What Can Be Learned at the Intersection of Crisis Management and Administrative Burdens? Evidence From a Systematic Review of the Governance of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme During Covid ‐19
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 14624787 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nicholas Bromfield (0000-0003-3075-1481, Public Service Research Group University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia), George Carey (0000-0001-7698-9044, Centre for Social Impact University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 60 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 64-75 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Policy and Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0144-5596 • E-ISSN: 1467-9515 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/spol.13136 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 55 |
Crisis management is a field that evaluates and solves crisis and disaster responses. Whilst the effectiveness of the ideal‐type parameters of crisis management and administration has been well examined, crisis responses create administrative burdens, particularly for marginalised groups, that must be navigated. This paper brings together the administrative burden and crisis response literature, presenting a systematic review of research into Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) during COVID‐19 to answer: What burdens emerged during the COVID‐19 response for people with a disability? Why did these burdens arise? Were they potentially avoidable? And who was harmed by these burdens? We find that NDIS workers and participants experienced considerable administrative burdens during the implementation of the Australian pandemic response and co‐produced the limited successes found in NDIS COVID‐19 measures. Consequently, we argue that a crisis equity agenda should anticipate multiplied burdens for marginalised populations, plan to mitigate them and prioritise and assist the most disadvantaged in navigating stressed policy systems during a crisis response
Administrative Burden
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence
The PRISMA 2020 statement
The Covid-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems
Confronting the big challenges of our time
Governing the Pandemic
Hiding in Plain Sight
The Politics of Crisis Management
A Systematic Review of Empirical Emergency Management Network Research
From crisis to reform? Exploring three post-Covid pathways
Contingency planning for crisis management
Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions
The importance of social supports in education
Personalisation and pandemic
Making markets work for disability services
Flexibility in individual funding schemes
Any one of us could be among that number’
Burdensome Administration and Its Risks
Crisis Decision Making
Do Service Providers Play a Market Stewardship Role in Social Care Quasi-Markets, and Should They
Organizing for Crisis Management
Comparing Coordination Structures for Crisis Management in Six Countries
Opportunity management of the Covid-19 pandemic
Two routes to precarious success
More‐than‐care
Decentralization, policy capacities, and varieties of first health response to the Covid-19 outbreak
Concurrent disasters
The personalisation agenda
Researching Covid-19
| Citations per year | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |