Researched By :

Jason Liverton (B.A.)

Granted, the provision of the aforementioned disability services may have indirectly contributed to improved recreation access for people with disabilities, however recreation itself has not been directly addressed. To ensure that the provision of recreation services for people with disabilities is given equal priority on the agendas of public, private and voluntary sector decision makers, key stakeholders need to become better informed about the key issues relating to the provision of recreation for people with disabilities; and become more instrumental in the development and implementation of appropriate policies. The purpose of this paper therefore is to provide a description of the pertinent policies that relate to the provision of recreation for people with disabilities.

In terms of overt policy, both the public and voluntary non-profit sector offer positions on the provision of recreation for people with disabilities. The first public sector agent to offer a position on the provision of recreation for people with disabilities, is the Australian Labour Party (ALP). Although their position is not recreation specific, the equitable participation of all people in all aspects of life is paramount (Lawrence cited in Nican Inc.,1996). Reflection of this can be seen in their recently developed policy on people with disabilities, the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. This strategy is a practical planning blueprint for Commonwealth government planners, policy developers and program administrators. The purpose of the strategy is to enhance the access opportunities for people with a disability to the programs, services and infrastructure of society, the transport systems, telecommunications and the education systems which are available to the rest of the community (CDHFS, 1994). To achieve this end, the strategy aims to reduce or eliminate the barriers that are presented to people with a disability within mainstream Commonwealth government programs, services and functions (CDHFS, 1994). While the strategy does make reference to the equitable access of Australians with disabilities to cultural, recreation, sports and tourism experiences, they are only dealt with to a minor extent and concentrate on the elite provision (CDHFS, 1994). Recommended courses of action in these areas include:

According to Coalter (1990) all social service areas, inclusive of leisure, are engaged in an ongoing debate about the most appropriate division of responsibility for the public, voluntary and commercial sectors, the most effective role of local government authorities (ie. Direct provision, subsidy, regulation, and contract management) and the proper balance between income maximisation and catering for disadvantaged groups (p. 149). Although the perceived role of the public sector is that of a direct provider, the subsidisation of other sectors (ie. Grants), and the constraint or ensured regulation of leisure activities and opportunities is also part of their repertoire (Coalter,1990:149). As such social policy objectives are likely to be underpinned by a varying mixture of direct provision, subsidy and regulation. According to Dunleavy’s (1980) typology this mixture makes up a continuum of at least four consumptive processes, each of which has a different implication for the role of the public sector. From this perspective the public sector’s role ranges from that of a direct provider of collective services (eg. public pools, public parks) to that of individual consumption (eg. cinemas, nightclubs) (cited in Coalter,1990:149). More specifically however, respective roles are determined by the method of organisation (ie. public or private), the criteria for access (ie. market or non market pricing), and the extent to which public subsidy is provided. As a consequence there is a wide range of possible types of provision. In addition, Dunleavy’s (1980) typology suggests that the relationship that exists between public policy and the consumption of goods and services is reflective of various political values, attitudes and ideological persuasions. As such, the ends and institutional means of social policy are largely reflective of the system and ideology most desired by the state (cited in Coalter,1990:150).

(George And Wilding, 1976 cited in Coalter,1990:152)

According to George and Wilding (1976) attitudes to social policy are best understood as ideological positions on a continuum that stretches from anti- collectivism to utopian socialism (Refer Figure 1). Each of these ideological positions in turn offers a different perspective on the nature of a civil society and the responsibilities of its agents, the efficient allocation of public provision, and the balance that is sought between the freedom of the individual and equality of opportunity. However, the principal factor separating these ideological positions is the extent to which social needs exist and are met by the state. The subsequent role of public policy therefore is to meet the needs which are regarded to be appropriate for the collective, and for which the profit oriented market do not cater for adequately. (George and Wilding, 1976 cited in Coalter,1990:152).

Based on this discussion, the remainder of this paper will focus its attention upon the ideological perspective’s which most aptly describe the situation that currently presents itself to all sectorial stakeholders who are involved in the provision of leisure for people with disabilities.

Despite all levels of the public sector making overt claims about the advancement of leisure service provision for people with disabilities, a closer examination of various social policies reveals that more than any other social service, leisure is susceptible to the effects of a covert agenda. To reach such a conclusion however, it is necessary to identify which of the previously mentioned ideological perspective’s currently underpin public policy.

