Report of the Research/Consultancy project funded by the
Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Service, undertaken by Ramdas
Sankaran for
on behalf of the Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre.
June 2001
Contents
Page
Acknowledgements 3
Acronyms 4
Foreword 5
Executive Summary 6
Recommendation 7
Project Background
and Rationale 8
Project Objectives 9
Project Outcomes 9
Project
Implementation 10
Ethnic profile of
people with disabilities 10
Regional
consultations 13
Summary of barriers
identified 15
Integrated Rural
Disability Advocacy Service Strategy 16
Service Delivery
Options 19
Choice of Service
Delivery Options 22
Achievement of
Project objectives and Outcomes 22
Conclusion 24
Appendix 1 Media
Release 27
Appendix 2 Article
and Paid advertisement in the North West Telegraph 28
Appendix 3 Service
Delivery Options Feedback Schedule 29
Appendix 4 MALSSA’s
Riverland advocacy Project 30
The project consultant wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the project Steering Committee for their substantial input and support throughout all stages of the report. The Committee comprised:
· Dr. Anne Atkinson (chair)
· Ms. Jenny Au Yeong
· Ms. Sophie Jasinski
·
Mr. Nara
Srinivasan
The input and participation of the following agencies were also valuable in planning and implementing this project. They are in alphabetical order:
Aged Care Program, Health Services (Geraldton)
Bunbury Italian Club
Bunbury Migrant Resource Group
Career Network Employment Service, Karratha
City of
Disability Services Commission (
Forrest Personnel
Geraldton Community Day Centre
Geraldton Home Help
Geraldton Personnel
Geraldton Regional Education Centre
Hedland Personnel
Islamic Association of Katanning
Islamic Association of the
Nort Pilbara Health Service
Pilbara Development Commission
Pilbara Home Care Inc.
Pilbara Individual and Family Support Association
Roeburn Shire
Rural Children’s Support Network (Hedland and Karratha)
South West Citizen Advocacy
South West Mental Health Service
Town of
Uniting Church Frontier Service – Hedland and Karratha
Special thanks are due to all individuals who participated in the regional consultation forums (who’s names are not included for privacy reasons) to Moss Polites, Executive Officer of MALSSA for his input and for making available a copy of the Riverland Project proposal and to DSC, the Bunbury Migrant Resource Group, Geraldton Regional Education Centre, Islamic Association of Katanning and the Uniting Church Frontier Service – Hedland and Karratha for their assistance in organising the regional consultations.
This project could not have been undertaken but for the
funding provided by the Department of Family and Community Services and the
top-up funding provided by
Acronyms
ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
BMRG Bunbury Migrant Resource Group
CDAA (proposed) Country Disability Advocacy Alliance
CSS Community Settlement Service
Worker funded by DIMA
DIMA Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs
DSC Disability Services Commission.
EDAC Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre
ECU Edith Cowan University
DFACS Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services
GREC Geraldton Regional Education Centre
HREOC Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
MALSSA Multicultural
Advocacy and Liaison Service of
NDAC National Disability Advisory Council
NDAP National Disability Advocacy Program
NESB Non-English Speaking Backgrounds
PWD People
With Disabilities
Foreword
The Reaching Out Through Partnerships project, which seeks to address the disability advocacy needs of ethnic regional and rural Western Australians, is an important milestone for the Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre (EDAC).
Whilst the Centre has always had a statewide brief, funding constraints have limited its non-metropolitan involvement to its 1800 free call facility. Even this facility has not been publicized or promoted in regional and rural areas. Not surprisingly, EDAC has attracted only 2-3 requests for assistance from non-metropolitan areas via this free call facility, since its inception some 5 years ago.
The funding of this
research/consultancy project by the Commonwealth Department of Family and
Community Service and the
The project report confirms
our Centre’s views that people with disabilities from non-English speaking
background communities living in regional and rural areas face significant
barriers which affect their access to services.
As the title of this project suggests its planning and implementation involved building effective partnerships between government agencies commonwealth, state and local, academia, ethnic people with disabilities, ethnic groups and organizations and mainstream service providers in regional and rural areas and EDAC.
Its recommendations also offer exciting opportunities for partnerships between these stakeholders in addressing the unmet disability advocacy needs of ethnic regional and rural Western Australians. One such opportunity is to establish a Country Disability Advocacy Alliance comprising EDAC, People With Disabilities and other advocacy organizations with a statewide brief.
The implementation of the recommendations, if funded by the Commonwealth and state governments, also poses interesting challenges for EDAC. It will require it to step outside its service boundaries i.e. non-English speaking backround people with disabilities.
It is hoped that the Commonwealth and state government will respond positively and swiftly to the report’s recommendations to harness the goodwill that exists between the various stakeholders in their efforts to obtain a fair deal for ethnic regional and rural Western Australians.
On behalf of the Centre I wish
to thank the Department of Family and Community Services and
Sophie Jasinski Dr. Anne Atkinson
President Vice President and Chair
Project Steering Committee
1 Executive
Summary
1.1
Regional and rural areas of
1.2 Government funded disability advocacy services are virtually non-existent in most regional and rural areas and it is therefore opportune to establish a Country Disability Advocacy Alliance (CDAA) comprising EDAC, PWD and other “independent” advocacy organizations with a statewide brief.
1.3
The outcomes of the consultation forums held in the targeted regional areas
were broadly the same. With one exception all participants indicated that
disability advocacy services should be provided locally and not through a
visiting service from
1.4 The barriers to accessing disability services identified by participants, as well as their choice of service delivery models, were not dissimilar from region to region (paragraph 6.9). They are grouped under the following headings.
