Safeguards don't always

Photo by Sebastian Fissore http://www.sebafissore.com.ar/ accessed via http://www.sxc.hu/

This is the second of two posts on the topic of abuse and safeguards.

Safety and safeguards are rarely far from people's thoughts about supports for people who live with additional vulnerability.  Interest is heightened when dreadful things happen, be it at home, on the street, or in the arms of a service provider.  If the magnitude is sufficient, this can result in a jurisdiction putting formal arrangements in place to help protect people.

For example, as part of its Disability Act 2006 the Government of Victoria set up the Office of the Senior Practitioner to regulate the use of restrictive support practices so that people's rights are safeguarded. The Act also provided for a Community Visitors Program, where trained volunteers can inspect disability services without notice.

Also in 2006, the Government of Queensland established a Disability Services Act that included measures aimed at protecting people, including approval processes for service agencies and investigation arrangements.

In what was obviously a busy year for legislative action on safeguarding, 2006 saw the UK Government pass the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, as a response to something unspeakably evil, establishing the Independent Safeguarding Authority, whose role is to help ensure that unsuitable people are not unleashed on vulnerable people.   

In South Australia, there is currently a Bill before Parliament relating to Mandatory Reporting, designed to help ensure that anything approaching neglect, abuse or assault is quickly brought to the attention of the authorities who can then act to protect the person living with disability.

The above are several different examples of how jurisdictions can take formal steps to provide safeguards for people living with additional vulnerability.  Such measures are often taken as the king-hit (irony intended) response to people's concerns about vulnerability and safeguards, and are designed to give people confidence that matters are in hand.

Unfortunately, there are at least two problems with such approaches.  The first problem is that they are not necessarily successful at protecting people with the greatest vulnerability.  To illustrate this, I refer again to the UK, and the recent Panorama investigation (mentioned in the previous posting) that revealed abuse and assaults perpetrated by staff on residents living with disability, in a state-of-the-art, high-cost ‘specialist’ service supervised by registered professionals.  You can view the program in 4 parts here, but be warned that it includes scenes you may find deeply upsetting.

The investigation took place earlier this year. What is particularly depressing about the deplorable practice uncovered is that it took place despite the presence of the above-mentioned Independent Safeguarding Authority.  In short, the safeguarding authority didn't.

It gets worse. The UK also has the Care Quality Commission (CQC), whose role is to ensure that "people get better care".  This includes a a wide-ranging set of powers and duties, with the commitment that "if we think that people’s rights or safety are at risk, we will act quickly".  A senior staff member working at the service agency investigated by Panorama was so unsettled by the practices he saw that he contacted the CQC.  Unfortunately, the CQC failed its own commitment.  It did not act quickly, and in fact did not act at all, until Panorama shared their undercover research with several million people.

So what we have here is a situation where an approved service agency, working within a contemporary building and using professional staff, and designed to provide a specialist response to people with allegedly high needs, was responsible for a despicable catalogue of neglect, abuse and assault, and all this despite the presence of a range of formal legislative and regulatory safeguards.

The lesson from this is that formal safeguarding arrangements by themselves do not necessarily reduce the risk of vulnerable people being exploited.  

image by Banzai Creative

As a society it is of course important we continue exploring how we might best legislate and regulate to advance and uphold people's well being.  However, such measures are not a substitute for the work we all need to do to support people into ordinary valued lives.  This is because a good life is not achieved simply by reducing the chances of bad things happening.  If that is the main tactic, then that life will seem at best sterile and at worst empty.  Instead, the primary tactic must be how to increase the chances of good things happening in the person';s life, not just reducing the chances of bad things happening.

As mentioned in the previous posting, a starting point for this approach will be the deeply felt values about people living ordinary valued lives, and how this is then translated into expectations about how each citizen behaves, not just in terms of legislation, regulations, and specialist funding, but in terms of mainstream education, public transportation, buildings and spaces, ordinary employment, and neighbourhoods that are welcoming.

The better we support a person living with disability to take up their rightful place in the heart of our communities, the more likely it is that there will be natural safeguards present in that person's life - family, neighbours, acquaintances, friends, co-workers.  After all, these are sources of natural safeguards for any citizen, so why should it be any less so for a citizen living with disability.

To Protect and Serve?

image by Sanja Gjenero, accessed via http://www.sxc.hu

Recent media coverage on issues of justice and mistreatment triggered the next two blog postings.  This first posting, below, was published earlier this week on The Punch and on the ABC's Ramp Up.  A second posting, looking at measures such as regulators and mandatory reporting, will be out soon.

The Adelaide Advertiser story (Monday 27 June 2011, ‘Justice Disabled’) highlighted the apparent difficulties in securing convictions where a person living with intellectual disability has been the victim of an alleged sexual assault.

Some alleged assaults take place where people are receiving care.  This warrants closer examination, given the reasonable expectation that human services are meant to reduce risk of harm, not add to it.  Also, the greater the degree of disability a person lives with, the more likely it is the person will be living in a formal service arrangement, sharing with other persons living with similar degrees of disability and served by staff.

