BACKGROUND

2.1 This chapter sets out the logistics of organising the discussion groups. The purpose is not only to explain what the Commission did and why, but, hopefully, to be of assistance to other bodies attempting similar tasks. It is important to stress that the process was very time-consuming and involved a lot of organisation and support from service providers. Without their co-operation, it would have been very difficult to organise the groups.

Objectives

2.2 As discussed in Chapter 1, the rationale for the groups was to provide a direct and “face to face” means for people with an intellectual disability to contribute to the Commission’s reference, without the need to refer to written documents. The Commission employed as a consultant the Redfern Legal Centre Intellectual Disability Rights Service (“IDRS”), which is a government-funded service for people with an intellectual disability. The work of the IDRS includes legal advice, education, resource production and reform work. It employs a number of trained educators as well as legal staff. Apart from legal advice and policy formulation, it provides educational programs, not only to its clients with an intellectual disability, but also to families and advocates, disability workers and service providers.¹ The staff of the IDRS had the expertise to assist the Commission to organise the consultations, including preparing a session outline, advice as to questioning techniques, and locating and recruiting participants and discussion leaders.

2.3 Based upon the advice of the IDRS, the Commission determined that a consultation process, consisting of group interviews of a small number of people with an intellectual disability, would be the most effective way, within the funding limits, of gaining information and receiving the views of a range of people, some of whom may have communication or other difficulties. The Commission decided that there was more value in a “qualitative” study than in a potentially more superficial statistical exercise involving larger numbers of people. Trained discussion leaders with experience with the communication and other difficulties of some people with an intellectual disability would assist the process, and a discussion group would allow the group members to be encouraged by, and respond to, the suggestions made by the group. It would also allow the Commission to hear directly the views of more people.

2.4 The purpose of such groups was not merely to seek personal stories or experiences, though these are valuable, but to provide a discussion forum where people with an intellectual disability could put forward their experiences, general views and proposals for reform so that they would be an important part of the public consultation and reform process. It was acknowledged that not all group members would have had extensive contact with the criminal justice system, but this was not seen as a weakness in the study as the issues involved are wider than the difficulties, if any, experienced in actual contact. The level of understanding, ability to communicate and any misconceptions by the group members would be just as important and illuminating for the Commission’s purposes.

Session design

2.5 The session outline used for the discussion groups is set out in full at Appendix A. The outline was prepared by the IDRS in conjunction with the Commission, and based on selected topics from the Commission’s Issues Paper. A number of different strategies were used in preparing the discussion outline for people with an intellectual disability. They were based on educational philosophies IDRS adopt in their educational work.² According to the IDRS:

All education work carried out by IDRS is learner-centred and experientially based, that is, it is active learning and is based on the learner’s experience. It is learning by feeling, thinking, doing and reflecting. When confronted with an unfamiliar situation or new information people try to make sense of it by placing it in the context of their previous experience and knowledge base. The education process should not be one directional, as the participants have skills and knowledge that can enhance and widen the learning experience.³

2.6 The IDRS also alters the traditional learning experience for people with an intellectual disability by having two teachers running a session together, one of whom has an intellectual disability. According to IDRS:

This serves to encourage learners to speak out with their own stories and examples. Validation that what they have to contribute is relevant and important reduces inhibition. People find it comforting to know there is someone who can understand what it is like to be treated unfairly.⁴

2.7 These same educational techniques were carried over into the consultation experience. In the session design IDRS used stories, group discussion, word understanding, problem solving questions and “brainstorms”. They were designed to be accessible to the group members and to encourage participants to provide as much input as possible. The techniques are also designed to address the relatively short attention span of some of the participants.

THE CONSULTATIONS

Locations

2.8 The Commission’s aim was to use a variety of locations and services to seek a greater diversity of views. Accordingly the Commission carried out three discussion groups in Sydney drawing from different areas: one in the western suburbs, one in the northern suburbs and one in the inner city (drawing from the inner city and the eastern suburbs). We also carried out three groups in the country: at Wollongong, Wagga Wagga and Orange. The choice of locations was influenced by the co-operation of local services and the availability of suitable facilities. The Commission attempted to hold the groups at locations that the people in the area were familiar with and could reach without difficulty.

Recruitment of participants

2.9 The IDRS believed that the best results would be achieved if each group consisted of about eight people and went for about two hours. The participants were recruited through the assistance of service providers, from both government and non-government funded services. The Commission and IDRS approached a number of different services, explaining the rationale, content and approach of the proposed consultations. We sought to recruit a maximum of three or four participants from each service to ensure a variety of responses and experiences. This was also designed to avoid the situation where one person would become an informal spokesperson for the group and dominate conversation. However, in one case the group participants all used the same service and were already meeting as a group. The service providers advertised or discussed the consultations with some of their clients using the advertising flier (see Appendix B) and other information provided. The service providers were asked to approach only those people who could communicate in a group situation. The option of individual interviews with, if necessary, the presence of a support person, was offered as an alternative for people whose communication needs or personal concerns could not be accommodated appropriately by the group format.

