Introduction

Mental health care is the area, which is neglected and require policy changes even in the
developed countries like Australia. This essay outlines a policy advocacy strategy that can be
implemented in order to improve the state of mental health care system in Australia. It discusses
three theories of policy change. This essay consists of the description of the state of mental
health care system in Australia, the changes required, especially in the policy level, the probable
stakeholders and the policy advocacy strategy to improve the mental health care system in the
country. The importance of taking an intervention and early prevention approach has been
discussed in this essay.
1
As we start our policy advocacy journey, it's very much crucial to comprehend policy change
theories that could guide our efforts. One theory that we will use is the Advocacy Coalition
Framework, which emphasizes the role of competing advocacy coalitions in shaping the policy
changes. Advocacy coalitions are such groups of people and organizations who share common
goals, beliefs, and values and work together to influence policy change.
Another relevant theory is the Multiple Streams Framework, which actually stresses the
significance of timing and opportunity in policy change. Policy change happen when three
streams - the problem stream, the policy stream, and the political stream - converge, creating a
window of opportunity for change. The problem stream is actually the identification of a social
problem, the policy stream is the development of a solution, and the political stream is the
political climate and the openness of decision-makers.
A third theory that we can use in order to guide our policy advocacy work is the Social
Construction of Target Populations Framework. This theory actually highlights the importance of
understanding how particular groups are constructed as policy targets and how this construction
affects policy outcomes. It emphasize that policy is not a neutral process but is influenced by
social, political, and economic factors that affect how particular groups are represented in policy
discourse and how policy decisions are made.
These theory of policy change provide a helpful framework for guiding our policy advocacy
work. By understanding the role of advocacy coalitions, the significance of timing and
opportunity, and the social construction of target populations, we can develop effective strategies
to achieve our policy change goals.
2
As parts of our pushing approach, it's very crucial to quickly scan government sections, non-
group organizations, investigation groups, and pinnacle figures that are at present operating in
the area of policy we've chosen. This will help us locate feasible comrades and collaborators, as
well as recognize the current terrain of policy modification in this zone.
Our organization's preferred policy area is lunacy well-being, which is a weighty and relevant
issue for us. Mental well-being policy relates to the activities taken by governments and other
organizations to encourage, safeguard, and upgrade the intellectual well-being and welfare of
individuals and societies. It encompasses a collection of interferences, such as prevention,
premature intervention, medication, and sustenance facilities for people with intellectual illnesses
and their families.
In Australia the major responsibility of the government for the well-being policy is handled by
the department of health, which actually have authority over the health policy. The policy of the
government regarding the wellbeing policy system can be found in the Fifth National Mental
Well-being and suicide prevention plan. This has provided 10 years goal and has set priorities for
mental health and wellbeing policy in Australia.
Moreover, there are plenty of non-collective organizations working in the mental health policy
field, like Outrageous Red, Gloomy Hippo Society, Loony Land Down Under, and Insane Health
Oceania. These groups offer a range of amenities and promotional labor, such as exploration,
schooling, and awareness-raising crusades, and even policy construction and promotion.

Furthermore, exploration organizations like the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and
the Centre for Mental Health Research have a massive role to play in advising policy changes
related to mental health. They conduct exploration and provide evidence-based proposals for
policy alteration in the mental well-being sector.
Peak figures such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the
Australian Psychological Society also have a massive impact on mental well-being policy. These
organizations represent intellectual well-being experts and provide direction and suggestions for
policy formation and implementation.
Currently, mental well-being policy in Australia focuses on enhancing access to intellectual well-
being facilities, decreasing shame and discrimination, and encouraging premature intervention
and prevention. The government's present mental well-being policy priorities include suicide
prevention, juvenile mental health, and supporting people with severe and complicated
intellectual illnesses.
Concerning policy alterations, we think that the lack of adequate funding for intellectual well-
being facilities, notably in regional and remote areas, is a policy area worth altering. There is a
noteworthy difference in access to intellectual well-being facilities between urban and rural
areas, with individuals in regional and remote areas frequently experiencing more obstacles to
accessing intellectual well-being assistance. This concern has been identified by several non-
group organizations and pinnacle figures, who have required augmented funding for intellectual
well-being facilities in regional and remote areas. Our organization could potentially work with
these organizations to advocate for this policy alteration and strive to enhance access to
intellectual well-being facilities for all Australians, irrespective of their location.

