NDIA Accountability Project

LWB masking neglect and restrictive practices impacting residents with intellectual disabilities

‹ PrevPage 1 of 8 · Source p. 1Next ›

LWB focusing on the NDIA/NDISC bureaucratics, rather than participant welfare. The two basic factors which illustrate the above subject are:-

  • Client “X” living at LWB, SIL provided group home in Mill Park, Vic, being taken out for a drive-around in circumstances where, (a) his very assertive behaviour is a serious embarrassment/risk when visitors and other client’s families (nominees, guardians, stakeholders, etc) are invited to the home and, (b) he provides other residents decision makers with evidence as to his very serious negative impact on their family member as a direct result of the restrictive practices of his parents (his decision makers) under the NDIS Act(“Part 2; Division 4 – Varying and replacing participants’ plans and, Part 5; Division 1 - Functions and responsibilities of nominees”), in restricting the SIL provider (LWB/VDAS) from taking the action needed to improve his lifestyle and that of other residents at the said group home. Factors in both the SDA(s12(g) and SIL (s9(d) Service Agreements have proven ineffective. And equally:-(

  • LWB/VDAS, as a NDIS SIL provider, failing to challenge the NDIA/NDISC’s limitation on restrictions being applied for the health of NDIS participants living as residential tenants of group homes for which “Homes Victoria (DFFH) is the SDA provider, in cases where restrictive practices are needed for participants who have little or no understanding, due to their intellectual and multiple disabilities, of the need for healthy eating, drinking relating to their BMI and good health.

NOTE: The above is LWB masking neglect! As for point 1, regular people would not tolerate such living conditions as the other residents have to tolerate from resident “X”, with their support staff expected to do meaningful activities with them should not have to tolerate such working conditions. Most especially as “X’s” excessively disruptive behaviour is potentially fixable, but for the restrictive practices permitted to “X’s” decision makers by the NDIA Act(“Part 2; Division 4 – Varying and replacing participants’ plans and, Part 5; Division 1 - Functions and responsibilities of nominees”), the SDA Agreement(s12(g) and the SIL Agreement(s9(d).

Page 2

DRC findings:

We are concerned the DRC findings and report will do what other disability support service reviews have done, including the Productivity Report on the NDIS - Collect dust on the shelf, if there is no meaningful and independent body with the power to direct NDS Providers. As the NDIS is nothing like it was intended to be, as providers and their representative bodies, such as the NDS, have maneuvered it into a lucrative business which suits them, rather than those the NDIS is intended to serve - the participants.

Both providers and the NDIS Commission make it really difficult, complex and e longated for participants and/or their stakeholders (consumers) to raise concerns. Consumer’s representatives, those who see/visit the support service can easily get sick of the avoidance and denial of providers and the NDISC that they give up bothering, Which, of course,is just what providers and the NDISC want, so the matter can be closed. Whereas, the NDISC is reliant on consumer feedback (?)

Based on their dynamic findings, the DRC want Group Homes closed. Whereas this is the DRC’s too hard basket, as the principle is not wrong, but is the failure of provider management to set monitor and maintain the work value expectations on the direct care staff. Mindercare and Appearance Employment came out of Institutions like a virus on the movement to group homes for those with high support needs - those residents with little or no ability to know or report if their care and support is good, not so good or bad.

Please advise,

Tony & Heather Tregale VCAT Plenary Guardians & Administrators and, NDIS Self Managing Nomiees. Ex Community Visitors and CERT4.

Naturally, the following has gone to the NDIA…….

LWB (Life Without Barriers) sent us invoice dated 30 Nov 2021 for $26,458.86 for support services from 15/03/2021 to 01/11/2021inc. by Email dated 30 Nov 2021.

Normally we don’t have to pay LWB, as their group home support service charges are paid from the “Agency Managed” funding in our son’s NDIS Plan. However, the above charges are for when our son was at the LWB group home rather that at his Aspect Day Service, for which we do pay, as a result of the Covid 19 Lockdowns.

As is our standard practice, we checked the said (attached) invoice for both claimed days and claimed staff to client ratios, and considered it had serious discrepancies.

Given LWB’s procrastination and questionable understanding the matter has been ongoing until LWB sent invoices for the periods to which we could agree, with new invoices. The new figure being $12,507.95 , with the difference being $13,950.91

The main errors were the ‘staff to client ratios’ at the group home. LWB were charging for 1:1, whereas we knew it was much different than this.

