Table 1: Distribution of survey questionnaires
Colour: White; Category: People who made submissions; Number sent: 71
Colour: Yellow; Category: People who attended the seminar for advocates and carers on 30 November 1999 and 2 December 1999 in Sydney; Number sent: 18
Colour: Blue; Category: People who attended the seminar for service providers on 18 November 1999 in Sydney; Number sent: 18
Colour: Pale Green; Category: People who attended the seminar for consumers of disability services on 20 November 1999 in Sydney; Number sent: 14
Colour: Dark Green; Category: People who attended seminars organised in regional centres i.e. Maitland, Wagga Wagga and Ballina; Number sent: 23
Colour: Pink; Category: People who participated in focus groups; Number sent: 46
[Return to main document]

Table 2: Follow up measures
Submissions: first mailout 22, second mailout 34
Service Providers: first mailout 5, second mailout 9
Advocates: first mailout 4, second mailout 7
Regional Seminars: first mailout 7, second mailout 7
Consumers: first mailout 3, second mailout 2
Focus Groups: first mailout 4, second mailout 0
[Return to main document]

Table 3: Response rate by category
Submissions: 79%
Service Providers: 78%
Advocates: 61%
Regional Seminars: 61%
Consumers: 36%
Focus Groups: 9%
[Return to main document]

Table 4: Gender
Male: 25%
Female 71%
Did not say: 4%
[Return to main document]

Table 5: Age of respondents
18-35: 13%
Over 35: 83%
Did not say: 4%
[Return to main document]

Table 6: Where respondents live
In Sydney: 64%
Outside Sydney: 31%
Did not say: 5%
[Return to main document]

Table 7: Types of disability
Intellectual disability: 5%
Physical disability: 32%
Sensory disability: 36%
Other: 27%
[Return to main document]

Table 8: How respondents heard about the review
Service Providers: newspaper 2; radio 1; conference 0; government newsletter 5; community visitor 0; colleague or friend 3; LRC 4; issue papers 5; other 2
Regional Seminars: newspaper 2; radio 0; conference 1; government newsletter 6; community visitor 3; colleague or friend 2; LRC 3; issue papers 4; other 2
Consumers: newspaper 0; radio 0; conference 0; government newsletter 3; community visitor 0; colleague or friend 0; LRC 0; issue papers 1; other 2
Focus groups: newspaper 0; radio 0; conference 0; government newsletter 3; community visitor 0; colleague or friend 1; LRC 0; issue papers 0; other 1
Submissions: newspaper 11; radio 0; conference 0; government newsletter 22; community visitor 2; colleague or friend 10; LRC 15; issue papers 16; other 14
Advocates: newspaper 1; radio 0; conference 2; government newsletter 4; community visitor 2; colleague or friend 3; LRC 1; issue papers1; other 1
TOTAL: newspaper 16; radio 1; conference 3; government newsletter 43; community visitor 7; colleague or friend 19; LRC 23; issue papers 27; other 22
[Return to main document]

Table 9: Quality and accessibility of Issues Papers
Easy to Read: strongly disagree 4; disagree 4; agree 78; strongly agree 10;
Informative: strongly disagree 2; disagree 4; agree 79; strongly agree 12;
Too long: strongly disagree 4; disagree 64; agree 26; strongly agree 1;
[Return to main document]

Table 10: How respondents participated in the consultation process
Service Providers: attended seminar 13; focus group 0; contact with LRC 0; submission to LRC 2; other 1.
Regional Seminars: attended seminar 10; focus group 0; contact with LRC 0; submission to LRC 0; other 4.
Consumers: attended seminar 4; focus group 1; contact with LRC 0; submission to LRC 2; other 0.
Focus groups: attended seminar 1; focus group 3; contact with LRC 1; submission to LRC 0; other 0.
Submissions: attended seminar 20; focus group 4; contact with LRC 14; submission to LRC 53; other 8.
Advocates: attended seminar 8; focus group 2; contact with LRC 2; submission to LRC 3; other 2.
TOTAL: attended seminar 56; focus group 10; contact with LRC 17; submission to LRC 60; other 15.
[Return to main document]

Table 11: Evaluation of seminar by participants
Venue easy to get to: strongly disagree 0; disagree 3; agree 45; strongly agree 7.
Issues were explained clearly: strongly disagree 0; disagree 2; agree 48; strongly agree 4.
Not enough time for discussion: strongly disagree 0; disagree 25; agree 22; strongly agree 5.
Too intimidated to speak up: strongly disagree 7; disagree 38; agree 7; strongly agree 1.
My views were listened to: strongly disagree 1; disagree 7; agree 41; strongly agree 3.
Main issues of concern were discussed: strongly disagree 3; disagree 9; agree 40; strongly agree 3.
Was encouraged to make a submission: strongly disagree 5; disagree 23; agree 18; strongly agree 2.
[Return to main document]

Table 12: Evaluation of submission process
Was easy to contact the Commission: strongly disagree 0; disagree 2; agree 49; strongly agree 10.
Had enough time to prepare submission: strongly disagree 1; disagree 20; agree 41; strongly agree 2.
Had some concern about confidentiality of submission: strongly disagree 13; disagree 50; agree 0; strongly agree 1.
Ability to make submission electronically was useful: strongly disagree 4; disagree 7; agree 27; strongly agree 4.
[Return to main document]

Table 13: Access to email
Yes: 59%
No: 34%
Did not say: 7%
[Return to main document]