This is one of a
series of articles by Mitchel Peters.
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be. - Lao-Tze, Chinese philosopher (c.604-531 BC)
In recent times, it has been interesting to observe the purportedly change-inducing actions of organisations for people with disabilities which receive State and/or Commonwealth funding. In particular, in the last few years, agencies which are part of, or funded by, the state or federal tier of government have been busy formulating and formalising policies and procedures, designed to meet specified outcomes for people with disabilities. These policies and procedures are legislation-derived requirements of organisations, having their source in the Commonwealth Disability Services Act 1986 and the State (Western Australian) Disability Services Act 1993.
This article looks at what impact, if any, these government-initiated policies and procedures of service organisations are likely to have on the quality of service provision for its clients with disabilities, particularly through the lens of people involved in Citizen Advocacy. The term, "service" (or "formal service") is used to refer to direct-provision agencies such as accommodation and employment services.
Around 1990, the Commonwealth Government introduced its first set of measures, commonly referred to as Minimum Outcomes, which federally-funded organisations were expected to meet as part of their funding contracts. Specifically, Minimum Outcomes applied to the following agency-related areas for people with disabilities: grievance mechanisms ; privacy safeguards;; decision-making and choice; meeting individual needs ; and employment options.
In the last three years or so, an expanded cluster of measures, known as the National Disability Service Standards (which compel compliance by organisations funded by either level of government), have been imposed in order to elicit positive outcomes for "consumers" with disabilities. These standards -- which came into effect in March, 1993 -- specify a number of areas, within the sphere of responsibility of agencies, including the following: service access; individual needs; decision-making and choice; privacy, dignity and confidentiality; participation and integration; valued status; complaints and disputes; and service management.
In response, those formal services for people with disabilities, which are either government-run or government-funded, can now claim to have policies and procedures largely pertaining to the aforementioned areas. From the perspective of citizen advocacy programmes, these legislation-based requirements of services are of interest for a number of reasons.
Firstly, and most obviously, the majority of proteges of citizen advocacy programmes have contact with -- and are usually clients of -- such services, and therefore, theoretically may be affected by these service developments.
Secondly, these requirements (the most recent being the Disability Service Standards, as mentioned above) represent the respective governments’ systemic efforts to ensure greater accountability of services in meeting the needs of people with disabilities. Given that intended outcome, it is worth remembering that citizen advocacy programmes have always played a part in holding services more accountable. After all, even though it is not the primary mission of Citizen Advocacy to make services more accountable, that nonetheless maybe the derivative outcome of the actions of some citizen advocates in the course of representing the interests of their proteges vis-a-vis such agencies.
Thirdly, and notably, the government measures refer to, and acknowledge the role of, advocates in representing people with disabilities.
What then might be the implications of these government-imposed initiatives, for people with disabilities who are clients of formal services -- including those who need or have citizen advocates?
If a clear distinction can be made between intent and effect, it would firstly be conceded that the introduction of service standards --based largely on positive principles-- were intended to succeed in inducing service performance which is responsive to the needs of people with disabilities. However, in terms of effect, it would be naive to believe that the mere presence of policies and procedures, which are meant to reflect the requirements of service standards, will herald significant positive changes.
Such an observation is not intended to dismiss the need for policies and procedures based on sound service standards; indeed, it is important not to overlook the fact that the standards notionally provide a government-sanctioned context for the involvement of advocates in the lives of people with disabilities who are clients of services. Rather, the tenor of the argument -- with specific reasons given below -- is to caution against harbouring illusions that such policies, per se, will safeguard the interests of people with disabilities.
1. Policies and procedures are largely administrative and bureaucratic in nature.
Policies and procedures of human services are technical or mechanical measures which are intended to address a myriad of systems-based social issues. They are, by nature, all-purpose and mass-oriented, effectively discouraging discretion or flexibility in its application.
2. Policies and procedures are merely a pre-condition to the attainment of desired outcomes.
Policies and procedures are but a pre-condition, or only one of a number of necessary conditions, to relevantly addressing the service needs of people with disabilities. For example, no amount of policies (sound though they may be) will ensure that people’s needs are met, or that they will be protected from harm, if staff have little or no commitment to serving their clients. In such a service culture, policies and procedures merely become a smokescreen behind which staff may blatantly ignore, or find creative ways to circumvent, the stated standards of their organisations.
3. Grievance policies and procedures may be unduly prescriptive or formal.
Grievance policies and procedures often prescribe or formalise the complaints process, thus nullifying its intended purpose. For example, an aggrieved party, or its representative agent, may be disinclined to lodge a formal complaint which necessitates following a rigid formularised ritual, if it believes that such formality will only invite further conflict. Or, the pursuit of formal processes may introduce greater complexity, rendering it more difficult to reach a resolution. This is not to suggest that action should not be taken when there is a grievance, but to draw attention to the inherent limitations of formal procedures.
4. Grievance policies and procedures are, by nature, reactive rather than pre-emptive.
Complaints policies and procedures, by definition, are to be invoked as an after-the-event response to the occurrence of a grievance. Clearly, at best, grievance mechanisms are a means to a resolution to, or reparation for, that which has already happened; they are necessarily reactive rather than preventative.
None of the observations made above are intended to form an argument against the need for policies and procedures, but a caution against utopian expectations of its effect. If extravagant expectations of service policies are misplaced, what measure of importance can be attributed to them in the scheme of things? For citizen advocates whose proteges are clients of services which have funding-tied policies and procedures, the following advice is offered.
(i) Be aware of the existence, nature, and scope of service policies and procedures.Without hastily resorting to such policies as a vehicle for conducting your advocacy, it is nonetheless important -- psychologically and strategically -- to advocate with the knowledge that one’s role must be recognised by the services in its official documentation.
(ii) When opportune, communicate to service staff, your awareness of the existence of their organisation’s policies -- particularly those sections which refer to the role of advocates. By signalling this understanding, staff will be less inclined, or less able, to deny the validity of your role or engage in actions which rely heavily on the suspected ignorance of advocates about the legitimacy of their involvement.
(iii) If service staff are committed to thwarting your involvement, be prepared to point to, or invoke, the relevant policies and procedures to advance your advocacy efforts. This needn’t be the only course of action, but equally, one which shouldn’t be overlooked.
Ultimately, the policies and procedures alone will not guide or circumscribe the conduct of mercenary staff towards their clients with disabilities. Even well-intentioned and elegantly written policies will be little more than window-dressing unless there are independent people who, whilst acknowledging what is in the window, are prepared to look beyond it to the back rooms. Only the presence, vigilance, and actions of such committed individuals, including citizen advocates -- the social safeguards, the real safeguards -- will ensure that the interests of people with disabilities will be protected, and not become subservient to the interests of the service system.