Impact analysis In summary we are recommending: Building on and transforming what is in Freeing up systems and some resources differently. The exception to more change being needed may be the DRCs and WEKA Implementation considerations There are various considerations to be made for implementation of any change. Change management investment and will be required including: Active and skilled project management, including risk management. Clear and regular communication. on preferred service change options with a further co-design approach “Consulting” with disabled people, families, providers and ensuring effective cultural, disability specific and non-complex and complex needs inputs includes – discussion on meaningful outcome measures. Ensure a strong approach to a bottom up process for outcome measures. Be clear re expectations of disabled people involved in governance and decision making rights of agencies going forward, especially the NASC agencies and the new disability branded service. It will be important to take a system wide approach, as just changing some will not fix the systemic underlying problems (e.g. reviewing the purchase framework). Use a range of contracting tools and levers to ensure the changes are made. For example move to outcome reporting, a range of up to date service specifications and contracts, clear communication and transparent simplified processes. Establish ongoing evaluation to ensure intended consequences are achieved. For example it may be beneficial to have a 2 or 3 year review of data to ascertain if changes made a difference to peoples’ experience and outcomes, e.g. are people with needs getting their needs met quicker, what trade offs are able to be made, are more of the solutions for people non DSS long term funded.
Impact analysis In summary we are recommending: Building on and transforming what is in Freeing up systems and some resources differently. The exception to more change being needed may be the DRCs and WEKA Implementation considerations There are various considerations to be made for implementation of any change. Change management investment and will be required including: Active and skilled project management, including risk management. Clear and regular communication. “Consulting” on preferred service change options with a further co-design approach with disabled people, families, providers and ensuring effective cultural, disability specific and non-complex and complex needs inputs – includes discussion on meaningful outcome measures. Ensure a strong approach to a bottom up process for outcome measures. Be clear re expectations of disabled people involved in governance and decision making rights of agencies going forward, especially the NASC agencies and the new disability branded service. It will be important to take a system wide approach, as just changing some will not fix the systemic underlying problems (e.g. reviewing the purchase framework). Use a range of contracting tools and levers to ensure the changes are made. For example move to outcome reporting, a range of up to date service specifications and contracts, clear communication and transparent simplified processes. Establish ongoing evaluation to ensure intended consequences are achieved. For example it may be beneficial to have a 2 or 3 year review of data to ascertain if changes made a difference to peoples’ experience and outcomes, e.g. are people with needs getting their needs met quicker, what trade offs are able to be made, are more of the solutions for people non DSS long term funded.
dias-nasc-review-proposed-design-framework-jan17.docx