Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012
From:
To: Community Affairs, Committee (SEN); Subject: Submission to the Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 Date: Friday, 21 December 2012 10:41:22 PM
Please consider this email a formal submission by me to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012.
The current disability system has many problems that need to be addressed.
As a service provider the inequities in the existing system is inequitable and biased towards those able to know the system or knowing how to work the system often are treated fair better than those who are most in need.
The current system has prescribed criteria such as when you were born that affects whether you can obtain a recurrent package of support. The system is fraught with inequities - some receiving substantial packages for a reasonably lower level of support needed to extremely high support needs not being funded recurrently, but rather support is provided by service providers with access to block funding and it is then incumbent upon the provider to assess the level of access needed and make decision that imp[act on the lifestyle of both the user and their family and carers.
If you fall into the category of undiagnosed, it is even harder to receive the level of care needed to ensure a full and rewarding life.
There is no capacity in the current system to promote lifestyle development as $value becomes a imperative for both the recipient and the provider. Providers are funded on a “contribution basis” that does not go near the cost of delivering services and puts greater pressure on NFP and NGO’s to expend valuable resources on fundraising that could be better spent on direct support to tose most in need.
Providers can work hard on ensuring PCP and SRV within individual plans and services, particualrly with a goal of independence and developing natural supports, however funding is often restricted to a shared support sytem that does not accommodate the users rights to choice, equity, dignity of risk or human rights to allow all to have input into their future and life-direction.
Basically the current funding system does not align with the service standards set by the funding bodies for service providers compliance. The funding bodies could not be assessed as complying to their own standards of access and equity, not to mention transparency
The current funding systems puts great pressure on families to fight for support/funding that imposes greater pressures on families who are already stretched beyond their capacity. It shouldn’t be a battle! It should be a supported process that removes stress from a volatile and emotive situation allowing the decision makers to make decisions that are based on sound principles of respecting human rights and sustainability of life-long responsive and effective support.
From a service provider’s perspective, the current system encourages an environment of competition between providers, rather than a focus on the need of the individual. Providers that are forced, through funding agreements, to offer “group” support are not able to deliver fully developed individual lifestyle support
programs, as the focus is off the individual and on the group.
Admittedly there are social benefits to some group activities, but when funding dictates the services that can be offered, rather than the services that should be offered, which are responsive and adaptable to individual needs rather than diagnosis, the individual’s needs are sabotaged, hampered and ignored in the name of viability.
Also currently there is no safety net. A student leaving a special school or SEU is not aided or tracked into mainstream society. Carers can be restricted to work due to the need for providing unpaid care to their adult children.
The level of support offered, not available to all, is based on the Government’s policies and the economic of the time, rather than looking at a whole of life plan.
As service provision is fractured, some costs are duplicated by multiple providers, eg planning.
There is not a holistic approach to the support of the individual, rather support is limited to what capacity is available by a provider, this limits choice of the individual.
Money is wasted. Each provider draws up an individual plan. If the individual has one provider for accommodation, one for community access and one for lifestyle development there are three plans, three separate resources trying to meet and be measured against the standards, three separate resources attempting to provide meaningful engagement, natural support networks and are limited by minimal allocation available for case management. Appointment of a lifestyle development officer that then busy services from others should deliver efficiences of service provision.
The main features of the NDIS that will make a difference to the community are:
- People with a disability can choose the types of support to use,
- More rights for people with a disability,
- People with a disability can plan their lives and pursue their goals and dreams
The most important services for the NDIS to provide are:
- Life-skills,
- Recreation and community access,
- Support for families and carers
I support the introduction of the NDIS.
to current system has inefficiency through have two sets of quality standards, reporting and intake processes.
Many of those needing support are lost in the system once they leave school. Similiarly aged carers are often hidden within interpetation as against need. Guiltless acceptance of aid is outwieghed by the process to receive aid. Carers feel they have to portray an environment of absolute crisi to recieve support, rather than a healthier pro-active strategy of support before crisis.
The NDIS, could offer a whole-of-life support network that engages from the
- point of diagnosis.
Current system of State and Federal funding does not allow for efficiencies in service delivery to be achieved. Rather it is a system of State funding bodies attempting to access (referrals) Federal funding to plug up an underfunded and inadequate system.
The individual is lost amongst the funding arguments. The individual’s needs may not equate to a costly support plan, but be designed to maximise continuity fo service, clarity of funding streams that they are able to access and pathways to life-long support that recognises the individual’s preferences rather than the assumption that all will fit within a scheme of say, group homes, group activities, day services that are battling to keep afloat and funding overwhelming individual preferences.
Conversely if an individual wants to participate in group homes, group activities, day services that offer services that may be group orientated, then can, it’s their choice!!!! They control their funding
In essence every Australian does count.
I agree for my submission to be made public
Regards,
Miss Heather Carney