The ideological perspective which most aptly underpins the public sectors present social policy’s relates to reluctant collectivism. From the reluctant collectivist perspective, the public sector is predominantly concerned with the provision of residual need. Coalter (1990) suggests that reluctant collectivism is primarily concerned with achieving a balance between the sectorial provision of services within a mixed economy. While the overt emphasis of this perspective may stress the importance of individual freedom and liberty, it also acknowledges the existence of various social, cultural and economical constraints. Underlying this perspective however is the reduction of economic inequality (p.155). Obstacles to social participation therefore relate to practical issues such as the financial cost, a lack of transportation, a lack of personal interest rather than social issues such as disability, gender, class or ethnicity. The reluctant collectivist approach is also concerned with compensating for inefficiencies in the market, that is picking up the provisional goods and service shortcoming of the private and voluntary sectors. Additionally, this approach is concerned with making an explicit distinction between the suppliers of want and need. (Coalter,1990:157). This distinction is based on a market ethos, that is the market (ie. private sector) first and foremostly caters to the self specified wants of the individual, and then the state (ie. public sector) meets the residual needs of the individual. Therefore, the purpose and content of public policy and provision is defined by the consumer rather than expert (ie. demand led strategy where want is more important than need) (Coalter,1990: 161).

According to Roberts (1978) the extent to which the public sector will become involved in the provision of leisure services is essentially based on three types of criteria (cited in Coalter,1990: 157). Firstly, where there is a finite supply of resources. Secondly, where recreation is an expedient means to a non recreation objective such as national prestige or improved public health. As such, leisure opportunities are only provided because they regarded as a means to an end rather than their inherent value. Finally, in the pursuit of distributive justice (ie. recreation welfare), recreation opportunities are among the goods and services that the public authority can distribute to enhance the standards and quality of life among otherwise disadvantaged groups.

According to Roberts (1978) policies that are underpinned by the ideals of reluctant collectivism generally focus on traditional areas of government provision (ie. elite sport and cultural activities) rather than on areas of need (ie. grass roots recreation) (cited in Coalter,1990: 157). The motivation underlying this approach is that if the public sector caters to a diverse range of recreation interests or needs, the very nature of what constitutes a civil right or the rights of citizenship would be bought into scrutiny (Roberts, 1978 cited in Coalter,1990: 157). To avoid such scrutiny therefore, access to leisure opportunities other than that traditionally provided are deemed to be a social right rather than a civil right, that is the provision of leisure services is regarded to be less of a priority because it does not constitute the basic elements of social welfare (ie. accommodation) (Coalter,1990: 159). As such, the public sector regards optimal leisure provision to be bought about through a mixed economy that entails the contribution of all sectors (Coalter,1990: 159).

Therefore, although the public sector is not necessarily committed to any form of direct provision of social services under the reluctant collectivist perspective the public sector is overtly committed to finding the balance between the economically efficient use of resources and the effective allocation of resources so as to reduce what they consider to be disadvantage (ie. income maximisation and, subsidy reduction; versus; price reduction and, increased subsidy) (Coalter,1990: 163). As such, emerging public sector policies tend to incorporate elements of positive discrimination, self enablement (ie. "helping those who help themselves"), and social integration rather than emphasise direct provision. Positive discrimination essentially entails the recommendation or legislation of strategies (ie. price concessions, special provisions) which are aimed at fostering greater access to existing social opportunities for the socially or economically disadvantaged. Self enablement entails the overt encouragement and support (ie. provision of infrastructure, grants and subsidies) of organisations within the voluntary sector to become more self reliant and organising. Underlying policies of this nature however, is a covert agenda that is based on economic considerations, that is the reduction of financial commitments (ie. administrative and management costs, revenue and capital commitments) (Coalter,1990: 161). Social integration entails the promotion of traditional institute identification (ie. a commitment to current social, economical and political arrangements) and the arousal of national pride (ie. sport policies which seek to promote identification with the nation through international sporting success) (Coalter,1990: 160). Underlying policies of this nature however is a covert agenda that is based on coercion and social control, that is, leisure services are provided on the premise that they express the socially responsible nature of those in an advantaged position (ie. social or economic), and ensure the allegiance of those who are disadvantaged (Coalter,1990: 159-161).

