In our previous blog, we explained what IDAP is, why it marks a significant change to disability advocacy, and outlined the person-centred approach at the heart of our submission. 

Our second paper — Emerging Design Tensions for the new individual disability advocacy program:  A Person-Centred Approach — takes this a step further by exploring how these person-centred principles can be applied when complex design decisions and trade-offs arise. 

This blog focuses on that challenge: what it takes to maintain a person-centred approach when reform decisions become difficult, and how DANA is working to support this in practice. 

The claim vs the reality 

The future design of IDAP is being framed as person-centred by Government. The test is whether that approach holds when decisions become difficult. 

DANAs first submission established a clear foundation on what a person-centred program should look like: IDAP should be designed around peoples lived experience of advocacy, with a person-centred lens used to test reform options and assess trade-offs in practice. 

However, the challenge is whether Government holds to these principles when choices become difficult. 

DANAs second submission, a paper focused on Emerging design tensions, was developed for that purpose. It applies the person-centred approach set out in the first submission to the design tensions government is trying to resolve. 

Too often, that is where things shift. 

When issues such as consistency, access, and oversight come into view, decisions by Government begin to favour what is easier to administer, contract and control.  

Reform is still described as person-centred, but the underlying logic shifts to the needs of the system. 

Where reform breaks down 

The issue is not whether the design pressures Government has identified are real. The issue is what happens next. What does Government decide to do in the face of these pressures. 

When complexity arises, system priorities routinely displace people’s experience. 

• Models assume people can find the “right doorway”, when many cannot navigate the system at all. 
• Intake is treated as administrative screening, when first contact is where trust, rapport and support begin. 
• Access relies on people being visible to services, missing those who are isolated or already excluded. 

These are not abstract risks. They are predictable outcomes when decisions are made from the system’s perspective rather than tested against real experience. 

This is what the first submission warned against. 

What DANAs design tensions paper does differently 

The Emerging design tensions paper takes the person-centred decision rule and applies it to the problems we believe Government is grappling with. We made educated assumptions based on what ideas, topics and language Government used in their consultation paper to identify the tensions they appear focused on. 

The paper does three things consistently: 

• Starts with the person, not the program. 
• Tests options against what people will actually experience. 
• Identifies where system-efficient solutions create barriers or poorer outcomes. 

This shifts the focus and demonstrates to Government how to take a person-centred approach to complex design questions. 

The question is not “what works for the system?” but “what will work for people in practice?” 

What this looks like in practice 

We see Government pursuing the concept of ‘consistency’ in its consultation paper. That paper appears to have a default response of pursing uniformity through structural change.  

It takes a ‘network for networks sake’ approach. 

The paper takes a different approach: define the minimum experience a person should be able to rely on, and test whether proposed models actually deliver that across access, intake and support.  

This is a sharper focus on what the idea of consistency actually means for people with disability.  

What is better when it’s the same?  

What is better when its flexible and bespoke?  

When does this matter the most? 

The paper moves beyond the blunt concept of consistency to the specifics of where consistency is and isn’t helpful. The result is that the Government’s approach of structural changes doesn’t make sense anymore. 

On disability leadership, the issue is often reduced to representation. Government too often focuses on the easy part – counting people – and setting metrics and expectations around this. 

The paper focuses instead on authority — whether lived experience shapes decisions, priorities and advocacy practice in a meaningful way.  

This is key to a truly person-centred approach.  

While having more people with disability working in advocacy is of course a good thing in creating an excellent experience for people with disability – it is not enough to stop here.  

People with disability need to be in positions throughout the organisation and not only in front line or junior roles. 

In both cases, the design issue remains. But the response changes when it is tested against what works for people. 

What needs to change 

A person-centred approach cannot stop at principle. It must shape how decisions are made when trade-offs emerge. 

That means: 

• Not defaulting to administrative simplicity. 
• Not assuming structural solutions are the answer. 
• Consistently testing proposals against real-world experience. 

This is a discipline that Government needs to be far stronger at.  

We are working to lead the way and demonstrate to Government how this discipline can be applied practically. It can’t be left to Government to lead and the disability community to react and feedback.