Ø Lack of awareness and understanding of Disability services
and their roles
Ø Attitudinal barriers
Ø General lack of disability services locally,
Ø Cultural in-appropriateness in Service delivery
Ø Language
Ø Complexity of Service access
Other
barriers identified include
Ø
Lack of
ethnicity data, especially English language proficiency and cultural background
makes service planning difficult
Ø
Difficult to
access
Ø
Inadequate
local public transport
Ø
Disability
services in
Ø
Disability
Employment and training opportunities are limited or non-existent
1.5 An integrated rural/regional disability advocacy strategy should comprise at least the following.
2 Recommendations
It is recommended that:
2.1
the Commonwealth and state government consider providing funding to:
2.1.1 the Bunbury Migrant Resource Group and the Geraldton Regional Education Centre to operate an ethnic disability advocacy service in their regions through the employment of p/t advocacy workers or advocacy workers on a sessional basis;
2.1.2 the Bunbury Italian Club to provide disability advocacy
services for Italo-Australians living in the Bunbury region, through the
employment of advocacy workers on a sessional basis;
2.1.3 The Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre to:
·
Establish a
pool of bilingual disability advocacy workers who can be employed on a
sessional basis, at all regional and rural centers. (this be implemented on a
staggered basis over 3 years)
·
Develop and
implement a cross-cultural training package and offer training to regional and
rural disability service providers;
·
Establish an
outposted service in Bunbury/or Geraldton if recommendation 2.1.1 is considered
inappropriate/impracticable. Such an outposted service whilst providing
priority access to ethnic and indigenous people with disabilities, will be open
to all regardless of their ethnicity’
2.2 EDAC explore funding options that will enable it to implement an internet based multilingual disability information service. Additionally, it should approach the commonwealth to publicise the eligibility criteria for mobility allowance; through direct mail out to those not receiving it but are already receiving a disability payment and to others through the ethnic media, relevant ethnic associations and organisations which service migrants and ethnic communities.
2.3 EDAC explore the feasibility of establishing a Country Disability Advocacy Alliance with other bodies such as PWD and DDU, which have a statewide disability advocacy brief.
3 Project
Background and Rationale:
3.1 The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2000, P11) found that,
“People with
disabilities from non-English speaking background communities sometimes
experience multiple layers of discrimination-discrimination on the basis of
disability, race or ethnicity, gender or sexuality. Invariably discrimination
results in isolation, fear, exclusion and alienation.”
3.2 It also highlighted
significant barriers, which affect these people, many of which have been
confirmed by the findings of this project. In seeking to address the disability
advocacy needs of ethnic regional and rural Western Australians, EDAC
highlighted the following in its project proposal:
·
WA has the
highest proportion of overseas born compared to other states in
·
Mainstream and
disability services have been unable to adequately reflect or respond to this
cultural diversity.
·
Ethnic Western
Australians, like their counterparts are also largely resident in
·
There is an
indisputable under-representation of those with a disability from a NESB, in
service usage across the board, throughout
·
Ethnic people
with disabilities who live in rural and regional areas are much more likely to
be under represented in such service usage figures, than their metropolitan
counterparts. This is because they do not have access to a range of
ethno-specific and multicultural advocacy and other services where they live in
addition to other factors, applicable to ethnic people regardless of their
place of residence, e.g. inadequate English proficiency, racism.
·
Despite its
significance, many state and commonwealth departments and community-based
agencies have not adequately addressed the factors that contribute to the
under-utilisation of services by NESB people, in planning their programs and
delivering their services.
·
Whilst EDAC is
funded as a statewide service the funding and consequent staffing realities
have limited its services to the Perth Metropolitan area and its environs.
·
Although it
has offered a 1800 free call assistance facility, since its inception some 5
years ago, EDAC had attracted only 2-3 requests for assistance from
non-metropolitan areas.
·
This project
has the potential to substantially increase EDAC’s capacity to respond to
requests for assistance from non-metropolitan areas by identifying initiatives
to address this situation.
3.3 The Steering Committee, which reviewed the National Disability Advocacy Program in its report observed:
“While valuing choice, quality and access and appropriate balance in
the nature and distribution of advocacy services must be sought. The Committee considers that the advocacy
program should seek to utilise the current specialist expertise and skills to
best effect and should develop a range of strategies to improve advocacy for
people with disabilities who are from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
backgrounds, diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and rural and remote
communities.”
3.4
The Committee accordingly made the following recommendation
‘that
strategies to address the needs of people with disabilities from Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds
and rural and remote communities be developed in consultation with advocacy
services.’
3.5 In brief, this project has sought to achieve the objective of that recommendation as it seeks to address the needs of people with disabilities from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and rural and remote communities and will also impact on people with disabilities from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds.
4 Project Objectives
The project sought to achieve the following objectives.
· Promote the rights of ethnic people with disabilities living
in regional and rural
· Provide relevant information on service options that will
meet the needs of individuals with disability from such backgrounds.
· Raise awareness and understanding of advocacy in a
disability context within these communities.
· Identify potential or existing barriers to service access,
by consulting and working with members of these communities, as well as ethnic
consumers groups and disability groups in the chosen regions.
· Recommend measures to effectively address identified
barriers, including potential for partnership arrangements between EDAC and
suitable agencies as well as use of teleconferencing facilities, in the
targeted areas.
· Develop of a theoretical model for servicing ethnic people with disabilities in regional/rural areas.
·
Compile of an
ethno-linguistic disability profile of targeted areas using statistics
available cost-free through ABS, Centrelink and Disability Services Commission.
5 Project Outcomes:
The project sought to achieve the following outcomes:
· Increase the awareness and general understanding of advocacy services within the disability context, amongst ethnic people with disabilities, their families and carers in the targeted regional and rural areas.
