Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Disability and Local Settings:
Implementing Social Inclusion Policy
Fiona Reidy
Bachelor of Arts University of Melbourne, 1984
Bachelor of Social Work
University of Melbourne, 1986
Master of Arts, Communications Monash University, 2000
A thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Public Health
Faculty of Health Sciences
LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086
Australia
March 2011
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the Victorian Department of Human Services for the PhD
scholarship awarded to support this study.
My supervisors Professor Hal Swerissen and Professor Christine Bigby have provided
invaluable guidance and support and I am appreciative of their assistance.
Participants were also most generous with their ideas and time and without their input
this thesis could not have been completed.
Kelly Grigsby from Brimbank City Council granted leave that enabled me to complete
the research and my thanks also go to other friends, work colleagues and family for their
ongoing interest.
To Tony, Molly, Rory and Keeley McCaffrey - thank you for accepting the impact that
the research process has had on our daily lives. I hope that in the future the results of this
thesis will contribute to increased social inclusion for people with disabilities in their
daily lives in local settings.
iii
Table of Contents
Disability and Local Settings: Implementing Social Inclusion Policy ................................. i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................ vi List of figures ........................................................................................................... vii Abstract .......................................................................................................... viii Statement of authorship ..................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
Disability policy in Australia and local settings ............................................................. 3 Historical trends in disability policy ............................................................................... 5 Policy directions in Victoria ........................................................................................... 9 Implementing social inclusion through policy and legislation ..................................... 11 Innovation and social change ........................................................................................ 13 Innovative elements of the State Plan ........................................................................... 14 Design and methodology .............................................................................................. 18 Structure of the thesis.................................................................................................... 18 Significance of the thesis .............................................................................................. 20
CHAPTER 2 SOCIAL INCLUSION AND DISABILITY POLICY .................................... 22 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 22 Defining social inclusion .............................................................................................. 22 The historical relationship between social inclusion and disability policy................... 26
Human rights, social justice and active citizenship .................................................. 28 Social and economic influences ................................................................................ 34
The experience of disability and social inclusion in the Australian community .......... 40 The profile of disability in Australia ............................................................................. 41 Contemporary public policy, planning and implementation responses to disability and social inclusion.............................................................................................................. 47
National government roles and responsibilities ........................................................ 48 Legislation................................................................................................................. 48 Policy and planning................................................................................................... 49 Key national government issues ............................................................................... 51 State government roles and responsibilities .............................................................. 52 Legislation................................................................................................................. 53 Policy and planning................................................................................................... 53 Local Government roles and responsibilities ............................................................ 56 Legislation................................................................................................................. 57 Policy and planning................................................................................................... 58
The effectiveness of contemporary jurisdiction and policy on structural barriers to social inclusion.............................................................................................................. 59 Chapter summary .......................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 3 A DISCUSSION OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ..................... 62 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 62 The policy process ........................................................................................................ 63
iv
The policy context......................................................................................................... 66 The re-emergence of community building .................................................................... 70 Confronting structural disadvantage ............................................................................. 71 Challenges for future disability policy implementation ................................................ 74 A universal, citizen rights framework ........................................................................... 75 Embedding changes in organisations and the community ............................................ 76 Intergovernmental collaboration in local settings ......................................................... 77 Analysing the implementation of strategies for social inclusion .................................. 79 Chapter summary .......................................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 87 Methodological approach.............................................................................................. 87
Human ethics ............................................................................................................ 92 Participants .................................................................................................................... 93
Data collection boundaries ........................................................................................ 95 Study processes ......................................................................................................... 95 Data collection strategies .......................................................................................... 98 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 99
The researcher’s role ..................................................................................................... 99 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 102
CHAPTER 5 STUDY RESULTS...................................................................................... 105 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 105 Relative advantage ...................................................................................................... 106 Compatibility .............................................................................................................. 112 Complexity .................................................................................................................. 121 Trialability................................................................................................................... 131 Observability ............................................................................................................... 162 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 172
CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 177 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 177 The factors that assist or impede the implementation of social inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings ......................................................................................... 178
State Plan Values and Principles............................................................................. 179 Continuity and leadership ....................................................................................... 180
Complexity .................................................................................................................. 184 Trialability................................................................................................................... 185 Observability ............................................................................................................... 188 Comparisons and implications .................................................................................... 189 Future research ............................................................................................................ 199 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 203
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 205 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 205 Literature review outcomes ......................................................................................... 205 Research questions ...................................................................................................... 208 Major findings ............................................................................................................. 209 Elements of a social inclusion implementation model ............................................... 210 Strengths and limitations............................................................................................. 214
v
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 215 References ......................................................................................................... 217 Appendices ......................................................................................................... 228 Appendix A Local Government Act 1989 – Council roles .................................. 228 Appendix B Samples of invitation to participate ................................................ 229 Appendix C Samples of informed consent .......................................................... 238 Appendix D Schedule of interview questions ...................................................... 253 Appendix E Elements of a social inclusion implementation model ................... 260
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Participant roles and sample size ……………………………………... 94
Table 2. Participant views on the factors that assist or impede the implementation
of strategies to increase social inclusion for people with disabilities in
local settings ………………………….……………………….………... 190
Table 3. Future research needs ………………………………………………… 201
vii
List of figures Figure 1. Distribution of people with disabilities in Australia …………………… 43
Figure 2. Participant views and the characteristics of innovations.....…….……...173
viii
Abstract
This thesis identified and analysed the factors that have assisted or impeded the
implementation of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities in local settings.
An original application of Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory (2003) was developed
for this purpose. It explored the extent to which broader planning and policy, in this case
the Victorian State Disability Plan 2002 – 2012 (the State Plan) (Department of Human
Services, 2002), impacted on the success of local planning initiatives, supported
intergovernmental partnership and effected social change. The State Plan goal of
“Building Inclusive Communities” (p. 9) and the priority strategy to “Strengthen Local
Communities” (p. 11) directly refer to social inclusion and introduced a new and
innovative element to State Government disability policy.
The theoretical framework for this thesis draws on a social model of disability. This
model proposes that people with disabilities should be active citizens and entitled to the
same access to participation and opportunities as any other people in local communities.
It argues that they should not be marginalised simply as service recipients. In particular,
the thesis recognised that the social model of disability has significant implications for
the development of disability policy and strategy that promotes and implements social
inclusion (Priestley, 2001).
Rogers’ theory was used to identify the factors that assist or impede the implementation
of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities (Rogers, 2003). Rogers proposed a
set of key characteristics which need to be present to accelerate the adoption and
implementation of innovations. These include that the innovation provides relative
advantage for those involved in implementation, is compatible with past and present
policy, is not too complex, is trialable and produces observable outcomes. A qualitative
methodology using a case study method based on interviews with state and local
government representatives and people with disabilities was adopted to analyse the
application of Rogers’ theory.
ix
The thesis found that the State Plan’s vision to implement social inclusion policy by
building inclusive and strong local communities was strongly supported by state and local
government participants. They identified that this specific goal and priority provided
relative value by building on an existing policy base and promoting a human rights
position. However, some state government participants found inconsistency with the
implementation of past and current policy. This was because some participants viewed
the implementation of social inclusion policy as a primary social policy goal while others
viewed it as a policy mechanism for reducing service costs.
All by state and local government participants found the central concept of social
inclusion to be complex and therefore difficult to implement consistently at state and
local government levels. The absence of specific definitions of social inclusion within
the State Plan created barriers to trialling and observing the effects of specific strategies.
Study data supported the view that, with the exception of relative advantage, Rogers’
characteristics of innovations were not comprehensively observable in the
implementation of the State Plan. This diminished the capacity to implement social
inclusion policy for people with disabilities in a consistent or comprehensive manner in
local settings or at a state wide level.
The study concluded that while the State Plan’s policy vision was aligned to
contemporary literature, current mechanisms were not systematic enough to result in
comprehensive implementation of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities.
Strategies to promote social inclusion policy varied across local settings depending on
perceived or real policy drivers, implementation partners and resources. This is
consistent with recent national consultation that found people with disabilities are still not
routinely engaged as active citizens or in a structured dialogue regarding improvements
in their local settings (National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009).
The thesis concluded that Rogers’ theory provided a mechanism for examining the
factors that have assisted and impeded the implementation of disability policy. It enabled
exploration of the extent to which local planning initiatives, intergovernmental
x
partnership and social change were accelerated by the State Plan. It provided a relevant
theoretical framework for identifying and understanding implementation impediments.
The thesis also concluded that key policy objectives, such as implementing increased
social inclusion, should be less complex, more clearly defined and aligned to state and
local government policy priorities. As Rogers’ model suggests, this would increase the
relative advantage and compatibility of policy implementation and increase the capacity
to trial and observe measurable outcomes. In relation to the Victorian State Plan,
implementation would be assisted by the introduction of a definition of social inclusion,
development of an implementation model encompassing agreed roles for all levels of
government and a focus on clearly measurable outcomes.
xi
Statement of authorship
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material
published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award
of any other degree or diploma. No other person’s work has been used without due
acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for
the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution.
Signed:
Date:
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis identified and analysed the factors that have assisted or impeded the
implementation of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities in local settings.
An original application of Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory was developed
for this purpose. It explored the extent to which the State Plan1 (Department of Human
Services, 2002) had enabled successful local planning initiatives, supported
intergovernmental partnership and effected social change. The State Plan goal for
“Building Inclusive Communities” (p. 9) and priority strategy to “Strengthen Local
Communities” (p. 11) directly referred to social inclusion and introduced a new and
innovative element to state government disability policy.
Over the past four decades, disability policy in Australia has progressively shifted from a
focus on segregated, institutional care to integrated community based care. This has
included the removal of discrimination and, more recently, the promotion of social
inclusion for people with disabilities (Department of Human Services, 2002; Office of
Disability, 2000). As a result, wide spread deinstitutionalisation, the introduction of anti
discrimination and disability rights legislation and the development of community based
accommodation, employment and support services have been implemented. These trends
were consistent with international changes in disability policy over the same time period
(Social Development Canada, 2004, 2008; United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Strategy
Unit, 2005).
1 The Victorian State Disability Plan outlines the state government’s policy for disability from 2002-2012. It was developed in consultation with national, state and local governments, service organisations, people with disabilities and their carers. The Plan established a vision and key strategies to increase social inclusion and improve services for people with disabilities. Continuance of a RuralAccess and Access for All Abilities Programs, and introduction of a MetroAccess Program, were identified as key initiatives to increase social inclusion. The Plan included service recipient data but no population data. Given the change of Victorian Government in 2011, the Plan is due for redevelopment.
2
More recently there has been a greater focus on social inclusion. The focus on social
inclusion broadened the disability policy agenda beyond the provision of disability
services as a primary foundation (Van de Ven, Post, Witte & Heuvel, 2005). Policy
implementation strategies initially focused on the elimination of barriers which
discriminated against people with disability. This included discrimination in
employment, accommodation and community life and the physical integration of people
with disabilities into local settings and particularly through community housing (Bigby &
Fyffe, 2006; Mansell & Ericsson, 1996). However, over time, it has become clear that
more active and engaged strategies are required if people with disabilities are to be
included in the range of settings and activities that make up everyday life. Consequently,
legislation, regulation, funding and planning were used by government to pursue the
policy objective of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities across a wider
sphere of activities (Bostock & Gleeson, 2004; Castellani, 1996; Drake, 1999). This
study focussed on the use of these planning and implementation mechanisms and their
effectiveness for developing strategies to support social inclusion policy in local settings.
Interventions which promote the direct involvement of people with disabilities in
planning and change processes have been included in current national, state and local
government policy. Increasingly, the importance of social networks and locality has been
recognised as pivotal for a more active approach to the implementation of social
inclusion. Integrated local planning is becoming a critical innovation in this new policy
environment (Cuthill, 2001). The State Plan (2002) is an example of a government
initiative that aimed to implement social inclusion policy for people with disabilities
through more active local engagement and planning in community accommodation,
recreational and employment settings. Critically, its success has depended on the
implementation of priority strategies in collaboration with local government, people with
disabilities and other partner organisations.
It will be argued that although social inclusion is a goal of disability policy and planning
in Australia at national, state and local government levels, little evaluation has focussed
on the experience and effectiveness of its implementation or the factors that have assisted
3
or impeded policy implementation. Nor are there any established, integrated models of
social inclusion to guide an intergovernmental approach to this aspect of disability policy
implementation.
Disability policy in Australia and local settings
Approximately 20 per cent of the Australian community has a self identified intellectual,
psychiatric, sensory/speech, acquired brain injury or physical impairment (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2003). The majority of people with disabilities live in the
community and successive national and state governments in Australia have adopted and
implemented policy based on the benefits that community living is seen to have over
institutional care. Notwithstanding the very significant shift from institutional care to
community settings, some have argued that people with disabilities continue to be
socially excluded (Goggin & Newell, 2005; Productivity Commission, 2004; Van de Ven
et al., 2005). It is also argued that exclusion is impacted by considerations such as
impairment type and complexity, stage of life, gender and culture (Bates & Davis, 2004;
Carter, Hughes, Guth & Copeland, 2005; Harris, 2003; Howell, Hauser-Cram & Kersh,
2007; LeRoy, Noonan Walsh, Kulik & Rooney, 2004; Stainton, 2005).
The extent of this social exclusion has been documented in a recent national consultation
report completed by the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council (2009). It
identified specific examples of systematic social exclusion. This exclusion was found in
the service system, education and employment, built environment and social systems and
supports. These findings support earlier contributions to the literature that have argued
for more comprehensive implementation of social inclusion for people with disabilities
(Priestley, 2001; Shakespeare, 2000; Swain, French, Barnes & Thomas, 2004; Tregaskis,
2004).
Based on this national consultation the Chair of the National People with Disabilities and
Carer Council, Rhonda Galbally, asserted the ongoing existence of social exclusion in
Australia:
4
We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet all too often people with disabilities struggle to access the very necessities of life – somewhere to live, somewhere to work. All too often they are unable to access education, health care, recreation and sport – the very things that most people in the community take for granted. They are denied access to kindergartens, schools, shopping centres and participation in community groups. They are often isolated and alone. Their lives are a constant struggle for resources and support. (National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009, p. vi)
This comment illustrated that although the implementation of social inclusion policy is a
policy for all levels of government and all population groups in Australia, positive
outcomes are not routinely experienced by people with disabilities in local settings. This
is in spite of current national and state government production of policy papers and
toolkits to support implementation of this policy agenda (Department of Human Services
2002, 2002a, 2006; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2009; Whiteford,
Peter, 2009; Hayes, Gray & Edwards, 2008).
According to the national government:
Being socially included means that people have the resources (skills and assets, including good health), opportunities and capabilities they need to: learn participate in education and training; work participate in employment, unpaid or voluntary work including family and carer responsibilities; engage connect with people, use local services and participate in local, cultural, civic and recreational activities; and have a voice influence decisions that affect them. (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2009, p.3)
Social inclusion for people with disabilities has been a national government policy
priority as evidenced by references in the public policy documents cited above. It has
also formed the basis of the State Plan’s vision. The challenge for contemporary policy
implementation, however, is that achieving social inclusion for people with disabilities
requires a significant shift in emphasis and practice. It involves change from relatively
passive and programmatic strategies that focus on physical integration, the provision of
support services and the removal of formal discrimination to active strategies that
promote participation and inclusion. Community education and training, advocacy and
social networking are examples of such strategies. It also involves changing specific
5
local cultural practices. This has requires a move to increased local planning and
implementation. It has highlighted the role of local government in participating in
appropriate partnerships, facilitating and advocating for change and creating
opportunities for people with disabilities to experience increased civic participation.
The innovation in contemporary policy that has emphasised social inclusion for people
with disabilities is that it extended the earlier arguments of deinstitutionalisation
advocates. It has contended that implementing social inclusion policy requires a move
from a moral right to a human rights perspective that intrinsically values citizen
participation and contributions. The contemporary challenge is less about the adoption of
a philosophical policy commitment to social inclusion policy. It is more about systematic
implementation processes to ensure that the policy is comprehensively put into practice.
This latter point was the focus of the current study.
Historical trends in disability policy
Social inclusion has been a key objective for disability policy proposals from the early
work of Wolfensberger (1972) to current theorists articulating a social model of
disability. Social model supporters have focussed on civic involvement in all aspects of
local community life (Barton, 2004; Bostock & Gleeson, 2004; Finklestein, 2004; Oliver,
2004). Since the 1970s, public policy has adopted different implementation strategies to
achieve social inclusion.
In Australia, this approach was exemplified by individual support and service access
regulated through the Commonwealth Disability Services Act 1986 and the National
Disability Agreement which commenced in 1991. This Agreement was formerly known
as the Commonwealth State and Territory Disability Agreement. The disability support
pension, carer’s payment and allowance, sickness and mobility allowances and wife’s
pension were sources of income support available to people with disabilities and their
carers. Disability specific rehabilitation and employment services, therapy,
accommodation support, respite, independent living and recreation services were put in
6
place along with access to specific aids and appliances, home and personal care.
Advocacy and information services were also funded to address individual issues.
The provision of income support and services primarily focused on assisting individuals
to overcome perceived deficits in order to participate in social, vocational and
recreational settings. Legislation, regulation and funding focused on helping people to
improve their ability to conduct activities of daily living as a means to increasing
independence and the capacity of individuals to achieve social inclusion (Australian
Senate Community Affairs Committee, 2007; Department of Human Services 2002;
Office of Disability, 2000).
During the same period there was significant government implementation of
deinstitutionalisation, integration and mainstreaming. As a result of these policies, large
residential facilities were progressively closed in favour of community based
accommodation and service delivery. Vocational training centres and special schools
were maintained but access to community based vocational and education institutions
increased. People with disabilities were redirected to more mainstream residential,
educational and employment settings through the adoption of policy and legislative
initiatives (Department of Human Services, 2002, 2002a, 2006; Department of Premier
and Cabinet, 2005, 2008; Disability Act 2006; Ministerial Advisory Committee for
Victorian Communities, 2007; Office of Disability, 2000).
However, this extension of income support, community based services and
deinstitutionalisation did not specifically identify how structural and systemic barriers to
participation would be removed. It has become increasingly clear that these barriers have
needed to be addressed to implement social inclusion policy (Gleeson, 1999; Finkelstein,
2004). It has also become apparent that closing institutions, providing income support
and putting in place community services has not necessarily resulted in social inclusion
for people with disabilities. As a result, contemporary policy has shifted to recognise the
need to remove systemic and structural barriers which have physical, social and cultural
dimensions.
7
Physical barriers have resulted in the exclusion of many people from community life
because the built environment, including buildings, vehicles and transport systems make
it difficult or impossible for them to participate. As a result, a range of policy measures
to remove physical barriers have been developed. For example, arising from the previous
Victorian Government policy paper, “A Fairer Victoria” (Department of Premier and
Cabinet, 2005), a Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared to examine approaches to
increase the supply of accessible housing in Victoria and recommend changes to the
building code (Department of Planning and Community Development, 2010).
Similarly, in response to specific issues, a report was commissioned for example to
identify solutions and actions to improve safety for people with a disability at rail
crossings (Department of Transport, 2003). An action plan was developed to provide a
framework for achieving accessible public transport in Victoria for people with
disabilities. The plan addressed improvements to mainstream public transport including
rail, tram and train services, regional rail, coach and bus services and taxis (Department
of Transport, 2006).
Social barriers have been more subtle and difficult to identify. People with disabilities
were often discriminated against and excluded from social, recreational and vocational
activities. This prompted legislative and program measures to remove social barriers.
Following the release of “A Fairer Victoria” (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2005)
the then state government introduced a new Disability Act 2006 and a Victorian Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Programs to support social inclusion
policy for people with disabilities, such as Metro and RuralAccess2 and the Access All
Abilities3, were continued and expanded (Department of Human Services, 2002a). A
Victorian Disability Advisory Council was established in 2007 following the adoption of
2 Metro and RuralAccess programs provide funds for officers who are generally employed by local governments, or in community service organisations. These funds are allocated by the Department of Human Services. They support communities to develop new ways of including people with a disability in local community life. 3 The Access for All Abilities (AAA) Program builds the capacity of the sport and recreation sector to provide active participation opportunities for people with a disability.
8
the Disability Act 2006 to elevate the voice of people with disabilities. The Council
provided advice on whole of government policies and strategies to increase the
participation of people with a disability in the Victorian community.
Cultural barriers have developed through local organisations with activities being geared
to people without disabilities. As such, social inclusion policy implementation has been
more complex and difficult to address in local communities when disability is viewed as
the exception rather than the rule. From a cultural perspective, the attitudes and
willingness of people in local communities to welcome people with disabilities in all
aspects of community life has been a key factor. The strengthening of a human rights
perspective through disability policy has emerged as a new way of conceptualising and
partially progressing these issues as cultural change has required changes in attitudes and
resources (Albrecht, 2004).
However, in spite of the implementation of numerous legislative, policy and program
initiatives that have reduced discrimination and clearly defined the rights of people with
disabilities, current disability policy has retained a significant focus on income support
and service delivery. It is arguable that specific strategies to remove the physical, social
and cultural barriers that have impeded social inclusion implementation are required.
Past measures have largely focused on creating a legislative and regulatory environment
to remove physical, social and cultural barriers to inclusion. There has been less
emphasis on social and cultural barriers. In the 2008-09 Australian Human Rights
Commission Annual Report (2009), the Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme
Innes noted that:
Substantial progress has also been made in a number of other areas as detailed in this report. However, it remains all too clear that, for many people with disability, their experience remains one of disadvantage for them and their families; of exclusion from participation and opportunity; in many cases an experience of abuse or neglect; an experience, in short, of denial of human rights. (p. 114)
9
In spite of continuing legislative and programmatic responses to implementing social
inclusion policy for people with disabilities questions regarding the effectiveness of
current strategies remain. The Australian Human Rights Commission 2008-09 Annual
Report indicated that 43per cent of complaints lodged during that period related to the
Disability Discrimination Act (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009, p.67). Of
those lodged complaints, employment related issues accounted for 40per cent of the
complaints, followed by complaints regarding goods services and facilities (35per cent),
education (9per cent) and a variety of other complaints related to government programs,
access to premises, clubs and other services (pp.76-77).
Alternate views that challenge current implementation practices have emerged. They
focus on the process of implementation and partnership within that local setting. It is
suggested that more localised organisational and community change is required to
improve the implementation of policy to increase social inclusion for people with
disabilities. Strategies that support and join up local planning, organisational and
community change have been described as a pivotal part of supporting inclusion of
people with disabilities (Barton, 2004; Bates & Davis, 2004; Bigby & Fyffe, 2006;
Oliver, 2004; Van de Ven et al., 2005). The purpose of these strategies has been to
accelerate local cultural change in a state wide context, reduce fragmentation and
improve perceptions of people with disabilities in the broader community as having the
capacity to be active community members and promote social strategies to facilitate
inclusion (Department for Victorian Communities, 2005).
Policy directions in Victoria
Policy implementation in Victoria had remained focussed on extensions and reforms to
existing service models until the State Plan was adopted in 2002. The State Plan
acknowledged the range of dimensions that have impacted on the implementation of
social inclusion policy and the need for all government departments and other
stakeholders to be contributing to change (Department of Human Services, 2002, p.1). It
recognised that while the service system needed further reform, a stronger connection
10
between services and local environments was needed to result in systematic change. In
spite of the recognition that organisational and social change are needed to increase the
inclusion of people with disabilities in local settings, the scope of the State Plan’s
Implementation Plan has remained limited because it is heavily focussed on service
recipients and service reform (Department of Human Services, 2002, 2006).
Three fundamental problems have arisen given the ongoing significance placed on
individual support and service interventions to achieve state government implementation
of social inclusion policy. The first is that the State Plan’s Implementation Plan 2006-08
primarily focused on those who receive services, rather than the broader inclusion of all
people with disabilities. Although 20 per cent (3,958,300) of the Australian population
has a disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003), in 2001 prior to the State Plan’s
development, only 14,382 people were service recipients (Department of Human
Services, 2002, Appendix 1). As service recipients were the focus of interventions to
increase social inclusion for people with disabilities then the focus of social inclusion was
narrowed. Secondly, government demand management has artificially restricted service
access. Consequently the need for services is under estimated and it is not possible to
measure true unmet demand. Many people who would benefit from services and
supports are deemed ineligible or not allocated the levels of service that would better
support their inclusion in the community. Thirdly, service provision has not guaranteed
the implementation of policy and programs to enable access to all aspects of community
life. Often this has required a range of measures to promote structural change to remove
physical, social and cultural barriers to participation.
In summary, the evolutionary approach to implementing social inclusion policy through
interventions such as deinstitutionalisation, service system changes, anti-discrimination
legislation and the provision of income support have not provided a comprehensive
solution. This is understandable as there are long established social and cultural practices
at play in local settings that continue to make accessing organisations and conducting the
activities of daily living, such as access to sporting clubs, schools, banks, shops and
social networks difficult.
11
While it might be argued that formal and overt discrimination has been mitigated by the
identified legislative interventions, significant organisational and interpersonal changes
are needed to establish pathways, practices and structures that pro-actively enable people
with disabilities to participate. At a minimum this requires resource re-allocation and
process improvements. It requires changes of this scale across all aspects of local
community life, with significant leadership, negotiation, resources and long term
commitment by many partners (Barton, 2004; Bates & Davis, 2004; Bigby & Fyffe,
2006; Oliver, 2004; Van de Ven et al., 2005; Wiseman, 2006).
Implementing social inclusion through policy and legislation
In Victoria, the State Plan (2002) brought historic and contemporary approaches to social
inclusion policy together by identifying strategies for “improving individual lifestyles”
(p. 9) and “building inclusive communities” (p. 11). The strategies about individual
lifestyle addressed disability supports and remain focussed on individuals, families and
carers. The strategies about community sought to address social, economic, cultural,
political and spiritual community participation and the role of partners in the planning
and implementation process to build inclusive communities. Arguably, both approaches
were necessary for successful social inclusion policy implementation. While structural
and systemic barriers have been addressed in the past through deinstitutionalisation and
the introduction of legislation aimed at protecting the rights of people with disabilities,
the State Plan took a further step. It recognised the importance of introducing a program
of localised community and organisational change to remove systemic physical, social
and cultural barriers to inclusion.
Prior to the State Plan’s adoption in 2002, modification to the service system was the
state government’s prime lever for implementing increased social inclusion in local
communities. Although disability services were not a holistic foundation for social
inclusion policy implementation, nevertheless, they significantly supported the
opportunities for social inclusion and remained an important contributor to participation
12
(Bigby, Fyffe & Ozanne, 2007, p.9). Local planning for implementing social inclusion
policy can be regarded as an innovative practice which requires new ways of thinking and
acting at the local level. It is important to understand the factors that are likely to assist
or impede effective local planning for social inclusion for future policy development.
There is a considerable literature on the introduction and implementation of innovation in
a range of different settings. Contemporary interest in the process of innovation, policy
development and implementation spans diverse fields including public management,
health, environment, arts and economics (Kickbusch, 2009; Krozer & Nentjes, 2008;
Potts, 2009; Tyran & Sausgruber, 2005; Van Buuren & Loorbach, 2009), though not
necessarily in relation to disability. This thesis has developed an original application of
Rogers’ diffusion of innovation tool to respond to this gap in the literature.
Changing beliefs and values need to accompany service, policy and legislative change
and are a key part of an implementation process. Opportunities for participation have to
be negotiated, activities adapted and planned and social interaction facilitated in local
settings. This takes time, effort, resources and coordination. This approach can be
described as innovative (Castellani, 1996; Cuthill & Fien, 2005; Australian Public
Service Commission, 2007) although to date there has been little research on the factors
that might assist or impede its success.
This thesis has a particular focus on whether the social inclusion strategies outlined in the
State Plan, and the identification of local government as a partner in policy
implementation, provided an effective approach for increasing social inclusion policy
implementation for people with disabilities. It highlights the capacity of mechanisms
such as the State Plan to implement social inclusion policy for people with disabilities by
forming a bridge between broad planning for disability and local community planning,
advocacy, action and change. In order to do so, it focussed on how the process of policy
implementation and diffusion has previously been conceptualised.
13
Innovation and social change
The study of the introduction, implementation and diffusion of innovation emerged in the
early twentieth century in tandem with the new social sciences of sociology and
anthropology. Consequently, diffusion research traditions clustered around disciplines
such as education, public health and medical sociology, communication, marketing and
social marketing (Burt, 1999; Fox & Kotler, 1980; Mort, 1957, Shannon & Weaver,
1949).
In the anthropological tradition, rural sociologists studied the diffusion of agricultural
innovations, (Ryan & Gross, 1943), while sociologists studied diffusion of single
innovations over geographical locations to understand social change (Bowers, 1938).
Educational diffusion studies were generally completed at one institution as the unit of
analysis (Mort, 1957). Public health and medical sociology studies have addressed health
promotion and mechanisms for spreading health messages and treatment uptake (Burt,
1999) whilst communication also represents a large contribution to the diffusion research
tradition (Shannon & Weaver, 1949).
Marketing diffusion studies have focused on worldwide technologies, such as mobile
phone take up and social marketing studies emerged in response to the need to invoke
behavioural change for the public good (Fox & Kotler, 1980). As such, diffusion theory
has proved to be a flexible and relevant framework across a number of disciplines within
which questions of implementation can be explored.
The most widely used theory to explain the factors that affect the success and failure of
innovation was developed by Rogers in 1962 and refined over the following four
decades. Rogers proposed that successful diffusion of innovation follows a path from
initial awareness and interest through evaluation, trial, adoption and widespread
diffusion. He argued that innovation is more or less likely to be adopted depending on
the presence of five characteristics in the implementation process. These characteristics
include the extent to which an innovation has perceived relative advantage over
14
preceding approaches; compatibility with existing values, experiences and needs;
complexity in its meaning and use; trialability to enable experimentation on a limited
basis, and observability through visible results (Rogers, 2003).
Rogers argued that new ideas, even when advantageous, can take a long time to be
adopted and that speeding up the rate of diffusing innovations is a challenge for many
individuals and organisations. The diffusion of innovations theory describes diffusion as
a type of social change in which the structure and function of a social system are altered.
This theory is relevant for studying the implementation of social inclusion policy for
people with disabilities in two respects. Firstly, implementation of the State Plan
required significant, coordinated change at social, organisational and personal levels.
Secondly, it sought to engender social change and increases in social inclusion
consistently across the state.
Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovation provides a framework to examine the extent
to which the State Plan has assisted or impeded planning for implementing social
inclusion policy for people with disabilities in local settings. It also enables an
exploration of the extent to which broader planning frameworks such as the State Plan
impact on the success of local planning initiatives and intergovernmental work.
Innovative elements of the State Plan
The State Plan adopted a more proactive and structured approach to facilitating social
inclusion policy implementation for people with disabilities than previously. It purported
to be:
… the first disability plan in the history of Victoria to take a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to disability. It is the first Plan that looks at all aspects of life for people with a disability - including disability supports, health and community services, recreation, education, employment, transport and housing. (Department of Human Services, 2002, p.1)
15
However, the innovation in this State Plan was not that it promoted inclusion. As
demonstrated earlier in this chapter inclusion had been a fundamental element in
disability policy for over four decades. The innovation was that it identified the need for
all state government departments to play a role in planning for structural change to
implement the policy of social inclusion of people with disabilities in areas beyond
disability specific services. It recognised that many partners should be involved in a
social inclusion policy implementation model and that disability supports, health and
community services, recreation, education, employment, transport and housing should be
incorporated in this approach. It identified whole of government partnerships at state and
local government levels and emphasised the significance of the local community context.
This emphasis on local planning, and the explicit identification of local government as an
implementation partner, represented a significant shift from past policy. In the past, state
government policy was primarily concerned with the delivery of services coordinated
through the Department of Human Services. The State Plan maintained a focus on
reorienting disability support to become more responsive and more focused on people’s
individual needs and choices. However, it also identified building and strengthening
inclusive communities as a goal so that:
… people with a disability have the same opportunities as all other citizens of Victoria to participate in the life of the community - socially, economically, culturally, politically and spiritually. (Department if Human Services, 2002, p.11)
The explicit commitment to working in partnership with organisations across
government, service providers in the non-government sector, local governments,
community groups, businesses and industry leaders, the Commonwealth Government and
broader community (Department if Human Services, 2002, p.12) represented an
innovative policy shift towards building inclusive communities.
The approach adopted in the State Plan represented what Rogers has characterised as “an
idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of
adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p.12). According to Rogers, an objective definition of
16
innovation is not as relevant as the extent to which the perceived newness of the idea
affects reactions to it. Newness can refer to evolved knowledge and the expression,
persuasion or decision to adopt.
An innovation also aims to provide a policy mechanism for participants to “create and
share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding” (Rogers,
2003, p.17). According to Rogers, the essence of the communication process is the
information exchange through which individual participants are able to communicate a
new idea to one or several others. From this perspective, a key element in the successful
implementation of the State Plan was the extent to which the underlying vision which it
embodied could be communicated to key stakeholders.
The State Plan’s scope, and the scale of related structural change required to establish
whole of government and partnership based action has been a significant innovation in
disability policy. However, the published implementation plan did not indicate that any
inter-departmental work was planned to achieve this structural change. Individual
departments were responsible for considering disability within portfolio planning and
implementation without requirements to report back through the State Disability Plan
implementation and review process. Nor did the State Plan place any structure on
Victoria’s 79 local government authorities regarding coordinated planning or
implementation. Hence, some state government departments and some local government
authorities have been more responsive to planning and implementing actions to increase
social inclusion. A central state mechanism to identify, review, evaluate or share the
outcomes of emerging innovation or improvements for people with disability more
consistently across the state was not established.
This thesis is primarily concerned with the implementation of social inclusion policy in
local settings and the extent to which people with disabilities have been able to benefit
from this policy and participate in local communities. In identifying an effective
framework for analysing the extent to which this public policy has been systematised to
17
deliver improved access to public places, recreation, learning, services, social networks
and an ability to influence public policy, Rogers’ model was seen to be relevant.
This thesis argues that Rogers’ model of analysing innovation and diffusion provides a
useful theoretical framework for examining the experience of implementation. As a
result, the overarching question for this thesis is whether the State Plan has been the
means to implement social inclusion policy through local planning initiatives, supporting
intergovernmental partnership and effecting social change.
Specific questions have been designed to engage with those implementing social
inclusion policies in local settings. They test the extent to which local and state
government managers and officers charged with the responsibility for implementing state
government and local government policy have been able to do so. They also test the
extent to which people with disabilities leading implementation through local advisory
groups are engaged in the implementation processes. As such, the questions include:
� How have study participants experienced the relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability of the State Plan’s
implementation?
� What has assisted the implementation of social inclusion policy in local
settings?
� What has impeded the implementation of social inclusion policy in local
settings?
This study applies Rogers’ diffusion theory in a case study including three local
governments to identify factors which assisted and impeded implementation of the State
Plan social inclusion policy for people with disabilities.
18
Design and methodology
This thesis adopted a qualitative methodology and used a case study method to address
the research questions (Creswell, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Yin, 2003). Seventeen
participants were purposively selected from three Victorian metropolitan,
metropolitan/rural interface and rural local government areas.4 State and local
government managers and officers, staff and people with disabilities were interviewed.
The interview technique involved the use of a set of semi-structured questions about
disability planning in local settings to identify factors that had assisted or impeded the
implementation of social inclusion policy implementation. Rogers’ diffusion of
innovations theory, and specifically the characteristics of innovations which included
relative advantage, compatibility, manageable complexity, trialability and observability,
was used to guide data collection and provided the analytical framework.
The analysis demonstrated that there has been more rapid implementation of social
inclusion policy resulting in social change in local settings than the state wide change
described in the State Plan’s vision. It also identified the impediments that have limited
both local and state wide change and the potential for intergovernmental work to
implement comprehensive social inclusion policy implementation in local settings.
Structure of the thesis Following this introductory chapter, the structure of the thesis is as follows: Chapter 2 is a literature review which critically assesses definitions of social inclusion,
their historical significance for disability policy, the experience of disability and social
inclusion in the community and contemporary public policy, planning and
implementation. These themes are relevant as they provide the basis for analysing the
disability and policy implementation literature reviewed in Chapter 3.
4 Metropolitan local government refers to the Melbourne metropolitan area; interface local government refers to the metropolitan fringe with a rural interface and rural local government refers to country Victoria.
19
Chapter 3 addresses implementation experiences relevant to disability policy for social
inclusion, including challenges to policy implementation from philosophical and
structural perspectives. The chapter concludes by outlining an approach for analysing the
factors that are important in understanding the likelihood that disability policy will be
implemented.
Chapter 4 describes the research methodology which is based on Creswell’s view (2003)
that the choice of methodology needs to take the research problem, researcher’s
experience and audiences into account. As a result, the chapter describes how a
qualitative methodology was adopted to identify participant experiences of the State
Plan’s social inclusion policy implementation and its relationship to local planning,
intergovernmental partnership and social change.
Chapter 5 reports the study findings. It outlines how state and local government
managers, officers and people with disabilities described the State Plan’s capacity to
increase the inclusion of people with disabilities in local settings based on Rogers’
characteristics of innovations. Although the study design assumes that the views of state
and local government participants would be potentially quite different, points of
difference were relatively small. The results indicate where views are shared amongst
participants and highlight areas of difference.
Chapter 6 discusses the findings regarding the factors identified by participants as either
assisting or impeding the implementation of social inclusion policy. It addresses the
overarching question of the thesis regarding the capacity of policy mechanisms like the
State Plan to enable the implementation of social inclusion policy for people with
disabilities in local settings.
Chapter 7 outlines the major findings from the study and identifies potential topics for
future research. It concludes by proposing a model for social inclusion policy
implementation that identifies potential national, state and local government roles and
responsibilities based on Rogers’ theory.
20
Significance of the thesis
Few studies have reviewed how social inclusion policy has been implemented for people
with disabilities and the few have addressed inclusion in particular programs or
population groups (Bates & Davis, 2004; Bigby & Fyffe, 2006; Gretz, 1992; Harris,
2003; Van de Ven et al., 2005). This thesis is significant because it reduces a gap in the
literature and has produced an original analysis of the factors that have assisted or
impeded the implementation of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities in
Victoria since 2002. The conclusions are consistent with the literature (Parsons, 2004;
Randolph, 2004; Swain et al., 2004; Tregaskis, 2004; Wiseman, 2004, 2006) as they
demonstrate that comprehensive, population based approaches and intergovernmental
collaboration are required to assist the implementation of effective and systematic social
inclusion policy for people with disabilities.
The results indicate that, in spite of significant legislation, policy and service reform
initiatives, implementation of disability policy to increase the social inclusion has
remained fragmented. It has also remained weighted toward service generated
interventions and programs rather than whole of life and whole of government
interventions where service is one of many dimensions supporting social change in local
settings. The findings identify that there is potential to improve the implementation of
social inclusion policy for more than 20 per cent of the Australian population
experiencing disability and accelerate the implementation of social inclusion. The
findings also identify that significant innovation is possible if the response of society to
enabling people with impairments to participate is better coordinated. By utilising
Rogers’ theory, specific characteristics of innovations have been identified which could
increase social inclusion policy adoption.
This thesis not only contributes to the policy implementation literature with respect to
social inclusion policy for people with disabilities but also makes a relevant contribution
for many population groups within local communities experiencing social exclusion. If
Albrecht was correct that studying disability provides “… an avenue for re-examining
21
what it means to be a person and a member of society” (2004, p.598) then this thesis
provides a reference point for potential improvements in the experience of other groups
within the Australian community experiencing social exclusion. It also provides a way of
understanding how to strengthen the implementation of social inclusion policy for people
with disabilities.
This thesis is predicated on the assumption that people with disabilities should be active
citizens, entitled to the same access to participation and opportunities as any others in
local communities, rather than marginalised service recipients. This assumption
potentially shapes the resulting initiatives and supports quite differently in that much
more than individual service is required to implement social inclusion (Priestley, 2001).
The outcomes from this thesis support views expressed in the literature. These include
that the re-engagement of social relationships, removing the abstraction of people with
disabilities from society and establishing a practice models that seeks to include people of
all abilities can increase social inclusion policy implementation (Drake, 1999;
Finkelstein, 2004).
The next chapter reviews the literature regarding the implications of social inclusion
policy for disability policy implementation. It does this given the experience of disability
in the Australian community and contemporary approaches to public policy, planning and
implementation.
22
CHAPTER 2
SOCIAL INCLUSION AND DISABILITY POLICY
Introduction
Contemporary disability policy has been heavily influenced by concepts of social
inclusion. The purpose of this chapter is to summarise definitions of social inclusion,
their historical significance for disability policy and the experience of implementing
disability and social inclusion policy in the Australian community. These themes in the
literature are relevant as they provide context for this thesis and contribute to an analysis
of Australian disability policy implementation in the next chapter.
Defining social inclusion
Although the term social inclusion is frequently used in contemporary public policy, its
meaning has evolved over time. Social inclusion implies both an outcome for individuals
and a set of policies and strategies to achieve it. With respect to the outcomes of the
social inclusion, capacity to participate in the community has been a consistent theme.
The social model of disability perspective is that it is society’s responsibility to provide
for the rights of its citizens and recognises disability within broader cultures (Drake,
1999; Finkelstein, 2004). This perspective is reflected in contemporary public policy
where participation has been described in relation to social, economic, political and
cultural life (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2008; Department of Human
Services, 2002; Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2008; Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, 2009; Hayes et al., 2008; Ministerial Advisory Committee for
Victorian Communities, 2007; National People with Disabilities and Carer Council,
2009, Social Development Canada, 2004; United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Strategy
Unit, 2005). The experience of social inclusion is described as varying based on stage of
life (Howell et al., 2007; Carter et al., 2005; Le Roy et al., 2004), cultural and indigenous
23
background (Harris, 2003) , gender, impairment type and complexity (Barton, 2004). It
has also been interchangeably referred to in the literature as social inclusion or social
exclusion (Whiteford, 2009). The value of social inclusion has been identified as
increasing social and economic connections which reduce loneliness and providing a
protective factor in health and well being throughout the life course (Berkman, 1985;
Berkman & Syme, 1979; Marmot & Wilkinson, 2001).
Following the election of the Blair Government in the United Kingdom in 1997, an
increased academic interest in social exclusion permeated the public policy discourse and
continues to influence policies and programs. According to a report funded by the UK
Department of Communities and Local Government:
Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole … Deep exclusion refers to exclusion across more than one domain or dimension of disadvantage resulting in severe consequences for quality of life, well being and future life chances. (Levitas, Pantazis, Falmy, Gordon, Lloyd & Patsios, 2007, p. 9)
Similarly, following the election of the Rudd Government in Australia in 2007, social
inclusion became the subject of increased policy interest. A paper funded by the Social
Inclusion Unit, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2009), cited the definition
outlined by Levitas et al. (2007) as well as other similar definitions from the European
Union and United States. It summarised statements made by then Deputy Prime Minister
Julia Gillard which characterised social inclusion in relation to a number of dimensions.
These included securing a job, accessing services, connecting with others in life through
family, friends, work, personal interests and local community, dealing with personal
crises, such as ill health, bereavement or the loss of a job and being heard (Hayes et al.,
2008, p. 6).
Hayes et al. also pointed out that the lack of a universally agreed definition for social
inclusion has made the definition and measurement of dimensions problematic.
24
Definitions of key terms in policy contribute to the measurement and evaluation
processes, and without them, implementation and review are difficult. Nevertheless,
Hayes et al. outlined two main frameworks used in the United Kingdom that define
social inclusion. The first focuses on the capacity to purchase goods and services,
participate in the labour market and make decisions about political process involvement.
The second contained an expanded definition of service exclusion and social
relationships which seems more relevant for the State Plan vision of implementing
increased social inclusion.
Service exclusion in the latter definition included lack of access to “public transport, play
facilities and youth clubs, and basic services inside the home (gas, electricity, water,
telephone)” (Hayes et al., 2008, p. 7) and the five dimensions of social relationships.
These dimensions referred to exclusion in common activities, the extent and quality of
social networks, support available in normal times and times of crisis, disengagement
from political and civic activity; and confinement resulting from fear of crime, disability
or other factors.
A paper prepared for the Victorian government proposing initiatives to make local
government’s role in community strengthening more systematic and aligned to best
practice has been part of this evolving policy discourse in the Australian context. It
described social inclusion, along with opportunity, integration and investment, as
practical action to foster local improvements to community strengthening. Social
inclusion is defined as “actions which aim to improve individual and group access to key
activities such as education, health, recreation and political participation” (Department of
Victorian Communities, 2005, p.4).
A more recent state government publication defined social inclusion as “… an approach
that builds social and economic participation for all individuals, groups and communities
without leaving anyone behind” (Ministerial Advisory Committee for Victorian
Communities, 2007, p.5). It argued for the development of a systematic framework
implemented through whole of government and community. It was based on a
25
commitment to a social inclusion framework, the development of intersectoral
partnership based inclusion and investment plans, intergovernmental collaboration and an
evidence and outcomes base (Ministerial Advisory Committee for Victorian
Communities, 2007, p.9). People with disabilities have been described as a population
group experiencing exclusion and for whom specific actions need to be put in place.
In May 2008, the national government formed a Social Inclusion Board and
commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to prepare an overview of the
origins of the concepts of social inclusion and exclusion. This paper noted that “One of
the challenges facing social inclusion agendas is that there is no generally accepted
definition of what constitutes social exclusion”. The paper continued by defining
international approaches to social inclusion and summarised the current national
government’s approach in terms of gaining employment, accessing services, connecting
with others through family, friends, work, personal interests and local community, being
able to deal with personal crises and being heard (Australian Institute of Family Studies,
2008, pp.4-6).
Although the recent work of national and state governments on social inclusion in
Australia has not specifically focussed on people with disabilities, the thrust of this work
shares a common policy platform. Definitions of social capital and social inclusion
consistently refer to the need for whole of community access to health, education,
community care, community regeneration and employment (Bates & Davis, 2004).
These themes are of key concern in the implementation of social inclusion for people
with disabilities and are reflected in the language of the State Plan.
The other notable aspect of the evolving social inclusion definition is that it has been
interchangeably referred to as both a principle and a process. This is consistent with the
development of the disability literature where the original thinking around normalisation
and deinstitutionalisation carried some moral imperative, a sense of social justice that
was underpinned by a principle of universal access and a human rights philosophy
(Wolfensberger, 1972, 1975). Subsequent work (Parsons, 2004; Randolph, 2004;
26
Stainton, 2005; Wolfe, 2002) has built on earlier foundations and contemporary
contributions to the literature are also concerned with the processes of implementation
and change that need to accompany legislative, policy and planning directions.
