1 Learnings from the Intellectual Disability Review Panel 10 th Annual AIJA Tribunals Conference Lynne Coulson Barr, President, Intellectual Disability

1

Learnings from the Intellectual Disability Review Panel

10th Annual AIJA Tribunals Conference

Lynne Coulson Barr, President , Intellectual Disability Review Panel,

Victoria

Involving People with Intellectual Disabilities in Tribunal Proceedings:

2

Outline

Background- the Panel & broader context General challenges Three approaches to involvement: Individual applications for hearings, Hearings for a group of residents

relocating from Redlands, Reviews of residents relocating Kew

Residential Services Summing up - key learnings

3

Background:Intellectual Disability Review

Panel

An independent statutory authority- established under the Intellectually Disabled Persons’ Services Act 1986 (IDPS Act)

Reviews certain decisions of the Department of Human Services

Reviewable decisions include decisions about eligibility, a person’s General Service Plan, use of restraint or seclusion & admissions to institutions

Unique ‘service brokerage’ role

4

Background:Intellectual Disability Review Panel

Provides advice in response to referral from Secretary or Minister, such as:

Review of relocation plans for residents of Redlands & Kew Residential Services

Recommendatory powers Bound by principles of IDPS Act Advance dignity, worth, human rights and full

potential Right to exercise maximum control over every

aspect of his or her life Right to individualised developmental

opportunities

5

Background:Intellectual Disability Review Panel

New disability legislation Disability Act 2006- to be proclaimed 1 July 2007

Panel will cease to exist 30 Sept 2007 New review and complaint mechanisms

under new Act- VCAT and Disability Service Commissioner

Learnings from Panel’s experience will be relevant to other jurisdictions

6

Background- Broader Context

Imperatives for Tribunals for effective involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in proceedings :

Requirements of natural justice/procedural fairness

Therapeutic jurisprudence Movement to psychologically optimal way of

handling legal matters Fair, just processes- balance with ‘quick’

and ‘efficient’

7


Disability and Human Rights Imperatives:

“ Not about us without us”- Disability rights and self advocacy movement

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities- Onus to:

develop and carry out policies and administrative measures for securing the rights ( Article 4)

identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers to accessibility ( Article 9)

promote awareness of the capabilities of persons with disabilities (Article 8).

8


Disability and Human Rights (cont): Victorian Charter of Human Rights and

Responsibilities - July 2006. Right to recognition and equality as a

person before the law (section 8) Right to a fair hearing (section 24)- includes

right to fair proceedings by competent tribunal

What do these rights mean for people with intellectual disabilities?

9

General challenges Involvement & views of people with

intellectual disabilities

Nature of intellectual disability Cognitive impairments Complex communication needs

Establishing effective communication Receptive vs. expressive language Identifying communication needs and

methods Availability of assessments

10

Example of communication tools

11

General challenges Involvement & views of people with


For many applications- reliant on information from others

Gaining the perspective of the person with intellectual disability- what is important to person

Weighing up views of others – family, advocates, service providers

Often absence of independent advocates Absence, for some, of anyone who

knows the person well

12

Approach 1: Individual Applications for Review

Panel Processes

Hearing with three member Panel- Psychologist, Community, Department sessional members

Hearings must be attended by person affected and Dept reps

Family, advocates, direct care workers, legal reps etc also attend

Natural justice, not bound by technicalities

13


Pre hearing Process

Pre hearing process is critical- need time

Consistent person (Executive Officer) to respond to queries/provide information

Important to ascertain needs/participation of person affected

Prepare person affected and advocates/family members/Dept members for their roles

14


Pre hearing Process Needs of person with intellectual

disability considered in making hearing arrangements- e.g. communication ability familiar carers/family/advocate attention span factors that may cause distress food/drink health issues

15


Pre hearing Process (cont)

Determine appropriate venue- range of venues

Need for space, familiarity, distractions, ability to travel

Options- tribunal rooms, residential facilities, day programs, community centres

Level of informality/formality

Prepare person for hearing-booklet

16

Hearing preparation booklet

17


18


19


20

Approach 1: Individual Applications for review

Hearing Process: Panel usually meets person before hearing- ‘voir

dire’ meeting with person- with or without support person introduce Panel and environment explain hearing processes and Panel’s role check comfort re persons present check understanding of hearing ascertain specific communication needs ascertain need for independent

representative explore ways for them to communicate need

for breaks in hearing etc

21


Hearing Process: Focus on person as centre of process: Seating Explaining documents Use of language Checking understanding Validating concerns and views Need for breaks and movement