·
Significantly
enhance their access to disability advocacy services that are culturally and
linguistically appropriate. This will be achieved only in the period following
the consultancy.
6 Project
Implementation:
6.1 The
original intention of this pilot project was to focus on two regional/rural
areas i.e. the Port Hedland/ Karratha region and Bunbury, with a limited focus
on Kattaning, to achieve the objectives outlined in paragraph 3. As a
consequence of additional funding provided by
· an additional region, i.e. Geraldton;
· the development of a theoretical model for servicing ethnic people with disabilities in regional/rural areas; and the
· compilation of an ethno-linguistic disability profile of targeted areas using statistics available cost-free through ABS, Centrelink and Disability Services Commission
6.2 It was intended that the project would involve the following.
· Compilation of an ethno-linguistic disability profile of the targeted areas.
· Consultation and needs analysis.
· Information dissemination, promotion and publicity.
· Exploring/developing partnership arrangements.
6.3 Ethnic profile
of people with disabilities
It was intended that this profile would be compiled by using service data from Centrelink, the Disability Services Commission (DSC) as well as general demographic data available from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
The DSC was not able to provide relevant data of its service
usage but provided some Centrelink data. Additional data was obtained through
Centrelink’s National Multicultural Services.
In developing a profile of ethnic people with disabilities
and their carers the following Centrelink data was used:
·
Disability
Support Pension
·
Carers Payment
·
Carers
Allowance and the
·
Age Pension
Bunbury accounted
for the largest number of NESB people with disabilities and carers as well as
people who are more prone to disabilities than the general population i.e. age
related disabilities. Geraldton accounted
for the next largest number of the target population followed by Hedland,
Kattaning and Karratha.
The compilation of an accurate profile of ethnic people with disabilities their families and carers, is fraught with difficulties. The many definitions of what constitutes a disability, the many dimensions of ethnicity and the fact that service providers and agencies such as the ABS do not collect data which are uniform makes the task of compiling a comprehensive profile virtually impossible. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission identified some of these difficulties in its report, On the Sidelines.
The project steering committee reviewed the profile compiled by the project consultant from data obtained from the ABS, DSC and Centrelink and has recommended that it be used for a separate publication on the profile of ethnic people with disabilities and their families. The following tables provide a profile of NESB recipients of selected Centrelink payments and a broad country of birth profile of ethnic people with disabilities in the targeted areas.
Table 1 NESB
Recipients of Selected Centrelink Payments by Region
|
Region |
Disability
Support Pension |
Carers
payments |
Carers
Allowance |
Age Pension |
|
Bunbury |
80 |
4 |
29 |
383 |
|
Geraldton |
57 |
1 |
14 |
245 |
|
Hedland |
38 |
4 |
12 |
28 |
|
Katanning |
16 |
2 |
2 |
40 |
|
Karratha |
6 |
0 |
3 |
9 |
Mobility Allowance is not included in the table as only two NESB
persons in the targeted regions (Geraldton and Hedland) received it.
Table 2 Main Ethnic Groups by
Region
|
Region |
Main ethnic groups |
|
Bunbury |
The
Italian-born were the largest group followed by the Dutch Polish, and those
born in the former |
|
Geraldton |
The
Italian-born were the largest group followed by the Dutch, German-born and
those born in |
|
Hedland |
Those
born in in Cristmas and |
|
Katanning |
The
Italian-born were the largest group followed by those born in the |
|
Karratha |
Those
born in the former |
6.4 Consultation and Needs Analysis
The consultation and needs analysis involved:
· Arranging meetings with representatives of groups and organisations in the targeted areas (Karratha, Port Headland, Kattaning and Bunbury) to establish how best their member’s knowledge and awareness of disability issues can be enhanced and to ascertain what problems they are experiencing in accessing disability services.
· Using the outcomes of those meetings and other relevant materials to determine the disability advocacy needs of ethnic regional and rural Western Australians
6.5 Information
dissemination
The information dissemination initiatives comprised the
following:
·
Conducting
information forums for people with disabilities and their carers and
representatives of ethnic organisations on relevant legislation, policies,
practices and programs.
·
Organising
broadcasts of disability issues, including preparation of the script for the
same and participation in radio interviews through local Radio, where possible.
·
Developing a
series of articles for publications in relevant community newspapers and
newsletters.
·
Developing
flyers, posters targeting ethnic people with disabilities, their families and carers.
6.6
Exploring/Developing partnership arrangements
Meetings were held with suitable agencies to explore the feasibility of establishing partnership arrangements to address the advocacy needs of ethnic people with disabilities, their families and carers and to explore the potential to use teleconferencing facilities, in the targeted areas.
6.7 Publicity and
promotion
The project publicity and promotion involved the following:
·
Media Release
(Appendix 1)
·
Media
interviews with ABC regional Radio and SBS Radio
·
Article in the
·
Paid
advertisement in the North West Telegraph publicizing the Hedland and Karratha
forums. (Appendix 2)
·
Invitations to
participate in forums, mailing lists developed in close co-operation with
relevant ethnic and disability service providers.
·
Efforts made
by ethnic and disability service providers to promote the forum amongst their
consumers and colleagues.
Given that the project had no budgetary provisions for
publicity, the coverage generated was quite high. All agencies participating in
the project were also provided with summary project proposals for inclusion in
their newsletter and many of them have requested a summary of the project
findings, which they can use in their newsletters.
