If you send your kids to a government school they get a free education. This is the promise of intergenerational fairness on which our egalitarian ideals rest, right?

Not quite.

Parents with kids in government schools pay, on average per child per year, $444 in school fees, $641 in camps and sporting equipment, $525 on electronic devices and $473 on uniforms and textbooks.

That’s because Victorian state schools aren’t funded for these essentials. So schools have to put pressure on parents to pay for them, at risk of their kids not being able to fully participate.

With rising cost-of-living pressures, this makes for a yearly whammy of financial stress that can be difficult even for relatively secure Victorian families to cover.

And it makes for some downright heartbreaking situations for Victorians who are struggling.

Like Radha*, who’s a single parent with 10 kids. Her income barely covers rent, bills, petrol and food for her family.

With all this year’s extra school costs, Radha had already fallen behind on her rent for the first time in her life.

Then her family had another massive shock: one of her relatives couldn’t care for her six children, and these kids have been placed in Radha’s care for at least a year.

Radha has taken the kids in and knows she’s done the right thing, but they all urgently need to start attending school and none of them have uniforms or textbooks, let alone expensive devices.

this makes for a yearly whammy of financial stress that can be difficult even for relatively secure Victorian families to cover

Radha’s story come to us from a community organisation, Community Information & Support Victoria, that’s trying to help her, and it’s an extreme situation but not an uncommon one. Another community organisation, Good Shepherd, has had over 900 requests for assistance with education costs this past financial year.

It can’t fall to individual families or even the community sector to cover the shortfall left by inadequate funding of government schools. Kids who can’t afford the right uniforms, textbooks and other school essentials are more likely to be bullied and to disengage from education or drop out entirely.

The start of the school year should be a time of excitement and anticipation, not financial hardship that reverberates through the rest of the year.

The Victorian Government should fully fund state schools by making uniforms, textbooks, digital devices and VET costs an essential part of the standard curriculum. These items would then be funded for each student.

Because Radha’s kids, and all kids, deserve nothing less.

*Name has been changed.

• Support for Victoria’s LGBTIQ+ community
  $45.4m in 2021-22 to celebrate and support the LGBTIQ+ community, including $21.3m for mental health and wellbeing services for trans and gender diverse young people, $2.4m for Victoria’s Healthy Equal Youth project, $8.8m for wellbeing services and $9m to support community organisations and peak bodies to help LGBTIQ+ Victorians navigate vital services.

• Increased funding for disability advocacy support
  Funding for the Office for Disability has been increased by 16.7% to $15.6m for 2021-22, which will support the development of the State Disability Plan and deliver a $1.7m boost to disability advocacy services.

• Support to build inclusive and safe communities for Victorians with disability
  As part of a $9.2m package over 4 years, funding is provided for communications, preparedness and response to emergencies and disasters and Disability Liaison Officers in health services. $9.1m in 2021-22 ($29.3m/4 yrs) is also provided to support Working with Children Check and National Disability Insurance Scheme worker screening. 

• Building better connected communities
  $1.8m in 2021-22 ($3m/4 yrs) funding is provided to continue the Australian Red Cross hotline to support people feeling disconnected or lonely to engage with their local communities, to deliver a reimagined Seniors Festival, and to continue the Justice Connect not-for-profit law program.

• Public transport infrastructure, accessibility and amenity upgrades
  In addition to an investment of $986m in 2021-22 to build a fleet of 25 more accessible, reliable and energy efficient trains and related infrastructure, and $368m in 2021-22 to deliver enabling infrastructure for Next Generation Trams, the Budget commits $7.3m in 2021-22 ($9.9m/2 yrs) to improve public transport accessibility through a new strategy and a range of design and access improvements, including level-access upgrades to seven tram stop pairs aligned to the Metro Tunnel network. 

Analysis

The Budget commits funding to a range of initiatives focused on improving access, inclusion and support for Victorians who experience additional barriers, discrimination and disadvantage. COVID-19 exacerbated the issues and challenges faced by many Victorians, including people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, older people, people with disability, the LGBTIQ+ community, carers and support networks.

Lessons learnt through the pandemic – including the importance of partnering with and working alongside communities – have informed the delivery of further funding for continued and enhanced community engagement activities with residents of the North Melbourne and Flemington public housing towers, an expansion of the prevention and preparedness work of the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities Taskforce, and accessible emergency communications and preparedness support for people with disability.

Support for culturally and linguistically diverse Victorians

Multicultural communities were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the associated economic downturn and increased racism. Continued and new funding in the Budget to support multicultural Victorians is welcomed.

Welcoming $23.7 million in #VicBudget for new initiatives for multicultural communities, including support for seniors, young people and migrants and refugees.
Read our budget response https://t.co/bVrJyJqFQw#springst pic.twitter.com/9XQ0sUHYlk

— ECCV (@ethnicvic) May 20, 2021

The Budget includes a focus on newly-arrived people, with $8.7 million over four years to improve settlement outcomes for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Through the funding, the capacity of programs delivering legal support, case management, and information on employment protections will be extended. The funding will also increase the capacity of Regional Community Hubs to improve services for new migrants, refugees and asylum seekers across Victoria. $3.8 million in 2021-22 is provided for continued health supports for people seeking asylum who are ineligible for Medicare and income support, including nurse and GP care, mental health programs, assistance with food, medication and utilities, homelessness programs and case coordination.

Funding is provided to support multicultural communities to build employment skills and improve access to services. Targeted economic security programs to support migrant and refugee women into employment and the Asylum Seeker VET program, providing eligible asylum seekers with access to subsidised training, are both funded. The Budget also commits $4.1 million over two years for jobs and stimulus initiatives for Victoria’s multicultural communities. The package supports the development of a cross-government bicultural worker strategy, focused on recruiting and supporting bicultural workers to assist diverse communities to navigate government services.

Racism is not new, but it is entrenched and persistent. A three-year funding package to tackle racism in Victoria is welcomed. The $1.5 million package will support the implementation of communication, community engagement and training initiatives to reduce vilification and hate-based conduct. These initiatives are part of the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Vilification Protections. Multicultural festivals, events and seniors’ groups will also have access to funding to celebrate and promote diversity, foster social cohesion and support community connections.

Advancing the rights, safety and wellbeing of older Victorians

The Budget makes a range of commitments to improve the quality of life, safety and wellbeing of older Victorians. The recently released recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care provide policy and program directions for all jurisdictions to better support older people living in residential care. The Budget provides an additional $28.8 million in 2021-22 to meet nurse-to-patient ratios in public sector residential aged care, and a further $1 million in 2021-22 to continue the work of Elder Abuse Prevention Networks and strengthen elder abuse identification and response in public health services.

Funding of $65 million over four years is allocated to rebuild the Glenview Community Care aged care facility in Rutherglen and to undertake detailed planning and design work for the future redevelopment of the Camperdown and Cohuna public sector aged care facilities. Close to $76 million will support ongoing infrastructure works for public sector residential aged care services in Cheltenham, Kew and Wantirna, and regional and rural facilities renewal.

The isolating impacts of the pandemic are unfortunately far from over for those who cannot risk returning to face-to-face social and community activities, particularly older Victorians and people with health conditions. We welcome continued funding for a hotline operated by the Australian Red Cross to provide emotional support and to help people connect and engage with their local community. Continued funding in 2021-22 of $2.5 million for the Victoria Together online platform, which shares a range of creative content and virtual experiences, and $400,000 for a reimagined Seniors Festival to provide outreach to isolated older people in aged care facilities through online, video and radio-based entertainment, will also support people to access and enjoy social interactions, arts and cultural experiences.

Promoting and realising the rights of people with disability

While the Victorian Government’s role as a disability support provider and funder has changed substantially through the roll-out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the state’s vital and ongoing responsibility for delivering inclusive and responsive mainstream services and civic spaces, and in eliminating systemic disadvantage and inequity, remains unchanged. This includes, but is not limited to, child and family services, housing, health, education and training, employment, emergency management and response, justice, and transport.

The Budget includes funding for targeted initiatives, including $1.4 million for accessible communications before, during and after emergencies and disasters, $6.1 million for Disability Liaison Officers in health settings to improve access to services, continued funding for the Impact21 Program to support employment pathways for people with an intellectual disability, and $3.9 million over four years for a team to support young people with disability who have matters before the Children’s Court. A range of measures to support inclusion in education also received funding, as detailed in our Education analysis.

Funding for quality and safeguarding measures is provided in the Budget, including additional funding for regulators and complaints handling bodies like the Victorian Disability Worker Regulation Scheme and the Disability Services Commissioner, for workforce screening, and for advocacy services to promote the rights and voices of people with disability.

Disability advocacy has been consistently recognised by inquiries as an important safeguard to help prevent and report abuse, particularly for people who are afraid or unable to have their voices heard. The disability advocacy sector is struggling with the weight of demand associated with the NDIS, and COVID-19 has put additional pressure on services. While more is needed to reduce waiting lists and improve the sustainability of the sector, this Budget boost is nonetheless welcome. We look forward to additional detail about how funding will be directed to increase the coverage, reach and access to disability advocacy and self-advocacy support.

Supporting and celebrating Victoria’s LGBTIQ+ community

The Budget makes a range of commitments to deliver improved support for Victoria’s LGBTIQ+ community. $8.8 million is provided for mental health supports, including $6.4 million to expand the Rainbow Door program to support people who identify as LGBTIQ+ to access and navigate the mental health and wellbeing system, and $2.4 million to continue the Healthy Equal Youth project to support young LGBTIQ+ Victorians. A further $4.6 million is provided for the development of a diverse communities’ mental health and wellbeing framework and blueprint for action.

The Budget includes $21.3 million to support the mental health of trans and gender diverse young people through the Royal Children’s Hospital and Monash Health’s Gender Clinics. An additional $9 million is provided to support community organisations and peak bodies to help LGBTIQ+ Victorians navigate vital services. Specialist legal services for the LGBTIQ+ community are also funded as part of a $31.1 million, four-year package for legal assistance and critical early intervention support services.

Funding is provided to continue the LGBTIQ+ organisation grants program and the LGBTIQ+ Leadership Program, and $1 million for Melbourne Pride 2021, a major one-off event to celebrate and support LGBTIQ+ communities. Melbourne Pride 2021 will mark the 40-year anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality by the Victorian Parliament.

The first ever Victorian LGBTIQ+ Strategy is currently in development and will guide the Victorian Government’s efforts to achieve equality for LGBTIQ+ communities over the next decade. We look forward to the next phases of this Strategy and the priority areas for change it will progress.

Caring for carers

Over 730,000 Victorians care for someone with a disability, mental illness, terminal illness, chronic illness, or an older person with care needs. The Budget provides funding to assist carers and support those they care for.

A $93 million, four-year package will support families and carers of people with mental illness through the establishment of eight family and carer-led centres across Victoria and increased funding for the Carer Support Fund, Tandem and its carer participation registers. The Families where a Parent has a Mental Illness (FaPMI) program will be expanded, and funding will be provided to co-design and expand supports for young carers.

Today's State #Budget includes $93 million in dedicated support for families & carers in mental health, incl. $23 million for young people & children caring for a family member. Read more: https://t.co/eo1VeoffEr

— Tandem (@tandemcarers) May 20, 2021

Funding is provided to improve supports available to young carers and strengthen referral pathways across mental health and wellbeing and education systems. Other initiatives that will support carers to learn, upskill, work and maintain their health and wellbeing are also welcome. As the implementation of the Victorian Carer Strategy 2018-22 reaches its latter stages, we look forward to hearing more about how priority actions of the Strategy will continue to be pursued.

We are pleased to see that “Caring for Victorians” is a headline from the Victorian Government’s 2021-22 budget and we welcome the focus on wellbeing and early intervention. See our detailed analysis of the #VicBudget2021 – https://t.co/kS7WRQUxcQ

— Carers Victoria (@CarersVictoria) May 25, 2021

Community and social participation

Supporting Victorians to access and take part in social and community life is crucial to wellbeing. We welcome funding provided for the continued delivery of Reclink’s ActiVIC program, which supports diversity and inclusion by providing more equitable access to sport and active recreation for people with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, First Nations people and people experiencing financial hardship. In addition to the public transport infrastructure investments outlined above, funding is provided to continue the Multi-Purpose Taxi Program lifting fee and wheelchair accessible vehicle subsidy, which aims to incentivise the supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles and services for people with mobility needs.

Further investments should be targeted towards making public and community spaces accessible and inclusive for people with disability, older people and people with mobility or health conditions. The Budget’s modest $2.5 million investment in Changing Places accessible public toilets is positive, but only one piece of the puzzle. Infrastructure Victoria’s Draft 30-year Strategy recommended the immediate establishment of an accessibility upgrade fund for priority public building upgrades. Funding accessibility upgrades for public places would be a win-win for Victorians, businesses and the building sector alike. In addition, community participation and independence should be supported through the provision of additional resources for aids and equipment programs that support the independence and mobility of older people and people with disability who are ineligible for the NDIS. 

A grandparent who’s recently taken custody of her two grandchildren and had to give up work. She’s never accessed welfare support and is too embarrassed to speak to the kids’ school when she’s struggling to pay for textbooks, uniforms, shoes, devices, excursions.

An Aboriginal sole father of four children, two in primary and two in high school. He parents full-time, and about half his Centrelink benefits are eaten up by rent. He wants to support his kids through their education, including by giving them access to fun and healthy extra-curricular activities, but this year he struggled to pay for basics like car registration.

And the parents of three kids, one of whom is on the Autism spectrum. They don’t speak much English and also care for their elderly aunt. They want to make sure all their kids can fully participate in school, but a lot of their money goes on medications and medical tests and they struggle to afford uniforms and textbooks.

One link between these people is that they all just want to give their kids the best possible start in life through education.

Another is that they’ve all received help from a small community organisation which, among other things, delivers a school support program to assist people with the cost of keeping their kids in school.

VCOSS spoke with Leanne Petrides from Community Information & Support Cranbourne (CISC) about how hard parents and care-givers are doing it, and what needs to change.

The way we operate at CISC is about responding to the particular needs of our local community.

How our school support program started is we noticed that from December to February every year we had a massive spike in the number of people coming to us for basic emergency relief support – food and petrol and help buying medicines, that sort of thing.

What we learned was that, for many of these families, there was an underlying story – they only needed emergency relief because of the amount of money they were having to spend on education costs for their children.

If children don’t have the right uniform or textbooks there might be consequences from the school, or they might be bullied. They might not want to go to school.

In the first year we provided the school support program, in 2005, we managed to assist around 60 families. Last year we were able to help nearly 200.

Over the years we’ve developed kind of a tri-fold approach.

Part of it is talking to families about what they do and don’t have to pay for. Things like ‘voluntary fees’ – what does that actually mean? Particularly for families for whom English is a second language, they often think, well, this is what I have to pay. So a big part of it is unpacking that, and also discussing book lists, stationary lists, that sort of thing.

A second prong of the approach is talking to some of our local schools. Especially in the early days of the program we found that some schools weren’t quite aware of the situation for a lot of families.

If children don’t have the right uniform or textbooks there might be consequences from the school, or they might be bullied. They might not want to go to school.

So schools might be putting kids in detention for not wearing the appropriate uniform, particularly school shoes. We’ve had conversations with local schools over the years about the reasons kids might not be wearing school shoes, and about being careful what sort of textbooks might be on the book lists, things like that.

And of course the final part of what we provide is financial assistance for families.

We were very lucky to be part of CISVic’s pilot program with State Schools’ Relief, so we’re able to assist many more families with school uniform items.

Now though, as well as help with uniforms and textbooks and things like that, we’re seeing the most requests coming for big-ticket items like laptops, computers and iPads, the devices that kids are needing now as everyday items.

We’ve been really lucky in that, while the only government funding we had was some support for a few years from our local council, we’ve been supported by donations from a lot of local community organisations like the Salvation Army and Rotary, and others – sometimes very diverse groups within the community who were so supportive of local families being given help with education expenses. It was wonderful because there’s that element of working collaboratively with another local welfare service, which can only benefit clients in the long run.

We also had some support from a pretty large philanthropic organisation, but unfortunately they changed their priorities last year, so we lost $25,000 a year. Last year was the first year that we had a pretty massive reduction in funding for the program.

It’s a tough year for people, with the post-COVID recession and the reduction in JobSeeker payments. We’re looking down a pretty dark hole of a financial shortfall and my gut feeling is that we’re going to really struggle.

We’ll be looking for donations, making applications to other philanthropic organisations, but we all know how competitive that is at the moment; there are lots of great programs needing support and philanthropy only has pockets that are so deep.

So in the next year I think we’re going to have to knock a few people back and prioritise who we can assist. Do we focus on families who are at high-risk times, like the transition from grade six to seven? Lots of new school costs and it’s an important time for children. But year ten can also be really tricky because you’ve got all those elective costs, when children are starting to hone in on what they’re wanting to do. And then of course the VCE years, years 11 and 12, are critical as well.

We find ourselves in a place where we have to make decisions about who we have to say no to. None of those decisions are taken lightly.

It feels a bit like being on a roller coaster, on the slow uphill climb. It sort of plateaus out a little bit in the middle of the year but we know what’s coming. Come November when we’re moving into that period of school costs, right when there’s Christmas and school holidays, in an area where we have a high number of families in need. It’s just a massive confluence of factors, rattling down that edge of the roller coaster.

Education, keeping kids in school, can be a cut-through in terms of breaking the poverty cycle.

In next week’s state budget we hope the Victorian Government funds state schools to a level where everything in the curriculum can be covered, including textbooks and devices.

And community organisations need secure ongoing funding so we can keep helping families to meet any shortfall.

Because ‘free’ education needs to actually be free.

The words ‘snap lockdown’ have been added to our communal shudder-inducing lexicon – alongside exponential, unprecedented and late press conference. 

Most of the state is moving on quickly from that five-day blip, now that the outbreak appears to be contained and the donut days are rolling again. 

But for some Victorians the ripples of the lockdown continue to be felt – particularly young Victorians with disability and their families. 

The Association for Children with Disability has heard from families whose children were so distressed by the changes that it’s impacted their ongoing wellbeing and behaviour. 

For some children with disability, change can be hard to deal with. Children with intellectual disability can struggle to understand the reasons for everything changing so quickly, and to understand how long changes will last. 

It doesn’t help that the rules have been so shifting for them: during the early lockdowns children with disability were at home like their peers, but in regional Victoria the recent snap lockdown was the first time since May 2020 that they couldn’t go to school, and in the mid-year lockdowns students with disability in metropolitan Melbourne were able to keep attending.  

During these last weeks parents have reported new levels of distress and meltdowns: “They were behaving in a way we hadn’t seen for years.” 

This impacts whole families – the child themselves, their parents and siblings.  

And it doesn’t necessarily end when the lockdown does. Returning to school after the disruption can be just as stressful. For some children and their families the distress is very much ongoing. 

“They were behaving in a way we hadn’t seen for years.”

In a pandemic, decisions often have to be made quickly to keep us safe and well. But how these decisions are applied and communicated can make all the difference for some families. 

The Association for Children with Disability is calling on the Victorian Government to:  

• ensure school closures are a last resort 
• create a consistent and transparent approach to school attendance during lockdown with specific consideration of students with disability 
• ensure that when lockdowns occur families know what support is available. 

All early childhood services and schools should provide all families with information about what is permitted during the restrictions, and about services such as child minding.  

This information should include the specific support that’s available for families with children with disability.  

And it should be available in Easy English and translated versions. 

These are simple and common-sense measures that can help children with disability and their families in any future lockdowns.  

So everyone can come through the hard times and snap back to normal. 

Early intervention for children with disability and developmental delay focuses on supporting children’s social and developmental needs as early as possible to improve participation and inclusion in family and community life. Early identification and intervention are also critical in the context of the insurance approach underpinning the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).[1]

While supports available for young children with disability or developmental delay have improved through the introduction of the NDIS, the transition has not been easy. Confusing and complex messages, processes and policies make it hard for families and carers to know what is available, how the Scheme works and how to access support for their child and family. Instead of delivering a distinct early childhood early intervention approach, components of the adult part of the Scheme have crept into the design and delivery of support for children.

The proposed changes to improve the early childhood early intervention (ECEI) approach are largely positively received by our members. Getting the ECEI approach back on track to deliver early, high-quality and evidence-based support will improve outcomes for children and their families.

Many of the changes recommended by the ECEI reset are the cornerstones of the original ECEI design. Implementing the ECEI reset and delivering a reinvigorated, comprehensive approach to supporting children will take a commitment to change, ongoing engagement with families, carers and the sector, improvements in communications, and investment in the skills and capacity of Early Childhood Partners, early intervention providers and all workforces supporting children and families.