For the purpose of this thesis, the definition of social inclusion outlined by the Ministerial
Advisory Committee for Victorian Communities cited above will be adopted. It is based
on the premise that social inclusion implementation is about process for individuals,
groups and communities, a systematic framework implemented through whole of
government and community and is based on a commitment to a social inclusion
framework, intersectoral partnership, intergovernmental collaboration and an evidence
and outcomes base. This definition provides scope to explore how the experiences of
implementing the State Plan varied across different communities and the characteristics
of innovation that may require strengthening.
The historical relationship between social inclusion and disability policy
Australian disability policy has mirrored international trends and gone through a number
of cycles based on the philosophies of charity, education, segregation and normalisation
(Chenoweth, 2000; Culham & Nind, 2003). More recently social inclusion has been
identified as a prime policy objective. These policy cycles can be described as reflecting
dominant political philosophies of national governments and the advocacy efforts of
disability activists and their carers. The resultant shifts and changes in policy have
sought to increase the implementation of consistent, progressive and universal policies to
consistently welcome and include people with disabilities in community life
(Wolfensberger, 1975).
In the period when Wolfenberger’s concept of normalisation underpinned disability
policy, social inclusion was strongly associated with the deinstitutionalisation of large
scale congregate care facilities for people with disabilities. Wolfensberger defined the
integration of people with disabilities as “…the opposite of segregation; and the process
of integration as consisting of those practices and measures which maximise a person’s
27
(potential) participation in the mainstream of his [sic] culture” (Wolfensberger, 1972, p.
48).
He identified a number of dimensions that have been reflected in more recent definitions
of social inclusion. These included access to community housing, transportation,
communication, information regarding community resources that are age appropriate, and
offering social and recreational opportunities. He identified access to religious and health
related facilities and services as fundamental to integration as well as access to public
places and employment that support personal and community participation.
Wolfensberger’s definition of social inclusion focused on individual and service support
and community integration. It is important to note that he formulated his position when
congregate care in large scale institutions fundamentally undermined the rights of people
with disabilities. His focus was on deinstitutionalisation and physical and social
integration as a major means for achieving comprehensive social acceptance and
behaviour change. He defined physical integration as relating to location and proximity
to resources and social groups, physical context, access and size. In the normalisation
model, social integration related to integrative program features, more appropriate service
labelling and focus on redefining the relationship between individuals and the buildings
and institutional practices that shaped their lives.
Normalisation did not explicitly focus on the importance of removing the structural and
systemic barriers which prevented comprehensive social inclusion for people with
disabilities. The later reformulation of normalisation as social role valorisation went
some way toward addressing these issues. More recent formulations have placed much
greater emphasis on structural and systemic barriers to social inclusion (Clear, 2000,
Goggin & Newell, 2005). More broadly, an ethical dimension to the concept of social
inclusion has often been lost in policy formulations. Goggin and Newell argued that
“Rather than seeing disability as inherently uncivil, uncivilising and deeply distressing,
we need to encounter disability as an inevitable, normal and indeed positive aspect of
diversity of Australian society to be celebrated” (2005, p.43).
28
In a contemporary policy context, social inclusion cannot be achieved by an isolated
program of services or just by physical integration into everyday settings and activities.
Based on the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Victorian Communities definition,
implementing social inclusion implies that people with disabilities should be valued and
treated with dignity and respect in all everyday interactions across all dimensions of
community life. This thesis argues that, in spite of contemporary definitions, disability
policy has remained focused on providing services for eligible people with disabilities,
rather than on the broader systemic and structural issues that prevent social inclusion.
This has been problematic. According to some researchers (Goggin & Newell, 2005),
targeted and programmatic approaches have resulted in fragmentation and reinforced the
marginalisation of people with disabilities rather than increasing social inclusion.
The following section outlines the human rights, social justice and active citizenship
arguments that have influenced the development and implementation of more
contemporary definitions of social inclusion policy.
Human rights, social justice and active citizenship Human rights, social justice and active citizenship have been key concepts that have
explained the rationale for developing and implementing social inclusion policies for
people with disabilities. Citizenship has been described as a “way to rethink questions of
political and social justice” (Hudson & Kane, 2000, p.1) and for the maintenance of
political (Salvaris, 2000), legal (Thornton, 2000), economic (Pixley, 2000) and social
(Higgins & Ramia, 2000) inclusion. Active citizenship encompasses both the rights and
obligations of citizens and the ability of active citizens to exercise their rights and
obligations.
Structural and systemic barriers, however, often prevent people with disabilities from
assuming their citizenship rights and obligations (Clear, 2000; Drake, 1999; Goggin &
Newell, 2005; Swain, 2004). For Goggin and Newell, “… the struggle for a just and civil
29
society – the search for a world in which all belong, participate and receive their share of
resources and recognition – will have people with disability at its heart” (2005, p.196).
They have suggested that a just society rests on the ethical question “Who are the
members of our moral community and whom do we routinely exclude?” (2005, p.206).
Similarly, disability has been described as providing a vehicle for reviewing the
overarching experience of citizenship. Albrecht highlighted the relationship between
theoretical perspectives driving public sector roles and programs, the language of policy
and what successful local implementation for people with disabilities might look like
(Albrecht, 2004). He proposed that the capacity of all citizens to participate should be
strengthened in a number of dimensions and not be reliant on medical interventions or
technology driven enhancements (Barton, 2004; Oliver, 2004). His perspective would be
supported by others who have argued for the identification and removal of social,
economic, built and natural environment barriers that exclude citizen participation
(Marmot & Wilkinson, 2001).
It has been argued that only a model that “secures equal rights and equality of
opportunity for disabled people can affirm and secure their citizenship” (Drake, 1999, p.
36). Further, that the ability to make a difference hinges on policy coherence, scope,
capacity for enforcement, capacity to bring about social and environmental change. For
Drake, equal rights and equality were described as central to policy evaluation and “…the
most appropriate test to use in assessing the value of disability policies is to ask how far
such policies extend (or perhaps restrict) disabled people’s access to citizenship” (Drake
1999, p. 42). Social inclusion for people with disabilities and community engagement
itself has been reconceptualised as an expression of citizenship (Albrecht, 2004). This is
relevant for the study of disability policy where individual agency and community
environments combine to assist or impede implementation.
Active citizenship is underpinned by the idea that citizens have rights. In July 2008,
Australia was one of the first western countries to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights
30
of Persons with Disabilities. In doing so it formalised the link between human rights and
social inclusion:
Australia recognises that persons with disability enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. Australia declares its understanding that the Convention allows for fully supported or substituted decision-making arrangements, which provide for decisions to be made on behalf of a person, only where such arrangements are necessary, as a last resort and subject to safeguards. (United Nations, 2008)
This ratification was an important step in promoting social inclusion for people with a
disability. However, key questions post ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2008) remains. They centre on the extent to
which disability policy has promoted a systematic process for achieving inclusion in all
dimensions of local community life and what process for organisational and social
change have been put in place. While human rights, social justice and citizen
participation have been widely promoted as underpinning the principle of social
inclusion, significant concerns about the extent to which this principle has been
implemented for people with disabilities have also been identified (Culham & Nind,
2003; Mansell, 2006). Much of the focus of the citizenship, human rights and social
justice debate has been on declarations, definitions and legislation.
In the foreword to ”Deinstitutionalization and Community Living: Intellectual disability
services in Britain, Scandinavia and the USA”, Valerie Bradley (The then Vice Chair and
Presiding Officer of the US President’s Committee on Mental Retardation) posed critical
questions for the development of more effective and inclusive approaches for local
community planning. These questions remain relevant. While past research has focussed
on whether people are better off living in the community, it is suggested that future
research should focus on:
…whether their lives provide the same opportunities for socialization and inclusion in their communities as for the rest of the population, with all the implications for individually tailored support that that entails … their participation
31
in communities and the extent to which they are participants in the choices that affect their lives. (Mansell and Ericsson, 1996, p.x-xi)
Blackman and Woods noted that public policy often involves conflicting policy goals,
short-term and long-term trade-offs and unforeseen consequences (Blackman & Woods,
2004, pp.47-48). They asserted that the social justice rationale for policy is under threat
from individualism and social fragmentation, where newer individualistic and
managerialist approaches have recast public policy and public management. They argued
that technical improvements to services for individuals can be produced more easily than
systemic and community focused approaches. Blackburn and Woods proposed that while
one-to-one interventions and individual support are valuable, they are not sustainable.
Their point raises the question as to how comprehensively the policy of social inclusion
for people with disabilities in local communities has been implemented and how such
policy has supported comprehensive outcomes.
For the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities to be a sustainable
policy outcome, a more systematic approach to embedding human rights and social
justice principles and practices in everyday, local settings is required. As Bates and
Davis note, “As long as many learning disabled people lack a decent home, satisfactory
income, good health, meaningful employment and freedom from discrimination and
abuse they are unlikely to view or be viewed as an asset to their neighbourhoods” (Bates
& Davis, 2004, p.205).
The significant implication of adopting social inclusion as a disability policy objective is
that the changes required necessarily go beyond service system reform. They need to be
applied through change programs in all the dimensions of community settings so that
social, economic, built and natural aspects are redesigned to include people of all abilities
as a matter of course (Bigby & Fyffe, 2006). This challenge was summarised as follows
“…disability is not simply about diversity. It is also about commonality – not a
commonality of embodied experiences but a commonality of purpose, in the struggle for
a more inclusive society” (Priestley, 2001, p.240).
32
A study conducted by Gretz (1992) highlighted the importance of services supporting
participation opportunities and the benefits of those opportunities being open to people of
all abilities and common interests. Gretz analysed the experience of eight people with
severe disabilities who left an institution to live in a community near Pittsburgh. The
arrangements for staff support, training and personal care were reviewed. It was found
that while these people were able to continue living in the community, the question of
whether people were living in the client world or the citizen world remained. Through a
series of case studies, she established that citizen participation cannot happen without a
supportive backdrop, service provider change and genuine welcome and invitations to
participate in the local community.
Gretz found that where disabled and non-disabled people were engaged in a common
activity, bodily differences were not important. This contrasted the situation where
groups of disabled people visited the centre together as a segregated group. It was argued
that the social model of disability provided language and ideas that helped develop more
inclusive policies whereas the normalisation approach was limited. Limitations included
that disability professionals were unchallenged by leisure centre staff and that
assimilation would not guard against oppression. On the other hand it is arguable that
structural and systemic change could take account of the diversity of circumstances
experienced by people with disabilities. There are, for example, significant differences
between the needs of people with physical impairments compared with those who have
an intellectual disability.
The study found that systematic and increased attention needed to be given to the
impairment type and complexity, life stage, gender, cultural and indigenous backgrounds
of people with disabilities in local settings (Barton, 2004, p.288). If this were a normal
part of planning for local settings, then Finkelstein’s (2004) contention that disability is a
socially caused phenomenon, and that people with disabilities have experienced
disadvantage and exclusion in employment, housing, education, civil rights,
transportation and negotiation of the built environment, could be addressed.
33
Similarly, Van de Ven et al. (2005) critiqued earlier work on integration as being too
focussed on the adaption of people with disabilities into community settings such as
community based accommodation, social networks or “productive” activities. They
referred instead to Dijkers’ typology of community integration. This typology defined
inclusion in terms of access to age, gender and culturally appropriate roles, status and
activities, interdependence in decision making, productive behaviours and multivariate
relationships with family friends and others in natural community settings (Van de Ven et
al., 2004, p.312).
This symbiotic relationship between individual and community supported change was
identified in Bigby and Fyffe’s (2006) analysis of the tensions between institutional
closure and deinstitutionalisation for people with intellectual disabilities. They
highlighted the need to deliberately link individual support and social change. The
experience of deinstitutionalisation in Victoria demonstrated that there needed to be
equitable access to facilities, activities, social roles and relationships on a par with those
available to other citizens to fully achieve human rights and social justice. Researching
the experiences from two institutional closures demonstrated the need for both micro and
macro strategies to implement community inclusion.
While legislation has defined the extent of citizenship, material conditions and prevailing
political ideologies have been influential in determining its realisation. In this respect,
the more recent reconceptualisation of people with disabilities as consumers has the
potential to have produced exclusive rather than inclusive outcomes (Drake, 1999).
When people with disabilities became consumers, even if they were directing their own
funding, emphasis has been placed on individual change, therapy and compensatory
service provision, rather than changing the social conditions that have defined disability
and affected social inclusion.
Addressing broader structural and systemic barriers is critical for active citizenship to be
achieved for people with disabilities. It is arguable that when exclusion for people with
disability has been normalised through social, cultural, legislative, educational, economic
34
and legal contexts, significant adverse outcomes have been experienced. These have
included the likelihood of poverty, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, dependence on
paid carers for assistance in the tasks of daily living, difficulties in obtaining education,
employment and access to affordable accommodation. It has reduced access to public
transport, public buildings, information, home ownership, and opportunities for getting
married or having children (Goggin & Newell, 2005). In the next section the social and
economic influences associated with social inclusion for people with disabilities and the
broader community are reviewed.
Social and economic influences
Social inclusion has been identified as beneficial to people of all abilities in the
community and as a key element in achieving health and well being on both an individual
and community wide basis. Marmot and Wilkinson (1998, 2001) outlined ten different
but interrelated aspects of the social determinants of health linked to concepts of social
inclusion and community participation. These included the need for policies to prevent
people from falling into long term disadvantage, the social and psychological
environment’s impact on health, the importance of a good early childhood environment,
the impact of work on health, problems of unemployment and job insecurity, the role of
friendship and social cohesion, the effects of alcohol and other drugs, the need to ensure
access to supplies of healthy food and the need for healthier transport systems.
Based on the premise that people’s social and economic circumstances strongly impact
on their health, Marmot and Wilkinson argued that health at home, work and the
community is improved by friendship, good social relations and strong supportive
networks. They also argued that there are protective impacts on health and identified the
significant impact that economic status has had on access to emotional and practical
social support. They noted that poverty can contribute to social exclusion and isolation.
Given the connection between disability and poverty, their comments are relevant.
35
The literature has suggested that supportive environments work by providing mechanisms
that result in an increased sense of control and lead to protective buffers that improve
physical and mental well-being (Bondevik & Skogstad, 1996; Department of Human
Services, 2001; Emerson & Hatton, 2008; Marmot & Wilkinson, 2001; Pearlin, 1985;
Putnam, 2000). Premature mortality is decreased through the exchange of mutual
benefits and a facilitated sense of identity and access to information and services. It is
also argued that these individual benefits flow on to a broader social level through the
creation of interconnections. These connections create a civil society that in turn gives
policy makers and program developers a greater capacity to advance social agendas
(Farrar & Inglis, 1996).
The link between social support and well being was also identified by Bondevik and
Skogstad (1996) who argued that “…social relationships contribute to well-being by
providing a sense of security and opportunities for companionship and intimacy. People
who lack social relationships have frequently been found to be vulnerable to a variety of
emotional problems” (pp.181-182). Their study compared two groups of individuals (80
years and over) with respect to the experience of loneliness. One group was in residential
care and the other in the community. They highlighted the distinction between social
isolation and loneliness. In their study, the former reflected few contacts with family and
community while the latter indicated unwelcome feelings of the lack or loss of
companionship. They found that there were no significant differences in loneliness
between the two groups, except that residents of residential care reported lower feelings
of loneliness where contacts were ongoing with former neighbours and frequency of
contact did not vary the feelings. For community based older people the frequency of
contact with family and neighbours was a significant differentiator of feelings.
Similarly, Emerson and Hattons (2008) compared 169 adults with intellectual disabilities
living in cluster housing with 741 adults with intellectual disabilities living in dispersed
housing. They found that participants supported in cluster housing were more likely to
live in larger settings, be supported by fewer staff, be exposed to greater
changes/inconsistencies in living arrangements and more seclusion, sedation, physical
36
restraint and polypharmacy and participate in fewer and a more restricted range of
leisure, social and friendship activities. The study concluded that there were few
potential benefits associated with living in cluster housing and that cluster housing
schemes offer a poorer quality of care and quality of life than dispersed housing schemes.
In a related study, Goggin and Newell (2005) questioned whether there is any significant
difference between the old style large institutions and smaller group homes in
circumstances where people are not necessarily accepted as members of the local
community and where the health and well being benefits of community based living were
not clear.
Through a review of the epidemiological literature Berkman (1985) identified evidence
that social support is beneficial to health and that social isolation leads to physical and
mental ill health. Similarly, Stansfeld (2001) asserted that the theoretical underpinnings
of social support are derived from Bowlby’s study of attachment and separation in early
life in 1969 and the quality and type of support provided by the network members was
particularly important. Defined in this way, social support involves interactions and
transactions between people and reciprocity which is good for their health. He argued
that underlying personality factors influenced the ability to maintain, nurture and develop
relationships, but that where it exists; social support has a direct and buffering effect on
health.
Berkman and Syme (1979) constructed a social network index and their findings were
subsequently confirmed in a number of other studies. For example, Stansfeld traced the
evidence that social support impacts on health from the Alameda County study and noted
that “Social support may not only have a protective effect in preventing or decreasing the
risk of development of illness but may also be helpful for people who have to adjust to, or
cope with, the stress of a chronic illness” (Stansfeld, 2001, p.164). Similarly, social
support has proved to be successful in dealing with chronic disabling diseases such as
arthritis and limiting secondary depression. He concluded that social support operates on
an individual and societal level with social integration impacting on the whole
37
community and social cohesion contributing to the way people and their health are
valued.
Challenging the emphasis placed on economic outcomes in public policy implementation,
Emerson and Hatton argued that “…subjective well-being or happiness should be seen as
the yardstick by which the impact of economic and social policies should be evaluated”
(Emerson & Hatton, 2008, p. 143). Their conclusions were based on a study of 1,273
English adults with intellectual disabilities and builds on a sparse research base. They
found that most people with intellectual disabilities expressed relatively high levels of
happiness with their lives and that this was only at marginally lower levels than the
feelings of all adults in the general population. Feelings of happiness were found to be
associated with the frequency of contact with friends also experiencing an intellectual
disability but friendships with people without an intellectual disability were unrelated.
Emerson and Hatton’s views corresponded with a participative study conducted by
McVilly, Stancliffe, Parmenter and Burton-Smith (2006) which reported the friendship
experiences and aspirations of adults with intellectual disabilities. In this study,
participants defined their needs of friendship, characteristics of best friends, why best
friends were important and their most valued aspects of friendship. They also identified
problematic issues, barriers to maintaining friendship and making new friends and
assistance that would have helped. The role of a shared disability based identity to
friendship was important to participants. They also said that a sense of comfort and
equality made relationships easier to form and maintain. While personal characteristics
such as age, shyness and fear of getting hurt created some barriers, greater priorities such
as the availability of transport, facilitation of telephone, letter writing or email were
identified as more significant barriers. The study found that, consistent with findings
from the general population “…people with intellectual disabilities consider issues
pertaining to friendship to be among the most important concerns in their life” (McVilly
et al., 2006, p.705).
38
The literature also identified that the characteristics and functions of supportive
environments worked through the facilitation and coordination of relationships. As a
result, loneliness and isolation were reduced when friendships, relationships and social
support were available (Carney, 2001). This sense of collectivity promoted well being.
Supportive environments established a sense of belonging and worth, physical and mental
health protective factors, the exchange of advice, services, access to new social contacts
and direct provision of aid, services and tangible economic assistance. This was a
significant issue for people with disabilities in local communities and one of the
considerations that resulted in deinstitutionalisation policies.
Bruhn and Phillips (1987) noted that people gained sustenance from their social
relationships and social environment. As a result, their research has focused on the effect
of social support on health and how to quantify social support and compare it to life
change and stress. Their contribution to the literature was to provide a theoretical basis
for socially supportive behaviour. They argued that Maslow’s concept of basic needs
provided a theoretical framework for understanding social support and that the ability to
give and receive social support is continually growing. This can be understood by
Erikson’s eight stages of development. Bruhn and Phillips concluded that learning social
support required themes such as “faith, autonomy, affiliation, anticipation (hope), self-
esteem and trust” (Bruhn & Phillips, 1987, p.227) and that future research should focus
on process rather than a static analysis of support.
In relation to interactional aspects of support Pearlin argued that “… support takes place
in continuing relationships in which the giving and getting functions are less clearly
separated and, in fact, may be reciprocally exchanged” (Pearlin, 1985, p.49). He defined
support functions as being esteem support, status support, informational support,
instrumental support, social companionship and motivational support.
Another aspect of the function of supportive environments was the ways in which
participants were able to create identities, a sense of belonging and worth and exchange
mutual benefits. This links back to the earlier argument regarding the characteristics of
39
supportive environments that engaged people in a social context that improved their
individual situation and strengthened the community. It is consistent with Carney’s
argument that:
… social self is constituted through participation in community, friendship, and family relationships. This is the raw material from which people shape or develop their sense of social identity, and public activities; an identity that is shaped by the life course of the person and those around them … But life courses are marked by interdependence rather than independence, and are reciprocally linked. (2001, p.58)
Several studies of people with intellectual disabilities at varying stages of life and cultural
backgrounds have confirmed the significant impact that friendship, or its corollary,
loneliness have on behaviour, social outcomes and happiness. For example, friendship
has been identified as important for children’s psychological, social and academic
development and provides a context for developing social strategies for problem solving
and conflict resolution. From pre-school on, children with developmental disabilities
experienced difficulties forming friendships, perhaps with the exception of Down
syndrome children. Reported rates of loneliness were high for children with
developmental disabilities and families pivotal in coaching and encouraging children to
interact and welcome friends into their homes to model relationship development.
Howell et al. (2007) argued that while disability type, gender, cognitive and adaptive
skills at age 3 years were not necessarily predictors of loneliness that children with more
externalising behaviours were more likely to report feelings of loneliness in middle
childhood. Similarly, Carter et al. (2005) found that adolescents with intellectual
disabilities were also likely to gain academic, functional and social benefits from the
exchange of social support and gain increased quality of life. However, their study also
found that high school students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities interacted
infrequently with their peers, particularly without intervention. Whereas families were
identified in Howell’s study to have a role in increasing social contact for younger
children, Carter’s study found that educators needed to take deliberate steps to facilitate
40
social interaction among students and that peer buddy systems may provide a mechanism
for increasing peer support.
A study of older women with intellectual disabilities by LeRoy et al. (2004) demonstrated
the cumulative impact that loneliness and exclusion has over the life course. LeRoy et al.
interviewed 29 women over 50 years of age in Ireland and the United States and found
that all women were poor, had between 2 – 4 people in their immediate circle and these
were mainly paid support staff. They were mostly reliant on others for transport, few had
a regular exercise regime and most had a weight problem and little control over their diet.
For many in this study, the lack of contact with families was a source of sadness and their
limited leisure activities were primarily directed by staff.
Harris’ 2003 study of disabled refugees and asylum seekers highlighted the multiple
barriers that arise as a result of their disabilities, lack of access to refugee services,
language barriers and forced dependency on friends and family. Harris acknowledged
that while many of these barriers were also experienced by non-refugees and asylum
seekers, their problems were exacerbated by simultaneous barriers that result in poverty,
inadequate housing, inaccessible social services. One participant summarised this as “All
doors are closed to us” (Harris, 2003, p.409).
This literature has demonstrated that the implementation of social inclusion policy needs
to respond to contemporary issues such as human rights, social justice, active citizenship
and social and economic influences. The absence of a systemic approach to addressing
these issues in local settings is likely to have an influence on the extent to which a person
with a disability in a local setting will be included.
The experience of disability and social inclusion in the Australian community This section reviews the experience of disability in the Australian community and the
roles and responsibilities of national, state and local government in implementing social
41
inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings. It identifies disability related
legislation, policy and planning and key issues in the implementation process.
The profile of disability in Australia
Disability is a very significant policy issue for all governments in Australia. The most
recent population data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication,
“Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings” (2003) indicate that
one in five people in Australia (3,958,300 or 20 per cent) have a reported disability. The
ABS uses the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Disability is defined as “any limitation, restriction or impairment, which has lasted, or is
likely to last, for at least six months and restricts everyday activities”. These everyday or
“core” (p.2) activities include communication, mobility and self care and include:
� loss of sight (not corrected by glasses or contact lenses);
� loss of hearing where communication is restricted, or an aid to assist with, or
substitute for, hearing is used;
� speech difficulties;
� shortness of breath or breathing difficulties causing restriction;
� chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort causing restriction;
� blackouts, fits, or loss of consciousness;
� difficulty learning or understanding;
� incomplete use of arms or fingers;
� difficulty gripping or holding things;
� incomplete use of feet or legs;
� nervous or emotional condition causing restriction;
� restriction in physical activities or in doing physical work;
� disfigurement or deformity;
� mental illness or condition requiring help or supervision;
� long-term effects of head injury, stroke or other brain damage causing restriction;
42
� receiving treatment or medication for any other long-term conditions or ailments
and still restricted; and
� any other long-term conditions resulting in a restriction.
Four levels of core-activity limitation are determined based on whether a person needs
help, has difficulty, or uses aids or equipment with any of the core activities
(communication, mobility or self care). The overall level of core-activity limitation is
determined by the highest level of limitation in these activities. There are four levels of
limitation. Profound limitations are where the person is unable to do, or always needs
help with, a core-activity task. Severe limitations are where the person sometimes needs
help with a core-activity task, has difficulty understanding or being understood by family
or friends or can communicate more easily using sign language or other non-spoken
forms of communication. Moderate limitations are where the person needs no help but
has difficulty with a core-activity task. Mild limitations are where the person needs no
help and has no difficulty with any of the core-activity tasks. It is important to
understand that even mild limitations mean that a person may use aids and equipment,
cannot easily walk 200 metres, walk up and down stairs without a handrail, easily bend
to pick up an object from the floor, use public transport, can only do so with help or
supervision, needs no help or supervision but has difficulty using public transport.
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of people with disabilities in Australia.
According to the survey the rate of disability was similar for men (19.8 per cent) and
women (20.1 per cent) and there was little overall change in the rate from 1998 (20.1 per
cent) to 2003 (20.0 per cent). Similarly, there was little change in the rate of severe core
activity limitation from 1998 (6.4 per cent) to 2003 (6.3 per cent).
43
Figure 1 Distribution of people with disabilities in Australia
Reproduced from ABS, 2003, p.4.
Of the 20 per cent of the Australian population experiencing disabilities, 570,500 (14 per
cent) do not have specific limitations or restrictions, 385,900 (10 per cent) have
schooling and employment restrictions only. 1,057,100 (5.36 per cent) experience mild
44
limitations, 700,300 (3.5 per cent) experience moderate limitations, 650,400 (3.3 per
cent) experience severe limitations and 594,100 (3 per cent) experience profound
limitations (ABS, 2003, p.4).
Significant numbers of people with disabilities restricted in their activities of daily living
are now living in households within local communities. This underlines the importance
of implementing effective strategies to increase social inclusion given the different needs
and experiences of people with disabilities based on impairment complexity, gender and
lifestage, cultural and indigenous status.
Life stage is a significant factor in understanding the experience of disability in local
settings. Service and environmental needs change over the life course where, for
example, severe and profound prevalence rates peak in early childhood and school years
and demand for early intervention and school environment based services are high. In
contrast, psychiatric disabilities may emerge from adolescence on. Disability prevalence
increases with age and reflects risk of workplace injury and in later years reflects an
increase in musculoskeletal and other physical disabilities (Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare, 2007, p.156). This has significant implications for implementing social
inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings. Apart from impairment type and
complexity, factors such as gender, lifestage cultural and indigenous background demand
a finer level of planning and flexibility.
Prevalence studies also indicate that by 2010, the total number of Australians with severe
or a core activity limitation is projected to increase to 1.5 million. Between 1981 and
2003 there was a trend towards people with severe or profound disabilities living in the
community rather than in, with this trend strongest in people aged 5 – 29 years
(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008, pp.2-3). The fact that there are no
more recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics beyond 2003 is significant in
itself. It is limiting to develop and implement policies without contemporary data.
45
Disability in Australia is associated with economic disadvantage as evidenced by lower
formal educational achievement, higher unemployment and lower incomes for this
population group (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). While levels of disability in the
population have remained relatively stable and relatively equal levels between men and
women, there have been increases in life expectancy for people with disability as a result
of medical advances (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007, p.153). These
trends are likely to accelerate given Australia’s ageing population.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey data indicated that people with disability
compare unfavourably with the whole population in educational achievement and labour
force participation and this is reflected in income levels. Thirty per cent of people with
disabilities aged 15-64 years had completed year 12 secondary education compared with
49 per cent for the same age cohort without a disability. Similarly, 13 per cent of people
with disabilities aged 15-64 years had completed a bachelor degree compared with 20 per
cent for the same age cohort without a disability (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003,
p.5).
When people with disabilities over 18 years of age were experiencing a national
unemployment rate of 8.6 per cent, and a participation rate of 53 per cent in 2003, the
rates for people without a disability were 5 per cent and 81 per cent respectively. The
medium gross personal income per week of people with a reported disability was $255
aged 15-64 compared with $501 for those without a disability. The medium gross
personal income per week decreased with increasing severity of disability and was lowest
for those with a profound core-activity limitation.
The survey illustrates the diverse profiles of people with disability based on a
combination of impairments and limitations and the increasing proportion of people with
disabilities living in local communities. It identifies the inequity experienced by people
with disabilities in relation to education and employment which results in structural
poverty. It highlights the necessity for public policy relating to disability to articulate
46
issues and solutions based on a more detailed understanding of impairment and
complexity.
In Australia, a commitment has been given to developing a “National Disability
Strategy” and creating structural change (Disability Investment Group, 2009). The
proposal for a national disability insurance scheme has been presented as one of the
options to provide funding certainty for people with disabilities and their carers. The
national government also funds other research and evaluation, training and development
and peak bodies. National expenditure on these services in 2006/07 was $4.42 billion
with Victoria receiving $1.19 billion - almost half this expenditure was allocated to
accommodation support (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs, 2008).
The Victorian government provides information, planning and capacity building,
individual support, targeted services and residential accommodation support. In 2008-09
14,000 Victorians with disabilities were assisted by the state government (Department of
Human Services, 2009, p.23). Some $86.6 million was spent on information, planning
and capacity building, $85.7 million on targeted services, $481.3 million on individual
support and $581.4 million on residential accommodation support (Department of
Human Services, 2009, p.141-2).
In addition to people with a reported disability, the survey demonstrates that a further
4,149,000 (21 per cent) of Australians have had a long term health condition, even if it
did not restrict their activities. When combined with the number of people with a
reported disability, this demonstrates that 41 per cent of Australians would benefit from
increased population based planning and changes to the social, economic, natural and
built environments in the local settings where they live to enable improved physical,
mental and social well-being.
This disability profile highlights a number of salient points. The first is that, given the
percentage of the population with a permanent or ongoing disability, the last survey of
47
disability, ageing and carers only occurred in 2003. This does not provide adequate or
current data as the basis for evidence based policy development and implementation.
The second is that with at least a quarter of the population affected by a disability, there
is a strong need to have a better population based understanding of various cohort groups
such as life stage, impairment type, gender, cultural and indigenous status and
geographical location. The third is that the data show a significant disparity between the
education and employment outcomes for people with disabilities compared with the rest
of the population. Analysis of this data presents a compelling case for more focused
effort on the implementation of social inclusion policy that will enable individuals,
groups and communities to be more active and supported to participate.
Contemporary public policy, planning and implementation responses to disability and social inclusion
The legislative and policy context is critical to understanding both the study context and
the emergent action to increase comprehensive implementation of social inclusion for
people with disabilities in local settings. The Australian Constitution of 1901 establishes
a federal system of government and is the context within which public policy, services
and programs for people with disabilities are generated and implemented. In this system,
powers are distributed between the national government and the six states (Western
Australia, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania) while
the three Territories (the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and Norfolk
Island) have self-government arrangements. The Constitution defines the law-making
powers between the national government and the states and territories.
In addition to national, state and territory governments, local governments are elected
bodies that provide planning and services for a specific geographic area within each state.
As such, local governments are a third tier of government. The Victorian Constitution
Act 1975 recognises local government. There are 79 local government authorities in
Victoria which are bound by the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989.
Although local government has been in existence in Australia for more than 160 years, it
48
is not recognised in the national constitution. This means that local government is not a
formal partner through the National Disability Strategy. National, state and local
governments all share responsibility for establishing or enacting legislation, policy,
services and programs for all Australians, including people with disabilities, but their
roles and responsibilities vary.
The following section describes the extent to which the policy focus on social inclusion
has become embedded in roles and responsibilities in relation to Australian legislation,
policy and planning and related contextual issues. It highlights that the research problem
pivots on the need to increase the implementation of social inclusion for people with
disabilities in local settings.
National government roles and responsibilities
The national government has significant roles and responsibilities in establishing anti-
discrimination legislation, administering the Home and Community Care program for
older people and people with disabilities. The Home and Community Care program is a
joint national, state and territory cost-shared program with the Australian Government
providing 60 per cent of funds and the states and territories providing 40 per cent. It also
facilitates negotiations with state and territory governments regarding disability planning
and resource allocation for services. It has responsibly in portfolios such as employment,
training and post secondary training and for funding for public and social housing that
impact on people with disabilities living in local settings. In addition, the national
government is responsible for data collected through census and surveys.
Legislation
The national government established the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and it
remains a critical piece of legislation for people with disabilities. This Act protects
individuals across Australia from direct and indirect discrimination in many parts of
49
public life, such as employment, education and access to premises. It makes harassment
on the basis of disability against the law and protects friends, relatives and others from
discrimination because of their connection to someone with a disability. It also
established a complaints and conciliation process to address breaches.
The Home and Community Care Act 1985 established the Home and Community Care
Program to provide community care services to frail aged and younger people with
disabilities, and their carers. The program provides services such as domestic assistance,
personal care, professional allied health care and nursing services, for younger people
with a disability and their carers to be more independent at home and in the community.
Home and Community Care program funding aims to reduce inappropriate admission to
residential care. The Home and Community Care program, and other specialist services
provided through state government, are often combined and people with disabilities will
often receive a mix of services funded by different tiers of government.
In Victoria, many Home and Community Care services are delivered through local
government with additional funds being contributed by councils. Specialist disability
services are also provided through the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability
Agreement or delivered via the same or different non government organisations.
From July 2011, as part of reforms endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments,
all funding and responsibility for the provision of Home and Community Care program
services will be taken over by the national government in all states except Victoria.
Policy and planning
National service planning formally commenced in 1991 when the national government
entered into a multilateral service agreement with the states and territories. This
agreement was known as the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement
(CSTDA). The first CSTDA 1991-97 defined the roles and responsibilities of the
national, state and territory governments in the delivery of specialist disability services.
50
Each state and territory subsequently enacted complementary legislation to the
Commonwealth Disability Services Act 1986. This ensured that disability services in all
states and territories would adhere to the principles and objectives enshrined in the DSA
as well as moving, over time, to outcome based funding, service agreements and regular
service reviews. It moved from an emphasis on specialist services to improving access to
generic services. The objective was to increase service accountability and consumer
focus in state-based services as the DSA had done in national services.
Under the first CSTDA, the national government undertook responsibility for
administering employment services and labour market programs. The state and territory
Governments undertook responsibility for funding accommodation, community support,
community access, respite and other support services. The CSTDA provided for joint
national and state responsibility for advocacy, research and development and involved
both jurisdictions in planning, priority setting and program evaluation.
Based on the inadequacy and inconsistency of disability services data, the CSTDA
responded by setting out broad data requirements. Subsequently, the Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare (AIHW) developed a minimum data set comprising core non-
financial data to be collected by the national and state governments to build up a
comprehensive picture of disability services.
The second CSTDA 1997-2002 resulted in the establishment of Bilateral Agreements
between the national, states and territories to complement the single multilateral
agreement. It also provided a mechanism for the national government to work in
partnership with individual state and territory governments to address disability issues of
local importance and joint interest.
The third CSTDA 2002-07 featured both a preamble and five key policy priorities which
introduced the principle of partnership and inter government collaboration. The
agreement sought to strengthen access to generic services for people with disabilities,
51
government linkages, individuals, families and carers, long-term strategies to respond to
and manage demand for specialist disability services and accountability, performance
reporting and quality.
Talks on the fourth agreement were initiated by a joint meeting of national, state and
territories ministers in February 2008. During 2008, the Council of Australian
Governments endorsed a new framework for federal financial arrangements, titled the
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Arrangements. Five national agreements were
established within this framework including the National Disability Agreement which
replaced the CSTDA from July 2009. In January 2009, the national government
announced that the CSTDA would be replaced by the National Disability Strategy. In
November 2009 the Disability Investment Group released a report suggesting new ways
of funding and structurally addressing disability and social exclusion (Disability
Investment Group, 2009).
Key national government issues
CSTDA plans from 1991 highlight key issues for national, state and territory disability
planning. These issues included that data gathered by the states and territories are not
comparable. Nor does data estimate unmet need or support strategic planning. There has
been little improvement in jurisdictional understanding of the nature, quality and
durability of outcomes for people with disability accessing CSTDA services. Service
development and provision is still impeded by contested funding arrangements and
responsibilities. Interfaces with other program areas are lacking in policy and practice.
The framework for achieving whole-of-government coordination and collaboration
around access to generic services is insufficient; and quality assurance across
jurisdictions is variable.
According to submissions taken by the Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee
Review of the CSTDA (2007), the Victorian Office of the Public Advocate argued that
the vision contained in the preamble was “appropriately aspirational” but that the five
52
strategic policy priorities “appear modest in comparison”. In practice the priorities “seem
to be mainly preoccupied with just one aspect of the fourth priority: demand
management”.
Further, the Public Advocate argued that:
While progress can be seen on some of the incremental policy priorities, the Office is concerned that the vision encapsulated within the CSTDA preamble remains elusive. The other parts of the CSTDA that establish the national framework are not directly related to the vision of the preamble. For example, while the term 'rights' is used seven times within the preamble as an important remedy for the situation of people with disabilities, the rest of the agreement fails to use the term. (Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee, 2007, p.262)
There were 29 recommendations from the Senate Community Affairs Committee Review
of the CSTDA review. In summary they included that agreement partners should work
toward more consistent national funding levels, assessment processes and supports based
on recognition of the differential experience of disability on individuals.
Recommendations addressed gaps in strategic planning and proposed that new ways of
funding services were required.
State government roles and responsibilities
The state government has significant roles and responsibilities in establishing legislation
to guide the delivery of disability services. In addition, all state government Departments
are responsible for policy and planning that impact on people with disabilities.
The state government has responsibility for multiple portfolios that impact on the daily
lives of people with disabilities including planning and community development, justice,
innovation industry and regional development, human services, sustainability and
environment, education and early childhood development, transport and housing.
53
Legislation
The Victorian state government passed the Disability Act in 2006. It replaced the
Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 and the Disability Services Act 1991
and it commenced operation on 1 July 2007. It complies with the Commonwealth
Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The purpose of this Act was to enact a new
legislative scheme for people with a disability and to reaffirm and strengthen their rights
and responsibilities. The Act was based on the principles of human rights (Department of
Human Services, 2007).
It aims to advance community inclusion and participation for people with disabilities,
promote whole of government approaches and facilitate planning, funding and service
provision. It has a strong service orientation and aims to promote and protect the rights
of persons accessing disability services, support high quality disability services, increase
consumer accountability and ensure that the efficient and effective use of public funds.
The Act recognises the existence of the State Plan and requires preparation of a plan from
1 January 2013 and every four years thereafter. It is specific that this plan must identify
the needs of people with disabilities, establish support goals, priorities, objectives and
policy priorities and strategies. It also specifies that regard must be given to the different
needs of people with different types of disabilities and reflect the different strategies in
response.
Policy and planning
Policy and planning for services and programs for people with disability occurs within all
state government departments, however, state wide service and development planning
occurs through the Departments of Human Services and Community Planning and
Development (DPCD) respectively.
54
The Department of Human Services Disability Services Division was responsible for
initiating the State Plan which was developed following consultation with people with a
disability, their parents, families and carers, service providers, community groups, local
government, state and national government departments, statutory authorities and other
members of the broader community.
As a result of consultation, the plan adopted three policy goals in relation to pursuing
individual lifestyles, building inclusive communities and leading the way. It committed
to working in partnership with and between other Government Departments and statutory
authorities, service providers in the non-government sector (including for-profit and not-
for-profit organisations), local governments, community groups, businesses and industry
leaders, the Commonwealth Government and the broader community.
Five priority strategies were identified and all had a strong social inclusion flavour. As a
result, implementation has focussed on reorienting disability supports, developing strong
foundations for disability supports, promoting and protecting people’s rights,
strengthening local communities and making public services accessible (Department of
Human Services, 2002).
Given the focus of this thesis, strategic priority 4, Strengthening Local Communities, is
of key interest. In the original implementation plan from 2002-2005, it was identified
that this priority would be achieved by a number of actions. These included to support
ccommunity awareness, the formation of stronger partnerships with local governments,
support for community strengthening initiatives, increased community transport options,
increased mechanisms for participation in arts, cultural, sport, tourism and leisure
activities, establishment of a companion card scheme and opportunities to attend the 2006
Commonwealth Games (Department of Human Services, 2002a).
In the subsequent implementation plan 2006-2008, actions under strategic priority four
were described in terms of encouraging and educating communities to strengthen
community capacity to reduce barriers and to respond to the needs and aspirations of
55
people with a disability across all areas of community life. An Office for Disability was
created to lead policy and action plans. A range of specific programs to facilitate
community awareness and resources for community action were provided. In particular,
partnerships were developed with local government to facilitate these initiatives.
The Department of Human Services Disability Services Division has responsibility to
fund specialist providers across the non-government sector to provide direct support and
care for people with an intellectual, physical, sensory and neurological disability, and
acquired brain injury in Victoria. The Division also provides some care and support
services to people with a range of disabilities and all funded services are bound by the
provisions of the Disability Act 2006. The policy and planning work generated from this
Division is consistent with the aims of the proposed National Disability Strategy and
involves service planning, quality and capacity development and implementation of the
State Plan.
Funding for the Metro and RuralAccess programs is allocated from the Disability
Division based on the State Plan priority Strategy 4. These are key program initiatives to
support implementation of the State Plan. Metro and RuralAccess workers are based in
local government and engage in community development work to increase community
awareness. They facilitate local change, participate in local planning, develop projects,
create participation opportunities for people with disabilities and promote coordination
between disability supports, local government, community organisations and local
communities.
In addition, the Department of Human Service Aged Care Division5 has responsibility to
plan, fund and monitor services for older people, people with a functional disability and
the carers of both target groups through the Home and Community Care program. The
policy and planning work generated from this Division, however, is primarily focused on
older people.
5 This Division was moved to the new Department of Health when Department of Human Services was split in 2009.
56
DPCD was established to link Government planning with community development. “A
Fairer Victoria 2008: Strong People Strong Communities” is a key state government
policy document and outlines a whole of Government social policy action plan to address
disadvantage and promote inclusion and participation (Department of Premier and
Cabinet: 2008). People with disabilities have been identified as a disadvantaged group
within “A Fairer Victoria” and a variety of initiatives have been funded through this plan
to increase individualised support through expanded packages for independent living and
at key transition points such as school to work.
The Office for Disability was established within DPCD in 2006 to provide policy advice
and support to the Minister for Community Services to implement a coordinated whole-
of-government response to disability. The Office also has responsibility to support the
Victorian Disability Advisory Council, the development and implementation of disability
action plans and programs and activities that will support the aims of the Office.
The Office's aim is to encourage and influence Victorian Government policy and
activities to improve outcomes for people with a disability and to deal with barriers to
participation in our communities and progress the vision and goals of the Victorian State
Plan 2002 - 2012 and the mandate of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
Act 2006. 6
Local Government roles and responsibilities
Local government has significant roles and responsibilities for planning in local settings
and is an identified partner in the State Plan. The Department of Human Services
Disability Services Division has also had an ongoing relationship with the peak local
government body, the Municipal Association of Victoria.
6 Following the election of a Liberal-National Party Coalition Government in Victoria in 2010, the Office for Disability will be moving to the Department of Human Services.
57
The functions of local governments vary across the state but most have roles such as
statutory and strategic planning, community planning, safety planning, human service
delivery, leisure and libraries services and or planning, urban design, engineering
services, environment planning and local laws enforcement. These are either delivered
directly through local government or contracted providers. As such, Victorian local
governments are pivotal partners in implementing the State Plan to increase the inclusion
of people with disabilities in local settings.
Legislation
The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 (Part 2A) established the role of local government as
“a distinct and essential tier of government consisting of democratically elected councils
having the powers that the Parliament considers necessary to ensure the peace, order and
good government of each municipal district”.
While local governments are bound to comply with national and state legislation such as
the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Disability Act 2006, they are also bound by
the Local Government Act 1989. This Act defines required roles of Victorian councils
including that they take community needs into account, provide leadership and advocate
and foster community cohesion and active participation in civic life. The Public Health
and Wellbeing Act 2008 also defines the function of a council under this Act as
protecting, improving and promoting public health and wellbeing by supporting the
health of all community members and their capacity to achieve improved health. See
Appendix A for details on the legislative roles of local government.
In addition, the activities of local government in relation to planning and building, roads
and parking, services and facilities for children, young people, adults and older adults,
waste management, animal management and local laws require compliance with other
relevant national and state legislation. When combined, these legislative references
provide local governments with a clear mandate to engage in planning, facilitating and
58
advocating for the whole community with particular focus on the interests of vulnerable
groups, including people with disabilities.
Policy and planning
Local government authorities enact their governance responsibilities in a number of ways
including through the establishment of a council plan, municipal strategic statement,
municipal public health and wellbeing plan. These are required under state government
legislation and are usually based on input from councillors, council officers, local
stakeholders and community members. In addition to these mandated plans, local
governments develop a wide range of policies and plans based on community needs or in
response to other national, state legislation, policy or community based initiatives.
Increasingly, policies and plans are developed and implemented in collaboration with
national or state government, local stakeholders and community members.
Over the last decade, many local government authorities have initiated community
planning processes to strengthen planning, improve responsiveness to local communities,
provide increased opportunities for civic participation and increase the capacity for
evidence based advocacy. These initiatives are important for the implementation of state
government social inclusion policy in local settings. They are important because
planning based on community needs will result in the needs of specific population groups
in local settings, such as the needs of people with disabilities, being documented and
understood. It means that mechanisms for local community members to participate in
civic processes may already be in progress and relevant partnerships and planning that
could coordinate local effort may be in place.
In addition, public health planning in local governments has progressively enhanced
traditional epidemiological models based on interventions such as immunisation and food
safety. It is now required to consider the impact that environments have on the health
and well being of community members. This is characterised as a social model of health
which recognises that social, economic, built and natural environments impact on
59
community members in local settings. This shift is significant for disability planning as
there is synergy between the social model of health and the social model of disability and
environments are considered to significantly assist or impede inclusion in both.