6.8 Project Steering
Committee
A project steering committee comprising the following was established to facilitate implementation of the project:
·
Dr. Anne
Atkinson (Chair)
·
Ms. Sophie
Jasinski
·
Ms. Jenny Au
Yeong
·
Mr. Nara
Srinivasan
·
Ramdas
Sankaran (Project Consultant)
The committee’s input in relation to both planning and
implementation of the project was critical in achieving the desired project
objectives and outcomes.
6.9 Regional
consultations
6.9.1 Consultation Format
Consultations forums were held in Bunbury, Geraldton, Hedland and Karratha and invitations for the same were finalised in consultations with the Bunbury Migrant resource Group, Geraldton Regional Education Centre and Disability agencies and the Uniting Church Frontier Services’ Community Settlement Officers in Hedland and Karratha. Local RSVP contacts were provided and invitees were also provided with the project consultant’s mobile number. Kattaning consultations were held only with representatives of the Islamic Association.
The format of the consultations was as follows:
·
Introduction
·
Presentation
of Information on Disability Services (question time)
·
Refreshment
break
·
Identification
of Barriers
·
Discussion on
options to address disability advocacy needs in the region
6.9.2 Information Dissemination
Written information was provided by way of brochures by all participating agencies. Other information brochures distributed include income support payments of Centrelink and various mental health conditions. Two agencies that were not able to participate in the forums in Geraldton and Bunbury agreed to make presentations information sessions to be held at the Geraldton Regional Education Centre and the Bunbury Migrant Resource Group.
Twenty four people attended the consultation forum,
which was held on 20 March at the
Presentations were made by the
following agencies:
·
·
South West
Citizen Advocacy
·
State Mental
Health Service
·
EDAC
The Geraldton forum was held on 27 March at the
Geraldton Regional Education Centre (GREC) and twelve of the twenty four
community representatives invited attended. The Greek community representative
was not able to attend but the project consultant met with him to obtain his
views.
Presentations were made by:
·
Geraldton Home
Help
·
Geraldton
Community Day Centre
·
Aged Care
Program Health Services
·
Disability
Services Commission
·
Geraldton Personnel
·
EDAC
The first 2 agencies were not able to participate but the
Manager of the third agency made presentations on their behalf.
The Hedland forum was held on 1May at the South Hedland
Lotteries House. Despite invitations being sent to all ethnic groups known to
the Pilbara Development Commission and the CSS worker at the Uniting Church
Frontier Service and the coverage of the forum in the South West Telegraph
which included an article and a paid advertisement, only 10 people attended the
forum. Three community representatives who did not attend the forum met with
the project consultant or relayed their views via phone.
Presentations were made by:
·
Pilbara Home
Care Inc.
·
Centerlink
·
Rural
Children’s Support Network
·
Disability
Services Commission
·
EDAC
The Karratha forum was held on 2 May at the Uniting Church
Frontier Service. As was the case with Hedland, invitations were sent to all
ethnic groups known to the Pilbara Development Commission and the CSS worker at
the Uniting Church Frontier Service besides coverage of the forum in the South
West Telegraph. Twelve people attended the forum.
Presentations were made by:
·
Pilbara Home
Care Inc.
·
Rural
Children’s Support Network
·
·
Disability
Services Commission
·
Career Network
Employment Service
·
EDAC
Christmas
and Cocos Islander Malays are the only ethnic group in Kattaning that has an
association to represent its interests. On
the advice of their Association it was decided that its representatives would
meet with the project consultant and the Disability Services Commission’s
Narrogin LAC on May, rather than attend a consultation forum similar to those
organized in the other targeted regions.
Two of the Association representatives who met with the project
consultant on May work for the Family
and Children’s Services and Home and Community Care Program in Kattaning.
7 Summary of
barriers identified
7.1 Barriers to accessing disability services that were identified by participants in the Bunbury forum and other stakeholders in Bunbury were compiled and given to participants in subsequent forums. They were taken through them and asked to cross out any that they thought were not appropriate and to add others that were relevant to their region. None of the barriers identified in Bunbury were crossed out in subsequent forums but some additional barriers were identified.
7.2 The barriers that were identified in relation to accessing Disability Services in the targeted regional areas have been grouped under the following headings. Many of them are relevant to more than one heading.
7.3 Lack of awareness
and understanding of Disability services and their roles
Ø
Not aware of
Disability services and their roles.
Ø
Not aware of
the appeals process of Disability agencies.
Ø
Lack of
information and difficulty in accessing information on Disability services
Ø
Not aware of
income support e.g. mobility allowance, carers payment.
Ø
Not aware of
funding available through DSC.
Ø
Concepts of
respite/Disability are “Foreign” to some cultures.
Ø
Not aware of
services such as EDAC, PWD etc
Ø
Not aware of
the Disability Discrimination Act
7.4 Attitudinal barriers
Ø Stigma related to disabilities prevents ethnic groups from
accessing services.
Ø Racism.
7.5 General lack of
disability services locally,
Ø
particularly
in relation to ethnic specific services e.g. employment, respite care, mental
health, meals on wheels, recreation etc
Ø
Lack of local
disability advocacy services that are culturally and linguistically
appropriate.
Ø
Access to
Carers grants - very/difficult and often denied.
Ø
Lack Carers
assistance especially after hours.
7.6 Cultural
in-appropriateness in Service delivery
Ø
Many Services
don't use interpreters.
Ø
Service
providers make wrong cultural assumptions in determining client needs.
Ø
Disability
services staff Lack of cross-cultural awareness.
Ø
Lack of
trained bilingual/bicultural workers
7.7 Language
Ø
Inadequate
English language proficiency
Ø
No access to
Local interpreters; telephone interpreters is not a convenient option.
Ø
Complex
service structure/assessment procedures deter people using/accessing services.
