? b) How are services delivered?

13

c) How can different services be packaged and delivered within the system? And d) how can
auxiliary aids and services be accessed? Even though MAIS is supposed to provide most
information on services, one respondent commented:
I think MAIS is pretty good in providing information and producing publicity
materials accordingly. However, I have experienced that such information is one-
sided i.e., what you can get. There is paucity of information from providers and I
found out information that might be relevant to me by talking to others.

Another person also expressed similar views:
A lot of agencies such as, MAIS produce nice glossy brochures which explained all
these wonderful services available but actually they were simply glossy brochures and
nothing ever happened.

Indeed, information takes on an even greater importance in the public sector, because the
services at stake are likely to be crucial to consumers’ welfare, and because the imbalance in
the amount of information possessed by providers and consumers is often so wide.
Information can provide real power to disabled people in influencing change and in making
informed decisions. The respondents highlighted the importance of accessible and up-to-date
information as a basis for taking appropriate decisions on support services. Various
respondents commented as:

I did not find service providers as useful source of information. Whenever I enquired
about certain services they just told what they offered. They had little information
about related or other alternative services offered by other providers. Moreover, in
certain instance, I found that they often provide misleading information.

I tend to know about services not from official sources but from 'the grapevine'. I think
it is the responsibility of service coordinators to give us the full picture. In the end, I
have to find out everything for myself (another service recipient).

In general, the respondents found that such a reliance on grapevine for getting vital
information was effective but stressful.

Access to services is deemed to be essential for disabled people so that they can integrate
within the community. Access to services can be seen whether the disable people can access
to certain services. The consumer principle of access is clearer when consumers can gain
access to certain goods or services in a market situation where it works on a pricing
mechanism. However, in public services such a connection between payment and right to
receive cannot be automatically translated as those of who pay for public services and those
who receive services are not necessarily are the same people. The empirical evidence from
14

respondents suggests that service recipients have little involvement or understanding on how
service are rationed. The other aspect of access can be seen from the point of view of
accessibility to services. Public services are often viewed as not user friendly and organized
in such a way that the disable people can easily access these facilities. They are mostly
organized and offered at the discretion of service providers. An empowerment-driven support
services need to be accessible either on a single plan basis that includes a point of service
option for the disable people to choose where to access disability services or giving them a
choice of disability service plans. Since most of the time services are not available within the
community, access to services can only be arranged by transporting service recipients to other
locations. One assessor commented:
Travel is a big that can often stop people doing a lot of things is access. We always
talk about taxi vouchers, if people are having difficulty with mobility, which is half-
price taxi fares, but you can get other situations because of market rentals, there is no
money left over for lots of social things and so you might see a real need for someone.

As it is difficult to move disable people to different service locations, there have been cases
where inappropriate services were provided. The service administrators in such situations try
to accommodate different services within the existing services available. An assessor
commented:
It is just not acceptable that 32-year-old man is put in a rest home with 70, 80 and 90-
year-old people. The level of funding that we apply to keep people in their community
would cost us more to create facilities if certain services do not exist in the
community. We tend to either move them where such facilities are available or put
them to existing facilities, even if they are not appropriate.

Community-based disability care has the potential to offer flexibility of service for the
different needs of individual clients. Service providers in the past were insensitive to the
demands of their clients and made important decisions about services with little or no
consultation with disabled people. Empowerment implies that successful integration within
community requires a range of assistance and services for disabled people. However, creative
support design requires proper consultation and adequate funding. Present funding
arrangements are not designed to offer flexibility in designing support services. One health
official commented:
We set our criteria in conjunction with the allocated funds and we have an assessment
process for allocating services. A disabled person might come and may be quite
disabled, we look and say we can fund x amount of dollars based on the guidelines.

15

Given that budgets are cash-limited this has made it difficult to design creative services. Each
individual client’s needs are so varied that the capping of the budget means that only limited
services are offered. One assessor explained:
We don’t have the money to offer a full range of services. We are focused on essential
need rather than desired need, and people with disabilities are very strong advocates
for saying that their desired needs aren’t met, and I believe they are not, because I see
there being quite two different needs. I see there being the essential need. But I see
that there is a desired need and people with disabilities, a lot of time, can’t have their
normal life because the funding isn’t there to do that, but I just think that that is how
life is.

Disabled people were found to be apprehensive and one service recipient commented:
I have little control over what happens in our lives. I consider my future well-being is
unpredictable and this makes me nervous.

