Supplementary submission on NDIS changes from COVID19

‹ PrevPage 1 of 4 · Source p. 1Next ›

Submission

Supplementary submission to Joint Standing Committee on NDIS July 2020

People With Disabilities WA (PWdWA)

PWdWA is the peak disability consumer organisation representing the rights,

needs, and equity of all Western Australians with a physical, intellectual,

neurological, psychosocial, or sensory disability via individual and systemic

advocacy.

PWdWA is run by and for people with disabilities and aims to advocate for the rights

and, empower the voices of all people with disabilities in Western Australia.

President: Lisa Burnette

Executive Director: Samantha Jenkinson

Website: www.pwdwa.org

Introduction

On 30 June 2020 PWdWA provided a comprehensive report focused on access to

the scheme and the planning experiences of people with disability in WA. That report

is available on the PWdWA website

https://www.pwdwa.org/our_campaigns/our_submissions.html and a short video

highlighting the findings of the report is available on our Youtube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5zqP0L-5k8 .

This is a short supplementary submission focused on what changes the NDIA made

from COVID19 should stay; and the place of Information, Linkages and Capacity

Building for the future of the NDIS.

                                                     1

COVID19 and the NDIS

The impact of COVID19 for people with disability has been huge in terms of

sometimes loss of services, anxiety, difficulty accessing vital services such as

food and medicines, isolation, and essential supplies such as gloves and

gowns being hard to source. We have detailed these in a separate

submission to the inquiry on the impact of COVID19.

There have also been some positive changes which improved aspects of the NDIS

which we believe need to stay. These are:

  • Using the core flexible budget to purchase support coordination if needed

    – pre-covid this had to be stipulated in the plan.

  • Participants who plan or agency manage their core budgets can now

    spend their core funding flexibly across all four core categories. The

    categories do not have clear meaning for many participants and it would

    be better to have just the one pool or category of ‘core supports’ but ask

    people if they reached outcomes.

  • More flexibility using core funds for transport and low cost Assistive

    Technology. Although we believe this new flexibility was still quite

    restrictive in what could be purchased it was good to see the digital divide

    recognised, and the need for transport cost to be covered. Up to date

    phones and laptops/pads/tablets are needed to effectively access

    technology and the information and reporting required by the NDIS, let

    alone to access services and supports.

  • Plan extensions up to 24 months. These were great for relieving the stress

    of people concerned that they would have funding cut in their scheduled

    planning meeting, when they may not have had an opportunity to

    implement their plan due to lack of support or thin markets. It was also

    great for the many people for whom things are going fine and they don’t

    nreed any changes.

  • Reviews and minor changes went through quickly. There was more

    emphasis on minor changes going through quickly and easily, such as

    mmistakes in planning fixed. However we also saw rejections of access

    within 24 hour turn arounds where documentation was clearly not read.

                                                       2
    

Other aspects of COVID impact have seen an increased flexibility in the way

people have been supported. For some people this needs to stay as a

telehealth therapy session for example was easier, or getting home delivered

shopping or supplies. Some state block funded services for shopping and

pharmacy assistance should be funded by the NDIA ILC as a service for all

people with disability, not just NDIS participants or DSP recipients.

Information, Linkages and Capacity Building shift to DSS

It was recently announced that the Information, Linkages, and Capacity Building

(ILC) program will now be run by the Department of Social Services instead of the

NDIA.

This has raised a number of questions:

Will the intent of the ILC grants remain the same? Will ILC grant focus be under the

National Disability Strategy and become much broader in scope but with no new

money? Will the NDIA start funding some block funded grants under a new program

for the pre-planning support, peer support, and plan implementation support (eg how

to do self management, employ workers etc) that are still required?

A lot of the focus of the Individual Capacity Building grants has been on peer support

and building the ability of people with disability who are scheme participants to

manage and be successful. This has been very important as LAC Partners and NDIA

staff have not, in our experience, been very good at supporting people to access the

NDIS or implement their plans. Current grants for these type of activities end in

The original Productivity Commission model had a Tier 2 which was meant to

capture the small supports and capacity building required by people with disability

not eligible for Tier 3 funded ongoing supports. This morphed into ILC which has

since morphed into community development type grants. The small amount of

overall funds has resulted in a lot of small projects, but little coordination for

coverage or impact. Meanwhile the people who are not eligible for NDIS but need

some assistance like occasional shopping, cleaning, or home maintenance are

missing out and have deteroriating health and home situations.

                                                     3

We would also point out that there is always a cost when these decisions are

made given staff were already employed by the NDIA to monitor and

implement ILC Grants. Will those staff be redployed to DSS? What cost will

be involved in rebranding, changing offices etc?

There does not seem to be any transparency in these decisions and this

again erodes trust in the NDIA and DSS.

In line with our broader recommendations we believe there needs to be input from a

diverse group of people with disability to co-design the ILC programs with input from

a range of experts. The evaluations of ILC Grants should be published and those

that work should be built on rather than having to go through further funding rounds.

Thank you for taking this supplementary submission into consideration.

                                                     4