Ø
Difficult to
negotiate appeal processes.
7.9 Other Barriers
Ø
Lack of
ethnicity data, especially English language proficiency and cultural background
makes planning of services difficult.
Ø
Difficult to
access
Ø
Inadequate
local public transport
Ø
Disability
services in
Ø
Disability
Employment and training opportunities are limited or non-existent.
8.1 Participants in
the consultations held at Bunbury, Geraldton, Kattaning, Hedland and Karratha
were requested to provide feedback on service delivery options outlined in
Appendix 3, which was suitably amended to reflect key organisations in the
region.
8.2 Besides
this feedback, Regional/rural service delivery approaches of other
organisations have also been taken into account in proposing an integrated
rural/regional disability advocacy service model for ethnic Western
Australians. These include the visiting
services offered by
8.3 An
integrated rural/regional disability advocacy service strategy should reflect
interalia the:
·
Size and
distribution of the target population (i.e. ethnic people with disabilities and
their carers);
·
Disability
advocacy infra-structure in the region;
·
Ethnic/multicultural
support structures in the region;
·
Distance from
metropolitan
· Concerns and aspirations of the target population.
In the case of the regions targeted for this project, there
are significant variations in relation to all of the above factors and these
are discussed in paragraphs 8.3.1 to 8.3.5.
Most importantly such a model should not compromise the essential
features of advocacy i.e.
There are no data sources that can be
used to accurately estimate the size and distribution of the target population
i.e. People with disabilities and their families. Under the circumstances, Centrelink data in
relation to Disability Support Pension (DSP), Mobility Allowance (MA), Carers
Payment (CP) and Carers Allowance (CA) is perhaps the best source given the
eligibility criteria that have to be met to qualify for these payments. Additionally, Age Pension data has also been
used as they indicate “potential age related incidence of disability”.
There are wide variations in the size of
the target population and in terms of its diversity and distribution as well. A
locally based advocacy service was preferred to all other service delivery
options by the vast majority of people consulted. However, there has to be a
critical mass of “consumers” to ensure cost-effectiveness of a model, which
involves the appointment of a full/part-time advocacy officer. Apart from Bunbury and to a lesser extent
Geraldton, none of the other regional/rural centres in W.A. have CALD
populations that could provide this critical mass.
8.3.2 Disability
Advocacy Infrastructure
There are no Commonwealth/State funded
“independent” disability advocacy services in Hedland, Karratha and
Kattaning. In the case of Bunbury,
Advocare provides an advocacy service, which can be accessed by people with
disabilities who live in nursing homes, or use HACC services. Bunbury also has a “citizen advocacy” service
provided through South West Citizen Advocacy.
WA’s two main disability advocacy
organisations “People with Disabilities and the Ethnic Disability Advocacy
Centre” are based in
The Disability Services Commission has
Local Area Co-ordinators (LAC) in all targeted areas except Kattaning, which is
currently serviced by the LAC based in Narrogin. The LAC’s provide some
advocacy service but there are clear limitations to the services that they can
provide, in this regard, given their public sector employment status as well as
the essential features of advocacy.
8.3.3 Ethnic/Multicultural
Support Services
Bunbury
The only dedicated multicultural
information/advocacy support service provided/funded by the Commonwealth in the
South West is a p/t Migrant Services Officer (1.5 days a week) Centrelink
position based in Bunbury. There are no
DIMA funded Community Settlement officers in this region.
The two main multicultural/ethnic
organisations in Bunbury i.e. The Bunbury Migrant Resource Group and the
Italian Club do not get any government funding to provide services solely or
substantially directed to ethnic people.
Kattaning:
There are no State/Commonwealth funded
multicultural/ethno-specific services.
The Islamic Association does not employ any social welfare/support staff
but seeks to support its members to the best of its ability.
Other targeted areas:
DIMA funds the Geraldton Regional
Education Centre and the Uniting Church Frontier Service to employ a part-time
community settlement worker for 19 hours per week in Geraldton and Karratha
and, for 30 hours per week in Hedland.
Their prime focus is to address the settlement needs of newly arrived
migrants and refugees and they do not have the capacity to provide disability
advocacy services from within existing budgetary resources. There are a few ethnic/multicultural
organisations but none of them have the infrastructure or resources to provide
disability advocacy services nor do they provide any other social welfare
service.
Whilst there are significant differences
between the targeted regions in terms of the number and nature of organisations
equipped to provide multicultural/ethno specific services their resources are
fully stretched and hence are not capable of extending new services without
funding being provided for the same.
8.3.4
Distances from
There are substantial differences in the
proximity of the targeted locations to
8.3.5
Concerns and
Aspirations of the target population
Whilst the views conveyed in this section
are based on qualitative feedback rather than a “substantive quantitative
survey”, they are reflective of the target population, as a wide cross section
of local ethnic community representatives and service providers participated in
the forums.
To ensure consistency views were sought
using the questions outlined in appendix 3. Not all participants completed this
schedule but opportunities were provided to discuss them at the forum. Views of representatives of ethnic
communities who did not attend the forum were also obtained.
The absence of a locally based culturally
appropriate “professional” disability advocacy service emerged as a major
concern and barrier to accessing disability services. These concerns are
further accentuated by the absence of professional mainstream disability
advocacy services in regional and rural W.A. The barriers to accessing disability
services as identified by participants (summarised in paragraph 7), highlight
the need for an effective culturally and linguistically diverse disability
advocacy service in regional/rural WA.
As mentioned previously the overwhelming
majority of people consulted indicated a clear preference for a locally based
service.