We encourage the NDIA to partner with and listen to the lived and learned experiences of children, families and carers, advocates, specialist early childhood services, academics and the broader early childhood sector to design and deliver an improved approach for supporting young children with disability or developmental delay.

Improve communications, engagement and outreach

Recommendations

• Commit to sustained investment in community education, information and support to assist families and carers to learn about and connect with the ECEI approach.
• Improve information about the ECEI approach by:
  • Refreshing communications about the NDIA’s approach to supporting children to ensure it is accessible, inclusive and welcoming for families and carers
  • Co-designing new ECEI access and planning resources with families and carers with experience of the approach.
• Deliver comprehensive strategies to support families and carers to access, navigate and connect to the ECEI approach including:
  • One-stop-shops to support families and carers to find out about ECEI and start their journey
  • Information and events delivered in partnership with trusted local organisations to engage families experiencing disadvantage and isolation
  • Funded training and resources to extend and enhance the early intervention and disability knowledge, skills and capacity of maternal child health nurses, GPs and early childhood educators
  • Greater emphasis on building sector networks and relationships to strengthen referral pathways between local organisations and Early Childhood Partners.
• Co-design and fund peer models of support for families accessing and navigating ECEI, including peer mentors, networks and self-advocacy support.

Families and carers of children with disability or developmental delay often experience significant financial and emotional stress during transition to the NDIS, particularly if their child has been recently diagnosed with a disability or developmental delay.[2]
New disability and administrative terminology related to the NDIS, which is described as “not people friendly” and “too clinical”, can present a barrier for families and carers at the start of their journey.[3] A lack of face-to-face interaction to gain information and ask questions also impacts engagement with and understanding of the Scheme.[4] Establishing one-stop-shops for early information and support, through a co-located presence with existing government agencies or trusted community services, could provide a more approachable option for some families and carers to find about and access the ECEI pathway.

Advocacy services and community organisations have played a major role in supporting families and carers to understand, prepare for and transition to the ECEI approach. Our members report many families and carers who previously accessed state-based systems found the transition to the ECEI system confusing and bureaucratic. There will be an ongoing need for information, advice and community education as part of the ECEI approach. Children and families who are new to needing support will need targeted assistance, clear information and friendly, open doors to start their journey. It is vital that pre-access information and support, delivered by Early Childhood Partners, advocacy services and community organisations, continues to be funded.

The proposal to explain, rename and promote the NDIA’s approach to supporting children is positive, but it needs to go further. Demystifying the ECEI approach and the NDIS is the role of the system and not a fair or reasonable expectation of families and carers.

Communications should be refreshed through meaningful co-design with families and carers who have experienced the ECEI approach and are ideally placed to advise on the clarity of messages and usefulness of resources. The NDIA should also consider removing duplicate, confusing or loaded terms from its descriptions of ECEI. For example, “intervention” can have various connotations for different communities and may be confronting or off-putting. Acronyms and complex language should also be avoided or well explained.

The “early” in early intervention is only possible if families and carers, and other trusted services and professionals in their life, know what is available and accessible for children with disability and developmental delay. Ensuring the ECEI approach is understood across the early childhood eco-system will enable children and families to access support with greater ease and speed.

The pathway to early intervention often starts with a child’s doctor, maternal child health nurse or in an early learning setting, where developmental or learning delays may be identified. Knowledge of the NDIS and the ECEI approach varies across these systems. There can be an assumption from health professionals that access to the NDIS requires a formal diagnosis, which is not the case for the early childhood pathway. Early learning educators often walk alongside families and carers of children with disability or developmental delay on their journey to support and can play a vital role in connecting families to various service systems if they have access to clear information and advice.

Process changes and professional development initiatives to increase the early intervention and disability knowledge and skills of these workforces would support families to find out about and connect with the ECEI approach sooner. Health and early learning services should be supported to build connections with their local Early Childhood Partner to facilitate warm referrals for children and families. Targeted training programs could build upon the foundations of existing models, like the training and resources delivered through partnership-based projects to boost the skills of the child, youth and families workforce in Victoria.[5]

In addition to improved communications and greater awareness among key professionals, targeted engagement approaches should be developed and implemented to enhance understanding and break down barriers. First Nations families, families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds[6], and low-income families experience additional social, cultural and economic barriers to learning about and accessing the ECEI approach. Some families and carers are resistant to seeking help due to stigma, shame and fear of labelling their child. Generic community information sessions, or online-only support, may not provide an accessible or comfortable environment for families and carers to learn and ask questions.

The NDIA and Early Childhood Partners should work in partnership with local, trusted and culturally-safe organisations to design and deliver tailored outreach and engagement activities that meet people where they are. These activities could act as a soft entry point to the ECEI approach and encourage families and carers to learn more about the options available to support their child. The NDIA and Early Childhood Partners could train and build relationships with professionals and community members across a range of sectors and settings, including mothers’ groups and playgroups, to increase understanding of ECEI.

A peer mentor model, where mentors could facilitate warm introductions to the NDIS planning process, services, community groups, events and activities, has been also been suggested as a strategy to support understanding and engagement.[7] In tandem with other peer advice, network and self-advocacy initiatives, this could strengthen the support around families as they navigate the NDIS.

Deliver timely and equitable access

Recommendations

• Ensure all children with disability and developmental delay are connected to early, timely, appropriate support through either short-term early intervention (STEI), individual ECEI funding plans, universal services or state-based support by their Early Childhood Partner.
• Clearly communicate the role, scope and purpose of STEI to families, carers and the early childhood sector.
• Provide families and carers with a choice of provider for STEI support.
• Outline clear transition pathways and support children accessing STEI to connect with the ECEI planning process, community and/or universal services.
• Adopt a reasonable and necessary approach to introducing additional or expanded assessment requirements by:
  • Delivering consistent, high quality and free assessments for children and their families and carers through their choice of provider
  • Ensuring Early Childhood Partners undertaking independent assessments have appropriate qualifications and relevant, recent experience in working with children with disability and developmental delay and their families
  • Using existing reports as part of the assessment process to inform the whole picture of the child’s needs
  • Conducting assessments separately to planning meetings to allow for families and carers time to reflect and provide any further relevant information
  • Providing families and carers with fair opportunities to review an assessment or seek a re-assessment.

Eligibility for support

VCOSS and our members are concerned some children continue to be excluded from receiving support from the ECEI approach, due to the eligibility criteria and evidence requirements. Some people from culturally diverse communities, such as asylum seekers, are not eligible for the NDIS, and as the NDIS and ECEI approach has superseded other Victorian Government funded services, children and families are left with few services available to assist them and can face long delays.[8] Many children and their families and carers face barriers in seeking reports and assessments to support their ECEI application.[9]

At a policy level, ECEI eligibility criteria should be re-written to remove barriers to access for children who are part of the Australian community but precluded from life-changing early intervention support because of their family’s residency or visa status. In terms of Scheme operation, Early Childhood Partners should work to ensure all children are assisted to access the right level and type of support.

Short-term early intervention (STEI)

The proposal to increase the capacity of Early Childhood Partners to deliver short-term early intervention (STEI) could work to enhance quicker connections to support and provide families and carers with reassurance their child is receiving the early assistance they need. The value proposition of STEI, and potential pathways to further support, should be clearly explained to families and their support network.

There remains a perception STEI acts as a holding pattern for children waiting for access to an individual ECEI plan.[10] The short-term positioning of the service may make families worried their child only has a limited time to reach their goal. The types of supports available through STEI should also be explained.

Our members hold a range of views about how STEI should be delivered to best meet the needs of children, families and carers. For some families and carers, working with one organisation to find out about ECEI and receive support quickly will be a welcome relief; while for other families, the option to choose their own local provider would better support their child’s needs and inclusion in family and community life. Instead of developing a siloed workforce and program for STEI, the NDIA should explore ways to maximise the choice and control of children, families and carers and tap into existing services.

The NDIS is supporting more children through the ECEI approach than anticipated. The Productivity Commission’s 2017 NDIS Costs report noted with concern the use of KPIs to cap the number of children referred for access to an ECEI Plan. One of the performance indicator targets for Early Childhood Partners was that “50 per cent of children who connect with the Partner are referred for access to the NDIS”.[11] While this KPI is no longer in place, there is a concern that some changes within the ECEI reset could promote the delivery of STEI over individual plans to rein in costs, rather than deliver the right support for each child. The cultural legacy of these kinds of KPIs needs to be intentionally dismantled to ensure Early Childhood Partners are encouraged to support every child and family to access the best pathway for their individual goals and needs.

Families and carers of children likely to require lifetime support should be assisted to develop and implement an individualised ECEI plan as soon as practical. Resourcing for STEI should also support children who only require short-term assistance to successfully transition to community or universal services.

Independent assessments

The introduction of independent assessments for young children is a concern among our members. The proposal to introduce independent assessments is not well known or understood by families or carers. While assessments such as the PEDI-CAT have already been used in the ECEI approach, our members are worried that the expanded influence of assessments will have a greater impact on families and carers who are the least equipped to advocate for their child.

Children who are being assessed by people they are unfamiliar with may respond or behave differently than they would with a person they know and trust. Children with rare and undiagnosed genetic conditions, which can be complex, progressive and episodic, may not be able to participate in assessments and have their needs understood by assessors who do not have an existing relationship with the child and family or specialist expertise.

As outlined in our issues paper on independent assessments, the NDIA should take a reasonable and necessary approach to introducing additional or expanded assessment requirements.

The current planning process often combines an assessment with a planning meeting, and in some cases can take three to four hours. The process and duration of the meeting can be overwhelming and exhausting for many children, their families and carers. Options to conduct assessments separately to a planning meeting should be explored, to allow families and carers time to reflect on the assessment experience and whether they felt their child’s needs were captured.

Existing reports should be read and respected, with independent assessments offered at the right time, in the right way, for children who require further evidence to inform their ECEI support. Families and carers should have choice in who they engage for their independent assessment; where families do not have existing connections with an allied health professional, Early Childhood Partners with appropriate qualifications and experience could provide this service. Using standard tools and developing a common reporting format would ensure the consistency of reports by all allied health professionals.

The rights of families and carers to appeal the findings of their assessment, request a new one, or request a new assessment due to changed circumstances must be protected and promoted. Eligibility reassessment checklists are proposed to be completed at every plan review[12], however this may be too soon or too infrequent for some children.

Adopt a family-centred approach to planning

Recommendations

• Re-orient the planning process towards a family-centred approach.
• Provide families with one key contact to support their ECEI journey.
• Explain the key concepts of best practice and evidence-based supports clearly and early to all families.
• Ensure NDIA Planners and Early Childhood Partners understand, explain and promote the inclusion of best practice supports in plans.
• Implement Recommendation 3 of the NDIS Joint Standing Committee Planning inquiry to provide families with written information about the types of supports the NDIS can fund to sustain caring arrangements.
• Promote awareness of the value of family capacity-building supports among families, Planners and providers as part of a best practice service mix.

Many families approach the planning process with a sense of trepidation, concern and confusion. Our members report that families often feel they need to say the right things and come prepared to advocate for their child’s needs.

The planning process does not always allow enough time and space for families’ voices to be heard and for the needs of the whole family to be considered. Some families report feeling rushed through the planning process and feel that the challenges and demands they experience in their family role, and across the family unit, are not well-understood or recognised. Parents and carers of children with complex needs, from culturally and linguistically diverse communities or low socio-economic backgrounds report experiencing greater disadvantage in exercising choice and control.[13]

Every family is unique and the everyday life, roles and responsibilities of family members shapes and impacts the capacity and strengths of the family unit. Parenting children is one aspect of family life, however, families and carers are often juggling multiple caring and work responsibilities as well as their own health and wellbeing. Our members report families feel the NDIA has unrealistic expectations of their parental responsibilities that do not consider the complexities of their situation.

Family-centred practice is a key principle of previous state-based services including the Victorian ECEI program[14] and of the Early Childhood Intervention Australia national best practice guidelines released in 2015[15]. It was also a clear feature of the NDIA’s ECEI approach released in 2016.[16] As recommended in previous reviews and inquiries, the NDIA should adopt family-centred planning approaches to ensure the goals and needs of the child and their whole family are considered in planning conversations.

Planning processes should also encourage and facilitate the selection of best practice supports for children and families. The concept of “best practice” support is not well explained to families, which limits their knowledge, capacity and confidence in choosing services for their child and family.

Submissions to the Tune Review also indicated planners are focusing on individual therapy when developing plans, rather than considering other supports that are beneficial for children’s development.[17] Consultation feedback indicated that family-centred supports such as social and community support, family capacity-building and peer group learning and support are typically not funded for young children.[18]

Building the skills and confidence of families to practice, continue and embed strategies at home and in new settings extends children’s learning and development opportunities beyond the boundaries of time-bound sessions with a service provider. Family capacity-building supports should be promoted and funded to complement and strengthen the support provided for children.

Enhance the quality and availability of support

Recommendations

• Provide all ECEI participants with an appropriate level and type of plan implementation support, from a Support Coordinator or Early Childhood Partner, to build the capacity of families to make informed service choices.
• Define the roles and responsibilities for Early Childhood Partners, Support Coordinators and Key Workers in relation to plan implementation and coordination.
• Ensure children, their families and carers, are connected to appropriate, available and local supports by their plan implementation partner.
• Provide avenues for Early Childhood Partners, Support Coordinators, Key Workers, families and carers to provide feedback to the NDIA about market supply and quality issues.
• Create the planning, pricing and policy conditions that enable best practice early intervention approaches to survive and thrive.
• Implement the Recommendation 12 of the Tune Review to recognise, support and build the capacity of families to support their child with best practice approaches.
• Work with peak bodies, registered and non-registered providers to investigate levers and mechanisms to improve market quality and expertise and while supporting service sustainability and supply.

Families and carers want to choose the best services for their child, but they need to be empowered to do so. Concepts around what is considered best practice are not widely understood by families and carers, and aside from initial light-touch plan implementation support, families are largely left alone to figure out how to best use their plan, to shop around for services and make the right choices for their child and family.

The majority of children do not have Support Coordination in their plan[19], and Early Childhood Partners have limited capacity to support families to connect to services. This creates an enormous workload for families and carers, who are often new to accessing disability support services and juggling a range of additional home and work responsibilities. The administrative burden of plan implementation affects the capacity of families and carers to work or re-enter the workforce, undermining the insurance principles of the Scheme.

We welcome the recommendations of the ECEI reset to enable Early Childhood Partners to tailor the level of plan implementation support provided and to share advice about providers with families. All families should be supported to implement their child’s plan and to build their capacity and confidence in selecting services. The NDIA should provide an appropriate level of plan implementation support for all families and carers that is designed to build their capacity and self-advocacy skills as consumers. Roles and responsibilities for plan implementation support should be clarified.

Positive plan implementation also depends on the availability and appropriateness of local services. If families or carers are referred to a service provider with a long waiting list or no capacity, it is not clear what the expectation is of plan implementation partners to support families and carers to find an alternative. Developing mechanisms for a range of stakeholders to share market supply and quality insights could support the NDIA’s market development strategies and responses.

As part of the new ECEI approach, the NDIA should take an active role in creating the conditions that make best practice approaches achievable. The current lack of plan implementation support, the limitations of NDIS pricing structures, and provider registration barriers undermine the capacity of families to make informed choices, and of providers to deliver quality, evidence-based services.

Using a limited budget and without advice and support, families may seek to maximise the value and duration of the supports they can access, instead of focusing on quality of supports. Allied health therapies are frequently prioritised by families, and centre-based support is becoming the predominant setting for therapy over family or community-based settings. Some families opt to purchase as much therapy as possible, and do not understand the role or value of the Key Worker model of that featured in previous state-based systems.

Key Workers enable many elements of best practice to be realised. The Key Worker model provides families with one primary contact, an early intervention specialist, who supports the child and family to work towards their goals. Key Workers develop trusted relationships with families, build on family strengths, encourage teamwork, facilitate and support collaborative approaches across settings, and work to build the skills, knowledge and capacity of families, educators and support networks to support the child. Key Workers also draw on the expertise of a broader transdisciplinary team of specialists. Through this model, Key Workers help to create inclusive and supportive environments for children and ensure the team around the child has the tools and resources they need – this ensures support and strategies can be implemented consistently, in a greater range of settings beyond time-limited therapy sessions.

Compared with previous arrangements, the Key Worker model is much less likely to be chosen or incorporated into plans[20] even though it is a best-practice, high-value model. Under NDIS pricing and funding arrangements, the Key Worker model is difficult to deliver and sustain for families and providers. Families who do not understand the Key Worker model, or are not adequately funded to access a Key Worker and therapies, are unlikely to choose this type of service. Likewise, providers who adopt the Key Worker model can struggle to explain the benefits of the approach to families, particularly families who are new to receiving support.

Other elements of best practice service delivery, such as the use of natural settings and culturally responsive, collaborative and capacity-building practices, are also impacted by NDIS pricing and a lack of understanding and coordination across service systems. Provider workforce challenges, including casualisation and high turnover, can prevent children and families from building relationships with providers.

Building the skills and confidence of families, carers and other important people in a child’s life, including extended family and early learning educators, establishes a strong team and support network around a child; but too often, these kinds of supports are not funded or are challenging to implement. The recommendation to introduce a new ‘capacity building support in natural settings’ item in the NDIS Price Guide may encourage families and providers to priortise supports delivered at home and in the community, however, families will still need to be supported to understand why this is important.

The NDIA should also explore further opportunities to foster a diverse market and encourage the delivery of more innovative coaching, capacity-building and participation supports across a range of settings.

Most families choose to fully or partly self-manage their plan, or engage a plan manager[21], which provides the choice to engage NDIS registered providers or non-registered providers. While non-registered providers are regulated by the NDIS Commission and required to comply with the NDIS Code of Conduct, they do not have to complete a certification audit against the NDIS Practice Standards on Early Childhood Supports.[22]

The market for support services varies widely across regions. While some areas provide plentiful high-quality choices for families, other areas have a limited or concentrated support market. Service shortages in rural and remote regions, as well as metropolitan areas with high population growth of new families, limit access to services and best practice approaches like the Key Worker model are not available equitably in all areas.

Reports from our members suggest small providers and sole traders are often reluctant to register as an NDIS provider because of the complexity and expense of the process and the auditing requirements. Families also appreciate the freedom to choose their providers, however there are fewer checks and balances to ensure non-registered providers are delivering quality, best practice services. Our members are concerned families could be exploited by unscrupulous providers making big promises through lucrative marketing, yet delivering sub-standard services that are not evidence-based or delivered by qualified staff.

Strengthening the consistency and quality of services, while maintaining market supply and respecting the rights of families to exercise choice and control, is a policy challenge for the NDIA. Introducing measures that require families to choose registered providers, or mandating provider registration, too quickly and without exploring barriers may exacerbate market and supply issues.

The NDIA should work to balance safety and risk with choice and control by partnering with the sector to explore practical and sustainable opportunities to improve service quality. Starting suggestions from our members include:

• Commissioning research to identify and address:
  • the financial and administrative barriers for provider registration
  • markets and service offerings where non-registered providers are more prevalent or concentrated
• Introducing audit requirements for all ECEI providers through a staged approach
• Developing an accreditation or rating system to assess compliance with the NDIS Practice Standards on Early Childhood Supports, or that leverages existing structures familiar to families such as the National Quality Framework used in early childhood education and care
• Creating an easy-to-use service finder tool to support families
• Providing common templates for providers to report on outcomes, with measures in place to track the completion and quality of reports.

Extend support across key transitions and milestones

Recommendations

• Extend the age range of ECEI support to children under 9-years-old.
• Adopt a description of the age range that is consistent with early childhood definitions.
• Develop a new support item for school starters, designed to assist children and families to navigate the transition successfully.

Our members are supportive of an extension to the age range for early intervention support. Early childhood is often defined as birth to (and inclusive of) 8-years-old, whereas the NDIA describes the range as under-nine years of age. The NDIA should ensure its definition of the age range is clear and consistent with other sectors and frameworks to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

Starting school is a challenging time for many children and families. Before the NDIS, Victoria’s early intervention support program was embedded within the education system, which enabled a strong focus on school transitions. Families and carers frequently face new barriers and forms of discrimination when seeking to enrol their child at school.[23] After enrolment, families often do not know about or feel confident advocating for their child’s right to access education on the same basis as their peers. New and emerging needs often present during the transition to school, and bridging and coordinating education system supports and ECEI supports can be stressful and confusing. The NDIA should consider developing a new line item for school starting support. Workers in this role could assist children and families to access and transition to school, build the self-advocacy skills of children, families and carers, and help ensure education and early intervention supports and strategies are embedded and coordinated across and within settings.

Strengthen the capacity of Early Childhood Partners

Recommendations

• Ensure Early Childhood Partners have the resources, skills, qualifications and capacity to deliver on their existing role and any appropriate additional responsibilities.
• Reconsider the allocation of new responsibilities to Early Childhood Partners where supports could be delivered by funding existing community and universal supports.
• Review and expand KPIs for Early Childhood Partners to measure outcomes across all areas of responsibility.
• In consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, develop workforce development strategies to increase the capacity of the early intervention and allied health workforces to support a range of sectors.

Early Childhood Partners play an important role in facilitating access to information and supports. They are the ‘face’ of the NDIS for many participants, families, carers and supporters, and the experiences people have with Early Childhood Partners shapes and impacts their expectations and outcomes.

While the role of Partners in the Community under the NDIS was intended to include community development, capacity building and market connection activities, the scope and focus of their role shifted during transition to the Scheme. The capacity of Partners in the Community has been largely absorbed by planning processes and plan implementation.[24]

Our members report mixed experiences with Early Childhood Partners. Staff turnover, limited experience and training, and poor communication practices impact families’ capacity to build trusted relationships and access timely support. There is currently no requirement for the Early Childhood Partner workforce to have qualifications or experience in working with children and families.

We welcome the commitment to create creating a distinct delegate and planner workforce focused exclusively on young children and families. Enhancing the skills and expertise of this workforce, by attracting and retaining staff with qualifications in early childhood or allied health, and delivering ongoing training and professional development, is essential – particularly if the NDIA expands the role of Early Childhood Partners. Key performance indicators should also be expanded to ensure Early Childhood Partners undertake and report on all aspects of their role.

The consultation paper recommends an expanded role for Early Childhood Partners to:

• identify and support young children and families from “hard-to-reach” communities and those experiencing disadvantage
• connect families and young children to local support networks and services in their community
• provide Short Term Early Intervention (STEI) support to eligible young children and families for longer
• conduct independent assessments
• tailor the level of support provided to families to implement their child’s plan and more quickly connect to supports and services.

Our members have varied views on the suitability of Early Childhood Partners to fulfil these functions, and the potential workforce and market implications. Instead of drawing further supports and responsibilities inside the Scheme, the ECEI approach could leverage the strengths of existing community and universal services to deliver these supports. For example, local trusted community groups may provide a more welcoming environment and soft entry point for “hard-to-reach” communities to learn about and access short-term early intervention. Children and families may prefer to access short-term early intervention through their choice of specialist or mainstream service providers, so they can find out what works for their child and can start to build relationships and rapport with workers.

Allied health and early intervention professionals are in high demand and the workforce is already stretched thin across a range of systems and services. Extending the scope of Early Childhood Partners may have broader market implications by drawing professionals away from ECEI providers, health services and private practice and further reducing the availability of specialised and sought-after services. The NDIA should work in partnership with a broad range of sector stakeholders to grow the early intervention and allied health workforces. A comprehensive strategy is required to ensure these skilled workforces can be expanded in a sustainable way to support all sectors.

Address system boundaries and improve service availability and coordination

Recommendations

• Work in collaboration with the governments to increase understanding of the ECEI approach across health, early learning and education settings, and to improve accessibility and inclusion across these environments.
• Invest in collaboration across the early childhood eco-system to deliver innovative, holistic and place-based approaches to supporting young children and families.
• In partnership with governments, revisit the Applied Principles and Tables of Support to identify and address areas of confusion and provide clarity and certainty to families, providers and service systems.

Universal and state-funded programs and services continue to play a vital role in supporting children with disability and developmental delay to grow, learn and thrive. Through the transition to the NDIS and the ECEI approach, the role and responsibilities of universal services and state-funded services has become unclear for providers and families.

State-based programs continue to provide invaluable inclusion support for young children, particularly in early learning settings. The coverage and scope of these services varies across jurisdictions and it can be difficult for families and carers to know which services or funding streams are available and best suited to their child’s goals and needs.

Our members report a growing assumption from some universal services that the NDIS is responsible for all disability-related support, and anecdotal experiences of reduced connection and collaboration between services. While there are pockets of good practice, families’ experiences of universal services are patchy.

Consequently, there are children, families and carers who travel long distances to access early learning services and schools that have developed a reputation for championing and delivering inclusive and collaborative support. This puts additional resourcing pressures on those service managers and schools to ensure each child’s individual learning and goals are supported. In the context of the ECEI reset, it is relevant to note that the time required for early learning services to plan with families, coordinate supports and embed inclusion strategies is not supported by NDIS or early learning funding. It should be.

When inclusion is done well in early learning settings, everyone benefits – children with disability or developmental delay and their family or carers feel welcomed and accepted, other children learn inclusiveness, and services and educators are able to provide a caring and nurturing learning environment.[25]

Inclusive and accessible places and skilled, compassionate workforces are key to creating supportive environments where children can learn, play and socialise with their peers and where families feel welcome. The NDIA should work in collaboration with governments to develop a strategy to strengthen the skills, knowledge and capacity of universal services in supporting young children with disability or developmental delay, with the shared goal of improving the consistency and quality of support in every setting. Targeted initiatives, such as investments in the physical access of early learning settings, playgrounds and community centres, and e-learning modules or resources to build the skills and capacity of maternal child health nurses, early childhood educators and teachers, should be explored and resourced by governments.

Developing and strengthening relationships, partnerships and place-based approaches, by encouraging connection and collaboration across ECEI, health, early learning and education systems, would also support improved access and outcomes for children and families. At a ECEI participant level, this could mean ensuring sufficient funding is provided across all systems to enable stakeholders and services to come together, collaborate, plan and coordinate supports to ensure children can pursue their goals across all settings. At a community level, enhancing the capacity of Early Childhood Partners to build relationships, engage and inform local organisations, and facilitate cross-sector networks could strengthen understanding and cooperation.

The handballing of responsibilities between service systems continues to be a source of frustration for children and families caught in the middle. The Applied Principles and Tables of Support to determine the responsibilities of the NDIS and other service systems were agreed in 2015, before the launch of the Scheme. Learning from the experiences of implementing the ECEI approach, the NDIA should work with governments revisit and clarify the applied principles as they apply for children across all systems and settings to ensure all children receive timely, quality support.

Support smooth transitions to the next life stage

Recommendation

• Adopt a flexible and child-centred approach to transitions from the ECEI approach.
• Replace the three-month limit with an individualised approach.
• Consider tailored approaches to support children and young people aged 9-25 as part of the adult stream of the NDIS.

Achieving goals and transitioning to a new life stage is something to celebrate for all children. Children with disability and developmental delay need the right support, at the right time, to pursue their goals and participate in family and community life, and in early learning and school settings.

As noted in the consultation paper, there are lower rates of children transitioning out of the Scheme than envisaged. The reasons for low transitions are varied and complex and are likely to be linked to their experiences of accessing ECEI and universal supports.

If families have fought and struggled to access appropriate supports and funding, letting go of these resources would to be extremely difficult, even if they are no longer required in the same way or at the same level. Similarly, if families have not felt appropriately supported by universal systems, such as their early learning service, school or other community service, they may feel they cannot rely on this system to meet their child’s needs.

The transition from the ECEI approach to the NDIS, or to universal services, may continue to be difficult for some children regardless of age-range extension. The NDIA’s renewed focus on transitions must be centred on supporting children’s needs. Our members fear the emphasis on transitions is financially motivated and linked to the NDIA’s aspirations to deliver a sustainable Scheme. While the consultation paper notes low transition rates have the potential to undermine some of the insurance principles of the Scheme, the benefits of investing in early intervention could too easily be lost if transitions are not well supported.

Placing an arbitrary cap on the duration of transition support, proposed as up to three months in the consultation paper, is unlikely to deliver the tailored support each child needs, or provide families and carers with confidence that transitioning from the Scheme is the best approach for their child. All children should receive transition support that is tailored to their individual goals and needs.

Children with disability and developmental delay entering the NDIS should be provided with age-appropriate support to develop and implement their individual plan. The needs of children and young people can change quickly during these critical years, especially at key milestones. Young people should be supported to pursue their education and employment goals, and to explore their living arrangements, through tailored planning and plan implementation approaches.

_________________________________________________________________________

This submission was prepared by Rhiannon Wapling and authorised by VCOSS CEO Emma King. For enquiries please contact Deborah Fewster at deborah.fewster@vcoss.org.au.

A fully accessible version is available online at vcoss.org.au/policy

[1] D Tune, Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, December 2019, p.103.

[2] Children and Young People with Disability Australia, Improving the NDIS planning process for children and young people with disability and their families: Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, September 2019.

[3] S Gavidia-Payne, Implementation of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme: Experiences of families of young children with disabilities, Infants & Young Children, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.184–194, 2020.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, NDIS Resources To Help You Support Families, accessed 11 February 2021.

[6] Victorian Parliament Legal and Social Issues Committee, Report: Inquiry into early childhood engagement of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, September 2020.

[7] Early Childhood Intervention Australia Victoria/Tasmania, Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Inquiry into Planning, September 2019.

[8] Victorian Parliament Legal and Social Issues Committee, Report: Inquiry into early childhood engagement of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, September 2020.

[9] Ibid.

[10] NDIA, Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Implementation Reset: Project Consultation Report, November 2020, p.29.

[11] Productivity Commission, Study report: NDIS Costs, October 2017, p.167.

[12] NDIA, Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Implementation Reset: Project Consultation Report, November 2020, p.4.

[13] S Gavidia-Payne, Implementation of Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme: Experiences of families of young children with disabilities, Infants & Young Children, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.184–194, 2020.

[14] Victorian Government, Victorian Early Childhood Intervention Standards, 2016.

[15] ECIA (Reimagine), National Best Practice guidelines for Early Childhood Intervention (1st edition), 2016.

[16] NDIA, NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Approach, 26 February 2016.

[17] D Tune, Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, December 2019, p.102.

[18] Ibid.

[19] NDIA, Discussion Paper: Support Coordination under the NDIS, August 2020, p.6.

[20] Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, NDIS Planning Final Report, December 2020, p.179.

[21] NDIA, NDIS Quarterly Report to disability ministers Q2 2020-2021, December 2020, p.132.

[22] NDIA, Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Implementation Reset: Project Consultation Report, November 2020, p.10.

[23] VCOSS, The right standards for change: Submission to the 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005, September 2020, accessed 12 February 2021.

[24] D Tune, Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, December 2019, p.41; Mavromaras et. al., Evaluation of the NDIS: Final report, National Institute of Labour Studies, February 2018, p.83; E Malbon and G Carey, ‘Market stewardship of quasi-markets by street level bureaucrats: The role of local area coordinators in the Australian personalisation system’, Soc Policy Adm. 2020;1–16, April 2020.

[25] Community Child Care Association, Submission to the 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005, September 2020, p.2.

VCOSS is the peak body for social and community services in Victoria. VCOSS supports advocacy organisations to undertake collaborative systemic advocacy under the banner of the ‘Empowered Lives’ campaign.

We welcome the opportunity to provide input to this inquiry.

Young people know what they need to feel healthy, safe and empowered. This submission does not seek to articulate the key issues, barriers and solutions for young people.  Young people are well-placed to identify these challenges themselves and are already doing so through the engagement process for the Victorian Youth Strategy.

Instead, the purpose of this submission is to sit underneath the voices and experiences of young people and describe how community services organisations can help to create an inclusive, accessible and equitable Victoria for young people (i.e. this submission essentially responds to discussion question 4 of the Victorian Youth Strategy Discussion Paper).

In particular, as the peak body for community services, VCOSS’s submission highlights the opportunity to dismantle systemic barriers that constrain the community sector from working optimally with, and for, young people to achieve the priority outcomes identified in the Victorian Youth Strategy Discussion Paper.

Many of the issues raised in this submission are not new.  However, they have been brought into sharp relief by COVID-19.

One of these is an increased understanding of the important role that youth workers play in specialist and general settings.  There has long been a need for government to ramp up its investment in youth work to make good on reform agendas in family violence, youth justice and other areas of social services reform. This has become more crucial in the context of COVID-19’s impacts on young people and social recovery.

Another pre-existing issue, heightened by COVID-19, is the need for a sustainably resourced community sector.

Young people look to community services to keep them safe from neglect, violence and abuse.  To provide non-stigmatised information, advice, support and connection/referral when they are concerned about their mental health or alcohol or other drug use.  To help them get housing and sustain it.  To provide a pathway back into education.  To help them dream big and blaze a new trail into vocational training or employment.  And much, much more.

The need for these supports – already at significant levels pre-pandemic – has been exacerbated by COVID-19.

In order to respond to increased demand and ensure timely, holistic and comprehensive responses to young people, and deliver on the promise of a new whole-of-government, multi-sector Victorian Youth Strategy, it will be important for young people that government acts on a range of long-standing systemic issues in the community services sector.  These include:

• Moving from short-term to long-term contracts so that there is continuity of essential support for young people (including continuity of workers)
• Introducing a fairer rate of funding indexation to ensure services can cover the full cost of delivering support and avoid young people being put on waiting lists or being turned away
• Providing resources that assist frontline community services to meet the cost of implementing government reforms
• Strengthening investment in prevention and early intervention programs across a range of service areas, so that young people can access early help before an issue tips into crisis
• Investment to grow and skill the community services workforce.

As we’ve already stated, the community sector has long advocated for increased investment in specialist and generalist youth work – in part, because we understand how youth workers can contribute significant value to the implementation of social services reform on the ground.  In this context and, also, given that the new Victorian Youth Strategy is intended to increase cross-government and cross-sector collaboration, VCOSS’s submission highlights the opportunity to:

• Integrate and align existing strategies, including the Youth Justice Strategy, the Roadmap to Reform and the State Disability Plan to improve outcomes for young people
• Consider a whole-of-government outcomes framework that addresses the needs of children and young people holistically – this includes recognition that what happens in a young person’s life from 0 – 12 significantly impacts their circumstances and needs from ages 12 – 25.

Finally, we put forward three principles that we believe should be at the heart of the next Victorian Youth Strategy:

• The voices of young people should be amplified across all areas of government and the community. This means all young people, particularly those who have been rendered ‘voiceless’ by structures and systems that disempower them and create barriers to their participation.
• All young people should have direct access to meaningful decision making in their communities, particularly about issues that affect them.
• Co-design is a vital but often missing piece in ensuring services and programs are fit-for-purpose. Young people should be engaged to design services and programs they use and be remunerated or paid in-kind for their time and expertise.

Victorian young people are healthy and well, mentally and physically

Health

Young people have described access to safe, inclusive and affordable health and community services as “crucial” in the Victorian Youth Strategy Discussion Paper.  They have particularly highlighted the need for services that focus on preventing ill-health by intervening early, and the need for a more equitable distribution of specialised services – for example, LGBTIQ+ community-led health services.

One way we can be responsive to young people’s needs is to ramp up investment in the community health system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the crucial boundary spanning role of community health.  Community health services across the state have played a critical role engaging communities and providing a link between acute health services and community-based care as well as joining the dots between the health and social services systems.

A key reason community health is able to so effectively ‘join the dots’ between these very different service systems is that they apply a ‘social model of health’.  This means that they operate with the understanding that health is ‘socially determined’.  Services are intentionally designed to be responsive to age, as well as gender, sexuality, culture, family and peer context – including whether a person is living free of violence, has safe and affordable housing, is attending school, engaged in training or has a job, and has enough income to meet their essential needs.

Community health services also have a strong place-based context and embed user-voice/community participation. This is reflected in specialised services for young people, such as the Way Out health promotion program delivered by Cobaw Community Health for LBGTIQA+ young people in the Macedon Ranges.

Looking ahead, the community health system can be an important enabler for the Victorian Youth Strategy. To leverage its full capability, the capacity of community health services should be increased in future State budgets, alongside other connected service systems.

This is particularly important in the context of COVID-19 – its impacts on young people and social recovery.  The COVID-19 pandemic saw Victorians in lock-down for months as a preventative community safety measure. Restrictions on bars and public gatherings had the effect of increasing alcohol use in the home including for young people,[1] where it can be harder to monitor consumption and increase exposure to alcohol advertising.

Current advertising practices through digital platforms such as Facebook[2] and increased access to alcohol through on-demand platforms, including ‘buy now, pay later’ services, is encouraging alcohol use and changing drinking patterns.

These are areas that require additional attention from government to ensure young people and others in the community are not being disproportionately targeted or affected by the negative impacts of increased alcohol consumption through a flooding of marketing by the alcohol industry.

VCOSS welcomes additional funding for alcohol and drug treatment services and workers in the 2020/21 State Budget, which will make a dent in the number of people waiting for assistance, and new roles to support people waiting for residential treatment will help keep people engaged in the meantime.  It is important that these services are accessible to young people, and that policy and funding for the specialist Alcohol and Other Drugs sector is responsive to new and emerging needs that young people identify.

It will also be important to integrate the Victorian Youth Strategy with other pieces of work such as the Victorian Government’s Women’s sexual and reproductive health plan.[3]

Mental health

The Victorian Youth Strategy Discussion Paper states that young people want “easy access to tailored mental health and other support services that improve their health and wellbeing”.

Community services have a key role to play in supporting young people to engage in conversations about mental health, identify concerns and help them to connect to specialised mental health services.  Community services also provide support with other intersecting issues, such as family violence, homelessness, alcohol or other drug use, or disability.

However, a range of systemic issues currently prevent community services from supporting young people to experience the “easy access” they have identified as a priority outcome.

These systemic issues include:

• Inequitable service access – young people (particularly those in regional or rural areas and outer-suburban growth corridors) may miss out on support because:
• Funding is inadequate to meet demand and services are effectively ‘rationed’ (via tight eligibility criteria, caps on service access or waiting lists)
• Services are not located in their area at all – this may be due to funding and/or because there is a shortage of qualified staff working in, or travelling to, the local area.
• Rigid catchment boundaries for specialist clinical mental health services – if a young person relocates to another catchment, the system does not flex to provide continuity of support. Typically, the young person must start over with services in their new locale.  This disrupts young people’s journey to recovery – not only is the young person required to establish new relationships of trust with clinicians, but they may not receive an equivalent service response given the significant variation in service offerings across catchments. This particularly impacts young people who are highly mobile as a consequence of their homelessness.
• The mental health system’s ‘missing middle’ – young people whose needs are too severe for the primary healthcare system but are not sufficiently complex or urgent for the specialist clinical mental health system, are missing out on mental health support. Parts of the community services system (such as disability, youth homelessness, out of home care and youth justice) are currently left to pick up the pieces.
• Insufficient system capacity in prevention and early intervention – the key to good mental health is prevention, however, investment in mental health promotion (one element of prevention) has lagged relative to investment in physical health promotion or, indeed, the crisis end of the continuum.

The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System has already recognised these concerns in its Interim Report and the State Government’s 2020/21 Budget has made commitments to clinical mental health supports, with more to come in the 2021/22 Budget and future budgets once the Royal Commission has handed down its Final Report.

This underlines the key point made in the introduction of this submission – that is, the importance of integrating key policy reforms with the Victorian Youth Strategy to enable cross-government and cross-sector collaboration. In terms of cross-government collaboration, VCOSS also makes the case for increasing access to supports in environments young people are familiar with.  For example, the Victorian Government should boost existing programs that are embedded in education and training settings, such as the Mental Health Practitioners in Secondary Schools initiative.  This has recently been extended to include specialist schools and could be leveraged to create greater links with other community based mental health services.

Victorian young people actively participate in learning, education and training

Education and training

Young people have identified the need for a “flexible and responsive” education system that works for all students and highlighted the need for greater support in the transition to work.

Government, the community sector and business already work closely with education and training providers to support young people’s wellbeing and engagement in learning, but more could be done to strengthen collaboration and fill existing gaps to improve outcomes for young people.

Current policy and systems challenges include:

• The cost of education – because Victorian government schools are not currently funded to cover the full cost of delivering free, high-quality education, many students and their families face significant out-of-pocket costs[4] and this acts as barrier to young people’s participation. Community service organisations including emergency relief services bridge the gap for many families each year,[5] but many are overwhelmed with requests for assistance. Government and the community sector can better work together to ensure young people are able to equitably access the full school experience by fully funding public schools and providing additional funding to emergency relief services to meet demand. In particular, in future budgets, the Government can review and update the way they calculate the Student Resource Package, in line with recent Victorian Auditor-General’s Office recommendations[6] and a 2015 report on Additional School Costs for Families,[7] to make sure schools are fully funded to cover the costs of the standard curriculum, without families bearing the financial load.

