Standards comparison level
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
National Standards for Disability Services
Rights
Participation and Inclusion
Individual Outcomes
Feedback and Complaints
Service Access
Service Management
Disability Advocacy Standards
1
Accessing advocacy
2
Individual needs
3
Decision making and choice
4
Privacy, dignity and confidentiality
8
Agency management
10
Protection of human rights and freedom from abuse
2
Individual needs
3
Decision making and choice
4
Privacy, dignity and confidentiality
5
Participation and integration
6
Valued status
9
Staff, recruitment, employment and training
1
Accessing advocacy
2
Individual needs
3
Decision making and choice
4
Privacy, dignity and confidentiality
10
Protection of human rights and freedom from abuse
7
Complaints and disputes
8
Agency management
10
Protection of human rights and freedom from abuse
1
Accessing advocacy
8
Agency management
2
Individual needs
3
Decision making and choice
6
Valued status
8
Agency management
9
Staff, recruitment, employment and training
National Standards for Disability
Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
1.1 The service or program, its staff and its
volunteers treat individuals with dignity and
respect.
Standard 4 overall.
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
1.2 The service or program, its staff and its
volunteers recognise and promote individual
freedom of expression.
Standard 10 overall, strengthened by KPIs
10.2 and 3.1
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
1.3 The service or program supports active
decision-making and individual choice, including
the timely provision of information in appropriate
formats to support individuals, families, friends
and carers to make informed decisions and
understand their rights and responsibilities.
Standard 3 overall and KPIs 2.3, 8.1
Partly met
Agencies should ensure that any information is
timely and available in accessible formats to
consumers.
1.4 The service or program provides support
strategies that are based on the minimal
restrictive options and are contemporary,
evidence-based, transparent and capable of
review.
KPI 3.1
Partly met
Legislative requirements include the DSA, in
which advocacy service is defined as essentially
the minimal restrictive pathway, however this is
not captured fully in standards.
Advocacy agencies should ensure that evidence
is available to demonstrate transparency, the
capacity to review and that support strategies are
contemporary. This could extend to review
processes for all advocacy models. In the context
of advocacy support, strategies may include such
measures as (individual) risk management plans
and duty of care/dignity of risk processes.
1 Rights
The service or program promotes individual
rights to freedom of expression, selfdetermination and decision-making and actively
prevents abuse, harm, neglect and violence.
National Standards for Disability
Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
1.5 The service or program has preventative
measures in place to ensure that individuals are
free from discrimination, exploitation, abuse,
harm, neglect and violence.
Standard 10 overall.
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
1.6 The service or program addresses any
breach of rights promptly and systemically to
ensure opportunities for improvement are
captured.
Standard 10 overall and KPI 8.2
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
1.7 The service or program supports individuals
with information, and if needed, access to legal
advice and/or advocacy.
KPIs 1.3, 2.3 and 8.1
Fully met
1.8 The service or program recognises the role
of families, friends, carers and advocates in
safeguarding and upholding the rights of people
with disability.
Standard 10 overall, strengthened by KPIs
10.2, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
Fully met
Whilst this IoP is met by the DAS, advocacy
agencies must be mindful to ensure there is a
process to provide consumers with relevant
information and referrals to other agencies, if a
different model of assistance or advocacy (such
as legal) is required.
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support. Services should be
mindful of conflict of interest from family
members/other stakeholders.
1.9 The service or program keeps personal
information confidential and private.
Standard 4 overall, strengthened by KPI 4.1
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
National Standards for
Disability Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
Standard 6 overall, strengthened by KPIs 6.2,
2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 3.1
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
2.2 The service or program works together
with individuals to connect to family, friends
and their chosen communities.
Standard 5 overall and KPI 2.3
Fully met
2.3 Staff of the service or program
understand, respect and facilitate individual
interests and preferences, in relation to
work, learning, social activities and
community connection over time.
Standards 5, 6 & 9 overall, strengthened by
KPIs 2.1, 2.2 and 4.2
Fully met
2.4 Where appropriate, the service or
program works with an individual’s family,
friends, carer or advocate to promote
community connection, inclusion and
participation.
Standard 5 overall, strengthened by KPIs 5.1
and 2.3
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support although agencies
should be mindful of conflict of interest and ethical
guidelines.
Although this IoP maps to the DAS, the scope of
the advocacy agency should be taken into
consideration. I.e., individual interests and
preferences, in relation to work, learning, social
activities and community connection may come
about through issues raised during the provision of
advocacy. For systemic advocacy, this is likely met
through a particular systemic matter, such as
community access etc.
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
2.5 The service or program works in
partnership with other organisations and
community members to support individuals
to actively participate in their community.
Standard 5 overall, strengthened by KPI 5.1
Partly met
2 Participation and Inclusion
The service or program works with
individuals and families, friends and carers
to promote opportunities for meaningful
participation and active inclusion in society.
2.1 The service or program actively
promotes a valued role for people with
disability, of their own choosing.
Though it is likely that advocacy agencies already
meet this IoP by the nature of support offered,
agencies should still ensure that processes are in
place to address collaborative working relationships
with other providers and community members and
that evidence of this involvement is traceable.
