NDIS and Community Visitors
We make this submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS as individual members of the Community Visitors Board established under the Victorian Disability Act
- We are elected by Community Visitors (CVs) in Victoria. One of the statutory functions of the Board is to represent CVs.
1262 Community Visitors make approximately 3062 visit visits to 1185 residential units across Victoria.
The Community Visitors role is to visit, observe, inquire and report into the care and conditions for the residents they visit. Many serious issues are brought to the Board by CVs. The Board also has referral powers and has used these by escalating matters to the Public
Advocate, Ombudsman, the Department of Health & Human Services and Disability Services
Commission for investigation and action.
We believe that the relationship of Community Visitors to the NDIS at full scheme is under consideration within the federal government from which one may conclude that there is no real role for Community Visitor Programs in Disability at full NDIS rollout.
We are of a view that such a conclusion is poorly informed, might show Community Visitors in a poor light when this shouldn’t be, and without consultation with major stakeholders e.g. Community Visitor Programs (CVPs).
We feel that at a minimum the following options at full NDIS rollout require consideration before any decision is contemplated
- retention of existing state based CVPs funded by state government
- retention of existing state based CVPs funded by federal government
- a “new” federally funded CVP that maintains but hopefully improves the current safeguards provided by state based CVPs
We also know that Community Visitors have already identified approximately 50 NDIS related issues that have negatively affected residents who are participants in the NDIS.
In addition, we are concerned that there may be a number of emerging issues that have the potential to negatively impact on residents/participants, in particular the capacity of LACs (Local Area Co-ordinators or planners) and Support co-ordinators (provide support for people with more complex requirements) in providing a safe-guarding role; the irregularity or lack of timeliness of contact from these positions with a person in the scheme, lack of support package management and delay between planning and actual provision of support. Many of the people we visit may not have a sense of entitlement and cannot advocate/argue for themselves. The evidence to date is that the LAC and Support co ordinators are, in the main, administrators, their level of experience is unknown, who may know little of the needs and range of people with disabilities, nor indeed, what constitutes
1 Community Visitors Annual Report 2014-15 pp66
1
the broad range – much of which cannot be fixed/sorted/ameliorated by a straightforward package.
Central to any safeguarding role will be the quality of the relationship between the LACs and Support Co-ordinators with the person they are working with. This leads to a number of questions about these roles such as:
What is the level of training to be reasonably expected of LACs and Support co-ordinators? Will they have specific training in Human Rights, and the prevention and improvement of sector responses to abuse, neglect and violence experienced by people with a disability? How long do people typically wait for a LAC to come on board? How many contacts does a LAC typically have with a person, and is the relationship ongoing? A LAC may help build social supports within a community for a person; however could these ever be viewed as constant factors in a person’s life? Who will monitor this? Who is responsible for referring a person to a Support co-ordinator and how is this determined? How long do people typically wait for a Support co-ordinator to come on board? How many contacts does a Support co-ordinator typically have with a person, and is the relationship ongoing? How ‘hands on’ or ‘hands off’ is this role? How will, and with whom, will LACs and Support co-ordinators raise issues such as abuse, neglect and violence experienced by the people they work with? Will the LAC and Support co-ordinator safeguard process, the collective or individual rights?
Further individual Community Visitors have provided the following feedback in respect of the NDIS rollout that we believe you should consider:
Residents with challenging behaviours are being told that the service provider at their current day placement now has a choice as to whether they continue to support them. Some are saying that they won’t and that person is then left with no day program and has to be supported in the group home during the day. As a result behaviours can escalate because a routine has been changed. One provider of day placement programs took on more staff to support extra programs but have had to withdraw the programs as funding was not available. Hydrotherapy is one very important program that has been affected. Most residents of a Disability Services house have not even had NDIS planning meetings. House staff seem to be kept out of the loop in the planning and as a result are unaware of what is in a person’s plans and who their support workers may be. It is imperative for staff to have input particularly where the resident has serious health concerns (both physical and mental) and communication difficulties. Two residents had phone interviews and were not happy. They both had vocalization issues that would make it difficult for another person to understand unless they were face to face. Most residents, especially residents with challenging and unpredictable behaviours, need the security of stable staff and familiar faces that understand warning signs of escalating behaviour and are able to redirect before there is a crisis. It is very difficult for a person who does not see them often to understand these signs. Respite is greatly affected at the moment with parents not having as many allocated days and they are saving these in case they need them in greater urgency. Apparently
2
used days have been backdated to before funding came through and parents were not aware of this. The houses are not operating at full capacity and staff may have to be reduced. The ethic and philosophy of CVs and resultant respect collectively over the years earned is not being acknowledged. CVs are committed and skilled Volunteers. Combine the idealism of community or public service with the pragmatism of using Volunteers who live within the Community in which we serve. CVs meet residents at the shops, with support workers in the case of people in Disability Services, and alone. We are all members of the same community, know the same places – CVs are embedded. CVs are the go-between for many people, residents and workers alike, who will wait to ‘chat’ perhaps over weeks, until the issue or concern is disclosed. CVs do not zap in, clip board at ready, questions clear cut, zap out and report upwards. CVs often sort the concern on the spot or enable people to sort for themselves. There is a plethora of self-advocacy from social role valorisation to parents standing with their children for as long as they are able. One of the points underpinning NDIS was to enable more people to access better services with better support and certain outcomes. All of which does need advocacy in one form or another. Our observation is that families of people with disability are most concerned about advocacy for their family member when they are no longer able to advocate for them, through infirmity or death. Having known people, processes and organisations fulfilling the Advocacy role is of comfort for them. People at meetings seem more comforted and confident that CVs are Volunteers and so it is not just a job. The people Volunteer CVs work with are often the most vulnerable in our communities. Although each state who have CVs define them differently having committed CVs on the ground, who follow the rules and then when all else fails, manage, are the best safeguard we have. NDIS staff may typically view their role in the narrowest possible context (it is an insurance model) and the holistic/wellbeing aspects of participants’ would/probably/may easily slip under their radar unless CVs continually present matters which effectively force the perspectives, and consequent understanding of individual needs, to be widened. There is a dilemma in resisting the inclination for NDIS staff to operate without appropriate checks and balances, especially in regard to any participant who is unable to effectively assert and negotiate for themselves. The distinct lack continuity of NDIS staff in any role mitigates against much deeper perceptions of participants needs. There is an advocacy role for CVs for ongoing support in the care planning process as NDIA care plans are developed/ reviewed. What will replace CVPs? The NDIS may be a great vehicle for those able to advocate and make choices freely for themselves but the most vulnerable disenfranchised people living with a disability, with no family or competent person to advocate on their behalf will not necessarily be able to be “guided” through the options by the LACs. These people will often have a poor understanding of both the system and how best to enable people to make the best choices. An inadequate lack of support for participants with a cognitive impairment in transition and possibly at full rollout that will prevent them from gaining full benefit/entitlements from the NDIS.
David Roche & Kaye Manners
3