Search

It is widely recognised that First Nations peoples in Australia (also known as Aboriginal Australians) have some of the poorest health and social outcomes of any other group. This is evidenced in a number of areas including the disproportionately high rates of disability for First Nations peoples in Australia. This paper explores how the intersection of race and disability compounds disadvantage for First Nations peoples with disability in Australia. Additionally, it explores the conceptual diversity of disability and the role colonisation has played, and continues to play, in creating and maintaining high rates of disability for First Nations peoples in Australia. This paper argues for the decolonisation of the disability sector as a step towards improving outcomes for all. In particular, the use of intersectionality theory is examined as a potentially effective tool for mapping and enacting the decolonisation of the disability sector. First Nations peoples in Australia understand disability in a manner that differs from the mainstream dominant 'western' understanding, and this has huge implications for the disability sector. The dominant model focuses on people with disabilities as individuals who need to be 'treated' and 'supported' by health authorities. First Nations approach is community-based wherein everyone has abilities and responsibilities that are valued by the community – a culture of inclusion and connection that normalises and accepts people with disabilities. Routinely encountered racism and structural discrimination experienced by First Nations people compound discrimination commonly experienced by people with a disability. Intersectional theory identifies how disability and race combine in Australia to produce particularly poor outcomes for First Nations people with a disability, compared to their non-Indigenous peers. Decolonisation, the process of reversing the impact of the dominant way of thinking, is important to improving outcomes for First Nations people with a disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the adjustments made to include people with intellectual disabilities in mainstream services. Drawing on in-depth interviews with both people with intellectual disabilities and mainstream service managers in four urban regions in Australia, the paper points to three modes of practice that are operationalised, to different degrees, when people with intellectual disabilities seek access to mainstream services: a commitment and adjustments to support inclusion of a wide range of marginalised people (diversity and inclusion ethos); adjustments to support inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities more specifically (differentiated adjustments); and, personal support for service users with intellectual disabilities. We argue that these three modes, at the service level, correspond in complex ways with three broader approaches to social inclusion: mainstreaming, differentiation and individualisation. Rather than contradictory modes of inclusion, our analysis suggests these approaches should be understood as complementary. Some mainstream services that value 'inclusion' make adjustments to their service in order to better include people from different marginalised groups. Such adjustments have mixed outcomes for people with intellectual disability, whose specific needs are not always met. Some mainstream services operate separate activities for users with intellectual disability. This helps them manage behavioural and communication challenges, and can help people with intellectual disability experience a sense of belonging. But separate activities also limit opportunities for full inclusion in the mainstream. Often people with intellectual disability require their own personal support to be able to use mainstream services. Some mainstream services rely on such personal support as their main strategy to include people with intellectual disability. Other mainstream services work collaboratively with personal supporters to promote inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]