Evaluation of the consumer - directed care initiative - Final Report
7.5 Considerations for special needs groups
Table of contents
- Executive summary
- Glossary
1 Introduction- 2 The consumer-directed care initiative
- 3 Evaluation of the consumer-directed care initiative
- 4 Profile of participants and the supports they accessed
- 5 Implementation and operation of the initiative
- 6 Impact of the initiative for CDC participants and their carers
7 Impact of the initiative for CDRC participants and the people they care for- 8 Impact on providers and the broader service system
- 9 Cost assessment and cost-effectiveness of the initiative
- 10 Key findings
- 11 Lessons learnt and strategies for consideration
- Appendices
- References
It is not possible to draw any conclusions relating to benefits and impacts of CDRC for a number of special needs groups – including participants from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, veterans, those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and care-leavers – given their low representation in the CDRC participant group and their low representation in the evaluation data collection.
However, a number of considerations and observations can be made – as discussed below.
People from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds
There was a very low take-up rate of CDRC by carers from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. Like CDC, the cultural appropriateness of CDRC needs to be examined – particularly in the context of the focus on the individual rather than the family or community, and concerns about ‘humbugging’.People living in rural and remote areas
There was no evidence of difference between CDRC participants living in rural and remote areas versus those in regional towns and metropolitan areas in terms of their involvement in or satisfaction with CDRC.Some CDRC providers who had CDRC packages in rural and remote areas highlighted the benefit that packages provided in terms of ‘choice’. In rural and remote areas services were typically more limited, and the extent of choice was more limited – for example, some service types were not be available or difficult to access, others were available in a regional centre (requiring people to travel to access them), and there was less choice of providers or support workers. However, this applies equally to a range of community care services as well as CDRC (and CDC), and providers highlighted one of the benefits of a consumer-directed approach was that they were able to be more flexible and creative, and through this were able to provide greater choice for participants than they traditionally would.
People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
For participants (and the people they cared for) from a CALD background, the choice of support worker was highlighted as important – and in particular having the ability to choose a support worker who came from the same or similar cultural background and/or spoke the same language as the person being cared for, where they were available. Where a carer had identified this as important, often the CDRC provider had to spend some time finding an appropriate support worker.People who were financially or socially disadvantaged
This group was difficult to identify, though a number of providers and participants identified themselves as financially or socially disadvantaged based on their own understanding of the term. A number of carers on limited incomes spoke of the benefit that CDRC provided them in being able to access supports which they would have not been able to access because of their limited ability to pay out of their own pocket. This is more related to the size of the CDRC package than the CDRC approach, however.Other special needs groups
There were few or no participants who were homeless or at risk of homelessness, veteran (or spouses of veterans), or care-leavers.Top of page