The present DSS does not treat different types of disabilities. For example, it does not
differentiate older and younger disabled people. While older people may have only limited
needs for services, such needs may vary markedly for a younger disabled person. Another
assessor explained:
People under 65 with disabilities do not believe they are sick It is easier to fit the over-
65s into this budget, as there is no vocational stuff, there is no educational stuff, there
is just generally a situation where they are either living alone or with a spouse, and
generally speaking it is just a maintaining of their standard of living. With the under-
65-year-olds, there is so much that actually happens that is really different. It is a
maintaining of the family, it is keeping marriages together; it is making sure that
other siblings or children with disabilities are not missing out. It is maintaining a
normal lifestyle for the young man of 32 who lives alone and has a severe disability.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The empowerment framework has been viewed in terms of choice and control, where
individuals can exert choice and hence maximize control of their own situation. This paper
has focused on how disabled people experience various dimensions of empowerment, such as
choice, so as to develop their own support plan and participation in the decision-making
process. As such, empirical evidence were sought to examine how disabled people perceive
their interactions with DSS systems, consistent with empowerment principles, and we looked
into specific issues such as service design, access to information and services, and flexibility
of services.

16

This paper examined two issues. The first issue was to consider whether the nature of
participation and empowerment provided within the New Zealand model were merely
procedural or they led to substantial control over economic resources and programs that
determined material well-being for disabled people. The second issue was to evaluate the
nature of service design and service availability from resource availability and empowerment
perspectives. The rhetoric of empowerment created an impression that disabled people were
given real access to services and resources for developing their potential. It appeared from the
case evidence that disabled people were unable to participate in decision making, neither in
processes nor through consultation about service design and delivery. Rather the whole
process was dominated by capped budgets and reduced state involvement in creating support
structures at the community level. Full inclusion presupposes the existence of fully funded,
accessible and appropriate support services. In a market environment, where words such as
‘consumer’, ‘choice’ and ‘flexibility’ are frequently used, one could gain the impression that
a wide range of disability support services is fully available to those who need them.

Empowerment issues were considered from service design, access to information and
services, and flexibility of services perspectives. To be empowered within the market model,
service recipients should have choice and they should be involved in the design of service. As
discussed in the literature section, service design was influenced by health professionals.
Based on medical assessment, a professional determined the type of services for disabled
people. The empowerment framework sees disabled people as taking an active role in
deciding and designing services according to their requirements. However, the empirical
evidence suggests that services in the disability sector were made homogeneous and standard
packages were developed. As a result, only a certain category of services are offered,
irrespective of the fact that there are different needs. Disabled people were not involved in
either the design or the delivery of services. The whole process of empowerment was
dominated by managerialist principles of budgeting, assessment criteria, and rationalization
of services.

The empowerment principle also states that services should be accessible and that clients
should be provided with full information as to where these services are available. In the past,
disability services were dictated by professionals and structured according to their own rules,
and often for their own convenience. Here too, the empirical evidence suggests that disabled
17

people were not given any choice of suppliers. Rationalization of services may mean only
limited services through a single supplier, and in some cases these services were not offered
in the community even so. Again, we see that managerialist principles are at work and the
intention of promoting empowerment was not given any real meaning for disabled people.

Community-based disability care has the potential to offer flexibility of services for the
different needs of individual clients. Service providers in the past were insensitive to the
demands of their clients and made important decisions about services with little or no
consultation with disabled people. Empowerment implies that for successful integration
within community a range of assistance and services for disabled people is required.

Based on the empirical evidence the following conclusions are reached:

a) The empowerment concepts are superficially conceived in the reform process and

such concepts are hardly put into practice. Rather it appears that many services, once

offered on the basis of needs, are not tested according to meaningful selection criteria.

There is a feeling among service recipients that the real intentions of the

empowerment agenda are quite different from the stated purposes. Some believe that

if people are empowered, they will make fewer demands on the welfare sector. The

empowerment framework is commendable, but it breaks down where the system does

not allow flexibility of service choice and participation in service design.

b) The concept of empowerment within the current environment can be interpreted from

motivational and manipulative perspectives. With the abolition of institutional care the

language has been focused on participation and choice. However, as the empirical

evidence suggests, we need to see such concepts as problematic. It is also perceived as

a manipulative strategy to confuse disabled people with consumer-oriented market

values of New Right policies in public service. It is questionable whether market

principles can be applicable to social services.

18

c) The present resource allocation system fails to deliver any meaningful entitlement to
disabled people. It is clearly important to disabled people that an appropriate level of
resources is allocated to create a support structure at the community level.
d) There can be some confusion between procedural rights and financial resource
allocation. Procedural participation, such as a right to a fair hearing, to information on
the rationale for decisions, and to complaint, redress and appeal mechanisms may
provide some comfort to disable people. However, these rights do not have positive
implications that will satisfy disabled people’s substantive needs. Unless more
resources are provided, such procedural empowerment can make little sense.
Assessment systems have the potential to reduce rights to tightly circumscribed needs
within a system that delivers what is economically feasible. Restrictions on resources
means that rights are often denied and that needs will frequently not be met. It is all
very well to have an elaborate assessment system. Assessment systems for disabled
people force them to justify their difference in order to get services. In having to do
this disabled people are disempowered, put on the defensive once again by having to
prove the right to need.
e) Inherent in the process of empowerment is an expectation that service recipients will
be independent through self-help and community-based aid organizations. The state
sector provides a minimum range of services and any unfulfilled needs are left to the
community to supply. There is a limit to the extent to which local communities can
actually support a wide range of services without government support.
Our study has focused on understanding the empowerment principles that allow disabled

people to be involved in the decision-making process. Future research can adopt a similar

framework to see whether similar observations can be made in other social welfare areas.

