Effective Practices for Interagency Data Sharing: Insights from Collaborative Research in a Regional Intervention

Data sharing adds considerable value to interagency programs that seek to tackle complex social problems. Yet data sharing is not easily enacted either technically or as a governance practice, especially considering the multiple forms of risk involved. This article presents insights from a successful data sharing project in a major region in east coast Australia involving a federally funded research partnership between two universities and a number of human services agencies. The Spatial Data Analysis Project sought to establish a community of practice for devising data sharing protocols and embedding data sharing into agency practices. Close dialogue between the project partners and mobilizing the authority of extant regulatory and legal frameworks proved effective in confronting risks and barriers. The article reveals effective practices for data sharing and derives lessons for other policy and governance contexts

The marketisation of care: rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes

The use of markets and market mechanisms to deliver care services is growing in both liberal and social democratic welfare states. This article examines debates and policies concerning the marketisation of eldercare and childcare in Sweden, England and Australia. It shows how market discourses and practices intersect with, reinforce or challenge traditions and existing policies and examines whether care markets deliver user empowerment and greater efficiency. Markets for eldercare and childcare have developed in uneven and context specific ways with varying consequences. Both politics and policy history help to shape market outcomes

Employment for people with intellectual disability in Australia and the United Kingdom

Australia and the United Kingdom have implemented similar policy and legislative initiatives designed to enhance the participation of people with intellectual disability in the workforce. However, the results of these initiatives have differed across these two countries because of historical and administrative differences in the management of government-funded employment services for people with a disability. Similarities across both countries include increased funding for employment services for people with a disability, strong policy statements on the inclusion of people with a disability in the workforce, a dearth of meaningful data on the employment of people with intellectual disability, continuing high unemployment rates for this population, and the lack of an outcomes-focused approach to evaluating whether employment services are meeting the needs of people with intellectual disability and their families