The original intention of the NDIS principle was to provide a format for rights/entitlement based services for all people with disabilities and their families.
Much of the culture of service provision being, “You are lucky to have us looking after your family member, we are doing you a big favour! You should be very appreciative and never complain!” came out of institutions and moved into group homes in the community – especially government direct service group homes.
With service provision being captive market, bulk funded, government direct service, especially, has little reason for customers (consumers) or customer service. So the original intention of the NDIS principle was, (a) to reduce the service waiting lists with entitlement-based services and, (b) move those with services from the charity/hand-out model, to an entitlement model.
The Productivity Commission opted for consumers to drive the market place towards service quality and entitlement with consumer (ISP) funding, rather than the service provider being funded.
There is movement towards a trial of ISPs for those on the service waiting list. Whereas those in existing bulk-funded services, have been placed in the NDIS too hard basket.
Much of the media reported abuse, neglect, intimidation and minder-care, is as a direct result of service providers, especially government direct, having little reason for customers (consumers) or customer service, as they have safe employment no matter what they do, or don’t do. This is reinforced in government direct services by the traditional public service culture of safe employment – requiring just appearance at the workplace.
The simple answer is to re-format the bulk funded service packages to ISP. As most bulk-funding is from state governments, this would need to be transferred to the federal government to be reallocated as ISPs.
With the residents of group homes having control through their ISP and residential tenancy rights, they could ‘hire and fire’ service providers, or move to other services, and service providers would need to see the residents and their families as valued.