• Ensuring all students can access timely support to have their wellbeing needs addressed – while there has been substantial, sustained investment in wellbeing supports through the Education State, there were gaps for some students and some schools pre-pandemic and these gaps have been exacerbated by COVID-19. As part of social recovery efforts, and new Budget commitments, it will be important to listen to young people to fully understand new and emerging needs, as well as residual unmet demand from before the pandemic, and to target resources accordingly.  In order to leverage student voice, there is a need to enhance the capability of schools to listen to, understand and know how to respond to young people’s needs and ensure the right supports are available at the right time, including in the classroom.

• The impact of the Victorian Youth Strategy can also be enhanced by strong partnerships between the education system and community services system. Currently, community service organisations partner with government and education and training providers to deliver a range of health and wellbeing support to young people that supports engagement in learning.  However, there are resourcing shortfalls to meet need in school settings, and significantly limited options at TAFEs.  As a partner with the education system, there is an opportunity to extend the role of the community sector to support more young people to remain engaged in education and boost retention in training, provide more integrated support to young people to navigate transitions between education and training settings and between employment, and increase flexible learning options.

• There is a need to improve communication so that young people don’t have to carry the burden of continuously retelling their story to access support in school settings and further education and training.

Victorian young people are economically active and contribute to the economy

Employment

In the Victorian Youth Strategy Discussion Paper, young people have identified “grave concerns about rising unemployment”.

COVID-19 has exacerbated existing issues experienced by young people prior to the pandemic, including higher rates of unemployment and underemployment relative to other age groups and the loss of entry level positions which provide young people with a pathway into the labour market. Young people are highly skilled and ready to work – but barriers outside of young people’s control impact their ability to gain employment.

The community services industry is one of the fastest growing job creation industries in Victoria and a pipeline of skilled workers is needed to meet community demand for vital services. Despite strong enrolments in Free TAFE in priority industries, the community sector does not have the resourcing or backbone support to provide the supervision required to support student placements.  This is because of the systemic issues described in the introduction to this submission: insecure funding, low rates of indexation and workforce shortages.

The Victorian 2020/21 Budget has welcome initiatives to create jobs and invest in school-based applied learning and pathways support for young people.[8] However, some employers lack the confidence and expertise to work with young people, including understanding the role of supervision and support. What’s needed now are targeted strategies to boost employer skills and confidence in employing young people.[9] This would also benefit employers supporting students on work placements.

Pathway support from vocational education and training into employment could also strengthen transitions for young people. Government schools have access to a range of supports including mental health services and the newly announced Jobs, Skills and Pathways Coordinators.

There are existing, highly-effective programs that can support students experiencing additional barriers to training and employment and support transitions, however, they need to be funded to offer resource-intensive supports, including to young people who experience greater barriers to workforce participation (for example, young people with disability or young people who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander).

Regional and rural areas

Rural and regional areas are vibrant contributors to the Victorian community. Place-based solutions should be prioritised to support young people to remain in their communities if they choose. This will require hearing from young people about the particular barriers they face, followed by investment in local communities and the necessary infrastructure to support good community outcomes.

For example, demand-driven funding in the VET space can influence decisions of VET providers about which courses to run in order to bring in sufficient revenue to remain viable. As a result, VET courses in rural and regional areas don’t always reflect job opportunities in the region. This makes it difficult for young people to understand and explore future career opportunities that may enable them to gain meaningful employment in their local community post-school.

Transport

Everyone should be able to get to work and education and participate in community life – but the reality is that access to public transport in Victoria, particularly in rural and regional areas, is haphazard. The WestJustice Travel Assistance Program[10] found that, for some young people, the cost of getting to and from school can become a major barrier to attendance. Cost of transport is one of the hidden costs of education that the Government can address by providing free transport passes to students who need it.

In many rural and regional areas as well as urban fringe areas not having access to a car is a barrier to accessing services, including education and employment.

Community transport provides services, either direct transport or support to access public transport, for people who are transport disadvantaged Community transport is affordable, flexible, accessible and adaptable to individuals’ needs enabling them to participate in daily life[11]

Community transport can play a vital role in increasing accessibility of transport for those who can’t access or can’t use cars or other transport because of cost, geographical isolation or mobility issues, however, it needs additional funding to meet community need. Where access to transport infrastructure may not be viable, investments should be made in community transport to increase young people’s opportunities to access the services they need and to meaningfully engage with employment opportunities. Young people’s voices need to be central in discussions about what transport services meet their needs.

Victorian young people are connected to culture, community and civic life

Environment and Climate Change

Young people can be enabled and empowered to act and be connected with their communities by supporting their communities to cope with the impacts of climate change and adapt to local challenges. However, community service organisations experience barriers in working more effectively with and for young people to provide these opportunities.

A common barrier is insufficient access to the skills, knowledge and resources needed to develop programmatic responses to cope and adapt to climate change locally that are co-designed with young people. Governments can work together with community service organisations, local business as well as education and training providers to provide the needed infrastructure.

For example, Banksia Gardens Community Services’ placed-based initiative, the Climate Adaptation Requires Youth Action (CARYA) project “aims to interactively teach youth about climate change and provide resources for them to develop their own community initiative.”[12] This program has two distinct parts – a 10 week training program to build the cohort’s understanding of climate change adaptation, followed by the young people creating their adaptation initiatives with the support of a mentor with relevant expertise.

Banksia Gardens Community Services CARYA program

CARYA is hosted by Banksia Gardens Community Services, a vibrant neighbourhood house and community service organisation that serves the Broadmeadows community in the City of Hume. The organisation aim is to build social cohesion and reduced structural disadvantage through a non-judgemental, strengths-based approach.

The Banksia Gardens Public Housing Estate has a long history of dealing with social challenges, including low health and employment outcomes, low educational attainment and high levels of violence and crime. Hume also has one of the highest rates of settlement of newly arrived families and approximately 33 per cent of estate residents are from non-English speaking backgrounds.

The intended participants of the CARYA program will be cross-cultural youth. Through an action competence approach with significant educational experiences, CARYA will mature a strong cohort of climate change adaptation leaders. Over the course of the training program, the cohort will connect with local organisations to share knowledge and create a climate change adaptation network.[13]

For community service organisations to work with other stakeholders to better meet the needs of young people in providing connection to their communities and access to decision making, programs like Banksia Gardens Community Services CARYA need the appropriate infrastructure and resourcing to succeed. For example, this program is free to participants and covers the costs of travel as part of the training, including during workshops and other activities. However, many community service organisations operate on thin budgets and can’t absorb new program costs into their business as usual budgets. In addition, CARYA has partner organisations to provide participants with mentoring and avenues to implement their initiative, including through local and state government.  Establishing partnerships is a valuable but resource-intensive activity.  Many community sector organisations are constrained in their ability to invest time and other resources in partnership development.

Not all organisations will have the necessary tools from the outset to ensure programs are meaningful, inclusive and empower a diverse range of young people. For example, non-youth specific organisations who are not co-located with other services may need support in connecting with a range of diverse young people to co-design a program or approach, or to form an advisory group. Organisations may need training and support in how to facilitate community and youth-led programs, or additional training on putting appropriate structures in place to ensure engaged young people are appropriately reimbursed for their time and expertise, either through remuneration or skill development and mentoring.

Emergency management

The environment and climate change are well documented areas of concern for young people,[14] but missing from the discussion paper is emergency management, which provides important points of connection to civic life and opportunities to meaningfully contribute to decision making.

“Emergency Management is about managing risks to communities and the environment,”[15] and a key role of the emergency management sector is to strengthen the capacity of communities, government, agencies and businesses to plan for, respond to and recovery from emergencies.[16]

The emergency management sector has undergone significant change since the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires[17]. However, there is still work to be done in shifting from a top-down approach to a community-led response that includes and empowers young people to be agents of change and to contribute to and build community resilience.

The emergency management sector can more effectively work with and support the agency and capacity of young people to contribute to their own recovery and recovery in their community by working more closely with community service organisations. Many community service organisations have experience and expertise in areas including engagement and education, and various facets of service provision. Importantly, their existing networks and structures reach far into communities, and can effect real change.[18]

Communities need time after an emergency event to process what has happened and to collectively develop a plan. Under a more collaborative approach that supports communities to lead in this role, young people need to be given the opportunity to identify what they need in terms of support and service provision, but also to identify how they can contribute to recovery.

A more collaborative approach, including formal and informal partnerships from across and within governments, businesses, the not-for-profit sector and the community, is needed to achieve this.

Specialist youth organisations and youth workers need the time and resources to meaningfully engage with young people to understand their needs and goals as part of the emergency management process, and to provide the infrastructure and support for young people to take the lead. Larger universal organisations may need additional support to build skills and capability to undertake this work.

Continued funding and resources for research about what children and young people need during emergency events is needed, ensuring the voices of children and young people are amplified in the process.

Victorian young people are safe, experience equality of opportunity and are treated fairly

Prevention and early intervention programs are essential for young people who witness, experience or use family violence. They are also essential for young people who are involved in the youth justice system, or who are at risk of involvement, alongside key principles of diversion and therapeutic support.

Governments and community service organisations can better work together to coordinate resourcing and infrastructure across community-based initiatives and government funding streams to improve prevention and early intervention programs.

Family violence

Many community service organisations, government agencies or universal services will come into contact with young people who need additional support to minimise the impacts of experiencing family violence or address adolescent use of family violence, but do not have the requisite skills to identify, evaluate and respond to young people’s needs.

Community service organisations need additional support to build the skills and capacity of staff to address these gaps, or additional funding to obtain external independent evaluations to ensure a best-practice approach.

For example, one of the early findings from a research project on programs that focus on adolescents using violence undertaken by The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare in consultation with Domestic Violence Victoria[19] indicates that a range of programs use differing evidence-bases, making it hard to identify and embed best practice. Organisations need more support to implement outcomes-based measurement practices to help lift the evidence-base to identify which projects work best and with which cohorts of young people. Staff skill and expertise is part of this.

There are also service and program gaps that mean community organisations may not be able to meet the needs of young people experiencing specific challenges related to witnessing or experiencing family violence such as poor mental health which can in turn result in poorer academic outcomes, and psychological trauma.[20] More investment is needed to develop early intervention programs to minimise the negative effects of violence on children and young people.

More investment could also be made in primary prevention programs to minimise the number of children and young people being exposed to or using family violence. One way this could be approached is to target new parents, who face higher risks of violence, through programs like Baby Makes 3,[21] or through school-based programs like Respectful Relationships.

Youth justice and community safety

Systemic responses to youth justice can vary significantly based on the setting, funding stream and availability of appropriate and tailored services. In addition, when systems work in silos it creates additional barriers to successful outcomes for young people in the youth justice system.  The Victorian Youth Strategy can play a role in dismantling these siloes by advancing its goals for greater cross-government and cross-sector policy and funding alignment.

As a member of the Smart Justice for Young People (SJ4YP) coalition, we concur with the joint submission prepared by convenor of SJ4YP, YouthLaw, that:

“Fragmentation and lack of coordination happens vertically (between state and local government), horizontally (between different agencies), by age (such as antenatal and postnatal, preschool, school age, tertiary), and by different groups or areas of focus (such as parenting support, family violence, job seeker).

“This same fragmentation is replicated in government and non-governmental contracted services. Investment is often ad hoc, not sustained. Until now, there has been no unifying message or way of talking about child and youth wellbeing or way of aligning efforts to a common set of goals.  Victoria’s strategy provides us with a momentous opportunity.”

A key recommendation of the SJ4YP submission, noted at the outset of the VCOSS submission also, is the need for a whole-of-government child and young person’s outcomes framework.

As the SJ4YP submission states, an outcomes framework would make clear:

• What children and young people need and want to be well and thrive in life
• What government needs to do to enable this
• How the community sector can contribute to this vision.

It would lay bare what resources young people need, and where they are best located, driving smart investment decisions.  This is desperately needed, given the significant barriers that young people currently experience in accessing prevention, early intervention, diversion and therapeutic support.

An outcomes framework would also drive greater accountability. Importantly, it would provide an opportunity to strengthen youth voice. It is essential that young people be included and consulted across areas of reform that may have a disproportionate affect on them. For example, new laws to decriminalise public drunkenness should include consultation with young people, particularly those who may be disproportionately affected through over-policing.

Disability inclusion and access

Young people with disability access and interact with all themes set out in the Discussion Paper, as do young people who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. To achieve the strategy’s dual goal of building a community where there is equal opportunity and all young people are treated fairly, the rights and needs of specific cohorts of young people need to be integrated and reflected across each area of policy.

For meaningful change to take place to create a safe and equitable community for young people with disability, in addition to targeted supports and investments, there need to be sustained efforts to shift attitudes and improve awareness of disability across the community.

Young people with disability are best placed to provide their insights and ideas on what needs to change and key priorities for the Victorian Youth Strategy, as well as the Victorian Government’s whole-of-government State Disability Plan, which is currently in development.

From a broader collaborative community perspective, a lack of awareness and targeted training about disability and disability rights across a range of workforces prevents or limits opportunities for young people with disability to be actively heard, listened to and believed. For example, attitudes and awareness can impact access to appropriate and timely health diagnoses, aspirations and confidence in education settings, and opportunities to have a voice in NDIS planning and other life choices and decisions, to name a few.

“I struggle with general questions being impolite due to having ADHD and autism. So I ask a question and they say, wow that’s rude. I don’t feel supported and I don’t feel like I’m able to ask the questions because there’s no attempt for them to understand in a way. I generally mute my mic in class and shut up because the way some people say things compared to how I say things – one of us is considered rude or not able to be understood, compared to how different I am to others and that kind of thing” – Trainee [22]

Poor attitudes and awareness contribute to discrimination and can affect the way in which programs and services are designed and run. For example, underlying assumptions and attitudes that underestimate or undermine the aspirations, expertise and capacity of young people with disability can lead to service responses that prioritise the voices of parents and carers over disabled young people, and limit opportunities for young people to build their agency, confidence and independence to make decisions about their own lives.

All services across government, community, businesses and education sectors need to listen to, value and respond to the voices of young people with disability, both about their individual needs and their ideas for ensuring systems deliver better support for young people more broadly. Resourcing and training to enable co-design models is needed to help strengthen service design and shift attitudes.

Caring responsibilities

Greater system collaboration is needed to improve responses or supports for young carers when engaging with a range of services as part of their caring responsibilities, or through pursuing personal activities or supports. This will require additional resourcing and training to identify and respond to young carer’s needs. For example, systems such as the NDIS or My Aged Care do not currently consider the needs of carers but may be easy points of contact to capture young carers who need additional support.

Schools and community based organisations where young carers may frequent need support to identify young carers and offer flexible support to ensure young carers aren’t missing out on opportunities, including education, employment and recreational activities because of their caring responsibilities.

Given young carers may not self-identify as a carer,[23] young carers may also not know where to go for support. Schools and community based organisations should be funded to provide proactive support to capture young carers who may not have the confidence to seek assistance or who may not know they can get help. This needs to be followed by genuinely flexible models of support, for example, flexible learning arrangements so young carers can still engage in education and training.

Greater consultation with young carers will identify their specific needs and the ways in which they can be supported to access a wide range of opportunities. This should also be aligned with the work of the Victorian Carer Strategy.

Government, community services and the youth sector are accessible, appropriate and coordinated, and respond to young people’s evolving needs

Homelessness and housing

Not-for-profit community service organisations provide services for people who are at-risk of or experiencing homelessness,[24] however, there continue to be gaps in addressing and meeting the needs of young people within the existing system. For the most part, these gaps relate to policy and funding.

The drivers for youth homelessness are not the same as the drivers for adult homelessness.  Young people need a distinctly different response to adults. In order for governments and the community sector to better work together to provide “more inclusive services for young people experiencing or at-risk of homelessness”,  the system needs to be adequately resourced to undertake risk identification and early intervention, and ensure young people receive a tailored response on entry to the system all the way through to exit.

Key systemic issues include:

• The need to grow expertise outside the specialist homelessness service system to identify and respond to risk factors for youth homelessness. In particular, we are not sufficiently leveraging the ‘first to know’ capabilities of workforces in universal services such as GPs, schools and Centrelink.
• The need to expand the provision of early intervention programs that address key drivers of youth homelessness
• Severely limited pathways for young people to exit the formal homelessness system – this includes a dearth of housing options for young people. This should be addressed through new policy development, including the Victorian Government’s 10-year social housing growth plan.  We also advocate for the development of a Youth Homelessness Strategy, to be integrated with the Victorian Youth Strategy.

Child protection and out-of-home care

The Roadmap to Reform: Strong Families, Safe Children (the Roadmap), as the key strategy for reform of children, youth and families services, should be integrated with the whole-of-government Victorian Youth Strategy. This should include leveraging the voices, expertise and insights of young people with experiences in out-of-home care to achieve better outcomes.

The recent 2020/21 Victorian Budget’s commitment to invest in new residential care facilities, build Care Hubs to provide wrap around supports for children and young people, and measures to reduce the over representation of Aboriginal children in care are welcome announcements to progress the reform agenda. The permanent extension to the Home Stretch program, which will now entitle every young person in out-of-home care in Victoria to receive extended care to age 21 instead of being left to fend for themselves at age 18, is also extremely welcome.[25]

Looking ahead, as with the youth justice, family violence and homelessness service sectors, children, young people and their families need access to services that strengthen families, prevent child abuse and neglect, and intervene early when children and young people are at risk.

For children and young people in the system, as noted in the Ombudsman’s 2020 Investigation into complaints about assaults of five children living in Child Protection residential care units,[26] child protection and out-of-home care workforces across government, the community sector and the justice system would benefit from additional training and capability development to:

• Better identify and respond to complex needs of some young people engaged with the system 

• Connect young people in out of home care to supports across a range of systems based on their needs, for example, education, employment and the NDIS

• Embed processes to ensure out of home care facilities are safe and supportive so that young people feel confident to have their voices heard and their rights, interests and needs respected and responded to.

This will require funding and coordination, to ensure appropriate responses and referral pathways are adequately resourced. Further measures from the Ombudsman’s report should be explored, funded and implemented alongside existing work aligned with the Roadmap.

[1] L Hutchins & S J Law, ‘Alcohol harm hiding in the home’, Croakey, 20 August 2020.

[2] Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education & Cancer Council WA, An Alcohol ad every 35 seconds. A snapshot of how the alcohol industry is using a global pandemic as a marketing opportunity, May 2020.

[3] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Women’s sexual and reproductive health: Key priorities 2017-2020, March 2017.

[4] E King, ‘Soaring back-to-school costs highlight education funding shortfalls’, VCOSS media release, 24 January 2020.

[5] Community Information & Support Victoria, The Stress, the Strain & the Pain: The impact of school costs on families and the CISVic sector, May 2020.

[6] Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Management of the Student Resource Package, August 2020.

[7] Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Additional School Costs for Families, February 2015.

[8] VCOSS, ‘Finding a good job: Victorian 2020 State Budget Analysis’, accessed 9 December 2020, <https://vcoss.org.au/advocacy/vicbudget2020/jobs-skills/>.

[9] For example, this checklist, developed by VicHealth through a youth citizens jury: VicHealth, Staying on Track. Check-in opportunity for employers: Young Victorians recommend these actions to support wellbeing at work, January 2020.

[10] WEstjustice, Travel Assistance Program, September 2020.

[11] VicTas Community Transport Association, ‘Welcome’, accessed 9 December 2020, <https://www.vtcta.org.au/>.

[12] Banksia Gardens Community Services, C.A.R.Y.A Climate Adaptation Requires Youth Action Instructor Manual.

[13] Banksia Gardens Community Services, C.A.R.Y.A Climate Adaptation Requires Youth Action Instructor Manual, p.1.

[14] E Carlisle, J Fildes, S Hall, B Perrens, A Perdriau & J Plummer, Youth Survey Report 2019, Mission Australia, 2019.

[15] ACOSS, ‘Emergency Management: Prevention, Preparedness, Response & Recovery’, Resilience Community Organisations, 2015, accessed 9 December 2020.

[16] Emergency Management Victoria, ‘What we do’, 2018, accessed 9 December 2020.

[17] Inspector-General for Emergency Management, Review of 10 years of reform in Victoria’s emergency management sector, October 2020.

[18] Council of Australian Governments, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, COAG Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, 2011.

