Participants in the review consistently noted three overarching challenges to implementation; specifically the absence of a national implementation plan and linked funding, the size and status of the Office for Disability Issues, and society’s attitudes to disabled people. Other barriers to implementation noted by participants include central government agencies’ internal process to adopting and embedding a disability perspective.

Absence of a national implementation plan and linked funding

While central government agencies are required by the Office for Disability Issues to plan and report on implementation, how they prioritise and deliver implementation activity is up to individual agencies. Participants in the review believe the absence of a national implementation plan has been a significant barrier to implementation, particularly in the first few years of the Disability Strategy.

Disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers consider that the lack of a national implementation plan has contributed to poor accountability for delivery. From the perspective of central government agencies, the absence of such a plan has resulted in a lack of strategic focus in implementation and insufficient direction for them. However, this has improved to some extent since the Office for Disability Issues prioritised implementation into “accessible government” and “social policy priority areas”.

Going forward, all participants’ consider there is a need for greater prioritisation of the Disability Strategy’s objectives and actions, so that central government agencies have a clear understanding of what to focus on. Disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers strongly voiced that any prioritisation needs to occur in partnership with them.

There is no centralised funding attached to the implementation of the Disability Strategy. Consequently, funding for implementation activities comes out of central government agencies’ baselines and normal budget processes. Disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers believe this lack of centralised funding has resulted in insufficient investment in addressing disability issues. They believe that central government agencies should place a higher value on disabled peoples’ needs when developing policies and programmes.

“I think [disabled] people would have really liked, and you still hear it today, the idea of a ‘blueprint’ sitting in behind the strategy stating what needs to be achieved, there’s going to be this much money, and things like that.” (Central government)

Size and status of the Office for Disability Issues

Despite noted achievements, all participant groups consider the Office for Disability Issue’s role and activities in facilitating the implementation of the Disability Strategy are restricted by current levels of resourcing.

“The Office is only half a floor in the bottom of the [west] Block. They are smaller than most of MSD’s project teams. They are seen to be a little part of the MSD, some cute little group that’s about disabled people. When you think one in five New Zealander’s are disabled its disproportionate big time.” (Disability Services Provider)

Currently, in comparison to the Ministry of Health, the Office for Disability Issues is considered by disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers to be the most suitable leader and facilitator of the implementation of the Disability Strategy. However, they feel that the Office for Disability Issues’ current placement within the Ministry of Social Development results in insufficient autonomy and authority to influence central government agencies to implement the Disability Strategy. In this context, many disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers who took part in the review argued for the establishment of an independent commission to provide leadership to the disability sector and to act as a watchdog for the implementation of the Disability Strategy.

Attitudes the biggest barrier to implementation

The majority of participants acknowledge an improvement in the public’s attitudes towards disabled people since the launch of the Disability Strategy. However, attitudes towards disabled people continue to be seen as the single biggest barrier to their leading an ordinary life.

Participants, specifically disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and providers, argue that the government needs to invest in changing public attitudes towards disabled people. There is an overwhelming call for a public awareness campaign or social marketing programme to change peoples’ attitudes towards disabled people, resulting in positive behavioural change. The Like Minds, Like Mine campaign was cited as an example of a recent effective social marketing programme.

Some central government agencies pointed out that significant investment is required for a social marketing programme to be effective. Some suggested that a more targeted programme might be more cost-effective.

Internal implementation barriers

Embedding a disability perspective

One major difficulty in implementing the Disability Strategy has been the challenge of embedding a disability perspective into central government agencies’ planning. There are a number of factors hindering this development.

• Lack of understanding of disability issues. While the Disability Strategy is met with tremendous goodwill, in many agencies staff have insufficient experience of or exposure to disability issues. This includes a lack of awareness of the challenges faced by disabled people when undertaking activities that non-disabled people take for granted.
• Differing approaches to embedding a disability perspective. Across central government agencies, five different approaches have emerged about how a disability perspective will be embedded within the agency, or more simply, where planning and reporting on disability issues is located:
  • Human resources focus: Planning and reporting is located in human resources. This can result in a narrow internal disability focus on employees and their equipment
  • in a disability specific section: Planning and reporting is located in a specific section such as corporate services and this can be a barrier to a broader view of disability issues encompassing an agency-wide internal and external perspective
  • mainstreaming: Some social policy agencies have adopted an approach of mainstreaming disability issues across their organisation, whereby it is intended that each division adopt a disability perspective
  • supported mainstreaming: This is similar to mainstreaming except there is a disability reference group which takes a governance style role on ensuring a disability perspective is embedded and adopted
  • Disability champion: A disabled person is given the broad role of being the champion for disability issues. This has the benefit of ensuring access to a disabled person’s perspective, but may offer a narrow perspective on disability issues, given the diversity of the sector. It can also place a significant burden on the individual. Further, their effectiveness is dependent on where they are located in the organisation’s hierarchy and whether they are invited to contribute in strategy, policy and service development and delivery.

The approach adopted by central government agencies to where the responsibility for disability issues is located can act either as a barrier or enabler to embedding a disability perspective. While each approach can be successful, central government participants in the review indicated that supported mainstreaming tended to be a more effective approach.

“This implementation process is very dependent on the contact person, on the agency you have. We have one contact person, so the effectiveness of this planning and reporting depends on the nature of that person and whether they’re linked in to the whole enterprise, or just bits of it.” (Central government)

• Staff turnover. The Office for Disability Issues has noted that staff turnover in government agencies impacts adversely on implementation. This is especially noted if a staff member has received training or is experienced in disability issues, or has been acting in a champion role. Often staff turnover results in a cessation in disability-related implementation activities as they are replaced by staff that lack knowledge and/or experience. However, it is hoped by some that the movement of knowledgeable and experienced staff to other central government agencies may positively affect their disability responsiveness. The latter is dependent on the parameters of the new role.
• Complexity and diversity of disability issues. Disability issues are not homogenous; there are many different impairment types and perspectives on how best to create an inclusive society. Further, the disability sector has many voices competing for attention from central government agencies. Consequently, confusion has arisen in some central government agencies about how best to include a disability perspective, and there are now calls for greater prioritisation through more centralised implementation planning.
• Competing priorities: The Disability Strategy is one of several strategies that central government agencies are required to implement, and this can place pressure on resources or cause it to drop from view. Likewise, Ministers have to manage numerous competing demands on their time.

Completion of work plans

Central government agencies raised the following concerns regarding the co-ordination and completion of work plans:

• Internal planning cycles are not necessarily aligned with the Office for Disability Issues reporting and planning cycle. A comment repeated by many agency staff taking part in the review, was that they completed implementation plans after finalising overall work plans and budgets for the year. Consequently they feel constrained by what they can include in the plan. The latter also reflects that a disability perspective is not standardised into annual planning cycles.
• The work plan template requires too much detail, much of which is considered not relevant, (these comments were made by government agencies not responsible for social policy priority areas).
• In some instances, they are required to report on information already provided to other government agencies (e.g. reporting website information which they have already given to the State Services Commission).
• A great deal of staff time is involved co-ordinating and providing input to implementation in comparison to what is required for similar strategies, such as the Positive Ageing Strategy. This is particularly the case where there is a low level of knowledge and/or buy-in to the Disability Strategy.