Further Submissions to the NDIS Committee

SDA Residency Agreement, s12(g): Prior to the NDIS, the DHHS (Department of Health & Human Services) provided and operated (SDA & SIL) for, and in the majority of group homes, those with intellectual and multiple disabilities throughout Victoria, with just the provision of a “Residential Statement” of intent to each resident. With the movement of disability support services to the NDIS, the NDIS directed that the same provider shall not provide both SDA and SIL. Therefore, the DHHS subsequently became DFFH (Homes Victoria) as the SDA provider (Landlord) within the NDIS protocol. And that non-government providers took over the provision of SIL. The NDIA required both the SDA and SIL providers to provide each group home resident with a “Service Agreement”. Such an “Agreement” being a legal document between parties. On receiving the said Service Agreement from DFFH (Homes Victoria), it was clear that s12(g) of the agreement was especially relevant to the excessive disruption our son, other residents and their support staff suffered from a totally incompatible client the DHHS, DSR, moved into the group home, without consultation, in 2007. Give all avenues had failed to relieve the compatible sitting residents and their support staff from the excessively disruptive client, s12(g) was seen as having potential to have the matter evaluated within at least our son’s residency agreement with landlord, Homes Victoria, given s12(g) is a very clear statement, being: “The SDA resident must not cause serious disruption to the proper use and enjoyment of the SDA enrolled dwelling by other SDA residents”. Yet despite the said “Service Agreenent” is clearly between the tenant (our son) and the landlord, Homes Victoria, they claim the said agreement was developed by CAV (Consumer Affairs Victoria), inferring its implementation is nothing to do with them. Whereas sections in an “Agreement” are intended to be clearly implementable. In this case, Homes Victoria are obligated to evaluate a complaint under s12(g). Yet they consider they are not not. We are, therefore, at a loss to understand the purpose in having section s12(g) in the said greement when, (a) the section cannot be implemented as clearly intended and, (b) cannot be removed (see attached letter BAC-CO-41582).

NDIS RoC (Roster of Care) or WRoC (Working Roster of Care):

In group homes there are two support staff accountability tools. The ROA (Roster of Attendance) which, basically, just shows the staff intended on-duty time. Whereas the RoC shows support staff work intention. The RoC was seen at the start of the NDIS as both a “NDIS Costing Tool” and a “Participant Support Service Accountability Tool”. Yet SIL providers, the NDIA and the NDISC now see the RoC as just a costing tool. As they have difficulty monitoring and evaluating direct care staff work value expectations. Whereas the service accountability is in both the participant’s 1:1 time slots, and the staff to client ratio time slots (see example RoC attached). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

NDIS Act s4(3), page 6, says, “People with disability, families and carers should have certainty that people with disability will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime”. Receiving such over their lifetime equates to consistently receiving “certainty” throughtout their lifetime can only be assured by support service providers consistently “radiating certainty” of their support service provision to the participant and their stakeholders. Most especially to the stakeholders of group home residents who have little or no ability to know or report if their care and support is good, not so good or bad. Yet the Act shows little intent for SIL provider adherence with s4(3). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

DRC wants group homes phased out:

Whereas it’s not the principle of group homes which is at fault, but the inability of most SIL providers to set, monitor and maintain direct care staff work value expectations from mindercare to quality of life care for the residents. Most especially those residents who have little or no ability to know if the care and support is good, not so good or bad. And have so little in their lives, compared to yje general community, as a result of their disability.