[19] Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, Adolescent Violence in the Home, accessed 9 December 2020.

[20] Australian Institute of Family Studies, Children’s exposure to domestic and family violence, CFCA Paper No 36, December 2015.

[21]Whitehorse Community Health Service Ltd., Baby Makes 3: Project Report, VicHealth, 2011.

[22] VCOSS, TAFE: Accessible for all, November 2020, p.25.

[23] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Recognising and supporting Victoria’s carers: Victorian carer strategy 2018-22, June 2018.

[24] Launch Housing, Explainer: The homelessness services system and demand for services, March 2019.

[25] VCOSS, ‘Supporting children and families: Victorian 2020 State Budget Analysis’, accessed 9 December 2020, <https://vcoss.org.au/advocacy/vicbudget2020/children-families/>.

[26] Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into complaints about assaults of five children living in Child Protection residential care units, October 2020.

The Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) welcomes the opportunity to participate in the 2020 review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (the Standards). VCOSS works towards the elimination of disadvantage in all its forms, and the creation of a society where all people are supported to thrive. This includes allyship with people with disability.  VCOSS supports more than 40 Victorian disability advocacy organisations to undertake collaborative systemic advocacy under the banner of the ‘Empowered Lives’ campaign.[1]

Every student with disability has the right to access high-quality, inclusive and engaging education and lifelong learning opportunities. The Standards, which sit under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), outline the rights of students, the obligations of education providers, and provide guidance for the application of inclusive practices.

The Standards are reviewed every five years. The 2015 review made a range of recommendations to improve the understanding and use of the Standards and to clarify roles and responsibilities, which the Government largely agreed with in principle.[2] However, many recommendations have not been implemented[3] and key priorities still require considerable attention and action.

The 2020 review must not simply go through the motions – it needs to inspire and instigate targeted and timely action.

The review should also consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is highlighting educational barriers and challenges, and is likely to prevent many people from engaging with the review process. The review and any subsequent actions or strategies should also be responsive to the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and the development of the next National Disability Strategy.

Coordinated and comprehensive action to drive change

Recommendations

• Undertake comprehensive consultation with people with disability, families, carers, advocates, human rights experts and lawyers to inform the development of a stronger DDA and related Standards.
• Improve compliance with the DDA and related Standards through a staged introduction of proactive measures, assessment tools and auditing processes.
• Appoint an oversight body to review and analyse complaints to inform systemic change.
• Remove barriers to complaints being freely made and appropriately addressed by clarifying roles and improving communication to explain the complaints process.
• Co-design a comprehensive, actionable strategy to deliver inclusive education for students with disability.
• Improve data collection and reporting to gain deeper insights into the experiences of students with disability and identify areas for action.
• Ensure students with disability are included and prioritised in government education strategies.

Students with disability across different states, suburbs and settings continue to have vastly different educational experiences and outcomes. Instead of a system that guarantees enrolment at their school of choice, and provides students with the support they need to learn and thrive, the lived experience of many students with disability, their families and carers is that they have to continuously advocate for their rights to be upheld and for their needs to be met.

While the Standards provide a framework for explaining the responsibilities and obligations of education providers under the DDA, they do not effectively promote and protect the rights of students with disability.

The practical use and powers of the Standards are limited by:

• their broad and flexible nature, which leaves them open to wide interpretation by providers, through complaints processes and in legal proceedings
• inconsistent application across providers and settings
• a lack of funding and resources to implement reasonable adjustments
• poor accountability measures, and
• reliance on a complaints-based system to drive change and achieve compliance.

There is low awareness and understanding of the Standards, particularly among students, their families and carers. The Standards are commonly read and interpreted as an information sheet, instead of a summary of legal obligations. As many education providers are state-managed, many people are unfamiliar with the Standards and are unaware of their relevance and application in a state-based context.

Even when students with disability, their families and carers know their rights under the Standards and the DDA, discriminatory attitudes, practices and environments continue to prevent students with disability from accessing and participating in education. The expertise and voices of students with disability, families, carers and professionals about the support needed are sidelined in a process that prioritises the power and preferences of educators and is heavily influenced by financial pressures. Students with disability and their support networks must advocate for their rights, at a provider-level, to the relevant government department, or through lengthy complaints processes. Complaints processes are often not accessible to young people with disability who want to raise complaints independently. Complaints processes also lack independence, as providers or departments both hear and make decisions about complaints, without the oversight or input of an external body.

In the 15 years since the Standards were introduced, it is difficult to assess the extent of their influence. Over the past four years, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) received 497 education-related complaints of disability discrimination.[4] The AHRC considers there have been variable outcomes driven by Standards under the DDA, and that there are limits to what they can achieve, especially for advisory measures.[5] There is a lack of data about the educational experiences of Australian students with disability[6], including those related to the outcomes of the Standards.

Across a range of measures, available data indicates outcomes are not changing or are becoming worse:

• Children and young people with disability increasingly face difficulties with learning and fitting in socially[7], and more commonly and frequently experience bullying and harassment at school[8]
• Young people with disability were twice as likely to have experienced bullying in the past 12 months than their peers, and were more likely to experience physical bullying and cyberbullying than young people without disability.[9] Overwhelmingly, this bullying occurred in educational contexts[10]
• Anecdotally, our members report families are increasingly home-schooling children and young people with disability, before and beyond COVID-19, due to a lack of suitable, supportive local options
• Students with disability are less likely to finish Year 12 or equivalent[11]
• Young people with disability feel less confident in their ability to achieve their post-school goals to pursue further study or employment, and fewer have plans to go to university than young people without disability[12]
• People with disability are less likely to pursue studies at TAFE or university[13].

Educational environments are reflective of our broader community, which is not yet fully inclusive for people with disability. The challenges and barriers faced by students with disability are significant, and it will take a proportionate response to ensure all education settings are inclusive, welcoming and accessible.

Our members believe improving awareness, application and compliance with the current Standards is unlikely to be effective – strong, enforceable and practical laws and a national strategy are sorely needed to drive genuine, lasting change.

The DDA should be redrafted with people with disability, families, carers, advocates, education experts and lawyers, to better reflect Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This process should also review international best-practice and consider a staged introduction of positive duties to require education providers to take proactive steps to prevent and eliminate discrimination. Compliance measures should be strengthened, and assessment and auditing processes established.

Complaints processes and the remit and responsibilities of different entities should be clarified and communicated to ensure concerns can be freely and easily raised, handled by an appropriate independent role or body, and lead to the development of timely, constructive solutions. An oversight body should also be established or appointed to review, analyse and report on complaints to build the evidence base for systemic change.

Governments should also lead broad collaboration to develop an action-oriented, outcomes-focused strategy for inclusive education. The strategy should include a range of tangible short, medium and long-term goals and clear, measurable outcomes. As part of this work, governments should explore and address data gaps to ensure initiatives are appropriately targeted and evidence-based.

The rights and needs of students with disability should also be represented in all national and state-based education strategies, including those seeking to address bullying and harassment, careers education, and to support First Nations people, women and girls, and people living in regional and remote communities.

Support students with disability to access education

Recommendations

• Make it mandatory for education providers to share clear information with students, families and carers about the rights of students with disability, avenues for support and complaints processes.
• Increase funding for independent disability advocacy organisations to ensure students, families and carers can access timely support and build their self-advocacy skills.
• Implement accountability and transparency mechanisms to monitor and address gatekeeping, suspensions and expulsions of students with disability.
• Define consultation and develop guidelines to ensure the voices and expertise of students, their families and carers, is heard and respected.
• Outline a clear, fair and robust process for developing and implementing reasonable adjustments that respects the expertise and insights of students, carers and families, and focuses on measurable, timely goals.
• Explore and address funding and resource constraints that limit the provision of reasonable adjustments and contribute to discriminatory practices.

Learning about human and legal rights, and building confidence to take action or speak up, is a process shaped by insights, incidents and experiences.[14] Often people learn about their rights when something goes wrong, or when something doesn’t feel right. Experiences of discrimination, exclusion and harassment during education impact students with disability, their families and carers, in a range of practical, social, emotional and financial ways.

Early messaging for children, families and carers – from medical professionals, educators and the broader community – tends to focus on deficits rather than strengths and potential. This messaging shapes expectations and decision-making about students’ learning potential, education options and career pathways across their lifetime.

Accessible information about rights

Early childhood education and care services provide crucial support for children with disability and can often be the setting for a lot of ‘firsts’, including the first point of contact with a formal service system, the first time families and carers face enrolment barriers, and in some cases, early identification of learning and developmental concerns. In the early years, families and carers of children with disability often do not know about their child’s rights. When they are turned away from a service, they move onto the next one, unaware the barriers they are facing are driven by discriminatory attitudes and practices. Accessing services and navigating enrolment processes can be even more challenging for children and families who experience multiple, complex and intersecting forms of discrimination, including culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations children with disability, their families and carers.

During school enrolment, families and carers are usually not informed their child’s right to access education on the same basis as their peers.[15] Families and carers of children with disability who have a formal diagnosis, or are linked into a peer support group or advocacy organisation, are more likely to know and assert their rights.

These gaps can be addressed. The Standards, the DDA, education frameworks and policies should oblige education providers to proactively share information about the rights of students with disability with students themselves, families and carers, in a range of accessible, age-appropriate and engaging formats.

Advocacy services and self-advocacy supports, including peer groups, should also be available for all students and their support network. Disability advocacy organisations across Australia are under resourced and under pressure. Governments must work together with the sector to expand the reach, coverage and access to advocacy support.

Fair and transparent enrolment processes and decisions

School enrolment is often “the first of many battles [families] have to fight in order to ensure their child receives anything like an adequate education”[16]. A recent survey by Children and Young People with Disabilities Australia shows 12.5 per cent of students with disability have been refused enrolment.[17] Where enrolment is not explicitly refused, students and families get a very clear sense of whether they are welcome. Students with disability in rural and regional areas can be especially impacted by gatekeeping practices and may have fewer local education choices and less anonymity in moving to another school. The enrolment compliance measures of the Standards are not focused on the things that matter most. They should seek to address unlawful enrolment refusal or the application of terms and conditions of admission as stated in the DDA.[18] Compliance and accountability measures should focus on the decision-making of providers and seek to transparently monitor, address and eliminate gatekeeping practices.

Participation and inclusion

A lack of adjustments and individualised supports are raised as common barriers for students with disability.[19] While the Standards promote measures to support the participation of students with disability, what these measures look like and how they are developed and implemented varies significantly.

The Standards state that measures to support participation should be developed in consultation with students, families and carers, yet what constitutes ‘consultation’ is not defined. Our members report that too often, consultation does not occur in a meaningful way, if at all. Families and carers already hold fears about speaking up, of retribution for their child or family and of being labelled. The lack of a formal and fair process prevents families from engaging in a positive, constructive conversation about their child’s learning and needs. Young people with disability are often not included in conversations about their access needs, and decisions are made on their behalf by families, carers and teachers.

Under the Standards, adjustments are considered ‘reasonable’ if they balance the interests of all parties, yet ultimately, their implementation depends on the decisions of educators and the availability of funding and resources. Even when evidence is presented by students, families and allied health professionals, and resources are provided based on what is known to work, education providers can disagree with an adjustment.

The quality and detail of individual education plans (IEPs) which describe adjustments and strategies for students is variable and inconsistent across settings. IEPs are not always documented or informed by genuine engagement with students, families and carers. When IEPs are in place they are not always followed, and alternative or counter-productive strategies are sometimes introduced by educators without consultation, including restrictive practices. The lack of measurable, specific, evidence-based and time-bound goals also makes many IEPs ineffective in driving outcomes.

Students with disability face a range of barriers in remaining engaged in education. They may drop out or avoid school due to stigma, prejudice and bullying from their peers, teachers and parents, not because of their academic participation or performance.[20] A lack of early intervention and adequate supports can contribute to disengagement. Students with disability also experience high rates of suspension and expulsion.[21] Making sure students receive the support they need to participate in learning, and to remain engaged in education settings, is critical for their lifelong learning and future pathways.

Resources and support

While the Discussion Paper does not intend to explore funding issues, it is impossible to ignore the impact of a lack of resources on enrolment decisions and the provision of reasonable adjustments. Educators and education providers, who hold the primary decision-making power for adjustments, have to consider the resources available to deliver supports. If funding is simply not available or sufficient, the most affordable adjustment is more likely to be chosen, even if it does not meet the student’s needs. Resourcing decisions can also contribute to gatekeeping and the encouragement of part-time attendance.[22] Governments must work together to explore and address resourcing issues that affect the implementation of reasonable adjustments for students with disability.

Boost the capacity, knowledge and rights awareness of educators and providers

Recommendations

• Embed and promote the human and legal rights of students with disability across all education frameworks and policies.
• Establish consistency in restrictive practices frameworks, policies and reporting mechanisms to improve protections for students with disability and inform educators.
• Improve the quality and depth of training for educators about the rights of students with disability, student and family consultation and inclusive education practices, through pre-service tertiary studies and ongoing professional development, networking and mentoring.
• Clarify and communicate the roles and responsibilities of the NDIS and education providers.
• Strengthen the capacity of NDIS Partners in the Community to support inclusive education environments and communities.

All education settings have a role to play in supporting students with disability to build their skills and confidence, explore their interests and pursue their aspirations. Educators from early learning through to tertiary settings work under a range of national and state-based frameworks, funding requirements, legislation and regulations, including the Standards.

There is a low and mixed understanding of the Standards and how to put them into practice across education settings.[23] The Standards currently apply to kindergarten services but do not currently encompass childcare services, a gap that has been identified by both previous reviews.[24]

While early childhood education services are generally aware of their responsibilities for supporting all children with their individual needs, they may not know about their obligations under the Standards or the DDA, or feel confident in putting their knowledge into practice. In education settings where the Standards currently apply, their effectiveness relies on the attitudes and knowledge of educators and leaders, and access to sufficient resources.

Governments should adopt a comprehensive approach to build the skills and capacity of education providers and educators to deliver inclusive and accessible learning.

The human and legal rights of students with disability should be consistently and prominently embedded across all existing educational frameworks. For example, improving the incorporation of key principles and legislation in the National Quality Framework could strengthen inclusive practices in early childhood education settings. National consistency in frameworks, policies and reporting mechanisms to monitor and eliminate restrictive practices across settings is also needed to protect students with disability.[25]

The quality and depth of training and learning for educators, before they commence in their roles and during their career, needs to be increased and reformed to incorporate best practice approaches to supporting students with disability. Tertiary training should work to build educators’ knowledge and understanding of the rights of students with disability, and of different disabilities. Educators should be equipped with practical skills in consulting and engaging students with disability, their families and carers, in developing and implementing reasonable adjustments, and in identifying the boundaries of their role and expertise. Ongoing professional development, networking and mentoring should also be provided to ensure educators can continue developing their skills.

Educators should be supported to connect and collaborate with specialist supports and services, including allied health professionals and behaviour specialists. The interface between the NDIS and the education system remains confusing for students and educators alike. In response to the 2015 review, the Australian Government agreed further work is required to clarify and communicate roles and responsibilities.[26] The role of NDIS Partners in the Community could be better leveraged and resourced to build local relationships and knowledge and enhance inclusion in education and community settings.

[1] Empowered Lives, empoweredlives.vcoss.org.au.

[2] Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, Australian Government Initial Response to the 2015 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005, 2015.

[3] UN Committee on the Rights Of Persons with Disability, Concluding Observations: UN Report on Australia’s Review of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD), September 2019.

[4] AHRC, Complaint Statistics: Disability Discrimination Act – Complaints received by area, 2018-19, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2015-16.

[5] AHRC, Free and equal – An Australian conversation on human rights: Discussion paper: Priorities for federal discrimination law reform, October 2019, p.13-14.

[6] UN Committee on the Rights Of Persons with Disability, Concluding Observations: UN Report on Australia’s Review of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD), September 2019.

[7] ABS, 4430.0 – Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2018; ABS, 4427.0 – Young People with Disability, 2012.

[8] AIHW, Australia’s children, Cat. no. CWS 69, April 2020, p.369.

[9] Mission Australia, Young, Willing and Able; Youth Survey Disability Report, 2019.

[10] Ibid.

[11] AIHW, People with disability in Australia: Highest level of education, September 2019.

[12] Mission Australia, Young, Willing and Able; Youth Survey Disability Report, 2019.

[13] AIHW, People with disability in Australia: Non-school education, September 2019.

[14] VCOSS, Changing attitudes and realising rights: VCOSS submission to Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability – Rights and Attitudes Issues Paper, August 2020.

[15] E Jenkin, C Spivakovsky, S Joseph and M Smith, Improving Educational Outcomes for Children with Disability in Victoria: Final Report, June 2018.

[16] Commonwealth Senate Education and Employment References Committee, Access to real learning: the impact of policy, funding and culture on students with disability, January 2016, p.3.

[17] CYDA, Time for change: The state of play for inclusion of students with disability: Results from the 2019 CYDA National Education Survey, October 2019.

[18] Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), s.22.

[19] Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Summary of responses to the first Education and learning Issues paper, 28 July 2020, p.3.

[20] UNICEF, Children and Young People with Disabilities Fact Sheet, 2013.

[21] Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into Victorian government school expulsions, August 2017; CYDA, Time for change: The state of play for inclusion of students with disability, October 2019, p.9.

[22] Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into Victorian government school expulsions, August 2017, p.37.

[23] Commonwealth Senate Education and Employment References Committee, Access to real learning: the impact of policy, funding and culture on students with disability, January 2016, p.26-30; VEOHRC, Held back: The experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools, September 2012, p.10.

[24] Urbis, Final report: 2015 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005, Recommendation 11, Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005 – June 2012, Recommendation 3.

[25] Civil Society CRPD Shadow Report Working Group, Disability Rights Now 2019: Australian Civil Society Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: UN CRPD Review 2019, July 2019, p.27.

[26] Australian Department of Education and Training, Australian Government Initial Response to the 2015 Review of the

Disability Standards for Education 2005, December 2015, p.5-6.

The single mum, who lives in social housing in Melbourne’s South East, is squarely focused on staying positive and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic so she can best care for her four-year-old daughter, Sienna*.

Meena has experienced immense hardship in recent years, enduring domestic violence that led to post traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, as well a permanent disability in her right knee. She was also made redundant and lost her father, who had dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

“I’d hit rock bottom mentally – and having to look after Sienna (and) still be cheerful, I think brought such a lot of resilience in me,” she says.

“I said … you know, if I’ve survived the worst, everything else is a piece of cake. So I’ve got myself out of that sort of place.”

Meena says that, although COVID-19 has been devastating, it has given her a chance to pause and map out where she wants to take her life.

“It’s also given me a time to reflect on what’s really, really important with everything that’s happening. And so I said, ‘I’ve got to turn things around’. The thing I was most passionate about was to use my strengths to help other men and women facing family violence.”

She will start a Certificate III in Community Services this year and hopes to continue her studies through a Masters of Social Work in 2021.

“I said … you know, if I’ve survived the worst, everything else is a piece of cake. So I’ve got myself out of that sort of place.”

Meena is on a strict grocery budget but is determined for her and Sienna to continue to eat healthy, fresh food during the pandemic.

During the first lockdown and panic buying, her grocery budget was stretched due to the lack of usual special offers from the supermarkets, and Meena would cut her own portion sizes to manage.

Now, she has resumed normal portion sizes because she wants to stay fit and healthy, adding she often uses YouTube to do ‘P.E. With Joe’ exercise sessions with Sienna.

“If I fall sick, there’s no plan B looking after Sienna, so I have to look after myself,” Meena says.

“Eating junk food is so much cheaper. You could get a massive bag of crisps for say maybe two dollars, but every avocado costs about two dollars – two or three. So healthy living comes with a price. I look at it now as an investment into my long life.”

The 38-year-old says her contact with friends is less frequent than before the pandemic but she enjoys chatting on Zoom, adding she thinks online catch-ups will become the new normal and are safer, cheaper and more relaxed than heading out to restaurants.

“You buy yourselves the best bottle of wine you can and have girls’ night and you’re safe,” Meena says.

“You don’t have to drive anywhere either – you’re at home; you can just flop down on the couch and that’s it. So I think it’s going to change things for the better.”

Every night after putting Sienna to bed, Meena watches uplifting TED Talks and listens to the likes of Oprah and Brené Brown to boost her mood.

“Staying in isolation… especially with someone who’s separated, there’s not another partner you can bounce things off of or, you know, cheer you on,” she explains.

“So you have to be your own cheerleader.”