Such studies may shed further light on the research issues explored here. It would be

interesting to see how empowerment principles are perceived by service recipients in

other welfare areas.

19

Bibliography

Hales, G. (1996) Beyond Disability: towards an enabling society, Sage Publications,
London

Argyris C. (1998), "Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes", Harvard Business Review, ,
pp.98-105.

Southon, G. (1996), "Health service structures, management and professional practice:
beyond clinical management", Australian Health Review,, Vol. 19 No.1, pp.2-16.

Southon, G., Braithwaite, J. (1998), "The end of professionalism", Social Science and
Medicine,, Vol. 46 No.1, pp.23-8..

Adams, R., Self Help Social Work and Empowerment, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1990.

Addison R.B, (1992). ‘A Grounded Hermeneutic Research’,@ Iin Crabtree B.F. and &
Miller W.L., Doing Qualitative Research , Sage Publications, London.

Alam, M. & Lawrence, S. (1994). ‘A new era in costing and budgeting: implications of
health sector reform in New Zealand’, The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 7 (4).

Argyris C. (1998), ‘Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes’, Harvard Business Review, ,
pp.98-105.

Bandura, A., "Self-efficiency: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change",
Psychological Review, Vol. 82No. 2 , 1977, pp. 191-215.

Barnes, C. & Mercer, G., (eds.) 1997. Doing Disability Research. The Disability Press,.
Leeds.

Boston, J. (1995). ‘Origin and destinations: New Zealand'’s model of public management
and the international transfer of ideas’. In Weller, P. and & Davis, G. (eds.) New Ideas,
Better Government, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Bowman, D. & Virtue, M. (1993). Public Policy. Private Lives., Australian Institute on
Intellectual Disability, Canberra.

Bruegel, R.B. (1998)., "’The increasing importance of patient empowerment and its potential
effects on home health care information and technology", Home Health Care Management
and Practice, Vol. 10 No.2, pp.69-75.

Chenoweth, L (1997). ‘Policy skills for human services’. In O'’Brien, P. & Murray, R. (eds.)
Human Sservices: Ttowards Ppartnership and Ssupport, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.

20

Cochrane, D. (1989)., "Poverty, probation and empowerment", Probation Journal, December
1989, pp. 177-82.

Conger, J. and Kanungo, R.N. , "The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice",
Academy of Management Review, July 1988, pp. 471-82.

Davis, A., Ellis, K. &and Rummery, K. (1997). Access to Assessment; Perspectives of
Practitioners, Disabled People and Carers., Bristol,: The Policy Press.

Doyal, L. and & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C.M., & Deal, A.G., (eds.) (1994). ‘Supporting and Strengthening
Families’,. Strategies and Practices (Vol. 1). Brookline Books Inc, Cambridge, MA.

Ellsworth, E., "‘Why doesn'’t this feel empowering? Working through repressive myths of
critical pedagogy"‘, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 59 No. 3, 1989, pp. 297-324.

Felske, A.W. (1994). ‘Knowing about Knowing: Margin Notes on Disability Research’. In:
Disability Is Not Measles: New Research Paradigms in Disability, eds. M. Rioux &and M.
Bach (eds.), pp. 181- 99,. L'’Institut Roeher Institute, Ontario.

Fiedler, B. (1988). ‘Living Options Lottery: housing and support services for people with
severe physical disabilities’, Prince of Wales Advisory Ggroup on Disability, London.

Freeman, D. (1997). ‘Capable person: Empowering the patients on the assessment of
capacity’, Health Ccare Aanalysis 5:3 (227-236).

Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Enquiry., Centre for the Study of
Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles.

Hales, G. (1996). Beyond Disability: towards an enabling society, Sage Publications,
London.

Hood, C. (1992). ‘The new management model and its conception of performance
efficiency’. Paper presented to the Public Sector Convention of the New Zealand Society
of Accountants, Wellington.

Hopper, T. and Powell, A. (1985). ‘Making sense of research into organisational and social
aspects of management accounting: a review of its underlying assumptions’, Journal of
Managegement Studies, 22, pp.429-436.

Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate Students, Macmillan , Basingstoke, UK.

Jack, A. (1985). ‘'Deinstitutionealisation and the intellectual handicapped’, in cCommunity
Mmental Hhealth in New Zealand 2, (1).

