Disability Support Service
Accountability under the NDIS
“Will this be any better than that under traditional
State based services?”
Since time immemorial, traditional State based, block funded, disability support services have been, in general, almost totally reliant on direct care staff integrity for service level and quality.
This is despite masses of regulation and legislation, with pseudo government bodies are intended to ensure the regulation and legislation is enacted for the direct benefit of those with disabilities and their stakeholders.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, these bodies are frequently more concerned with political correctness than the people they are intended to serve and support.
The success of the NDIS Nationwide will very largely depend on disability support services being enacted as intended, as regulation and legislation by the ton will not ensure the sharp end of care and support occurs as intended
The NDIA has been working on their “Quality and Safeguarding Framework” for yonks. Yet no matter how they cross the T’s and dot the I’s, the words will not ensure their implementation at the service point – only people can do and achieve this.
Yet the final implementation of a national safeguarding framework is further complexed by failed (as determined by the Productivity Commission) State systems being used prior to this, with the potential of these failed systems lobbying to be involved in the national safeguarding framework, as the staff of such State (Victoria) offices as the Office of the Disability Services Commissioner, the office of the Public Advocate, the Office of the Health Service Commissioner and the State Ombudsman want to retain their cosy-zone public service positions.
The most effective monitor of the quality of support services is both persons with disabilities and their stakeholders. Yet traditional disability support service providers, and those pseudo government services listed above, do their level best to degrade and deny the findings of people with disabilities and their stakeholders. Rather than treat them as always right until the matter is properly investigated by totally independent bodies such as the NDIS LAC.
Sustained support service quality will be the most difficult NDIS parameter to achieve and maintain in the short term. The only real respite might be through competition in the long term - with more supply than demand for services. And with these, then, marketplace disability support services regulated within consumer law by the ACCC and Consumer Affairs who have the power to act, not just conciliate.
Within the NDIS SDA (Specialist Disability Accommodation) and SIL (Supported Independent Living) services, there is a question as to which participants are most at risk from abuse, neglect and questionable service practices, The “Self Directed Approaches” lobby claim those in SDA are at most risk. However, participants living in SIL would appear to be most at risk. With SDA, there are usually more support staff to monitor each other. Whereas, most frequently with SIL there is a one on one.
There is also a question of financial and personal property abuse, especially where the person with disabilities has their finances managed by an agency, such as “State Trustees” in Victoria. Where the support provider’s staff purchase food and clothing for the person, there are few checks by such agencies on accountability of goods purchased.
In summary: The most daunting task for the NDIA is not that of producing the quality and safeguarding framework, but that of ensuring its implementation is really effective and accountable in very practical terms at the multitude of NDIS service points.
Extra 1: NDIS Support Service Plan
Extra 2: NDIS Covering Letter with NDIS Plan
Extra 3: NDIS Request for Service (Support Coordination Service) form
Extra 4: NDIS Planning Questions
Extra 5: Is this a movement of traditional care towards NDIS care principles? Dare we hold our breath?
Extra 6: A young woman is dead and another allegedly raped in distressing cases in Victoria's disability sector.
Extra 7: Review of DHHS Safeguarding Practices, Report by KPMG
Extra 8: Funds in Court is a division of the Supreme Court, with a Human Rights Advisory Committee.
Extra 9: LISA’s NDIS Chat Room
NOTE: We are seeking contact with those living in group homes, especially DHHS group homes under NDIS, and/or their families to ascertain what they feel has improved under the NDIS.
LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (LISA) INC.
Tel: 03-9434-3810: Email: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Web: www.lisainc.com.au : www.lisa-aus.blogspot.com
NOTE: We are always interested in feedback and information;
general, specific, good or bad. If you wish anonymously:
Our mail address is, 73 Nepean Street, Watsonia, 3087