Level 3
Ross House
247-251 Flinders Lane
Melbourne Victoria 3000
Telephone: 03 9654 1400 Toll Free: 1800 033 660 Fax: 03 9650 3200 10 August 2017 Email: bca@bca.org.au Website: b
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Via email to: ndis.sen@aph.gov.au
To the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
RE: inquiry into the provision of services under the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention Approach.
I am writing on behalf of Blind Citizens Australia – the peak consumer body of and for Australians who are blind or vision impaired. Our mission is to achieve equity and equality by our empowerment, by promoting positive community attitudes and by striving for high quality and accessible services which meet our needs.
BCA welcomes the opportunity to submit to the enquiry on the NDIS early childhood early intervention approach. With respect to the terms of reference for this inquiry, we would like to use this opportunity to draw the Committee’s attention to our concerns regarding early intervention services for children who are blind or vision impaired. These concerns stem from our advocacy work with families accessing the NDIS and early intervention services.
Dual diagnosis and Planning
We are aware of families who have been allocated funding for services specific to intervention for one condition or impairment, but who have not been able to obtain funding for multiple interventions in cases where children experience disability as a result of more than one diagnoses. This can be particularly problematic in cases where children experience autism or communication difficulty in addition to blindness or vision impairment.
Early intervention services for children who are blind or have significantly reduced vision rely heavily on a child’s ability to communicate effectively. Without adequate communication skills, children are unable to grasp the foundational concepts instilled by such services.
Blind Citizens Australia ABN 90 006 985 226. Gifts are Tax Deductible.
Research indicates that children who are blind or vision impaired generally have delayed motor skills and require early intervention to encourage their development. This is largely due to the fact that children who are blind or vision impaired lack visual stimulation and are unable to mimic the movements and motions of the people around them.
Many interventions aimed at enhancing the motor skills of children who are blind or vision impaired rely on physical contact, which can be a complicating factor for children who have autism in addition to blindness or vision impairment. This is because children with autism may not be able to tolerate certain sensations, can be tactile defensive, (IE afraid to touch certain textures) and may not tolerate being touched. Some children with autism may also not have a natural comprehension of communication patterns such as call and response and may have to be taught how to communicate properly. If blindness interventions are extensively delayed because of these factors, however, it is far less likely that a child will be able to reach their full potential by overcoming difficulties associated with their blindness. It is therefore critical that interventions for blindness and autism are delivered simultaneously, and are continued for as long as it takes for a child to demonstrate significant progress.
The National Disability Insurance Agency, it’s Planners and Local Area Coordinators
must recognised that every child has varying needs and potentially different dual diagnoses. One family we have worked with has a child who is blind, has autism and is also at high risk of losing their hearing in early childhood due to a genetic condition. It is therefore crucial for this child to receive as much intervention relating to factors associated with blindness and autism as possible, in the fastest possible time frame, as the loss of their hearing may significantly limit the effectiveness of interventions that are put in place further down the track.
As demonstrated by these examples, the tendency for families to have access to only one form of intervention could be extremely detrimental to a child’s development. Additional therapies such as ABA therapy, are intensive and usually far beyond the financial capacity of a family to maintain over a long period of time; yet these forms of intervention are critical to enabling a child to reach their full potential. This is increasingly important for children experiencing dual disability where one or more of their diagnoses relates to sensory impairment.
The Notion of “Double Dipping”
In line with the philosophy that seeking funding or services from multiple sources is “double dipping”, Funding has historically been allocated to children with disability from one specific funding source. The notion of “double dipping” infers a sense of greed; implying that people are taking more than they are entitled to. This is of great detriment to the development of children who are blind or vision impaired who experience dual disability who require multiple forms of intervention in order to reach their full potential.
It would appear to make more economic sense to allow children to receive multiple forms of intervention under their NDIS plans rather than denying a family funding for interventions that should be occurring simultaneously, which families cannot afford to fund themselves. The costs associated with providing support for an adult who did not benefit from the full range of interventions available early on in life could be far higher in the long-term than the original costs of the necessary forms of early intervention would have been. As an example, a child who is blind who never learns to dress themselves
independently (because the additional diagnosis of autism means that they cannot tolerate the sensation of touch or of certain textures) will be extremely limited socially in adult life, and will require personal care which may not have been required had they received timely early intervention services that were appropriate to their individual needs in childhood.
While we recognise that the NDIS is a costly scheme, every child has the right to reach his or her full potential. Insuring that every child with disability is able to exercise this right is a naturally costly endeavor in economic terms. The social and economic benefits of providing the funds at the most critical time in a child’s life, however, should be carefully taken into account. Without appropriate intervention services during childhood, the impact of disability will be far more significant later in life.
In closing, Blind Citizens Australia asserts that the NDIS must allow children to access multiple forms of intervention that are tailored to their unique needs and circumstances. Where a child experiences dual disability, the planning process, the supports provided in a plan and the amount of overall funding must holistically explore the full range of barriers a child may experience for reasons of disability and their relationship with one another.
Thank you once again for allowing me the opportunity to provide feedback to help inform the Committee’s inquiry into the provision of early childhood services under the NDIS.