In Australia and Europe, Government agencies and not-for-profit organisations (NFPOs) have had long involvement in the funding and provision of community disability services.  Significant change has occurred in Australia over the past decade in the way government funds are expended, with government agencies increasingly using marketplace mechanisms.  As a consequence of economic and governance imperatives, funding of services via NFPOs has changed significantly with a move away from the provision of grants to the contracting of these organisations for the provision of services.  In 2013 a new national policy, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, was introduced that will impact further on the provision of disability services for children and their families.  This study seeks to determine the impact of changes in policy and associated funding models on families of Indigenous children with disabilities.  It will examine levels of awareness, access and utilisation, and issues experienced with ‘dominant culture’ services provided.

Research Questions

• How do Indigenous families conceptualise disabilities in different communities and cultures?
• What are the implications for Indigenous communities and families of having a child (0-12) disability on awareness, access to and utilisation of services in rural and remote areas?
• Do barriers exist to utilisation of specialist services as a consequence of existing government policy and models for service provision?
• What is the preferred model of services that would increase utilisation and sustainability of support services for Indigenous families with a child with a disability?
• How can other ways of knowing and community values, such as Aboriginal extended family relationships, be incorporated into service delivery?

There is a need for research that is culturally sensitive so that organisations can provide more accessible service models for Indigenous families who have children with disabilities. Under the new policy, people with disability who may have the most complex needs, the most high-support needs or even challenging, aggressive behaviours may be disadvantaged if a market is not created that encourages organisations to offer services to meet their needs . 

It is common for children with disabilities to receive support from educational, respite services, therapy and specialist medical services. Access to these services in rural and remote areas of Australia has long been acknowledged as a problem for families of children with a disability (Aging, Disability and Home Care, 2012).  A school readiness program for Aboriginal children with additional needs in two sites in NSW, found that parents had received limited information about disability and many found it difficult to identify their child’s support needs (Purcal et al, 2013).  It has been found that Indigenous children with disabilities are more likely to be identified through the local education system than through the medical system particularly for children at risk of mild intellectual disability (Leonard et al, 2003) because of lack of knowledge and lack of willingness to attend.

Similar changes in disability services are happening in Europe which is now a signatory to the UN Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD).  In 2010 the European Commission adopted the European Disability Strategy.  The strategy builds on the UNCRPD and takes into account the Disability Action Plan (2002-2010).   Funding is provided to member States through European Social Funds which have to comply with agreed regulations.  Whilst funds are provided, there are a range of funding and service provision models within each member State.  The UK has a tradition of Independent Funding of Services but other areas of Europe have place-related funding systems of specialised assistance services. Similar to Australia, participation of NFPO's is strongly recommended for all member States.   These models will be examined as a comparison to what is occurring in Australia.

Aging, Disability and Home Care, (2012) Rural and remote project: Video conferencing for case conferences Summary Report, Department of Family and Community Services, January 2012, http://www.adhc.nsw.gov.au/about_us/research/completed_research. Accessed 5/10/2013. Baldock, J. & Ungerson, C. (1994). Becoming Consumers of Community Care. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Blair, E. M., Zubrick, S. R., & Cox, A. H. (2005). The Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey: Findings to date on adolescents. Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), 433-5. Dixon, R. M. & Johnston, C. (2005) What is Early Childhood Intervention?. In C Johnston, G. Salter & H. Lunn (Eds.). Does this child need help? (pp. 1-7). Australia: Australian Early Intervention Association. Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 141-149. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Capacity-building family-systems intervention practices. Journal of Family Social Work, 12(2), 119-143 Leonard, H., Petterson, B., Bower, C., & Sanders, R. (2003). Prevalence of intellectual disability in Western Australia. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 17(1), 58-67. McDonald C., & Zetlin D, (2004) ‘The more things change……..’ Barriers to community services utilisation in Queensland. Australian Social Work, 57 (2), 115. Purcal, C., Newton, B.J., Fisher, K., Eastman, C., Mears, T., Smith, M. & Gibson, S. (2013) School readiness program for Aboriginal children with additional needs: working with children, families, communities and service providers. Interim Evaluation Report. SPRC Report 4/13, for Northcott Disability Services NSW, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney. Wall, S.M., Taylor, N.E., Liebov, H., Sabatino, C.A., Mayer, L.M., Farber, M.Z. &Timberlake, E.M. (2005). Early Head Start and access to early intervention services: A qualitative investigation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(4)218-231.