3.
I have picked the mental health care as the policy area for the advocacy report. There has been
several positive and beneficial mental health policy in the recent period. Some of them are
increased funding for the mental health related programs. However, there are still several aspects
that need the attention, and that need improvement. Among the several aspects that needs
changing, one of the most important one is the need for the early intervention and prevention.
There has not much tasks been done in this area. Talking about the present scenario the focus in
on providing treatment and care to the people who are already facing the mental health problems.
The approach to deal with the problem is still curing after the damage is happened. It is true that
the importance of providing mental health care and treatment to the people experiencing the
mental health problems can not be overstated. However, if the intervention and prevention
approach could be taken in the early stage, it can definitely help in preventing the severe mental
health problems before they actually occur.
Taking the approach of intervention and prevention can reduce the burden of entire mental health
care system and the society and government as a whole. This approach not only is more effective
and appropriate in dealing with the problems in their core, this is also more cost efficient option
in the long run for government and the people who take the service. This can save people from
substantial amount of pain and suffering.
There are several factors due to which the policy of early intervention and prevention is not
getting priority in the mental wellbeing policies. One prominent one is the stigma that is in the
society around the issues of mental health. There is still lack of awareness regarding mental
health. People fail to acknowledge how common are the mental health problems and how
important it is to address the mental health issues as it is important to address the physical health
problems. People take care of their physical health but feel no need to take medical attention
when they face problems regarding mental health. Further, there is lack of awareness among the
policymakers regarding the importance of the early intervention and prevention of the mental
health issues.
Due to the above reasons that I discussed, it is very essential to deviate the focus of mental health
and wellbeing policy towards early intervention and prevention from the traditional approach of
providing care after people experience mental health problems. This can actually involve
developing new programs, changing focus of the policy and increasing the funding for the
prevention and intervention approaches. All in all, I believe that focus should be in the early
intervention and prevention in order to improve the overall mental health of the people in the
country. By addressing the existing gap in the policy, the overall burden regarding the mental
health issues and burden of the mental health institutions can severely reduce. This can help
improve the overall health and wellbeing of the country.
4.
A Beginning Plan for Policy Change:
4.1 With whom in the sector would you work, what kind of campaign, actions, or strategies do
you think would suit your agency and this policy change?
To bring about the policy change we desire, it would be necessary for our agency to collaborate
with multiple stakeholders in the sector. This would entail working with government agencies
responsible for the policy area, NGOs that advocate for similar changes, peak bodies, research
organizations, and other advocacy groups.
A potent strategy that our agency can utilize is a social media campaign. Social media is a strong
advocacy tool that can reach a broader audience, including policymakers and the public. Our
agency can develop a social media campaign that endeavors to raise awareness about the issue
and galvanize public support for our advocacy initiatives.
Another strategy we could use is to organize stakeholder meetings with key decision-makers in
the government and other NGOs working on similar policy changes. These meetings can help us
to build alliances and create a united front for advocacy efforts.

We can also engage in direct lobbying efforts with policymakers to influence policy change. This
involves engaging with government officials and presenting them with evidence-based
arguments for the policy changes we seek. We could also organize public demonstrations and
petitions to create public pressure on policymakers to act.

4.2 Which groups, individuals, public officials, or organizations would you target for your policy
advocacy plan?

To achieve the desired policy change, our advocacy plan should target a wide range of groups,
individuals, public officials, and organizations. Some of the key targets for our advocacy plan
include:

a) Government departments responsible for the policy area: We would need to engage with key
decision-makers in the relevant government departments to influence policy change.

b) Members of Parliament: We can lobby Members of Parliament to support the policy changes
we seek and raise the issue in Parliament.
c) NGOs working on similar policy changes: We can build alliances with other NGOs
advocating for similar policy changes to create a united front for advocacy efforts.

d) Research organizations: We can engage with research organizations to obtain evidence-based

research to support our advocacy efforts.

e) Peak bodies: We can engage with peak bodies to build support for the policy changes we seek
and amplify our advocacy efforts.

f) The media: We can engage with the media to raise awareness about the issue and generate
public interest in the policy changes we seek.

The development of an effective policy advocacy plan requires a comprehensive understanding

of relevant theories of policy change, the policy landscape, and the key stakeholders involved.
By leveraging a variety of strategies and engaging with key decision-makers and organizations,
our agency can effectively advocate for the policy changes we seek and contribute to positive
change in the policy area of our choice.
Conclusion
In sum, the report has given a complete grasp of theories concerning changes in policy and how
they can direct policy advocating labor. The Advocacy Coalition Framework is all about the role
of fierce advocacy coalitions in shaping policy changes, while the Multiple Streams Framework
stresses the significance of timing and chance in policy change. The Social Construction of
Target Populations Framework highlights how vital it is to understand how particular groups are
shaped as policy targets and how this shaping influences policy outcomes. These theories offer a
useful structure for making useful strategies to achieve policy change objectives.
The report has also pinpointed mental health care as a policy domain for advocacy labor. The
government, uncollected organizations, and research organizations in this area have been
discovered, and their roles in policy establishment and implementation have been talked about.
The ongoing goals of the government relating to mental health policy and the need for initial
intervention and prevention have been emphasized. The insufficiency of enough financing for
mental health facilities in provincial and far-flung locations has been identified as a policy realm
worth altering, and conceivable advocacy strategies have been proposed.