These arrangements typically involve people served in group settings, away from the view of the wider community.  To the casual observer, such arrangements might appear competent at safeguarding people’s wellbeing, with features like individual private bedrooms, qualified staff , and supervision by registered professionals.  The arrangements might also include an activities program, active monitoring, and guidelines that permit liberty-reducing practices, such as restraint or seclusion, as a last resort only. 

However, such arrangements do not guarantee protection from neglect, abuse or assault.  In fact, they can achieve the opposite.  When people are required to live together for no other reason than their degree of disability (or other disadvantage), it creates a situation where people are living on top of each other with very little to do.  It is not unknown for this to sometimes result in assaults between residents, a tragic situation that brings its own complexity in justice and yet could be largely avoided if we stopped herding people like cattle into group services.

image by Konrado Fedorczyko, accessed via http://www.sxc.hu

Worse, these group arrangements render the person vulnerable to the attitudes and outlook of staff, who have the capacity to exercise great control over the lives of those they are meant to serve.  The extent to which this can go badly wrong was illustrated in a UK Panorama investigation that revealed abuse and assaults perpetrated by staff on residents living with disability, in a state-of-the-art, high-cost ‘specialist’ service supervised by registered professionals (to view, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yuPvUHsx1Y&amp).

We cannot safely assume such practices are any less discoverable in Australia.  The less  we think about people living with disability as individual human beings, the less personalised will be the support arrangements, separating people physically and culturally from community life.  This can leave at least some people with no one in their lives other than paid staff and other people living with disability.   

That is wrong.

If we really want to tackle the problem of unprosecuted assaults on people living with disability, we must first discontinue the practice of grouping people living with disability on the basis of service convenience, be this a group home, a sheltered workshop or a special education class, and instead build personalised supports that bring people fully and visibly into community life. 

More than this, If we truly value diversity and shared wellbeing (which is the whole point of communities), we each need to take up our responsibility to welcome people living with disability fully into our neighbourhoods and our workplaces.  This is not an issue of rights but something more important - values.

Turning now to problems of justice, the main reason reported in the Advertiser is that the alleged victim, because of disability, might be an unreliable witness.  So what?  Witness testimony from anyone can be an unreliable source of evidence in criminal proceedings, and there are other sources of evidence that can assist prosecution.  There is no reason why an assault case involving a person living with severe disability, whose capacity to recall might be compromised, should be treated any differently from a case involving a frail older person, a child, or a victim who was incapacitated by alcohol or other substances at the time of the alleged offence.

Image by michaelaw, accessed via http://www.sxc.hu

A second issue is consent, whether the victim was a willing participant at the time of the alleged assault and changed their mind subsequently.  Many adults, from all walks of life, may have comparable stories of hindsight-driven regret, especially if the experience had turned out to be embarrassing, deeply disappointing, or even frightening.  Just like anyone else, a person living with disability is not immune to the possibility of such experience.  However, it would be a great mistake for us to assume that this is more likely to have happened simply because the person happened to live with disability. A far more important move, especially where the person is more vulnerable in their decision-making, would be to assure the availability to the person of good, accessible information and supports about consent and related matters.  

The bottom line?  Let‘s not further disable people by placing them in ‘support arrangements’ that do more harm than good.  Instead, let’s uphold the individual person’s right to an ordinary valued life, and assure the presence of safeguards so we do not fail people when the going gets tough.

Flying the Standard Part Three: restriction vs safeguarding

This blog posting is the third instalment relating to the current review in Australia of the National Standards for Disability Services.  This posting looks at a second big example of problematic language within the current Standards - the phrase ‘least restrictive way’. 

 

The Standards say that:

 

Each person with a disability receives a service which is designed to meet...his or her individual needs and personal goals.

How good does that sound?  Pretty good actually. The only problem is that I've taken a phrase out and replaced it with some dots.  Let's now put that phrase back in, and look at what the Standards actually say:

Each person with a disability receives a service which is designed to meet, in the least restrictive way, his or her individual needs and personal goals.

What a shame.  Without the bit in red, this would be an unequivocal, potent and affirming statement, but for the fact that it’s been blighted in the middle by five words – “in the least restrictive way”.  The problem with this wording is that it puts the possibility of restrictive practice on the table.  It suggests that a person’s freedom might indeed need to be restricted.  Put more simply, the use of this wording gives service agencies the permission (regardless of whether they choose to act on it) to think about and apply restrictive practice.

Ouch!

In this way, the Standards, however unintentionally, reduce the horizon of what is possible in people’s lives, because every Australian living with disability who comes into contact with formal services is entering a system that is entertaining the possibility that the person’s freedom might have to be restricted. Double Ouch!

I can imagine some readers of this blog wishing to remind me that there are people living with disability who live in very dramatic circumstances where there is a greater risk of harm to themselves or others, and that the other people in that person's life, or service agencies, need to act decisively to manage the situation.  I understand that pressure.  But if our main response to such situations is to apply restriction to manage the problem, then we may indeed be reducing the immediate risk of self-harm, harm to others, material damage etc, but are we actually doing anything to support that person to move on from such distressing circumstances?  I have encountered and worked with people whose circumstances have resulted in their being restricted for years, without ever being given an authentic, sustained opportunity to move on.