22


Learnings: Pre-hearing process and contact person

is critical Need for time to ascertain

needs/prepare person for hearing Benefits of multi member Panel with

range of expertise and experience Need for flexibility in hearings-timing

and venue allowing breaks- person to come and go

Adjournments to obtain further information/ visit person in his/her environment

23


Learnings:Constraints Having the communication tools to

maximise person’s participation Time constraints to hear and determine

matter Response of other parties Numbers of people present

24

Approach 2:Redlands Reviews

Background Closure of “congregate care service” for

28 residents- ‘intentional community’ created by families, residents grown up together on isolated site

Ministerial referral for advice Advice re accommodation model Review individual General Service

Plans Research study examined process of 25

hearings by Dr Christine Bigby & Sue Tait (former President)

25

Approach 2: Redlands Reviews

Pre Hearing Process Assess ways to maximise resident

participation. President met with each resident at

Redlands Visit by Panel members to Redlands Development of communication tools

Photo book – Panel premises and personnel - prior to hearing

“Redlands Storybook”- types of housing- leisure activities

Photo collection + Storyboard – resident photos & activities.

26


Hearing Process Panel received General Service Plan,

Assessment of needs, consultants report Hearings attended by resident, family,

direct care worker, case manager, senior DHS and agency managers

Where feasible resident spoke first using story book and story board

Effective or partial communication with 18 residents out of 28 /no effective communication with remaining residents

Others invited to “put selves in shoes of resident”

27


Redlands ‘Story book’

28


Redlands ‘Story book’

29


Redlands ‘Story board’

30


Outcomes Recommended changes to each

resident’s GSP-focus on individuals Identified significant unmet needs Rejected submissions by some family

members for ‘cluster village’ model Recommended significant changes to

resident groupings Range of different housing models to

meet individual needs

31


Learnings- Results from Research Study Conflicting views on hearings

Panel members and managers – opportunity to refocus attention on residents

Presence of resident supported by case managers, Panel

members, direct care workers contested by family- 64%

Concerns about number of people, unfamiliar settings etc

32


Learnings- Results from Research Study Process not tailored to each individual Mixed views on communication tools Views of Panel members

More time to get to know the resident Appointment of independent advocate

Importance of in depth knowledge and detailed assessment of needs reports

Potential for greater investigative role Query whether formal hearings

appropriate medium

33

Approach 3: Kew Residential Services

Background Government decision to close largest

institution Large scale service redevelopment-455

residents to move to community houses Referral by Secretary to develop

Protocol for provision of advice on relocation plans for all residents

Decided on ‘investigative’ process Reviews commenced July 2003- will

complete in July 2007

34


Process Review conducted by ‘investigative’ process

and series of meetings/visits by two Panel members per house grouping

Panel reviews documentation, meets with case managers, residents, visit house, speak with family etc

Assessment of Needs reports Communication assessments, ‘About me’

books to assist Meetings with residents in own environment,

new house, venues of choice.

35


Outcomes Recommendations made across all

areas of GSPs eg Living Situation, Health, Vocation, Advocacy, Family Support

Quality improvement effect on GSPs Department regards role as value-added

for residents and quality of planning

36


Learnings: Investigative Process Process allows for involvement of

resident on range of levels Time to piece together information from

range of sources/weigh up conflicting views

Detailed ‘Assessment of Needs’ reports and in depth knowledge of person a key to the process

Less control of processes compared to hearings

Importance of a collaborative approach and understanding of role of review

37

Summing up Key learnings for involving people with


Pre hearing processes and resources can be as critical as the hearing

Need time and flexibility to accommodate needs and abilities of affected person

Focus on communication needs Role for investigative processes outside

formal hearing processes Room for a hybrid model of a hearing

with an investigative process?

38

For more information

Intellectual Disability Review Panel30/570 Bourke St Melbourne 3000

Ph: 03 8601 5244

Fax: 03 8601 5288

Toll Free: 1800 641 038

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.idrp.vic.gov.au

_________________________________Article on Redland’s Review:

Bigby, C. & Tait, S (2004) Evaluation of the independent review of a major life decision affecting people who have an intellectual disability. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 2, 202-213

Documents

1 Learnings from the Intellectual Disability Review Panel 10 th Annual AIJA Tribunals Conference Lynne Coulson Barr, President, Intellectual Disability