2.10 The service providers then gave the Commission names of interested participants. Suitable locations and transport were also discussed, many service providers arranging transport so that their clients could attend. Where necessary we drew maps and instructions for distribution to the participants. With each group up to twelve people were asked with the expectation that a number would drop out. The groups actually averaged seven people and a total of 45 people participated. The participants were paid an allowance for their time and to cover any cost of getting to the discussions and, where necessary, were provided with a taxi home.

Running the discussion groups

2.11 Two members of the Commission’s staff attended each of the meetings. Their role was primarily to observe the group discussion and make notes. These notes consisted of verbatim responses to questions and discussion. The notes became the transcripts of the meetings, but are not reproduced in full in this Report as they would have been repetitive and contained identifying information. Two people attended so that the notes would be as full as possible and so that they could compare observations. The quotations that have been provided in Chapter 3 are as accurate as possible in the circumstances. Insertions made by the Commission to aid clarity are marked by square brackets. The groups were not sound-recorded as it was believed that people would not agree to it or that it would discourage them from speaking. It was also believed that there would be transcription difficulties due to some people’s speech and communication difficulties. The Commission’s participation in leading the actual discussion groups was deliberately designed to be a limited one, to better allow them to observe and listen to the discussions and take appropriate notes. The Commission has chosen to produce as much as possible of this Report in the participants’ own words, rather than paraphrasing.

2.12 The discussions were led by professional consultants, usually service providers familiar with the communication and other difficulties faced by some people with an intellectual disability. The Commission particularly wished to ensure that the ideas were the participants’ own, and to avoid, as much as possible, any unintentional “coaching” or suggesting of “appropriate” answers. Four of the six groups included a discussion leader who had an intellectual disability. The aim of this co-leadership was, according to the IDRS, threefold:

• to maximise the understanding of the participants by both discussion leaders assessing comprehension and repeating concepts in alternate ways until understanding was established;
• to utilise the discussion leader with a disability to help draw out contributions from the less assertive members of the group, for example by explaining things in a different way and encouraging people that their experience and comments were valid and had worth; and
• to assist people to talk about their experiences and the situation of having a disadvantage without the need to explain their context, as they already felt that experience was recognised by the discussion leader with a disability.

These factors increased the value of the consultations as everybody had the opportunity to express an opinion and to contribute to ideas put forward by others.

2.13 The participants were granted anonymity and their consent to use their stories and ideas was sought at both the beginning and the end of the discussion. The note-takers agreed not to take notes at any point where the participants wished to comment “off the record”. Every effort was made that each member of the group could have his or her say. They also had the option to come back privately to speak to the Commission (see Appendix C). As well, if they had particular legal problems they wished to discuss privately they were encouraged to wait until the end of the session to be given appropriate referrals. It was stressed that the discussion groups were not just seeking people’s personal stories and they did not have to say anything personal at all. We were particularly interested in their suggestions for reform, for making the system fairer, better and more comprehensible, and their opinions about whether reform was needed at all.

The participants

2.14 The participants, 30 men and 15 women, were aged from late teens to retirement, and came from a variety of backgrounds:

• some had experience in the criminal justice system, as suspects, offenders, victims or witnesses, and some did not;
• some lived at home, some independently or in supervised accommodation; and
• some were in paid employment and others were not.

2.15 Some members already had experience with group consultations and could communicate easily in that environment. Others required more assistance and encouragement to express their points of view. Most of the participants could be described as being within the mild to borderline end of the range of intellectual disability. Within the groups most input came from people who could communicate well verbally.

2.16 For people with greater communication difficulties and support needs techniques other than group discussions would be more appropriate, such as one-to-one discussions in the presence of an advocate. It is important to recognise that all these participants were already in contact with some type of service, whether formally or informally. We were not able to reach through this study people without that sort of support. People without any such assistance may be particularly vulnerable within the criminal justice system, as their disability may not be recognised or they may not be put in touch with appropriate services.

Limitations of this Report

2.17 The Commission recognises the limitations of this study. The Commission only had the opportunity to meet with 45 people and the study is qualitative in nature; therefore no statistical claims can be made from the conclusions. As we have noted, the individual participants were not representative of the entire disability community as they generally had low support needs. A different response is likely to have been received from people with much higher support needs. The study did, however, allow people with an intellectual disability to contribute directly and significantly to our reference. The Commission’s conclusions and observations from these consultations are set out in more detail in Chapter 4. The submissions and suggestions made by the participants have not been dealt with fully in this Research Report, but rather presented for comment. These submissions, and the advantages and disadvantages of the suggestions made by participants, will be dealt with more critically in the Commission’s forthcoming Discussion Paper and Final Report to the Attorney General.

FOOTNOTES

1. In the last 5 years the IDRS has organised 1925 hours of education programs attended by 10,023 people: Redfern Legal Centre (Intellectual Disability Rights Service) Five Years of Rights: 1986-1991 (Redfern Legal Centre, Sydney, 1992) at 40.

2. See, for example: J Anderson and A Rauch Protecting Workers’ Rights (Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney, 1987), Chapter 9 - “Teaching Strategies and Resources”; and J Klause and A Rauch Legal Rights Teaching Kit: a course for people with a learning difficulty or an intellectual disability (Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney, 1990).

3. Redfern Legal Centre Five Years of Rights: 1986-1991 at 40.

4. Redfern Legal Centre Five Years of Rights: 1986-1991 at 42.