Given most of the residents throughout VDAS (Victorian Disability Accommodation Services), for which LWB is just one provider, will be “Agency Managed” we suggest the high figure charged and paid without question. If so, we consider there would be amount of money claimed and paid “in error” throughout Victoria at least.

Systemic:

  • The NDIS Finance System is wide open to questionable maneuvering, most especially in relation to “Agency” managed.
  • Providing NDIS funded services is considered a lucrative business by many service providers, most especially as most consumers have little understanding or ability.
  • Creative accounting, if discovered, will be claimed as “Administrative Error” by providers.
  • The NDIA says: “When you buy services with NDIS funding, you’ll need to agree with the service provider on what will be provided and how much it will cost”. This is fine for “Self Managed”, but not “Agency Managed”, as the “Agency” has little or no idea what has been purchased or provided.

Group Home SIL Provider Accountability and the NDIA:

We emphasize that the main focus of this matter is the statement by the NDIA. This being: “The NDIA’s scope does not include investigating the accountability of a SIL provider and the supports they are providing for participants. The NDIA encourages participants, or in this instance a Plan Nominee, to raise any concerns about the services they are receiving with the provider(s) directly” (copy attached). Leaving most of our most vulnerable group home residents behind covert doors totally at risk of questionable support with no consistent independent support evaluation. With the NDIA paying out big agency-managed money to service providers with agency having no real idea of what is provided in nuts and bolts terms at service points where most of those intended to benefit from this

  1. The NDIA says: “The NDIA?s scope does not include investigating the accountability of a SIL provider and the supports they are providing for participants. The NDIA encourages participants, or in this instance a Plan Nominee, to raise any concerns about the services they are receiving with the provider(s) directly” (full text, attached). Whereas, such does not work where, (a) funding is “agency” managed and, (b) where participants have little ability due to their disability and/or they have no, or no effective stakeholders.

Relating Specifically to the above matter:

  1. We could have claimed for and paid LWB invoice for $26,458.86, and we are 99.9% certain the NDIA, through the portal, would have paid without question. 2, Given most, if not all of the other residents living in the group home with our son would be agency managed. There is, therefore, little reason they believe their LWB, agency managed claims would not contain a similar charge pattern to our original, and would have been agency paid without question
  2. Given the Covid 19 lockdowns throughout, there will be a significant amount of funding claimed by SIL providers throughout for their residents not attending their day activities, with the potential of similar “Creative Accounting” to equal a very large amount of claimed “Administrative Error” throughout.

Tony & Heather Tregale VCAT Plenary Guardians & Administrators and, NDIS Self Managing Nominees

Consumer Intimidation

Hello LWB Monitoring,

We present the following, below in blue, within the NDIA statement:- “The NDIA? scope does not include investigating the accountability of a SIL provider and the supports they are providing for participants. The NDIA courages participants, or in this instance a Plan Nominee, to raise any concerns about the services they are receiving with the provider(s) directly” . (Full copy attached). Therefore, with the majority of group home residents having no ability to know if their support is good, not so good or bad, or to report this, and having no, or no effective stakeholders, provider staff can do what they like behind the closed doors of group homes. Hence the seen need for the DRC.

LWB Director, , frequently inferred that he could not consider complaints from us, our son’s VCAT Plenary Guardians and Administrators, and NDIS Self Managing Nominees, without substantial evidence being provided.

Yet when we provided audio evidence of a significant aspect of our on-going complaint of the negative impact of the totally incompatible resident on other group home residents, our son especially, and the impact on support staff reducing their motivation to do “active support” with the residents, our son especially, did no more than claim we were infringing the, “Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic)” in providing evidence of frequently consistent, excessive and disturbing vocal, non communicative noise. Whereas, our legal advice, of which LWB’s legal advisor was advised in writing, states is incorrect with his allegation, and that he is just attempting to silence us on this serious matter which is well within the DFFH SDA Residency Agreement S12(g).

Notwithstanding the excessive level of disrupted behaviour associated with the said vocal, non communicative noise, attempt to silence a resident’s legal and moral representatives clearly illustrates the only NDIA accepted group home support service level and quality monitoring body, participants and their stakeholders, can easily be intimidated by all powerful NDIS registered service providers.