*Names have been changed

Next: Forced to embrace technology

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2020/06/supplementary-feedback-to-the-inquiry-into-early-childhood-engagement-of-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-communities/ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 06:56:58 +0000 https://vcoss.test/?p=34609 Impacts of COVID-19

COVID-19 has caused profound social and economic dislocation, with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians feeling the impacts most acutely. VCOSS members report new and emerging culturally and linguistically diverse communities, including asylum seekers and refugees, are likely to have experienced the impacts of COVID-19 more severely than established culturally diverse communities and the broader population. The reasons are varied and include: difficulties understanding or navigating a range of systems, less established networks of support, and limited English or literacy.

Early childhood education is a key window of development in a child’s life. Two years of high-quality early learning for children who experience disadvantage or vulnerability, including low proficiency in English or being socio-economically disadvantaged, can turn the tide for building strong foundations for later learning and good life outcomes. Many Victorian children had their participation in early childhood education disrupted during the initial COVID-19 response phase. For some children, this disruption was because of economic factors. Measures were instituted by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments, for example, to introduce temporary payment relief, however, as we move into the COVID-safe environment, and relief measures cease, the return to fee-for-service early childhood education and care is a key issue of concern, given that many Victorian families will continue to experience economic hardship through this next stage of the pandemic’s trajectory.

Culturally and linguistically diverse families who experienced heightened vulnerability during COVID-19 should not have their access to a range of early learning restricted by financial barriers.

Many of the recommendations made by VCOSS in its substantive submission are amplified by COVID-19. In particular, COVID-19 highlights the critical need to formally recognise and fund communities for the role they play in providing trusted and accurate information, and the need for greater investment in outreach to ensure families are connected before times of crisis hit.

Key recommendations that are particularly relevant in the context of COVID-19 include:

• Build on existing community and social capital to increase awareness of early years services
• Provide accessible resources to address language and literacy barriers
• Fund a ‘community connector’ or ‘peer workforce’ model
• Integrate the use of bicultural and bilingual workers in mainstream services
• Provide additional funding for interpreters

Key recommendations moving forward to ensure culturally and linguistically diverse families can access early years services are:

• Consult with people from CALD backgrounds to understand how they feel culturally safe, using an intersectional lens
• Support families experiencing vulnerability who may be facing cost or eligibility barriers to access affordable early years services
• Ensure every child can access early childhood education, regardless of where they live or the time of year
• Increase collaboration between services to promote ‘hubs’ and soft access points
• Create spaces for parents to build connections by participating in group settings
• Ensure services are run in culturally safe and familiar places such as shopping centres and libraries
• Invest in greater collaboration between outreach services to reach places where families gather

 

Access to timely, accurate and trusted information

VCOSS members report some culturally and linguistically diverse communities, in particular new and emerging communities, struggled to access updated and relevant information about the pandemic, particularly during the early stages of stay at home measures when information was changing regularly.

Barriers for new and emerging communities can include limited English, different stages in the establishment of structures and support systems, and difficulties understanding and navigating government systems or community agencies.

VCOSS highlighted in our substantive submission that there is a need to build on existing social capital and connection within communities. COVID-19 has highlighted that how information is disseminated, accessed, and trusted in diverse communities can differ significantly to the rest of the population. When information is changing regularly, it needs to flow through trusted and legitimate channels and through communities directly. This can be achieved through word of mouth, faith leaders, community leaders and associations, or community radio.

In some communities, particularly those who have experienced prejudice or overt racism through public discourse, or whose social and political contexts in their country of origin differs significantly to Australia, there can be a distrust of the media and governments. This makes the connection to timely, translated and accurate information from communities directly even more important during a pandemic.

While translation is important, VCOSS members report who the message reaches needed more consideration. For example, posters in communal spaces of a public housing block has limited reach when families are not able to utilise those communal spaces.

Other issues relating to the dissemination of information included assumptions of literacy, having to navigate webpages in English to reach translated information, and subsequent policing or over-policing of communities by police or neighbours when information did not flow quickly enough to children and families who were then not adhering to stay at home measures.

Strategies that would have supported culturally and linguistically diverse communities to better access the information they needed, particularly new and emerging communities, include:

• Ensure information and advice is provided through a range of media, including television, online, apps and radio and in a range of accessible formats including pictorial and oral
  • For example, VCOSS members noted ad campaigns on mainstream television networks by diverse Australian celebrities, sports stars or popular culture figures would have helped to disseminate public health messages. VCOSS members report even where these messages are in English, there is significant community reach through communities seeing themselves reflected through diversity which creates talk, attention and circulation of the video amongst communities.
• Directly engage multicultural, refugee and asylum seeker organisations to support the dissemination of information
• Engage leaders of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, who are trusted sources of information, to distribute advice through their communities
  • Formal and informal community networks undertook significant work in reaching their communities to provide accurate and trusted information. This role of ‘connecting’ quickly and directly, rather than waiting for information to be released in language, meant community members were doing translations on the spot. This was often the only accessible information available to people with limited or no English, literacy, or understanding of government systems (for example, to log on to the DHHS website for updated information).
• Ensure schools and universities provide information in a range of languages and formats.

 

Accessing services

Through stay at home measures, the shutdown of many services and closure of public and community spaces, families not already engaged in services are more likely to have faced barriers throughout the pandemic. In particular, newly arrived members of the community who have limited English and a limited understanding of the service system are at heightened risk of social isolation and missing out on key supports, due limited access to up to date and accessible information, or limited access to devices and the internet.

Local councils and community sector organisations have a range of innovative ways they bridge connection with families in ‘place’ in their local communities, who may be hard to reach in non-pandemic times. This became increasingly difficult during COVID-19. For example, families who may ordinarily be connected to services through ‘soft entry points’ such as shopping centre playgroups, or through community hubs where services are co-located have been unable to access these points of connection due to the closure of many services and no face to face contact, limiting important informal opportunities to connect.

Policing and issuing of fines for people who breached directions may have had a disproportionate impact on culturally and linguistically diverse families.

For many culturally and linguistically diverse families, stay at home measures exacerbated existing inequalities. For example, large families in overcrowded or severely overcrowded housing had limited space to study, learn or work and no access to public spaces such as libraries for relief. VCOSS members report some families in severely overcrowded housing who sought relief from going outside to the local park or open space were then approached by police, further compounding stress.

While the Victorian Government announced students would have access to onsite learning if they did not have an appropriate learning environment at home, VCOSS members report some culturally and linguistically diverse families were denied access to onsite learning, despite living in severely overcrowded housing and having access to limited or no internet or digital devices. Culturally and linguistically diverse communities were not in the government’s ‘priority cohort’ for receiving devices, sim cards or dongles. Learning from home was also a challenge for parents with limited English who could not understand how to use technology or how to support their children’s learning.

While early childhood education and care services remained open, and became free during COVID-19, adults were given limited access to these spaces to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This meant that even where families were still engaging in services onsite, parents and families were unable to gather in spaces for social connection and support. For families without access to appropriate technology, this severely restricted pathways for social connection and wellbeing support.

VCOSS members also report some new and emerging communities who did not have a detailed understanding of the service system were at a disadvantage in accessing broader supports, including telehealth or online playgroups.

The barriers presented in the shutdown of services highlights the importance of families already being engaged in a range of early years services to support connection and wellbeing throughout times of crisis. Outreach services and deeper integration of services is vitally important to ensure all families are able to deeply connect with their local communities. Existing engagement supports follow-ups and check-ins from services – but, if services don’t know who may be vulnerable and who may be missing out on support, this constrains the ability for targeted outreach and connection during a pandemic.

 

Engagement: an early learning sector strength

One of the key strengths of the early learning sector is its engagement and connection with families. One VCOSS member, a peak body for early learning services, reported that a number of services (predominantly kindergartens) with culturally and linguistically diverse families had positive engagement with families and children during COVID-19, including through the use of ‘remote learning’ resources.

Strong relationships and trust between services and families was fundamental to the ability of services to work positively with families in informing them about stay at home measures, accessing their services (be it on-site or through learning from home), and understanding the needs of each child and their families. Building relationships, trust and engagement also enabled services to:

• Utilise existing communication channels such as email and apps to stay connected with children and families
• Understand the needs of children and their families and use a range of strategies to sustain engagement and meet these needs, including:
  • providing tailored activities to suit the learning from home environment – from providing one activity a day to a range of activities to engage a child for many hours, and drawing on items usually found in the home to support activities
  • learning about other challenges families were facing such as supporting learning from home for school-aged children, managing work, including job loss, supporting extended family, and being generally exhausted.

Access to digital devices and technology did not appear to be a significant issue for these families for the purposes of remote early learning.

Many services reported having existing staff from a diversity of cultural backgrounds with a number of languages spoken, helping to build trust, cultural safety and understanding between services and families. Some services are reporting 100 per cent reengagement of culturally and linguistically diverse families back to their services.

VCOSS notes that these learnings and positive experiences are only a small sample of a large and diverse early learning sector. However, this does highlight the strength of the early learning sector in engaging families who are linked in with their services.

It also highlights the importance of integrating bicultural and bilingual workers and growing the diverse workforce to reflect the diversity in the community. This helps with the accessibility and understanding of early learning, and supports services in understanding how they can create culturally safe environments for children and families.

 

Asylum seekers and refugees

VCOSS understands there has been a significant increase in presentation of refugee and asylum seeker families with children to emergency relief support services during COVID-19.

Many asylum seekers and refugees experienced heightened financial vulnerability during the pandemic. Being ineligible for the Commonwealth’s JobKeeper subsidy meant many asylum seeker and refugee workers were amongst the first to be laid-off when businesses closed, and without access to appropriate government income support, many families have relied on community service organisations to meet basic needs like covering the costs of housing and purchasing food.

 

Increased financial vulnerability had significant flow-on affects including exacerbating the digital divide and therefore ability of families to engage in services or gain appropriate supports (for example telehealth, remote learning), which then in turn had impacts on isolation and wellbeing.

 

Impacts experienced by asylum seekers and refugees during COVID-19

Many of these impacts have been experienced by the broader population, including culturally and linguistically diverse members of the community who have permanent residency, Australian citizenship or other substantive visas. However, little to no access to government income support and more precarious employment means the experience of these impacts for asylum seekers and refugees are more severe.

Key challenges faced by asylum seeker and refugee families relating to accessing services and education include:

• Financial vulnerability and subsequent inability to meet basic needs or purchase devices or internet for accessing information, services and remote learning.
• Stigma in accessing or to be seen to be accessing support services, including in rural areas.
• Digital exclusion and impacts on remote learning.
• Not understanding the restrictions, and also the support and assistance they are eligible for or are able to access. For example, some families were reluctant to request devices for remote learning as they worried they would have to pay for it.

VCOSS members also reported the intersection between cultural and lived experience and technology barriers were complex. For example, as supported playgroups were not able to run in person during COVID-19, some services moved to online digital playgroups. VCOSS members report a distrust in technology and surveillance as well as defined gender roles, acted as a barrier for some families to engage in these digital playgroups. This occurred even where there was enthusiasm from the mother, due to the husband’s distrust of technology and surveillance.

These barriers demonstrate the need for culturally and linguistically diverse communities to have greater input into emergency planning and for greater resources to become available to support access and engagement in services so that families are well connected during times of crisis.

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2020/06/vcoss-submission-to-the-education-state-lessons-from-remote-and-flexible-learning/ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 06:32:32 +0000 https://vcoss.test/?p=34600 Introduction

The Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on lessons from Remote and Flexible Learning, which was instituted as part of the Victorian Government’s COVID response.

In making this submission, we are highly attuned to context. Our community is in the throes of unprecedented social and economic dislocation caused by a global health pandemic. We understand that the Victorian Government has had to make decisions at pace, based on the best available public health information at any given time. We particularly acknowledge the extraordinary scale and speed of adaptation that the Department of Education and Training was required to make in order to establish and operationalise Remote and Flexible Learning.

Throughout this time, VCOSS’s focus has been – as it always is – on vulnerable students and families: those for whom school is a refuge from violence, abuse or neglect, and those who rely on schools for meals, for mental health care and other wellbeing supports, for additional learning support, and for educational resources that aren’t readily available at home (for example, a quiet space for individual study, or access to books, news media, digital devices and internet). We have also been concerned for students who, pre-COVID, had risk factors for early school leaving or were on a pathway back to education after a period of school disengagement, and the impact that COVID adaptations have had on their engagement.

Once the decision was made to move to Remote and Flexible Learning, VCOSS welcomed the Victorian Government’s commitment to keeping schools open for vulnerable students, and those whose parents are essential workers, to have their learning supervised onsite.

VCOSS also welcomed the Victorian Government’s acknowledgement of the digital divide between students and its commitment to provide devices (laptops and tablets) and internet access to every student who needed this support during the period of Remote and Flexible Learning.

Through partnership forums such as the Human Services and Health Partnership Implementation Committee (HSHPIC), the Department of Education – Community Sector Organisation Governance Group and the Education State Schools Guiding Coalition, we were made aware of rapid adaptations to school-based wellbeing supports to try and maintain continuity of support to the most vulnerable students and families, and work to sustain established school re-engagement programs such as Navigator.

At the outset, whilst acknowledging these commitments, we did express concern that some students may still be left behind – in particular, students with additional needs who may usually have a teacher’s aid and/or other school-based supports to enable their participation and assist their learning.

The feedback we have had from VCOSS members during this time shows a mixed picture. Remote and Flexible Learning was experienced differently across (and within) different student cohorts, educational settings, and places (local areas).

For some students, changes to the usual school routine, not having to travel, and being away from a school environment they can find stressful represented freedom and helped them to thrive. Some VCOSS members reported that online learning increased students’ sense of agency and improved their engagement. Distribution of devices has provided some students with home internet for the first time ever. The body of this submission identifies what worked well and should be sustained.

There have also been students whose experience of Remote and Flexible Learning has been negative. This is because they experienced systemic barriers associated with having a disability, experienced delays in receiving devices that enable internet access, were trying to study in a home environment not conducive to this purpose (e.g. living in overcrowded housing), lost peer connection and/or reported a reduction in their wellbeing.

In some instances, this was exacerbated by the stress of lockdown, including the closure of (or limited access to) community spaces, and inability to connect in the same way with formal and informal supports (for example, programs run by community service organisations, peer and extended family networks).

While we understand that the Department of Education and Training worked to adapt wellbeing supports, to ensure vulnerable students continued to have access to school psychologists and other wellbeing resources, some students who might previously have had access to mental health care through school did not get the support they required and needed to find new avenues to access support.

VCOSS has identified the following lessons from the Remote and Flexible Learning period.

Each one is unpacked in more detail in the body of the submission, and is framed as a recommendation for government. Many of these recommendations have their roots in pre-COVID times. In many ways, the pandemic has magnified pre-existing faultlines and opportunities, and the rapid adaptations made during this time show what is possible:

 

• Lesson 1: We cannot break the link between disadvantage and educational outcomes unless we address the technological divide. Having reliable internet access and a digital device for schoolwork at school and at home is essential to students’ participation and learning. Every Victorian student should have a laptop or tablet and internet access. The rapid deployment of devices to support Remote and Flexible Learning has been a game-changer for some of the State’s most disadvantaged learners. Going forward, the Victorian Government should sustain the provision of devices to students who do not otherwise have access to these at home.

 

• Lesson 2: Students with disabilities face additional health, learning and development needs that often require targeted teaching support and access to specialist therapists and integration aides. The period of Remote and Flexible Learning heightened barriers for students who do not receive the tailored support they need to fully participate in learning – for example, we heard from the Association for Children with Disabilities that families were told by teachers that they were not required to provide differentiated learning plans. Additionally, existing in-school education supports were not adapted to support students and families to engage with home-based learning. In addition to the educational impacts, this has affected the mental health and employment participation of many families. COVID-19 has highlighted the need for the Department of Education and Training’s emergency planning and response to have an increased focus on the adaptation of education support at times of crisis. More broadly, there is a need for the Victorian Government to boost funding and support to students with a disability.

 

• Lesson 3: Interface issues between the education system and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) have become more pronounced for students and their families. The National Cabinet has shown what is possible, in terms of federal-state collaboration and joint problem-solving. The Victorian Government should seize this opportunity to work with the Commonwealth to fix outstanding issues at the interface of state education and the NDIS, so that all students with disabilities have access to the supports they need to thrive.

 

• Lesson 4: While Remote and Flexible Learning has not worked for every student, a strong message we have heard from students (via our members) is that they do want to retain flexibility and variety in the way their learning environment is structured. In particular, there is an appetite to do more in terms of integrating face-to-face and online learning beyond the COVID environment. The Department of Education and Training could explore this in the context of Education State goals to increase student agency and increase engagement, retention and completion.

 

• Lesson 5: COVID-19 is anticipated to generate more demand for support services as a consequence of increased unemployment and poverty, mental ill-health, substance use, and family violence. Students exposed to – or experiencing – these challenges will be at heightened risk of early school leaving. The Victorian Government should ensure eligibility criteria and funding for school and community-based engagement/re-engagement programs (for example, Navigator and School Focused Youth Services) enables schools and community-based providers to be responsive to young people’s needs.

Bridge the technological divide

Pre-pandemic, access to a device (such as a computer or iPad) and a secure, reliable internet connection were important for students to get the most out of their education. The move to remote learning during COVID-19 meant these devices became vital – without them, the learning experience was compromised, and important connections to teachers and peers were disrupted.

One-in-five households in regional Victoria, and one-in-ten households in metropolitan Melbourne, have no internet access at home. During the early COVID-response phase, Victorian Government restrictions meant that community facilities where people go to publicly access the internet, for example, libraries, were closed. While this was an urgent public health measure, it had an unintended consequence of heightening the educational disadvantage of some of the State’s most vulnerable students.

Not-for-profit organisations such as State Schools’ Relief received thousands more requests for assistance with internet access and extra devices.

The Victorian Government acted quickly to deliver thousands of laptops, devices, SIM cards and dongles to students, to enable access to online learning. Devices were given first to priority cohorts including senior secondary students, students in bush-fire affected areas and families who couldn’t afford an internet connection. This was a major logistical exercise for the Department of Education and Training. VCOSS acknowledges the scale and complexity of the task. For many students who received devices, having those devices was a key determinant of whether remote learning was successful and effective. However, some of the challenges included:

• Some students waited several weeks for their devices, meaning they missed out on weeks of online learning.
• Because demand exceeded supply, some students outside the priority cohorts missed out. For example, VCOSS members report some culturally and linguistically diverse families with multiple children only had one device to share between siblings.

Some correspondence sent to families asking them whether they needed a device or internet access was not translated into languages other than English, leaving migrant families and families with low-levels of literacy unaware of the support available. Some refugee and asylum seeker families did not approach schools requesting a device because were worried they would need to pay.

We are still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In parts of Melbourne, there is a surge in confirmed cases. There will likely be an ongoing need for devices in the context of the pandemic. However, the need for internet connection and devices will not end with the pandemic. In 2020, a laptop and device for internet access are a student’s ‘tools of the trade’. No access to devices and internet can mean students are unable to complete homework or participate fully in the curriculum. In the absence of government provision, some families go without other basics to cover the costs of these essential learning tools[1].

VCOSS has been deeply concerned to hear anecdotal reports that some students have already had to return their devices as they return to onsite learning. Every student in Victoria should be able to participate fully in learning at school and at home. Students who have received devices during the period of Remote and Flexible Learning should be able to retain these.

However, beyond COVID, the Victorian Government should provide devices to all students who do not otherwise have access to these at home.

 

Provide additional support to students with disability

Students with disabilities experience significant systemic barriers to education participation and engagement[2], and have lower Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates relative to other student cohorts[3].

These barriers have become magnified during COVID-19. During the period of Remote and Flexible Learning, VCOSS heard that there was a lack of specific guidance and information for students with disability. The Association for Children with a Disability experienced a 25 per cent increase in education-related calls to its Support Line. Additionally, 20 per cent of calls to the DET’s newly established Parent Line related to students with disability, far outweighing the proportion of students with disability[4].

 

Support for students with disability was inconsistent across Victoria and driven by school-level interpretation of policies and government guidance. For example, some students with disability were not provided with reasonably-adjusted course materials to enable them engage with remote learning on the same basis as their peers, raising concerns about students falling behind and heightened risk of future disengagement.

 

Additional supports usually available in the classroom were often not provided during online or remote learning. As well as limiting students’ ability to engage with online learning, this placed significant strain on families. Families and carers supported their children to engage in remote learning without the additional assistance that would otherwise have been provided in the classroom. Some families had to take unpaid leave, or lost work, due to increased caring responsibilities.