In this regard, the current wording of the Standards has not helped, because the Standards have endorsed the possibility of restriction in the first place.

We have to move away from such language.  

Therefore, instead of focusing on the idea of restriction the Standards could be reframed to focus on the idea of safeguarding.  Where restrictive practice is service-focused, with an emphasis on managing a ‘problem’, safeguarding is person-focused and demands careful attention to rights-based lifestyle goals such as choice and citizenhood and the associated support that someone with heightened vulnerability might need to succeed.

If you think about it, this isn’t a particularly radical idea.  For all of us, we live our lives where we encounter risk, and our habit is to respond with safeguards, so that we can get on with life.   

A mundane example is crossing the road, which brings with it a number of risk considerations, given that roads are used by fast-moving heavy pieces of metal.  If we wanted to stay absolutely safe, we might choose simply to not cross the road. However, making this decision might close us off to the opportunities that lie on the other side.  Instead, we consider how we might cross the road in the safest possible way - finding a place to cross where we can see the flow traffic, then waiting for a gap in the traffic, then crossing quickly.  We might also use a place where crossing is facilitated.  Such practices are examples of safeguarding.  As we grow into our lives we learn a range of techniques for crossing the road as safely as possible.  By applying these techniques we safely manage the risk of crossing the road and get on with our lives.

The point here is that if we think about safeguards rather than restrictions it may make it more likely that the support a person receives takes her/him towards a more ordinary valued life rather than a life characterised by containment and diversion.

In which case, I’d be keen to see the phrase restrictive practice removed from the Standards, and replaced by something more affirming, such as the following:

Each person living with disability is supported, including the thoughtful use of safeguards where these are needed, to move towards a life of choice and citizenhood.

What do you think? Can you do better?  Post a comment with your own suggestions.  If you feel strongly about the importance of safeguarding rather than restriction, do make your views known because the Standards are being reviewed by government right now.  You have until 18 July, so click here to go to the government website.

Restrictions on Life

I was in Hobart last week, including attending a meeting on 'restrictive practices'.  The meeting was part of the ASSID (Australian Society for the Study of Intellectual Disability) 2009 conference program .

The meeting was intended to be a small committee-style meeting but the room soon got overrun by the sheer numbers of people wanting to be involved in the discussion.  This is obviously a topic of concern for many.

Though a common definition seems illusive, 'restrictive practice' basically refers to situations where the paid support staff take measures to restrict someone who is exhibiting 'behaviour of concern', also known as 'challenging behaviour'.  Restrictive practices can include physical restraint, such as tying someone down, chemical restraint like medication, seclusion (locking someone up) and mechanical restraint such as applying arm splints or disconnecting the power supply to a person's motorised wheelchair so that the person is immobilised.

Though initiated in the name of safety, such interventions are no picnic for the person so restricted.  These practices are dehumanising and should not be part of the repertoire of human services.

At the Julia Farr Association we've begun our own exploration of this topic, and the Hobart meeting has confirmed what we've learned so far.  Namely, that these types of practice are used far too often in human services and not always as a last resort, and reflect the failure of human services to really understand the person behind the 'behaviour of concern'.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, all behaviour has a purpose and if we don't get to know a person sufficiently well to understand the reasons behind the chosen behaviour, then we are truly neglecting a duty of care - ironic given that 'duty of care' is usually the stated reason for using a restrictive practice.

'Behaviours of concern' can often emerge because of a person's experience of services.  And when you stop to think about it, this isn't a surprise.  Even though choice and control are important to all of us, we tend to set up service arrangements that specifically compromise these values.  We house people together not because of their choice but because they have similar 'issues' or because its convenient to the service provider or because it's apparently economic for the public funder (which it ultimately isn't).

These arrangements, which also separate people from ordinary valued opportunities in the wider community, would easily unsettle any of us.  Add to this mix the person's heightened sense of vulnerability because of their disability, which may include difficulties in making their views known, and we have a situation ripe for 'behaviours of concern' to emerge.  Frankly if I was placed in such arrangements I'd get pretty challenging too.

The simple fact is that if we put services in place that don't fit well with a person's preferences, than all we are really doing is containing people and keeping them diverted.  This is not a recipe for a rich life, and people so served make this known in whatever way they can.  And then they get labelled by the very same service system, which may then put in place restrictions that frankly make matters worse.

Three main things need to happen.  First, we need legislative and regulative arrangements across Australia (step forward government and get stuck in to this issue) strong enough to discourage and prevent service agencies from using such practices.

Second, disability support services need to be fundamentally redesigned in the context of personalisation, where we build supports around each person's circumstances, rather than 'fit' people in to pre-purchased block contract services that are so horribly depersonalising.  This isn't as expensive as it might sound.

Third, we need to build connections into local communities.  Until we intentionally build personal networks into the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, until this is a routine habit of all human services, then people living with disability will continue to experience exclusion.

In the meantime, if you see restrictive practice, name it and shame it, because there must be a better way.