proactive service strategies employed by the organisation, such as outreach or program start-ups arrangements for assisting clients to access other support if their needs cannot be met details demonstrating performance against current NDAP and/or state government grants, including but not limited to: deliverables met under identified grant programs any quality systems in place to support monitoring and reporting any quality frameworks in which the organisation participates. The responses clearly described: an understanding of key NDAP requirements such as relating to discrimination, availability, accessibility etc. how advocacy service delivery will be consistent with those requirements, for example staff Strong applications clearly training etc. demonstrated how the organisation an understanding of how conflicts of interest can will deliver advocacy support impact on the effectiveness of advocacy practice consistent with the NDAP measures in place to avoid conflicts of interest Operational Guidelines, including and the proposed mechanisms to transparently how they will address existing, address any real or perceived conflict that arises potential or perceived conflicts of in the course of service delivery, including but interest. not limited to: any relevant governance documented in policy and procedures, codes of conduct etc. what the service would do in the case of a real or perceived conflict. The responses clearly described: if applicable, how the service has addressed a Strong applications clearly need across large areas over time including the demonstrated any experience the nature and regularity of advocacy service and organisation has had delivering outcomes services in larger regional areas, an understanding of the issues and challenges from multiple sites or via visiting of service delivery in this context services. information on multiple sites and areas served by outreach/visits where applicable.
proactive service strategies employed by the organisation, such as outreach or program start-ups arrangements for assisting clients to access other support if their needs cannot be met details demonstrating performance against current NDAP and/or state government grants, including but not limited to: deliverables met under identified grant programs any quality systems in place to support monitoring and reporting any quality frameworks in which the organisation participates. Strong applications clearly demonstrated how the organisation will deliver advocacy support consistent with the NDAP Operational Guidelines, including how they will address existing, potential or perceived conflicts of interest. The responses clearly described: an understanding of key NDAP requirements such as relating to discrimination, availability, accessibility etc. how advocacy service delivery will be consistent with those requirements, for example staff training etc. an understanding of how conflicts of interest can impact on the effectiveness of advocacy practice measures in place to avoid conflicts of interest and the proposed mechanisms to transparently address any real or perceived conflict that arises in the course of service delivery, including but not limited to: any relevant governance documented in policy and procedures, codes of conduct etc. what the service would do in the case of a real or perceived conflict. Strong applications clearly demonstrated any experience the organisation has had delivering services in larger regional areas, from multiple sites or via visiting services. The responses clearly described: if applicable, how the service has addressed a need across large areas over time including the nature and regularity of advocacy service and outcomes an understanding of the issues and challenges of service delivery in this context information on multiple sites and areas served by outreach/visits where applicable.
2017-1984%20-%20NDAP%20-%20Generic%20Feedback.docx