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.