Additionally, agencies should be mindful of conflicts
of interest when ‘partnering’ with other stakeholders
to support community participation.
National Standards for
Disability Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
2.6 The service or program uses strategies
that promote community and cultural
connection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people.
Standard 5
Partly met
Agencies should be mindful that strategies should
be in place to demonstrate promotion of community
and cultural connection specific to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people. This could include
cultural competence training for staff,
demographics analysis to determine the extent of
consumers / potential consumers that identify as
being indigenous or linkages with appropriate
indigenous groups.
National Standards for
Disability Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
Standard 2 overall and KPIs 3.1, 4.1
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
3.2 Service planning, provision and review
is based on individual choice and is
undertaken together with an individual and,
with consent, their family, friends, carer or
advocate.
Standards 2 and 3 overall.
Fully met
3.3 The service or program plans, delivers
and regularly reviews services or supports
against measurable life outcomes.
Standard 2 overall.
Partly met
3.4 Service planning and delivery is
responsive to diversity including disability,
age, gender, culture, heritage, language,
faith, sexual identity, relationship status,
and other relevant factors.
Standard 1 overall, strengthened by KPIs 1.1
and 10.2
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
Individual choice in the context of systemic
advocacy may result when an issue has been
raised by a number of people/sources, resulting in
a systemic matter being addressed.
Further evidence is required to ensure that review
takes place of measurable life outcomes in the
context of advocacy support. Note that life
outcomes will differ depending upon the model of
advocacy and the issue being supported by
advocacy, which can be issue based or time
limited.
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support. However, noting
diversity considerations, in addition to disability.
3.5 The service or program collaborates
with other service providers in planning
service delivery and to support internal
capacity to respond to diverse needs.
Gap
3 Individual Incomes
Services and supports are assessed,
planned, delivered and reviewed to build on
individual strengths and enable individuals
to reach their goals.
3.1 The service or program works together
with an individual and, with consent, their
family, friends, carer or advocate to identify
their strengths, needs and life goals.
As previously mentioned, though it is likely that
advocacy agencies already meet this IoP by the
nature of advocacy provision, agencies should
ensure that processes are in place to address
cooperative working relationships with other
providers and that evidence of involvement is
captured.
Additionally, it may be beneficial for agencies to
record, if applicable, any real or perceived conflicts
of interest, and mitigation measures.
National Standards for
Disability Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
Standard 7 overall and KPI 10.2
Partly met
Advocacy agencies should ensure that complaints
making processes, without fear of adverse
consequences extends to families, friends and
carers. Note that in the context of advocacy,
support may be directed to the individual, to
address a complaint against family members.
Therefore agencies and CBs should be mindful of
this.
Though it is likely that this IoP is being met by
advocacy agencies, it is important nevertheless to
ensure that evidence is available to confirm that
stakeholders such as families, friends, carers and
other advocates are clearly communicated to in
relation to feedback mechanisms, including
complaints resolution and how to access
independent support and advice where required.
4 Feedback and Complaints
Regular feedback is sought and used to
inform individual and organisation wide
service or program reviews and
improvement.
4.1 Individuals, families, friends, carers and
advocates are actively supported to provide
feedback, make a complaint or resolve a
dispute without fear of adverse
consequences.
4.2 Feedback mechanisms, including
complaints resolution and how to access
independent support, advice and
representation, are clearly communicated to
individuals, families, friends, carers and
advocates.
Standard 7 overall, strengthened by KPIs 7.1
and 8.2
Partly met
4.3 Complaints are resolved together with
the individual, family, friends, carer or
advocate in a proactive and timely manner.
Standard 7 overall
Partly met
4.4 The service or program seeks and, in
conjunction with individuals, families,
friends, carers and advocates, reviews
feedback on service provision and supports
on a regular basis as part of continuous
improvement.
Standard 8 overall, strengthened by KPI 8.2
Partly met
Additionally, advocacy agencies should ensure that
evidence is available to demonstrate that
complaints are resolved in collaboration with family,
friends, carers or perhaps other advocates (all
where appropriate) in a proactive and timely
manner. Transparent practices with respect to this
should be recorded and a greater focus on
timeliness than currently exists in KPI’s. Applies
equally for all advocacy models.
Further evidence may be required here to ensure
that the advocacy agency seeks and, in conjunction
with individuals, families, friends, carers and
advocates (as appropriate), reviews feedback on
service provision and supports on a regular basis
as part of continuous improvement. This is in
addition to feedback obtained in response to
complaints and applies equally across advocacy
models.
National Standards for
Disability Services (NSDS)
Disability Advocacy Standards DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
4.5 The service or program develops a
culture of continuous improvement using
compliments, feedback and complaints to
plan, deliver and review services for
individuals and the community.
Standard 8 overall, strengthened by KPI 8.2
Fully met
4.6 The service or program effectively
manages disputes.
Standard 7 overall, strengthened by KPI 7.2
Fully met
Though this is a match, advocacy agencies should
ensure that continuous improvement activities
capture compliments, feedback and complaints
with respect to planning, delivery and review of
advocacy support for individuals and the
community.