The effectiveness of contemporary jurisdiction and policy on structural barriers to social inclusion
In terms of contemporary jurisdictional responsibilities for disability, the national
government has established a rights and service legislative basis for policy with the
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Home and Community Care Act 1986 and Disability
Services Act 1986. Signing the UN Declaration of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
furthers the legislative context for supporting social inclusion. While coordinating
service planning was the central focus of the former Commonwealth State and Territories
Disability Agreement, the new National Disability Plan widens the relevance of national
and state jurisdictional interventions beyond service planning and delivery. National
programs for employment services, post secondary training and funding for public
housing take the needs of people with disabilities into account. But national population
data collection through the ABS is not reported in local area boundaries (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2003) and state government service data are not readily available.
From a legislative perspective, Victorian state government legislation corresponds with
the national legislative framework. The Disability Services Act 2006 addresses service
related rights and responsibilities. The State Plan addresses goals and strategies to move
toward increased social inclusion. The state government addresses social inclusion for
people with disabilities in policies arising from a range of portfolio commitments.
Local government authorities are not formally recognised in national, state and territory
responses to disability planning and service delivery. Yet local government has
jurisdiction for aspects of planning, regulation and service delivery that impact on people
with disabilities in community settings all the time. These include planning and delivery
for strategic and statutory matters, human services, health services, community safety,
60
urban design, engineering services, local laws and environmental planning. Local
governments in Victoria take up these jurisdictional roles through the Local Government
Act 1989, Public Health and Well Being Act 2009 and a number of other state
government acts that require local government to be the regulator.
Within these jurisdictional boundaries, the extent to which current policy has
incorporated the principles of social inclusion is varied. While legislation and policy at
national and state government levels reflects the language of social inclusion, it has failed
to back up rhetoric with quantified standards, population analysis and research or
evaluation. Population data, service data and surveys that are collected and analysed are
not routinely communicated at a local government area level. Nor do they necessarily
contribute to local area planning. In local areas, the experience of social inclusion is
variable as in Victoria there are 79 local government authorities with considerable
difference in population size and density, diversity and budget capacity.
Current policy has developed some base for the implementation of social inclusion but
lacks specific strategies or mechanisms to effect systemic and structural implementation
in local settings. National planning remains largely service oriented and standards or
indicators of social inclusion across all the dimensions of community life are yet to be
identified. This reduces the opportunity for targeted interventions to improve social
inclusion implementation or to measure and develop trends over time. Similarly, the
absence of accurate, timely and comprehensive data has also diminished the capacity to
identify specific interventions in local settings. The State Plan focus on service recipients
leaves the majority of people with disability out of structured planning to implement
social inclusion.
In this respect, current legislative and policy settings mitigate against a universal
approach to implementing social inclusion for all people with disabilities. The lack of
focus on population data regarding impairment type and complexity exacerbates this
situation. Increased consideration of the impact that life stage, gender, culture and
indigenous status have on people with disabilities would lead to more responsive
61
interventions. It is not so much that legislation and policy fail to address social inclusion
for people with disabilities. It is more that the current jurisdictional boundaries, policy
contributions and strategies are fragmented and mechanisms to increase coordination are
not in place. It is not that policy fails to recognise the dimensions of inclusion that need
to change, rather that mechanisms are not in place to guarantee cross portfolio
collaboration or problem solving. The impact of this in local settings is that social
inclusion is likely to be implemented in variable ways. This works against the
establishment of clear, measurable systems and the removal of structural barriers.
Chapter summary
Social inclusion is fundamentally about ensuring that people with disabilities have the
opportunity to exercise their rights and obligations as active citizens and to be valued as
full members of the community. This requires both compensatory services and the
removal of structural and systemic barriers. It is likely that a range of benefits will result
for people with disabilities and the community if social inclusion policies can be
successfully implemented. A range of policy measures beyond declarations, rights based
legislation and the provision of services will be required to achieve this end. In
particular, policy will need to focus on strategies to address systemic and structural
barriers. The next chapter examines how current Australian disability policy has
implemented social inclusion.
62
CHAPTER 3
A DISCUSSION OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Introduction
There is now strong support for the idea of implementing social inclusion policy for
people with disabilities. As indicated in the previous chapter, concepts of social
inclusion broadly underpin policies for people with disabilities, whether they focus on
service delivery, housing, employment, education or recreational outcomes. The goal is
for people with disabilities to be included in everyday settings and relationships.
However, notwithstanding the commitment to social inclusion in disability policy, the
extent to which social inclusion has actually been achieved is much less clear. While
most of the large scale residential facilities have now been closed and residents have
moved into the community, they often continue to live relatively segregated lives. This is
particularly true for people with intellectual disabilities. They continue to experience
limited employment opportunities. Segregated educational facilities remain a feature for
a significant proportion of children with disabilities. Residential facilities, although
smaller in scale, are often institutional in nature. Community based recreational and
social opportunities often remain less accessible than those provided within disability
specific services.
In the past, disability policy has focused on deinstitutionalisation and physical
integration, the formal introduction of disability rights and the introduction of a range of
community based disability services. As suggested in the previous chapter, arguably,
these actions are necessary but not sufficient to ensure the social inclusion of people with
disabilities. For people with disabilities to be included in everyday recreational, social,
employment and community settings, it is likely that a new set of implementation
strategies will be needed. These include greater emphasis on incentives for employers,
63
community organisations, local government, and educational providers to include people
with disabilities. Those supporting people with disabilities will need to put more effort
into planning, advocating, facilitating and supporting strategies for social inclusion. The
extent to which current community based service provision for people with disabilities
inadvertently prevents inclusion may need to be carefully evaluated.
Disability policies that promote social inclusion, such as the State Plan, therefore present
new challenges for the development and measurement of implementation strategies.
Despite the best efforts of governments and policy advocates, policy often fails to achieve
or only partially achieves its goals. There is a substantial literature on the challenges of
policy implementation which seeks to explain why this occurs. This chapter addresses
implementation experiences relevant to disability policy and social inclusion, including
challenges to policy implementation from philosophical and structural perspectives. The
chapter concludes by outlining an approach for analysing the factors that are important in
increasing the likelihood that disability policy will be comprehensively implemented.
The policy process
Most descriptions of the development and implementation of policy argue that this
process progresses through a series of stages influenced by the interaction of key
stakeholders. Policy stages typically include agenda setting, goal setting, strategy
development, consultation, resource allocation and planning, implementation and
evaluation.
Discussions of public policy processes are usually set within the context of institutions of
democratic government. These include democratic decision making forums such as via
elections and parliament, executive decision making structures via cabinet and
bureaucracies to develop and implement decisions. Formally, policy is defined through
election and budget cycles, legislative processes and executive decision making and
review. Stakeholders, like people with disabilities and their advocates, seek to influence
64
the policy process through these institutional structures and processes (Althaus,
Bridgman & Davis, 2007; Parsons, 1995, 2004).
Policy theorists have sometimes argued that implementation ought to be a linear, rational
process of decision making based on evidence, analysis and unbiased consideration.
Classically, this position was most closely associated with Simon (1977). However, most
empirical accounts of the policy process suggest it is often neither linear nor rational in
the sense that Simon advocated. Instead, it proceeds in cyclical, pragmatic and
incremental ways reflecting contested views and divergent interests. Often these are only
partially settled and then returned for further consideration later. The policy institutions
and processes of government negotiate, facilitate and broker these competing views using
the tools of rational analysis, evidence and consideration to reach partial and temporary
policy settlement.
For example, Althaus, Bridgman and Davis describe policy as a cycle which is a rationale
and deliberate process in a complex matrix of “...politics, policy and administration”
(2007, p.33). Their approach is that policy develops through a sequence of tasks that
disaggregate complex phenomena into manageable steps. Whilst acknowledging that the
world is a messy place, the policy cycle is characterised as commencing with issue
identification and progressing through policy analysis, policy, instruments, consultation,
coordination, decision implementation and evaluation.
This challenge of policy implementation has been the subject of significant academic and
practitioner interest and Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1984) contribution to the discourse
is a much quoted work. It is a study of the Economic Development Administration’s
employment effort in Oakland in the United States where there had been a commitment
of $23 million in federal funds. The study highlights the challenges that complex
processes and interests hold for implementing public policy in local settings. Pressman
and Wildavsky argued that long chains of causality resulted in increased reciprocal
relationships and that this increased the difficulty of successful implementation.
65
The complexity of joint action is of particular interest to this study of disability policy
implementation as it involves multiple intergovernmental, community based services and
organisations, people with disabilities and their carers. Multiple participants and
perspectives is one of the implementation characteristics that Pressman and Wildavsky
identified as reducing the likelihood of successful implementation. They found that
incompatibility, program preferences, competing commitments, priorities, leadership and
role differences, legal and procedural differences and lack of power can combine to
undermine implementation. Pressman and Wildavsky found that top down approaches to
implementation failed. The current policy interest in local settings with local government
as a key partner is promising, particularly if appropriate resourcing and change
management are implemented.
A number of approaches to policy diffusion have been developed. In this respect one of
the most widely used and investigated has been that developed by Rogers. When Rogers
initially published the “Diffusion of Innovations” in 1962, there were only 405 similar
publications available. Many were focussed on technological innovation and mass
communication. From the early 1960s to the publication of the fifth edition in 2003, the
number of diffusion publications was approaching 5,200 (Rogers, 2003, p.xviii) with
applications across wider fields including anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology,
education, public health and medical sociology, communication, marketing, geography
and general economics (Rogers, 2003, p. 94).
The focus on uncertainty and information in Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of
innovations is a useful framework through which complex public policy such as disability
policy can be reviewed. The complexity surrounding disability policy can be
characterised by factors which impact on implementation including multiple:
� public sector partners and funding sources (national, state and local government);
� service providers (national, state and locally based commercial and not for profit
organisations that deliver specialist and general disability, health and welfare
services in the community);
66
� advocacy organisations (national, state and locally based organisations that
deliver impairment specific research, support and advocacy for people with
disabilities and their carers); and
� population characteristics: people with disabilities may have intellectual, physical,
sensory, acquired brain injury, neurological impairments or a combination of
impairments at different levels of complexity. These characteristics can be
impacted by other population considerations such as life stage, gender, culture
and location and whether they experience mental health conditions.
In Rogers’ theoretical model, innovation is defined as generating uncertainty and
alternative or new ways of problem solving. Uncertainty about the alternate options
drives problem solvers to exchange information resulting in a convergence process. For
Rogers, this social process between interpersonal networks is eventually worked through
into social construction which can result in social change.
The policy context
More broadly, public policy is always set within a particular historical context. In this
respect, it is arguable that institutions and processes of government have a role in the
development of public policy but that this has been eroded over the past three decades.
This erosion has significant implications for the implementation of strategies to promote
social inclusion. Parsons suggests the rise of advocates for smaller government and the
greater use of market mechanisms to solve social issues in the 1980s saw the introduction
of public choice theory. This reduced the influence of government policy making as
market and business rationality became a dominant philosophy (Parsons, 2004, p.43).
Market or public choice theory gained international intellectual momentum from the
1970s and was articulated and promoted by right wing think tanks. It stressed the
supremacy of the market over the public sector and the individual freedoms associated
with the private sector. This in turn influenced the policy responses to a raft of issues as
67
deregulation and privatisation characterised contemporary economic policy (Nevile,
1998).
Social inclusion can, in part occur through market mechanisms. The recent advocacy for
consumer directed funding is a case in point. The national government established terms
of reference for the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into long term
disability care and support with a view to receiving a final report in July 2011
(Productivity Commission, 2010). However, greater social inclusion for people with
disabilities is likely to require active changes to the non market social and cultural
structures. Similarly, change will be required to the processes of community
organisations, education, employment and recreation.
People with disabilities are often disadvantaged both in the market and in these non
market processes. While market interventions on their behalf, like consumer directed
funding, should not be discounted, they are unlikely to be sufficient on their own.
Ironically, the 1970s marks the time when deinstitutionalisation was gaining momentum
in Australia. Yet concurrent public sector management philosophies in Australia were
moving in different directions. Social inclusion and public choice theories are quite
different.
The consequence of implementing public choice theory is that the burden of mutual
obligation often falls on the most marginalised and vulnerable in the community although
under a libertarian guise. This has resulted in exclusion of individuals rather than the
exercising of choice (Kinnear, 2000). For example, people with disabilities experience
relative exclusion from the labour market and as a result experience higher levels of
poverty. They have felt the impact of these philosophical shifts quite acutely. Increased
privatisation of health services, recreational and educational and opportunities has also
increased the barriers for people on low incomes to participate. While privatisation per
se does not affect access, if it is accompanied by new or increased user charges it can
place barriers to people on low incomes. Given the income profile of people with
68
disabilities and their carers, this is a significant issue (Swain, 2004; Goggin & Newell,
2005).
Possibly the most significant effect of economic rationalism for social inclusion and
disability policy was the introduction of competition policy at the local community level
(Hilmer, Rayner & Taperell, 1993). Premised on the idea that government should “steer
not row” (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, p.35) market based principles strongly entered the
Australian public policy discourse in 1993 when Hilmer’s report on national competition
policy began to widely influence the development and delivery of public services (Hilmer
et al., 1993).
Competition policy resulted in a wide range of national and state services being tendered
and markets were created where agencies had previously worked in collaborative and
developmental ways. For Victorian local government, it resulted in a system of
Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) where local government was required to
tender out services (including those for people with disabilities) which had previously
been provided in house. Many local networking and interagency relationships were lost
at that time as agencies competed to win tenders for work with specified target groups.
Concepts of social inclusion and universal service platforms were not high policy
priorities or included in tendering arrangements.
Although CCT is no longer required in Victorian local government, its influence has been
slow to diminish. Inter and intra-organisational and community relationships are still re-
establishing and local government culture continues to realign its relationship with the
community. During CCT, residents using services were cast in the role of consumers
(Black, 1997). This occurred in spite of criticisms by some that this was a reductionist
approach and undermined the role of citizens in local communities. This experience was
compounded by local government amalgamations in the 1990s in Victoria. As a result,
there is a variable capacity to develop whole of community planning frameworks
reflecting the needs of various local communities of interest, including people with
disabilities (Ernst et al., 1997; Drake, 1999).
69
In a post-CCT era, publicly planned and delivered services have re-emerged and
competitive tendering has declined but a range of services continue to be delivered by
commercial and non government organisations, which were successful during the CCT
period. There continues to be divergent approaches and views about the role of local
government in service delivery, regulation and community building. Nevertheless, for
people with disabilities living in local communities, state and local government policies
have shifted to a more inclusive orientation and away from a pure micro-economic
reform thrust. In contrast, national government employment, training and support
policies have been slower to move away from the market driven approach. These are
critical aspects of implementing social inclusion and reducing poverty and
marginalisation which results in exclusion. The process for implementing such policies
can be seen as marginalising if it is not based on an individual response with adequate
community based initiatives (Forrest, 2005).
A Productivity Commission report delivered to the Australian Government in 2004
followed a review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It provided evidence on the
uneven experiences of people with disability in achieving social inclusion. It examined
discrimination based on disability in relation to employment, education, accommodation,
transport and the provision of goods and services. It found that the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992 has been reasonably effective in reducing discrimination
although inconsistent in its achievements. The Act has been more successful at
improving access to transport and education than employment opportunities but has
assisted people with physical disabilities more than those with mental or intellectual
disabilities. People from regional areas, with distinct cultural and indigenous issues still
face disadvantage. The future challenge will be shifting emphasis from physical to
attitudinal change to support social inclusion (Productivity Commission, 2004).
70
The re-emergence of community building
The literature indicates that the central barriers to social inclusion for people with
disabilities emerge from the implementation processes through which legislation, public
administration and service delivery are impacted by ideological influences. Clear’s
(2000) analysis suggested that there are significant issues that work against social
inclusion for people with disabilities. These include limited housing and accommodation
options (which are similar to those experienced by the general community), employment
(where people with disability remain overrepresented in unemployment statistics),
advocacy and education. He argued that:
The breadth of public policy appears to have created terms of social inclusion. Social inclusion is not full and generous; it is managed through legislation, administration and service systems. Importantly, it is managed by enduring systems of social and economic life that are not structured to include people with impairments. (Clear, 2000, p.xiv)
There is some scepticism expressed in the literature regarding the speed with which
governments have taken up the language of social inclusion as a key mechanism to
address responses to structurally derived social problems and exclusion. The scepticism
is compounded by the lack of detail in implementation plans and the absence of
evaluation processes. Mowbray argued that “community” has been faddish and
expedient in public policy and program design. It has been reinvented and
interchangeably referred to as community capacity building, government-community
partnerships, community and neighbourhood renewal and place management (Mowbray,
2004, p.107).
While such policies reflect appealing communitarian ideals in their language, Bryson and
Mowbray (2005) are critical of community capacity building initiatives. They describe
them as being low cost solutions and caution against nostalgia in adopting community as
a policy focus. They also question whether valid conclusions can be drawn from the
social capital literature to support the views that it has such beneficial outcomes in the
absence of an analysis of social and economic inequality. This literature indicates that, in
71
the case of implementing social inclusion for people with disabilities, approaching
individual or social change in isolation could fail to address the policy challenge. To
move beyond rhetoric, clear implementation and evaluation plans are needed.
Others have also criticised the extent to which the language of social inclusion has been
embraced through public policy. This criticism is focussed on social inclusion being
promoted as a panacea without description of related organisational or social changes or
how any of these would be measured or evaluated. Some have argued that the social
model of disability and whole-of-community approaches to developing and implementing
inclusive outcomes for people with disability are too generic and fail to recognise the
specific implications of impairment (Thomas, 2004). Mansell highlights this point in
relation to the support needs of people with severe or complex disabilities such as
intellectual disabilities:
… redistribution of resources, for example, money, housing, and employment, is usually not enough to obtain equality of opportunity. The nature of people’s impairments means that they need help from others in order to realise the opportunities that life presents (Mansell, 2007, p.9).
It has also been argued that creating inclusive communities, based on the concept of
universal participation, would be a stronger foundation for policy development. This is
because implementation costs would be viewed as fundamental rather than competing in
already overburdened public sector budgets (Clear, 2000; Tregaskis, 2004).
Confronting structural disadvantage
Irrespective of the philosophical motivation of policy, the literature indicates that
structural disadvantage remains a significant challenge to implementing social inclusion
for people with disabilities in local settings. Social inclusion remains problematic
because it requires specific interventions and challenges existing interests, resources and
work practices.
72
Tregaskis (2004) explored some of these structural issues. In a study of how
constructions of disability affected the chances of social inclusion in mainstream social
environments a leisure centre setting in the industrial midlands in England was reviewed.
The study concluded that there are no “quick fixes” to challenging exclusion for people
with disabilities but that a number of situationally appropriate access solutions are
needed. It was argued that “… real inclusion may only be possible once we begin to
learn how to engage with each other through dialogues that recognise and value
difference” (Tregaskis, 2004, p.151). Addressing the daily structural and attitudinal
discrimination in the lives of people with disabilities in local communities is a critical
starting point. At issue is the extent to which policy initiatives, however innovative, are
able to translate in local settings to improve the experience of people with disabilities in
being both a person and a member of society (Albrecht, 2004).
In general, government disability policy aims to enable people with disabilities to live
more inclusive lives in local communities. It has been suggested by some that the
experience of this form of community based living has remained largely institutional
without substantive work practice reform or the extension of social networks or genuine
independence (Gleeson, 1999). To achieve comprehensive community engagement and
the process of community building that will result in greater social inclusion, the issue of
adequate funding and resource levels is paramount.
This perspective is shared by a number of others who have considered the barriers to
social inclusion experienced by people with disabilities. They argue that the
consideration of power relations in society that affect public resource allocation is critical
in understanding the values and assumptions underpinning disability policy (Drake, 1999,
Priestley 2001, Thomas 2004). Drake asserted that the prevailing norms and values in
any population are those of the majority. As people with disability are in the minority, it
is not surprising that these norms are the fabric of disability policy.
Further, Drake argued that policy is the context within which legislation is developed and
applied to regulates the behaviour of citizens. The interplay between “structures and
73
human volition” (Drake, 1999, p.20) plays out in a continuous cycle where ascendant
groups form institutions and structures which influence the exercise of power through
policy making, planning and implementation. He posed a crucial question regarding the
extent to which the experiences of disabled people in society are determined through the
creation and application of policy.
Priestley (2001) adopted a similar perspective to Drake and argued that disability is a
global issue. In his model, claims for greater participation, integration and equality are
not just for individual rights but the ability to influence the social structures within which
they live. He argued that structural inequalities and conflicts cause exclusion rather than
disabling attitudes or prejudice. Goggin and Newell (2005) argue that “injustice,
exclusion and marginalisation” (p.18) of people with disability is a form of apartheid.
They argue that the concept of “special” benefits being provided for people with
disability reinforces the apartheid experience as it is predicated on the value of “normal”
with an over-emphasis on work and economic productivity.
Similarly, Thomas (2004) suggested that the social model of disability has exposed social
oppression and exclusion analogous to gender, race, class and sexual oppression. This
interpretation is consistent with Priestley’s conclusions as he traced this form of
exclusion back to the industrial revolution where the requirement for speed in production
began excluding people who were unable to keep up.
Seeing the barriers to social inclusion as largely structural, Gleeson (1999) introduced the
concept that community care ideals and urban regulation are creating barriers to enabling
environments for people with disabilities. This view is shared by Drake who identified
the social exercise of power, the helper-helped perception and the structure of policy
making itself as being a significant barrier. This is perpetuated by the almost total
exclusion of disabled people from political and bureaucratic processes. It means that
decisions are continually taken by non-disabled people and disabled people are
characterised as passive recipients of welfare.
74
The process of developing and implementing disability policy has been dynamic and
controversial because of this context. Percy (1989) argued that while institutionalisation
denied people with disabilities access to society, subsequently, exclusion has rested on
assumptions about inabilities rather than capabilities. The exclusion of people with
disability has been manifested in many ways. The needs of people with disabilities are
largely ignored in private and public sector design of facilities, employment practices,
educational practices, educational programs and public sector service delivery. He
concluded that when efforts are made to take the needs of people with a disability into
account, non-disabled people lump most disabilities together and this is an impediment to
more enlightened policy development.
Challenges for future disability policy implementation
The literature identified a number of challenges for future disability policy and
implementation of social inclusion in local settings. These included the need to
intentionally implement policy in a universal and citizen rights framework, embed
changes in organisations and the community and increase intergovernmental
collaboration and evaluation with a local settings focus. In Australia, the relationships
between the tiers of government, community and disability services remains a
challenging though fundamental factor.
A final challenge is the need to find a theoretical framework to enable analysis of current
implementation to increase social inclusion, particularly given that evaluation data
regarding the State Plan’s implementation remains underdeveloped. The next section
will expand on future implementation challenges. It will conclude by outlining how the
diffusion of innovations theory, developed by Everett Rogers, provides a theoretical
framework for this thesis.
75
A universal, citizen rights framework
The concept of inclusionary landscapes and places is a theme developed by a number of
writers in the late twentieth century. It provides context for the current interest in
implementing inclusive policies. Whilst not directly addressing social inclusion for
people with disabilities in communities, these themes are consistent with Albrecht’s
reconceptualisation of disability as requiring a universal perspective with a
comprehensive and inclusive philosophical policy base. They are the themes that have
influenced the State Plan.
The emergence of this discourse raised questions as to whether a more civil society
needed to be built. Would people become disenfranchised in the role of consumer rather
than citizen and become less likely to participate in community life? Farrar and Ingles
(1996) argued for the development of civil society as a vehicle for establishing
interlocking communities that foster a sense of collective well being. This theme has
currency in the broader public policy implementation. Parsons (2004) argued that the
economic rationalist experiment of the 1980s sidelined rational policy development. The
1990s and beyond by contrast have been characterised by a focus on governance and an
interest in linking policy making to government understanding, steering and management
of complex realities.
These arguments set the philosophical context for social inclusion in disability policy
being characterised as “the desire for a secure place in social networks based on
reciprocity, trust and mutual respect” (Gleeson, 2004, p.315). Gleeson suggested the
value of a different kind of community planning. This would be focused less on the
instantaneous production of physical infrastructure “and more on building networks,
relationships, capacities and possibilities for social interaction” (Gleeson, 2004, p.318).
Gleeson’s (2004) contribution to the literature bridges from the public choice discourse of
the 1970s and 1980s to the “wicked policy” trends of the twenty first century (Australian
Public Service Commission, 2007). It characterises the nature of the philosophical shift
76
required in policy implementation to increase social inclusion for people with disabilities
in local settings.
Embedding changes in organisations and the community
Goggin and Newell (2005) recommended incorporating disability into political and
governance arrangements. This would mean developing an international approach to
disability and citizenship and changing the public debate and policy making process by
routinely engaging with people with disabilities. They argued that economists needed to
understand disability and move on from a tragic or catastrophic view of disability often
depicted through the media. Greater opportunities for education and the strategic social
inclusion of disability need to be identified.
In defining disability, Goggin and Newell noted that it was commonly associated within
individuals and represented as a life sentence incurring suffering, discomfort and loss of
functioning. The term disability implies the opposite of ability. It has been incorrectly
characterised as representing deviance and existing in the realm of charity and
representing “otherness” (Goggin & Newell, 2005, p.25). They argued that “To
understand how we encounter disability in society, we need to redirect our gaze away
from the person with disability to scrutinise society itself as the site where disability is
located and reproduced” (Goggin & Newell, 2005, p.27). Achieving social inclusion
from their perspective would necessarily involve people with disabilities in local
governance and in being able to navigate the roles and resources of government.
Reddel (Reddel, 2004, p.130) addressed the discourse around the values and ideas of civil
society, citizen participation and localism by proposing that these be seen as the
“foundations of contemporary social governance”. Further that an alternate framework
for thinking about state and community relations include possible governance
methodologies for actioning the framework. He characterised the emergence of the
language of social inclusion and exclusion as reinventing the social policy discourse.
77
This contrasts with the policy of the 1980s and 1990s which was focussed more explicitly
on unemployment, globalisation, economic restructuring, deregulation and privatisation.
Reddel argued for a model where the state and its agencies would play a leadership and
strategic function in collaboration with social movements. He maintained that traditional
social governance is not capable of reconceptualising state and civil society relations and
that they remain linked to market theory from the 1990s reforms agenda and its heavy
reliance on corporate management. In place of this, Reddel argues for:
A new form of network governance based around the interactions of the socio-political systems involving the public, private and civil sectors has been promoted as an alternative model. This new mode of governance focuses on management by negotiation and horizontal networks, policy learning and organic organisational forms rather than traditional methods of hierarchical command and control or market models. (Reddel, 2004, p.137)
Reddel argued that translating these ideas into principles and indicative methodologies is
still underdeveloped. Policy dangers include an over generalised account of networks in
social governance and power differentials between state and civil society networks. He
also foreshadowed that the construction of a sustainable institutional framework is
needed comprising policy, discourse, negotiation, and arbitration to negotiate complexity
to deliver a model of social governance with active state and engaged civil society.
Implementing new forms of governance would respond to the claims of disability
theorists regarding structural exclusion.
Intergovernmental collaboration in local settings
From a whole of community perspective, Mansell and Ericsson (1996) concluded that
deinstitutionalisation did not just affect people with disabilities and their carers. It had an
impact on decision makers, staff in services and researchers. It also generated interest in
new concepts such as Castellani’s “seams of government” (1996) and the integration of
previously invisible people to local communities. Mansell and Ericsson argued that
institutions emerge from the expression of community beliefs and values and that their
78
demise leaves those beliefs and practices still to be tackled in the community. They
concluded that the greatest challenge for all societies is “…how to build and sustain
social solidarity and mutual commitment among people with different needs, talents and
aspirations, so that everyone may flourish and prosper” (Mansell & Ericsson, 1996,
p.253).
By reviewing current European area-based policy initiatives and practice, Randolph
(2004) concluded that addressing social disadvantage and exclusion is more likely to be
successful through local coordination and integration rather than through a state
generated “whole of government” approach. The principle of aiming to address the
complex causes of social exclusion so that disadvantaged households are better able to
experience social inclusion and access mainstream resources and opportunities open to
the bulk of the population is relevant for the development of inclusive disability policy.
Using Randolph’s paradigm, a coordinated, place based approach to policy development
could create more inclusive outcomes for people with disabilities. This would be
particularly effective if stimulation of the local economy, increased local employment
options, renewal of the physical environment, enhancement of social conditions and
relations and greater political engagement with excluded group were front of mind.
While Randolph identified the extent to which exclusion is generated by wider structural
social and economic factors as a tension, he also argued that one of the main roles for
area-based programs is to encourage agencies to collaborate through partnerships.
He noted the absence of local mechanisms to build synergies between complementary
projects or to rationalise competing projects and that program integration can only be
delivered locally. He argued for a shared priority plan to guide all funding into local
areas to reflect common or strategically based targeting based on place and or
disadvantage. He suggested that local renewal consortia may be an alternative to
structure to drive renewal on a place basis. He called for increased integration of land
use and social planning and the establishment of longer-term local renewal funds to
support local initiatives.
79
This approach is similar to the principles outlined in a Victorian government paper titled
“Actions for Community Strengthening with Local Government” (Department of
Victorian Communities, 2005). It proposed that a best practice model for local
government would include actions relating to the foundations of community
strengthening, development of community wide interventions, joined up services and
changing the way local governments do business. A number of actions could be
developed in terms of the foundations of community strengthening and relating this to the
social inclusion of people with disabilities. Identifying community members needing
support and developing a current service map, recognising the needs of this group in local
government budgets and service plans, creating a data base to monitor implementation
and related consultative mechanisms and advocacy emerge from the proposed model.
Development of a social inclusion self-audit for local government authorities is an
example of the kind of action that could make a significant difference in local settings.
Gillen (2004) critically analysed New South Wales planning systems that have caused
community disenchantment and identified future challenges. He argued that the rhetoric
of joined up thinking and whole of government action should demand that planning,
transport, education and health enter cross sectional links. Knowledge creation and
dissemination, coordinated problem solving and deliberative vision making should be
necessary processes. Relevant to this study, he highlighted that the barriers to a strategic,
proactive, integrated and place-based approach can be found in the traditions of local
government where reactive decisions and pressure groups result in resistance to change.
Conscious responses to current processes that influence policy, programs and advocacy in
local areas would be required to strengthen social inclusion implementation.
Analysing the implementation of strategies for social inclusion
The preceding discussion has highlighted the need for a radical shift in strategy for social
inclusion for people with disabilities to be successfully implemented. The focus needs to
shift from legislation, regulation and service delivery to a more active engagement with
80
the social, cultural and economic organisations that determine whether or not people with
disabilities will be included. In the previous chapter, it was argued that the State Plan
adopts this new perspective resulting in a range of new strategies.
When the State Plan was launched in 2002 it identified challenges and barriers to
implementing social inclusion that were raised by people with disability during
consultation. They included:
Strengthening rural, regional and urban communities, so that they are more accessible and more inclusive of people with a disability…. raising the community’s awareness of disability, so that all people with a disability can be respected and valued for who they are…. improving access to physical environments, including public transport and buildings and building more opportunities for people with a disability to participate in arts, cultural, sport and leisure activities. (Department of Human Services, 2002, p.3)
These challenges and barriers to increasing social inclusion in local settings have a
critical relationship to the policy goal “Building Inclusive Communities” (p. 9) in the
State Plan. As a result, the State Plan identified that changes in local settings would
require multiple partnerships including with local governments. The State Plan identified
priority strategies and the local government partnership has a relationship to the priority
strategy to “Strengthen Local Communities” (p. 11). Yet, while the State Plan identified
that “There will be more partnership initiatives between governments, communities and
providers of health and community services in local communities” (p. 27) there are few
details of the scope or arrangements to develop this partnership.
The State Plan Implementation Plan 2002-2005 (Department of Human Services 2002a)
re-stated that partnership with local government would be an important implementation
element. However the relationship with local government has been characterised in
narrow programmatic terms. These include the RuralAccess and Access for all Abilities
program activities or liaison with the Municipal Association of Victoria to review the
progress of local disability plan development and promote the state government’s best
practice development grants award winners.
81
The Implementation Plan foreshadowed the development of a MetroAccess Program for
metropolitan local settings. It also noted that “While the total number of people with a
disability in Victoria is large, the number of people who need and use disability supports
funded or provided by the Department of Human Services is relatively small”
(Department of Human Services 2002a, p.89). This issue has not been addressed in terms
of how social inclusion for all people with disabilities should be implemented in local
settings across the state. Nor has it identified how a partnership with local government
could accelerate the State Plan’s goals. The State Plan Implementation Plan 2006-2008
maintained the overall structure and organisation of the original Implementation Plan.
However, it was much less focussed on the Department of Human Services Disability
Services Division head office partnership with local government rather than a regional
office relationship with the 79 local governments across Victoria. There were no specific
actions regarding the role of local government as a key implementation partner or the
planning, implementation or evaluation processes that could be jointly undertaken.
Given this context, the pivotal question for this study is to identify the factors that have
assisted or impeded the implementation of planning to increase social inclusion for
people with disabilities in local settings. The extent to which broader planning and
policy frameworks, in this case the State Plan, impact on the success of local planning
initiatives, support intergovernmental partnership and effect social change are at the heart
of the study.
By defining diffusion as a kind of social change which results in alteration to the
structure and function of a social system, Rogers’ theory provides a framework to review
the extent to which the State Plan vision has been implemented. Rogers (2003) argued
that successful diffusion proceeded through a progressive process of adoption with
innovators and early adopters progressively implementing new ideas, policies and
technologies. Innovation and the implementation of new strategies occur because they
are seen to have greater utility than those that preceded them. If successful, they
82
progressively spread through organisations and social systems because they provide
better solutions toward desired goals.
Rogers’ theory is based on the premise that the adoption of new ideas, even if they have
obvious advantages, is difficult. Implementation can take significant time and may or
may not be successful. The common issue for individuals or organisations implementing
new ideas is how to accelerate the rate of adoption to achieve widespread change.
According to Rogers, an innovation is a new idea or practice requiring new knowledge,
persuasion and a decision to adopt. The process of diffusing an innovation is therefore a
critical consideration to achieving policy objectives in a timely and cost effective manner.
Early diffusion studies demonstrated that the time required to diffuse innovations varies
based on the characteristics of each innovation. This can explain different rates of
adoption. Rogers’ theory is that innovations perceived by individuals as having greater
relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and less complexity are more
rapidly adopted. In addition the diffusion process is affected by the time it takes to
provide potential adopters with knowledge, to be persuaded to innovate, make a decision
to proceed, implement and confirm.
Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than
the idea it supersedes. Objective advantage is not as important as the impact that the idea
might have in economic terms, social prestige, convenience or satisfaction for the
adopter. Compatibility refers to the advantage of an innovation providing continuity for
potential adopters or the values and norms of a social system. Complexity refers to the
degree to which the innovation is perceived to be difficult to understand or use. New
ideas that require the adopter to develop new skills and understanding will take more
time. Trialability refers to the degree to which innovation may be experimented with on
a limited basis. Trialling an innovation is less uncertain for individual adopters and
therefore more likely to be taken up rapidly. Observability refers to the extent to which
the outcomes from innovations can be seen
83
While the tradition of diffusion research has largely been used in relation to technology
innovation, Rogers argues that a single integrated body of concepts and generalisations
are emerging. From largely scientific roots, the diffusion model has emerged as relevant
for many disciplines. The relationship between individual and social system responses to
implementation and change means that it can be applied as well to technological
innovation, economic interventions, social and political change.
There are a number of reasons for applying Rogers’ theory of diffusion to an evaluation
of the implementation of the State Plan. Given that the innovation in contemporary
disability policy is the greater focus on social inclusion in local settings, it is relevant to
identify how to accelerate the rate of adoption to achieve widespread change. The
characteristics of innovations enable the identification of specific supports and
impediments to increasing social inclusion. The advantage of Rogers’ theory is that it
places the role played by individual adopters in the social context thereby bridging
individual and systemic relationships in achieving innovation. It provides a mechanism
for collecting and analysing study data that is part of a research tradition and will result in
study outcomes that will be relevant to contemporary disability policy implementation
and evaluation.
Rogers’ theory is applicable an evaluation of the implementation of the State Plan as the
vision of inclusive community defined in the State Plan is multi-dimensional and
foreshadows unprecedented approaches to social inclusion implementation. The State
Plan also seeks to facilitate convergence of complex service provider and community
building activities. As such, the State Plan can be described as containing Rogers’ four
main elements in the diffusion of innovations which are identifiable in every diffusion
research study, campaign or program. These are the innovation, communication
channels, time and social system.
In relation to innovation, the State Plan represents what Rogers characterises as “an idea,
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption”
(Rogers, 2003, p.12). According to Rogers, an objective definition of innovation is not as
84
relevant as the extent to which the perceived newness of the idea prompts reactions to it.
Newness can refer to evolved knowledge and the expression, persuasion or decision to
adopt.
This description is consistent with the State Plan’s vision to include people with
disabilities in all aspects of daily community life which has been a foundation stone of
disability policy since deinstitutionalisation policy. These policy aims have remained
consistent over the last twenty years but innovation has been introduced in the
implementation methods. The “newness” in this State Plan is the promise of a
partnership based approach to creating change. It suggests that the State Plan is a
mechanism to increase the dimensions of inclusion to include disability supports, health
and community services, recreation, education, employment, transport and housing in a
comprehensive plan at state and local government levels.
In relation to communication channels, the State Plan aims to provide a policy
mechanism for participants to “create and share information with one another in order to
reach a mutual understanding” (Rogers, 2003, p. 17). According to Rogers, the essence
of the communication process is the information exchange through which individual
participants are able to communicate a new idea to one or several others. The extent to
which the State Plan vision has been able to be communicated by individuals or
organisations ranging from state and local government to people with disabilities to
achieve social change is of key interest in this study.
Rogers identified that successful communication is more likely to occur with participants
who are similar and have shared beliefs, education and social status. In the case of the
State Plan, there is difference in personal and organisational beliefs and experiences,
professional and other education and social status involved with key implementation
partners.
In relation to time, the State Plan has a fixed implementation timeline (2002 – 2012).
The Victorian State Disability Act defines that after 2012 a State Disability Plan will need
85
to continue. However, it will need to be more comprehensive and based on an expanded
population and impairment model. According to Rogers’ theory, these timelines would
need some consideration of the implementation process to take individuals to
acknowledge and either adopt or reject innovation, the relative time it takes early or late
adopters to implement innovation and the measurement of adoption within a setting. In
relation to social systems, state government, local government and people with
disabilities meet Rogers’ definition of a social system in being “… a set of interrelated
units that are engaged in joint problem-solving to accomplish a common goal” (Rogers,
2003, p.23). This is identified in the State Plan’s priority strategy to strengthen local
communities.
Rogers’ theory contends that social systems affect diffusion in a number of ways
including through the structure established, the organisational or contextual norms at
play, the role of individual change agents and opinion leaders, the types of innovations
adopted or rejected by individuals or organisations and the consequences which change
the social system on an individual or organisational level. The implementation of
innovative practices like those proposed by the State Plan necessarily occurs in particular
organisational and community settings. It is the extent to innovation occurs in each of
these local settings which determines whether or not social inclusion will occur.
As a complex piece of public policy, the State Plan has generated uncertainty and a range
of implementation goals requiring collaborative problem solving. In this study, the
characteristics of innovations defined by Rogers are utilised as a framework to investigate
the factors that effect the rate of adoption of the State Plan in local community and
organisational settings where practices need to change if people with disabilities are to
experience greater social inclusion. In particular, the study explores the utility of Rogers’
concepts of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability as
the qualities of innovation most likely to impact on the rate of adoption.
86
Chapter summary
This literature review has highlighted the emerging gap between government aspirations
to implement social inclusion policy for people with disabilities in local settings and the
achievement of systematic and comprehensive change. Although the majority of people
with disabilities now live in the community, the extent to which they are routinely
included in every day recreational, social, employment and community settings is
contested. As a result, the literature indicates that implementation mechanisms may need
to be as diverse as the population of people with disabilities to be more successful.
This challenges a linear, rational approach to policy making and diffusion and suggests
that implementation may need to vary with increasing complexity. Implementing social
inclusion policy for people with disabilities is highly complex. It involves multiple
public sector partners and funding sources, service providers, advocacy organisations and
diverse community members and carers. While complexity is challenging, a discussion
of Rogers’ characteristics of innovation framework has demonstrated that it is an apt
approach to identifying specific factors that have assisted or impeded implementation.
The literature also demonstrates that the shift in public sector management from public
choice to community oriented policy highlights the value of partner based approaches and
intergovernmental collaboration to tackling structural disadvantage. The next chapter
outlines the methodology developed to respond to the research problem.
87
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
Methodological approach
A qualitative framework was chosen for this study because it allowed a richer and more
nuanced exploration of participants’ perceptions and interpretations. This was important
for understanding the variety and interplay of issues which affected the success of the
State Plan’s implementation. Research on these issues is still formative which makes an
interpretive and exploratory methodology appropriate. A case study approach was
chosen to enable exploration of the implementation process in some depth. The case
study method has the capacity for one or more individuals or organisational views to be
collected and analysed. In this study, data were bounded by time and activity and a
number of techniques such as interviews and document review were used.
Yin has argued that “In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or
“why” questions are being proposed, when the investigator has little control over events,
and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real life context”
(Yin, 2003. p.1). This criterion was relevant for this study as the implementation of
social inclusion policy for people with disability is a contemporary and innovative
initiative. The research questions were all focussed on understanding how the
implementation process had occurred and how implementation stakeholders had
experienced the process and outcomes. The researcher was also interested in identifying
whether there were differences in the experience of implementing the policy either
between implementation agents or based on location. Conducting a case study, and
drawing participants from three different locations, provided a suitable method for
identifying the intended data.
Critics of the case study method express a number of concerns which were considered at
the design stage. They include the potential for rigor and generalization and the danger
88
that lengthy data collection processes could result in an inaccessible report. These
criticisms have been mitigated in a number of ways. On the issue of rigor this study has
developed a well defined and systematic set of procedures. On the issue of report
accessibility, only data related to the research questions have been included in the study
results.
The issue of generalisation applies to all qualitative methods because it relates to the
appropriateness of applying the canons by which quantitative research is judged. Strauss
and Corbin (1998) argued that the scientific canons require some modification to fit
qualitative research and the social complexities being studied. For example, modifying
the reproducibility canon in a qualitative study means that a researcher with the same
theoretical perspective, following the same data gathering and analysis processes in
similar conditions should find similar theoretical explanations.
Similarly some modification is required for generalisability. In testing or forming theory
in a qualitative study, it is necessary to specify the conditions that have resulted in
problems, issues and strategies or actions in response. The merit of the substantive
theory tested or formed through the use of qualitative methods is its “ability to speak
specifically for the population from which it was derived and to apply back to them”
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 267). On the issue of generalisability, this study has a clear
participant base and has documented the problems, issues and strategies or actions
indicated in the literature as well as from the data collection and analysis processes.
Responding to the criticism that case studies can result in lengthy data collection
processes and an inaccessible report, the case study format, number of participants and
data collection techniques were carefully chosen with the study questions in mind. In
spite of a very large amount of incidental data being collected, only data relevant to the
research questions and Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory have been reported.
All methods of enquiry generate issues that need to be addressed and due consideration
has been given to those associated with the case study method. The value of a case study
89
method for this study is that it enables a holistic view of organisational and managerial
processes and the experience of change validated by people with disabilities. According
to Yin (2003), case study design, data collection, analysis and reporting are essential
elements to find answers to the research questions. Further detail on these aspects of the
research will be outlined later in this chapter.
The study design is consistent with the characteristics of qualitative approaches set out by
Creswell (2003) as it:
…takes place in the natural setting, employs multiple methods of data collection, is emergent rather than prefigured, is based on the interpretations of the researcher, is viewed holistically, is reflective, uses both inductive and deductive reasoning processes, and employs a strategy of enquiry. (p. 205)
Strauss and Corbin (1998, p.6) proposed that researchers choosing qualitative
methodology recognise the complexity of phenomena. They make the point that
researchers using qualitative methodology often hope that their work has relevance for
both academic and non-academic audiences. The principal advantage of the approach
adopted in this study is that it provides an in-depth exploration of the interpretations and
views of participants within a well developed model for evaluating the implementation of
innovations. It is consistent with the views of Miles and Huberman (1994) that the
qualitative paradigm is increasingly used in fields such as public administration as it
provides “well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable
local contexts … [and] generate or revise conceptual frameworks” (p.1).
Morse and Richards argue that “…good research is purposive and good methods are
congruent with a fit between question, method, data and analytic strategy” (Morse &
Richards, 2002, p.4). This methodological integrity is a way of ensuring that the many
options available to the qualitative methodologists are not “mixed and matched” to a
point where data analysis and results do not make sense. Here, the adoption of Rogers’
theory of diffusion has provided a clear framework and structured the study while
allowing participants scope for rich descriptions and interpretations. All qualitative
methods contribute to an understanding of complex data in context and were considered
90
in the development of this methodology. In deciding on the method of enquiry, a number
of options were explored and discounted including ethnographies, grounded theory,
phenomenological research and narrative research.
Ethnography (Creswell, 2003, p.14) was excluded as a potential method because of its
focus on the study of a cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time.
Although this study is centred on the experience of people with disability in local
settings, it is located in the context of social and disability policy implementation
processes and the partnerships between tiers of government. In addition, people with
disabilities are not a homogenous group and comprise multiple communities of interest
based on gender, lifestage, cultural or Indigenous background, impairment type and
complexity. As such, observational data would not enable research questions to be
answered within the time constraints of this study.
Grounded theory (Creswell, 2001, p.14) was excluded as a potential method because the
study questions did not refer to the development of a general abstract theory of a process,
action or interaction. The focus was on the factors that affect policy implementation.
Consequently, the study sought to explore the relevance of Rogers’ theory of the
diffusion of innovations for understanding the implementation of the State Plan.
Phenomenological research (Creswell, 2003, p.15) was excluded as a potential method
because it involves extensive and prolonged engagement to identify patterns and
relationships on a specific phenomenon and people’s experience of it. It is concerned
with the lived experiences of the real world in the context of things, people, events and
situations. It is not unusual for research questions to remain implicit and for the
researcher to set aside, or bracket, a priori knowledge. In this study, the literature review
has identified knowledge and gaps which have resulted in the formation of specific
questions for participants and the study data collection needed to be concluded within set
time boundaries.
91
Narrative research (Creswell, 2003, p.15) was excluded as a potential method because of
the focus on developing collaborative stories about individual lives. While this would
have provided interesting insights into the lived experience of disability, it would not
have assisted in answering the research questions.