This period of Remote and Flexible Learning also highlighted the need for the education system to interface more seamlessly with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. VCOSS is very concerned by reports that – in the absence of appropriate support from schools to assist parents to oversee home-based learning for students with disabilities – some students with a NDIS plan used funding for daily support during remote learning, reducing access to vital developmental supports.

 

Addressing the learning support needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged students

The Victorian Government announced that students who were unable to learn from home were able to access onsite schooling, including:

• students who did not have appropriate supervision at home, or an appropriate learning environment
• children in out-of-home care
• children deemed by Child Protection and/or Family Services to be at risk of harm
• children identified by the school as vulnerable (including via referral from a family violence agency, homelessness or youth justice service or mental health or other health services and children with disability).’

However, communication and decision-making by schools was inconsistent and in some cases contradictory.

VCOSS is aware of vulnerable students, including children with disability and children in residential out-of-home care who were denied access to onsite learning. Some schools cited insufficient onsite staffing, while others provided no justification for their decisions.

For some students who did try onsite learning, working remotely in a classroom with very few children or different ages and class levels was too difficult. One VCOSS member organisation reported that 80 per cent of the young people in their residential care facilities were being supported to learn from home, despite clearly falling within the cohort eligible to attend school onsite.

For those students who were able to access onsite learning, it was often a result of extensive advocacy by support services, like disability advocacy organisations. Access to onsite learning, and its accompanying supports, should not be reliant on advocacy, but instead on clear principles and guidelines that enable access.

 

Provide ongoing flexibility to students

Remote and flexible learning has demonstrated the importance of providing students with an array of options to suit their individual needs. While some students struggled, some students thrived in the environment of remote and online learning. Amongst student cohorts that we were particularly concerned about – for example, students with histories of long disengagement – we have heard reports of positive outcomes and experiences during this time, including students engaged in the Navigator program and TEACHaR program.[5]

For example, almost 50 per cent of young people engaged in Anglicare Victoria’s Navigator program in the Western Melbourne Area engaged positively, or to some extent, in remote learning, with 24 per cent of students demonstrating an improvement in their attendance/participation during remote learning.

VCOSS members report students who responded positively to remote learning felt less anxious, which significantly increased engagement and enthusiasm for schoolwork. This reduced anxiety related to previous feelings of disconnection from peers and teachers, feeling behind in school-work, and negative perceptions of their ability.

 

Case study: Venusha, 13 years*

Peer friendships made through online learning and improved self-confidence may be the key to supporting Venusha back to the classroom.

Venusha had been refusing to go to school over a long period. With the introduction of online learning she agreed to go to school, whilst there weren’t other students around, and she collected a laptop to commence online schooling.

Venusha has been connecting with classroom peers online who have assisted her with logging in/accessing the work and she is now enjoying these friendships. Venusha has now committed to doing her school work and feels more confident to ask for assistance from the school.

Given Venusha’s positive school online experience she may feel more open to attend her school. Her work is modified and it will be manageable for her. Venusha’s father is hopeful that she will return to school post online schooling.

Anglicare Victoria, Navigator program, Western Melbourne

*Name has been changed to protect student’s identity

 

The ability for students to move at their own pace was an important contributing factor for students thriving in online learning. Remote learning enabled students to:

 

• take small steps to reengage (for example, working their way up from logging on each day to actively completing school work)
• work through classwork at their own pace
• prioritise and direct their learning as needed, helping students gain confidence in their ability to complete work, sparking motivation and hope.

 

Case study: TEACHaR Program

All 165 students in residential care, home-based care and linked with family services in Anglicare Victoria’s TEACHaR program had outstanding results from the period of remote and flexible learning.

Students thrived in their one-on-one online learning sessions with the TEACHaR program, with students enjoying greater control in self-directing their learning, taking breaks when needed, and even feeling empowered when teaching teachers how to use aspects of digital platforms. Teachers found that during online learning, instead of becoming frustrated, students were able to hang up when they were overwhelmed, or say the line was dropping out to signal their need for space.

Some young people who would not engage in face-to-face learning began engaging in the program online and some students even requested additional work.

Approximately 50 per cent of students in this program want a dual modality of learning moving forward, to incorporate face-to-face and one-on-one learning, as well as online opportunities.

 

For many young people, finding a positive connection to peers or teachers and building positive experiences at school will help increase and maintain their engagement in the future. As students return to face-to-face learning, School Focused Youth Services are an important support, providing students with opportunities to connect with students, make new friends, build self-confidence and connect with other teachers in the school.

 

VCOSS understands the funding for this program is due to expire at the end of 2020. School Focused Youth Services need secure funding to ensure young people who have reengaged during remote learning continue to have ‘sticky’ points to keep them engaged.

 

VCOSS is also aware that the Navigator program – which was heavily subscribed pre-COVID – is also likely to have increased demand in these next stages of the pandemic. VCOSS has long advocated for additional expansion of this highly-effective program, including changes to eligibility criteria so more students can get support earlier. Ensuring funding for engagement/re-engagement programs matches demand should be an important priority for the Victorian Government going forward, as COVID has heightened the risk factors for early school leaving.

[1] Borrell, J, ‘The Stress, the Strain & the Pain: The impact of school costs of families and the CISVic sector’, Community Information & Support Victoria (CISVic), May 2020.

[2] Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA), Education: Ensuring inclusive education for children and young people with disability, <https://www.cyda.org.au/issues/education>, accessed 30 June 2020.

[3] ABS, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, Cat No 4430.0, October 2019.

[4] Association for Children with a Disability, Submission to the Inquiry into the Victorian Government’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, June 2020.

[5] Anglicare Victoria, TEACHaR, Tutoring for Children and Young People, <https://www.anglicarevic.org.au/teachar-a-tutoring-program-for-vulnerable-children/>, accessed 29 June 2020.

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2020/02/safeguard-kids-from-the-justice-system/ Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:27:32 +0000 https://vcoss.test/?p=33473 VCOSS Submission to the CAG Review of the Age of Criminal Responsibility

Children under 12 couldn’t have seen Aladdin or the Lion King at the cinemas without a parent or guardian. Children under 13 need their parents’ permission to buy iPad apps. Children under 14 pay only $6 to see a footy game, a quarter of the price of adult tickets.

Yet children as young as 10 can and do experience the full force of the criminal justice system.

Children who become involved with the criminal justice system are extremely vulnerable. Child offending is closely linked to experiences of disadvantage. Before they offend, children have commonly already experienced trauma, abuse and neglect.

A punitive response to such behaviour effectively punishes those children for having a rough start in life, and in many cases can lead to a lifetime of criminality, disadvantage and exclusion. This means that children are punished long after being involved with the criminal justice system.

This response is failing vulnerable children.

If the system were set up differently, a child acting up could provide an opportunity for a positive intervention in their life. Behaviour that warrants the states attention could be met with care and support. This would give children the best possible chance to grow out of anti-social behaviours, strengthen their resilience and natural supports, and mature into prosocial adults.

This submission explores the questions posed by this review in two parts. Part one outlines why we should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. Part two of this submission provides a principles framework to underpin an integrated continuum of support to respond to child offending. A response which better connects the justice, social and universal service systems will enable a holistic response to the needs of the whole child to prevent harm and promote a safe community.

VCOSS would like to acknowledge the research and policy development undertaken by our members and sector colleagues which informed this submission, including the Smart Justice for Young People coalition, the Change the Record coalition, and Jesuit Social Services.

Raise the age of criminal responsibility

Recommendation

• Raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 in all circumstances

In all Australian states and territories, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. This means children under the age of 10 years are considered incapable of committing an offence.

When a child older than 10 but younger than 14 commits an offence, the legal principle doli incapax is intended to provide a safeguard from the full force of the criminal law, and divert them from the criminal justice system.

The principle presumes that children aged 10 to 14 years are ‘criminally incapable’ because they cannot differentiate between behaviour that is merely naughty or criminal acts that are seriously wrong in the moral sense. Doli incapax provides that where a child does not understand the difference, they should not be held criminally responsible.

This presumption is rebuttable, with the onus on prosecution to prove in court that the child was capable of understanding the difference. If it is not rebutted, a child who offends may be found criminally responsible, and subject to full force of the criminal justice system, including imprisonment. In 2017 – 18, on any given day, there were 25 children under 14 on youth justice supervision in Victoria.[1]

Children should be protected from the force of the criminal justice system

Childhood is a distinct developmental stage. It makes sense that since children behave differently to adults, responses to their behaviour should be different too.

Well-established research underpins this. Children’s brains and their emotional, mental and intellectual maturity are still developing. Children seek rewards and short-term gains and they test limits and boundaries. They tend to be more susceptible to peer influence and risk-taking behaviour.[2]

If children act up, it is generally developmentally normal behaviour. They are not at a cognitive level of development where they are able to fully appreciate the criminal nature of their actions, or the potential consequences these actions give rise to.[3] Most child and young offending is episodic and transitory, and most children ‘grow out’ of offending behaviour as they mature.^[4],[5]

It is often the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children who come to the attention of the criminal justice system for anti-social or offending behaviour. Children in the youth justice system are often survivors of abuse and neglect, have experienced the child protection system, homelessness, mental ill-health and more. They require a higher duty of care and more intensive interventions to meet their complex needs.[6]

Children involved with youth justice who have also experienced out-of-home-care have high rates of adverse experiences, including exposure to family violence, severe mental illness, traumatic deaths, drug use and household criminal justice involvement. The vast majority of these children have experienced neglect, and others have experienced physical abuse.

The current response to child offending effectively punishes children for having a rough start in life.

Doli incapax fails to safeguard children in the justice system

In recognition of the difference between children and adults, doli incapax is intended to provide protection from the criminal justice system.

Instead, it routinely fails to safeguard children. It is applied inconsistently and it can be very difficult for children to access expert evidence to prove in court that they are ‘criminally incapable’, particularly children in regional and remote areas.[7]

Further, by the time doli incapax is applied in court, the child has already been exposed to many stages of criminal procedure, including arrest, detainment and questioning.

This is unnecessarily criminogenic.[8] Research indicates that the younger a child is when they first come into contact with the justice system, the more likely they will become entrenched in the justice system.[9]

Once the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 14 years, doli incapax would be redundant.

Australia is out of step with international standards

Australia has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. The median age of criminal responsibility worldwide is 14 years old.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently said that countries should be working towards a minimum age of 14 years or older. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People has urged Australia to increase the age of criminal responsibility and stated that ‘children should only be detained as a last resort, which is not the case today for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children ’. Australia has been repeatedly criticised by the United Nations, most recently by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, for failing to reform the current minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Minimum ages of criminal responsibility around the world

Internationally, there are many examples of strong systems which support children who offend in meaningful and holistic ways. Looking around the world shows that raising the age of criminal responsibility, and therapeutic, welfare-based responses to young offending are possible.

For example, the best interests of the child are ensured through legislation in Sweden, Belgium and Spain. This enables interventions based on their needs, rather than a discrete response to offending behaviours.[10]

 

Prevent harm through appropriate responses to child offending

“The best way to protect the community is to invest in measures that prevent or interrupt the criminal pathways of children who would otherwise go on to commit a disproportionately high volume of youth crime. Measures such as enhanced early intervention and resources to rehabilitate young offenders are the best way to steer at-risk children away from a life of crime and protect the community in the long term.”

Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016^[11]

Exposing children to the criminal justice system is harmful for the children involved, their families and the broader community.

If the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 14, it will protect children from the harmful, criminalizing effects of the justice system. For those children who offend under 14, there is a better way to respond to their offending, and build their emotional, social and mental wellbeing as a protective factor against their offending.

Recommendations

• Make detention the option of last resort for all children and young people
• Establish a principles framework to underpin responses to child offending
• Establish an integrated support continuum which addresses the causes and risks associated with child offending
• Adopt a justice reinvestment framework which ensures equitable funding for programs across the continuum and better integration between systems

Keep children away from prison

The best place for a child is with their family, their natural supports and their community.

Detention should be considered the option of last resort for all young people who offend. If the minimum age of criminal responsibility is raised to 14, then children under 14 would not be subject to detention.

Establish a principles framework to underpin responses to child offending

When a child demonstrates anti-social or offending behaviour, an opportunity emerges for appropriate social supports to make a positive intervention in their life. Responses to child offending should:

• Be child-centred, strengths based and trauma-informed. This includes responding to the holistic needs of the child, the underlying causes of their offending, and the needs of their family/natural supports;
• Comply with Australia’s international human rights obligations and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities;
• Assume shared accountability and responsibility for offending, on the basis that the majority of child offending is a consequence of the failings of the institutions intended to support the child;
• Commit to addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children and young people, CALD children and young people and young people who have been involved with out-of-home-care.

Establish an integrated continuum of supports for children and their families

Supports should be provided across an integrated continuum, prioritizing and investing in prevention, early intervention and therapeutic and restorative justice as the most effective ways to respond to child and young offending/re-offending (see figure 1, p 12).

VCOSS believes that a system-wide response is required to tackle the systemic failings which underpin children’s involvement in the justice system. This integrates policies and practices across child and family welfare, education, disability, health, police, legal and youth justice systems. Community should be involved in design and implementation, including Aboriginal and culturally diverse communities, increases their effectiveness by addressing community-identified problems, drawing on existing community strengths and resources, and being culturally responsive.[12]

Reorienting responses to child offending from punitive to therapeutic will require a significant boost in funding for effective programs. This can be achieved by adopting a justice reinvestment framework which ensures equitable funding for programs across the continuum and better integration between systemsPresently, a significant barrier to protecting children from offending and reoffending is the lack of access to an appropriate program which meets their needs and is a proportionate response to the nature of their offending behaviour.

Enable and empower Aboriginal families, communities, and organisations to support children in culturally safe and appropriate ways

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are over-imprisoned, making up about 60 per cent of the young children in youth jails, despite being only about 5 per cent of the population (aged 10-17).[13] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to experience the ongoing impacts of colonisation, trauma, dispossession and racism. The over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people is both a result of this ongoing trauma, and exacerbates it.

In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the planning, design and implementation alternative justice responses should be community-led.

[1] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Youth detention population in Australia 2018, December 2018.

[2] For more, see Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Children and Yong People in Victoria, April 2012; Chris Cunneen, Arguments for Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Research Report, 2017; Queensland Family and Child Commission, The Age of Criminal Responsibility in Queensland, January 2017;

[3] Ibid.

[4] Lucinda Jordan and James Farrell, Juvenile Justice Diversion in Victoria: A Blank Canvas?, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 24 Number 3, March 2013.

[5] Kelly Richards, What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?, Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 409, Australian Institute of Criminology, February 2011.

[6] Australian Institute of Criminology, What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders? Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 409 February 2011.

[7] Kate Fitz-Gibbon and Wendy O’Brien, ‘A Child’s Capacity to Commit Crime: Examining the Operation of Doli Incapax in Victoria (Australia)’, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, December 2019.

[8] Parliament of Victoria, ‘Youth Justice in Victoria’, Research Papers, 2017.

[9] Chris Cunneen, Arguments for Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Research Report, 2017.

[10] Jesuit Social Services, Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility: There is a Better Way, October 2019, p4.

[11] Sentencing Advisory Council, Reoffending by Children and Young People in Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, Melbourne, December 2016.

[12] Kelly Richards, L Rosevear and R Gilbert, Promising interventions for reducing indigenous juvenile offending: Brief 1, Australian Institute of Criminology, March 2011.

[13] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Youth detention population in Australia 2018, December 2018.

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2020/02/review-on-raising-the-age-of-criminal-responsibility/ Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:18:23 +0000 https://vcoss.test/?p=33465 Joint Council of Social Service Network statement to the Council of Attorneys-General

Setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia at 10 years of age harms children, and in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. It is discriminatory, out of step with human rights standards and neuroscientific understanding of children’s brain development.

All Australian Governments should raise the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years.

Youth offending is closely linked to disadvantage. Children who offend are also more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect, disability, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to crime and violence and homelessness.[1] Current responses fail to respond to these disadvantages in a therapeutic and effective way that addresses the reason children are committing crimes.

Early contact with the criminal justice system can also increase the likelihood of poor outcomes for already vulnerable young people. Involvement in the criminal justice system at a young age can cause further harm and young people aged 10–14 in the youth justice system are at risk of becoming chronic, long-term offenders,[2] through exposure to harmful environments and the isolation from family and support networks.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has called for countries to have a minimum age of criminal responsibility set at 14 or higher and recommends that children under 16 should not be deprived of liberty.

Principles of reform

The laws that dictate the age of criminal responsibility in all states, territories and the Commonwealth need to be reformed in line with the following principles (developed by a coalition of legal, health, youth and community organisations):

1. The minimum age of criminal responsibility must be raised to at least 14 years.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 14 in all circumstances, with no exceptions, on the basis that:

• Medical evidence highlights this distinct developmental stage of adolescence and supports raising the age. The current age of criminal responsibility is inconsistent with research on brain development. Children lack the necessary components of criminal responsibility, both in terms of behaviour control and moral awareness.
• Exposure to the criminal justice system damages health and wellbeing.
• Australia is out of step with international human rights standards and the minimum age of criminal responsibilities in other countries.

Detention should also be considered a last resort for all young people who offend.

2. There must be no ‘carve outs’ to this legislation, even for serious offences.

3. Doli incapax – fails to safeguard children, is applied inconsistently and results in discriminatory practices.

Doli incapax is an old, common law rebuttable presumption that children lack the capacity to be criminally responsible for their acts. In order to rebut the presumption, it must be proved that at the time of an offence the child knew that his or her actions were seriously wrong in the moral sense. By the time doli incapax is applied in court, the child has already been exposed to many stages of criminal procedure (like arrest and detainment) and the resulting criminogenic effects of exposure to the criminal justice system.

This presumption routinely fails to safeguard children. It is applied inconsistently and it can be very difficult for children to access expert evidence, particularly children in regional and remote areas.

The presumption also does not reflect contemporary medical or social science knowledge of childhood development, long term health effects of criminal justice involvement, or human rights law.

Once the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 14 years, doli incapax would be redundant.

4. Prevention, early intervention, and diversionary responses linked to culturally-safe and trauma-responsive services including education, health and community services should be prioritised and expanded.

It is often the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children who come to the attention of the criminal justice system.

Instead of punitive, responses to child offending must:

• Be child-centred, strengths based and trauma-informed. This includes responding to the holistic needs of the child, the underlying causes of their offending, and the needs of their family and natural supports.
• Assume shared accountability and responsibility for offending, on the basis that the majority of child offending is a consequence of the failings of the institutions intended to support the child.
• Prioritise and invest in early intervention, prevention and diversion as the most effective ways to reduce child and youth offending and re-offending.
• Commit to addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children and young people, CALD children and young people and young people who have been involved with out-of-home-care.
• Adopt a justice reinvestment framework that focuses on prevention and place-based responses to address disadvantage.

5. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the planning, design and implementation of prevention, early intervention and diversionary responses should be community-led.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are over-imprisoned, making up about 60 per cent of the young children in youth jails, despite being only about 5 per cent of the population (aged 10-17).[3] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to experience the ongoing impacts of colonisation, trauma, dispossession and racism. The over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people is both a result of this ongoing trauma, and exacerbates it.

Raising the age of criminal responsibility will assist in addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the justice system, and with investment and support, will provide greater opportunities to enable and empower Aboriginal families, communities, and organisations to support children in culturally safe and appropriate ways.

asd

About the Councils of Social Service

The Councils of Social Service (COSSes) are the respective National, State and Territory peak bodies of the community services sector and a voice for the needs of people affected by poverty and inequality.

This submission has been prepared for the COSS Network and authorised by the Chief Executive Officer of each Council. Some Councils will also provide an individual submission, expanding on the experiences in their state/territory.

The Councils are:

• The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
• The Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS)
• The Council of Social Service of New South Wales (NCOSS)
• The Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS)
• The Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)
• The South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS)
• The Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)
• The Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS)
• The Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS)

 

[1] Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd, Thinking Outside: Alternatives to remand for children, 2013, Richmond.

[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2013, Young people aged 10 – 14 in the youth justice system 2011 – 2012, AIHW, Canberra, p. vi. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129543944

[3] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,2018, Youth detention population in Australia 2018, AIHW, Canberra, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2018/contents/table-of-contents

 

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2020/02/vcoss-submission-to-the-public-engagement-framework-consultation-draft/ Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:10:57 +0000 https://vcoss.test/?p=33461 VCOSS submission on the Public Engagement Framework Consultation Draft (the draft framework)

VCOSS applauds the Victorian Government’s commitment to meaningful, principled and inclusive engagement with communities. Meaningful engagement, where there is genuine openness to hearing and including different views and perspectives, leads to better decision making and program design, and more engaged communities.