In the case of Bunbury and Geraldton there was strong
support for funding to be provided to the Bunbury Migrant Resource Group and
the Geraldton Regional Education Centre to employ a p/t advocacy officer. There
was also some support for such funding to be provided to the Uniting Church
Frontier Service in the case of Hedland and Karratha and the Islamic
Association in the case of Kattaning.
There was also some support for funding these agencies as
well as the Bunbury Italian Club to employ bilingual advocacy workers on a
sessional basis, as the need arises.
Given the abovementioned context, an integrated
rural/regional disability advocacy service delivery approach should incorporate
a range of options. These are discussed
below.
Service delivery options outlined in Appendix 3
were suitably modified to reflect each region and used to obtain feedback from
forum participants. When the outcomes of the consultation forums and meetings
with agencies in targeted regions are taken into account, it is abundantly
clear that “a one size fits all approach to disability advocacy service
delivery in regions is neither appropriate nor economically feasible.
9.1 Use of Telecommunication
Technology
There was a strong support for the use of such technology
for the information, dissemination component of an advocacy service but there
was much less support for this technology in providing advocacy services.
Promoting the use of EDAC’s services through its 1800 phone
facility and through its web pages were strongly supported for information
dissemination purposes although it was stressed that the latter in particular
had its limitations as many people were computer illiterate/did not have access
to the Internet.
Surprisingly there was a great reluctance to use video
conferencing facilities although this technology is clearly more conducive to
communication from an information/advocacy perspective than either the 1800 or
the web page options. Given the
reticence of the people who were consulted, it would be unwise for too much
emphasis to be place on this option, at this stage. Hopefully, this will change
in the medium and longer terms.
9.2 Visiting
Services
Whilst a
9.3 Outposted
Service
The flexibility of EDAC operating an “outposted” service in
the targeted areas was not canvassed and only one participant raised the
prospect of EDAC starting a local group.
MALSSA, EDAC’s South Australian counterpart is currently in the process of establishing such a service in the Riverland Region.
·
Provide a
first point of referral for individual advocacy to other safe-guard mechanisms
and in-particular to other members of the South Australian Disability Advocacy
Country Network; and
As mentioned previously, there has to be
a critical mass of “consumers” to ensure cost-effectiveness of a model, which
involves the appointment of a full/part-time advocacy officer. Apart from Bunbury and to a lesser extent
Geraldton, none of the other regional/rural centres in W.A. have CALD
populations that could provide this critical mass.
EDAC is well placed to operate a MALSSA-style regional advocacy service (Appendix 4) in either Bunbury or Geraldton. As in the case of the Riverland Project whilst priority access would be granted to ethnic and indigenous consumers the service will be available to all regardless of their ethnicity and nature of disability.
9.4 Sessional Pool of Bilingual Advocacy Workers
Access to disability advocacy services in regional centres which do not have a critical mass of consumers to warrant the establishment of part-time advocacy officers, would be greatly enhanced by the establishment of a pool of bilingual Advocacy Officers.
This approach can be implemented either through the allocation of funds to appropriate agencies (please see paragraph 6.3.5) or to EDAC or indeed a combination of the same. In the case of smaller regional and rural centres it is clearly better for the pool to be administered by EDAC to ensure consistency and quality of service provision. If such an approach were to be adopted EDAC would be responsible for selecting and training suitable people to be the local intake points and to work with EDAC in developing and implementing individual advocacy action plans.
This model has the flexibility to respond to regional
disability advocacy needs cost-effectively, in a culturally and linguistically
manner. For it to succeed, it’s critical
that adequate funds are provided for publicity and promotion. The payment of a small retainer/honorarium to
enable the sessional workers to be designated as “community agents” could
significantly raise the visibility of this service model. The adoption of such an approach would be
complementary to and not a substitute for advocacy services based in regional
centres, which have a population base to support it.
9.5 Support for
Mainstream Organisations
As mentioned previously mainstream disability advocacy
services are virtually non-existent in most regional and rural centres. It’s therefore not uncommon that service
delivery agencies in regional and rural areas undertake some “advocacy” work,
albeit on a de-facto basis.
From a philosophical basis the “independence and autonomy”
of advocacy services are critical to ensure integrity of service
provision. From this perspective it
would be unwise to contract mainstream organisations to provide disability
advocacy services, especially if they are already receiving government funding to
provide other services.
Many of these service providers indicated a need for
cross-cultural training, which will enable them to more effectively plan and
implement services for ethnic people with disabilities. This in turn will
hopefully diminish the demand for disability advocacy services. Such training would also enable them to
effectively tap local “multicultural resources” and to make appropriate
referrals to ensure that the needs of this target group are met.
There are no agencies outside the
9.6 Ethno-specific/Multicultural Service
providers
The funding of such service providers was canvassed in paragraph 8.3.5 of this report. As in the case of mainstream service providers it’s critical that the “independence” of the advocacy services to be provided is not compromised or perceived as such.
Regardless of
this limitation such service providers have an important role to play, as they
are often the first or main port of call in regional/rural areas for ethnic
Western Australians. Enhancing the capacity of these agencies to address the
needs of ethnic people with disabilities when appropriate and working with them
to raise the awareness and understanding of disabilities and service provision
amongst local ethnic groups are two areas that should be pursued.
Given their “visibility” from a multicultural perspective,
it may be appropriate for an EDAC outposted service to be located in such an
agency.
10.1 Given the many variables
discussed in paragraphs 8.3.1 to 8.3.5 that should be considered in planning
and implementing advocacy services in regional/rural WA its critical that a
judicious “mix” of the options canvassed, be implemented.
10.2 In the absence of
information on what funding is available for this purpose it is pointless to
canvass the exact mix of the service options.
