Should advocacy be included in foundational supports?
Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) Ltd
The national voice of independent advocacy
The consultation on foundational supports offers independent disability advocacy the chance to consider whether advocacy should be included in the new framework. DANA members, who are independent advocacy organisations, have differing views on whether advocacy should be part of the new foundational supports framework. Some believe it is crucial for increasing support to people with disability, while others are concerned it could compromise advocacy's independence.
DANA has published a new Issues Paper on Foundational Supports to highlight key challenges and questions for our members to consider as broader discussions on this topic continue.
Why it matters
The introduction of foundational supports, as recommended in the 2023 NDIS Review, aims to create a stronger, more cohesive system of support for people with disability. These supports are designed to sit between NDIS-funded individual supports and mainstream services to meet community needs. However, there remains some debate on whether advocacy—which plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights and independence of people with disability—should be part of this new system.
Advocacy has become even more essential with the changes to the NDIS, as independent advocates are relied upon to help people navigate the complexities of new reforms and hold governments accountable. Yet, as we move forward with the development of foundational supports, it’s crucial that we address important questions around funding, governance, and the preservation of advocacy’s independence.
What’s at stake?
Some believe that including advocacy as part of the foundational supports could increase its accessibility and integration into the wider system, making it more available to those in need. However, others worry that incorporating advocacy into this structure could jeopardise its core independence at the core.
In addition, the precise role of advocacy in relation to other foundational supports—such as information, peer support, and capacity building—remains unclear. How can we ensure that advocacy is delivered in a culturally safe, intersectional way, particularly for people from marginalized groups, such as First Nations people, LGBTIQA+ individuals, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds?
Next steps
This paper explores these challenges and poses several important questions for our members to consider as part of our ongoing consultation. At DANA, we are looking to facilitate discussions that will help shape the future of advocacy in the context of foundational supports, ensuring that it remains an essential, independent service for those who need it most.
Read the Issues Paper to learn more.
Strategic advisor
2wThis is a difficult question because in reality what many advocacy organisations do is often very intertwined with information, advice and referral. Advocacy can also be really strongly about individual capacity building to help someone self-advocate. Is being called a foundational support what takes away the Independence or is it the funding mechanisms behind it?
Disability Equality and Inclusion
3w💯 independent — advocacy is not a “foundational support” it is a SAFEGUARD against failed, failing and/or inadequate government regulation of “foundational supports” (i.e., universal or mainstream services)
Disability Rights and Social Justice Advocate
3wIt's crucial that advocacy remains independent to ensure it can effectively represent the needs and rights of people with disability without being influenced by market forces or potential conflicts of interest. Some of the risks of including advocacy within the Foundational Supports framework are: * Compromised Independence: Advocacy providers may feel pressured to prioritize the needs of the funding body over the needs of the individuals they support. This could lead to a dilution of their advocacy efforts. * Reduced Effectiveness: Competition for funding could lead to a focus on quantity over quality, potentially compromising the effectiveness of advocacy services. * Limited Access: If advocacy becomes a market-based service, it could limit access for people with lower support needs or those in rural and remote areas. It's important to find a way to ensure that people with disability have access to independent advocacy support, regardless of their eligibility for the NDIS or other government programs.