21

Jehu, D. et al., Behaviour Modification in Social Work, Wiley, London, 1975.

Kelsey, J. (1991). Rolling Bback the Sstate, Wellington, Bridget Williams Books.

Kriesberg, S., Transforming Power: Domination, Empowerment and Education, State
University of New York, New York, NY, 1992.

Lawrence, S., Alam, M., Northcott, D. & Lowe, T. (1997). ‘Accounting Systems and
systems of accountability in the New Zealand health sector’, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 (5).

Manford, R. (1994). ‘Reclaiming our rights to citizenship’, in Ssocial Wwork Rreview, 6(3)
pp.P5-11.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Source Book,.
Sage,. Newbury Park, CA.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing.
Researching People,. Longman Cheshire,. Melbourne.

Ministry of Health (1993). ‘The new health since: what it’s all about, and what will it mean
to you?’ in the New Zealand Heraldarold, June 19, sec 1, p..P.19.

Mitchell, D. & Winslade, J. (1997). ‘Developmental Systems and Narrative Approaches to
Working with Families of Persons with Disabilities’. In: Quality of Life for People with
Disabilities. Models, Research and Practice ( 2nd edn.), ed. R. Brown, pp. 151 -82,. Stanley
Thorpe, Cheltenham.

Morley, L., "‘Towards a pedagogy for empowerment in community and youth work training
"‘, Youth and Policy, Vol. 35, December 1991, pp. 14-19.

Morley, L., "‘Towards a pedagogy for empowerment in community and youth work training
"‘, Youth and Policy, Vol. 35, December 1991, pp. 14-19.

O'’Brien, P. & Murray, R. (1997). Human Sservices: Ttowards Ppartnership and Ssupport,
Palmerston North, New Zealand, Dunmore Press.

O'’Brien, P. (1997 ).. ‘Humanamn services: creating or alileniating disability’. In O'’Brien,
P. & Murray, R. (eds.) Human services: Ttowards Ppartnership and Ssupport, Palmerston
North, Dunmore Press.

Oliver, M. (1984). ‘The politics of disability’, Critical Social Policy, 11:21-31.

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement, London, Macmillanion.

Osborne, Stephen P The language of empowerment, The International Journal of Public
Sector Management. Bradford: 1994. Vol.7, Iss. 3; pg. 56, 7 pgs

22

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Research Methods and Research Methods., Sage., Newbury
Park, CA.

Pollitt, C. (1990)., Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience,
Blackwell , Oxford, 1990.

Polsky, A.J., The Rise of the Therapeutic State, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1991.

Robinson, H.A., The Ethography of Empowerment: The Transformative Power of Classroom
Interaction, Taylor and Francis, London and Washington, DC, 1994.

Shipley, J. & Upton, S.s (1992). Support for Independence for people with disabilities. A
new deal, Wellington, New Zealand Crown.

Shor, I. and Freire, P. , A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education ,
Bergin and Garvey, Granby, MA, 1987 .

Smith, L.T. (1990). '‘On becoming culturally sensitive: The art of gallery and eating kina
without picking yourself on the figure’, in New Zealand Association of Ccounsellors
Jjournal 12 (1).

Southon, G. & Braithwaite, J. (1998), ‘The end of professionalism’, Social Science and
Medicine,, Vol. 46 No.1, pp.23-8.

Southon, G. (1996). ‘Health service structures, management and professional practice:
beyond clinical management’, Australian Health Review, Vol. 19 No.1, pp.2-16.

Sullivan, M. &and Munford, R. (1998). ‘The articulation of theory and practice: critique and
resistence in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Disability and Society, 13:2. pp. 183-198.

Sullivan, M. (1991). ‘From personal tragedy to social oppression: The medical model and
social theories of disabilities’, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 255-272.

Summers, J.A., McMann, O.T., Fuger, K.L. (1997). ‘Critical thinking: a method to guide staff
in serving families with multiple challenges’,. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
17, 27 53.

Turnbull, A.P. & Turnbull, H.R. (1986). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality: A
Special Partnership., Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, OH.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). ‘Reclaiming qualitative methods for organisational research: a
preface’, Administrative Science Quarterly.

Ward, L. & Flynn, M. (1994). ‘What Matters Most: Disability, Research and Empowerment’.
In: Disability Is Not Measles: New Research Paradigms in Disability,, eds. M. Rioux &and
M. Bach (eds.), pp. 29- 48,. L'’Institut Roeher Institute, Ontario.

23

Wojner, A.W. (1996)., "’Outcomes management: an interdisciplinary search for best
practice"’, American Association of Critical Care Nurses Clinical Issues, Vol. 7 No.1,
pp.133-45.

24

Resource allocation and empowerment practices

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Resource allocation and empowerment practices (20)

More from paulyeboah (7)

Resource allocation and empowerment practices