Commonwealth Disability Services Census: 2000

[Excerpt] The Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services, through the Department of Family and Community Services, funds disability services in each State and Territory. This funding provides access for people with a disability to vocational programs and employment opportunities thereby promoting economic and social participation and choice for people with disabilities in work and the community. This report presents national data on services for people with a disability, and consumers accessing employment services funded under the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement in 1999–2000. The data was collected as part of the annual Commonwealth Disability Services Census conducted on 30 June 2000

Commonwealth Disability Services Census: 1999

[Excerpt] The Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services, through the Department of Family and Community Services, funds disability services in each State and Territory. This funding provides access for people with a disability to vocational programs, employment opportunities and promotes economic and social participation and choice in work and community life. Information is collected each year from services in receipt of funding. This report, the fifth in the series, contains the findings from the 1999 Commonwealth Disability Services Census and covers all Commonwealth funded employment, print disability, advocacy and information services. The collection provides information to assist in the planning, development and management of Commonwealth disability programs and enables the Commonwealth to fulfil its reporting obligations under the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement

Australian Government Disability Services Census: 2002

[Excerpt] The 2002 Australian Government Disability Services Census recorded information about 64,639 consumers who received assistance from Australian Government disability employment services between 1 July 2001 and 30 June 2002. These are referred to as ‘All Consumers’ and Tables and Figures referring to all consumers have the suffix ‘FY’ (financial year)

‘Cruel and unusual punishment’: an inter-jurisdictional study of the criminalisation of young people with complex support needs

Although several criminologists and social scientists have drawn attention to the high rates of mental and cognitive disability amongst populations of young people embroiled in youth justice systems, less attention has been paid to the ways in which young people with disability are disproportionately exposed to processes of criminalisation and how the same processes serve to further disable them. In this paper, we aim to make a contribution towards filling this gap by drawing upon qualitative findings from the Comparative Youth Penality Project - an empirical inter-jurisdictional study of youth justice and penality in England and Wales and in four Australian states. We build on, integrate and extend theoretical perspectives from critical disability studies and from critical criminology to examine the presence of, and responses to, socio-economically disadvantaged young people with multiple disabilities (complex support needs) in youth justice systems in our selected jurisdictions. Four key findings emerge from our research pertaining to: (i) the criminalisation of disability and disadvantage; (ii) the management of children and young people with disabilities by youth justice agencies; (iii) the significance of early and holistic responses for children and young people with complex support needs; and (iv) the inadequate nature of community based support

Commonwealth Disability Services Census: 1998

[Excerpt] The Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services, through the Department of Family and Community Services, funds disability services in each State and Territory. This funding provides access for people with a disability to vocational programs and employment opportunities, promotes economic and social participation and choice in work and community life. Information is collected each year from services in receipt of funding. This report, the fourth in the series, contains the findings from the 1998 Commonwealth Disability Services Census and covers all Commonwealth funded employment, print disability, advocacy, and information services. The collection provides information to assist in the planning, development and management of Commonwealth disability programs and enables the Commonwealth to fulfil its reporting obligations under the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement.disability_services_census_1998.pdf: 136 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved?

Background - The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods - In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. - We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results - We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion - Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next