10.3 An integrated
rural/regional disability advocacy service strategy should comprise at least
the following:
·
Outposted
services of EDAC/PWD in Geraldton and Bunbury
·
Pool of
Bilingual Disability Advocacy officers located in regional and rural centers
across the state.
·
Funds to
develop and implement cross-cultural training for regional/rural service
providers.
10-.4 Government funded
disability advocacy services are virtually non-existent in most regional and
rural areas and its therefore opportune to establish a Country Disability
Advocacy Alliance (CDAA) comprising EDAC, PWD and other “independent” advocacy
organizations with a statewide brief. Such an
There are clear limitations in measuring the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes. These include time and resources, as well as the complexities and difficulties involved in making such assessments given the large number of variables involved. Some observations that can be made in terms of the achievement of project objectives and outcomes are as follows.
Ø
Promotion of Rights:
The promotion of rights of ethnic people with disabilities living in regional and rural WA was achieved by raising the awareness and understanding of representatives of ethnic communities who attended the forums and or were consulted; by enabling contact between them and disability service providers; through project related media release and coverage and by facilitating dissemination of relevant information and disability services.
The proposed integrated rural/regional disability advocacy service model (paragraphs 9.1 –9.6) provides much information on service options that can be considered by the State and Commonwealth in this regard.
As indicated elsewhere in this report the vast majority of the ethnic community representatives who participated in the consultation forums were not aware of the 2 major disability advocacy service providers in WA i.e. People with Disabilities and Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre. Their awareness and understanding of advocacy in the disability context and in particular the role and the services provided by EDAC were enhanced through their participation in the forums where relevant information was provided verbally and in print form.
A number of potential/existing barriers to service access were identified in the consultation forums and in discussions with relevant stake holders and these are summarised in paragraph 7 of this report.
Ø
Measurers to address Barriers
Measures to address all barriers identified have
not been canvassed in detail, as the focus of the project was to identify a
disability advocacy service model that will achieve this objective in the
fullness of time. This has been achieved
as outlined in paragraphs 9.1 –9.6 of this report. This includes the potential
for partnership arrangements between EDAC and suitable agencies as well as the
use of teleconferencing facilities, which were explored as planned.
A theoretical model for servicing ethnic people with disabilities in regional/rural areas has been developed and is discusses under
An ethno-linguistic disability profile of
targeted areas has been compiled using statistics available cost-free through
ABS, Centrelink and Disability Services Commission. EDAC has decided to issue a separate publication on the ethnic profile
of ethnic people with disabilities and their families.
Ø
Enhancing
awareness of services
The project outcome in
relation to enhancing the awareness of services for people with disabilities
and their general understanding of advocacy services within the disability
context were achieved to a reasonable extent.
Many of those who participated were not aware of the disability advocacy
services or those disability services that were featured in the information/consultation
forums.
Ø
Enhancement
of access to disability advocacy services
The other expected
project outcome of significant enhancement of their access to disability
advocacy services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate, will be
achieved only in the period following the consultancy as envisaged in the
project proposal. Referrals to EDAC from
non-metropolitan areas will significantly increase and the rate of such
increase will depend to a large extent on which disability advocacy service approach
is endorsed/funded by the Commonwealth and State.
12.1 The disproportionately lower participation rates of culturally and linguistically diverse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people with disabilities in generic services is well documented.
12.2 Regional and rural areas of
12.3 As mentioned previously, government funded disability advocacy services are virtually non-existent in most regional and rural areas and its therefore opportune to establish a Country Disability Advocacy Alliance (CDAA) comprising EDAC, and other “independent” advocacy organisations with a statewide brief, such as People With Disabilities and the Disability Discrimination Unit.
12.4 The National Disability Advisory Council in its final response to the Commonwealth’s Advocacy Program Review discussion paper recommended that:
“there should be a commitment to a nationally consistent level of funding on a per capita basis for people who are doubly disadvantaged as a consequence of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, Aboriginality or geographic isolation/distance.” Accordingly any distribution of funding should aim to satisfy gaps in advocacy that particularly deny access to people who are doubly disadvantaged, in keeping with the understanding that advocacy is for people with disabilities who are most disadvantaged.”
12.5 In its report it expressed the view that the
effectiveness of the program would be improved through interalia
“equitable distribution of resources and more effective targeting of resources towards people with disabilities from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and people in rural and remote countries.”
12.6 The goal of the National Disability
Advocacy Program is “to enable people with disabilities to achieve and maintain
their rights as citizens and to improve their access to and participation in
community life, taking into account the family context.” This goal is clearly
not being achieved in the case of people with disabilities living in regional
and rural
12.7 This report’s recommendations are in
accordance with the guiding principles of the Commonwealth Government’s
Disability Services Policy (as outlined in the National Disability Advocacy
Program Review Report”, particularly the following:
·
“Encourage the delivery of services to people with
disabilities which are responsive to the needs of people rather than simply to
try and fit people into existing programmes;
·
Provide a range of choices to individuals with disabilities
and those who care for them;
·
Work cooperatively with individuals, families, services
providers and State and Territory governments to maximise both the access of
individuals to services, and efficient and effective use of available
resources;”
12.8 The Steering Committee, which reviewed the National Disability Advocacy Program in its report, observed:
“While valuing choice, quality and access and appropriate balance in
the nature and distribution of advocacy services must be sought. The Committee considers that the advocacy
program should seek to utilise the current specialist expertise and skills to
best effect and should develop a range of strategies to improve advocacy for
people with disabilities who are from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
backgrounds, diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and rural and remote
communities.”
12.9 The Committee accordingly adopted the following recommendation (rec.7)
‘that strategies to address the needs of people with disabilities from
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds and rural and remote communities be developed in
consultation with advocacy services.’