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
National Standards for Disability Disability Advocacy Standards Services (NSDS)
DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
5 Service Access
The service or program manages access,
commencement and leaving a service in a
transparent, fair and equal and responsive
way.
5.1 The service or program systematically
seeks and uses input from people with
disability, their families, friends and carers
to ensure access is fair and equal and
transparent.
Standard 1 overall
Partly met
The advocacy agency should seek to ensure that
feedback is sought on the transparency and equity
of access processes from a range of stakeholders
other than consumers (where appropriate). This
can equally apply to all models of advocacy.
5.2 The service or program provides
accessible information in a range of formats
about the types and quality of services
available.
Gap
Again here, the advocacy agency should ensure
that information is accessible to meet the needs of
its cohort in relation to the type and quality of
advocacy available.
5.3 The service or program develops,
applies, reviews and communicates
commencement and leaving a service
processes.
Standard 1 overall and KPI 8.1
Partly met
Advocacy agencies should be aware that cessation
processes should be developed, applied, reviewed
and communicated along with entry processes.
5.4 The service or program develops,
applies and reviews policies and practices
related to eligibility criteria, priority of access
and waiting lists.
Standard 1 overall, strengthened by KPIs 1.1,
1.2 and 8.2
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support.
5.5 The service or program monitors and
addresses potential barriers to access.
Gap
5.6 The service or program provides clear
explanations when a service is not available
along with information and referral support
for alternative access.
Standard 1 overall, strengthened by KPI 1.3
Partly met
Advocacy agencies are required to demonstrate
that it monitors and addresses potential barriers to
access, as this is not covered specifically in the
DAS.
Advocacy agencies should be aware that further
evidence may be required to demonstrate
information and referral support to other services.
5.7 The service or program collaborates
with other relevant organisations and
community members to establish and
maintain a referral network.
Gap
Collaboration processes with other organisations is
not explicitly covered in the DAS, therefore
evidence to demonstrate that the advocacy agency
maintains referral networks must be in place, where
appropriate.
National Standards for Disability Disability Advocacy Standards Services (NSDS)
DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
6 Service Management
The service or program has effective and
accountable service management and
leadership to maximise outcomes for
individuals.
6.1 Frontline staff, management and
governing bodies are suitably qualified,
skilled and supported.
Standard 9 overall
Fully met
6.2 Practice is based on evidence and
minimal restrictive options and complies
with legislative, regulatory and contractual
requirements.
KPIs 4.1, 8.2 and 10.2
Partly met
6.3 The service or program documents,
monitors and effectively uses management
systems including Work Health Safety,
human resource management and financial
management.
Standard 8, 9 and KPI 8.2
Partly met
6.4 The service or program has monitoring,
feedback, learning and reflection processes
which support continuous improvement.
Standard 8 overall, strengthened by KPIs 8.2
and 9.2
Fully met
6.5 The service or program has a clearly
communicated organisational vision,
mission and values which are consistent
with contemporary practice.
Standard 8 overall strengthened by KPI 8.1
Partly met
This IoP is fully met, however, agencies may like to
consider internal and external supervision practices
as an example of ‘support’. Note that this means
auditors will be reviewing ‘governing bodies’ i.e.
competence, qualification and training of board
members too.
This is partly met through such measures as
(individual) risk management plans and duty of
care/dignity of risk processes, but demonstrating
practice linked to minimal restrictive options is not
captured in the DAS.
Advocacy agencies should ensure that they identify
the legislative and regulatory requirements in which
they work and ensure these are met.
Workplace Health and Safety and financial
management are not explicitly stated in the DAS so
agencies must ensure that these systems are
documented and monitored effectively.
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support, however, the NSDS
wording is stronger in relation to monitoring,
feedback, learning and improvement processes.
Whilst this IoP is largely met by the DAS, advocacy
agencies should consider how they ensure that
their vision, mission and values are based on
contemporary practice. This could include ensuring
current language is used, or through networking
with other agencies / providers.
National Standards for Disability Disability Advocacy Standards Services (NSDS)
DAS mapping
Disability Advocacy Standards Comments
6.6 The service or program has systems to
strengthen and maintain organisational
capabilities to directly support the
achievement of individual goals and
outcomes.
Standard 9 and KPI 8.2
Fully met
No further evidence should be required in the
context of advocacy support, however advocacy
agencies should ensure that the focus on individual
(or systemic) goals and outcomes is at the centre
of maintaining organisational capabilities.
6.7 The service or program uses personcentred approaches including the active
involvement of people with disability,
families, friends, carers and advocates to
review policies, practices, procedures and
service provision.
Standards 2, 3, and KPIs 6.2 and 8.2 Partly
met
Further evidence is needed here in relation to
ensuring that a person-centred approach is taken
(including appropriate stakeholders) to review the
agencies documented system and service
provision.
In the case of systemic or citizen advocacy,
stakeholder engagement could be in a different
context, but is still required to be recorded for
evidence. I.e. feedback from citizen advocates or
feedback of other stakeholders etc.