The contribution of this study to the literature is to apply Rogers’ theory of diffusion and
implementation to a unique problem which is the implementation of disability policy to
increase social inclusion in local settings. As such, this methodology provided an
original application of an existing theory to a new problem or context to explore its
usefulness. This study can therefore be characterised as theory-driven, qualitative
research (Creswell, 2003). Data was gathered and analysed using Rogers’ characteristics
of innovation as the interview framework. It has also been used as the method for
reporting the results. This has been achieved by providing Rogers’ definition of the
characteristic, an analysis of the State Plan based on this definition, participant views of
the characteristic and a summary as to whether all aspects of the characteristic has been
met. This is significant in the analysis and reporting chapter as Rogers’ theory is that all
dimensions of each characteristic need to be met to maximise the process and speed of
diffusion.
Taking Creswell’s comment (2003, p.21) that the choice of a research tradition takes the
research problem, personal experiences, and the audiences for the study into account, a
qualitative methodology for this study is appropriate. This is because the research
problem requires an understanding of multiple realities. In this case, it includes
experiences of national, state and local government representatives and people with
disabilities. It enables a mechanism for understanding the ways in which people in local
settings make sense of these realities and as a result articulates a more systematic way of
working. Understanding how the State Plan is currently implemented and comparing this
with the literature highlights the elements requiring change and provides the basis of a
social inclusion implementation model.
92
Human ethics
Ethics approval was gained from the Faculty Human Ethics Committee at La Trobe
University prior to data collection commencing and the study was reported on as
required. The approval number for this application was FHEC 06/07.
To comply with the ethics process, information was provided in writing to potential
participants to seek their interest in participating in the study. Samples of these letters are
included in Appendix B. Informed consent forms were signed by all participants prior to
interviews being conducted so that they were aware of the study requirements, their right
to withdraw and the contact details of the study supervisors at La Trobe University.
Samples of the informed consent are included in Appendix C.
People with disabilities who participated in the study were not recruited as state clients,
but as active, independent and competent community members. They were involved in
advisory committees that provided policy and implementation advice on disability issues
in local areas. As a result, participants had the same choice regarding study participation
and withdrawal of informed consent as all other participants and were guaranteed that
their contribution would be confidential.
Records of interview based on field notes de-identified participants and their
organisations to ensure confidentiality. Individuals, agencies and local areas were de-
identified in records of interview and in the study report writing process. Participant
codes were used and kept separately from lists of participant names. Individual or
organisational names were not recorded in field notes or records of interview.
Project documentation was stored in a secure, locked filing cabinet in the School of
Public Health at La Trobe University. Computer files were password protected. De-
identified data and consent forms will be kept for five years at La Trobe University at
which point they will be destroyed.
93
Participants
Local government, state government and people with disabilities were identified as the
key agents in implementing social inclusion policy components of the State Plan in local
settings. This is because the State Government generated the State Plan through the
Department of Human Services (and the department also provide services and
accommodation to many people with disabilities), local governments are obliged to plan
for the whole community and advocate on issues of community concern and people with
disability are often included on disability advisory committees that comment on policy,
programs and advocacy needs in local communities. Hence, participation of
representatives from these implementation partners was sought to develop an effective
case study.
Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office agreed that the
organisation would participate in the study and nominated program managers and officers
for interview. Three local governments agreed to participate in the study and a decision
was taken to seek participation from three local governments from diverse geographical
locations. The first local government approached declined to participate on the basis that
they were over committed at the time. They were replaced with another rural local
government with sufficient time and availability. As a result, participating Councils
included one from a metropolitan region, one from an interface region and one from a
rural region. Once the three local governments had agreed to participate, the two
Department of Human Services regional offices covering these three local governments
were approached and also agreed to participate. Similarly, once the three local
governments had agreed to participate, they were asked to nominate an active member of
their disability advisory committee to participate in the study. Two of the three
nominated participants were chairs of their local disability committees and the third was
an active participant.
94
After verbally indicating interest in participating, all participants were then sent a letter
introducing the study and a subsequent meeting was held to answer questions and discuss
study processes.
As individuals were nominated and agreed to participate in the case study development
process, individual interviews were arranged and participants received and signed
informed consent forms prior to the interviews commencing. Participants were also
given copies of the informed consent forms so that they could reflect on the study and
data collection process and retain the details of study supervisors and the steps for
withdrawal from the study should they so choose.
At this point, time delays experienced in finalising the interview process resulted in a
change to the original method of seeking a written reflection exercise and multiple
interviews. All participants agreed to participate in one longer interview, rather that two
shorter sessions.
Table 1
Participant roles and sample size
Participant role State wide Metropolitan Interface Rural
Person with a disability - 1 1 1 Local government officer - 1 2 2 Local government manager - 1 1 1 State government regional - 1 - -
– officer State government regional - 1 - 1
– manager State government Head Office 2 - - -
– officer State government Head Office 1 - - -
– manager Total 3 5 4 5
Note: The state government metropolitan regional manager and officer also had responsibility for
the interface study location.
95
Data collection boundaries
Locating the study in three local government settings enabled identification and
definition of multiple policy implementation issues with key implementation partners to
identify supports and barriers to more systematic implementation. Although the
boundaries of local government settings are arbitrarily defined representations of
community, they are the boundaries within which planning, funding and other resources
that impact of local inclusion are often allocated by state and local governments.
Adopting these settings also provided a bounded context for decisions regarding study
scope and participants.
The State Plan is focussed on strengthening local communities7. As a result local
government is identified as a key implementation partner. Therefore, key
implementation partners in the local government setting for this study were defined as
Department of Human Services managers and officers, local government managers and
officers and people with disabilities involved in local area planning, advocacy or advice.
Study processes
The State Plan (Department of Human Services, 2002) and Implementation Plans
(Department of Human Services. 2002a, 2006), the Local Government Act 1989 and A
Fairer Victoria: Creating Opportunity and Addressing Disadvantage (Department of
Premier and Cabinet, 2005) were key public policy documents which were reviewed and
analysed as a preliminary step prior to case study development.
Yin (2003) notes that case study strategies can be strengthened by the use of multiple
settings as it increases the possibility of direct replication. In addition, the local settings
chosen were likely to have different contexts and so common findings expand external
7 See Victorian State Disability Plan 2002-2012, Priority Strategy 4.
96
generalisability. Based on this view, the researcher initially identified factors that could
vary the experience of implementing the State Plan in local communities according to
geographical location and prior success in developing inclusive actions.
The initial criterion for the choice of case study participants included:
� One local government area in each of the categories of metropolitan, interface,
rural and capital city/regional centre; and
� Half of the participating local governments should be deemed as high
performing in the area of disability planning by expert advisors.
As the research process progressed, this criterion needed to be modified to reduce the
number of case study participant categories and the differentiation between local
governments demonstrating leadership and high levels of activity in disability planning
and social inclusion implementation and those that did not. In the initial recruitment
phases, both the Municipal Association of Victoria and Department of Human Services
Disability Services Division were approached to provide expert advice on participant
selection issues. They confirmed that there as there was not an objective framework in
place they could not specify what a local government demonstrating leadership and high
levels of activity would look like. Nor could the annual survey data on local government
disability plans differentiate performance outcomes in local settings.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is a peak body that supports local government
activities. It has a role in supporting and providing advice to local governments
regarding the development and implementation of disability plans. It is also involved in
advocating and negotiating with state government on a range of issues including
disability and community planning policy and implementation. It was able to provide
credible, independent advice and as a result the study’s participant profile was modified.
It was possible to identify local governments that were very active and inclusive of
community members with disabilities. But it was not possible to determine the
97
effectiveness of their activities or strategies. Similarly, it was possible to identify others
with lower activity levels in disability plans. But this may not have necessarily reflected
their activities or effectiveness as these could have been integrated in other documents
such as the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan, Municipal Strategic Statement
or council plan. This highlighted at an early stage in the study process that the principles
of inclusion upon which the State Plan was based lacked an evaluation framework to
measure progress and the consistency of implementation in local settings.
In addition, the amount of time needed to contact and gain agreement from local
governments and Department of Human Services regional offices to participate and the
restrictions imposed by thesis candidature guidelines made it impossible to recruit and
conduct the number of case studies originally envisaged. As a result, case study settings
were purposively selected based on expert advice from the Municipal Association of
Victoria. Locations where local governments were active in disability planning were
identified. The rationale for recruiting local governments with high activity levels was
that they may have additional insights into the factors that assisted or impeded
implementing the State Plan compared with those with lower levels of activity. These
recommendations were corroborated through review of publicly available local disability
plans to ensure that the participants met the revised study criteria.
The Department of Human Services Disability Services Division was consulted at Head
Office on nominated case study settings, to coordinate the involvement of Department
staff at Head Office and within the relevant regions in the proposed case study activities.
The Victorian Disability Advisory Council was also approached to confirm the study
participants but commented that the Council would normally take advice on such matters
from the Municipal Association of Victoria as experts in the local government
environment.
98
Data collection strategies
Interviews were conducted in accordance with the ethics approval between June 2006 and
June 2007 with analysis finalised in March 2008. Seventeen individual face to face semi-
structured interviews were conducted with the study participants according to the
interview schedules in Appendix D. One interview of approximately two hours was
conducted with each participant. Interview questions were organised around two key
themes, the first being current implementation mechanisms to increase social inclusion by
strengthening local communities and the second being implementation attributes from
Rogers’ theory.
Questions regarding implementation mechanisms focussed on how interventions were
designed, how the workforce was supported, whether change had been identified and
what supports and impediments had been identified. Questions regarding Rogers’ theory
focussed on participant experiences of the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability of implementing social inclusion policy in local settings.
According to Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell and Alexander, (Minichiello, Aroni,
Timewell & Alexander, 2000, p.1) “… the interview is a complex and involved
procedure when used as a social science research tool”. It provides “… a knowledge of
meanings and interpretations that individuals give to their lives and events”. Questions
were adapted for participants to make sense and fit their life or occupational experience.
In this study, a review of the literature was conducted prior to entering the field and as a
result, the interview questions were designed to gain participant views on the meaning of
social inclusion, the value of the State Plan as a vehicle for implementing social inclusion
policy and the experience of implementing the State Plan. Questions also focussed on the
attributes of innovation identified in Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory.
The literature review identified themes and concepts for exploration and the semi-
structured interview process enabled a conversational and flexible approach to capture
data from participants. This also provided opportunities for follow up or probe questions
99
and assisted in building rapport in the interview process. I found that having completed
an undergraduate degree in Social Work that included interview skills was helpful in
achieving analytical listening and creating a safe, non-judgemental dialogue. Within the
first few interviews, some questions were not seen by participants as able to be answered
and were not pursued. These questions are identified in Appendix D.
All participants interviewed were adults participating on the basis of their professional
capacity and roles. Participants with disabilities were under no duress to participate. By
selecting current participants on local disability advisory or community committees, they
had a demonstrated capacity to understand and articulate disability planning and policy
issues and were in a position to provide their own informed consent.
While the study was based at La Trobe University, School of Public Health, Bundoora
campus, field work occurred by mutual agreement with participants at their workplaces
or in local community venues organised by the researcher when required. The field work
locations were selected to protect participant privacy and enable a confidential interview.
Data analysis
Written records of interview and field notes were maintained for analysis and approval
was given in all cases for interviews to be tape recorded to verify written records of
interview and field notes during coding and analysis. Tape recorded interviews were
transcribed verbatim and individuals and organisations were de-identified to minimise
any potential harm. Member checking did not occur and could be considered a limitation
of the study.
The researcher’s role
In studies adopting qualitative methodology where the researcher is the primary data
collection instrument it is necessary to identify personal values, assumptions and biases
100
that might impact on the study. As the researcher is experienced in the field of social
policy, and has worked in national, local government and community organisations, there
is a lived experience and understanding of the processes of policy implementation and
intergovernmental relations. This experience and understanding enables what Creswell
identifies as “believability” and “trustworthiness” which assists verification (Creswell,
2003, p.199).
The audience for this research includes national, state and local government authorities,
people with disabilities, local service providers and disability advocacy organisations.
My interest in the implementation of disability policy has emerged from a career in
community development and social policy that began in 1985 following the completion
of an undergraduate degree in Social Work. My initial work was as a community
development worker on Victorian public housing estates. In the ensuing years I worked
in the state office of a national government rehabilitation agency, an agency accrediting
residential aged care facilities and more recently in three local government organisations.
In each setting I came into contact with people with disabilities and in two of the three
local government organisations I was responsible for managing the formulation or
coordination of disability planning. In addition to disability planning, I was also
responsible for the delivery of other social policies, community planning and the
development of the municipal public health and well being planning. Much of the work I
have undertaken has required an understanding of the issues affecting groups of people
within the community who experience disadvantage and social inclusion. Much of this
work has necessitated liaison with other tiers of government, service organisations,
advocacy groups and the various communities of interest in local communities.
As a result of these experiences, I have observed a number of public policy
implementation issues that affect all levels of government, community sector or
marginalised population groups:
101
� It is difficult to get access to relevant population and service data to identify
trends and support planning in local settings;
� Mechanisms are not in place to coordinate all national, state and local government
planning and funding efforts based on a shared population based model or
comprehensively evaluation;
� Resources are rarely sufficient to analyse the specific needs of population groups.
In the case of disability this means the differentiation of impairment type and
complexity given gender, lifestages, cultural and indigenous experiences: and
� The failure to access relevant data, plan for specific population groups and
implement policy in collaboration with other tiers of government and local
organisations leads to fragmentation and poor policy outcomes.
My experience of consulting communities in local settings has been that many of the
issues that frustrate people with disabilities are not the responsibility of local government
authorities. For example, the provision of support services, respite, housing, transport
and education are areas of state government funding responsibility. Higher education and
employment are areas of national government responsibility. While local governments
can advocate with community to improve these state and national funded services, the
capacity to incorporate improvements to increase social inclusion remains fragmented.
Local governments can make an impact on the design and development of public places,
increase access to recreational opportunities and support political engagement that
enables influence over the local environment. Doing this requires integrated planning
and implementation across all departments of local governments and in my experience
some do this better than others.
I think that this understanding of the policy formulation and implementation processes
arising from public policy provides insights that have been relevant for designing the
methodology for this study. I am sensitive to the implementation experiences of people
with disabilities in local settings as well as the state and local government managers and
102
officers trying to implement the State Plan. I was also conscious of the need to set aside
my experiences to hear about the experiences of others doing similar work.
In conducting interviews with participants, my prior experience in the field of policy
development and implementation assisted in building rapid rapport and enabled me to
collect and explore data at a detailed level. I found that knowledge of the field enabled a
trusting interview context and increased participants’ confidence and willingness to
discuss both day to day and contentious aspects of disability policy implementation.
Due to my previous work, I must acknowledge some biases may have influenced my
values and perspectives. While I have made every effort to maintain objectivity, these
views may shape the way that data have been interpreted. Irrespective of these biases, I
have tried to apply a systematic approach to the interpretation of the data, to report the
data against Rogers’ theory and to analyse the data from a solution oriented perspective.
Although I was awarded a Department of Human Services scholarship to undertake this
study, and the Department co-operated by agreeing that managers and officers could
participate in interviews, there was little other contact and minimal requirement for
progress reports to the Department during the course of the study.
This study meets the recurring features of qualitative research. It has been conducted
within a field and in a real life situation, seeks a systemic, integrated and holistic view of
policy implementation and captures data from local actors. It tries to understand people’s
own words to identify how people understand, account for, take action and manage day to
day situations (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Chapter summary
This chapter described methodological issues and considerations that have shaped the
study design. This study’s methodology and methods were designed to reveal whether
the State Plan goal to increase social inclusion was being diffused in local communities
and the factors that assisted or impeded social inclusion for people with disabilities. The
103
study methodology was designed to answer the research questions and contribute to the
literature in two respects.
Firstly, it aimed to identify whether improved inclusion and outcomes for people with
disabilities had been achieved in local areas since the State Plan’s release in 2002 and
how local implementation had been assisted or impeded. Secondly, the study aimed to
identify the attributes that have assisted or impeded the implementation of increased
inclusion for people with disabilities through partnership based state and local
government planning and implementation processes. Rogers’ theory was helpful in
identifying the impact of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and
observability in the implementation process.
The study’s significance is underscored by the interest of the state government in
pursuing local community planning in partnership with local government at the time of
writing. Analysis of the data collected in the study provided a more in depth
understanding of the nature of intergovernmental and community partnership in
achieving local social change. The next chapter reports on the study results in relation to
Rogers’ characteristics of innovations.
Participants’ views of the implementation of the State Plan were explored using Rogers’
diffusion theory. In this respect, perceptions of the relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability and observability of the State Plan’s implementation were
explored through semi structured interviews. Rogers’ framework was used to assess the
factors which assisted and impeded the implementation of social inclusion in local
settings from participants’ perspectives. The extent to which Rogers’ key characteristics
were seen as present in implementation was critical for later analysis. So too were
participant perspectives on the rate of adoption and overall effectiveness of the State Plan
and its impact on the success of local planning initiatives, support for intergovernmental
partnership and capacity to effect social change.
104
This study adopted Rogers’ framework for the development of key questions and
analysis. It was positioned within a qualitative and interpretive research tradition
(Creswell, 2003) rather than in a more objective, positivist school. It sought to explore
the utility of the framework adopted from the perspective of the key participants in the
State Plan’s implementation process.
105
CHAPTER 5
STUDY RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to report the documentary analysis of the State Plan and on
how state and local government managers, officers and people with disabilities who
participated in this study, described the State Plan’s capacity to increase the inclusion of
people with disabilities in local settings in relation to Rogers’ characteristics of
innovations. Each of Rogers’ characteristics of innovation including relative value,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability is defined. Then the definition is
applied to the State Plan and finally participant views regarding the characteristic are
outlined.
Seventeen individual face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted with the
study participants of 2 hours duration. Participants were provided with the opportunity to
nominate a location that they considered private and confidential. The fourteen State and
Local Government participants all nominated an office in their workplace as their
preferred setting for a depth interview. The three people with disabilities participating in
the study nominated their homes as their preferred setting for a depth interview. All
interviews were audio taped, transcribed and analysed using Rogers’ characteristics of
innovation theory as a framework.
Although the study design assumed that the views of State and local government
participants would be potentially quite different, the points of difference were relatively
small. The results indicate where views are shared amongst participants and highlight
areas of difference. Although the study design assumed that all categories of participants
would have views on all Rogers’ characteristics, this was not the case.
106
State and local government participants did express views on all characteristics. In the
instance of relative advantage, for example, Department of Human Services head office
and regional managers and officers expressed more views than local government
managers and officers. This is understandable as the State Plan emanated from the State
Government and is not a mandated document for local government in Victoria. Hence,
the relative advantage of the State Plan was more experienced by State Government
participants. Given Rogers’ model, the absence of comments from any of the included
participant groups has more meaning in analysing the implementation issues that may
need to change. If the State Plan was mandated for local government, then it is likely that
local government managers and officers would be more engaged with it.
Similarly, participants with disabilities were silent of the State Plan’s relative advantage,
compatibility and complexity and highly opinionated on the characteristics of trialability
and observability. This can be understood in a number of ways. Firstly, people with
disabilities living in local communities are probably more engaged with the activities of
daily living, the extent to which State and local governments are able to trial projects,
services or programs that improve their social inclusion and the observability of the
impacts arising from this activity. Secondly, the process of policy implementation, its
relative advantage, compatibility and complexity is less likely to resonate with local
community members than it does or professionals in the field.
Relative advantage Rogers’ definition of relative advantage
According to Rogers, relative advantage is “… the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as better than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003, p.15). This may mean
economic or social benefit, convenience or satisfaction. The extent of objective
advantage is not as important as whether individuals perceive it to be advantageous as the
greater the perceived relative advantage, the more rapid its rate of adoption will be.
107
An analysis of the relative advantage of the State Plan
According to the State Plan Implementation Plan 2002-05 (Department of Human
Services, 2002a) this State Plan is perceived as better than previous disability plans
because it broadens the parameters of inclusion beyond a direct service model:
…for the first time in Victoria, The State Disability Plan provides a framework for promoting inclusion and participation for people with a disability across all areas of life – including disability supports, health and community services, recreation, education, employment, transport and housing. (Department of Human Services, 2002a, p.iii)
Further, it formalised the relationship between state and local government, and other
stakeholders, required to effect change:
…the Disability Services Division will be strengthening our relationships and building partnerships with the disability sector, other Government Departments, local governments, community groups and, perhaps most importantly, with people with a disability, parents, their families and carers (Department of Human Services, 2002, p.iii).
Three goals described the State Plan’s implementation focus including support for the
exercise of choice by individuals with disabilities to pursue individual lifestyles,
strengthening the ability of the Victorian community to become more welcoming and
accessible and developing more inclusive and accessible public services.
Given this study’s focus on implementation of the State Plan in local settings, the priority
strategy to “Strengthen Local Communities” is of key contextual interest. It represents
one of the defining differences between past and present disability planning as it embeds
social inclusion in a local settings context and formalises an implementation relationship
with local government. The significant difference between this State Disability Plan and
past plans is that emphasis has shifted to the importance of changing social, cultural and
economic process and structures in local settings to include people with disabilities,
rather than simply focusing on service driven solutions.
108
What marks the difference between initiatives and past disability policy initiatives is the
commitment to intergovernmental and community organisation partnership to achieve
local change.
Participant views on relative advantage State and local government participants from metropolitan and interface areas and
Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office expressed
views that the State Plan’s emphasis on social inclusion was better than previous
disability policy. People with disabilities participating in the study did not express any
views regarding the relative advantage of the current State Plan. Whilst not all categories
of participants articulated these views, none provided views to the contrary. According
to Rogers’ theory this meant that it had relative advantage.
The relative advantage identified by participants in this study included the formal linkage
between disability policy and human rights, expansion of the state government’s policy to
include all people with disabilities (not just service recipients), community building as a
fundamental element of policy implementation and the formal inclusion of local
government within the policy context as a key implementation partner. These points will
be expanded on in the following sections.
Participants from the Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head
Office and a local government officer described the State Plan as having relative
advantage over previous disability policies because it overtly linked disability policy to a
human rights framework and identified people with disabilities as active citizens. This
linkage was described as having modernised state government disability policy by
reframing people with disabilities as active citizens with a role in relation to local
communities.
This was evidenced by the comments that:
The State Plan is grounded within a human rights framework but it’s also grounded within the social model of disability. It’s got a post modern flavour to it
109
as well because … the play on diversity within the State Plan and citizenship are really important things and RuralAccess and the community building stuff all drew on that …. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
and that “… disability almost got stuck in the 60s social theory. I think what the State
Plan actually did was bring us into the late 20th century as far as social theory goes”
(Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer).
Placing resources into local government to facilitate implementation of the social
inclusion policy emphasis of the State Plan was identified as a deliberate decision that
provided relative advantage as evidenced by the following comment:
… again I think the significance of placing RuralAccess and MetroAccess within local government is about that. It’s about saying that these are discussions about citizenship, these are discussions about how we organize to respond to the citizenship needs and aspirations of people with disabilities. It’s about a civic response it’s not about a service response based usually around people’s deficits. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
The linkage to a human rights framework meant that the State Plan, whilst not mandated
for local government to implement was described as consistent with the legislated role of
local government to plan and advocate for all community members. This was identified
as more relevant than previous state government disability policy that focussed on
services which were not delivered by local government.
This policy consistency was evidenced by the comment that:
I’d say that people pay their rates for us to provide a service to the community. The community is made up of lots of people with varying ages, needs, requirements. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of our community and as such we’re not doing our jobs if we don’t think about it holistically. (Interface local government officer)
A participant from the Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head
Office expressed the view that the State Plan provided relative advantage over past policy
110
because it aimed to implement social inclusion for all people with disabilities and not just
service users.
This was evidenced by the comment that:
… a State Plan that was able to focus in the attention of the division and the Government on not only those people in receipt of services but also people with disabilities living in the Victorian community. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Both this Head Office participant and a local government officer raised the fact that the
State Plan extended the policy landscape further from a service driven model of inclusion
to one including broader community building.
This was evidenced by the comment that:
We needed something different which was going to actually strengthen community and engage in community planning and development. We needed to do something that we hadn’t done before and that was fund services that clearly have a responsibility to plan with community - fund workers and services that don’t have case coordination responsibilities. Fund services of place workers and resources strategically in that case within local governments … [because] local government has a mandate to plan across the full range of community infrastructure and is the service best placed to deliver on that. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
For one local government officer, the State Plan set a framework for “…bringing the
community together” (Interface local government officer).
In addition to the argument that the State Plan had relative advantage in identifying
strategies to implement social inclusion more comprehensively, participants also
described the State Plan as providing a policy rationale and a mechanism for increased
relationship development and partnership with local government. In these respects, the
State Plan was described as having relative advantage over past disability policy. These
views were expressed by a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division
Head Office participant and a local government manager. Comments from a Head Office
111
participant highlighted the lack of formal relationship between state and local
government in implementing disability policy prior to the State Plan’s development as
well as the challenges of balancing service sector change and the need for emphasis on
strengthening local communities where people with disabilities live.
This was evidenced by the comments that:
I think it’s been a very poor connection between the [disability services] division and local government and as a result of that, very poor connection between the service system and local government. Not really an understanding the role that local government can play in building and strengthening community and including people with disabilities and leading community change … so you know the intention with something like RuralAccess was to look at how we could engage local government more effectively and then that, really put local government on the radar in a much stronger way within the context of the State Plan. I don’t think it would have been in there otherwise as strong as it was because the preoccupation of the division was around you know funding and support of the service system. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
and that,
The State Plan has developed a context for the community building initiatives, for the role that local government might play. It’s given that community building work more authority so it becomes a hook …. The next phase is, how do we …. really push partnership stuff and the integrated planning stuff using the resources that we fund? (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
The formal identification of local government in the State Plan as an implementation
partner was identified as an innovation by participants. Evidence of shifting practice was
provided by a local government manager who noted:
I think in past they might not have included those agencies, they might have included the Disability Advisory Committee of Victoria because that’s sort of one of theirs, but they wouldn’t necessarily have included the agencies and they definitely wouldn’t have included the local government. (Metropolitan local government manager)
112
Another said that in the past, the experience of working with state government may not
have been positive as evidenced by the comment that:
Local government had often been burnt with that thing about where a state government would come in and fund a project and then walk away from it and the local government was left with it without funding to deal with it. (Metropolitan local government manager)
The next section reports on the data collected from study participants on perceptions of
compatibility.
Compatibility
Rogers’ definition of compatibility
According to Rogers, compatibility is “… the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters” (Rogers, 2003, p.15). Compatibility with the values and norms of a social
system will enable more rapid adoption whereas an innovation which is incompatible
with the values and norms of a social system may require prior changes to the value
system which is a slower process.
An analysis of the compatibility of the State Plan
It is arguable that the State Plan was consistent with the existing values and past
experiences of the state government because it “…has been developed in the context of
key Government policy frameworks, including Growing Victoria Together” (Department
of Human Services, 2002a, p.3). A key element of Growing Victoria Together was its
focus on the development of safe, resilient and caring communities, commitment to
reducing disadvantage, and emphasis on community building and strengthening. This is
consistent with other whole of government and engagement based policies that have
reflected this new policy direction.
113
The shared commitment to the universal values embodied in the State plan were highly
consistent with idea of compatibility in promoting social inclusion. On the other hand, the
Department of Human Services, which had responsibility for the Implementation Plan for
the State Plan has a mission to “… protect and enhance the health and well being of all
Victorians, emphasising vulnerable groups and those most in need” (Department of
Human Services, 2009, Homepage). This illustrates the tension that arose between the
community building and strengthening character of the State Plan and other key
Government policy frameworks and the objectives identified to support the DHS mission.
These objectives are predominantly framed in terms of service delivery and focus on
service waiting times, quality, sustainability and efficiency, different service models and
access. Only one Department of Human Services objective focused on building strong
communities and it was linked to primary care services rather than the relationship
between disability supports, health and community services, recreation, education,
employment, transport and housing (Department of Human Services, 2002, p.7).
Arguably, notwithstanding the commitment to the values and goals of social inclusion,
the overwhelming emphasis remained on the provision of services to individuals with
disability, rather than on the active removal of social, cultural, physical and economic
barriers to participation and inclusion.
Similarly, within the Department of Human Services, the Disability Services Division
mission was to “… improve quality of life for all Victorians with a disability through
supports and services that enhance people’s independence, choice and community
inclusion” (Department of Human Services, 2009, Homepage). Roles associated with
this mission focus on the inclusion of people with disabilities, service system flexibility,
service quality and resource management, predominantly in relation to the disability
service support system. There was a much less noticeable emphasis on programs to
directly remove barriers for inclusion and participation within published documents.
In describing new directions for disability services and the vision for inclusive
communities, the State Plan frames this change in terms of “… moving away from
existing service models … towards a system that responds to individual needs … so that
114
people with a disability can participate in activities of their choice” (Department of
Human Services, 2002, p.13).
While not actually defined, the State Plan’s key target group would seem to be people
with disabilities either in receipt of services or waiting for services rather than the
population based group of people within the community with acknowledged disabilities
at varying levels of complexity. The absence of comprehensive population based data in
the State Plan and Implementation Plan reduced the capacity for analysis of target groups
and linkages to recommended implementation action.
The Implementation Plan 2006-08 was similarly weighted toward services and service
recipients but noted the establishment of an Office for Disability in the Department of
Planning and Community Development as introducing a mechanism for enhanced
community building.
The Office for Disability was charged with responsibility for extending a whole of
government approach to disability, positive community attitudes, leadership amongst
people with disabilities, a whole of population approach to disability and coordination
across government on disability issues. However, responsibility for the State Plan
remains with the Department of Human Services Disability Services Division. Other
interventions identified are largely programmatic and fund local and regional initiatives.
Participant views on compatibility with values People with disabilities participating in the study did not express any views regarding the
compatibility of the current State Plan with either Department of Human Services or local
government values and principles. State government participants from the Department of
Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office and regional offices provided
the most comments that the State Plan’s emphasis on social inclusion was consistent with
their values. One regional local government officer made observations regarding the
State Plan’s compatibility with the values of its own staff.
115
Department of Human Services regional office staff commented on the compatibility
with the values of staff and this was evidenced by the comments that:
Oh yeah I feel very comfortable with it. I see a clear, very clear connection and a flow from the plan, Disability Services departmental priorities, DHS values and then we have regional priorities and then we have Disability Services priorities in this region. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
Similarly another officer commented that:
I think the change is not too far for people. I think people for a long time have been working in the same way, you know they already have this idea that they want people with disability to be more part of their community. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
A regional local government officer reinforced the compatibility of the State Plan for
state government by highlighting some of the consistent themes in the State Plan and
other significant state government policy addressing social inclusion. This was
evidenced by the comments that:
The [State Plan] … aligns very closely with a lot of the Fairer Victoria [policy] work and I suppose one of the nice things about the policy and the current state government raft of policies is they are fairly consistent across the theme and so the whole capacity building inclusiveness approach that this part of the Fairer Victoria platform flows out, …. is very cohesive and … that whole policy framework really ties up quite strongly. (Regional local government officer)
Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office staff were
involved in developing the State Plan following the experience of implementing the
RuralAccess program which also utilised the principles of the social model of disability.
In supporting the extent to which the State Plan provided continuity with organisational
values, it was argued that this meant that the values were consistent.
116
This was evidenced by the comments that:
… the whole development of the State Plan and the community building initiatives I think are really interesting and how they influence one another. So I suppose in a way I’d argue that you know something like RuralAccess really helped to shape the direction of that priority strategy around strengthening community. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Participants identified that support for the social model of disability and the State Plan’s
emphasis on social inclusion were compatible for state government staff because:
Most people would say it’s a good thing because people with disabilities should be able to access on an equal footing anything that’s available in the community so there is a very strong philosophical commitment to that. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
For another Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office
officer, compatibility related to the potential for the policy to deliver social inclusion into
local settings. This was evidenced by the comment that “… absolutely … it’s really
about trying to ground disability within the context of culture and the context of you
know society” (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office
officer).
For a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office staff
member, the value of partnership work with local government was compatible and
described as a natural next step to implement policy to achieve social inclusion in local
communities. This was in spite of some reservations within the department regions that
working with local government and funding staff to do programmatic social inclusion
work was quite challenging.
This was evidenced in the comment that:
[some said] … “why would you do anything with local government because they’re difficult, they’re hard to work with”, so there was all that sort of stuff and
117
instead of saying well recognise it that’s why we want to work with them, that’s why we want to place workers inside councils to do stuff. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
No participants put forward contrary views regarding the degree to which the State Plan’s
emphasis on social inclusion was consistent with their values.
Participant views on compatibility with past experiences
In contrast, however, a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head
Office officer identified a number of ways in which the State Plan’s emphasis on social
inclusion was not consistent with their past experiences and on this issue, local
government participants were silent. Comments disputing compatibility with past
experiences related directly to policy implementation and the lack of past experience
within the Department of Human Services to manage such significant shifts in policy
emphasis. In the case of the State Plan, this was about changing from a dominant service
culture to a universal system of social inclusion for all people with disabilities. Strategies
to maintain consistent implementation between Department of Human Services Disability
Services Division Head Office and regional offices, local government and between
different state government departments were identified as lacking.
Participants emphasised the dominance of the medical model in disability services, and a
strong culture of working with service recipients. This increased the challenge of
implementing the State Plan’s emphasis on social inclusion. The following comment
provided evidence of the challenge in implementing change that has not been tackled
before:
… I think what’s hard in the disability area is that you just have this prevailing culture which is about specialist services and specialist service provision and it’s driven very much from a health model. So trying to promote a culture of inclusion, even though it’s now in policy, that’s a great thing. But trying to get people to understand what it means and value it when you’ve had for the last 100 years or whatever a prevailing culture around disability being about health, individuals, specialist services, service provision and trying to shift that and say it doesn’t need to be about those things …it does but not to the same extent it has.
118
We need to think about people as people and they live in communities and they have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else and how do we support them to be a part of community. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
The following comment demonstrates the differences of view regarding how Department
of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office and regional offices wanted
to implement the programs linked to the State Plan’s social inclusion priorities.
They took it to the regions. There was going to be this new initiative and it was going to be based on the local area coordination stuff. It was going to be one worker and they’d have to work 125 cases. The regions cracked it. Basically there were a few people who said we don’t need this - we need something different. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Regarding the experience of working with local government to implement disability
policy and a sense of how that process might be conducted, one Head Office Department
of Human Services Disability Services Division officer noted that “I’m not sure that the
division had a clear sense of what that might look like and I think that there wasn’t a
great deal of clarity around the role that local government might play”.
Prior to the adoption of the State Plan, participants indicated that systems were not in
place to implement social inclusion for all people with disabilities in local areas and
across all state government departments. The State Plan was described as providing a
mechanism to drive change and as such the compatibility with past implementation
experiences was absent. This is evidenced by the following comment that “… we can use
the State Plan as more of a hook for us in terms of contextualising it. Issues that we want
to drive through the policy apparatus here and more broadly across government so it’s an
interesting way it works” (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division
Head Office officer).
The lack of compatibility of the State Plan with past policy and implementation
experiences highlights an issue in relation to Rogers’ compatibility characteristic of
innovation. Hence this aspect of Rogers’ characteristic of compatibility was not met.
119
Participant views on the compatibility with the needs of potential adopters
Participant responses regarding the consistency of the State Plan’s emphasis on social
inclusion with the needs of potential adopters was divided. Potential adopters in this case
study included the managers and officers from the Department of Human Services and
local government authorities. As a result, their “needs” refers to the policy objectives of
the Government at the time of implementation. Department of Human Services
participants identified that the State Plan was more efficient by assisting with , demand
management and reducing the cost to government of providing institutional care.
This is evidenced by the following comment:
… the most obvious answer is demand management. If you can make a community more inclusive in accepting and embracing people with disabilities, and they can get support and opportunities through the community, you don’t need to provide as many specialist services. So that is the most obvious answer and that is probably the critical reason as to why the community building program came into place. But above and beyond that I think people within the Department, and within disability services, mostly understand that these programs provide some leverage for them to facilitate some of the things that they want to achieve in terms of the service system and reforming the service system. So it’s creating another string to the bow if you like of disability services but it’s allowing them to be able to do some other things that they want to do and need to do that at the end of the day will create better opportunities for people with disabilities and also will hopefully create less reliance on a specialist service system response. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
A regional Department of Human Services manager identified that the State Plan’s
emphasis on social inclusion would free up Government resources to work more
intensively with people with more marginalising conditions. This was evidenced by the
comment that “… there will be more and more people living independently because there
are options available and the community can support them. So that’s one advantage in
terms of then more resources may go into the most marginalised people” (Metropolitan
Department of Human Services manager).
120
The only comments made that supported the consistency of the State Plan with the
objectives of potential adopters were from two local government participants. They
expressed views that the State Plans consistency with local government’s objectives
related to the fact that Councils are generally universal providers and so the concept of
social inclusion for all has policy resonance. This is supported by the comments “that at
the end of the day council is a mainstream service and …that is basically our goal that we
make it that people have a direct access to our services” (Metropolitan local government
manager).
And that:
One of the things that everyone within council hates is the bombardments from disaffected or unhappy communities about stuff that we’ve got no control over. Much of it comes from a lack of understanding within the community of just what local government does. So I think, one of the arguments around council supporting [the State Plan] is to have better informed communities actually seen as partners and supporters. (Regional local government manager)
Examples of where the State Plan approach to social inclusion was not compatible with
the objectives of potential adopters were identified by DHS head office staff and local
government managers and officers. The tension between departmental values regarding
services and planning, versus the community planning required of a plan for all people
with disabilities, some of whom will not be service users, is illustrated by the following
comment from a DHS head office staff member:
I think the Departmental values are about planning for services and planning for individuals and Disability Services mirrors that broadly speaking. That would be the case, and the challenge for us is that’s been that way in terms of disability services and our regions and our service sector, for ever and a day that we planned for individuals and we planned for services for individuals. Planning for community is another dimension that we find it hard to get our heads around and how you bring together plans for individual planning for services and planning for the communities which is face to face planning. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
121
Another Department of Human Services Disability Services Division officer identified
that this tension had created some difficulty in developing the State Plan and particularly
around the role of local government as an implementation partner:
And the other thing that was important was that the service was placed outside of the traditional service system and that was a bit of a debate. So building up the case for placing it in local government was really important and the idea in terms of the jigsaw or an equation is that we didn’t need more of the same …. You know we want to resource them we want to partner up with them because we want to engage them effectively so you know that was some of the debate and arguments that was going around. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Similarly, a local government participant identified some levels of incompatibility with
implementing the State Plan approach to social inclusion. This mainly focussed on the
incapacity of the state to bind local government action. This is evidenced by the
comment that one officer “ …was very much aware of what was in the State Disability
Plan but I’m not sure how strongly what we’re doing in terms of [disability] planning
derives out of that framework. I don’t feel that there are any direct linkages”
(Metropolitan local government officer).
Potential adopters were divided in their views about the compatibility of the State Plan
with their needs. Some participants focused on economic advantages while others on
social outcomes. Hence this aspect of Rogers’ characteristic of compatibility was not
met.
The next section reports on the views collected from study participants on perceptions of
the complexity of State Plan for innovation.
Complexity Rogers’ definition of complexity
According to Rogers, complexity is “… the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
difficult to understand and use” (Rogers, 2003, p.16). Complicated innovations will be
122
understood and adopted more slowly as they often need adopters to develop new skills
and understandings.
An analysis of the complexity of the State Plan
The State Plan articulates a vision for “a stronger and more inclusive community” where
“everyone has the same opportunities to participate in the life of the community, and the
same responsibilities towards society as all other citizens of Victoria”. However it does
not define “inclusive community”, which population groups should have increased
opportunities or the development processes required (Department of Human Services,
2002). The shift from a focus on service provision to one of opening up opportunities
through engagement and community development is a key element of the State Plan’s
policy definition. It has different implications for implementation strategy. It implies a
fundamental shift to approaches that involve community building, engagement, changing
the way recreational, employment, social organisations include or exclude people with
disabilities. This involves a new approach to planning and strategy development,
regulation, funding arrangements. Yet these differences are not reflected in the
implementation plan.
The State Plan does not contain an analysis of the profile of people with disabilities in
terms of impairment type, complexity, gender, life stage, cultural or indigenous
background. Nor does it identify the locations within which people with disabilities live
or provide any analysis related to their current or proposed use targets for disability
supports, health and community services, recreation, education, employment, transport
and housing.
This lack of definition and data analysis contributes to complexity of understanding. The
State Plan does not establish an implementation framework to operationalise the concept
of inclusion. Nor does it support adopters in developing the skills and understandings to
implement change in state wide or local settings. Population data are a key element upon
which the State Plan should be being implemented. The shift from service defined
123
definitions and service eligibility to strategies for including all people in all aspects of
local communities means that much more needs to be known about those people who are
the target of inclusion strategies. If local governments are to partner in implementation
of the State Plan, then these data profiles need to be shared to develop joint diverse
actions in local settings.
People with disabilities participating in the study did not express any views regarding the
complexity of the State Plan’s emphasis on social inclusion. Participant views indicate
that social inclusion a difficult concept to understand and use in policy implementation.
These points will be expanded on in the following sections.
Participant views on complexity and understanding social inclusion policy Local government and Department of Human Services participants had mixed views on
whether the concept of social inclusion, as the basis for and outcome of disability policy,
was a difficult concept to understand. For those who saw it as an understandable
concept, it was described as being straightforward at an intuitive level and providing the
platform for meaningful participation. This is evidenced by the comment that “… out of
any other social issues or social change that we are trying to achieve, disability and
inclusion policy actually has a lot behind it. People grasp it quickly” (Interface council
manager).
One Department of Human Services officer commented that the State Plan, and the
concept of social inclusion, is more accessible to people with a social work and
community development background and that belief in the principles of this professional
orientation provided a driver for implementation. This is evidenced by the comments that
“I think if you’re coming from a community development background you can really
understand it and see where they want to take this” and “community strengthening is an
ideology, it’s what we’re all working towards. Our community will be inclusive of all
people with disabilities no matter how minor or major that disability is and it’s as simple
as that” (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer).
124
The same officer said that inclusion means “that we want everyone to be included at
whatever capacity they can to be included so we’re not saying that if you’re included you
need to be actually doing the activity or running the activity” (Metropolitan Department
of Human Services officer).
Another participant outlined an understanding that social inclusion meant genuine and
not tokenistic participation. This is evidenced by the comment that:
Inclusion of people with a disability … the trick is to be committed to meaningful participation or as my colleagues say, full participation. Non tokenistic is where people are sitting at the table and they’re regarded for their skills and their interests rather than because they we’ve done something and we just want people with disability involved. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
However, more participants commented on the difficulty of understanding the concept of
social inclusion. Questions of the concept scope, meaning and definitions in the policy
implementation context were identified as problematic. One local government officer
identified that inclusion was not well understood in the community and this is evidenced
by a comment in relation to work with members of one local community through the
MetroAccess program that “… they wanted me to not use the word inclusion because
they didn’t know what it meant” (Interface local government officer).
A Department of Human Services manager also pointed out that other state government
departments were not aware of the meaning the social inclusion embedded in the State
Plan and that they were not aware of the State Plan. This was in spite of the State Plan’s
goal to provided joined up state government responses for people with disabilities to
increase social inclusion.
This is evidenced by the comment that:
We recently started meeting with colleagues from the Department for Victorian Communities, not from the Office for Disability, but the local engagement area. I realised that I needed to start with the State Disability Plan because they didn’t know about it … we were to talk about how we were going to work together, local engagement from DVC and us from Disability Services in the region. We needed to hear from them about what they’re doing, what they’re about and we
125
needed to tell them what we are doing. When I started going straight into things like MetroAccess I had to pull myself back because I thought hang on let’s just check in with them whether they know about State Disability Plan and their eyes were glazed. So to me it was – no. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
Both local government and Department of Human Services participants had common
concerns with the definition of social inclusion in an operational context. In spite of the
State Plan’s intention to be a plan for all people with disabilities, irrespective of service
recipient status, many participants stated that they found it hard to define what social
inclusion could mean for different target groups.
This is evidenced by the comment that
This whole concept of inclusive community - the specific service provisions and the relationship between the two and the trigger points - how does one affect the other and how does one complement the other … from my observation, in terms of practical experience, there’s a real confusion still about how it all sits, how it all relates. (Interface local government manager)
Comments from local government officers indicated a lack of understanding as evidenced
by the following comment that “[the term social inclusion is] seen as jargon … and I
don’t know what we do about the inclusion word because even though we’ve been using
it for years and years a lot of people are still just seeing it as jargon and haven’t got a clue
what it means” (Regional local government officer). Another local government officer
remarked that disability service agencies have not been clear in their understanding of the
term social inclusion or related terms such as capacity building as evidenced by the
comment that:
I’d be sitting in meetings, particularly with workers from a major service provider, and all they talked about was community capacity building. Everything was community capacity building. One day I just sat there and I said to one of them ‘do you actually even know what that means?’ It’s like people are talking the talk, and we’re all using the right words now, and we’re very much talking about inclusion and community capacity building. But how much do we all understand what that means and how that transpires [in practice]. (Metropolitan local government officer)
126
Similarly, a Department of Human Services officer identified the interpretation of social
inclusion to be difficult. This is evidenced by the comment that “we can’t interpret the
words very well and so there’s lot of words out there, lots of jargon about inclusive
communities” (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer). Another
Department of Human Services participant commented that the same interpretation issue
is present for service providers. This is evidenced by the comment that:
I think that people struggle with that [definition of social inclusion], what that means … I think it’s a contestable set of terms that people will have their opinions and they’re probably all right about it. I think people struggle with what that means for their work and that includes people within Disability Services, disability support workers in community residential units and planners because we’ve been doing some work with them … .(Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
None of the participants said that the concept of social inclusion was easy to implement
within the context of disability policy. State and local government participants indicated
that an inadequate definition increased the difficulty of implementation and forced
operational staff to make their own decisions rather than relying on policy guidance.
There was confusion over how the diverse needs of people with disabilities was
identified. This was seen as problematic for implementation by participants. Under
resourcing, underdeveloped workforce skills and the absence of a measurement system
were cited as making it difficult to implement strategies to promote social inclusion.
Finally, participants commented on the lack of a strategic plan to support partnership
based implementation between state and local government.