We call on LWB Monitoring, the NDI Senate Committee, DRC, DFFH

Homes and Every Australian Counts ……… to consider and advise us why very vulnerable group home residents are left with only themselves and their stakeholders, if they have any, or any who are effective to monitor, evaluate and report their level and quality of care behind the covert doors of their group homes (see above statement in purple).

Tony & Heather Tregale

Complaints should be considered as tool to service improvement Individual matters often help to provide systemic direction and ratification.

One of the major failings in the disability field, is the failure/reluctance of providers to accept that, “95% of solving a problem, is admitting there is one”. There is significant “avoidance and denial” throughout. DHHS were shockers for this! They would spend ten times as much doing avoidance and denial, than in fixing the problem….. So problems were costly, never fixed and compounded……

In respect to systemic NDIS problems and those relating to group homes…….

One of the original principles of the NDIS concept was that of “Marketplace Services” rather than “Captive Market Services”. But as there is far more demand for support than there is supply, with NDIS pouring money on to the streets, providers have little or no reason to “attract and retain” consumers. So the NDIS is seen as little more than a transparent change of funding source - carry on as usual.

Three prime NDIS service accountability factors are, “The Roster of Care (RoC)”, The “Service Agreement” and “Certainty” within S4(3) of the NDIS Act .

  1. Service providers, in general, have turned the Service Agreement into a ‘consumer acceptance document’, which the consumer is expected to sign without question.
  2. The RoC was originally a “Costing Tool” from which the “Quote” was produced. But was also seen by the NDIA as a service accountability

Page 7

tool. So the NDIA Rules say the consumer must be fully involved from the very start of the RoC development process. But, in most cases they are not…. So the NDIA had to issue a directive, that providers must show the consumer was involved when submitting the RoC to the NDIA for approval.

  1. The most not accepted factor is, S4(3) - “Certainty”. Providers do not see a reason to consistently and proactively radiate confidence / assurance to consumers - most especially to the stakeholders of clients who have little or no ability to know if the support services they are receiving are good or not so good (bad).

The above especially apply to group homes, as they are generally very covert - shielded from the world.

Group home support factors are: Admin, Domestic, Client Personal Care and Active Support (PCAS). Most support staff see it in that order which equals “mindercare”. Whereas, it should be the reverse!

During a tour of disability services in New Zealand, one group home appeared to have no office. In front of her staff, the house supervisor said we don’t have an office, as this is where staff spend their time…… And, this is so true in Australia!

We have seen the good, bad and the ugly first hand, having been Community Visitors within the Office of the Public Advocate for six years. And, Heather as a CERT4 working in group homes throughout Melbourne for four years….. Not for the money, but like police under cover. She said, “I’ll find out what happens behind the closed doors of group homes”. Her extensive report went to the Disability Royal Commission!

Tony & Heather Tregale

Information about the implementation and performance of the NDIS. “The committee seeks information about the implementation and performance of the NDIS. In particular, the committee invites submissions and information from participants, their carers and family members, service providers, and representative organisations and, Submissions outlining details of individual cases or complaints may assist the committee in identifying broader systemic issues for investigation.”

Many of the most disadvantaged people with intellectual and multiple

disabilities live in covert group homes. Many have no ability to communicate or understand if they are receiving good or bad support services. The NDIA are pouring money into these support services, with no effective means of knowing if the support services being provided within group homes are good or bad.

This leaves much of the monitoring to stakeholders - Those residents who have any, and who are effective. But even these are often disenchanted by the often overwhelming level of bureaucratic avoidance and denial by service provider management and staff. Let alone, similar by the NDIA and NDISC Q&S. When complaints should be welcomed as tools to service improvement.

The specific focus of this communique is in three factors:-

  1. Letters to the Minister for the NDIS (copies attached),

  2. Complaints to the NDIA and,

  3. Complaints to the NDIS Q&S Commission.

  4. Our repeated enquires to the Minister’s office as to why we are receiving no responses to questionable NDIS matters, brought a verbal response that we were sending too many complaints.

  5. The NDIA claim to be very interested in feedback, but rarely respond.

  6. Similar with the NDIS Q&S Commission.

  7. The level of bureaucratic avoidance, denial and procrastination, most families would give up. Which of course just what the public service bureaucrats want to happen – Dont bother us!

Tony & Heather Tregale VCAT Plenary Guardians & Administrators, and NDIS Self Managing Nominees