Considering that there is minimal evidence to suggest that the private sector is even attempting to address the specific leisure needs of people with disabilities (ie. subsidying low income earners) (Nican Inc.,1994), the public sector is under ever increasing pressure to compensate for the inefficiencies of the capitalist market. Therefore, to determine whether reluctant collectivism is an effective ideology on which to base the provision of leisure for people with disabilities, the following section will attempt to evaluate the public sectors' performance.

While the ideology of reluctant collectivism does not guarantee the public sectors direct provision of social services, a closer examination of overt public policy reveals that the public sector is not necessarily even committed to the provision of leisure for people with disabilities, direct or otherwise. The use of ambiguous and vague references to leisure provision is the first hint of a covert agenda. To illustrate, the Australian Labour Party’s (ALP) stated position does not even mention recreation or people with disabilities, instead they offer an ambiguous vision of equitable participation for all people in all aspects of life (Lawrence cited in Nican Inc.,1996). By not directly addressing recreation for people with disabilities, the ALP are not even sanctioning the value of recreation or taking any responsibility for indirect provision, rather they are attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility altogether. This is strengthened further by the limited references made by the ALP endorsed Disability Services Act (1986) and the Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (1992). Again, neither policy acknowledges the existence of recreation services or address its provision. By not acknowledging recreation or its provision, the public sector are obviously trying to not committing themselves to the provision of sport and recreation for people with a disability. In addition, due to the top down nature of the Commonwealth State Disability Agreement (1992), the public sector at the state level will inevitably follow suit. Unfortunately, the outcome of this will be that the provision of sport and recreation for people with a disability is disregarded even further. To substantiate such a claim, the Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s (1997) overt position on disability service provision in Queensland does not even refer to the provision of leisure services, instead education, transportation and accommodation services are regarded to be of the highest priority (QDPC, 1997). Similarly, the Australian Coalition’s continued support for ALP sanctioned practices demonstrates that they too lack the commitment to provide leisure services for people with a disability (Campbell cited in Nican Inc.,1996).

Although little reference is made to the public sectors' provision of leisure services in social policy, those that are made clearly reflect many of the characteristics of reluctant collectivism. The element which is most apparent is the pursuit of leisure as a means to a non-leisure end. For example, the Australian Coalition’s position (ie. Liberal and National party) on the provision of sport and recreation services is covertly underpinned by a desire to reduce the national health bill (Campbell cited In Nican Inc.,1996). Further evidence is also found in the ALP endorsed Commonwealth Disability Strategy (CDHFS, 1994). This Strategy’s emphasis upon the elite provision of culture, recreation, sports and tourism, indicates that public sector is trying to inculcate a commitment to the traditional institutional order and the arousal of nationalistic pride.

Despite the public sectors disregard for the provision of sport and recreation for people with a disability, certain elements of existing public policy do aid in the provision of leisure services. To illustrate, the Disability Discrimination Act (1991) is legislation that uses positive discrimination to improve the access to existing social opportunities, inclusive of leisure, for people with disabilities. The public sector through the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health’s Community Organisation Support Program encouraged the National Recreation Network (NRN) (ie. voluntary sector) to become more self reliant, as it funded them to develop their own leisure policy "Recreation and Leisure are Serious Business" (Nican Inc.,1994). Covertly however, the public sectors support of the NRN is predominantly concerned with the absolving themselves of any long term economic responsibility.

Based on this discussion, although the position taken by the public sector might overtly proclaim to be concerned about the provision of sport and recreation for people with a disability, it is apparent that they are more concerned about the abdication of economic responsibility and the derivement of ulterior benefits. From the perspective of a reluctant collectivist however, the maintenance of this type of covert agenda is preferable. Thus, providing that public policy guarantees a reduced resource commitment or leads to a beneficial end, the provision of leisure for people with disabilities will be supported. As such, where public policy may have failed to improve the provision of leisure opportunities for people with disabilities it has succeeded in maintaining the public sectors economic efficiency.

Considering that neither the private nor public sectors appear to hold any regard for the provision of recreation for people with disabilities, it is imperative to investigate the extent to which the voluntary sector is able to meet the shortcomings of reluctant collectivism.

