NDIS Planning
Submission 101
Submission to The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Topic of Submission – NDIS Planning Process
Author Peter Rankin
Some Thoughts on the Planning Process for NDIS Plans
In my submission on Supported Independent Living (SIL) I outlined some of the difficulties we have encountered with the planning process especially in relation to obtaining SIL quote. It is unclear who triggers the need for a new SIL quote. The practice of extending plans by 3 months is disastrous for people trying to plan their lives, offer consistency to their children and employ staff who will stay the distance. I imagine it is difficult for day programs to tell staff they are employed for only three months, depending on what happens at the next plan review. Staff take other work which is offered for longer periods
Parents and Guardians of people with disabilities are no strangers to having to battle for their loved ones. It is a lifetime of struggle. The NDIS planning process should not add to the stress and anxiety they are usually already under. The process for development and review of plans is anxiety provoking and stressful for most people. Families are placed under much more stress now than they were in the past. There is considerable stress and anxiety created around the need for certainty and continuity of support.
NDIA should be offering more people extended plans, two even three years, where a therapist says it’s unlikely that support need will change. They are actually wasting millions of dollars getting people whose needs remain static, being reassessed and having planners and others to manage this. It could simply be a CPI increase with an obligation to report changes by families or services.
NDIA should also remove the current criteria where they are currently asking people at the planning meeting if they want a two-year plan, without seeing the plan. Participants need to see the plan before they can decide if they want the period extended. If it doesn’t have enough for their needs they are stuck with a review process that doesn’t work.
Assessing the worth of a requested plan review on the basis of how much money people have spent is fraught with injustice. I believe there have been rejections of review applications based on the argument they are not running out of money. I suspect there are people whose plans do not meet all needs but who budget their funds so they don’t over spend. Such people, trying to be good citizens, in effect get punished for not having overspent and the participant does not get all the services they need.