NDIA Accountability Project

Systemic issues in NDIS planning and lack of planner accountability

‹ PrevPage 1 of 3 · Source p. 1Next ›

Background

the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners; When we transitioned to the NDIS we had $80,000 worth of supports cut relative to what we were receiving via the State system. No one identified with our situation, and the fact that previously when our son was denied the level of support both my wife and I were hospitalized and our son was relinquished, due to stress and not receiving the supports. The level of support is critical to the functioning of our family as a unit. The experience, expertise and qualifications of planners did not mean anything, it simply did not exist. Systemically we had our funding cut. When I spoke to a Government official about our cut and explained that it was a systemic issue deliberately being done, he said yes it is systemic but it is verging on endemic! I am a disability professional and there was no transparency when we first transitioned to the NDIS and funding has not been measured relative to the need. The NDIS just dictated; in this situation a good Planner is ignored anyway. The question you need to ask is why does the NDIS ignore experience, expertise and qualifications of its planners. The current process is invasive, abusive and bullying. There is no respect for the struggle that people have had to get through to reach this period of reform. This abusive practice and the thieving of government; taking money which is suppose to be run out according to the NDIS run out plan, is irresponsible and should be included in the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. I never got my business off the ground. I was setting up as a Service Provider and nearly compliant with the NDIS when I had to give up in order to advocate for my son’s funding – will government be compensating me!! Statistics should be taken on how many people have their Plans devalued, whether suicide in this minority has risen etc.

NDIS Planning

As part of the committee’s role to inquire into the implementation, performance and governance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the committee will inquire into and report on NDIS Planning, with particular reference to: (a) the experience, expertise and qualifications of planners; When we transitioned to the NDIS we had $80,000 worth of supports cut relative to what we were receiving via the State system. No one identified with our situation, and the fact that previously when our son was denied the level of support both my wife and I were hospitalized and our son was relinquished, due to stress and not receiving the supports. The level of support is critical to the functioning of our family as a unit. The experience, expertise and qualifications of planners did not mean anything, it simply did not exist. I spoke to a Government official about our cut and explained that it was a systemic issue deliberately being done, he said yes it is systemic but it is verging on endemic! I am a disability professional and there was no transparency when we first transitioned to the NDIS and funding has not been measured relative to the need. I am a disability professional and there was no transparency when we first transitioned to the NDIS and funding has not been

  • measured relative to the need.

The NDIS just dictated; in this situation a good Planner is ignored anyway. The question you need to ask is why does the NDIS ignore experience, expertise and qualifications of its planners.

(b) the ability of planners to understand and address complex needs;

We have managed to develop a good Plan for our son but it was necessary for us to tell the Planner exactly the hours of support we needed and ensure that the Goals and the reasonably necessary funding matched our son’s support needs and reflected a level of safety for all. If a Plan is passed and there is an issue it needs to go to a review – this is silly and there should be capacity to have these issues amended more easily.

(c) the ongoing training and professional development of planners;

The Planner that we have used twice has experience, expertise and qualifications but once again quotes provided relative to supports provided from independent bodies are being ignored and have not followed a sound process. If a Planner is going to have ongoing training and professional development then they need to be trained how to convey necessary elements to the NDIS for approval and only to accept transparent and logical responses.

(d) the overall number of planners relative to the demand for plans;

Poor, there needs to be

(e) participant involvement in planning processes and the efficacy of introducing draft plans;

This is a good idea. But everything must be transparent and if a service costs an amount in most cases it should be funded of cause if it is reasonable and necessary. The Participant should have a degree of “Ownership” of their Plan, this should be one of the Standards in Establishing Service Guarantee. The Ownership would mean that the NDIA cannot finish a Plan before its’ end date or transition a Participant to a new Plan without incorporating a cooling off period and getting their agreement.

(f) the incidence, severity and impact of plan gaps;

Greater engagement with Participants where their needs are accurately meet from their perspective; remembering that in all cases a Participant must be able to survive their worst day – not what the Planner thinks. Support is by nature ultimately subjective to the Participant and their needs but it is also symbiotic to the Participants environment which means Planners must be aware not to weaken supports already available. An example of this is a young family with a child who is disabled, and because of the childs’ young age supports are minimal. However, NDIA needs to ensure the parents have adequate respite to ensure the functionality of the family unit in order to maintain the care of the child. This is even though the parents are responsible to support their child under Section 34 (e) & (f).

(g) the reassessment process, including the incidence and impact of funding changes;

Refer to “f” and introduce a cooling off period and use Planners that the person is familiar with – not a different person each time. Planners should be able to make the funding decisions not some remote person. Participants need to have a positive

  • expectation that their outcome will be favourable for them.

(h) the review process and means to streamline it; There should be a cooling of period; which the Productivity Commission identified and recommended to allow Plan recipients’ to check that the Plan is correct and suitable. 
This would alleviate the need for some reviews also. 
Where there are discrepancies the NDIS should register these as amendments to be accommodated in the next Plan or to be amended for the current one if critical. An example of this is my son accessing a Day Program for the first time. The NDIS Planner is telling me we cannot afford the service and he is suggesting that we use other funding in the Plan. This is flawed logic given that all the other supports are deemed reasonable and necessary and to use these supports in another area could introduce a RISK. If the structuring of the Plan was done more honestly then this would mean that Participants would have a level of trust. This type of documentation and assurances will build trust and greater flexability but also mean that the NDIS is working.

(i) the incidence of appeals to the AAT and possible measures to reduce the number; Have the person who give final evaluation of the Participants Plan meet with the Participant and discuss the conflicting issues, while giving the Participant an Ownership role. There should be a cooling of period; which the Productivity Commission identified and recommended to allow Plan recipients’ to check that the Plan is correct and suitable. 
Personally I believe this would alleviate the need for some reviews also.

(j) the circumstances in which plans could be automatically rolled-over; If the Participant was assisted to re-do the plan themselves by checking tick boxes and if CPI etc. is catered for. By using a familiar Planner and having an accurate Plan review. By incorporating a Support Co-ordinator who can roll things over to the next Plan. By ensuring consistency. Support Co-ordination should provide a hand over to the next Plan.

(k) the circumstances in which longer plans could be introduced; Partitioning of Plans and modifying the Partitioning and rolling over items and essuring hand over of issues by the Support Co-ordinator.

(l) the adequacy of the planning process for rural and regional participants; and Once the areas of support have been identified; NDIA should attribute a Support Co-ordinator to approach Service Providers with incentives in conjunction with the NDIA to ensure remote application of Services.

(m) any other related matters. NDIA should operate in conjunction with other Government bodies and legislations and the NDIS Act needs to include Citizenship, and of mandatory Commonwealth Electoral Law. As such if Participants are eligible to vote and enroll then the government has a fiduciary obligation and a “Duty of Care” to ensure they provide Equity. This is an Adverse Action; the Government demanding compliance of citizens but failing to engage and resource them. This should be included in the Review of Participants’ Plans under the Safeguards and Quality Framework.