The abstraction of the concept of social inclusion was identified as an issue in policy
implementation. It indicates that unless central policy definitions are precisely
articulated, operational staff lack clarity about implementation processes and how to
develop an implementation plan. This was identified by both state and local government
participants and evidenced by the comment that:
It is very abstract, extremely abstract and I find a lot of government stuff is abstract and I’m very tangible. I want to hold onto something, I want to be able to go with it but I suppose we’re still exploring those pathways so that we can
127
actually find that tangible projects that we can work on. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
For one local government manager, the abstraction of the definition of social inclusion in
the State Plan has made it hard for operational staff to implement because they were not
sure about what they need to change and how they would measure outcomes. This is
evidenced by the following comment:
It’s problematic … say you put a watering system in an oval, well you’ll see the grass will be greener and that’s immediately understandable. Immediately something that you can monitor. If you do something in disability … you’re probably not going to see it if you’re the person who didn’t get it in the first place. … don’t just show people what can be, show people how good what they’ve done is and I think that would make a big difference. Like for example to design a building with good accessibility, visit the building with someone who has limited mobility.
Even though many support the concept at an in principle level, it was identified by
participants as needing a strategic implementation plan. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
I think society has moved to the point generally that we’re all pretty aware that the Disability Discrimination Act exists. We are all pretty aware that if you’re discriminating against someone with a disability that’s a bad thing. I think we’re at the point where people just don’t quite know what they need to do to improve it. So that’s where I think we’re moving into this real exciting stage actually of, people are quite open to education now because they’ve heard the DDA stuff, okay I know I have to do it but how do I actually do it. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Participants argued that the failure to ground the concept of inclusion was a flaw in the
State Plan. This is evidenced by the comment that:
I mean you might have, let’s say 20 per cent of the population lives with some sort of disability, okay but there’s no question you can ask that will be reflective for all those 20 per cent because the question that you ask about people having an intellectual disability is going to be totally different from those with a mobility disability (Metropolitan local government manager)
128
In addition, the broad definition becomes problematic given the diversity of people with
disability in terms of impairment type and complexity. This is evidenced by the
comment regarding the meaning of inclusion that:
It’s more a problem in that it’s so broad. It’s so, and I think that’s where the people that feel like inclusion, an inclusive emphasis, dilutes the specific work that can be done on the multi level disabilities. So I think it’s very understandable, I just think it’s very broad, where it loses it’s understandability, it’s so broad. (Regional local government officer)
These issues then make it harder for operational staff to identify the most relevant or
significant projects in local areas and a Department of Human Services participant
identified the impact on operational staff. This is evidenced by the comments that “…
actually choosing projects and initiatives has been a real struggle trying to get people to
understand” (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office
officer).
Both state and local government participants identified that an underlying tension in State
Plan implementation related to the definition of social inclusion and whether a universal
or service driven change process is the most relevant. The absence of an implementation
plan for social inclusion that differentiates actions for all people with disabilities,
irrespective of their service status, was identified as problematic by a local government
officer. It is evidenced in the following comment:
There was certainly talk about the challenges of making it [the State Plan] something that would be more universal and there was discussion about the fact that a minute proportion of people with disabilities are in receipt of services. The vast majority of people with disabilities in our community do not get disability services. So that was acknowledged but when it comes to actual strategies it’s very easy to slip back into disability services. It comes up every time when we talk about engaging people with disabilities it’s a lot easier to engage people who are touched somehow by the service system just in terms of basic communication. Whereas we know that there’s hundreds and thousands of people out there who don’t have a link with the services who manage to get on with their daily lives and manage as best they can. Some are very, very involved in community and others are probably very isolated. (Regional local government officer)
129
Similarly, social inclusion was seen as difficult to implement because the concept is
complex and insufficient attention has been given in the State Plan to developing a
change program to move the practices in services to a more relevant model. This is
evidenced in the following comment:
I think we’re still, especially within disability services and your traditional services, getting those people that think if we take a group of people out to the swimming pool that’s their activity done, tick the box … it’s the traditional services that are more difficult to move along and like I said that kind of goes back to the skill within the staff to be able to facilitate that within the constraints that they’re currently working and within the way things are funded. (Regional Department of Human Services officer)
This question of the extent to which resource adequacy affects the ability to implement
the social inclusion goal of the State Plan was canvassed by both state and local
government participants. This is evidenced by the comments that the
“deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities has not been what it’s cracked up to be
simply because it wasn’t followed with the right resources as far as I’m concerned”
(Metropolitan local government manager) and:
… we’re asking community to be accepting of people with disabilities, but to do that, they do need to make some structural changes to the way they do things, they do need some resources. I think it is a bit of a cop out that we just go out there and say right we’re all going to include people with disabilities, let’s all do it and let’s all do it out of our own pocket. I think that is a bit of a hole and I think the State Plan is a bit like nirvana, it’s the ideology that we want but where is all the practical stuff coming from. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
The other critical issue that makes the definition of social inclusion difficult to implement
is the absence of a strategic partnership plan to develop joint state and local government
action with associated resources. This point was made by local government participants
and is evidenced by the following comment:
I think there needs to be some collaborative effort between councils and the Municipal Association of Victoria to start really pushing as a state wide group about some of those core issues like buildings code, building standards and accessible transport. I find that what happens is that every little council is trying
130
to advocate for these things in their own municipality, which is great, but at the end of the day council is feeling that they can’t do anything that’s not being endorsed by the Minister so you’ve sort of got your hands tied. (Metropolitan local government officer)
The same officer noted that understandings of policy objectives are not enough and that
implementation relies on adequate resources. This is evidenced by the comment that:
… say for example supporting the shop owners to make their businesses more accessible. They’ll come back to us and say we understand why we need to do this yet who’s going to give us the money to put a ramp into our building …. I think that’s the thing with the State Disability Plan - it’s got all these amazing promises or visions or whatever in it but where’s the dollars to actually implement a lot of that stuff … so at the end of the day that’s the thing that’s holding a lot of people back I think. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Participant views in relation to the complexity characteristic of innovation were varied
based on whether they were commenting on the extent to which the State Plan’s emphasis
on social inclusion was difficult to understand or use. Participants from both local
government and the Department of Human Services agreed that the State Plan’s emphasis
on social inclusion was understandable in principle although difficult to interpret and
understand in local settings.
No participants identified where it was easy to use the definition of social inclusion to
design and implement strategy. The comments of both local government and DHS
participants focussed on a number of problems. These were associated with the breadth
of the definition, the difficulty of translation of policy to practice, confusion regarding
legitimate policy target groups and underdeveloped resources in partnership support,
skills and funding.
According to Rogers’ theory, participant comments regarding the complexity
characteristic means that the rate of change to increase social inclusion in local settings
may not be as rapid as might otherwise be the case.
The next section reports on the data collected from study participants on perceptions of
trialability of the State Plan.
131
Trialability Rogers’ definition of trialability
According to Rogers, trialability is “… the degree to which an innovation may be
experimented with on a limited basis” (Rogers, 2003, p.16). New ideas which can be
broken down and potentially trialled in instalments will be adopted more rapidly because
they represent less uncertainty and provide learning by doing. In order for an innovation
to be trialled it is important that it is well specified. Without a clear description of the
practical application of an innovation, trialling and implementation become difficult.
Hence, the complexity of community inclusion as a key policy concept undermined the
capacity of the policy to establish consistent or targeted trials.
An analysis of the trialability of the State Plan
Implementation with local government and local communities is a key feature of
Victorian Government policy for the social inclusion of people with disabilities.
According to the State Plan Implementation Plan 2002-05, Priority Strategy 4 –
Strengthen Local Communities is one of five priority strategies that form the basis of the
State Plan action plan. While the other priority strategies focus on the service system and
leadership from state government, Strategy 4 addresses community awareness,
intergovernmental and intersectoral partnerships, locally based state funded programs
(Rural and MetroAccess), community transport and community based participation.
The State Plan Implementation Plan 2006-08 reinforced the initial implementation plan
and extended it by transferring intergovernmental and intersectoral policy
implementation to the Office for Disability within the Department of Planning and
Community Development. It also committed the state government to the development of
a Community Building Framework including indicators for funded programs such as
Rural and MetroAccess and Deaf Access and a focus on leadership. The Community
Building Framework, if developed, would provide a model for implementing social
inclusion and a measurement tool. Continuing the programmatic approach to
132
implementing the State Plan vision, this Implementation Plan also flagged changes to the
Access all Abilities Program aimed at increasing participation in sport, recreation, arts
and culture. It renewed the agreement with the Municipal Association of Victoria and
identified the need to improve access and cultural appropriateness of supports for people
with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse and indigenous backgrounds.
Strategy 4 aligns with Rogers’ concept of trialability as it provided a number of program
initiatives to experiment with the implementation of inclusion. However, it is also clear
that the State Plan does not specify how social inclusion is to be achieved in detail.
The State Plan provides a broad implementation framework, some resources and a set of
broad objectives and then leaves much of the actual design of implementation to local
actors. For Rogers, trialability is an inherent characteristic of an innovation which either
supports or impedes implementation. In practice, the extent to which the State Plan is
trialable was likely to depend on adaptation of the broad policy framework by local
participants.
All participants provided comments on trialability.
Participant views on trialability Study participants from state and local government and participants with disabilities
commented that the State Plan focus on local settings provides a policy context within
which social inclusion can be experimented with on a limited basis. One participant with
a disability commented that:
Local government is the place for it to happen because local government is the nearest form of government in the community and it can react and respond and it can develop [inclusion] in the community. People expect councils to do things but really councils can only do so much. The council has a wonderful opportunity to empower the community and that’s what I see the strength in local government. (Interface participant with a disability)
133
This participant went on to make the point that social inclusion is occurring in an ad hoc
way in the community all the time and that this can be coordinated to increase positive
outcomes. This is evidenced by the following comment:
Well the thing is it is already in the community. All you’ve got to do is amplify it because like if you look at your service clubs and you look at Rotary and you look at Lions and you look at scouting and lots of groups and church groups. They need leadership, they need something to be brought out, to bring out those people in the community, lots of people one on one, there are people everywhere who are all working in isolation. (Interface participant with a disability)
Participants indicated that a range of factors assisted and impeded implementation of
social inclusion in local settings. The key themes assisting experimentation were a
universal policy platform, state government resources, partnership with local
governments, leadership and staff support and skills. Those which were seen as
impeding experimentation were the absence of a comprehensive population and service
data profile and a systematic implementation plan. The following sections explore
participant views regarding the factors that assist and then impede the trialability and
experimentation of the State Plan.
Universal policy platform According to participants, the State Plan’s universal policy platform has assisted
experimentation and innovation. In setting out overall policy objectives and strategies,
local government participants reported that universal policy values and integrated action
was a key feature that enabled the implementation of social inclusion. One participant
put this in terms that “Services need to be delivered to everybody not in separate manners
to different groups” (Metropolitan local government manager). The universal policy
platform in the State Plan provided local government with a consistent rational for
implementation.
One participant identified that the State Plan was consistent with council’s overall policy
commitment to social inclusion because, “In our statement of intent for the next four
134
years around making sure that our most disadvantaged are not left behind, there’s a social
democracy approach” (Metropolitan local government officer). In practice, this approach
meant that a rural local government incorporated disability planning into an inclusion
policy to embed council responses and decision making. This is evidenced by the
following comment:
Well I know in trying to implement our access policy and action plan we wrote it in such a way that it was about inclusiveness and certainly. It is very much about disability but it doesn’t focus on disability. When we went around initially to try and encourage the cooperation of other business units we talked to each of the managers about the things that they do in the core business and about how that related back to the component parts of the access policy and then when we put together our action plan. We tried as much as possible to include the things that those business units do as part of their core business. In the context of the access policy and action plan, that worked quite well and we felt at the time it was a really good education process, that those managers then had a much better understanding of what we were trying to achieve. It was clearer that we were trying to include these things into the mainstream policy of council. (Rural local government manager)
Incorporating disability policy in a universal manner was raised by several local
government participants as an important feature supporting implementation. The benefits
of this were outlined by another participant in the following terms:
All the departments were responsible in rewriting the plan it wasn’t just me writing what I wanted to see happen it was the departments. The departments were required to put forth what they were prepared to commit to so they were actually aware of what they were meant to be doing and the ownership’s there over what they were committing to. It’s not just me saying ‘oh it would be nice if you could do this’. They are actually saying ‘we want to do this to improve access in our area’. (Metropolitan local government officer)
An example of a tangible outcome from this universal approach to policy was provided
by one participant:
I had some ideas for some projects when I came to council. I had this idea that I wanted to train up some staff in Auslan because we’ve got a great language aid service that was developed through the diversity area whereby someone from the community comes in and just needs basic conversation we’ve got a pool of staff who’ve been trained up in different languages. We call on them they come down or we have a phone conversation, basically do basic translation, if it’s anything
135
too technical we need to outsource it. So one of my big brainwaves was why don’t we train up some people in Auslan add them to that language service but integrate it all so it’s just part of our response to language as a whole. (Metropolitan local government officer)
For local government participants, a universal policy platform assisted in experimenting
with social inclusion as it draws many contributors together. This integrated planning
was identified by a number of participants as consolidating a universal approach and
should ultimately be measurable. This was evidenced by the following comment:
I think we’ll have won when we have integrated planning or be on the way to winning. It becomes more than people in community strengthening trying to get us to do stuff. We’ll have won when people can see the benefits of doing it, you know can see the benefits in terms of civic participation in terms of employment, in terms of making buildings accessible. I mean when people can see the benefits and willingly include them in their own plans and put key performance indicators in their own plans around that then I’d say now we’re inclusive. (Rural local government officer)
State Government resources
The provision of state government resources was identified as a key factor in assisting
local experimentation and innovation. Participants specifically focussed on the role
played by programs such as Metro and RuralAccess to support a variety of local inclusion
initiatives. Conversely, the lack of systematic support provided by the Department of
Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office in extending successful
programs on a state wide basis was identified as limiting implementation.
On this first point, a Department of Human Services officer commented that providing
resources into communities as part of the State Plan implementation process has
increased the ability to experiment with inclusion in local settings as it is difficult to
achieve this through centralised policy settings. This is evidenced by the following
comment:
… because we are talking about inclusion of people in a community and community doesn’t happen, I mean community doesn’t happen at government, community is out there and government is here. We’re not the best people to be
136
telling that community what they should and shouldn’t be doing so it’s a very smart move to actually put an agent, I suppose of the government, out in the local community to organise that community to bring on that change and form those relationships. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
Similarly, a local government participant noted that the funding associated with State
Plan programs has enabled it to experiment with implementing social inclusion and
partnering with local government. This is evidenced by the comment that:
[The State Plan] obviously has funding. I mean one of the first results of the Plan was that we got some money to do some disability mapping. I guess one of the other things is that increasingly this state government is seeking to work closer with local government so you actually have in the crudest way of looking at it you have state government as the funder and local government carrying out those works and … have local government as one of the partners. (Metropolitan local government manager)
Both state and local government participants identified that the Metro and RuralAccess
initiatives enabled the State Plan’s goal of social inclusion to be implemented. From a
Department of Human Services perspective this enables implementation to be driven
down, planned for and delivered in local settings where people with disabilities live. This
is evidenced by the comment that:
MetroAccess is definitely the mechanism that I suppose disability services use to strengthen the capacity of the community. I suppose we put a lot of faith and hope that MetroAccess officers and because they’re in the local community they know the grass roots issues, they work in council that all the data and information about their local communities so they’re in the best place to actually know how to either infiltrate or support community organisations to make them inclusive. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
Further that:
We rely a lot on what MetroAccess workers identify through community consultations in terms of what’s needed and we try to match this with our thinking and our views. What we’ve seen across the region, and we’re not questioning what people are planning to do or in a sense saying this is not relevant. They need to in a way reconcile community responses and needs also with council priorities and some political issues as well … (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
137
A similar comment was made by a local government officer:
I feel that MetroAccess has been a real positive area for community awareness building on the disability sector in particular and about how one should become more inclusive in the community. I think there’s always a bit of a naivety out there in the past and I think MetroAccess since it’s been implemented has been a very positive sort of educational mode for that. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Earlier community building programs such as the RuralAccess program were seen as an
important factor supporting local implementation and innovation. Department of Human
Services participants from Head Office and regional offices reported that as the State
Plan incorporated the earlier experience and values of the RuralAccess Program, it had a
greater chance to build on that implementation process. The experience of developing
and implementing a community building program was described as influencing the State
Plan’s development process and creating a culture that supported State Plan initiatives.
This is evidenced by the comments that:
RuralAccess came before the State Plan. I think that’s an important thing to remember that you know the whole thinking and the conceptual development of RuralAccess and the influence that that had on the conceptual development within the division here and then it led to making sure that building implicit communities component of the State Plan is really strong. Again I don’t know how strong it would have been had we not been in here working on the development of community building initiative. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
In the rural region it was suggested that:
RuralAccess has definitely been a big driver in this region but in saying that they wouldn’t have been as successful if it wasn’t for local government taking on board so much of the initiative and really understanding and taking on a bit of responsibility I guess and almost really changing the way that they did things in their own little space. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
Department of Human Services participants credited intensive support from the
Department of Human Services regional for some of the success in trialling social
inclusion strategies. This initially involved supporting the implementation of
RuralAccess. Subsequently it related to forming the partnerships required to implement
138
the State Plan. These supports were described by participants as requiring a challenge to
the perception of how state wide change should be implemented. This is evidenced by
the comment that:
‘Just throw the money out’ was a managerial agenda. So we moved from that managerial agenda which just said, here you are you’ve got your aims and objectives of the program, give them funding and they’ll go and deliver. I’m saying ‘no they won’t just deliver’. It’s ridiculous, it’s a community building context in terms of state government policy, let’s make the most of it and you’ve also got your crafting and orchestrating a whole set of change here. It’s going to take time and a lot of work and a key to it is going to be the partnerships that were developed and if we don’t have strong partnerships with the regional contacts this initiative is doomed. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Participants outlined the extent to which the time required to establish partnerships
affected implementation mechanisms as evidenced by the following comment:
… a lot of support work was needed which has been very difficult for this place to understand in terms of partnering up state level, regional level, local level. I mean the number of times I’d be asked why am I on the phone and I’d say well I’m on the phone because we’re rolling out an initiative! I’m not sure if the executive really understood what it meant because their heads are in other spaces you know. So we’re rolling out an initiative that’s a completely new way of working. We hadn’t put any time into [the implementation process]. Remember we rolled it out in six weeks, we hadn’t put any time into training or support for the regions so it all happened in situ basically and that was my job. That’s how I saw my job basically providing pretty extensive support. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Department of Human Services Disability Services Division participants spoke about the
readiness of regions to implement the State Plan and in spite of issues regarding staff
supervision and support that subsequently became a key priority. This was evidenced by
the following comments:
The other issue for us is that there was very, very poor supervision of staff at a regional level so because again we’d rolled it out really quickly so people were growing into the initiative you know and that included people at management level within the regions. It’s very difficult for people to understand that idea. People growing into the initiative and the structures that we need to put into place which were still growing too. Local councils have grown into it too. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
139
As the State Plan initiatives were trialled across the state, regional state government
officers took an increasing role in providing support and coordination and this is
evidenced by the following comment:
The regions will set up management structures. Its regional coordination structures that bring the workers together on a four week or six weekly basis so that the opportunity for peer support to deal with that stuff is strong and people don’t get left isolated. Regions will contact the workers on a regular basis. Regions will make sure if there’s a consortia of councils that there’s a management committee that’s happening, all of those things. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Local governments also started adjusting their resources into disability planning and
projects. However, the following comments provide evidence of variability in the effort
local government has put into State Plan implementation, or the implementation of local
disability plans that are a requirement of local government:
I think the fact that we have a full time disability planner and we also have the MetroAccess position is really good because some councils don’t even have a disability planner. Or their disability planner might only be two or three days a week or something so the fact that we do have a full time position disability planner, full time position MetroAccess and we have a part time AAA officer then we have the service policy and planning unit through Age and Disability Services. So we do have a lot of resources put into disability policy and planning here and I get a sense that we’ve got probably on par with some other councils up there with the highest sort of resources in that respect. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Partnership with local government
Department of Human Services participants from Head Office and regional offices and
participants from councils in all study areas reported that partnership was a key feature
that enabled implementation of social inclusion, supported experimentation and made
programs sustainable. This is evidenced by the comment that:
… you have to be able to develop a project and then be able to come off and know that it’s still going to be sustainable so partnership is very, very important. I suppose in that partnership, part of your role is skilling up that other partner to take on that disability issue and once you’ve done that you can hopefully walk
140
away and think that they will go on and continue the good work. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
The partnership with local government to implement social inclusion strategies identified
through the State Plan was identified as increasing the capacity for experimenting with
social inclusion strategies in local settings. This was evidenced by the comment that
I think that it’s great that [state] government have got trust now with local government. They’ve got a good partnership and that there is that trust that council will do the right thing. They will implement the State Disability Plan and they will drive community inclusion, definitely. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
Likewise, a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division officer
interviewed recounted what a senior local government officer indicated were the benefits
of partnering to implement change:
We’ve been able to really use RuralAccess in some regions strongly to drive some of that so that they partner up. The CEO was saying to me it’s the first time that he’s ever seen that all the day services working together on a proposal. Now they’re all working together with an adult education provider with council leading it. So there’s all this work that’s starting to emerge is going and that’s because people are starting to have a common understanding about where community building fits. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
In rural areas, State and local government partnerships to trial strategies for social
inclusion were described as being a longer standing practice and a response to resource
scarcity. This is evidenced by the following comment:
I think it’s probably around the areas of partnerships and collaboration. I think it’s something that we do quite naturally just because of our lack of resources, so, without being told that this is what we have to do it happens. Whether it’s within local government, organisations and services within communities or even communities being prepared to be more inclusive. They understand the benefits of being able to have access to a range of resources. … In this area and even prior to the DVC community strengthening stuff the local government network was operating and it’s the Mayors and CEOs of the six local governments. They were meeting on a regular basis. They had meetings with heads of regional departments here which is a very similar model to the whole regional managers’ forum model. Now the regional managers’ forum here I understand is quite
141
successful compared to in some of the other areas where it hasn’t evolved or engaged quite as well, but I think once again that’s because there was already that commitment to the partnerships, the relationship building was already there. (Rural local government manager)
Leadership
Study participants from all study areas reported that the presence of leadership was a key
feature that supported experimentation. In fact, leadership was identified as a critical
requirement to support experimentation because initiatives to implement social inclusion
policy for social inclusion are unlikely to come from the community. This is evidenced
by the comment that:
It’s [social inclusion] not really something that comes up out of the community and you don’t generally get communities saying we want to be more inclusive, particularly the people you first meet in communities. If you drill down a bit you might get there but so it’s very much it flows down out of government and out of agencies and so it’s a top down process I suppose. (Rural local government officer)
Similarly, achieving coordinated experimentation on a state wide basis was described as
needing leadership from a number of organisations:
I know part of the State Plan is about working with the Municipal Association of Victoria on access and inclusion and they’re still putting some money into that access and inclusion officer position. But for rural councils that don’t have a lot of internal resources, if MAV will take a position on something after consulting with its members and looking at legal obligations and give some practical guidance on implementation that could be really helpful to us. So a lot of councils have put energy into developing local codes for things like local laws for footpath trading. The response from senior management here when I raise that was no we’re not willing to do that we’ll wait for the Municipal Association of Victoria to come up with a state wide one, which will never happen. (Rural local government officer)
Local government participants and participants with disabilities identified that leadership
from senior council officers was a support for experimentation. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
142
The CEO - that’s part of the reason why we’re given the latitude that we’re given within this unit because he’s extremely supportive and they are prepared now to look at what we’re doing and say that’s great that seems to be going really well. [Implementing social inclusion is] not just about humouring community, it’s actually about bringing cultural and structural change to our organisation too. To enable this stuff to be implemented. No longer does council just have responsibility over some core things that are highlighted in the Local Government Act. (Rural local government manager)
The leadership provided by the CEO also extends to the status afforded disability
planning in an organisational structure and the profile provided of the staff doing the
work within the organisation. This is evidenced by the following comment:
When we got a new CEO on board and there was a re-organisation, the disability Access Planner Position, which had been in Community Services was moved into a more centralised and policy focussed area and away from service delivery. It went into strategy and governance. (Metropolitan local government manager)
A participant with a disability from the same local government area confirmed the
leadership role of the CEO by commenting, “We have the support of the CEO. We have
a good CEO. I might know it, because I’m on the committee” (Metropolitan participant
with a disability).
Leadership from councillors was identified in one local government area as an important
support. As evidenced by the comment that “One of the things about this council is that
the Councillor who is the major support for disability has been chairing the Disability
Advisory Committee for the last ten years and that makes a difference. She has also
become one of the two ‘senior’ councillors since the last election” (Metropolitan local
government manager). Similarly, an officer at the same council noted that:
I think more than anything we’ve got a councillor who constantly champions the rights of people with disability or champions access. I think more than anything that’s probably what has put disability and access so high on the agenda in this particular council. So I don’t think it’s necessarily something that the council strategically set out to achieve. I think that’s more the reason why it’s come about. (Metropolitan local government officer)
A participant with a disability from the same local government confirmed the leadership
role of the councillors by commenting “We’re lucky here we have a Councillor on side
143
and we don’t have to fight. We actually have a councillor who’s interested and that
makes a difference” (Metropolitan participant with a disability).
Leadership from council staff in planning and implementation was identified as
supporting experimenting with social inclusion with one participant commenting that “I
have seen people within council and some operational areas who have been made aware
and have taken disability on board and have made it almost sort of part of their personal
business. In some ways that’s the real answer” (Metropolitan local government
manager). However the sustainability of this personal investment in implementation was
raised by two participants.
The first issue raised was the extent to which personal leadership can occur in a vacuum
without total organisational support. This was evidenced by the comments that “if it
really comes down to individual officers and their interest and passion and values, which
is good in some ways, but is really quite risky for an individual” (Interface local
government manager) or that “I think a lot of people are doing a lot of good work but
they get very stressed and burnt out in the same token” (Metropolitan local government
officer). The problem with individual leadership is that “At the moment it’s still only the
officers that are aware you know it only comes down to the person in the position”
(Metropolitan local government officer). The implication of this comment is that
individual leadership is helpful but in and of itself does not provide the basis for
sustainable change.
Leadership from community groups and people with disability was identified by
Department of Human Services participants and a participant with a disability as an area
that needs strengthening. One participant commented that “… the best people to help
people with disabilities for inclusion are people with disabilities but they’ve got to be
empowered” (Interface participant with a disability). Similarly a Department of Human
Services officer highlighted the need to support leadership through the disability
movement to empower people with disabilities to be more active. This is evidenced by
the comment that:
144
…if you think about different movements in time, like the women’s movements or gay rights, it almost takes one or two significant figures within that community to stand up. Disability doesn’t have a really strong leadership focus or leadership group that could take their movement to the next level. It’s almost like we’re trying to break the ice and move forward on these things so I think building the skills and the leadership skills of people with a disability is fairly significant – an initiative that we can do but it may be that that’s in a community strengthening model anyway. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
And yet, a number of participants stated that implementing social inclusion through
disability planning had not been taken up comprehensively by all local governments and
that leadership was lacking to increase the level of experimentation. One participant
described this as requiring a cultural shift. “It’s almost like a core paradigm shift we
need to have. That space to just share a vision for the state and how that then can be
nurtured right through. We just haven’t even gone there really” (Metro local government
manager). Increased partnership based leadership was identified as both a gap and an
opportunity as evidenced in the following comment:
There’s almost a need for a collaborative leadership from different levels. Beyond a policy perspective to the recognition that in order for this to be embedded and translated on the ground, there needs to be this shared collaborative leadership in terms of working out the ‘how’. The ‘what’ and the ‘why’ we all agree I think it’s more about the ‘how’. (Interface local government manager)
Others speculated on the lack of leadership shown by local government and that
sometimes programs needed to kick start interest and commitment. This is evidenced in
the comment that:
It’s an interesting thing because disability still isn’t well supported in local government. I don’t know why it is and the reason I know this is because I have spent a bit of time with the network of disability and access planners and invariably even if you find people who might be at the right [pay] level, they’re not full time. The only thing that has changed this really is [the introduction of] MetroAccess. (Metropolitan local government manager)
Most participants commented on the importance of leadership in local government and in
local communities to implement strategies for social inclusion. This contrasted with a
perceived lack of systems leadership provided by the DHS which was seen as leading to
145
fragmentation in the implementation of plans and strategies. One local government
participant highlighted the challenge of working with multiple State Government
departments because disability planning is not coordinated. This is evidenced by the
following comment:
You’ve now got I think it’s ten government department disability action plans but they’re all, as far as we can tell, developed in Head Office. No one in the regions has really been involved with development and there’s not much ownership for the regions. So DHS has got its disability action plan, education has got its, DSE has got one and so on. But at the regional level it’s all a bit of a blank. No one seems to be clear about who the contact points are or how the implementation is going to happen regionally. Some of the themes that come through are things like disability awareness training and are in every single one. (Rural local government officer)
This fragmentation was confirmed by a Department of Human Services officer in the
following comment:
Regionally we have some relationships with our state government colleagues from other departments but it depends on the scope of what our priority is and what projects we’re working on. In terms of the State Plan, I guess there’s one initiative that’s happened at the state level to make sure that every state government department had a disability action plan. What concerns us regionally is that we want to be able to support those state government departments to implement their action plans at the regional level but it doesn’t seem to be feeding down to the regional level so you have these plans that are managed at a state level that there’s no real operational plan. I don’t think change or innovation or anything like that has been considered and we can’t even find out who to contact within each state government department who has responsibility for these plans. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
Staff support and skills
Study participants with disabilities reported that staff support was a key feature assisting
experimentation with strategies for social inclusion. Staff support is required at personal
and community implementation levels. At an individual level support enables people
with disabilities to move around in the community and take up civic involvement
opportunities. For one participant, this support revolved around flexible attendant care as
evidenced by the following comments:
146
If you look at it, what works best … attendant care works really well … why? Actually the guy on the ground has control of his life and the routine. The minute you give the routine to someone else, then you’ve rendered it nonsense. It’s the agreement between the two people. You’re managing me, can I make a decision every day of the week and say, ‘I want to do this tomorrow’. The minute you limit the opportunity to do that, you limit choices. The minute you say, you will not make a change in your routine, I’ve got an answer for you. You want to change your attendant care routine, and if you have to think, am I allowed to do this…who do I have to talk to … it’s very … (Metropolitan person with a disability).
This participant noted that the flexibility of the system relies on “Other people really
giving you more of their time than you’ve actually got allocated. Because you’re only
allocated a certain number of hours and a lot of carers are giving you minutes, or an hour
extra, and those minutes might add up to hour …. which is a fragile way to implement
social inclusion and based on good will rather than system (Metropolitan person with a
disability).
With regard to implementing social inclusion in the community, another participant with
a disability emphasised the need to have empathetic staff and this is evidenced by the
following comment:
The RuralAccess officers seem to do a very good job and they seem to fulfil that role rather well, depending on the person. It doesn’t always work well and I work across the six local shires. We’ve got some really good access workers, we’ve had some pretty ordinary ones. Where we’ve had the ordinary ones nothing happens. Nothing works for the community and the people it affects feel rather frustrated. Whereas someone like our worker- I couldn’t see anyone else in the role. She relates with the community, she’s got empathy with the community, she involves the community, she’s just extremely good. (Regional participant with a disability)
Similarly, participants from Department of Human Services Disability Services Division
Head Office, regions and local government areas represented in the study identified
examples where the lack of staff skills or training issues have impeded the
experimentation of social inclusion. Concerns have centred on the lack of staff
experience, skills, capacity to be an effective change agent and to develop partnerships.
Concerns were also expressed in relation to the availability and resourcing of training.
147
Given the significant role played by attendant carers, this issues of training extends
beyond community residential unit staff to all staff playing a support role for people with
disabilities in community settings.
A Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer
highlighted that the capacity to experiment with the State Plan’s social inclusion policy is
directly impacted by the skill profile of staff and their knowledge of or experience with
community development. This is evidenced by the following comment:
Workforce issues are huge in terms of success. If I give you a worst case scenario you’d get someone appointed who is inexperienced, young, never worked in local government before, never done community development work before, not done much work in disability service system, poor ownership of the initiative by council, no support and supervision structure, no management steering group focus or meetings, working across three councils. You know you’re pushing shit up hill to get success out of all of that. Now if you’ve got some worker there who’s a gun and who’s employed at the right level, very experienced - a good worker would see all of those constraints and deal with them …. there’s a real issue around the workforce pool of skilled workers and I think what’s probably happened in our Metro regions is that people have come into the community building roles in the regional positions that work for the bureaucracy and don’t necessarily have a background in community development or community building. So you get a particular flavour, a particular set of expertise which may be good but may be missing some things in terms of actually building the capacity within the region around the knowledge base of work and what it means. You grow that knowledge over time when you’re working in the area but if you’re working at a regional level and you’re the one person in most cases that is expected to be the expert or have the knowledge around community building, that’s a huge ask. So if you don’t have a background and don’t have a lot of experience and examples to draw upon I think that’s really difficult. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
At a regional Department of Human Services level, concerns regarding staff skills focus
on funded services and the capacity of service staff to increase social inclusion within
program boundaries. This is evidenced by the comment that:
Well it’s all about doing interactions between staff and residents and creating opportunities for residents to be more independent, just at the house level, making coffee for yourself if you want coffee, having choice and all that. So again what we noticed that at times staff may be sceptical about what their role is, why they
148
should be doing this, and in that case, nothing different will happen. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
For local government participants, staff skills were identified as potentially creating
barriers to change and inhibiting joined up whole of Council planning. Negotiation and
persuasion skills were identified as critical to bring all officers to a shared understanding
of disability inclusion and change. The following comment provides evidence of what
occurs when these skills are not visible in the workforce and the impediments to
experimenting with inclusion in local areas that have been created:
The issue with a lot of people who work in the disability field is they’re so busy trying to fight the cause. But at the end of the day you’ve got to meet people where they’re at. If you’re working with an organisation that’s just not ready to move, or you’re working with a community that’s just not ready to move, you’ve got to meet that community where those people are at and basically guide them through that process. I think a lot of disability officers know what they know and they just expect everyone else to know the same thing and when people don’t, they get frustrated with them, and it’s like trying to impose [outcomes]. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Local government participants expressed views regarding staff training and development
and the level of resource that needs to support change. The following comments related
to the negative impact that the failure to continue disability awareness training had on one
local government area:
Now as an organisation we suffered until about a year ago from the fact that three or four years before that we had an HR manager who was focused basically on the industrial side of HR … and we could not get her to really engage on the fact that we needed the range of diversity training. We got it in the end but it was never really willing and that did set us back because before that we’d always had HR managers who rise up there in the forefront of it. I think the minute you slacken off on training it gets reflected in the workforce. (Metropolitan local government manager)
On a broader level, the same issue was raised by another local government participant but
in terms of the resource and strategy involved with supporting workforce change and
current inadequacies associated with the State Plan. This is evidenced by the following
comment:
149
I think what’s quite huge is this workforce planning and responding to the implications of shifting policy. There’s no money goes into this sort of policy direction and how you do then deal with the existing systems in culture, workforce issues and skill sets. (Interface local government manager)
Impediments to experimentation
The absence of a comprehensive population and service data base and a detailed
implementation plan was identified by participants as impeding experimentation on a
limited basis and the following section expands on participant views.
Insufficient resources
State and local government participants, and participants with a disability, identified lack
of human and financial resources and resource adequacy as significant barriers to
trialability.
From a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office
perspective this was described in terms of the inadequacy of central resources for such a
significant policy change. This is evidenced by the comments that:
I think one of the difficult things is the way, once again probably comes back to the level of resourcing for community building, which is so flimsy, that we’ve got in terms of our structure within disability services as most of the program area responsibilities sit under this branch …. at the end of the day you’ve got three of us doing it as well and our ability to manage the community building programs and embed them and have the right infrastructure and communication. We work across all this other stuff both internally in terms of supporting these different areas about their reform processes and having a lot of input there and then working externally across other government departments. It’s quite unmanageable ... (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
One local government officer also referred to the resource impact of the State Plan’s
implementation process and the lack of consideration to resourcing in implementation.
That’s where the State Disability Plan does fail there because it’s great, a fantastic plan but a lot of agencies, not just local government, need the support to get there
150
and I don’t think that was sort of taken into account. (Interface local government officer)
Another local government officer referred to Department of Human Services comments
at a function to launch the Disability Act 2006 that “there’s no resources there to support
you” which lead this officer to remark:
That makes it very difficult for true inclusiveness to occur. It seems like we’re here and they want utopia straight away. There’s no lead in to get to utopia, everyone wants it. I don’t think the general public would want to not be inclusive and have access for all but you need support to get there. (Interface local government officer)
As an identified partner in the State Plan, several local government officers commented
that resource issues constrain implementation in a number of ways. One noted that “I
don’t think there are enough resources within local government as it currently functions”
and “The fact that some councils don’t have those resources - I just don’t know how
they’re responding appropriately” (Metropolitan local government officer).
Interface and rural council participants highlighted that resource issues affect
implementation and experimentation in a significant way as “We do have our ten year
build up plan which I think is beneficial and very, very necessary. But with not much
money and buildings forty years of age, its extraordinarily difficult to make the changes
necessary” (Interface local government officer). Similarly another commented on the
necessity for the Department of Human Services to contribute and assist with funds to
implement state initiated plans where the lack of local funds will not enable trialability:
So that’s a real bind because in some rural communities that little hall might be all you’ve got in terms of public infrastructure. There isn’t anything else. So to me, all the State Plan principles are pretty hollow if somewhere in the state government there’s not a commitment to help local communities upgrade. There’s a hall being opened tomorrow here that’s just been upgraded. I read in the paper that DVC have put in $23,000 towards upgrading … I thought oh great … I’ve just checked this morning does it now have an accessible toilet! The answer is no. Because a local community started on the smell of an oily rag, they got a little bit of help from DVC but there was no one in the little group who was
151
passionate enough about access to say this has to be part of the upgrade. (Rural local government officer)
The impact of resources was summarised by a local government manager as resulting in
frustration and a lack of capacity to address the funding gap. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
…if the challenge for the State Plan is to meet what has been achieved in parts of the US and parts of Europe it absolutely comes down to dollars end of story, no other thing and that’s actually what we are about in this local government area … it’s also a massive start up to and you know I sort of feel [talking about] inclusion isn’t going to do it. (Metropolitan local government manager)
A participant with a disability provided an analytical comment regarding the lack of
sufficient funds to implement the State Plan and trial inclusion initiatives. The comment
focussed on the state political process where neither of the major political parties has
expressed significant commitment to increased expenditure to implement disability
policy. This participant noted that “…there is no recurrent funding…. There’s a black
hole, both parties have admitted openly that there’s a black hole and they don’t run to fill
it because there aren’t a lot of votes in it” (Participant with a disability).
Underdeveloped partnerships
However participants from all local government areas represented in the study and
Department of Human Services head and regional officers identified examples of
partnership related issues also impeding experimentation of social inclusion. Concerns
centred on the resources and time required to establish effective partnerships and the
tension between funding models and partnership. One comment also referred to the
issues for the Department of Human Services in developing partnership across
Government Departments to effect change.
The point made by a local government manager was that interpersonal relationships and
contextual policy need to come together to achieve change. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
152
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how strong the policy is, no matter how, you know I mean how good our plan is until I can sit down and build a relationship with people and they want to open up and build up that trust and start learning it’s going to be really hard. You need that complimented by major policy change at the state level you know, you need them both. (Metropolitan local government manager)
The complementary point made by a Department of Human Services Officer was that
partnership development and dialogue is a long and ongoing process that takes some time
to embed and become systematised. This is evidenced by the following comment:
Relationship building takes such a long time and you just seem to build up a relationship with somebody and that person moves on and then you’ve got to start all over again. I think if we took MetroAccess away now I think a lot of the good initial sort of developmental stage would just go. I don’t think councils would pick it up. They don’t have the resources to pick it up. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
A local Government counterpart from the same region identified that
I don’t think that the state government, or the department at least, has that good linkage or worked out a [partnership] strategy whether that’s through the Municipal Association of Victoria. I sometimes think they just do locally, it’s just one of those things that we need to start. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services manager)
Outlining a further layer of implementation challenge, a local government manager from
a different region suggested that state government is unaware of the role of local
government and that this is an impediment to partnering which leads to experimenting
with social inclusion.
This is evidenced by the comment that:
The attitude towards local government here is really quite, almost ignorant. Certainly the most recent DVC policy documents that have come out have stated a role for local government very specifically and that’s comparable to the A Fairer Victoria policy. Going back then it was just a very philosophical statements about all working together. But even then my experience of going along to state meetings where state government was involved they talk about all of government working together but that doesn’t include local government. They [state
153
government] don’t actually understand where local government fits in that picture and to me that’s a real shame because you know local government is integral to the success of those things. State government at the moment actually causes quite a bit of undermining to the accomplishments of local government just because they do work in isolation. (Rural local government manager)
This gap was also reinforced by a local government manager from a different region.
The inability of state and local government to partner more effectively was described as
reducing the capacity for planning and strategic solutions. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
It’s such a potential for a really strong collective partnership you know, there is that research and planning side of things. That’s where I think state and local government can really complement each other in our planning framework and be quite strategic. I think it’s a big ask for any of our community organisations and groups to actually take as there’s just no capacity to do that kind of work. But local government and state government, and Commonwealth for that matter, have a capacity to really work together on that. I would say that that’s a huge gap. (Interface local government manager)
The same local government manager raised the issue of whether funding arrangements
between state and local government in a purchaser/provider model can ever enable true
and equal partnership to develop as:
How genuine are we when we talk about locally driven partnerships? How does that sit in the world of measures, outputs, outcomes, existing processes of systems and efficiencies and all of that which is probably more within the realm of state government than on the ground where we see the diversity in terms of local strategies and initiatives? (Interface local government manager)
A rural local government officer recognised that partnership is a significant factor that
supports implementation and experimentation with strategies for social inclusion. But at
the same time the history of local partnerships was effected by past state government
decisions and the memory of those issues still reduces the capacity or willingness to
partner. This is evidenced by the following comment:
And this is so based on partnerships and nothing can really happen without partnerships. But I think in some ways we’re still in the rebuilding phase in that there were all those years when there was so much divide and rule that partnerships really took a battering. I’m not saying they ever completely
154
disappeared but it became so much harder when people were constantly competing for tenders and things like that…. Well people have got long memories and local government amalgamations is probably the other big thing. But for people around here it’s like it happened yesterday and it doesn’t matter if you say well actually it was twelve years ago or whatever. Some people are still licking their wounds. (Rural local government officer)
Absence of a comprehensive population and service data base
Local Government participants from each study area identified that population data are
difficult and expensive to source in spite of being a fundamental element of evidenced
based planning and policy implementation system.
A metropolitan local government participant noted that:
We’ve got some very general stats about so many people in our municipality have a disability but I think people are just plucking that figure out of the one in five have a disability then comparing it against the number of people in the municipality and working it out that way. (Metropolitan local government officer)
An interface local government participant noted the difficulty of obtaining population
data via the Department of Human Services as evidenced by the comment that:
Yeah and it’s so expensive as well. I mean when you look at the data snapshots - I think DHS have given me north and west snapshots. I know progressively they do break it down at different times but to say ‘oh no you can’t have that’ … yes I understand there’s costs involved but surely those are the type of things at the state level they can start to resource and put some funding in? (Interface local government officer)
A local government participant from a rural area identified the challenge in not having
population data in rural areas to assist planning and delivery. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
Data is an issue because our communities are small and disability data doesn’t drill down to any significant level. If we’re really lucky it will drill down to the statistical local area level and even that is too broad. It’s good background information but it’s too broad to be specific. So we do have issues drilling down far enough. Most of the data is just at LGA level which is good for the whole
155
long term strategic vision for the community but in terms of place based plans it’s useless. (Rural local government officer)
Frustration was expressed by one local government participant who identified that the
Department of Human Services has a capacity to provide population data at more
localised levels depending on the program and resources available. In the following
comment, reference is made to the capacity and resources available in another program
area (Neighbourhood renewal) that demonstrates that better disability data can be
developed given additional resources:
We were at a forum the other day with DHS … [where they did] a presentation on the demographics of the neighbourhood renewal areas and the incidence of disability is double…But neighbourhood renewal comes with a lot of money, a lot of resources and you sort of really do need that level of resources to drill down into a community that deep I think (Metropolitan local government officer)
In relation to the availability of service data, participants from the Department of Human
Services Disability Services Division identified the difficulty of accessing data with one
participant acknowledging, “With our planning we don’t use lots of data” (DHS metro
region manager). A Head Office participant commented that service data could be very
useful information for experimenting with social inclusion in local areas but that the data
are not analysed or presented by local government area. This is evidenced by the
following comment:
… lack of population data and service data, because they collect information from all the services and they collect information on disability type, living arrangements, services used, things that people access, a whole range of really what could be useful information. However they don’t extrapolate that on a local government area basis of course. What they do is they pull together the data regionally and send it to the regions. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
This was confirmed by a rural Department of Human Services officer who also
questioned the data collection parameters and the capacity of current data to demonstrate
outcomes. This is evidenced by the following comment:
What concerns me is that there’s some really great data that’s being gathered in this individual planning process. We’re learning a lot about people. We’re
156
learning about what they want to do with their lives, what are the barriers for them to be able to do that currently. We tend to be handing out money so that they can achieve these things but we’re not actually collating any of that data. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
The same officer noted that much service data being collected currently had been
designed as compliance data rather than for its relevance to planning or supporting the
implementation of the State Plan.
No we’re not good at collecting data, I don’t think. But in saying that a lot of our data is being collected from agencies to ensure that they’re meeting their funding and service agreement contract. It’s compliance data really and look there’s probably some really good data within that as well, that we’re not really extrapolating to benefit our planning. A great example is respite. I work alongside the person who manages our respite portfolio and she’s constantly being asked from the regional disability executive level ‘what basis do you have for setting up this new respite service’. She says well I don’t but I’m just going on a hunch or the fact that I’ve had six phone calls from families in the last month that are saying I need a service. So I set up a service now that’s how it’s working. (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
Comments from the rural Department of Human Services officer also indicated that better
data collection and analysis would provide service delivery and development that would
benefit people with disabilities and increase inclusion in innovative ways. This is
evidenced by the following comment:
Within the State Plan there is a difficulty because you’ve got two priorities that are almost in conflict with one another. You have individual planning stuff and individual funding and then you’ve got community strengthening and community development which doesn’t have a lot of funding attached. This is part of my argument around, let’s try and get some of the data from the individual planning stuff because we might find that we have ten people here who we are paying a support worker to take them to the gym every week. If that gym is such a popular thing that people with disability want to access, then why aren’t we employing somebody at the gym who knows how to interact with these people? (Rural Department of Human Services officer)
From a local government perspective, improved service data would increase local area
knowledge, but only if a data sharing system were put in place. This is evidenced by
comments from a local government participant:
157
if [DHS were] doing something, like when they were doing the review of Futures for Young Adults, they’d have an update that they’d send out. You know even if they had some kind of data update where they sent it to you … so you just keep track of things you know, not anything too detailed but some basics … even shifting stuff like number of people who have shifted into the area maybe into new community residential units. (Metropolitan local government officer)
Absence of a comprehensive and systematic implementation plan
Local Government participants from each study area identified that the absence of a
comprehensive and systematic implementation plan created a significant impediment to
experimenting with social inclusion policy in local settings. It was identified as having
created confusion over the target group and different strategies for service and non
service users. It was criticised by participants as having failed to generate sufficient
community debate and interest and for not developing systems to drive change or monitor
progress. It has neither lifted initiatives that have been successfully trialled locally to a
State wide level, nor created systematic consultation and development mechanisms for
people with disability. These issues will be discussed in the following section.
