Now the newly minted DSS unit (Disability Support Services) within the Ministry of Social Development is embarking on a review of the assessment process for disabled people to access care and support and the rules for Flexible Funding.
Perhaps a lesson has been learned because this time there is widespread consultation.
The consultation model they are using is however quite carefully constructed to invite consideration on certain proposals, rather than promoting a blank canvas approach.
The discussion document pointedly outlines the types of changes the DSS are looking at making.
Admittedly there are opportunities for open-ended input for those who wish to put forward alternative ideas. It is, however, quite focused on the proposed options.
These options do, on the surface, appear to be quite measured; however, we need to really consider how these options might be implemented.
One of these proposals, for example, is a new focus on “outcomes” of/for disabled people receiving support. It is proposed that these outcomes are embedded in Individual Plans that are developed through the Needs Assessment Service Coordination (NASC) process.
One of the questions in the discussion document asks: “Do you have any suggestions on how flexible funding can be used to allow disabled people and carers as much choice, control and flexibility as possible, while still providing transparency and assurance the funding is being used effectively, and is supporting outcomes?”
The implication of this is that disabled people or their support workers may have to achieve their outcomes in the future in order for their supports to continue in the same fashion.
It suggests that there should be a component of progression and improvement in the plan about how funding is to be used. If that is the case, it is worrying.
It harks back to medical models of disability in which the ultimate goal is to fix the disabled person’s impairment.
This contrasts with the social model of disability which seeks to make a disabled person’s environment less disabling through providing appropriate supports.
The “outcome” focused approach may have parallels to an ACC plan where people are asked to set goals to monitor their rehabilitation from an injury.
While all disabilities are unique and a person’s impairment may can fluctuate in its impact from time to time, disability is generally a constant companion of our lives. An accident from which rehabilitation is possible, should not be treated the same way as a permanent disability.
Another proposal the DSS is seeking feedback on is the notion that Individualised Funding through Flexible Funding will only be available to use to purchase services or supports from contracted service providers.
The whole point of Individual Funding and Flexible Funding was to put the disabled person and their whānau in control of who would be providing their supports and how they wanted the support to be. It’s kinda there in the name!
This proposal states that there would still be an advantage to using Flexible Funding in this way but I’m struggling to think what those advantages would be. In some parts of Tai Tokerau there are no service providers at all.
While this consultation round is somewhat prescriptive there is still the opportunity for open-ended feedback.
I encourage the disabled community to actively engage with this feedback and to think about how their supports can be delivered that supports their specific needs and lifestyle.
Information on this consultation round can be found on the DSS website which is www.disabilitysupport.govt.nz
After all, we don’t want a Henry Ford type result – when marketing his famous production line automobiles he famously told the public – “You can have any colour you like – as long as it’s black!”
Note: An in-person consultation workshop will be held on February 25 at Forum North, Whangārei, from 9.30am to 12pm.