12,10 To address the needs of ethnic people with disabilities and their carers, an integrated rural/regional disability advocacy strategy should comprise, at least the following:
·
A Riverland
type project in Geraldton and Bunbury operating under the auspices of
independent disability advocacy service providers, with a statewide brief.
·
Pool of
locally based Bilingual Disability Advocacy officers, as per paragraph 9.4.
·
Funds to
develop/implement cross-cultural training for country service providers.
12.11 For quite some time there has been bipartisan
political support for enhancing service access for those who live in regional
and rural
12.13 The recommendations of this report are in accordance with recommendation seven of the National Disability Advocacy Program review report and will go a long way towards ensuring that rural/regional ethnic and ATSI people with disabilities are able to make informed choices and participate to their full potential.
Addressing the needs of the
Forgotten People
The Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre is undertaking
consultations to establish the Disability Advocacy Needs of Ethnic Regional and
Rural Western Australians. The Commonwealth Family and Community Services
funded project will target Bunbury Karratha, Port Headland, Geraldton and
Kattaning.
Centre
president, Sophie Jasinski said "Regional and Rural Western Australians
especially people with disabilities are being disadvantaged as most Disability
Advocacy services are located in the
"Ethnic
people with disabilities are aptly referred to as the forgotten people because
their needs are often overlooked by both the disability and multicultural
sectors." These people are extremely vulnerable and are described as being
triply disadvantaged as they have to overcome barriers imposed by their
disability, ethnicity and geographic location", she added.
"Many
of them are not proficient in English and factors such as the stigma attached
to disability within their cultures and a lack of knowledge and understanding
of the disability services contribute to their not accessing services which are
available to people in their circumstances. Our Centre is the only agency of
its kind in WA and our location and lack of funding, makes it extremely
difficult to extend our services to ethnic people with disabilities in regional
and rural areas", said Ms. Jasinski.
Centre
Administrator Ramdas Sankaran who is undertaking this project said, "the
meetings that are being arranged with representatives of the
groups/organisations in the targeted areas will ascertain what problems they
are experiencing in accessing disability services and how their knowledge and
awareness of disability issues can be enhanced. These forums will also promote
linkages between ethnic communities and disability service providers."
"The
outcomes of those meetings and other relevant materials will be used to
determine the disability advocacy needs of ethnic regional and rural Western
Australians and how best they can be met", said Mr. Sankaran.
To
attend the consultation forum in Hedland on 1st May please contact
Michelle Mackenzie at the Town of Port Hedland on 91589300 and to attend the
Karratha forum on 2nd May please contact Judy Wright at Frontier
Services on 9185 1856.
For media interviews: Mr. Sankaran can be contacted on 0418 275786.
Ethnic Disability Advocacy Centre
Service
Delivery Options Feedback Schedule
(A) Please indicate
if the following options are appropriate by ticking the relevant boxes
|
Service
options |
Appropriate
(Yes) |
Not
Appropriate (No) |
|
1 Promote the use
of EDAC's services through its 1800
phone facilities. |
|
|
|
2 Provide access to
EDAC's services via video conferencing facilities. |
|
|
|
3. Provide access
to EDAC's services via internet. |
|
|
|
4 Providing a
visiting service from |
|
|
|
5 Provide funding
to organisations such as the Bunbury Migrant Resource Group to employ a
worker. |
|
|
|
6 Provide Funding
to organisations such as Bunbury Migrant Resource Group, Italian club etc to
employ workers on a sessional basis. |
|
|
|
7 Provide funding
to a mainstream organisation in Bunbury. |
|
|
|
8 Provide transport
assistance to people to access services in |
|
|
(B) Should we
consider any other option?…….. If so please specify what we should
consider…………………
(C) Please rank the
above options according to your preference. 1st rank=Option… .2nd Rank= Option…..3rd
Option=
(D) If you answered
yes to option 4 above please indicate what the frequency should be Weekly , twice a week or other option, please specify………………
(E) If you answered
yes to option 5 should the worker be employed on a full time or part time
basis?……
(F) If you answered
yes to option 7 what sort of assistance should be provided?…………………………
(G) If you answered
yes to option 8 should it be in the form of petrol assistance…...bus/train
fares ………..other option, please specify……..
(H) If information on Disability services was provided on EDAC's web page will you use it?…….If yes does it have to be in community languages?………..
Appendix 4
MALSSA’s Riverland Advocacy Project [RAP]
The South Australian Disability Advocacy Country Network is
a joint initiative of the Disability Complaints Service, Parent Advocacy
Incorporated and MALSSA, which seeks to meet the advocacy needs of all people
with a disability and their carers residing in a range of selected South
Australian regions. The Riverland Advocacy Project [RAP], which is operated and
controlled by MALSSA, is an integral part of this Network.
The RAP, which will be developed in
stages over a three-year period (2001 to 2004), seeks to:
·
Provide a
first point of referral for individual advocacy to other safe-guard mechanisms
and in-particular to other members of the South Australian Disability Advocacy
Country Network;
The RAP will provide a limited service
in comparison to MALSSA’s operations in
Accordingly, the geographical coverage
of the service will be expanded over the 3 years based on cost-demand analysis
and financial capacity.
The Service Access will also be
limited. Given Occupational Health and Safety considerations advocates employed
by MALSSA will not make ‘home-visits’. Access to the project will be via
telephone, meeting people at the project’s premise or meeting people at service
provider or community organisation location.
The project will only operate an
equivalent of 2.5 days per week. Extension of operating times will be based on
cost-demand analysis and the provision of additional funds by relevant
government departments.