The State Plan’s target group was debated between the Department of Human Services
Disability Services Division and the Municipal Association of Victoria prior to the State
Plan’s inception as evidenced by the following comment:
And we had that philosophical debate for eighteen months with the Municipal Association of Victoria saying we deal with the 18 per cent of the population that has a disability you deal with the 5 per cent who receive services. And we were saying well yes we deal with 5 per cent but we also deal with the 18 per cent because that’s what our community building strategy is actually about. The two need to come together because the 5 per cent are marginalised in their local communities. They are probably one of the most marginalised groups and we need to work on how we actually try to include them as part of community. They need to be included as part of the broader 18 per cent that local government is focussing on in terms of opening up access and inclusion. So you know it has been a really difficult and tense kind of debate at various levels and still continues in many of the local governments. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
158
In some respects this tension remains because more people with disabilities now live in
the community but neither the State Plan’s implementation partners nor the community
have fully discussed the implications of the policy. Nor have the implementation plans
been identified for the whole cohort of people with disabilities to be more socially
included.
A Department of Human Services officer summarised this implementation dilemma in
the following terms:
We’ve deinstitutionalised lots and lots of people. We’ve got them out into the community and I think we’ve plateaued a bit now. I think we’re ready to have that next step. But the next step is that community needs to be more open and willing and able to take on people with disabilities. But I think from what I hear there has been a great shift but we still have a long way to go. (Department of Human Services metropolitan region officer)
A local government manager characterised this dilemma in the following way, “we
haven’t systematically as a community got our head around how do we support our
families you know, individuals or living on a daily basis”. (Interface local government
manager)
The absence of a comprehensive and systematic implementation plan has left many key
implementation issues unresolved. State and local government, people with disabilities
and their carers, service providers and members of the community are not clear about the
implications of increasing social inclusion in relation to roles and resources. The lack of
a state wide implementation system for local areas is acknowledged as problematic for
the Department of Human Services Disability Services Division as evidenced by the
comment that:
I don’t think we’ve got all the levels quite right and the coverage across different, you know sorts of activities, infrastructure. We’ve invested quite strongly in local communities. I don’t think we’ve done as well in looking at how we work at systemic levels. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
159
The same officer also identified that a strategic implementation plan was needed to drive
systematic change but that the resources to accomplish social inclusion from within a
service delivery State Government Department was problematic. This is evidenced by
the comment that:
I guess one of my concerns about innovations is how we work at a systemic level and how we build up this knowledge about the issues. How do we drive it into a systemic framework where we can actually start to challenge or address the issues at the levels that they need to be addressed. To make a real change. We are still grappling with that. And the reality is we sit inside Disability Services, of which the core is about service provision to a very large sector. So our work is this miniscule, very important but a miniscule part of a much larger kind of beast if you like. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
In spite of positive comments from all participants regarding the role that the Rural and
MetroAccess programs have played in enabling local experimentation of social inclusion,
the question remains as to how a programmatic approach can shift processes, partnerships
and resources to create and embed state wide change. This is evidenced by the following
comment:
RuralAccess developed in a particular space in time was its own program and did its own thing. MetroAccess has come in and now we’ve got to try and bring the two together. We have to try and get strong synergy across the state because they’re the same program but they have in some ways very separate identities and see themselves. So there’s a range of challenges. It’s just that we need to invest some time in working through the issues associated with how we bring them together, how we develop similar systems, how we develop better communication, joining up of issues, collaboration across the issues, across the program area, across the local state regional level. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Similarly concerns were expressed by local government participants as evidenced in the
following comment:
I think the broad principles [of the State Plan] are wonderful and I haven’t really found anyone who’s disagreed with them. But one of the things we talked about in the working groups a fair bit was implementation strategies. I guess for me that’s the problem with this beautiful document. We talked about the need for different layers and a really good operational plan and there was an implementation plan developed for the first three years. I think it went to 2005
160
from memory but I haven’t seen anything since then. (Regional local government officer)
While there is Department of Human Services recognition regarding the need to
systematise change and to work collaboratively with local government to trial social
inclusion an implementation and change management gap remains. This is evidenced by
the following comment:
I think for me the challenge ahead is really about how we embed and support the program to thrive and what’s required to do that and how we connect up across whole of government to support the range of issues that the workers are dealing with. Building the capacity of communities to be inclusive and identifying what resources are required to do that. How we can best support with the limited resources that we’ll have available and … where we need to put energy in the future, which partnerships need to be the critical partnerships that we invest in. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
The evidence suggests that the trialability of the State Plan remains relatively fragmented
and localised with little strategy for embedding good practices consistently across the
state. This point was described by a local government officer making their observations
from a planning forum to increase social inclusion:
There’s just no collaboration, not a lot of communication happening, everyone is just trying to do the best that they can with the resources that they’ve got. So one of the biggest needs that came out of that was people saying we want to start talking more … we need someone to coordinate that. We need someone to be sitting there even just putting together lists of all the services that are out there …. I think also maybe it’s different when you’re a bit more metro based but as you go out further the services don’t even sit in the municipality sometimes. They’re a regional service that basically is somewhere quite a way away and so there’s not even a physical front for a service necessarily. So it’s really fragmented and I think that the thing that was lost through the 90s was the funding that enabled the services to do community development. In the mid 80s people were funded to network. It was an okay thing to do and you were expected to do it. (Metropolitan local government officer)
One participant with a disability demonstrated that the implementation of the State Plan
has not been achieving consistent results for people with disabilities across the state
because local experimentation is not replicated consistently. This is evidenced by the
comment that:
161
People move into this local area with disabilities. I had a friend and said that he should come here. I said ‘You’re not getting anything there, no services and the transport is zilch, your opportunities are zilch, and you can’t go anywhere once you go out of your own house because everything’s too far away. So he moved here. Now he’s got home help, he can move out within 500 metres he’s got the market, the station. So his opportunities went up from zilch … I could walk out here and actually be with people, rather than just watching people go by. (Metropolitan participant with a disability)
Similarly, the same participant identified that improvements in one local area will not just
transfer to others. The absence of an implementation plan to experiment with social
inclusion to achieve state wide results is a key implementation issue. This is evidenced
by the comment that:
Trouble is, I can’t see what’s happening at (a wider) council level now. Say, I influenced the kurbs, but does it translate that the whole of this local area understands that now? I brought up about the road raises and that’s happened. But will that translate into other councils? (Metropolitan participant with a disability)
Another concern for participants with disabilities has been the failure of the State Plan to
include strategies to engage people with disabilities in the trialling of social inclusion in
local areas. One participant with a disability commented that:
So often I hear ‘what’s best for this person’, ‘what’s best for that person’ and ‘perhaps you should be doing this’ or ‘should be doing that’ and my standard answer is why don’t you ask them, why don’t you ask them. (Interface participant with a disability)
There was a strong theme in responses from people with disabilities that the State Plan
needs strategies that engage in assertive outreach to find people with disabilities who are
isolated because “If you are isolated in your home, how are you going to join anything?”
(Metropolitan participant with a disability).
The next section reports on the data collected from study participants on perceptions of
observability.
162
Observability Rogers’ definition of observability
According to Rogers, observability is “… the degree to which the results of an innovation
are visible to others” (Rogers, 2003, p.16). If it is easy for adopters to see the results of
innovation, they are more likely to adopt it because it stimulates peer discussion.
The observability of the State Plan
There is limited publicly available evaluation material reporting on State Plan, Metro or
RuralAccess program outcomes. An Implementation Plan 2002-05 and 2006-08 outlined
commitments.
State and local government participants and participants with disabilities in each case
study location were given the opportunity to comment on the degree to which the State
Plan’s emphasis on social inclusion was visible to others. All participants commented on
Rogers’ characteristic of observability. Participants with disabilities contributed more on
this characteristic of implementation than any other. While participants were divided on
the extent to which social inclusion was observable they did identify what supported and
impeded the observability of social inclusion. These points will be expanded on in the
following sections.
Participant views on whether results are visible to others Local government and Department of Human Services regional participants identified
instances of visible social inclusion strategy implementation. However, examples
focussed on physical changes or changes that provided benefits to people with physical or
sensory disabilities. Specific built form examples of visible improvements were provided
by local government participants. The first comment identified below demonstrates a
number of physical changes that were made to enable increased social inclusion:
A lot of public parks trails that are accessible and they don’t just end on you and there are accessible toilets. You see community programs with signage available
163
for people, not only in different languages but also for people with visual impairment. Our website offers opportunities for different versions for people who require it. There’s a hearing loop in the council building which people can access and I’m in the process at the moment writing a policy to lend it out as well to other community groups. (Interface local government officer)
Similarly another local government participant highlighted improvements to public
buildings but was not as able to identify visible change related to education, employment,
housing, recreation. This participant also identified the impact that resources have on
achieving visible improvements for people with disabilities, some of which, like
provision of toilets are fundamental to increased participation:
I think we’re slowly making progress. I find it really hard to answer globally because there are so many issues whether you’re talking education, employment, housing, recreation. In terms of things like access to the build environment it feels like we’re slowly making progress. We have got some landmark projects which will be much more accessible than former projects. Things like the pool being redeveloped or the entertainment centre or even down here at the Port are all positives. The downside of that I guess is that there is still major resource issues in terms of basic infrastructure that’s substandard. I’m talking toilet blocks and access to your little country halls, that kind of thing. No one really wants to know about that. Rural council is not a big rate base, struggling to fix bridges, all that sort of thing. A big capital program to upgrade toilet blocks is not likely. They try to gradually do it but talking a ten year plan instead of a two year plan. The approach is if it’s substandard knock it down, basically that’s honest. (Regional local government officer)
Other participants were able to highlight programmatic responses that have delivered
visible outcomes in local areas. One of these was a partnership program to enable people
in electric wheelchairs to recharge the batteries in their chairs and is evidenced by the
following comment:
I suppose I use the example of recharge … [although] at first I actually didn’t think recharge was a truly inclusive sort of project because it was working with people who were able minded. It wasn’t working with the hard core of disability. But I can see now that because she has got that win, and because she has got that profile now of doing a great job, she will just be able to build and build on that. So I can see some strategy now in pursuing the recharge … because it’s just a win for her and hopefully she will be able to then tackle that harder end of disability where people can’t communicate and it’s more complex. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
164
The second example involved a photo exhibition in local libraries that encouraged people
of all abilities to use the libraries and involved some physical access improvements. This
is evidenced by the following comment:
Two years ago people in their scooters wouldn’t have been able to go up to the local shop and ask the shop owner could they plug their recharge. So that’s a tangible thing. Last year we had a group of young people from neighbourhood renewal site that learnt how to use a camera and they exhibited their photography in a Vic Uni exhibition so that was possible through MetroAccess. We had a group of people who attended a day program attend their local library and learnt how to use the library system and feel comfortable with the library. So the library staff became aware of people with disabilities and what the issues are and they adapted their library so there has been definitely some tangible evidence. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services officer)
Participant views on the supports to achieving visible results
A Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer
suggested that the achievement of visible results can be attributed to the allocation of
state government resources to local areas and partnership development through the Metro
and RuralAccess initiatives. The following comments evidence this view:
We’ve got a community building function in every local community in Victoria working on disability issues so that’s one measure of success for me, that it’s actually there. We’ve got an infrastructure in place and there’s a range of outcomes starting to emerge from those strategies. There would be people with disabilities and community members and organisations across every local community that would know of MetroAccess, had some engagement around work they were developing, had achieved some positive outcomes as a result, there may also be a range of people in organisations in every community that don’t know MetroAccess exists and that’s just a reality of you know of time and effort and all those kinds of things. But I think it’s been successful in the time that we’ve had. I think we can build that success and we need to build on the success and develop it at different levels and get better at understanding what is our measure of success. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
And that:
I think people see some amazing success with the RuralAccess initiative and they see it doing stuff that we haven’t been able to do before so that sort of is helping it along in terms of embedding it in practice and we’re seeing much stronger
165
partnerships associated with the regional office and the services to which will help it. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
In spite of the examples provided of visible improvements demonstrating increased
implementation of social inclusion policy, most participants suggested that change was
slow and hard to see. Participants described the lack of a comprehensive and systematic
implementation plan and evaluation framework as demonstrating that results were not
visible.
One local government participant commented that:
I just think it takes a very long time. I think change is so slow. I think it can be frustrating for officers not really seeing much change. I think it certainly is. I certainly think it’s the way to go and having more resources like MetroAccess coming in to support the disability planner and making that stuff happen. (Metropolitan local government officer)
A further frustration was expressed by a local government participant because
improvements in local areas were not systematically shared or transferred to other areas
across the state. This is evidenced by the comment that:
People are replicating. I’ve been one of the first at MetroAccess, people replicating the same projects that other people are doing and that frustrates the living daylights out of me because we should be out there talking about a data base. There should be a central data base system where we can all share information and learn from each other and not reinvent the wheel. (Interface local government officer)
A fundamental question, in the absence of a state wide evaluation framework was
summarised by a local government participant who commented “Well the question of
course is observable to whom” (Metropolitan local government manager).
Issues such as housing, transport and practices in community and health services were
described by all participants as not demonstrating visible results and in some instances
demonstrating that nothing had improved as a result of the State Plan.
166
Housing Housing generated a number of comments from local government participants and
participants with disabilities.
One local government officer identified that while there had been improvements in
housing that should be benefiting people with disabilities, we have retained a housing
model for people with disabilities with an institutional look and feel. This is evidenced
by the following comment:
I think that’s quite a good way to go. While there’s a lot happening in the housing area yet there’s a lot of ignorance about it too. People just don’t realise how it can be very cheap to build in accessible housing principles at the beginning but it’s very, very expensive to retrofit …. You know we’ve moved away from the big institutions to the mini institutions. We’ve got the community residential unit with five bedrooms sitting in the community, not really of the community in most cases depending on the quality of the staff and some other systemic things. But a lot of the people in the community residential units are extremely isolated. Same pattern identified in Britain and other places and some really creative projects of other ways of doing stuff you know. That model is really so old fashioned. (Rural local government officer)
Another local government participant commented thatcurrent housing models are
inadequate given that:
Anecdotally a lot of people with disabilities are quite frankly camping. They’re in other people’s living rooms. They’re in a third bedroom or something and they’re moving around from one person to another and that’s just not housing. (Metropolitan local government manager)
A participant with a disability argued that the failure in the housing model for people
with disabilities commenced at deinstitutionalisation and that the service system has
failed to provide a model that supports people with disabilities in a comprehensive
manner. This is evidenced by the comment that:
We look at the institutions as you call them which all closed down and they were third world. But they were better than nothing because most of our people then went out onto the streets and then found themselves, where departmental people took them out and put them into boarding houses …. they weren’t there to see what happened to them. They weren’t there to get them out of the park and to
167
clean them up and to get them sorted. We’ve done that, the work only starts, really starts when you’ve implemented it you know. (Interface participant with a disability)
These comments indicate that the State Plan’s implementation of social inclusion has not
produced visibly better housing options for people with disabilities in local communities.
Transport
Transport generated a number of comments from state and local government participants
and participants with disabilities.
For one local government participant, the lack of transport options for people with
disabilities presents as a consistent and unresolved issue that requires significant state
government intervention as evidenced by the following comment:
If there’s something we talk about with the Disability Advisory Committee that we’re going to do something about, the first thing is always transport - it’s always transport. In the neighbourhood renewal area … the number one priority not just for people with disability … was transport. You’ve probably seen the maps that show public transport on the week days and public transport on the weekend and basically the map disappears on the weekends. (Metropolitan local government manager)
Department of Human Services managers are aware of the significance of transport yet
the State Plan does not identify active strategies to make a visible difference:
Transport is an important issue but it’s sometimes an unrewarding issue in terms of working through and trying to find a solution. I know that there is lots of funding from state government going to roads, especially in growth areas but there’s always something to work out in transport. It used to be on the agenda but it may become just one big topic and that’s why I’m calling it unrewarding because it takes time to work out. (Metropolitan Department of Human Services Manager)
Similarly, a rural Department of Human Services officer commented on the negative
impact that transport has had on changing the service system to ensure that people with
168
disabilities living in community residential units are out in the community. This is
evidenced by the following comment:
One of the biggest frustrations I hear from workers is the perennial issues - can’t do anything about transport, can’t do anything about these Community Residential Units … There’s a set of core issues that at a local level they can only take so far and then other levels need to be brought in to try and create some leverage. What we’re trying to do is get better at the structures that we’ve got in place that help staff to actually bring those issues together and create a mechanism to move them forward. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
For participants with disabilities, railways provide a preferable transport option in the
metropolitan area, and according to one participant with a disability:
… railways have been more accessible. Taxis are still not up to scratch, even today, the whole system needs overhaul. Maxi cabs are a great idea but a lot of cab drivers say ‘no I won’t take that person, I’ve got a thing in the city’. I know that some cabs have stopped the way they allocated jobs. They just allocate the job and don’t tell what it involves so they have to take the job … Well you know market driven systems … something on at the airport … big sporting events … something on …you can guarantee that you won’t get a maxi cab. They can get 8-10 people in the back. And it doesn’t matter even if you’ve booked. You can pre-book a week earlier, and they will ignore the booking, so the booking has no priority and you have no recourse when they don’t call. No obligation to take it. (Metropolitan participant with a disability)
Similarly, a participant with a disability in a rural area has found both cabs and trains
problematic as demonstrated in the following comment:
I have to wait while the school runs are on because maxi taxis are busy. I hop on a train with a first class ticket and I get put in the baggage compartment, no windows, no air-conditioning, no toilets, no nothing, no heating, not even a seat for my carer she’s got to sit on a bag and usually somebody else’s bag. That only happened once, but sitting on a train in the designated area for wheelchairs means you are right outside the toilet and so you hear people go and you smell people go and a young lady came and she was vomiting in the toilet and you could hear all the sound effects … It’s terrible and … that’s what people with disability encounter all the time. It’s what other people take for granted as being able to sit in the normal part of the train and they wouldn’t envisage having to put up with all those things. The train pulling in and saying sorry mate you can’t get on today and just pulling off and leaving you standing there, no one else. For a normal person that is just not acceptable … We have got better trains now and trains are
169
being changed and things are happening but they do happen slowly. (Regional participant with a disability)
Practices in community and health services
In spite of the State Plan goal to implement social inclusion, a number of participants
commented that visible changes were hard to observe in community and health services.
One local government officer commented that:
It is a pretty awful system and a system where some awful things have been happening and continue to happen whether or not that’s documented. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence about poor practice or worse and yet those disability organisations continue to be funded. There’s a whole lot of governance issues. Part of it’s about governance and you’ve got organisations which might have committees of management or boards which are basically made up of carers who have been doing it for years and years and years. They haven’t necessarily got the skills or experience to meet the current expectations of a governance body. I think that in some rural areas, that’s part of the problem. So you’ve got staff who are operating in the way they’ve always done things but the world has moved on and they haven’t. Whereas in Melbourne you’ve got much more generational change happening and it’s probably easier. Not always, but usually easier to find inroads whether it’s through changes in staff or changes in management or both. (Rural local government officer)
It was acknowledged by a Department of Human Services Disability Services Division
Head Office officer that the failure to reform the disability service sector has created
barriers for people with disabilities as evidenced by the following comment:
I’d say the service system creates barriers for people. I reckon that’s probably one of the biggest barriers because you have people sitting inside a gated community and there are guards that you have to get past. I think in terms of what’s different about disability for me is that the service system is a huge barrier. The fact that you often don’t get to talk to or communicate with or engage with a person with a disability in the first instance. You engage with the service and they create often a barrier for you to actually then get to a person with a disability. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
Similarly a rural Department of Human Services officer commented that:
Another of our regional projects was about community participation and assisting people with disabilities to get more involved in basic community activities
170
provided by generic services like community houses or sports clubs or whatever. So it was about bringing together people who were disability providers and people with disabilities and people from mainstream community groups. But duty of care kept coming up from disability providers as a barrier with them saying ‘Johnny can’t do such and such because we’ve got a duty of care’. (Rural local government officer)
Impediments to identifying visible results
Lack of an evaluation framework
A number of participants identified that the lack of an evaluation framework was a
significant impediment to identifying visible results for the State Plan’s implementation
of social inclusion. This was summarised by a local government participant who
commented:
That’s one of the problems I think - what are we working towards? How do we know that we are 50 per cent there or 70 per cent there or 90 per cent there? So again it’s that challenge of qualitative and quantitative indictors to measure how we’re progressing. I think that’s one of the frustrating bits. It really left us to open interpretations and judgment about how we are progressing. (Interface local government manager)
The lack of baseline data were identified as problematic by another local government
officer who noted that:
It would have been useful for a study to have been done on each municipality before MetroAccess was implemented. So then in five years time we could see what’s happened…Because I know in the Access All Abilities program we had this very basic tool that we use to gauge how far sporting clubs have moved along that continuum in terms of awareness. From no awareness to awareness and how much we’d built the capacity of that group. Very simple tools but I still think well maybe something like that could have been used pre-MetroAccess to say well what is the feel of the community at the moment and actually measure that somehow. (Metropolitan local government officer)
The lack of base data were also identified as problematic by a Department of Human
Services Head Office participant who said that:
We want them to look at the development of community indicators around our programs because it’s just not been an area that we’ve focused well enough on. I
171
think we probably operate on the basis of anecdotal evidence at the moment. (Department of Human Services Disability Services Division Head Office officer)
In terms of solutions, a local government participant acknowledged that action research
would provide a flexible basis for evaluation because:
You can’t really nut out the operational process until you get to the stage of doing it. Everything is action learning, action research for me. You’ve got to start somewhere but be aware that it is just a model and you’re working with people and you’re going to need to be able to adjust and make changes to suit whatever the situation is that you’re coming across. (Rural local government manager)
The capacity to evaluate a partnership based initiative was also the subject of some
comment. A local government participant identified that more visible results may
emerge from a joint planning and partnership implementation strategy. This is evidenced
by the following comments:
I see that research and planning partnership opportunity between state and local government can really actually address some of those issues but it’s not there. So it means that we do what we can but it doesn’t have the broad kind of potential that it could have. But if there’s a genuine cooperation for instance between state government and councils, specifically on inclusion development research and planning, well I think we might move forward more quickly. Become an informed and shared body of knowledge with broader and more strategic and comprehensive meaning. (Interface local government manager)
The impact of not having an evaluation framework is that implementation fragments and
falls back to individual programs and staff. As the rhetoric of the State Plan has been to
implement social inclusion in a more holistic way, then the lack of an evaluation
framework is a considerable impediment to achieving visible results. This position was
outlined by a local government participant who commented:
What I think is maybe missing with all of that is where does it all meet, where does it all come together, what mechanism have we put in place that we all somehow connect it to something that we’re moving towards. The remains a lot of fragmentation around that and it becomes basically individual programs. (Interface local government manager)
172
Chapter summary
This chapter reported on how State and local government managers, officers and people
with disabilities, who participated in this study, described the State Plan’s capacity to
increase the inclusion of people with disabilities in local settings in relation to Rogers’
characteristics of innovations.
Using Rogers’ framework, participant data demonstrated that while the State Plan
provides relative advantage for State and local government participants, its compatibility
was only identified by State government participants and it is implemented differently
across local government areas. In addition, participants identify that the lack of
definition for key concepts in the plan creates barriers to trialling and observing social
change. Figure 2 summarises participant views on the relationship between the
implementation of the State Plan to achieve social inclusion and Rogers’ characteristics
of innovations.
The study data demonstrated that Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory provides a way
of understanding the factors that support and impede the implementation of the State Plan
for achieving a more inclusive society for people with disabilities.
The State Plan’s vision for inclusive communities and its commitment a human rights
platform and expansion of the policy to include all people with disabilities irrespective of
their service recipient status is a relative advantage over previous policy and strongly
supported by participants. The value placed on partnership and the decision to place
resources within local government to achieve change was also seen as consistent with the
values and roles of local government and the staff working within both local and State
Government. Participants said that the State Plan was better than disability policy it
supersedes. The relative advantage of the current State Plan over preceding policy was
the only consistently observable characteristic of innovation which was seen as
facilitating implementation.
173
Figure 2 Participant views and the characteristics of innovations
The compatibility of the State Plan priorities and objectives with those of participants
was seen as being variable. While they generally supported the commitment to social
inclusion, partnership and human rights, in practice implementation strategies had
implications current objectives and practice. In particular, there was perceived
organisational tension between individual service models for people with disabilities who
are clients of the State and the development of partnership and community building
strategies for social inclusion. Different funding mechanisms, strategies and skills were
implied by the shift to partnerships and community building. A greater focus on working
with community and business groups rather than providing services to people with
disabilities was required. Although some identified that this might lead to reductions in
demand and cost, in general this new direction was significantly different from current
Victorian State Disability Plan: Vision to create
inclusive communities
Relative Advantage Better than the idea it supersedes
Compatibility Inconsistent with organisational values, past
experiences and needs
Complexity Hard concept to understand or use
Trialability Experimented with on a limited basis locally
but complexity reduces sustainable trials
Observability Visible local results but few systematic state
wide outcomes
Local social change but no mechanism to
achieve comprehensive
state wide change
174
objectives and practice. On the other hand, local government participants were attracted
to this greater focus on universal, community focused intervention.
Overall the incompatibilities between current objectives and practice and those implied
by the State Plan were significant. Similarly there were significant differences in
perspective between State and local participants. From Rogers perspective, this is likely
to impede the adoption of innovation
The complexity of the State Plan vision for increased social inclusion was identified by
participants as being understandable in principle but creating confusion for
implementation. This confusion was identified in relation to the absence of a specific
definition for social inclusion, confusion regarding target groups and underdeveloped
resources in partnership support, skills development and funding. As a result of this
complexity, the capacity of the State Plan to deliver trialable and observable outcomes on
a statewide basis was also reduced. This complexity, coupled with the absence of a
common evidence based implementation framework creates barriers for State and local
government managers and officers framing appropriate interventions across all
dimensions of inclusion to achieve sustainable statewide social change. Participant issues
identified in relation to complexity cascaded and directly impacted on the capacity of the
State Plan to support trialability and observability.
The State Plan was seen as being trialable through programmatic resources such as Metro
and RuralAccess. Supports to implementation included:
� the universal policy platform which was consistent with local government
participant objectives,
� State Government resources for programs,
� a partnership with local government,
� leadership and staff support.
175
Impediments were identified as
� resource adequacy,
� the lack of joint partnership activities,
� disjointed leadership effort and
� insufficient effort to increase staff skills.
Of higher concern to participants was the absence of a comprehensive population and
service data base or a comprehensive and systematic implementation plan. As such, the
trialability of the State Plan would not be supported by participant comments.
The observability of the State Plan implementation was queried by participants based on
their experience of outcomes regarding housing, transport and practices in community
services. But it was the lack of an evaluation framework that most concerned participants
and resulted in the characteristic of observability not being met.
The data supports the view that, with the exception of relative advantage, Rogers’
characteristics of innovations are not comprehensively met. This has diminished the
speed with which the State Plan could implement increased social inclusion. Rogers’
theory does not distinguish between the relationships of each characteristic to achieving
social change. The characteristics are described as being part of a system of change. The
results of this study indicate that each characteristic is integral in achieving social change
but that without all characteristics being achieved, state wide social change is less likely.
In this study, the State Plan’s failure to address definitional complexity has negatively
affected the views of participants on the characteristics of trialability and observability.
In Rogers’ framework, addressing the State Plan’s definitions, resources and
measurement elements would increase the opportunity for statewide change.
However, the specific supports and impediments identified by participants in relation to
trialability provide clear direction regarding improvements to the State Plan that could
foster greater success in implementation. Rogers’ characteristics of innovation could all
be met if the State Plan set a specific and measurable definition of social inclusion,
176
developed a resource plan, comprehensive population and service data base,
comprehensive and systematic implementation plan, designed joint partnership activities,
identified leadership opportunities and increased staff skills.
177
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the factors which have assisted or impeded the
implementation of social inclusion policy for people with disabilities in local settings.
An analysis of the Victorian State Disability Plan and participant views of its
implementation in local settings was conducted for this purpose.
An original application of Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory was developed
to investigate the factors which assisted or impeded the implementation of strategies to
promote social inclusion for people with disabilities. Rogers argued that innovation is
more or less likely to be adopted depending on the presence of five characteristics in the
implementation process. These characteristics of innovation refer to the extent to which
the innovation has perceived relative advantage over preceding approaches, compatibility
with existing values, experiences and needs experiences and needs, complexity in its
meaning and use, trialability as it can be experimented with on a limited basis, and
observability and ability to produce visible results.
The findings of this study have suggested that Rogers’ framework was useful for
reviewing the experience of implementing the State Plan in local settings. It helped to
identify how assistive factors can be strengthened and impediments to implementation
ameliorated. Based on Rogers’ theory, strengthening the characteristics of innovations
should increase the likelihood of the State Plan vision for social inclusion being more
consistently and rapidly adopted and diffused.
More broadly, there are limitations with the applicability of Rogers’ framework to the
evaluation of innovations such as the State Plan. The State Plan provided an enabling
framework rather than specific design specifications for action. As such implementation
178
then depended on a range of additional features such as partnerships, specific resources,
local leadership, implementation planning and staff development. These issues were not
well covered in Rogers’ model which is more tailored to specific technology innovations.
In the following section, the factors that were found to have assisted and impeded
implementation of the State Plan to increase social inclusion of people with disabilities in
local settings are reviewed. The overall capacity of the State Plan to promote social
inclusion is then discussed.
The factors that assist or impede the implementation of social inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings
A number of factors were identified as assisting the implementation of strategies to
promote social inclusion in local settings. These include the State Plan’s references to
inclusive values, governance, civic participation and universalism, continuity with past
policy, the involvement of senior organisational and/or political leadership, resource
commitments and partnership development. The factors identified as impeding the
implementation of social inclusion in local settings include poor communication, an
inadequate definition of social inclusion, the lack of a strategic implementation and
evaluation plan, output based funding models and lack of support for partnership and
workforce development.
In relation to Rogers’ framework, the Victorian State Plan, and its implementation in
local settings, was generally considered to provide a relative advantage over previous
policy. However, it was considered to have variable compatibility with current values,
experiences and needs and the concept of social inclusion was seen as having a high level
of complexity. As a result the extent to which implementation strategies were trialable
and observable was problematic. It is likely that the implementation of strategies to
facilitate social inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings has not progressed
as rapidly or as comprehensively as the State Plan’s vision would suggest. The following
section discusses these findings.
179
State Plan Values and Principles
When describing aspects of the State Plan that have assisted the implementation of social
inclusion, state and local government participants referred to the significant benefits of
the expression of inclusive values through the vision statement. This significance was
described as having an enabling impact and providing relative advantage for those
involved in its implementation. The values of the State Plan were described as being
personally motivating for those implementing it. As a policy it was believable and one to
which philosophical commitment could be given. The expressed values of the State Plan
were seen to be highly motivating for staff.
On an organisational level, the expression of inclusive values also provided relative
advantage for implementation in local settings where councils are charged with the
legislative responsibility to govern for all and to engage in planning with all groups
within the community. As such, the State Plan fits the legislative context within which
staff and councillors in local government operate. It provides a rationale for working
with people with disabilities as a community of interest within local areas.
State Government polices and plans included social inclusion as a key value. This was
identified as setting standards and expectations for State and local government
organisations and community members. These shaped the dialogue and actions that
support change. By naming social inclusion as key policy objective, whole of
community discussion could be focussed on how inclusion should be enabled in local
settings rather than whether it should be. As such state government policy and planning
was seen to have a role in leading community discussion on the rights and responsibilities
of all citizens in relation to each other. Similarly, the inclusion of all members of local
communities in planning, decision making and advocacy was seen to provide relative
advantage on a number of levels.
180
At an individual level addressing disability planning and strategies for inclusion in local
settings personalised the experience of disability and provided a real contribution to
community education. By understanding the participation barriers for people living in
local settings, there is a higher likelihood that needs could be seen as those of real people
living in a family or social network. The response to needs becomes more tangible and
the need for change perceived to be more powerful.
At a community level, placing disability planning and implementation in local settings
emphasised the similarity of the needs of people with disabilities and other population
groups in the community. It promoted and facilitated the development of multi-
dimensional social inclusion plans. Plans based on more universal principles which
apply to the whole population were less likely to stigmatise and marginalise people with
disabilities and more likely to gain support to address disadvantage. It is arguable that
the relative advantage of a plan that emphasises governance and community participation
is twofold. Resulting changes are more likely to be transformational and embedded in a
systemic approach to tackling social disadvantage. The fundamental advantage of an
embedded universal approach to social inclusion for people with disabilities in local
settings is that it supports civic participation and equity.
Overall, the values underpinning the State Plan were strongly supported and seen as
providing relative advantage compared to previous policy. Participants did not identify
any impediments to implementing the State Plan which were related to its principles and
values.
Continuity and leadership
Policy continuity between the State Plan and previous Victorian disability policy values,
experiences and needs was identified by participants as having assisted the
implementation of social inclusion in local settings. Continuity was described as
providing compatibility between past and current policy. The fact that the State Plan was
181
seen to have continuity with the past increased its acceptance and reduced resistance to
implementation.
Leadership by local officials and politicians was seen as particularly important in driving
willingness to continue the long process of addressing disadvantage for people with
disabilities. Assisting the implementation of social inclusion in local settings was
identified as being more likely to succeed when senior managers lead change and when
the role of local government was promoted as being more that just roads, rates and
rubbish.
The role of senior organisational or political leaders was identified by participants as
providing a public face to the community discussion on social inclusion. It provided
authority, responsibility and accountability for others within the organisation to
implement policy. Effective leadership was seen as building on the values of the State
Plan and its continuity with past policy to reduce discrimination and disadvantage.
Without such local leadership, the responsibility for bridging between current
organisational and community values and priorities fell to individuals to create a counter
culture. Senior organisational or political leaders were seen as important for legitimising
local change and promoting an organisational culture of inclusion.
However, the State Plan also introduced a significant discontinuity with the past. It
shifted the focus from the provision of services for people with disabilities to service
redesign and community strengthening to promote inclusion. This discontinuity was not
unanimously supported or understood by participants. Both state and local government
participants expressed some concerns that lack of compatibility with the previous
emphasis on service provision could be impeding implementation. There were concerns
that there may be tensions between service redesign and community strengthening
strategies to promote inclusion.
Both service redesign and community strengthening strategies are described in the State
Plan as priorities. Yet many participants identified unresolved issues regarding the
182
capacity to see services and community building as part of a fluid, mutually reliant
continuum. Participants, including state government and local government officials and
people with disabilities, consistently considered that organisational capacity and skills to
work on community strengthening were problematic.
The perceived culture of specialist services and provision in the Department of Human
Services was also seen as a significant tension with the shift to a greater focus on
community strengthening to promote social inclusion. Significant differences between
planning based on service provision or on community strengthening were identified. A
range of new information about opportunities for inclusion and the needs of people with
disabilities is needed for planning based on community strengthening. This has
implications for workforce development, funding models and evaluation that are quite
different from those arising from strategies based on service delivery. There were
concerns that the implications for organisational and systems change implied by this shift
had not yet been adequately considered or implementation strategies developed.
It is also important to note that there were differences in the way the State Plan was
interpreted. On the one hand, participants generally supported the values of the State
Plan and saw it as providing policy continuity interpretations varied within organisations.
The underpinning principles of the State Plan were supported because they were seen as
promoting social inclusion. From this perspective the State Plan provided the
opportunity to promote inclusion through the community planning and good governance
provisions in the Local Government Act. On the other, the focus often remained on the
provision of services to individuals. For a number of participants the shift in emphasis to
community strengthening was seen principally as an opportunity for managing demand
for overburdened disability services.
Communication was also seen as a significant impediment to the successful
implementation of the State Plan. The absence of a comprehensive and strategic
communication plan with regular reporting and updates impeded a shared understanding
of compatibility with current practices, needs and experiences. Criticisms included the
183
fact that the existing implementation plan did not provide participants with strategies to
promote and communicate the policy and outcome measurement across all State
Government Departments, between State Government Department head offices and
regional offices and across levels of government.
Although the State Plan promoted a whole of government model, significant difficulty
was described in working collaboratively across state and local organisational boundaries
and across different program areas such as health, community services, recreation,
education, employment, transport and housing. Existing boundaries and silos were
difficult to break down. In part this reflected difficulties in establishing better inter
organisational and inter departmental processes for strategy development and
implementation planning to promote social inclusion. It was easier to continue to think
about service delivery within specific areas of responsibility rather than the challenges of
community strengthening. These tensions were further exacerbated when strategies had
to be translated from Head Office to regional offices and then to local government.
Funding models and constraints also provided impediments for the implementation of the
State Plan. In some instances, the scope to assist social inclusion was necessarily bound
by pre-ordained funding constraints. This impeded the trialling of initiatives that people
with disabilities have indicated would increase their inclusion in local settings. Without
resource clarity, based on a comprehensive implementation plan, the interventions to
increase local social inclusion seemed fragile and somewhat unpredictable.
While increased social inclusion was strongly supported as an outcome, and the
underpinning values of the State Plan were widely endorsed, current practices were
relatively incompatible with the new practices necessary to increase social inclusion. In
particular, the shift from a focus on service delivery to a much greater emphasis on
community strengthening had a range of implications for planning, funding, strategy
development, work roles and collaboration across functional areas which had not been
systematically communicated or addressed.
184
Complexity The complexity of the underpinning conceptual shift to community strengthening and
social inclusion embodied in the State Plan was a significant impediment to its
implementation. The State Plan articulates a vision for “a stronger and more inclusive
community” where “everyone has the same opportunities to participate in the life of the
community, and the same responsibilities towards society as all other citizens of
Victoria” (Department of Human Services 2002). However it does not define inclusive
community, which population groups should have increased opportunities, or the
planning, funding, organisational development or workforce models which are required
to make a shift from a service delivery culture to a community strengthening approach.
The complexity of the term social inclusion and the lack of definition associated with it
impeded and confused State Plan implementation, and reduced the potential for state
wide social change. Diverse and inconsistent definitions of social inclusion were often
used in local settings or no operational definition was adopted as the basis for
interventions. The use of the term inclusion was ambiguous. Definition sometimes
centred on outcomes such as participation, friendship and/or involvement in legitimate,
meaningful or visible roles in the community. At other times it was seen as a
fundamental principle to guide the way the process of planning was conducted.
It was clear that the idea of social inclusion and its everyday implications for education,
employment, recreation, transport, housing and social engagement had not been the
widespread subject of discussion and debate in the community. Similarly, while the State
Plan was obviously focussed on promoting social inclusion for people with disabilities, it
did not explicitly define which population groups were included. Nor did it link or
differentiate strategies for people with disabilities based on their location, impairment
type and complexity or given their population profile. As a result strategies and
interventions were fragmented and inconsistently described, communicated and
understood. This failure to define the dimensions of social inclusion made it difficult to
do more than implement localised interventions. In addition, the impact and
sustainability of interventions was difficult to establish, monitor or improve. The failure
185
to address complexity was nominated by many participants as directly reducing the
capacity of the State Plan to deliver comprehensive trials or observable social inclusion
impacts.
Trialability
The State Plan required that significant innovation occur in local settings if social
inclusion through community strengthening was to be implemented. The extent to which
this new approach was trialled was an important indicator of the capacity the State Plan
to be widely disseminated and implemented in local settings. In this respect, resource
commitment was identified as a key factor assisting the implementation of social
inclusion in local settings. It was a key factor because, by contributing to trialability and
demonstrating that social inclusion can be introduced and made to work in particular
instances, it could then be generalised.
Program responses like Metro and RuralAccess were a conduit for trialling initiatives that
could demonstrate how social inclusion could be better implemented in local settings.
This included the ways in which intersectoral partnerships needed to form to enable
change. Resources were also identified as taking the shape of local leadership and
organisational commitment. Senior leaders in local government organisations were also
seen as significant in progressing resources needed for trialability and in actively
advocating for inclusion in a universal manner.
Partnership development was more often identified by participants from local
government or people with disabilities as a factor assisting the trialability of social
inclusion in local settings than participants from state government. Most of the examples
given by study participants involved local planning that identified changes to increase
social inclusion that were followed through by partner contributions. Similarly, the
preparedness of the state government to provide small capital grants was identified as a
concrete way to enable a local community house to be more accessible.
186
There were a number of factors that impeded the extent to which new strategies were
trialled. The absence of a strategic implementation plan was a critical factor also in
reducing the likelihood of local trials, thereby undermining the capacity of the State Plan
to make significant social change on a state wide basis. To succeed, the State Plan needs
a greater emphasis on operational planning. This requires increased data availability,
resources, support for partnership collaboration and workforce development.
The availability and analysis of population data provides the foundation for evidence
based planning. But the current State Plan does not contain a profile of the population of
people with disabilities, let alone more specific layers or combinations of data based on
gender, life stages, culture, indigenous profile. This was consistently criticised and
identified as a significant implementation barrier. In addition, impairment type and
complexity analysed against these population characteristics has not been included. This
is in spite of the fact that such analysis could provide insight into the more specific
changes required on a state wide and local level to increase social inclusion.
The high levels of diversity within the population of people with disabilities means that
action to increase social inclusion needs to be equally diverse. It needs to take into
account the impact of population needs in the social, economic, natural and built
environments of local settings. In respect of those people with disabilities not in the state
government service system, the lack of comprehensive population based planning and
monitoring increases the potential for large numbers of people with disabilities to remain
isolated.
The mapping of the services, activities and opportunities for participation available in
local settings as well as the availability, analysis and trending of service data was
identified as a current implementation impediment. Without comprehensive data,
interventions are at best generic and at worst fail to meet population needs. Although
service and issues mapping has been part of the Metro and RuralAccess program officer’s
roles, the capacity of one officer to locate and analyse data whilst addressing individual
inclusion issues and undertaking community development is unrealistic. In addition, the
187
data required are not available in a form that can be drawn together to support local
planning.
While the availability of resources promoted implementation trials, there were concerns
about the inadequacy of resources particularly for local government. In some instances
the overall availability of resources to support change was identified as a significant
barrier. In other instances the impediment related to the ways in which existing resources
were applied and whether the best results were being achieved for the level of
investment. Frustration regarding the lack of local discussion regarding state government
resource allocation was high, particularly given that local consultative mechanisms
between state and local government, disability and other community services and people
with disabilities and their carers were not routine and resourced.
The financial position of rural councils was highlighted as impeding the consistent
implementation of social inclusion. This was based on resource availability as was the
uneven distribution of resources available to support social inclusion and indicate how
the State Plan would deliver social inclusion for all people with disabilities in all local
settings.
The potential to bring resources together to support locally based partnership and
collaboration was seen as a high priority but one that is beyond the scope of the current
Metro and RuralAccess program. The lack of intergovernmental resources to support
partnership and collaboration between tiers of government and local community agencies
was also identified as an impediment.
The concept of partnership and collaborative planning to achieve inclusive outcomes for
people with disabilities was enmeshed in the State Plan and it is part of most
international, contemporary disability policy. Yet the processes of partnership
development and structures of collaborative planning are rarely examined in any detail or
resourced to the level that might make them effective and assistive. In this study,
188
participants identified that timeframes imposed on consultation and engagement was
identified as an impediment to implementation.
Social inclusion in local settings needs active facilitation to bring along local
organisations. The current experience of trying to implement changes in local areas,
however, was described as fragmented and indicates that fundamental development work
to support and sustain partnership based work is yet to be completed. The need for
collaboration between councils, the Municipal Association of Victoria and the state
government was identified as a priority to address barriers to social inclusion in areas of
state responsibility such as, but not limited to transport, housing and services.
The lack of joined up state of local government strategic implementation plans to
increase social inclusion for people with disabilities in each local government area made
it difficult to ensure that fundamental issues in areas of state responsibility were being
implemented. In turn, local initiatives seemed less effective. Lack of transport in local
settings was a typical example that reduced the capacity to take up social inclusion
opportunities that were available.
Observability
If an innovation is to be widely accepted, its advantages need to be directly observed.
The lack of an evaluation system to analyse and recommend improvements to State Plan
actions made it difficult to determine the success of the State Plan. Without a clear
definition of social inclusion, and a plan specifying the needs of people with disabilities
across lifestages, gender, culture, indigenous and impairment type and complexity across
local social, economic, built and natural environments and compliance with service
outputs, evaluative measurement is difficult.
Without an evaluation system, anecdotal evidence, personal opinion and visible physical
changes in public places have tended to be used to characterise progress. This approach
is neither comprehensive nor population based. Such bias also favours improvements to
189
inclusion for people with physical and sensory disabilities and does not provide a
mechanism for people with intellectual disabilities or acquired brain impairments to
experience improvements that increase their social inclusion in a systematic same way.
Although this study noted that significant amounts of service data were collected, it was
described as contract compliance data and it was not routinely provided back to local
governments, disability and community services or people with disabilities to aid
planning. The lack of a systems approach to the service/community development
continuum also means that service data gathered through the individual planning process
are not being passed on to contribute to local area planning. Table 2 summarises
participant views on the factors that impede and assist the implementation of strategies to
promote social inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings.
Comparisons and implications
The focus on inclusion as a centrepiece in the current State Plan is consistent with the
earlier focus on deinstitutionalisation (Wolfensberger, 1975). By the turn of this century,
many theorists were highlighting the need for social inclusion and citizenship to be linked
through public sector roles, program and the language of policy (Albrecht, 2004; Barton,
2004; Oliver, 2004).
The State Plan marked an important shift in policy because it advocated a universal
approach. It incorporated important arguments regarding social inclusion and citizenship,
the extent to which policy enables universal access and participation or the extent to
which the experience of disability is determined through the creation and application of
policy (Drake 1999). Without a universal approach, Drake argued it should not be
surprising that people with disability remain excluded as they are the minority within a
community and their views do not necessarily reflect the prevailing norms and values.