Effective engagement and co-design requires building a shared understanding of how communities will work with government to inform policy or decision-making processes, how timely feedback will be provided, and ultimately to demonstrate how the information provided by the community contributed to the final outcome.

Effective government policy reduces inequities and provides the greatest benefit to those who need it most. To do this successfully, governments must hear the voices of diverse groups, and understand how they experience policy and services differently. Lived experience must be not only heard, but valued.

 

Focus on co-design

Recommendations

• Include co-design with communities as an engagement principle in the Framework
• Work with communities to design engagement processes

While VCOSS generally supports the vision and outcomes of the draft framework, it would be strengthened by including a clear understanding of the principles of co-designing with vulnerable communities. Co-design involves more than just consultation. Co-design means coming alongside people who experience vulnerabilities, to work with them in creating interventions, services and programs that work in the context of their lives and reflect their values and goals. This involves letting go of professional assumptions about a group’s perspectives and experiences and actively learning from what people say and do.[1]

Co-design values, prioritises and incorporates multiple forms of expertise, including but extending beyond more traditional and limited reliance on professional knowledge and research. It uses these to consider different ways of approaching social problems with specific groups.

In co-design, the methodology will vary in the same way that people, problems and organisations do. Co-design practice is more a way of thinking than a process. This is because people, problems and contexts are always going to vary; as will the organisations and practitioners who work with them.[2] At its core, co-design involves transferring and sharing power with people who are affected by social problems. By working together, more effective solutions can be discovered by exploring innovative and creative alternatives.

Unfortunately VCOSS members and stakeholders report that engagement processes are sometimes poorly designed and do not place the experiences and perspectives of communities at the centre. We commonly hear examples where Government:

• Does not clearly articulate the purpose of the engagement or identify where people can influence decisions.
• Adopts a starting point that stakeholders disagree with or is misunderstood
• Asks the wrong questions or makes incorrect assumptions about communities or needs
• Is overly formal, bureaucratic or confusing
• Fails to identify and therefore engage the right stakeholders and impacted communities.

While some of these risks are identified in the draft framework, many would be addressed by a stronger focus on co-designing the engagement process itself with communities.

For example, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) often ‘pre-consults’ with relevant stakeholders to make sure they are asking the right questions in broader engagement processes. This gives organisations and those with expert, on-the-ground knowledge the opportunity to shape the consultation process and ensures VAGO has the right stakeholders engaged.

Engage proactively with marginalised groups

Recommendations

• Require proactive and targeted engagement strategies for reaching specific communities and cohorts
• Recognise community service organisations and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations as partners in engaging communities
• Highlight examples of good practice in co-designing with communities

The importance of proactively engaging vulnerable communities and people is not adequately captured in the draft framework. Communities are best placed to identify their own needs, and how government decisions, policy-making and service design will impact them.

The framework should not assume that marginalised groups, who often have histories of trauma or past negative experiences with systems and policies, will engage, even where decisions will directly impact on their lives. People might experience stigma around identifying (for example as having a mental illness or being part of the LGBTIQ+ community), fear of speaking up, and mistrust of government and support services.

The framework should emphasise the need for specific strategies to reach communities including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, refugee and asylum seekers, people with disability and LGBTIQ+ people. Younger people, older people, single parents, rural and regional Victorians, people who are homeless or living with a mental illness may also need targeted consultation strategies.

There are many examples of excellent practice. For example, in 2015 the Office for Youth commissioned community organisations like Melbourne City Mission to consult diverse cohorts of young people.[3] The consultation report highlighted the depth of insight young people had into their personal circumstances and those of their peers.  It also highlighted their awareness of personal and system barriers, and their knowledge of solutions.

As one young person said: “Younger people know what they want for their generation.”

Partnering with community organisations is one way to reach cohorts and communities that are ‘hard to reach.’ Community organisations have developed positions of trust and legitimacy in their communities, by building positive long-term relationships with people over years, or even generations. Employing peer workers and people with lived experience of disadvantage means community organisations often create a safer environment for vulnerable people to engage, because they feel their experiences are validated and understood.

The draft framework should recognise the role of community organisations as a way to engage ‘hard to reach’ communities.

In the Aboriginal community, Aboriginal community-controlled organisations (ACCOs) hold positions of trust and legitimacy. The governance, structure and mission of ACCOs means they are embedded in their communities and connected with people in ways distinct from government and other mainstream services. This ‘on-the-ground’ knowledge, experience and connection means ACCOs are well placed to identify complex social problems and develop innovative solutions to addressing disadvantage. ACCOs must be acknowledged in the Engagement Framework as partners in co-design and vital links to community.

For many people, speaking to others who share and understand their lived experience can also build faster, stronger connections for people to feel comfortable sharing their story. The framework is an opportunity to highlight peer support models of engagement, including employing local community leaders, facilitators with lived experience or provision of peer support counselling.

The approach used to develop the Victorian Disability Services Commissioner’s ‘Building Safe and Respectful Cultures’ pilot project in June 2019 provides some valuable learnings about engaging people with lived experiences.[4] The project explored building safe and respectful cultures, particularly around people with disability who have experienced violence, abuse and neglect in services.

Community researchers with lived experience were employed to collect data and stories from people with disability, and it was noted that the relational nature of their role helped to build a sense of safety for participants; assisted with recognising subtle signs of discomfort, concern or feeling unsafe; and enabled staff to act and provide appropriate support.

These kinds of examples could be highlighted in the framework to encourage good practice.

Provide more information about accessibility

Recommendations

• Refer to existing materials about accessible communications
• Partner with community organisations to reach people in welcoming and supportive environments
• Consider the range of barriers that can prevent people engaging, including physical location, unwelcoming environments, digital exclusion or anxiety

VCOSS supports the strong focus in the draft framework on accessibility, including physical accessibility of buildings, provision of information in alternative formats and plain English, and thinking about supports including interpreters, travel expenses and inclusion training.

We also welcome the focus on “going to where people are.”

For example, the Djirra runs Sisters Day Out workshops to prevent family violence by facilitating community networks, reducing social isolation, raising awareness of family violence and providing information and tools to promote community safety. The workshops are an opportunity for Djirra and other invited organisations to engage Aboriginal women in a relaxed, supportive and culturally safe environment. Government can consider approaching organisations like Djirra that convene community events, to discuss whether it is appropriate to engage participants in consultation and co-design.

However, the draft strategy could go further in providing practical information about engaging with all Victorians. Some people have chronic illnesses, allergies or anxieties that make attending and participating in events difficult. Accessibility is not limited to physical venue and materials. A significant number of Victorians have low levels of literacy. Many also do not have access to the internet at home. Online engagement mechanisms or notification of consultations may not effectively engage these groups.

The Victorian Government already provides guidance about accessible communications and documents. In VCOSS’ experience not all staff know about or are familiar with these guidelines. The framework should refer directly to them.

Additional guidance about the meaning of physical accessibility should also be incorporated. For example, VCOSS’ website contains information about how to get to our office, width of doorways, lighting and accessible and gender neutral bathrooms. This helps people prepare to attend events and consultations.

We also recommend the Victorian Parliament website, where you can undertake a virtual/online tour of meeting rooms,[5] including information about floor plans, width of doorways and aisles.

Resource communities to engage and pay people for their time

Recommendation

• Encourage payment for people and organisations for their time participating and preparing for government processes

Hearing the voices of marginalised groups and people is crucial to good policy and decision-making. Hearing the voices of people with lived experience of disadvantage, or who have been let-down by the service system, helps us understand the causes of disadvantage, the barriers to seeking help and the challenges in navigating complex systems.

In a report on co-designing social initiatives with people experiencing vulnerabilities, VCOSS said “finding the right way to approach social problems involves partnering with the people who face them head on.”[6]

Organisations that are governed by people with relevant lived experience, like LGBTIQ groups, Aboriginal community-controlled organisations and consumer-led services help make sure policy reforms and service design are generally suited to people’s needs.

However, this can place a heavy burden on people and organisations. While most are committed to improving outcomes for their communities, participation requires resources. It often involves significant preparation, research and consultation with peers and members. It can also place a heavy personal burden, requiring people to retell often traumatic stories about their own experiences with the system.

People should not experience financial barriers to participation in government processes, and their participation should not encumber them with a financial burden. People’s time and expertise should be valued, and paid for.

For example, during the consultation phase of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and in the implementation of its recommendations, consumer organisations report being called on to participate in countless consultations and service design processes. Many organisations received no or little additional funding to undertake this work, and had to fit it in around supporting clients and community.

There is reference in the draft framework to “additional support… including travel expenses or accommodation”. But this doesn’t adequately represent the cost of engaging in consultation processes. The framework should value people’s expertise and encourage payment for people with lived experience participating in engagement processes.

Include target timeframes

Recommendation

• Be specific about best-practice timeframes for consultation processes: at least 6-8 weeks’ notice should be provided for in-person consultations and submissions

Meaningful engagement requires sufficient time. Time for people to become aware of the process, undertake their own research, consultation and thinking, and prepare their responses accordingly.

A minimum of 6-8 weeks should be provided for the preparation of written submissions. Similar notice should be provided for in-person consultations.

In VCOSS experience, four weeks is simply insufficient time for meaningful consultation. We often scramble to prepare responses to draft regulations or decisions within this timeframe. As a result, we may miss out on hearing valuable stories or voices from within our own membership or stakeholders.

VCOSS strongly recommends timeframes be expressly referenced in the framework.

Align consultation processes

Recommendations

• Recognise the burden on communities and organisations of multiple engagement processes underway at once
• Where possible, recommend aligning or combining engagement processes

There can be scores of public consultation processes underway at the same time. Often community service workers are trying to provide input to multiple consultations across different departments, parliamentary inquiries and royal commissions, while still managing their ongoing workloads and (in some cases) delivery of frontline services.

This should be recognised in the framework.

Government should make sure they research other consultation processes underway at the same time, and are aware of the impacts this is likely to have on communities and organisations. They might need to allow more time for submissions or schedule additional consultation events. There may also be opportunities to combine engagement processes with similar or related content, to minimise the burden on communities.

The Engage Victoria website is an example of a coordinated process, where information is collated in one central spot. This could be built on through more coordination of consultations across departments.

Community organisations are providing vital community support to vulnerable community members. They have invaluable information about community need and how policies work ‘on the ground’. But participation in consultation processes can take them away from frontline service delivery. Community organisations often report frustrations when they have to provide staff or consultants with basic background about their work, the environment they operate in or reforms and policies that apply to them.

Engagement processes should respect the work of community organisations, by making sure staff have undertaken basic background research, and have knowledge about the sector and the work they do. They should also build on past engagement processes and be clear about how information from other processes, including submissions and consultation reports will be used and incorporated into current processes.

[1] VCOSS, Walk alongside: Co-designing social initiatives with people experiencing vulnerabilities, 2015.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Melbourne City Mission, What’s important to YOUth: Final report from Melbourne City Mission Youth Consultation,

[4] https://www.odsc.vic.gov.au/abuse-prevention/building-safe-and-respectful-cultures/

[5] https://captur3d.io/view/parliament-of-victoria/parliament-of-victoria-federation-room?m=e1UJGQMVJdW

[6] VCOSS, Walk alongside: Co-designing social initiatives with people experiencing vulnerabilities, 2015.

]]> https://vcoss.org.au/children-young-people-and-families/2017/05/what-men-say-to-justify-hitting-women/ Tue, 23 May 2017 23:34:18 +0000 http://vcoss.test/?p=20382

• Home
• >
• Policy
• >
• Policy Library

Five things men say to justify violence against women

May 24, 2017

INSIGHTS

Each week, the Men’s Referral Service answers hundreds of calls from men who have been violent.

Here, an anonymous call taker recounts and debunks how these men often seek to justify their own behaviour.

Working as a family violence telephone operator I speak with hundreds of men from many different relationship and life contexts. When I speak to men that have chosen to behave in a way that causes problems for their family and relationships, the theme of ‘responsibility’ commonly comes out of our conversations.

It sounds simple, that we are responsible for our own behaviour. However, accepting responsibility can be a big challenge if we have chosen to behave in a way that physically or emotionally hurts someone, especially those closest to us. It’s common to encounter self-imposed barriers to owning our choices of behaviour that we’re ashamed of.

However, for many men I’ve spoken to who want to work toward safer, happier relationships with their partner or kids, challenging themselves to take responsibility for their own behaviour is an important first step.

Here’s some common barriers I’ve noticed and learned from myself:

“I just snapped” – thinking your emotions control your behaviour

An all too common barrier to change can be the perception that our behaviour is out of our control at times. Many men I work with are reluctant to describe choices of violent behaviour they have made, instead using language that suggests a lack of responsibility; “I just snapped, just lost it”.

When probed as to what this actually looks like, often there’s a description of emotions such as anger, frustration, stress (when probed further; vulnerability, inadequacy). Often violent incidents are described as an overwhelming situation that escalated out of their control, rather than a difficult emotional experience and a choice of abusive behaviour in response to that situation.

This narrative is reinforced for men in public. For example when you hear a footballer talk about choosing to punch an opponent as “an emotional response, bit of a brain fade”, or someone describing a choice to drive dangerously as “road rage”. As convenient and seductive as this excuse is, it becomes dangerous when you consider that difficult emotions are part of life and certainly part of any lengthy relationship.

For many men I’ve worked with, letting down this barrier and accepting that they are in control of how they behave when they experience difficult emotions, has made it easier for them to explore respectful choices of behaviour that contribute to happier relationships and families.

“My buttons were pushed” – thinking other people control your behaviour

If we are reluctant to own our choice of behaviour, it’s common we attribute this responsibility to someone else. Often the men I work with tell me their partner “provoked me” or “pushed my buttons”, automatically shifting blame onto their partner for the violence they used.

Often when this is unpacked in conversation, men I work with can reflect that it was indeed difficult emotions, rather than what they previously perceived as provocation. They’re subsequently able to describe different ways they could have chosen to behave in response to these difficult emotions.

When I ask men I work with what needs to change to move toward safer & more respectful relationships, it’s common for them to focus on what they believe their partner is doing wrong when conflict arises. The irony of trying to control someone else’s behaviour rather than take responsibility for their own doesn’t end there, as for many men it’s maintaining this grip on control that contributes to their difficult emotional state and relationship problems to begin with.

For men I speak with who want to change their use of violent behaviour a big step is letting go of the notion that anyone else can be responsible for it. Once they focus on their own choices of behaviour, it becomes much easier to explore strategies for responding to difficult emotions and choosing behaviour that contributes to respectful, loving relationships.

“I’d had a bit to drink” – thinking alcohol controls your behaviour

At times, men I speak with describe being alcohol affected at the time of using different forms of family violence, and attribute any behaviour to this. Quite often I’ve spoken to men highly remorseful for how they have behaved but very resistant to taking any responsibility for it. They claim that alcohol took control of their behaviour and that for them to change, it’s as simple as them stopping drinking.

While choosing to reduce intake of alcohol can be a useful part of a safety strategy, for some men I’ve worked with it doesn’t address the entire issue. Upon reflection, many men talk about several other incidents in which their partner felt controlled, intimidated or unsafe due to their behaviour though during these times, they had not been alcohol affected. Some go on to reflect that while alcohol affected, they have never been abusive to anyone other than their partner.

These reflections can often suggest a pattern of behaviour that they are choosing to use specifically for their partner. While alcohol can contribute to problems in their relationship, it’s not likely the cause. For most men I talk to who want to change their behaviour and improve their relationships, it’s important they acknowledge their choice of behaviours in addition to any substance use issues.

It’s quite common for the use of abusive and violent behaviour to be minimised as being “blown out of proportion, I didn’t mean to, they’re over reacting”.

“Can’t I defend myself?” – trying to justify your behaviour

At times, a barrier to taking responsibility for some men I engage with is a perception that a choice to use abusive behaviour is justified as a form of ‘self-defence’, when in reality, it’s not.

The concept of self-defence, that your physical safety is under threat and there is no other option than to respond with violence, starts to get a little blurry when you unpack the situation men I work with describe.

Often when we discuss scenarios where these men have used violence, they describe no concern or fear for their immediate safety or physical-wellbeing. Similarly, upon reflection, they can describe numerous other choices in how they could have responded to the scenario that could have diffused any potential danger, such as leaving or calling police.

Upon reflection, many men describe feeling angry and choosing to use violence, rather than a last resort choice to defend themselves. For many of these men I’ve worked with, challenging these perceptions of self-defence and taking responsibility for their choices of behaviour has made it easier for them to respond to conflict in ways that keep themselves and others safer.

“It wasn’t that bad” – not thinking about how others experience your behaviour

With all this focus on our own choices of behaviour and whether or not they are in our control or justified, quite often the experience of those impacted by violence can be dismissed. That is the experience of past or current intimate partners, or that of children exposed to these dynamics between their parents.

These experiences are woven through all the above barriers to taking responsibility. Many men I’ve worked with struggle to empathise and acknowledge how their behaviour impacts their partners, kids or family members. It’s quite common for the use of abusive and violent behaviour to be minimised as being “blown out of proportion, I didn’t mean to, they’re over reacting”, even in instances where police have been called to intervene and those affected have expressed fear.

It can be challenging to listen to and acknowledge how someone has experienced your behaviour if you have hurt them or made them feel unsafe or scared. However, for most men I work with, this can be a big turning point in moving toward happier and more respectful relationships. This involves not just reflecting on individual instances of abusive behaviour, but acknowledging the impact of how patterns of these behaviours can have a cumulative effect on their partners & family members, causing them to feel controlled or fearful.

Likewise, the acknowledgement of how this dynamic between parents impacts children, regardless of if they witness abusive behaviour first hand, can be a huge step in working toward a safer home environment for them to grow up in. The barriers I’ve mentioned start to make less sense for the men I work with once they can empathise with how their partners and kids experience their behaviour.

When men begin to take responsibility for their choices of behaviour and these barriers are easier to overcome.

Men’s Referral Service

The Men’s Referral Service is the national counselling, information and referral service for men looking to change their behaviour. If you are concerned about your own or someone else’s behaviour, call 1300 766 491.

VCOSS is the peak body for Victoria’s social and community sector, and the state’s premier social advocacy body.

We work towards a Victoria free from poverty and disadvantage, where every person and community experiences genuine wellbeing.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Guest author

Share

VCOSS acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country, and we pay respect to Elders and Ancestors. Our business is conducted on sovereign, unceded Aboriginal land. The VCOSS offices are located on Wurundjeri Woiwurrung land in central Naarm.

“With manufacturing jobs declining, a hostile housing market and the emergence of a two speed economy, many Victorians are being left behind,” Victorian Council of Social Service CEO Emma King said.

“A record 726,900 Victorians now live below the poverty line. This is simply not good enough. The policies of yesterday aren’t working.”

“However, with smart approaches and a collaborative mindset there are ways to empower all Victorians to succeed.”

VCOSS’ 2017 state budget submission presents practical budget proposals to empower individuals, strengthen communities and help address structural unfairness. It calls on the Victorian Government to:

• SLASH household power bills through energy efficiency programs ().
• BUILD more social housing and adopt a ‘home first’ approach to homelessness ().
• FUND more kinder places for three and four year olds ().
• IMPROVE legal assistance, especially for those identified as vulnerable ().
• HELP students with disability succeed, with needs based funding ().
• SUPPORT independent advocacy services for people with disability and their carers ().
• ESTABLISH a social innovation fund to support local initiatives (), and
• LOOK AFTER young adults in state care until their 21st birthday ().

“These measures shouldn’t be seen as ‘costs’ to the budget, but rather as investments,” Ms King said.

“Investments in these areas will empower individuals, strengthen communities and help address structural unfairness.”

“They are down payments on greater health, social equity and community cohesion, which are all key driver of economic growth.”

VCOSS recognise that a lot has been achieved over recent years, especially to combat family violence and provide more social housing to Victorians facing homelessness. But more action is needed to build on this progress and achieve substantial, lasting change.

“All Victorians should be supported to reach their potential—regardless of where they live, how long they stayed in school, what struggles they face or who they choose to love,” Ms King said.

The 2017 VCOSS state budget submission also urges the Victorian Government to develop a community sector workforce plan. Growth in the community sector will be a major source of new jobs in Victoria, but skill and worker shortages are likely without careful planning.

The full state budget submission includes more than 50 detailed policy initiatives and investments, and was developed after extensive consultation with the broader Victorian community sector.