Although support has been exhibited by the Queensland Department Of Families, Youth And Community Care (Hanley, 1997), and the Australian Democratic Party (Lee cited in Nican Inc.,1996) for the NRN’s policy objectives and the value that it places upon recreation for people with disabilities, neither have the political clout to counteract the inherent shortcomings of reluctant collectivism. On that basis alone, it could be assumed that the voluntary sector has failed to meet any of the shortcomings of reluctant collectivism. To illustrate, despite the tireless efforts of the NRN to inform the public sector at all levels about continued inequity in the provision of sport and recreation services for people with a disability, the public sector at large remains nonchalant. The outcome of this nonchalant attitude is that the provision of leisure services for people with a disability continues to be a low priority (QDPC, 1997) that is under funded and under focused (Nican, 1995; Craig, 1996).

In terms of evaluating the NRN policy development performance however, their direct consultative approach indicates that their policy did successfully reflect the real leisure needs (ie. provisional constraints) of people with disabilities. Considering that effective societal change can only be bought about if all the agents of that society (ie. the public and their representative decision makers) support the sought changes (Freire,1976 cited in Bennis,1976), it is also likely that social policy, which is based on the legitimate needs of it’s target audience, will inevitably lead to effective societal change. As such, any perceived failure on the voluntary sectors behalf is likely to rest with the public sector as they failed to respond to legitimate need.

Considering that the NRN policy is based on legitimate need and displays a concern for the lack of public and private sector support for the provision of leisure services, it is unlikely that the NRN have failed to obligate their end of the bargain. Rather, failure of any sought is likely to be attributable to the public sectors' unwillingness to recognise and respond to legitimate need. Such an argument is based on the notion that reluctant collectivism suggests that the public sectors role is to compensate for the inefficiencies of the market or private sector by meeting residual need (ie. address economic inequality). Therefore, it is no longer good enough for the public sector to plead ignorance in this regard, as they now have the necessary data to highlight the inefficiencies of the market (Lockwood cited in Nican Inc.,1994:3; Nican Inc.,1994; Culyer, 1997). Simply giving financial endorsement to the NRN does not absolve the public sector of responsibility regarding the provision of legitimate leisure needs (ie. Community Organisation Support Program, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health) (Nican Inc.,1994). As a consequence, it is the responsibility of the public sector to put their money where their mouth is by addressing the inequity that they claim their ideological persuasion counters, and respond to legitimate need. To ensure that the public sector takes greater responsibility for the provision of leisure for people with disabilities, it is imperative that the NRN in conjunction with the Recreation Industry Council of Australia (RICA) take the public sector to task over their mediocre performance with regard to the provision of legitimate leisure needs for people with disabilities.

To bring about effective change to the present provision of leisure for people with a disability, the NRN in conjunction with the RICA need to develop a strategic plan that incorporates lobbying. According to Auld (1996),

"because of the variable nature of government support and the critical role that government policy and funding can play in the provision of leisure services, it is crucial that those working in the area of sport and recreation for people with a disability become more cognisant of the role and impact of lobbying" (p. 25).

Lobbying behaviour is a vital component of future resource allocation and public policy development (Auld, 1996) As such, the NRN may need to redirect their present pressure group focus to that of a lobby group. A lobby group, is a formal group with commonly shared interests that exserts pressure directly on individual politicians in order to achieve the groups' aims (Jaensch,1994 cited in Auld & Bell, 1997: 19).

Considering that lobbying behaviour requires the direct exsertion of pressure, the NRN and their respective state bodies need to target the key political decision makers in each state about the value of recreation for people with disabilities and the value of implementing the principles of their policy. Priority especially needs to be given to Principle 1 which identifies that recreation and leisure are major contributors to quality of life, Principle 5 which identifies that successful participation in recreation is related to skill, and Principle 4 which recommends the provision of publicly supported recreation for people with low incomes (Nican Inc.,1994). Additionally, the exsertion of direct pressure could be intensified further by conjointly using the NRN’s policy and the Disability Discrimination Act (1991). The recommendation of such a strategy however is based on the premise that the provision of disability services continue to be distributed according to Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement (1992).

According to Culyer (1997), unless the public sector adopts the principles of the NRN’s policy, the present provision of recreation for people with disabilities will continue to under funded and unfocused on the creation of new leisure opportunities (Nican Inc., 1995; and Craig, 1996). As such, the public sector cannot simply hide behind the overt rhetoric of public policy, rather they must take greater responsibility for the provision of leisure services for people with a disability. If future public policy’s are to advance the provision of leisure services for people with a disability however, the voluntary sector, in their pursuit of distributive justice, need to lobby the public sector into acknowledging that the leisure needs of people with a disability are legitimate, and conceding that their role ultimately entails the provision of legitimate need.