190
Table 2
Participant views on the factors that assist or impede the implementation of strategies to increase social inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings:
Characteristic of innovation Factors that assist: Factors that impede:
Relative Advantage: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes
Inclusive values were identified by all Local and State Government participants as assisting implementation because they created a common philosophical platform between state and local government in local settings. Partnership was identified as a means to creating change and broadening the reach of disability policy beyond previous policy iterations.
The philosophy of social inclusion was identified as a common value and applying it in a local setting provided tangible personal and organisational commitment that was helpful.
Values were described as permeating individual and community responses to disability and enable social justice implementation through a universal philosophical framework.
Governance, civic participation and universalism were more often mentioned by local government participants as providing relative advantage over past State Disability Plans. This focus was valued because it provided alignment to the community planning and good governance elements of the Local Government Act.
A universal approach was described as providing greater leverage for change.
No impediments to implementation regarding the relative advantage of the State Plan were identified by participants
Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters
Continuity with past values, experiences and needs was identified by some state government participants as an assisting factor and that the State Plan was compatible with
Poor communication was identified as potentially impeding the State Plan’s implementation with respect to the extent to which managers and officers in other state government departments
191
previous policy. It was also identified by some as a good mechanism for reducing budget expenditure. For others, however, it created tension regarding the role of community development work in a service delivery department.
Local government participants made fewer comments on the compatibility of the State Plan in terms of continuity because neither past nor current disability policy is mandated for implementation by local government.
would have an understanding of the State Plan and share a sense of compatibility with past policy. The same comments applied to communication between the Department of Human Services Head Office and regional offices.
Communication and cultural change issues were raised by state government participants as the culture of individual service was identified as dominant in the thinking of the Department and sector and requiring specific interventions.
Complexity is: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use
No participants commented that social inclusion was clearly defined in the State Plan.
Inadequate definition of social inclusion was identified by all participants as impeding implementation as a result of the complexity of the term and failure to specify what it should mean for members of the disability community.
Participants variously defined inclusion in relation to participation, meaningful roles, social connections or structural change.
The question of the State Plan’s target group for inclusion was raised by both state and local government participants, with different interpretations about the extent to which impairment complexity should influence implementation.
Participants said that the lack of definition of the central concept in the State Plan was confusing and hard to operationalise. Implementation was often subject to individual interpretation.
Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis
Resource commitments were identified by all participants as critical in being able to trial more inclusive approaches in local settings. Programs such as Metro and RuralAccess were highly regarded in this respect. However, this was contrasted with the challenges in some local
Funding models were identified by local government participants as continuing to have an output rather than process focus and reinforcing competition for scarce funds rather than brokering partnership projects. It was noted by one local government officer that smaller agencies in local settings struggle
192
governments where resources struggle to meet basic needs.
Senior organisational and/or political leadership was identified by local government participants and people with disabilities. This was particularly so in advocacy for resources, organisational change to embed inclusion in all practices or initiating partnerships to enable trials.
Partnership development was identified as critical, particularly between state and local government managers and officers.
with minimal resources and lack the capacity to participate in additional projects, even if facilitated by local government.
No strategic implementation plan was identified by all participants as a significant barrier to trialling on a State wide basis and achieving more significant social change. It was noted that significant structural changes are required to increase inclusion and that the preliminary work or a plan to put this into effect has not been developed.
Partnership development was identified by all participants as critical to achieving change but as a very inadequate aspect of implementation. The lack of joint intergovernmental planning, skills development or policy forums was cited as creating impediments to implementation and effective trialling.
Skill development was identified by all participants as impeding the trialability of social inclusion.
Observability: the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others
No factors were identified as assisting the achievement of observable outcomes.
The lack of a strategic implementation plan and evaluation system was identified as a fundamental problem for implementing social inclusion and being able to observe differences for people with disabilities in local settings.
State government participants criticised the lack of use of service related data in local settings to identify needs and local government participants criticised the lack of population and service data available at Local Government Area level.
The lack of trend data was identified as impeding implementation and the lack of reporting and data raised concerns that social inclusion may be being differentially implemented.
193
But it is not enough to advocate the principle of universalism. Links between social
inclusion and good governance are pivotal to the social model of health which identifies
people with disabilities as pivotal in redesigning the social, economic, built and natural
environment barriers that are disabling. Good governance is a theme that emerges in
more recent literature from inside and outside the disability literature. For Barton (2004),
the social model of disability is characterised as providing a relationship between
individuals and their environments and a way to address socio-economic conditions and
relations that block inclusion. For Gleeson (2004), inclusionary landscapes reflect the
desire for a secure place in social networks built less on physical infrastructure and more
on networks, relationships and social interaction.
The current study is important because it has demonstrated that while there was
widespread support for the principles of the State Plan, implementation was limited by
the complexity of the policy and factors that constrained trialability and observability. A
key challenge in promoting the State Plan was that service planning and redevelopment
remained a separate stream of activity to community strengthening activities. The
implementation plan needs to be reviewed and evaluated with the involvement of
multiple partners within and outside government. These factors have contributed to
participant confusion regarding the State Plan’s target groups and whether the Plan was
intended to focus on people with disabilities who are receiving services (and are by
implication living with higher needs or more complex conditions) or on all people with a
reported disability living in community settings.
Goggin and Newell (2005) highlighted the inherent tension in disability policy when it is
targeted and programmatic. They argued that rather than increasing social inclusion,
there is risk that people with disabilities become more marginalised. Similarly, Drake’s
argument (1999) that a disability model focussed on individual change through care,
therapy and treatment is counterproductive because it neglects to recognise the need for
access to facilities, activities, social roles and relationships.
194
Because the State Plan describes the dual priorities of service planning and
redevelopment and community strengthening activities as separate and running in
parallel, the implementation paradigm has become confused. This confusion is
exacerbated by the lack of target group definition and the absence of population based
structure to the State Plan and related actions. Based on the literature, an improvement to
the Plan would be the development of a framework that identified changes in social,
economic, physical and cultural dimensions with consideration to the needs of people
with disabilities at different stages of life and given cultural, gender and impairment
complexity.
This model would enable the impact of impairment type and complexity, gender, cultural
and indigenous experiences to be factored into either individual care planning or local
access issues in a more connected way. This places people with disabilities in the centre
of the social inclusion process. It includes a more holistic consideration of individual and
community planning to promote social inclusion.. As Bigby and Fyffe point out, there is
a need for both micro and macro, personal and community change to enable social
inclusion (2006).
Cuthill and Fien (2005) suggest that increasing the participation of people with
disabilities in this environment requires deliberate and systematic planning. In this
respect, future versions of the State Plan should reflect a more negotiated and specific
implementation plan with clearer roles, relationships and actions attributed to partner
organisations. Lack of specification of the needs of people with disabilities in
dimensions such as private and public sector facility design, employment practices,
educational practices and programs and public sector service delivery, is an impediment
to more enlightened policy development and implementation. According to Drake (1999)
it relegates people with disabilities to the role of passive recipients of welfare.
Gillen (2004) has argued for joined up whole of government approaches to include action
that would incorporate planning, transport, education and health in an inter-sectoral
manner. He also argued that an alternative way for local government to be organised
195
would be around governance, outcomes, services and standards. These are the issues that
a revised implementation plan could consider to overcome some of the impediments
identified by participants.
Alternatively, Randolph (2004) has called for local mechanisms to build synergies
between complementary projects, or to rationalise projects and increase project
integration. A shared priority plan would guide all funding into local areas with local
consortia being established. Similarly, Blackman and Woods conclude that public policy
and public management run the risk of only producing technical improvements to
services to individuals through a lack of systematic planning rather than offering the
community choices or social futures. They say that “Intervening in complex social
problems needs less prescription of detail and more intelligent accountability through
reports and inspections for a smaller number of dimensions” at a local level (Blackman &
Woods, 2004, p.59).
On the other hand, Parsons has described coherent and coordinated policy as involving
the “craft of integrating competing and opposing forms of knowledge and coordinating
the multiplicity of organisations and interests to form a coherent policy fabric” (Parsons,
2004, p.44). To steer and weave complex issues and interventions, there must be
specified targets, objectives and outcomes. It is arguable that planning needs to pay
attention to both specifying the desired strategies and outcomes and the mechanisms to
ensure that local participants, including people with disabilities are included in this
planning process.
The State Plan talks about a more inclusive society and the inclusion of people with
disabilities in all aspects of community life. The failure to define what social inclusion
means based on a continuum of care framework in all aspects of social, economic, natural
and built local environments has been identified by participants as an impediment. This
observation from participants is consistent with the argument put by Van de Ven (2004)
that inclusion means access to age, gender and culturally appropriate roles status and
activities, productive relationships and relationships with family and friends. It is also
196
consistent with general Victorian state government policy on social inclusion
(Department of Victorian Communities, 2005).
Impairment, impairment complexity, lifestage, gender, culture and indigenous
experiences form a complex web of difference and demonstrate that people with
disabilities are not a homogenous group (Barton, 2004). The current experience of
systematic exclusion still expressed by people with disability in local settings makes the
need for clear definitions even more important (National People with Disabilities and
Carer Council, 2009). This underlines the importance of defining the key term in this
policy and using this definition to explore a finer grain of planning and action that will
make a real and measurable difference in local settings.
The failure to define social inclusion in the State Plan, particularly the link between
social support and well being, leaves a significant gap in the policy framework. The
literature is consistent in identifying that social support contributes to a sense of security
and enables companionship and intimacy (Bondevik & Skogstad, 1996), provides
protective factors for people adjusting to or coping with chronic disease (Stansfeld, 2001)
and that friendship is often the most important aspect of feeling socially included in local
community life (McVilly et al., 2006).
Failing to define social inclusion makes it harder to achieve inclusion and participation in
other aspects of daily life. For example, Carney (2001) argues that when loneliness and
isolation are reduced, people are able to create identities that constitute the social self.
The social self is a crucial element of social inclusion. Bruhn and Phillips (1987) explain
this eloquently in terms of Erikson’s stages of development and the need for faith,
autonomy, affiliation, hope, self esteem and trust to be developed.
In addition, the failure to specify friendship as a goal of social inclusion policy weakens
the foundation of learning and access to the community and this is particularly so for
people with specific impairment types. Friendship has been demonstrated to have a
significant impact across all life stages for people with intellectual disabilities. Barriers
197
to friendship access and formation disadvantages children with intellectual disabilities in
pre-school (Howell, Hauser-Cram & Kersh, 2007), academic, functional and social
benefits for adolescents (Carter, Hughes, Guth & Copeland, 2005) and poverty and
structural disadvantage in older women (Harris, 2003).
Participants identified that the absence of a strategic implementation plan impeded the
trialability of social inclusion in local settings. The factors identified that impede
trialability in this study resonate with contributions to the public policy implementation
literature. Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1984) argument that incompatibility, program
preferences, competing commitments, priorities, leadership and role differences, legal
and procedural differences and lack of power can undermine implementation is a good
example.
By not articulating these differences in a population based model, and drilling down to
analyse data based on population and location, the capacity of disability policy to effect
social inclusion is limited. Generic models of social inclusion fail to develop effective
interventions (Thomas, 2004) and all interventions are perceived to be add ons in
overburdened public sector budgets rather than the foundations of universal participation
(Clear, 2000; Tregaskis, 2004).
Intergovernmental planning and service delivery roles complicated disability policy
implementation and tensions arise from a system that seeks citizen participation but then
mediates it by micro-economic reform and managerialism. While social inclusion
features in many national, state and local government policies, measures for community
strengthening and well being are still in development and remain a secondary indicator to
financial and economic performance (Wiseman, 2004). For Wiseman, inclusive
communities need to be built from access to core public infrastructure as no amount of
bolt on community capacity building will achieve the policy objective without resources.
Gleeson (1999) argues that the failure to comprehensively engage with and build
community capacity to participate results from inadequate funding. Without substantial
198
work practice reform or the extension of social networks or independence, people with
disabilities in community settings continue to live largely institutionalised lives.
Goggin and Newell’s (2005) recommendation is to incorporate disability into political
and governance arrangements and to re-orient public debate and policy making to
routinely engage people with disabilities. They say that the involvement of people with
disabilities in local governance in a significant step towards social inclusion as it
empowers people to navigate the roles and resources of government. This position is
consistent with Reddel’s (2004) views that there is a need to develop a model of social
governance that comprises policy, discourse, negotiation and arbitration to negotiate
complexity.
Support for the reorientation of disability services is consistent with the direction of
disability policy since the introduction of deinstitutionalisation in the 1970s. However,
the State Plan fails to specify how service reform will interface with proposed community
building in local settings. Nor does it focus on people with disabilities outside the service
system, the growing numbers of people in the community with disabilities, and those
likely to acquire disabilities through the rapid ageing of the Australian community.
Service reforms are an appropriate response to increasing opportunities for inclusion for
people in care or receiving state government support. But many people live alone in the
community without services through necessity, choice or ineligibility.
Commitments to increase universal provision of public transport, buildings, education,
life long learning, employment, arts, culture, political and spiritual life are highly relevant
to people with disabilities, yet the results of Shut Out, the National Disability Strategy
Consultation Report (2009), demonstrate that these commitments have not been
implemented. This recent study of the experiences of disability in local communities in
Australia reveals continuing exclusion across all dimensions of community life.
While the identification of a community building framework to support funded
community building initiatives in the State Plan is positive, it does not represent a
199
comprehensive response. The focus of this proposed framework is defined through the
Disability Services Community Building Program (Department of Human Services,
2010), again bringing a programmatic response to a universal problem. Similarly,
although the State Plan identified liaison with the Municipal Association of Victoria and
the establishment of the Office for Disability as supporting universal planning, the
implementation details were not included.
As a result, and notwithstanding its underpinning principles, the State Plan reads more
like a state government disability services departmental plan than a state inclusion plan.
Most of the tangible resources are allocated to supporting the state service framework
rather than increasing social inclusion for all people with disabilities. This explains why
participants commented on the characteristics of innovation as they did and leads to a
discussion about the reasons why disability is a complex policy area and the
implementation of state wide social change requiring partnership participation is
challenging.
This research is significance on a number of levels. Firstly, it has utilised Rogers’
diffusion theory as a conceptual framework and in spite of being drawn from a different
field, has been able to identify the factors that assist or impede implementation of social
inclusion for people with disabilities. Secondly, it demonstrated that even social policy
with widespread support can fail in comprehensive implementation where
implementation participants find the change goals too complex or unable to be trialled or
observed. Thirdly, it identified specific interventions that could increase the rate of
diffusion, or implementation of this policy and fourthly outlined the elements of a model
that could be followed on an intergovernmental level to improve outcomes.
Future research
This thesis identified the factors that assisted and impeded the implementation of social
inclusion for people with disabilities in local settings based on Rogers’ characteristics of
200
innovations. It identified a model of social inclusion to increase the capacity for local
planning initiatives, support intergovernmental partnership and effect social change.
Table 3 outlines future research needs for strengthening social inclusion in local settings
with a number of topics yet to be researched. These have been identified within Rogers’
characteristics of innovation framework.
201
Tab
le 3
Futu
re r
esea
rch
need
s C
hara
cter
istic
s of
inno
vatio
ns
Futu
re r
esea
rch
need
s
Rel
ativ
e ad
vant
age
Iden
tify
the
attit
udes
of c
omm
unity
mem
bers
to p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s giv
en th
eir
lifes
tage
, gen
der,
cul
tura
l and
in
dige
nous
div
ersi
ty to
war
ds p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ility
giv
en im
pair
men
t typ
e an
d co
mpl
exity
.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at c
omm
unity
atti
tude
s rem
ain
a ba
rrie
r to
soci
al in
clus
ion
but t
here
is a
gap
in th
e lit
erat
ure
rega
rdin
g th
e ba
sis o
f the
se a
ttitu
des.
Und
erst
andi
ng th
at b
asis
is si
gnifi
cant
for s
treng
then
ing
rela
tive
adva
ntag
e an
d ga
inin
g un
iver
sal s
uppo
rt fo
r the
incl
usio
n of
peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
n lo
cal s
ettin
gs.
Com
patib
ility
Id
entif
y so
cial
incl
usio
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs in
all
port
folio
s and
juri
sdic
tions
.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at e
stab
lishi
ng ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs e
stab
lishe
s con
tinui
ty a
nd
incr
ease
d tra
nspa
renc
y an
d ac
coun
tabi
lity.
The
re is
cur
rent
ly a
gap
in th
e A
ustra
lian
liter
atur
e on
soci
al in
clus
ion
targ
ets f
or p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s. It
pro
vide
s a m
echa
nism
for m
easu
ring
chan
ge a
nd a
shar
ed a
gend
a fo
r in
terg
over
nmen
tal c
omm
unic
atio
n, p
lann
ing
and
eval
uatio
n th
at w
ill in
crea
se c
ompa
tibili
ty.
Com
plex
ity
Iden
tify
soci
al in
clus
ion
indi
cato
rs fo
r pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ties i
n lo
cal s
ettin
gs b
ased
on
thei
r lif
esta
ge, g
ende
r,
cultu
ral a
nd in
dige
nous
div
ersi
ty a
nd g
iven
impa
irm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at so
cial
incl
usio
n is
a c
ompl
ex c
once
pt to
tria
l and
obs
erve
and
out
com
es a
nd n
eeds
sh
ould
be
diffe
rent
iate
d to
refle
ct th
e di
vers
ity o
f peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties.
The
re is
a g
ap in
the
liter
atur
e on
wha
t wou
ld
indi
cate
incl
usio
n fo
r peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
n lo
cal s
ettin
gs b
ased
on
thei
r life
stag
e, g
ende
r, cu
ltura
l and
indi
geno
us
dive
rsity
and
giv
en im
pairm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity.
This
par
ticul
arly
refe
rs to
dim
ensi
ons s
uch
as s
ervi
ce a
cces
s, ed
ucat
ion
train
ing
and
empl
oym
ent,
hous
ing
trans
port,
recr
eatio
n an
d sp
ort,
the
urba
n en
viro
nmen
t and
civ
ic
parti
cipa
tion.
Tri
alab
ility
Id
entif
y na
tiona
l, st
ate
and
loca
l gov
ernm
ent a
rea
popu
latio
n pr
ofile
s of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s bas
ed o
n th
eir
lifes
tage
, gen
der,
cul
tura
l and
indi
geno
us d
iver
sity
and
giv
en im
pair
men
t typ
e an
d co
mpl
exity
and
serv
ice
usag
e.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at th
ere
is a
gap
in th
e lit
erat
ure
rega
rdin
g da
ta to
pro
vide
a q
uant
itativ
e ev
iden
ce
202
base
d fo
r pla
nnin
g an
d th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
tria
ling
of lo
cal i
nitia
tives
.
Iden
tify
publ
ic a
nd p
riva
te se
ctor
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts t
hat w
ould
incr
ease
soci
al in
clus
ion
and
alte
rnat
e w
ays
of p
rovi
ding
or
brok
erin
g fu
ndin
g to
pro
gres
s the
m.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at th
ere
is a
gap
in th
e lit
erat
ure
rega
rdin
g se
ctor
infr
astru
ctur
e pr
ojec
ts th
at w
ould
in
crea
se so
cial
incl
usio
n.
Dev
elop
inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l and
inte
rsec
tora
l dem
onst
ratio
n pr
ojec
ts to
mod
el h
ow u
nive
rsal
des
ign
prin
cipl
es,
acce
ssib
le a
nd a
dapt
able
hou
sing
, com
mun
ity tr
ansp
ort a
nd e
duca
tion,
trai
ning
and
em
ploy
men
t can
be
oper
atio
nalis
ed in
to u
nive
rsal
syst
ems.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at th
ere
is a
gap
in th
e lit
erat
ure
rega
rdin
g in
terg
over
nmen
tal a
nd in
ters
ecto
ral
proc
esse
s for
est
ablis
hing
join
ed u
p re
spon
ses t
o di
sabi
lity
serv
ices
and
soci
al in
clus
ion
wor
k. T
riala
bilit
y is
enh
ance
d by
stra
tegi
c im
plem
enta
tion
plan
ning
that
brin
gs d
ata,
reso
urce
s, pa
rtner
ship
and
wor
kfor
ce d
evel
opm
ent t
oget
her.
Iden
tify
them
es e
mer
ging
from
serv
ice
plan
ning
in lo
cal g
over
nmen
t are
as a
nd in
itiat
e jo
int p
lann
ing
to p
rogr
ess
shar
ed a
reas
of i
nter
est t
o in
crea
se so
cial
incl
usio
n.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
at se
rvic
e pl
anni
ng c
urre
ntly
occ
urs i
n re
lativ
e is
olat
ion
from
pla
nnin
g fo
r edu
catio
n tra
inin
g an
d em
ploy
men
t, ho
usin
g tra
nspo
rt, re
crea
tion
and
spor
t, th
e ur
ban
envi
ronm
ent a
nd c
ivic
par
ticip
atio
n. I
f m
ore
info
rmat
ion
was
shar
ed b
etw
een
leve
ls o
f gov
ernm
ent a
nd lo
cal s
ervi
ce a
nd c
omm
unity
org
anis
atio
ns, m
ore
rele
vant
link
s cou
ld b
e m
ade
to in
clud
e pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ties.
Obs
erva
bilit
y Id
entif
y a
soci
al in
clus
ion
eval
uatio
n sy
stem
bas
ed o
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs in
all
port
folio
s and
ju
risd
ictio
ns.
The
ratio
nale
for t
his r
esea
rch
is th
e ab
senc
e of
a sy
stem
atic
eva
luat
ion
fram
ewor
k m
eans
that
soci
al in
clus
ion
is n
ot
rout
inel
y or
com
preh
ensi
vely
repo
rted.
203
Chapter summary This chapter has identified and discussed the factors found in this study to have assisted or
impeded the implementation of social inclusion policy in local settings through the State
Plan. Rogers’ characteristics of innovations provided a useful theoretical framework and
analytical tool. It has enabled the identification of improvements to the State Plan that will
increase successful implementation and the capacity for local planning, strengthen
intergovernmental partnership and achieve social change. It has also identified a number of
areas for future research based on Rogers’ diffusion theory.
Factors identified by participants that already assist the implementation process include the
State Plan’s reference to civic participation and universalism. Policy continuity, leadership,
resources and partnership development should also be continued. Factors that currently
impede successful implementation and so require increased effort include communication, a
definition of social inclusion and a strategic implementation and evaluation plan.
Additional work is needed on the impact of funding models and the need for more deliberate
partnership and workforce development strategies. Participant views demonstrate that
individual and organisational alignment of policy values is significant in providing the
relative advantage needed to embrace change.
A universal platform based on access for all has been identified as a feature that should
continue in the State Plan to increase social inclusion. Those implementing complex policy
need to identify links and relationships between past experiences, but also need added
assistance in changing work practices. Leadership, consistency, communication and
interdepartmental and intergovernmental collaboration are critical elements in
implementation. They need to be reinforced by adequate funding and resources. In order to
take state wide policy and implement it in local settings, implementation partners need clear
and shared definitions and policy goals. As such, the term social inclusion needs to be
defined and operationalised so that it can be trialled in spite of the diverse nature of
impairment type, complexity and population characteristics. Partnership development needs
204
to be acknowledged and resourced as an area of implementation work in its own right.
Workforce development requires similar effort. A comprehensive population and service
data analysis is a critical and currently missing element of the current State Plan. Its
establishment would inevitably give rise to a wider range of responses across and between
tiers of government that would contribute to more effective implementation.
Without a system for planning, implementing and evaluating, change for people with
disabilities is likely to remain incremental rather than comprehensive. The points that
emerged from this study are also consistent with the literature which identifies that social
inclusion needs to be integrated into the fabric of local settings. People with disabilities will
only comprehensively be included in local settings when their needs are understood and
integrated into a process for local planning and governance. Local settings require the
involvement of all three tiers of government. As a result, a far more integrated and
connected model of public sector planning, implementation and evaluation is required.
Participant comments illustrate that implementing social inclusion requires a far finer grain
of planning than has been the case since the State Plan was adopted in 2002. Implementation
based on this extended understanding of diverse needs requires commensurate resources in
return. In the process, a better balance needs to be achieved between service reform and
community building initiatives with a universal approach replacing the current emphasis on
programmatic responses.
The concluding chapter summarises the major findings and outlines the elements of a model
of social inclusion based on Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory to guide future
intergovernmental work to increase the implementation of social inclusion of people with
disabilities in local settings.
205
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the outcomes of a study that identified and analysed
factors that assisted or impeded the implementation of social inclusion policy for people with
disabilities in local settings. It developed an original application of Rogers’ diffusion of
innovation theory for this purpose. It also explored the extent to which broader planning and
policy frameworks, in this case the State Plan, impacted on the success of local planning
initiatives, supported intergovernmental partnership and effected social change.
The following sections summarise the literature review outcomes, research questions and
major findings and highlight the strengths and limitations of the research.
Literature review outcomes
The identification of specific research questions, and subsequent methodological decisions
were based on a review of the literature. This encompassed definitions of social inclusion,
the significance of this for contemporary disability policy, the experience of disability and
social inclusion in the Australian community. The review of the literature in chapters 2 and 3
established that policy measures need to go beyond declarations, legislation and services to
implement social inclusion. It demonstrated the value of applying Rogers’ theory to
understand the factors that assist and impede implementation of the State Plan.
Based on the literature review, it is clear that social inclusion has been a goal of Australian
disability policy since the 1970s (Wolfensberger, 1975) but that service system focussed
implementation has had limitations. In some respects it has reinforced marginalisation of
people with disabilities (Goggin & Newell, 2005). Australia’s ratification of the UN
206
convention on the rights of people with disabilities in 2008 signalled commitment to a more
universally embedded approach to social inclusion linked to concepts of citizen participation
consistent with the social model of disability (Albrecht, 2004; Drake, 1999).
It is also clear from the literature that social inclusion is a multi-dimensional concept. Failure
to define it in a planning and policy context affects the consistency and measurability of
initiatives and outcomes. Yet, in spite of diverse definitions, it is generally agreed that social
inclusion provides benefit to all community members in relation to human rights, social
justice and citizenship as well as supporting individual and community health and well being
(Berkman, 1985; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1998, 2001). It is described in the literature as a
providing a protective factor for people adjusting to or coping with chronic impairments and
limiting secondary depression. It provides a sense of security, companionship and intimacy
that reduces emotional problems (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Bondevik & Skogstag, 1996;
Bruhn & Phillips, 1987; Stansfeld, 2001). Reinforcing the value of universal citizen
participation in local settings, social inclusion has also been identified as enabling self
actualisation and the maintenance of social identity (Carney, 2001; Pearlin, 1985).
The development of policies and strategies to improve social inclusion for people with
disabilities is complex and difficult problem (Althaus, Bridgman & Davis, 2007). It is
affected by both conceptual and philosophical debates. This is particularly about how social
inclusion is defined and structural barriers associated with the way programs for people with
disabilities are planned and delivered. Community building has assisted greater social
inclusion, structural disadvantage experienced by people with disabilities needs to be
recognised in implementing change. This requires greater attention to the policy
implementation process (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984; Althaus, Bridgman & Davis 2007).
The broader social and economic context also has a significant impact on specific policy
areas (Nevile 1998; Parsons, 2004). The context demonstrated how the greater focus on
economic criteria since the 1970s has had a negative impact on disability policy Just as
deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities was gathering pace, a philosophical emphasis
on individualism and mutual obligation further disadvantaged people already experiencing
207
disadvantage (Kinnear, 2000). It is arguable that these broader policy trends adversely
impacted on the capacity to implement inclusive policies for people with disabilities
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003; Goggin & Newell, 2005; Swain, 2004).
As the influence of neo classical economic theory waned in this century, some contributions
to the literature identified opportunities to implement more inclusive policies in local
settings. Local government has the role and opportunity to diversify local governance
through the development of skills, knowledge and experience in individuals and
enhancements to deliberative and systematic planning (Cuthill & Fien, 2005). Such
opportunities are reflected in the philosophy of the State Plan in Victoria (Department of
Human Services, 2002) where building local communities in partnership with local
government is an innovative and key strategy.
Notwithstanding the adverse impact that broader policy settings may have on disability
policy, it is clear that there is now widespread support for greater emphasis on social
inclusion for people with disabilities and a range of other groups experiencing disadvantage.
Social inclusion has a number of elements. It is an end in itself, which can be defined by a
range of opportunities to participate in everyday life. It is also a principle which defines the
way programs and services for people with disabilities should be planned and implemented.
In particular, it is now widely recognised that people with disabilities should have a say in
the way services and local communities are planned and implemented.
As a result, disability policy generally reflects a commitment to the principles and outcomes
of social inclusion. This study has demonstrated that much less is known about the
effectiveness of strategies to improve social inclusion. While aspiring to greater social
inclusion, in practice policies for people with disabilities have generally continued to focus
on the delivery of services for specific population groups such as those with sensory,
physical or intellectual disabilities. More recently there has been interest in more broadly
based whole of government (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2005, 2008) planning
strategies. These have emphasised cross sectoral planning across areas like housing,
employment, transport, education and health to improve social inclusions. This has seen
208
increased interest in the use of community strengthening strategies. There is comparatively
little research on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving social inclusion for people
with disabilities. The research conducted here sought to increase understanding of these
issues.
The literature on diffusion of innovations suggests that there are a number of attributes of
innovations which help or impede widespread implementation and diffusion. Rogers (2003)
developed a useful five attribute model which has significant potential utility for
understanding which innovations are adopted and which is not. He proposed that those
innovations which are widely implemented are seen as providing a relative advantage over
previous approaches; compatibility with existing values, needs and experience; relatively
simple to understand and implement, easy to trial and develop; and observable evidence of
benefit. This framework was adapted in this study to investigate issues associated with the
implementation of policy to improve social inclusion for people with disabilities in local
settings.
Research questions
The Victorian State Disability Plan focused on improving social inclusion for people with
disabilities by introducing a greater emphasis on community strengthening, local planning
and intersectoral collaboration. It therefore provided an excellent opportunity to investigate
the gaps around implementation issues for disability policy and on social inclusion
highlighted through the review of the literature. Rogers’ (2003) framework was used to
study the implementation of the State Plan in three local areas.
The specific questions to guide the research were:
� How have study participants experienced the relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability and observability of the State Plan’s implementation?
� What has assisted the implementation of social inclusion in local settings?
209
� What has impeded the implementation of social inclusion in local settings?
Adopting Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovations provided a mechanism for
understanding the capacity of the current State Plan to impact on the success of local
planning initiatives, support intergovernmental partnerships and effect social change. It has
also provided clear directions for the development of a model of social inclusion to improve
current outcomes, increase social inclusion and achieve more rapid social change.
Major findings
Analysis of participant data using Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovations
demonstrated that while the State Plan provided relative advantage for state and local
government participants, its compatibility with state government priorities was inconsistent
and it has been implemented differently in local settings. In addition, lack of definition
created barriers to trialling and observing social change. Data support the view that, with the
exception of relative advantage, Rogers’ characteristics of innovations were not
comprehensively observable and that this has diminished the capacity of the State Plan to
achieve its vision of increase social inclusion for people with disabilities in Victoria.
The factors identified as assisting the implementation of social inclusion in local settings
were as follows. In relation to relative advantage, the State Plan’s references to a human
rights platform and partnership were significant. In relation to compatibility, references to
continuity with past policy and the involvement of senior organisational and/or political
leadership were significant. These were variable for state and local government participants.
In relation to trialability, references to resource commitments and partnership development
were significant. In relation to complexity, references to the need for a definition of social
inclusion were significant. In relation to trialability, the absence of a comprehensive
population and service data base or a systematic implementation plan was significant. These
in turn hindered the establishment of an evaluation system to capture observable outcomes.
It is notable that, in spite of being part of local disability plan implementation processes, that
210
participants with disabilities did not feel equipped to respond to the relative advantage,
compatibility or complexity of the State Plan although they were vocal on issues of
trialability and observability.
The overarching actions that would strengthen the State Plan’s capacity to deliver state wide
change included the establishment of coordinated intergovernmental and community
consultative mechanisms, a framework for specifying targets in all dimensions of inclusion,
joint workforce development and a comprehensive system for population and service data
analysis.
These elements of a model of social inclusion were identified based on the research findings
and literature review. It utilised the structure of Rogers’ characteristics of innovations to
identify the activities needed by national, state and local governments to accelerate the rate of
change in local settings. The emerging model demonstrates how each level of government
could strengthen the characteristics of innovations so that social inclusion could be more
comprehensively and effectively implemented.
Elements of a social inclusion implementation model
Rogers’ theory of the diffusion of innovations says that innovations, like increasing the social
inclusion of people with disabilities in local settings, will be more likely to occur when the
characteristics of innovations are met. If integrated local planning is a critical innovation in
this new policy environment, then an equally innovative social inclusion implementation
model is required to create and accelerate change. This research has found that the relative
advantage of disability planning to increase social inclusion for people with disabilities in
local settings would be assisted by a consistent expression of values through consistent
intergovernmental policy, programs, legislation and regulation.
Complexity is also generated because the relationship between population groups and
dimensions such as service access, education training and employment, housing transport,
211
recreation and sport, the urban environment and civic participation is not defined. Concepts
that are not defined cannot be implemented, evaluated or improved.
The compatibility of disability planning to increase social inclusion for people with
disabilities in local settings would be assisted by policy continuity, senior organisational and
political leadership and enhanced by strategic communication planning. The complexity of
the term social inclusion in the State Plan has reduced the trialability and observability of
initiatives for people with disabilities in local settings. The complexity of the policy
objective (social inclusion) is generated because what it might mean, given diversity of
impairment type and complexity that interacts with life stage, gender, cultural and indigenous
needs is not defined.
The trialability of disability planning to increase social inclusion for people with disabilities
in local settings would be assisted by the establishment of a strategic implementation plan.
This plan should include local level population and service data and analysis, resources and
support for partnership, collaboration and workforce development. Trialability would also be
assisted by the establishment of a strategic communication plan to enhance communication
between and within all levels of government, between all levels of government and
community and service organisations and between all levels of government, community and
service organisations and people with disabilities.
The observability of disability planning to increase social inclusion for people with
disabilities in local settings would be assisted by a comprehensive evaluation system.
Appendix E identifies the elements of a social inclusion implementation model. It
demonstrates how coordinated action at each level of government could strengthen the
characteristics of innovations so that social inclusion policy for people with disabilities could
be more comprehensively and effectively implemented. A summary of the elements of this
model are outlined below.
212
In relation to increasing the relative advantage of disability policy focused on social
inclusion, national state and local governments have consistent roles. These include
consistent including international and national human rights and legislative references in all
policy, programs, legislation and regulation. It includes the development and coordination of
strategic communication and education plans aimed at celebrating the contribution of people
with disabilities to the community and supporting the systematic inclusion of people with
disabilities in public discourse and decision making.
In relation to increasing compatibility, intergovernmental roles are differentiated. All tiers
of government should be establishing coordinated key performance indicators to measure the
success of strategies administered at different levels of government across policy, programs,
legislation and regulation. They should also be seeking to increase the participation of
people with disabilities through employment or procurement processes. National and state
government should be routinely addressing disability issues at joint intergovernmental
forums and committing senior staff and resources to improve cross portfolio implementation.
Local government has opportunities to address and report on progress in social inclusion
policy in national and state peak bodies and can also increase cross organisational
involvement in disability planning to address the social, economic, physical and cultural
aspects of social inclusion in local settings.
In relation to reducing the complexity of the term social inclusion, national state and local
governments need to scope, develop and adopt a definition of social inclusion as the basis for
joint policy implementation. All tiers of government also need a shared understanding of the
impact that impairment type and complexity, lifestage, gender, cultural and indigenous
characteristics have on social inclusion and the specific changes required of society to
support the capacity to participate.
In relation to increasing trialability, intergovernmental roles are differentiated. All tiers of
government need consistent approaches and definitions for legislation, regulation, policies
and programs, key performance indicators, funding and service agreement key performance
indicators, consultative mechanisms, public sector employment practices, workforce
213
development and a national recognition approach where targets are exceeded. National and
state governments to develop comprehensive and accessible data down to local government
postcode levels that profile impairment type and complexity, lifestage, gender, cultural and
indigenous characteristics. Programs and resources that support
trials that aim at increasing social inclusion in local settings should be continued. Models for
funding public and private sector capital improvements should be established to increase
physical access and benchmark projects established to demonstrate how universal access
systems could be operationalised.
State and local governments could increase trialability by collaborating on the development
of local disability plans, sharing service data, establishing operational plans and practice
notes for enhancements to building standards, public, community transport and taxis and
establishing an independent clearinghouse to identify and promote successful social inclusion
initiatives, case studies and implement a strategic communication plan in local areas.
Local governments could introduce more assertive outreach and social marketing to identify
people with disabilities in local communities, introduce structures, communication and
engagement techniques to increase the participation of people with disabilities in community
planning, local governance, complaints mechanisms, advocate for adequate national and state
funds for related services, programs and supports. Local governments could also ensure that
all council run facilities have assistive devices and communication aids available and that all
information is available in multiple formats. Local governments could facilitate social
inclusion audits with community members with disabilities to identify improvements to
social, economic, physical and cultural aspects of local areas. They could also use
community grants and local leadership training as opportunities to increase participation in
sporting, cultural and other community organisations.
In relation to observability, national state and local governments have consistent roles. These
include establishing and monitoring social inclusion targets and key performance indicators
for all policies and programs, establishing standards for social inclusion in all aspects of
community life and utilising the same definitions, targets and standards so that measurements
214
can cascade from a national to a local community setting. Significantly, regular, independent
and comparative reporting of progress needs to be publicly available as well as a mechanism
to enact related change.
Strengths and limitations
The strength of this study was the adoption of Creswell’s claim (2003, p.3) that a general
framework incorporating philosophical assumptions regarding knowledge, strategies of
enquiry and methods should guide all facets of research. A second strength was the adoption
of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory which provided a theoretical framework for
collecting and analysing study data. As outlined in more detail in chapter 4, this framework
resulted in the adoption of a qualitative approach and a case study method to identify the
experiences of policy implementation and the factors that provide assistance or impediments.
As a result, the study was able to elicit the views of key implementation partners (state and
local government and people with disabilities) and to triangulate this information with the
literature and public policy documents to propose a model of social inclusion to improve the
experience of people with disabilities in local settings. Given the researcher’s profile and
background, Creswell’s description of advocacy/participatory knowledge claims suited the
pursuit of “an action agenda for reform” where participant voices could contribute and
establish the evidence for reform and change (2003, p.9-10).
The interview themes and data analysis were guided by Rogers’ characteristics of
innovations which meant that the study could be replicated and the data were recorded in a
concise and accessible manner. Having outlined the strengths of the study, it is equally
important to outline the limitations and the impact that they may have had on the results.
The sample size for this study was relatively small but this limitation was addressed in a
number of ways. It drew the sample from three locations, ensured that managers and officers
from state and local government were involved from each local setting and that the people
215
with disability included in the study were experienced in the policy implementation process
through their involvement in local disability advisory committees.
The sample was established based on expert advice, given the absence of an independent
evaluative framework to indicate success or failure in local planning for social inclusion, and
the resulting interviews produced rich and complex data. The limitation of the study to three
categories of implementation partners excluded service providers, community organisations
and carers. This limitation was primarily put in place given the study’s focus on the
“building inclusive communities” strategy within the State Plan and the need to complete
data collection within a specific period of time. The inclusion of service providers,
community organisations and carers would have multiplied participants significantly and
preference was given to gaining participant views in diverse geographic locations.
Conclusion
While social inclusion was described by study participants as projecting the right values and
forming the best basis for disability policy, the literature has demonstrated how multi-
dimensional and contested it remains as a concept. A multi-dimensional and contested
concept is difficult to put into operation and even more difficult to evaluate or improve. This
emphasised the need for the State Plan to define social inclusion linked to a comprehensive
planning, implementation and evaluation framework.
Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory has assisted this thesis to explore the concept of
social inclusion, identify what will assist implementation of the State Plan and reduce the
impediments so that sustainable social change can occur. By studying the experience of
State Plan implementation partners in three Victorian local settings through Rogers’
characteristics of innovations, a new perspective on implementation has emerged. This
perspective will fill a current gap in the literature and provide a new way of modelling social
inclusion implementation in disability policy in the future.
216
And while this thesis has addressed the identified research questions, the opportunities for
further research are ongoing and indicate the extent of knowledge gaps in the diverse field of
disability and the complexity of implementation. It would seem appropriate to conclude with
a comment by Rogers that “…change agents and diffusion scholars must understand how
potential adopters perceive new ideas. Such perceptions count in determining the nature of
the diffusion process” (Rogers, 2003, p.266).
217
References Albrecht, G. L. (2004). Disability as a Global Issue. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Handbook of
social problems: A comparative international perspective (pp. 586-599). California: Sage Publications.
Althaus, C, Bridgman, P & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian policy handbook. Crows
Nest: Allen and Unwin. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington DC: Author. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Disability, ageing and carers. Cat. No. 4430.0.
Canberra: Author. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2009). Annual Report 2008 – 2009. Sydney:
Author. Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2008). Social inclusion: Origins, concepts and
key themes. Canberra, Author. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Australia’s welfare 2007. AIHW Cat.
No. AUS 93. Canberra: Author. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Disability support services 2006-07:
National data on services provided under the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. AIHW Cat. No. DIS 52. Canberra: Author.
Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public
policy perspective. Canberra: Author. Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee. (2007). Funding and operation of the
Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. Canberra: Author. Barnes, C. (2004). Reflections on doing emancipatory disability research. In J. Swain, S.
French, C. Barnes & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers-enabling environments (pp. 47-53). London: Sage.
Barton, L. (2004). The disability movement: some observations. In J. Swain, S. French,
C. Barnes & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers-enabling environments (pp.285-290). London: Sage.
Bates, P. & Davis, F.A. (2004). Social capital, social inclusion and services for people
with learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 19(3), 195-207.
218
Berkman, L. F. (1985). The relationship of social networks and social support to
morbidity and mortality. In S. Cohen & L. S. Syme. (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 241-262). Orlando: Academic Press Inc.
Berkman, L. F. & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance and mortality: a
nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186-204.
Bigby, C. & Fyffe, C. (2006). Tensions between institutional closure and
deinstitutionalisation; what can be learned from Victoria’s institutional redevelopment? Disability & Society, 21(6),567-581.
Bigby, C., Fyffe, C. & Ozanne, E. (2007). Planning and support for people with
intellectual disabilities. Sydney: UNSW Press. Black, P. (1997). Client, customer or consumer - but always a citizen. Local Government
Management, 30(4), 6-8. Blackman, T. & Woods, R. (2004). Social problems and public policy. In G. Ritzer
(Ed.), Handbook of social problems: A comparative international perspective (pp. 47-66). Sage Publications: California.
Bondevik, M. & Skogstad, A. (1996). Loneliness among the oldest old, a comparison
between residents living in nursing homes and residents living in the community. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 43, 181-197.
Bostock, L. & Gleeson, B. (2004). Contested housing landscapes? Social inclusion,
deinstitutionalisation and housing policy in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 41-62.
Bowers, R. V. (1938). Differential intensity of intra-societal diffusion. American
Sociological Review, 3, 21-31. Bruhn, J. G. & Phillips, B. U. (1987). A developmental basis for social support. Journal
of Behavioural Medicine, 10(3), 213-229. Bryson, L. & Mowbray, M. (2005). More spray on solution: community, social capital
and evidence based policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 91-106.
Burt, R. S. (1999) The social capital of opinion leaders. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political Sciences, 566, pp.37-54.
219
Carney, T. (2001). Protecting aged citizenship: rethinking the ‘mutuality’ of state and civil society. In D. N. Weisstub, D. C. Thomasma, S. Gauthier & G. F. Tomossy (Eds.), Aging: Culture, health, and social change (pp.43-64). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carter, E. W., Hughes, C, Guth, C. B. & Copeland, S. R. (2005). Factors influencing
social interaction among high school students with intellectual disabilities and their general peers. American Journal on Retardation, 110(5), 366-377.
Castellani, P. (1996). Closing institutions in New York State. In J. Mansell & K.
Ericsson (Eds.), Deinstitutionalization and Community Living: Intellectual Disability Services in Britain, Scandinavia and the USA (pp. 31-48). London: Chapman and Hall.
Chenoweth, L. (2000). Closing the doors: insights and reflections on
deinstitutionalisation. Law in Context, 17(2), 77-100. Clear, M. (Ed.). (2000), Promises promises: disability and terms of inclusion.
Leichhardt, N.S.W: Federation Press. Culham, A & Nind, M. (2003). Deconstructing normalisation: clearing the way for
inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 28(1), 65-78.
Cuthill, M. (2001). Developing local government policy and processes for community
consultation and participation. Urban Policy and Research, 19(2), 183-202.
Cuthill, M. & Fien J. (2005). Capacity building: facilitating citizen participation in local
governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63-80. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. California: Sage Publications. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2008).
Annual report 2007/2008. Canberra: Author. Department of Human Services. (2001). Environments for health: Promoting health and
well-being through built, social, economic and natural environments. Melbourne: Author.
Department of Human Services. (2002). Victorian state disability plan 2002-2012.
Melbourne: Author.
220
Department of Human Services. (2002a). Victorian state disability plan implementation plan 2002-2005. Melbourne: Department of Human Services,
Department of Human Services. (2006). Victorian state disability plan implementation
plan 2006-2008. Melbourne: Author. Department of Human Services. (2007). Information Sheet No.1: The disability act
2006. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/disability/improving_supports/disability_act_2006.
Department of Human Services. (2009). Annual report. Melbourne: Author. Department of Human Services. (2010) Community Building Program
Annual Report. Melbourne: Author.
Department of Planning and Community Development, (2010). Visitable and adaptable features in housing: regulatory impact statement. Melbourne: Author.
Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2005). A fairer Victoria. Melbourne: Author. Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2008). A fairer Victoria 2008: Strong people
strong communities. Melbourne: Department of Premier and Cabinet. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2009). The Australian public service
social inclusion policy design and delivery toolkit. Canberra: Author. Department of Transport. (2003). Disability access at rail crossings. Melbourne.
Author. Department of Transport. (2006). Accessible public transport in Victoria action plan:
Action plan 2006-2012. Melbourne. Author. Department of Victorian Communities. (2005). Actions for community strengthening
with local government. Melbourne: Author. Disability Act 2006. (2006) Victorian Parliament. Disability Services Act. (1986) Australian Parliament. Disability Investment Group. ( 2009). The way forward: A new disability policy
framework for Australia. Canberra: Author. Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002. (2002) Australian
Parliament.
221
Drake, R. F. (1999). Understanding disability policies. London: Macmillan. Emerson, E. & Hatton, C. (2008). Self reported well-being of women and men with
intellectual disabilities in England. American Journal on Retardation, 113(2), 143-155.
