Matt Burrows –Consumer Governance

Transcript

1. Ma# Burrows FGIA FAIM CEO Therapy Focus DBA Candidate John Cur>n Ins>tute of Public Policy Customer-centric Governance
2. Aboriginal Affairs Interna>onal Aid Self-determina>on Remote Health Empowerment Allied Health / Therapy Social Jus>ce Disabili>es JCIPP DBA Candidate “An inves)ga)on of governance frameworks that empower people with disabili)es to access community care services” Confessions of a benevolent soul
3. The Conundrum
4. •  1950-s – 1960’s Par>cipatory Design (Scandinavia) •  1968 Arnstein’s Ladder •  Unions –  Industrial Democracy •  Public –  Built Environment Co-Design (in the beginning)
5. IAP2 Spectrum Examples of use: Indigenous Housing Primary Health Networks – commissioning Consumer-directed Care / Individualised Funding (NDIS) Co-Design Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Consumer- Led
6. The design squiggle
7. A review of literature suggests people with disabili>es are not accessing informa>on at the right >me, in the right way, when needing to make the right decision. There are many reasons: •  Access to informa>on – too li#le, too much, or too late •  Diminished value of skillset of consumers in comparison to professional skills •  Diminished value of consumers as a stereotype of social standing and/or financial means •  Access to viable and dynamic markets to exercise choice and control •  Resources sufficient to influence market-type decisions •  The will to act as customers and exercise economic power over decisions •  A tendency to revert to “packages of care” rather than individualised and tailored care •  The will to genuinely engage consumers in decision-making •  A framework that requires, monitors and enforces genuine engagement of consumers Literature Review
8. Degree of control Participants’ action Illustrative mode High Low Has control Organisation asks community to identify the problem and to make all the key decisions on goals and means. Willing to help community at each step to accomplish goals. Has delegated control Organisation identifies and presents a problem to the community, defines the limits and asks community to make a series of decisions, which can be embodied in a plan it can accept. Plans jointly Organisation presents tentative plan subject to change and open to change from those affected. Expect to change plan at least slightly and perhaps more subsequently. Advises organisation Organisation presents a plan and invites questions. Prepared to modify plan only if absolutely necessary. Is consulted Organisation tries to promote a plan. Seeks to develop support to facilitate acceptance or give sufficient sanction to plan so that administrative compliance can be expected. Receives information Organisation makes a plan and announces it. Community is convened for information purposes. Compliance is expected. None Community not involved. Co-design Frameworks
9. Area of engagement Explanation Example 1.  Individual •  Individual service delivery Engagement in individual care sees consumers as partners in their own (or child’s) therapy. It is referred to as person-centred care Individual with NDIS plan 1.  Service •  Program and service delivery •  Facility/school/community centre/ hospital Service level engagement is focussed on partnerships that impact on the planning, delivery, evaluation and monitoring of programs and services at a facility level Parent Reference Group Peer-to-peer initiatives (eg Parent Liaison Officer) 1.  Network •  School(s) •  Health and hospital networks •  Primary health netowrks (eg GPs) •  NGOs and other DSOs Regional engagement processes as organisations seek input into broader plans across the service area NDS State Committee; PwD WA; DDC WA; EDAC 1.  System •  Local government •  State government •  Commonwealth government Engagement on health policy, reform and legislation influence and change the care system across local, state and Commonwealth jurisdictions Sustainable Health Review; Productivity Commission Co-design Frameworks
10. Co-design Frameworks Deciding what framework to use, or even what level of control you want to transfer, first consider the role of the par>cipant. Role Function Outcome Control Consumer Economic Consumption Client Professional Advice Customer Fiscal Purchase Citizen Socio-Political Advocacy
11. The ques>ons we need to ask are: –  What is the breadth of engagement? –  What is the depth of engagement? Answers to these ques>ons will guide the level of control customers will have over decision making and the level of influence they will have over the engagement. Answers should be commensurate with the level of impact the decisions have on customers. Co-design Frameworks
12. Decision-making Framework
13. Engagement Framework Engagement and Influence Matrix High Involve Collaborate Consumer-led Consumer-led Consumer-led Impact of decision on consumer Involve Involve Collaborate Collaborate Consumer-led Consult Consult Involve Collaborate Consumer-led Inform Consult Consult Involve Collaborate Low Inform Inform Consult Involve Involve Low Degree of Control High
14. Engagement Framework Consumer High Consult Involve Involve Collaborate Consumer-led Impact of decision on consumer Inform Consult Involve Involve Collaborate Inform Inform Consult Involve Involve Inform Inform Inform Consult Involve Low Inform Inform Inform Inform Consult Low Degree of Control High Client High Consult Involve Collaborate Client-led Client-led Impact of decision on client Consult Consult Involve Collaborate Client-led Inform Consult Consult Involve Collaborate Inform Inform Consult Consult Involve Low Inform Inform Inform Consult Consult Low Degree of Control High
15. Engagement Framework Customer High Involve Collaborate Customer-led Customer-led Customer-led Impact of decision on customer Involve Involve Collaborate Customer-led Customer-led Consult Involve Involve Collaborate Customer-led Inform Consult Involve Involve Collaborate Low Inform Inform Consult Involve Involve Low Degree of Control High Citizen High Collaborate Citizen-led Citizen-led Citizen-led Citizen-led Impact of decision on citizen Collaborate Collaborate Citizen-led Citizen-led Citizen-led Involve Collaborate Collaborate Citizen-led Citizen-led Consult Involve Collaborate Collaborate Citizen-led Low Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Collaborate Low Degree of Control High
16. Consumer Governance in Practice •  Is our purpose clear? Is it ethical? •  Do we know who our customers are and what func>on they are performing? •  Do we have a customer engagement framework? •  Are we clear on how customer input will impact decision-making? •  Are we clear on how we will engage? •  Are we open to listening to and ac>ng on input? •  Have we clarified the level of control customers have? •  Are we genuinely interested in engaging with customers via governance mechanisms?
17. Focus Stakeholder Detailed Justified Plain Simple English Translated (written) Interpreted (spoken) Internal Board √ √ Management √ √ √ Staff √ √ Consumer Reference Group √ √ External Clients √ T, I (as required) Partners √ √ Intermediaries √ Sector √ Media √ √ Public √ T Stakeholder Communication Plan Communica>on Plan
18. Please wait for a roving microphone Questions
19. Ma# Burrows CEO Therapy Focus ma#hew.burrows@postgrad.cur>n.edu.au ma#.burrows@therapyfocus.org.au Contacts