A review of progress made by central government agencies implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy (the Disability Strategy) over the period April 2001 to June 2007 was conducted by Litmus Ltd between May and August 2007.

The review involved an analysis of documents related to the Disability Strategy and in-depth interviews with disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations, parents of disabled children, disability support providers, central government agencies, local authorities, District Health Boards, tertiary education institutions and lead implementation agencies. A total of 110 stakeholders were consulted. In addition, the Office for Disability Issues provided a stock-take of central government implementation activity since July 2001.

An outcomes framework was developed to model how the implementation of the Disability Strategy contributes to changes in central government agencies and other agencies’ policies and services, which ultimately result in positive changes in the life outcomes and value of disabled people. The theory of change detailed is one where agencies, whether government, non-government or private, alter their policies, processes and services to foster positive life changes for disabled people. In addition, disabled people themselves, their membership organisations, their families, whānau and friends, and wider society will also experience, and contribute to, change.

According to the logic of the framework, outcomes emerge at two levels:

1. Implementation outcomes - Changes in the way stakeholders view, think and act in relation to disability responsiveness, which support improvements to how disabled people are valued, engaged with and supported to participate fully in society. 
2. Life outcomes of disabled people - The implementation outcomes ultimately lead to full participation of disabled people in all areas of life. This will be reflected in official statistics, and in the reported experience of disabled people. 

The review found that central government agencies have undertaken a significant level of activity to implement the Disability Strategy. This activity has been most highly concentrated on gaining a greater understanding of disability issues, with progressively less concentration on consultation and partnership with disabled people, removing barriers to participation and, finally, maximising opportunities for participation by disabled people. This is the pattern predicted by the outcomes framework in the earlier stages of implementing the Disability Strategy.

There are areas, such as building citizenship, where progress towards embedding disability responsiveness in agencies is more advanced. However, in all areas more work is needed to meet disabled people’s needs and aspirations.

Disabled people acknowledge that the implementation of the Disability Strategy over the last six years is resulting in some positive changes: greater empowerment; improvements in communications and accessibility offering them a greater voice; wider recognition of their value and contribution within their communities; and some inclusion within central government decision making processes. However, they also assert that improvement is too slow, that some disabled people are benefiting less than others, and that there is still a long way to go before disabled people can report that they are living in a fully inclusive society that values them and enhances their participation.

Perceptions differ between government officials and disabled people about progress on the Disability Strategy’s implementation over the last six years. Central government agencies view the Disability Strategy as the government’s commitment to creating incremental change alongside other priorities and work streams within current budgets. They perceive that incremental change is occurring.

However, disabled people, disabled persons’ membership organisations and disability support providers expected greater progress in implementation by 2007, so that New Zealand would be closer to becoming a fully inclusive and enabling society.

A number of things have helped enable implementation activity: the Disability Strategy itself, which is seen as still relevant by all stakeholders; the establishment of a Ministerial portfolio with responsibility for disability issues and of the Office for Disability Issues; the involvement of and advocacy by disabled people and others; and, the move to a social model of disability and towards more rights-based approaches.

Participants 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. Central government agencies’ internal processes were seen as another barrier to adopting and embedding a disability perspective, and to implementation.

The review makes 20 recommendations to improve implementation of the Disability Strategy, and to support an improved evidence base for the ten-year review in 2012. In summary, these recommendations focus on:

• Prioritising implementation activities that are likely to have the greatest positive effect on the lives of disabled people.
• Providing additional focus on those disabled people who are the most disadvantaged.
• Moving to multi-year plans and reports for priority areas that are contributed to by multiple agencies, including central government agencies, local government agencies, district health boards and disability support providers.
• Refining annual planning and reporting requirements to better align with agencies’ other planning cycles.
• Enhancing support to central government agencies to improve, and embed, their disability responsiveness.
• Facilitating greater partnership between central government agencies and disabled people.
• Developing the capacity of disabled people to contribute as employees and external experts on disability issues.
• Continuing to support regulatory change to remove barriers experienced by disabled people.
• Improving the regular supply of information that can be used to monitor changes in life outcomes of disabled people.
• Planning, with government agencies and disabled people, the review of progress after 10 years to allow comparison of the 2011 post-census disability survey data with the 2001 survey.