Infrastructure Without Reform – How Systems Reward Familiar Failure

By Sarah Ailish McLoughlin
Publisher of The Index Line | Founder of Strategic Self-Advocacy™ | Architect of Alternative Systems for Those Left Out of the Original

Not All Infrastructure Is Progress

We’re told that new platforms, systems, and reforms mean change is happening.
But some infrastructure doesn’t solve exclusion — it reinforces it.

Because if you build a new system with the same assumptions, the same decision-makers, the same timelines and tools…

You’re not redesigning access.
You’re rebuilding the wall.

What Is “Infrastructure Without Reform”?

It’s when a government or organisation announces a major new initiative — a portal, framework, funding round, hotline, app, or reporting tool — but:

• Leaves the same gatekeepers in charge
• Keeps the same impossible paperwork
• Requires the same institutional fluency
• Ignores the communities most harmed

The frame looks new.
But the logic is familiar.

Performative Infrastructure in Practice

Some examples we’ve documented under Strategic Self-Advocacy™:

• A new digital DV portal that routes users to the same religious-run shelters they’ve already been harmed by
• A First Nations employment fund that requires Western governance structures, excluding community-led economies
• A disability “innovation” grant that only accepts applications from incorporated organisations with annual revenue >$500k
• An early education reform that redirects public money to private Christian-run services under “choice” rhetoric

Each one claims to be about equity.
But the structure ensures the usual players win.

Why Familiar Failure Gets Funded

Because familiarity feels safe.
Because funding is tied to deliverables, not outcomes.
Because institutions are rewarded for replication, not repair.

It’s easier to:

• Fund what you’ve seen before
• Rely on known partners
• Prioritise “scalability” over survivability
• Treat new people as the risk, not the solution

What Does Reform Actually Require?

🟡 Design with those excluded from the start
🟡 Allow for refusal, non-linearity, and slowness
🟡 Resource trauma-informed governance, not just comms campaigns
🟡 Back alternative formats, not just alternative phrasing
🟡 Fund authorship — not just consultation

Real reform means ceding power, not rebranding it.

Why This Matters

Because every time exclusion is rebranded as “innovation,”
it becomes harder for people to challenge it.

If the infrastructure is new, the assumption is that change happened.
But if the foundations are extractive, the harm continues — with less accountability.

Questions to Ask Before Launching New Systems

1. Who wasn’t at the design table?
2. Who stands to profit from this?
3. What assumptions are being baked into the architecture?
4. Will this still serve survivors if they say no?
5. Does this reward polish and partnerships — or insight and truth?

The McLoughlin Charter and Semantic Infrastructure

Strategic Self-Advocacy™ includes more than public critique.
It includes frameworks for semantic infrastructure — systems that centre meaning, memory, authorship, and care.

The McLoughlin Charter protects survivor-led design, and holds infrastructure to ethical account.

Infrastructure must not just exist.
It must be just.

#InfrastructureWithoutReform #PerformativeAccess #GatekeepingByDesign #SurvivorLedDesign #DisabilityJustice #FundingReform #McLoughlinCharter #StrategicSelfAdvocacy #TraumaInformedGovernance #EpistemicSovereignty