Transcript L Coulson Barr

Involving People with
Intellectual Disabilities
in Tribunal Proceedings:
Learnings from the Intellectual
Disability Review Panel
10th Annual AIJA Tribunals Conference
Lynne Coulson Barr, President ,
Intellectual Disability Review Panel,
Victoria
1
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
2
Background:
Intellectual Disability Review
Panel




An independent statutory authorityestablished 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
3
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
4
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
5
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’
6
Background- Broader Context
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).
7
Background- Broader Context
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?
8
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
9
Example of communication tools
10
General challenges
Involvement & views of people with
intellectual disabilities





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
11
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for Review
Panel Processes
 Hearing with three member PanelPsychologist, 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
12
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for Review
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
13
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for Review
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
14
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for Review
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
15
Hearing preparation booklet
16
Hearing preparation booklet
17
Hearing preparation booklet
18
Hearing preparation booklet
19
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
20
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for review
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
21
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for review
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
22
environment
Approach 1:
Individual Applications for review
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
23
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)
24
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.
25
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews





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”
26
Redlands ‘Story book’
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews
27
Redlands ‘Story book’
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews
28
Redlands ‘Story board’
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews
29
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews





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
30
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews
Learnings- Results from Research Study
 Conflicting views on hearings


Presence of resident



Panel members and managers – opportunity
to refocus attention on residents
supported by case managers, Panel
members, direct care workers
contested by family- 64%
Concerns about number of people,
unfamiliar settings etc
31
Approach 2:
Redlands Reviews
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
32
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
33
Approach 3:
Kew Residential Services
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.
34
Approach 3:
Kew Residential Services
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
35
Approach 3:
Kew Residential Services
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
36
Summing up
Key learnings for involving people with
intellectual disabilities





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?
37
For more information
Intellectual Disability Review
Panel
30/570 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
38