Ernst, J., Glanville, L. & Murfitt, P. (1997). Breaking the contract: The implementation
of competitive tendering policy in Victoria. Melbourne: Victoria University.
Farrar, A. & Inglis, J. (1996). Keeping it together: State and civil society in Australia.
Leichhardt: Pluto Press Australia. Finkelstein, V. (2004). Representing disability. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes & C.
Thomas (Eds.). Disabling barriers-enabling environments (pp.13-20). London: Sage.
Forrest, H. (2005). Disability reform: effective and equitable, Impact. Autumn, 5-6. Fox K. F.A. & Kotler P. (1980). The marketing of Social Causes: The First Ten Years.
Journal of Marketing, 44, 24-33. Gillen, M. (2004). Promoting place-based discourse and new approaches in local
government in New South Wales. Urban Policy and Research, 22(2), 207-220.
Gleeson, B. (1999). Geographies of disabilities. London: Routledge. Gleeson, B. (2004). Deprogramming planning: collaboration and inclusion in new urban
development. Urban Policy and Research, 22(3), 315-322. Goggin, G. & Newell, C. (2005). Disability in Australia: Exposing a social apartheid.
Sydney: UNSW Press. Gretz, S. (1992). Citizen participation: connecting people to associational life. In
David, B. Schwartz, Crossing the River: Creating a Conceptual Revolution in Community and Disability (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Harris, J. (2003). All doors are closed to us: a social model analysis of the experiences
of disabled refugees and asylum seekers in Britain. Disability & Society, 18, (4), 395-410.
Hayes, A., Gray, M. & Edwards, B. (2008) Social inclusion: Origins, concepts and key
themes. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
222
Higgins, W. & Ramia, G. (2000). Social citizenship. In W. Hudson & J. Kane (Eds.), Rethinking Australian Citizenship (pp. 136-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilmer, F., Rayner, M. & Taperell, G. (1993). National competition policy: Report by
the independent committee of inquiry. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Home and Community Care Act. (1985) Australian Parliament. Howell, A., Hauser-Cram, P. & Kersh, J. E. (2007). Setting the stage: early childhood
and family characteristics as predictors of later loneliness in children with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Retardation,112(1), 18-30.
Hudson, W. & Kane, J. (Eds.), (2000). Rethinking Australian citizenship. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Kickbusch, Ilona. (Ed.), (2009). Policy Innovation for Health. New York: Springer. Kinnear, P. (2000). What's wrong with mutual obligation? Impact, October, 8-9. Krozer, Y & Nentjes, A. (2008 May). Environmental policy and innovation. Business
strategy and the environment. 17(4), 219-229. LeRoy, B. W., Noonan Walsh, P., Kulik, N. & Rooney, M. (2004). Retreat and
resilience: life experiences of older women with intellectual disabilities. American Journal on Retardation, 109(5), 429-441.
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Falmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd., E & Patsios, D. (2007). The
multi-dimensional analysis of social inclusion. University of Bristol. Local Government Act 1989. Victorian Parliament. Mansell, J. (2006). Deinstitutionalisation and community living: progress, problems and
priorities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(2), 65-76.
Mansell, J. (2007). Foreword. In C. Bigby, C. Fyffe & E. Ozanne. Planning and support
for people with intellectual disabilities (pp. 9-12). Sydney: UNSW Press. Mansell, J & Ericsson, K. (Eds.). (1996). Deinstitutionalization and community living:
intellectual disability services in Britain, Scandinavia and the USA. London: Chapman and Hall.
223
Marmot, M. & Wilkinson R. G. (1998). Social determinants of health: The solid facts. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Marmot, M. & Wilkinson R. G. (2001). Social determinants of health. New York:
Oxford University Press. McVilly, K. R., Stancliffe, R. J., Parmenter, T. R. & Burton-Smith, R. M. (2006). Self-
advocates have the last say on friendship. Disability and Society, 21(7), 693-708.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman A, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. & Alexander, L. (2000). In depth interviewing:
Principles, techniques and analysis. Sydney: Longman. Ministerial Advisory Committee for Victorian Communities. (2007) Social inclusion.
The next step for a fairer Victoria. Melbourne: Department of Planning and Community Development.
Morse, J. M & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative
methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mort, P. R. (1957). Principles of school administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mowbray, M. (2004). Community development the third way: Mark Latham’s localist
policies. Urban Policy and Social Research, 22(1), 107-115. National People with Disabilities and Carer Council. (2009). Shut Out: The Experience
of People with Disabilities and their Families in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Nevile, J. W. (1998). Economic rationalism: social philosophy masquerading as
economic science. In Paul Smyth & Bettina Cass (Eds.), Contesting the Australian way: States, Markets and Civil Society (pp. 169-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Office of Disability. (2000). Commonwealth disability strategy. Canberra: Department
of Families and Community Services. Oliver, M. (2004). If I had a hammer: the social model in action. In J. Swain, S. French,
C. Barnes & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling Barriers-Enabling Environments (pp. 7-12). London: Sage.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial
spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
224
Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy
analysis. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving; relevant knowledge and the craft of
building policy capacity and coherence. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43-57.
Pearlin, L. I. (1985). Social structures and processes of social support. In S. Cohen & S.
L. Syme (Eds.), Social Support and Health (pp. 43-60). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.
Percy, S.L. (1989). Disability, civil rights, and public policy: The politics of
implementation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Pixley, J. (2000). Economic citizenship. In W. Hudson & J. Kane (Eds.), Rethinking
Australian Citizenship (pp. 121-135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potts, J. (2009 August). Creative industries and innovation policies. Innovation:
Management, Policy, & Practice. 11(7), 138-147. Pressman, J. L. & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in
Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Priestley, M. (Ed.). (2001). Disability and the life course: Global perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Productivity Commission. (2004). Review of the disability discrimination act 1992.
Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2010) Productivity Commission circular: Inquiry into
disability care and support. No. DCS 1. Author Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, Victorian Parliament. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster. Randolph, B. (2004). Social inclusion and place-focused initiatives in Western Sydney:
a review of current practice. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 63-78.
Reddel, T. (2004). Third way social governance: where is the state? Australian Journal
of Social Issues, 39(2), 129-142.
225
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ryan, B. & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid corn seed in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24. Salvaris, M. (2000). Political citizenship. In W. Hudson & J. Kane (Eds.), Rethinking
Australian Citizenship (pp. 77-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shakespeare, T. (2000). Help. Birmingham: Venture Press. Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Urbaba: University of Illinois Press. Simon, H. (1977). The New Science of Management Decision. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prentice-Hall Social Development Canada. (2004). Advancing the inclusion of persons with
disabilities: A government of Canada report. Office for Disability Issues. Social Development Canada. (2008). Advancing the inclusion of persons with
disabilities: A government of Canada report. Office for Disability Issues. Stainton, T. (2005). Empowerment and the architecture of rights based policy. Journal
of Intellectual Disabilities. 9(4), 289-298. Stansfeld, S. A. (2001). Social support and social cohesion. In M. Marmot & R. G.
Wilkinson, Social Determinants of Health (pp. 148-171). New York: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications. Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C. & Thomas, C (Eds.). (2004). Disabling Barriers-
Enabling Environments. London: Sage. Thomas, C. (2004). Disability and impairment. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes & C.
Thomas (Eds.), Disabling Barriers-Enabling Environments (pp. 21-27). London: Sage.
Thornton, M. (2000). Legal citizenship. In W. Hudson & J. Kane (Eds.), Rethinking
Australian Citizenship (pp. 111-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
226
Tregaskis, C. (2004). Constructions of disability: Researching the interface between disabled and non-disabled People. London: Routledge.
Tyran, J.R. & Sausgruber, R. (2005 October) The diffusion of policy innovations – an
experimental investigation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 15(4), 423-442.
United Kingdom Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. (2005). Improving the life chances of
people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH
United Nations. (2008). UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml.
Van Buren, A & Loorbach, D. (May 2009). Policy innovation in isolation. Public
Management Review, 11(3), 375-392. Ven, L. Van de, Post, M., Witte, L. de & Heuvel, W. Van de. (2005). It takes two to
tango: the integration of people with disabilities into society. Disability & Society, 20(3), 311-329.
Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. (2006). Victorian
Parliament. Victorian Constitution Act. (1995). Victorian Parliament. Public Health and Well Being Act. (2008). Victorian Parliament.
Walter, J. (1996). Rethinking Citizen Politics. The Australian Journal of Politics & History, 42(1), 54-67.
Whiteford, P. (2009). Social inclusion: Family joblessness in Australia. Canberra:
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Wiseman, J. (Ed.). (2004). Local government, leadership and community strengthening. Melbourne: The Cranlana Programme.
Wiseman, J. (2006). Local Heroes? Learning from recent community strengthening
initiatives in Victoria. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(2), 95-107.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalisation. Toronto: Leonard Crainford.
227
Wolfensberger, W. (1975). The origin and nature of our institutional models. New York: Human Policy Press.
Wolfe, D. (2002). On the value of citizen participation: a review. International Journal
of Politics and Ethics, 2(i), 3-20.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. California: Sage Publications.
228
Appendices
Appendix A Local Government Act 1989 – Council roles
PART 1A-LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHARTER
3D. What is the role of a Council? (1) A Council is elected to provide leadership for the good governance of the municipal district and the local community. (2) The role of a Council includes- (a) acting as a representative government by taking into account the diverse needs of the local community in decision making; (b) providing leadership by establishing strategic objectives and monitoring their achievement; (c) maintaining the viability of the Council by ensuring that resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner; (d) advocating the interests of the local community to other communities and governments; (e) acting as a responsible partner in government by taking into account the needs of other communities; (f) fostering community cohesion and encouraging active participation in civic life.
229
Appendix B Samples of invitation to participate
Information and invitation to participate for DHS Head Office.
RE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I am writing to invite your participation in a study reviewing how the State Disability
Plan 2002 - 2012 is being implemented in Victorian local government areas to build
inclusive communities for people with disabilities.
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in seven to ten local government case
study areas. The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors
that contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for
people with disabilities in local communities.
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
It is anticipated that study activities will be conducted between October and December
2006.
If you agree to be involved, you will be asked to participate in:
1. An individual interview of approximately 1.5 hours duration.
The focus for the interviews will be to identify current implementation mechanisms to
increase inclusion by strengthening local communities and related implementation
230
attributes. Field notes will be taken during interviews and transferred into records of
interview to enable coding and analysis. These records of interview will be available to
interviewees on request.
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
or organisational name will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of
interview, computer records or results of the project. You will therefore remain
anonymous to everyone apart for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in
a thesis to be written by Ms Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at
conferences, but you will not be identified in any of these reports. You will be provided
with a summary of the study on completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
231
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
Ms Reidy will be contacting you shortly to confirm your interest in participating in this
study.
Yours sincerely
Hal Swerissen Head of School
Public Health
Date:
232
Information and invitation to participate for State and Local Government
organisations.
RE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I am writing to invite your participation in a study reviewing how the State Disability
Plan 2002 - 2012 is being implemented in Victorian local government areas to build
inclusive communities for people with disabilities.
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in seven to ten local government case
study areas. The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors
that contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for
people with disabilities in local communities.
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
It is anticipated that study activities will be conducted between October and December
2006.
If you agree to be involved, you will be asked to organise:
1. Completion of a written organisational reflection exercise designed to identify
examples of inclusive outcomes achieved for people with disability in the local
community against the dimensions of inclusion.
233
2. Two individual follow up interviews of approximately 1.5 hours duration each
with a senior management representative and an officer conducting operational
disability planning and/or implementation.
The reflection exercise will be analysed to provide good practice examples of inclusive
practices for people with disabilities in local communities in relation to dimensions
including disability supports, health and community services, recreation and community
life, education, employment, transport and housing. In addition, it will identify the extent
to which inclusive policy implementation currently takes impairment type and complexity,
lifestage, gender and culture into account in practice.
The reflection exercise results for your organisation will also provide some focus for the
interviews, which will seek to identify current implementation mechanisms to increase
inclusion by strengthening local communities and implementation attributes. Field notes
will be taken during interviews and transferred into records of interview to enable coding
and analysis. These records of interview will be available to interviewees on request.
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
234
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
or organisational name will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of
interview, computer records or results of the project. You will therefore remain
anonymous to everyone apart for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in
a thesis to be written by Ms Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at
conferences, but you will not be identified in any of these reports. You will be provided
with a summary of the study on completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
Ms Reidy will be contacting you shortly to confirm your interest in participating in this
study.
Yours sincerely
Hal Swerissen Head of School
Public Health
Date:
235
Information and invitation to participate for people with disabilities on local
advisory committees.
RE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I am writing to invite your participation in a study reviewing how the State Disability
Plan 2002 - 2012 is being implemented in Victorian local government areas to build
inclusive communities for people with disabilities.
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in local government case study areas.
The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors that
contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for people
with disabilities in local communities.
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
It is anticipated that study activities will be conducted between July and December 2006.
If you agree to be involved, you will be asked to participate in an interview of
approximately 1.5 hours duration.
The interviews, will seek to identify current implementation mechanisms to increase
inclusion by strengthening local communities and implementation attributes. Field notes
will be taken during interviews and transferred into records of interview to enable coding
and analysis. These records of interview will be available to interviewees on request.
236
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of interview, computer
records or results of the project. You will therefore remain anonymous to everyone apart
for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in a thesis to be written by Ms
Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at conferences, but you will not be
identified in any of these reports. You will be provided with a summary of the study on
completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
237
Ms Reidy will be contacting you shortly to confirm your interest in participating in this
study.
Yours sincerely
Hal Swerissen Head of School
Public Health
Date:
238
Appendix C Samples of informed consent Informed consent for DHS Head Office representatives.
Project Title:
Local Government and Disability: Building Inclusive Communities
Senior Investigators:
Professor Hal Swerissen School of Public Health
La Trobe University
Dr Chris Bigby School of Social Work and Social Policy
La Trobe University
Researcher:
Fiona Reidy Post-graduate student
School of Public Health
La Trobe University
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in seven to ten local government case
study areas. The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors
that contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for
people with disabilities in local communities.
239
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
If you agree to be involved, you will be asked to participate in:
2. An individual interview of approximately 1.5 hours duration.
The focus for the interview will be to identify current implementation mechanisms to
increase inclusion by strengthening local communities and related implementation
attributes. Field notes will be taken during interviews and transferred into records of
interview to enable coding and analysis. These records of interview will be available to
interviewees on request.
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
or organisational name will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of
interview, computer records or results of the project. You will therefore remain
anonymous to everyone apart for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in
240
a thesis to be written by Ms Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at
conferences, but you will not be identified in any of these reports. You will be provided
with a summary of the study on completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
If you have any complaints or queries that the investigator has not been able to answer to
your satisfaction, you may contact the Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee,
Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086 (9479 1794 or
I ………………………………………… have read and understood the information
above, and any questions I have asked have been answered to me satisfaction.
I do / do not agree to participate in this project, realising that I may withdraw at any time
up to 4 weeks after the interview has been conducted. In the event that I withdraw my
consent, I understand that all records will be removed and destroyed and I will complete
the attached withdrawal of consent for use of data form.
I do / do not agree to my interview being tape recorded.
241
I do / do not agree that the research data collected during the project may be included in
a thesis, presented at conferences and published in journals providing that my name, and
the name of the organisation I represent, is not used.
A copy of this signed consent form will be sent to you for your records.
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (in block letters): …………………………………………..
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): PROFESSOR HAL
SWERISSEN
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): DR CHRIS BIGBY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF RESEARCHER (in block letters): FIONA REIDY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
242
WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FOR USE OF DATA FORM Project Title: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I, …………………………., wish to WITHDRAW my consent to the use of data
arising from my participation. Data arising from my participation must NOT be
used in this research project as described in the Information and Consent Form.
I understand that data arising from my participation will be destroyed provided
this request is received within four weeks of the completion of my participation in
this project. I understand that this notification will be retained together with my
consent form as evidence of the withdrawal of my consent to use the data I have
provided specifically for this research project.
Participant’s name (printed): …………………………………………………………
Signature:
Date:
243
Informed consent for State and Local Government organisational representatives.
Project Title:
Local Government and Disability: Building Inclusive Communities
Senior Investigators:
Professor Hal Swerissen School of Public Health
La Trobe University
Dr Chris Bigby School of Social Work and Social Policy
La Trobe University
Researcher:
Fiona Reidy Post-graduate student
School of Public Health
La Trobe University
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in seven to ten local government case
study areas. The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors
that contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for
people with disabilities in local communities.
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
244
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to organise:
1. Completion of a written reflection exercise designed to identify examples of
inclusive outcomes achieved for people with disability in your local
community against the dimensions of inclusion.
2. Two individual follow up interviews of approximately 1.5 hours duration each
with a senior management representative and an officer conducting
operational disability planning and/or implementation.
The reflection exercise will be analysed to provide good practice examples of inclusive
practices for people with disabilities in local communities in relation to dimensions
including disability supports, health and community services, recreation, education,
employment, transport and housing. In addition, it will identify the extent to which
inclusive policy implementation currently takes impairment type and complexity, lifestage,
gender and culture into account in practice.
The reflection exercise results for your organisation will also provide some focus for the
interviews, which will seek to identify current implementation mechanisms to increase
inclusion by strengthening local communities and implementation attributes. During the
interviews, you have a right to refuse to answer any questions, stop the interview or
withdraw from the project. Field notes will be taken during interviews and transferred
into records of interview to enable coding and analysis. These records of interview will
be available to interviewees on request.
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
245
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
or organisational name will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of
interview, computer records or results of the project. You will therefore remain
anonymous to everyone apart for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in
a thesis to be written by Ms Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at
conferences, but you will not be identified in any of these reports. You will be provided
with a summary of the study on completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
If you have any complaints or queries that the investigator has not been able to answer to
your satisfaction, you may contact the Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee,
Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086 (9479 1794 or
246
I ………………………………………… have read and understood the information
above, and any questions I have asked have been answered to me satisfaction.
I do / do not agree to participate in this project, realising that I may withdraw at any time
up to 4 weeks after the interview has been conducted. In the event that I withdraw my
consent, I understand that all records will be removed and destroyed and I will complete
the attached withdrawal of consent for use of data form.
I do / do not agree to my interview being tape recorded.
I do / do not agree that the research data collected during the project may be included in
a thesis, presented at conferences and published in journals providing that my name, and
the name of the organisation I represent, is not used.
A copy of this signed consent form will be sent to you for your records.
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (in block letters): …………………………………………..
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): PROFESSOR HAL
SWERISSEN
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): DR CHRIS BIGBY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF RESEARCHER (in block letters): FIONA REIDY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
247
WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FOR USE OF DATA FORM Project Title: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I, …………………………., wish to WITHDRAW my consent to the use of data
arising from my participation. Data arising from my participation must NOT be
used in this research project as described in the Information and Consent Form.
I understand that data arising from my participation will be destroyed provided
this request is received within four weeks of the completion of my participation in
this project. I understand that this notification will be retained together with my
consent form as evidence of the withdrawal of my consent to use the data I have
provided specifically for this research project.
Participant’s name (printed): …………………………………………………………
Signature:
Date:
248
Informed consent for people with disabilities on local advisory committees.
Project Title:
Local Government and Disability: Building Inclusive Communities
Senior Investigators:
Professor Hal Swerissen School of Public Health
La Trobe University
Dr Chris Bigby School of Social Work and Social Policy
La Trobe University
Researcher:
Fiona Reidy Post-graduate student
School of Public Health
La Trobe University
The study will compare and analyse the views of state and local government
representatives and people with disabilities currently working on implementation issues
through local government advisory committees in seven to ten local government case
study areas. The study aims to identify how policy is made and implemented, the factors
that contribute to implementation and identify the reasons for differential outcomes for
people with disabilities in local communities.
This study is being conducted as a requirement for Ms Fiona Reidy’s PhD and is being
supervised by Professor Hal Swerissen, School of Public Health La Trobe University and
Dr Chris Bigby, School of Social Work and Social Policy La Trobe University.
249
It is anticipated that study activities will be conducted between July and December 2006.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete:
1 A written audit tool designed to identify examples of inclusive outcomes achieved
for people with disability in your local community against the dimensions of
inclusion.
2 An individual follow up interview of approximately 1.5 hours duration.
The written audit will be analysed to provide good practice examples of inclusive
practices for people with disabilities in local communities in relation to dimensions
including disability supports, health and community services, recreation, education,
employment, transport and housing. In addition, it will identify the extent to which
inclusive policy implementation currently takes impairment type and complexity,
lifestage, gender and culture into account in practice.
The audit results for your local community will also provide some focus for the
interviews, which will seek to identify current implementation mechanisms to increase
inclusion by strengthening local communities and implementation attributes. Field notes
will be taken during interviews and transferred into records of interview to enable coding
and analysis. These records of interview will be available to you on request.
If you consent, the interviews will be tape recorded to verify the accuracy of field notes
during coding and analysis only and as such will the recordings will be erased following
completion of analysis.
During the study, field notes, tape recordings and any records of interview will be stored
in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe
University. The computer records will also be kept on a secure, pass word protected
computer in the office of the researcher Ms Fiona Reidy at La Trobe University. No-one
apart from Ms Reidy, Professor Swerissen and Dr Bigby will have access to the field
250
notes, tape recordings and records of interview. Following the study, field notes and
records of interview will be securely stored in line with La Trobe University policy and
maintained for a period of 5 years.
Although the researchers will know who you are for the duration of this study, your name
will not be included on the written forms, field notes, records of interview, computer
records or results of the project. You will therefore remain anonymous to everyone apart
for the researchers. The results of this study will appear in a thesis to be written by Ms
Reidy, in journal publications and in presentations at conferences, but you will not be
identified in any of these reports. You will be provided with a summary of the study on
completion.
While you will not directly benefit from participation in this project, your participation
will contribute to a better understanding of the factors that could improve disability
policy implementation and the inclusion of people with disabilities in local communities.
In addition, there are no disadvantages, penalties or adverse consequences for not
participating or withdrawing from the research.
Any questions regarding this project titled: ‘Local Government and Disability: Building
Inclusive Communities’ can be directed to the Senior Investigator, Professor Hal
Swerissen, School of Public Health, La Trobe University on 9479 1743.
If you have any complaints or queries that the investigator has not been able to answer to
your satisfaction, you may contact the Secretary, Faculty Human Ethics Committee,
Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086 (9479 1794 or
I ………………………………………… have read and understood the information
above, and any questions I have asked have been answered to me satisfaction.
251
I do / do not agree to participate in this project, realising that I may withdraw at any time
up to 4 weeks after the interview has been conducted. In the event that I withdraw my
consent, I understand that all records will be removed and destroyed and I will complete
the attached withdrawal of consent for use of data form.
I do / do not agree to my interview being tape recorded.
I do / do not agree that the research data collected during the project may be included in
a thesis, presented at conferences and published in journals providing that my name, and
the name of the organisation I represent, is not used.
A copy of this signed consent form will be sent to you for your records.
NAME OF PARTICIPANT (in block letters): …………………………………………..
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): PROFESSOR HAL
SWERISSEN
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF SENIOR INVESTIGATOR (in block letters): DR CHRIS BIGBY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
NAME OF RESEARCHER (in block letters): FIONA REIDY
Signature: …………………………………………………Date: ………………………..
252
WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FOR USE OF DATA FORM
Project Title: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DISABILITY: BUILDING INCLUSIVE
COMMUNITIES
I, …………………………., wish to WITHDRAW my consent to the use of data
arising from my participation. Data arising from my participation must NOT be
used in this research project as described in the Information and Consent Form.
I understand that data arising from my participation will be destroyed provided
this request is received within four weeks of the completion of my participation in
this project. I understand that this notification will be retained together with my
consent form as evidence of the withdrawal of my consent to use the data I have
provided specifically for this research project.
Participant’s name (printed): …………………………………………………………
Signature:
Date:
253
Appendix D Schedule of interview questions
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONS FOR DHS HEAD OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES:
1 Current implementation mechanisms to increase inclusion by strengthening
local communities
The State Disability Plan has 5 key priority strategies and one is to increase inclusion of
people with disabilities by strengthening local communities.
When the State Plan 2002-2012 was being developed, how did the Department see this
priority strategy being implemented?
Was this different for staff at Head Office and the Regions?
How?
This priority calls on a community development skill set. How equipped were
department staff to develop and implement this policy?
Are they better equipped today?
Why not or how?
How useful have programmatic responses such as AAA and Metro/RuralAccess been to
increasing community inclusion? How do you know this?
In your experience, what has helped strengthen local communities to increase inclusion
for people with disabilities?
In your experience, what has hindered community strengthening and inclusion for people
with disabilities?
Has this community strengthening priority strategy for increasing the inclusion of people
with disabilities in community life been successful? How or why not? What’s more
effective?
254
What do you think would happen if the funding for AAA and Metro/Rural/deaf access
diminishes or is cut?
How has local planning, partnership development and implementation developed since
2002?
Has disability planning been integrated with community planning approaches in local
areas?
Is it consistent with the State Policy A Fairer Victoria or has it been addressed
separately?
Has this been a good or bad thing and why?
What has ‘whole of Govt’ meant for this policy implementation area?
Has DHS been able to broker whole of govt responses to issues like transport, housing,
education … either centrally or in local areas?
Has the inclusion work or community planning work that you’ve seen been based on a
comprehensive understanding of the community and in this instance does the local
disability profile given impairment type (intellectual, physical, sensory, ABI and
psychiatric) and impacts of lifestage, gender and culture?
Do you think that all implementation partners share an understanding of these diverse
needs as a basis for planning and action to improve inclusion? How has understanding
been achieved or how could this be improved?
Is planning and implementing local responses to increase the inclusion of people with
disabilities different or more complex than responding to the needs of others in the
community? What do you think gets addressed and what gets left out? Why?
255
2 Implementation attributes:
What are the advantages for DHS in planning and implementing actions that increase the
inclusion of people with disability in community life?
Is an inclusive and holistic approach to disability planning and implementation consistent
with the existing values, past experiences and needs of the Department?
Is inclusion (strengthening local communities) a difficult policy concept to achieve for
people with disabilities?
Are there any examples where increased inclusion has been successfully trialled? How
have these successes been shared or promoted?
Has the State Disability Plan had any observable impacts in relation to strengthening
local communities to increase inclusion of people with disabilities?
If you could do anything differently now, given your knowledge of implementation, what
would you do and why?
Any other comments?
256
Schedule of questions for State and Local Government organisational
representatives:
Note: Questions marked ** were not pursued past the first few interviews as
participants did not feel able to answer them.
1 Current implementation mechanisms to increase inclusion by strengthening
local communities
The State Disability Plan has 5 key priority strategies and one is to increase
inclusion of people with disabilities by strengthening local communities.
How relevant is the State Disability Plan strategy to increase inclusion of people with
disabilities by strengthening local communities for this local community and does it link
to the local disability plan? How or why not?
What has helped strengthen local communities to increase inclusion for people with
disabilities here?
What has hindered community strengthening and inclusion for people with disabilities
here?
Is community strengthening an effective strategy for increasing the inclusion of people
with disabilities in community life? How, why not, what’s more effective?
How useful have programmatic responses such as AAA and Metro/RuralAccess been to
increasing community inclusion? What will happen if the funding for these responses
diminishes or is cut?
Which local organisations and people with disabilities partner to implement actions that
result in increased inclusion and how does that planning and implementation occur?
257
Is disability planning integrated with community planning approaches consistent with the
State Policy A Fairer Victoria or is it addressed separately?
** Is community planning based on a comprehensive understanding of the community
and in this instance does the local disability profile given impairment type (intellectual,
physical, sensory, ABI and psychiatric) and impacts of lifestage, gender and culture?
** Is planning and implementing local responses to increase the inclusion of people with
disabilities different or more complex than responding to the needs of others in the
community? What gets addressed and what gets left out?
2 Implementation attributes:
Are there organisational advantages in planning and implementing actions that increase
the inclusion of people with disability in community life?
Is an inclusive approach to disability planning and implementation consistent with the
existing values, past experiences and needs in this local area?
Is inclusion a difficult policy objective to achieve for people with disabilities?
Are there any examples where increased inclusion has been successfully trialled?
Has the State Disability Plan had any observable impacts in relation to strengthening
local communities to increase inclusion of people with disabilities?
258
Schedule of questions for people with disabilities on local advisory committees:
1 Current implementation mechanisms to increase inclusion by strengthening
local communities
Note: Questions marked ** were not pursued past the first few interviews as participants
did not feel able to answer them.
The State Disability Plan has 5 key priority strategies and one is to increase
inclusion of people with disabilities by strengthening local communities.
How relevant is the State Disability Plan strategy to increase inclusion of people with
disabilities by strengthening local communities for this local community and does it link
to the local disability plan? How or why not?
What has helped strengthen local communities to increase inclusion for people with
disabilities here?
What has hindered community strengthening and inclusion for people with disabilities
here?
Is community strengthening an effective strategy increasing the inclusion of people with
disabilities in community life? How, why not, what’s more effective?
How useful have programmatic responses such as AAA and Metro/RuralAccess been to
increasing community inclusion? What will happen if the funding for these responses
diminishes or is cut?
Which local organisations and people with disabilities partner to implement actions that
result in increased inclusion and how does that planning and implementation occur?
259
Does disability planning seem integrated with community planning approaches consistent
with the State Policy A Fairer Victoria or is it addressed separately?
** Is community planning based on a comprehensive understanding of the community
and in this instance does the local disability profile given impairment type (intellectual,
physical, sensory, ABI and psychiatric) and impacts of lifestage, gender and culture?
** Is planning and implementing local responses to increase the inclusion of people with
disabilities different or more complex than responding to the needs of others in the
community and what gets addressed and what gets left out?
2 Implementation attributes:
What do you see as the advantages in planning and implementing actions that increase
the inclusion of people with disability in community life?
Is an inclusive approach to disability planning and implementation consistent with the
existing values, past experiences and needs in this local area?
Is inclusion a difficult policy objective to achieve for people with disabilities?
Are there any examples where increased inclusion has been successfully trialled?
Has the State Disability Plan had any observable impacts in relation to strengthening
local communities to increase inclusion of people with disabilities?
260
App
endi
x E
Ele
men
ts o
f a so
cial
incl
usio
n im
plem
enta
tion
mod
el
Rel
ativ
e ad
vant
age
Lev
el o
f G
over
nmen
t in
volv
ed
Ele
men
ts o
f a so
cial
incl
usio
n m
odel
N
S
L
Ref
eren
ce th
e na
tiona
l gov
ernm
ent’s
ratif
icat
ion
of th
e U
N C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Rig
hts o
f Per
sons
with
Dis
abili
ties a
nd th
e fo
rmal
link
bet
wee
n hu
man
righ
ts a
nd so
cial
incl
usio
n in
all
disa
bilit
y pl
anni
ng a
nd p
olic
y do
cum
ents
. ��
�
�
Ref
eren
ce th
e va
lues
of s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on a
s a fu
ndam
enta
l prin
cipl
e in
all
polic
y, p
rogr
ams,
legi
slat
ion
and
regu
latio
n.
�
�
�
Prom
ote
and
cele
brat
e pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ties w
ho p
artic
ipat
e in
and
con
tribu
te to
soci
al, e
cono
mic
and
cul
tura
l life
. �
�
�
Dev
elop
and
del
iver
com
mun
ity e
duca
tion
rega
rdin
g th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n al
l peo
ple,
incl
udin
g pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ty
parti
cipa
ting
in c
ivic
life
, and
the
form
atio
n of
a p
rodu
ctiv
e an
d ro
bust
dem
ocra
cy.
�
�
�
Con
sult
and
enga
ge p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s in
publ
ic d
isco
urse
and
ens
ure
that
thei
r par
ticip
atio
n re
sults
in p
olic
y,
prog
ram
s, le
gisl
atio
n an
d re
gula
tion
that
refle
ct th
eir e
xper
ienc
es o
f im
pairm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity a
nd g
iven
thei
r life
st
age,
gen
der,
cultu
re a
nd in
dige
nous
stat
us.
�
�
�
Doc
umen
t how
all
gove
rnm
ent p
olic
y, p
rogr
ams,
legi
slat
ion
and
regu
latio
n w
ill m
eet t
he n
eeds
of p
eopl
e w
ith
disa
bilit
ies,
reso
urce
s tha
t will
be
allo
cate
d to
ach
ieve
soci
al in
clus
ion
and
eval
uatio
n pr
oces
ses.
�
�
�
Esta
blis
h un
iver
sal m
echa
nism
s to
embe
d so
cial
incl
usio
n fo
r peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
n a
civi
c pa
rtici
patio
n m
odel
ra
ther
than
a p
rogr
amm
atic
mod
el w
ith sp
ecia
l res
ourc
e al
loca
tions
.
�
�
�
261
Com
patib
ility
Lev
el o
f G
over
nmen
t in
volv
ed
Ele
men
ts o
f a so
cial
incl
usio
n m
odel
N
S
L
Esta
blis
h so
cial
incl
usio
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs fo
r all
polic
ies a
nd p
rogr
ams t
o en
sure
that
incl
usio
n fo
r peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
s em
bedd
ed a
nd sy
stem
atis
ed.
��
�
�
Alig
n so
cial
incl
usio
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs to
incr
ease
soci
al in
clus
ion
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s w
ithin
all
polic
y, p
rogr
ams,
legi
slat
ion
and
regu
latio
n ac
ross
all
portf
olio
s and
juris
dict
ions
. �
�
�
Dev
elop
gui
delin
es a
nd p
ract
ice
note
s to
assi
st m
anag
ers a
nd o
ffic
ers i
mpl
emen
ting
soci
al in
clus
ion
acro
ss p
ortfo
lios
and
juris
dict
ions
. �
�
�
Iden
tify
oppo
rtuni
ties t
o in
crea
se so
cial
, eco
nom
ic a
nd c
ultu
ral i
nclu
sion
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s thr
ough
recr
uitm
ent
and
proc
urem
ent p
roce
sses
. �
�
�
Rou
tinel
y ad
dres
s soc
ial i
nclu
sion
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s at C
ounc
il of
Aus
tralia
n G
over
nmen
t (C
OA
G) m
eetin
gs
and
othe
r joi
nt n
atio
nal -
stat
e m
inis
ters
mee
tings
. �
�
Ret
ain
soci
al in
clus
ion
as th
e ce
ntre
piec
e of
Nat
iona
l Dis
abili
ty S
trate
gy n
egot
iatio
ns.
�
�
Com
mit
and
ensu
re se
nior
dep
artm
enta
l par
ticip
atio
n in
inte
rdep
artm
enta
l com
mitt
ees t
o m
onito
r soc
ial i
nclu
sion
im
plem
enta
tion
acro
ss p
ortfo
lios.
�
�
Rou
tinel
y ad
dres
s and
repo
rt on
soci
al in
clus
ion
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s at A
ustra
lian
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent A
ssoc
iatio
n an
d M
unic
ipal
Ass
ocia
tion
of V
icto
ria m
eetin
gs.
�
Com
mit
seni
or o
ffic
er p
artic
ipat
ion
in in
terd
epar
tmen
tal c
omm
ittee
s to
mon
itor s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on im
plem
enta
tion
acro
ss
coun
cil d
ivis
ions
, bus
ines
s pla
ns a
nd c
apita
l wor
ks p
rogr
ams.
�
262
Com
plex
ity
L
evel
of
Gov
ernm
ent
invo
lved
E
lem
ents
of a
soci
al in
clus
ion
mod
el
N
S
L
Scop
e an
d de
velo
p a
com
mon
def
initi
on o
f soc
ial i
nclu
sion
as a
shar
ed b
asis
for d
isab
ility
pol
icy
deve
lopm
ent a
nd
impl
emen
tatio
n in
Aus
tralia
. ��
�
�
Scop
e an
d de
fine
the
rela
tions
hip
and
cons
ider
atio
ns th
at im
pairm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity, l
ife st
age,
gen
der,
cultu
ral
and
indi
geno
us n
eeds
hav
e to
soci
al in
clus
ion
in th
e so
cial
, eco
nom
ic, n
atur
al, b
uilt
and
cultu
ral d
imen
sion
s of
com
mun
ity li
fe.
�
�
�
Tri
alab
ility
Lev
el o
f G
over
nmen
t in
volv
ed
Ele
men
ts o
f a so
cial
incl
usio
n m
odel
N
S
L
Req
uire
that
all
legi
slat
ion,
regu
latio
n, p
olic
y an
d pr
ogra
ms d
evel
op a
nd m
eet s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on ta
rget
s and
key
pe
rfor
man
ce in
dica
tors
to in
crea
se th
e in
clus
ion
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s. �
�
�
App
ly n
atio
nally
con
sist
ent c
onsu
ltativ
e m
echa
nism
s for
peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties a
t all
leve
ls o
f gov
ernm
ent,
com
mun
ity
and
serv
ice
orga
nisa
tions
. �
�
�
Intro
duce
nat
iona
lly c
onsi
stent
wor
kfor
ce d
evel
opm
ent s
tand
ards
bas
ed o
n a
com
mon
def
initi
on o
f soc
ial i
nclu
sion
and
so
cial
incl
usio
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs.
�
�
�
Incr
ease
the
empl
oym
ent o
f peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
n th
e pu
blic
sect
or a
nd im
plem
ent s
trate
gies
to in
crea
se
parti
cipa
tion
in o
ther
sect
ors.
�
�
�
Incl
ude
wor
kfor
ce d
evel
opm
ent a
nd so
cial
incl
usio
n ta
rget
s and
key
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs in
all
fund
ing
and
serv
ice
agre
emen
ts b
oth
with
in th
e di
sabi
lity
field
and
for a
ll ot
her g
oods
and
serv
ices
fund
ed o
r pro
cure
d by
pub
lic fu
nds.
�
�
�
263
Esta
blis
h a
natio
nal r
ecog
nitio
n pr
ogra
m to
ack
now
ledg
e an
d hi
ghlig
ht p
rogr
ess w
hen
soci
al in
clus
ion
targ
ets a
nd k
ey
perf
orm
ance
indi
cato
rs fo
r peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ty a
re e
xcee
ded.
��
�
�
Initi
ate
furth
er A
BS
surv
ey w
ork
and
qual
itativ
e st
udie
s to
deve
lop
a st
rong
er e
vide
nce
base
for i
nitia
tives
to e
xten
d so
cial
incl
usio
n ba
sed
on im
pairm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity, l
ife st
age,
gen
der,
cultu
re a
nd in
dige
nous
stat
us.
�
�
Prod
uce
a so
cial
atla
s pro
vidi
ng n
atio
nal,
stat
e, lo
cal a
nd c
olle
ctor
dis
trict
leve
l pro
files
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s bas
ed
on im
pairm
ent t
ype
and
com
plex
ity c
ross
tabu
late
d w
ith li
fe st
age,
gen
der,
cultu
re a
nd in
dige
nous
stat
us a
nd se
rvic
e us
age.
�
�
Prod
uce
rese
arch
pap
ers b
ased
on
soci
al a
tlas d
ata
to g
uide
loca
l pla
ce b
ased
initi
ativ
es to
impr
ove
soci
al in
clus
ion
for
peop
le e
xper
ienc
ing
spec
ific
impa
irmen
t typ
e an
d co
mpl
exity
, life
stag
e, g
ende
r, cu
lture
and
indi
geno
us st
atus
. �
�
Con
tinue
pro
gram
s and
reso
urce
s tha
t sup
port
the
trial
ling
of so
cial
incl
usio
n in
loca
l set
tings
. �
�
Esta
blis
h an
inte
rest
free
loan
fund
to su
ppor
t pub
lic a
nd p
rivat
e se
ctor
cap
ital i
mpr
ovem
ents
that
incr
ease
soci
al
incl
usio
n in
loca
l set
tings
such
as,
but n
ot li
mite
d to
, ram
ps, l
ifts,
toile
ts, a
ssis
tive
devi
ses a
nd te
chno
logy
, sig
nage
. �
�
Initi
ate
and
prom
ote
exem
plar
y be
nchm
ark
proj
ects
to d
emon
stra
te h
ow u
nive
rsal
des
ign
prin
cipl
es, a
cces
sibl
e an
d ad
apta
ble
hous
ing,
com
mun
ity tr
ansp
ort a
nd e
duca
tion,
trai
ning
and
em
ploy
men
t can
be
oper
atio
nalis
ed in
uni
vers
al
syst
ems.
�
�
Initi
ate
and
colla
bora
te o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of l
ocal
are
a di
sabi
lity
incl
usio
n pl
ans b
etw
een
stat
e an
d lo
cal g
over
nmen
t.
�
�
Shar
e da
ta fr
om in
divi
dual
serv
ice
plan
ning
that
cou
ld re
sult
in th
e fo
rmat
ion
of g
roup
act
iviti
es o
r the
inte
grat
ion
of
peop
le w
ith p
artic
ular
inte
rest
s int
o es
tabl
ishe
d lo
cal a
ctiv
ities
at l
ocal
leve
ls.
�
�
Esta
blis
h op
erat
iona
l pla
ns a
nd p
ract
ice
note
s for
stat
e ge
nera
ted
enha
ncem
ents
to b
uild
ing
stan
dard
s, pu
blic
tran
spor
t an
d ta
xi im
prov
emen
ts, e
duca
tion
and
hous
ing.
�
�
Col
labo
rate
on
loca
l tria
ls to
impr
ove
com
mun
ity tr
ansp
ort.
�
�
Esta
blis
h an
inde
pend
ent c
lear
ing
hous
e to
iden
tify
and
prom
ote
soci
al in
clus
ion
initi
ativ
es in
loca
l are
as, e
stab
lish
cons
iste
nt c
ase
stud
ies a
nd im
plem
ent a
stra
tegi
c co
mm
unic
atio
n an
d pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent p
rogr
am a
s the
bas
is fo
r
�
�
264
wor
kfor
ce d
evel
opm
ent i
n th
e pu
blic
, com
mun
ity a
nd se
rvic
e se
ctor
s.
Intro
duce
ass
ertiv
e ou
treac
h an
d so
cial
mar
ketin
g to
iden
tify
peop
le w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s in
loca
l com
mun
ities
.
��
Impl
emen
t stru
ctur
es, c
omm
unic
atio
n an
d en
gage
men
t tec
hniq
ues t
hat e
nabl
e pe
ople
with
all
impa
irmen
t typ
es to
pa
rtici
pate
in c
omm
unity
pla
nnin
g.
�
Impl
emen
t com
mun
icat
ion
and
enga
gem
ent t
echn
ique
s tha
t ena
ble
peop
le w
ith a
ll im
pairm
ent t
ypes
to p
artic
ipat
e in
lo
cal g
over
nanc
e an
d re
giste
r com
plai
nts o
r im
prov
emen
t ide
as.
�
Esta
blis
h ad
voca
cy to
arg
ue fo
r suf
ficie
nt n
atio
nal a
nd st
ate
gove
rnm
ent f
unde
d se
rvic
es, p
rogr
ams a
nd su
ppor
ts.
�
Ensu
re th
at a
ll co
unci
l run
faci
litie
s hav
e as
sist
ive
devi
ces a
nd te
chno
logi
es a
vaila
ble
to e
nabl
e pa
rtici
patio
n an
d th
at a
ll w
ebsi
te a
nd p
rinte
d in
form
atio
n is
ava
ilabl
e in
mul
tiple
form
ats.
�
Con
duct
soci
al in
clus
ion
audi
ts in
col
labo
ratio
n w
ith p
eopl
e w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s and
loca
l ser
vice
s, co
mm
unity
or
gani
satio
ns a
nd tr
ader
s to
com
plem
ent l
ocal
ac c
ess a
udits
that
focu
s on
phys
ical
, soc
ial,
econ
omic
, cul
tura
l and
en
viro
nmen
tal a
cces
s to
loca
l are
as.
�
Impl
emen
t soc
ial i
nclu
sion
aud
its to
iden
tify
barr
iers
that
lim
it in
clus
ion
to lo
cal c
omm
unity
cen
tres,
neig
hbou
rhoo
d ho
uses
, lib
rarie
s, pa
rks,
sea t
ing,
toile
ts, w
ater
way
s, pl
aygr
ound
s, w
alki
ng a
nd c
ycle
pat
hs, r
echa
rge
poin
ts, s
ports
fa
cilit
ies,
loca
l sho
ppin
g st
rips a
nd c
entre
s, fe
stiv
als,
cultu
ral a
ctiv
ities
, vol
unte
erin
g pr
ogra
ms,
envi
ronm
ent
enha
ncem
ent p
rogr
ams,
coun
cil s
ervi
ces a
nd o
ther
loca
l ser
vice
s.
�
Use
com
mun
ity g
rant
s and
loca
l lea
ders
hip
train
ing
as m
echa
nism
s to
incr
ease
the
incl
usio
n of
peo
ple
with
dis
abili
ties i
n lo
cal c
omm
uniti
es.
�
Supp
ort l
ocal
spor
ting,
cul
tura
l and
oth
er c
omm
unity
org
anis
atio
ns to
incr
ease
the
incl
usio
n of
peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
ies.
�
265
Cha
ract
eris
tic o
f inn
ovat
ion:
Obs
erva
bilit
y L
evel
of
Gov
ernm
ent
invo
lved
E
lem
ents
of a
soci
al in
clus
ion
mod
el
N
S L
Esta
blis
h an
d m
onito
r soc
ial i
nclu
sion
targ
ets a
nd k
ey p
erfo
rman
ce in
dica
tors
for a
ll po
licie
s and
pro
gram
s del
iver
ed b
y na
tiona
l, st
ate
and
loca
l gov
ernm
ents
. ��
�
�
Esta
blis
h st
anda
rds f
or so
cial
incl
usio
n in
the
dim
ensi
ons o
f com
mun
ity li
fe.
�
�
�
Bas
e al
l pla
ns o
n th
e ag
reed
soci
al in
clus
ion
defin
ition
s, ta
rget
s and
stan
dard
s tha
t can
be
mea
sure
d do
wn
to a
loca
l go
vern
men
t set
ting.
�
�
�
Prov
ide
regu
lar,
inde
pend
ent a
nd c
ompa
rativ
e re
porti
ng o
f pro
gres
s and
mak
e th
is in
form
atio
n av
aila
ble
to th
e pu
blic
. �
�
�
Dev
elop
a m
echa
nism
to e
nact
cha
nge
as a
resu
lt of
repo
rting
. �
�
�
Not
e: N
repr
esen
ts A
ustra
lian
gove
rnm
ent a
ctio
ns, S
repr
esen
ts V
icto
rian
gove
rnm
ent a
ctio
ns a
nd L
repr
esen
ts V
icto
rian
loca
l go
vern
men
t act
ions