National Disability Advocacy Program Reform: Model of Australia Wide Systemic Advocacy • Thank you for your invitation, time and attention.
What has happened in SA? • Last 25 years generic systemic advocacy was provided by Disability Action Inc. Disability Action got defunded in February 2006, since then SA has lost its generic systemic advocacy program. • Disability Action was supposed to provide half of its funding to Systemic Advocacy, which would have delivered an efficient and effective systemic advocacy program for South Australia. • In January 2007 Disability Advocacy and Complaints Service of South Australia Inc. was allowed to use two days of one advocate’s time to devote to systemic advocacy. This is not enough to do an effective job. Other Advocacy Services in SA also deliver a very part time, specialist, systemic advocacy program. State funded disability specific organisations provide some systemic advocacy without funding.
Tools of Systemic Advocacy • Community Consultation • Networking • Community Education • Campaigning/Lobbying • Community Development • Can this be done in two days per week for one person for a whole State? • What are the issues for Systemic Advocacy in SA? • Unmet Needs, transport access, consumer participation in the delivery of services,
Cooperation in SA • Very little – due to inability to take action as a result of lack of resources. • Advocacy sector is split, many fight for their existence against each other. • An overarching, decently resourced Peak Systemic Advocacy Program in SA could address the issue of lack of cooperation.
Cooperation on National level • Demand on State level prohibits any participation on national level campaigns. Cooperation takes time and resources. • Some information exchange with national peaks exists, but there is no ability to transfer national campaigns to State level. Example: Comparison of data about issues and length of time worked on an issue; Linking level of resolution to kind of, or level of, disability;
Reliability - Validity • Joppe (2000) defines reliability as: • …The extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable. (p. 1,Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved February 25, 2000, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm) • Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit "the bull’s eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others. (p. 1) • The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf • Nahid Golafshani: Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research,University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Examples:How do you identify CALD clients? How do you identify the category to place issues? If your funding would depend on boosting your numbers, would you?
Hub and Spoke Model • All state based systemic advocacy programs link to a Peak State, generic systemic advocacy program. • In SA this would mean that we should employ 3.0 FTE systemic advocates. • One of the biggest tasks would be to bring the other organisations together and to consult with the wider disability community.
Hub and Spoke Model • All State Peak Systemic Programs should be in regular contact with a national peak systemic advocacy program. • Monthly teleconferences to identify State trends and discuss emerging Commonwealth issues. • National Peak should organise campaigns nationwide and addressing issues of the Commonwealth Government, while State Peak should coordinate State Government campaigns.
Performance Standards • Disability Advocacy and Complaints Service of South Australia Inc. believes that systemic advocacy programs should perform to the same level of quality assurance standards as the individual advocacy program. • In addition, State and National peak advocacy organisations should also involve other systemic advocacy programs in their States in an annual planning and evaluation process.
DACSSA Inc. • Funded by • the Australian Government as part of the National Disability Advocacy Program. • Thank You for Listening!
Our contact details are: Unit 3, 178 Henley Beach Road (enter from Jervois Street) Torrensville SA 5031 Phone: 8234 56 99 Fax: 8234 60 44 Country: 1800 088 325 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: www.dacssa.org.au