Paula Tesoriero, Disability Rights Commissioner Interview

The following is a full transcription of an interview with New Zealand’s Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero.

Michael Pulman: How are you feeling coming into 2020?

Paula Tesoriero: Well, I think we’ve got a huge number of challenges for the disability sector and in an election year, as always, it’s an opportune time to be talking about those in the public sphere. While we’ve got a number of challenges, I also think it’s a huge year for opportunity and so I’m feeling energized.

Mike Pulman: In 2019, there were some negative headlines, but it was a positive year in some ways with free public transport in some parts of the country and then Robert Martin. What was your reaction to that news?

Paula Tesoriero: Oh, I was just delighted to wake up to the news. I think that it’s been a real boost for the disability community. I think it’s also thoroughly well deserved. I think it really highlights for other disabled people, for the New Zealand public at large and internationally, actually, about what people with learning disabilities contribute to the world. It’s a really significant deal for obviously, Robert, but also for our community.

Mike Pulman: Yeah definitely, and I guess moving into perhaps a national discussion about disability, something like this is good to help inspire that?

Paula Tesoriero: Yes, I agree completely.

Mike Pulman: Moving into this year, an election, hopefully, there will be a lot of focus on this sector because it desperately needs some help. What are some of the areas you want to focus on this year?

Paula Tesoriero: I think that there is, as you know, and the people listening to this know, the list of things that we need to deal with as a country around disability are really significant so it’s always hard to narrow it down to a core group of things, but that’s the only way we make progress, I think. So the key things that I’ll be focusing on this year and in no particular order are the education reforms, as we know our education system is not inclusive and it continues to be a key area that disabled people and their families talk to me about so I’m going to continue the work that I was heavily involved in last year and continuing to make numerous submissions and hopefully influence the government to really use these reforms to deliver an inclusive education system. So that’s one area, the second area is that there’s a range of things that sort of set what I call loosely in a health bucket that I think this year we critically need to make progress on.  One area is far better supports for people with neuro disabilities. Last year, I did a lot of work with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder community and really started to learn much more about the significant challenges faced by people who face day in their families and how that group who are not eligible for disability support services by virtue alone and having it face day fall through the cracks at so many stages. So, we’re doing some work together and with the Ministry of Health to try and address that, also with the Minister for Disability, she’s also in that package as is the system’s transformation work. There’s also the funded family care and changes that I hope we’ll see this year that vote on last year. Then there’s the level of funding for supports disabled people. So there’s not the total sum of issues in there and the health backup. We’ll be finalizing an independent monitoring mechanism. Our report to parliament in the lean on New Zealand’s examination in relation to the CRPD date. And you know, we’ve done a lot of work in the second part of last year, numerous hui around the country with disabled people and so I’m really looking forward to finalizing that in the first part of this year.

Mike Pulman: What was the general sense around the country in terms of what we are doing in that CRPD space?

Paula Tesoriero: The overwhelming take on the report is that yes, of course, there’s been some improvement in some areas and the government have announced some reforms across particular portfolios that impact the disability community. But by and large, there’s still quite some way to go across almost every article. It was pretty humbling to hear people’s experiences and get a sense of how frustrated they are while also acknowledging that there are some good things happening. Violence and abuse also, this wasn’t a topic that I made a priority when I came into the role but it’s become a priority for a number of reasons. One, I’m not satisfied that, with the current reforms underway, there is enough of a focus on disabled people. Secondly, I commissioned some work last year to pull together the information that we know domestically and internationally about violence and abuse towards disabled people. One of the key issues that disabled women raised was violence and abuse. So I then commissioned some further work right at the end of the year, which I’ve now received, making some recommendations about what I can do in my role to impact this. And then look, finally, it’s going to be a year with not only the election but the referendum on the end of life choice. We know this is something that I have talked a lot about. And, you know, I sort of welcome discussion on this. I’ve been very clear. I hope that my views about the safeguards and particular issues relate to this bill. So, you know, I think often the debate becomes whether or not we should give an assisted dying regime. And that’s not really the issue here. The issue here is this particular bill. And finally, and this is the real finally, there are a number of reviews that we made submissions on last year. So, for example, the mental health review, the Health and Disability System Review, Child poverty, etc and I will continue to be monitoring those and also having ongoing.

Mike Pulman: Sounds like a busy year ahead and I’ve got a number of questions about this. This work in violence, is it just in terms of relationships?

Paula Tesoriero: No. I think that one of the really important impacts for disabled people is that it’s not just about angles of domestic violence. It can be admitted into settings, community-based care settings, violence and abuse more broadly.

Mike Pulman: I guess part of a national discussion about disability, and the real benefit of that, is hearing from sections of the community that we haven’t even seen or considered?

Paula Tesoriero: I absolutely agree. I think that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder community is one such community. It’s a hugely dedicated group of people who advocated for years toward changes. We have a real opportunity through early intervention, through getting in and providing support for young people and the families to hopefully change their trajectory. I think that this is an area which, again, New Zealand doesn’t talk about the alcohol spectrum disorder in the way that we should. To date, there has been some focus on prevention. But actually, what we critically need in New Zealand now is a focus on support that people will get. That’s what I’m trying to support the community to do, to really focus the government’s mind on support for these people. But you’re right, we have a big opportunity to talk with different groups in our community and make sure that we all have a really good understanding of disability right across our sector.

Mike Pulman: I want to ask you about the End of Life Choice Bill. What would the percentage be between people you’ve heard from who are against this bill versus those who might support it?

Paula Tesoriero: I can’t really gauge that in terms of the general population. But in terms of disabled people, the people who have communicated with me by far overwhelmingly are against it. Very, very few people who have identified themselves as being disabled have contacted me saying they disagree with my point. I think what I continue to encourage people to do is really get to grips with the contents of this bill because my worry is that we will have a discussion this year about whether or not we have an assisted dying regime. Actually, that’s not the question here. I think it’s really important for the disability community to understand the specifics of this bill because if we are going to have some kind of regime in the future then we need to have one that is really robust and really safe. One where we have a way of guaranteeing that there won’t be wrongful deaths.

Mike Pulman: How did you feel going out an advocating so passionately against this? What was the experience like for you?

Paula Tesoriero: I think, you know, this role is a role where, you know, I do feel a weight of responsibility and that there may be times that shows. It’s a privilege to be in this role and so I take every opportunity I can to influence better outcomes, but this particular debate was hard. This seems to be an issue where people are not afraid to make quite personal attacks. My view on when you resort to making personal attacks is that it’s a way of not really engaging in the issues, so I had to just put up with the fact that there were some personal attacks coming my way and at times, as you know, on social media there can be some fairly brutal ones. I really see that those sorts of attacks are just people’s inability to actually debate the issues.

Mike Pulman: Ok, but what’s the plan if the bill does pass? What then?

Paula Tesoriero: I’m still working through exactly what I’ll do. I certainly intend to be part of the conversation. I will continue to say much of what I’ve said before around my concerns, around safeguards and the way in which this bill operates. I’m really focused on trying to enable disabled people to live good lives. All the challenges we’ve got this year, the end of life choice is a really significant issue for New Zealand. But ultimately, it will be one issue, one part of a series of things I work on. I’m looking forward to the public debate. I just really hope that all New Zealanders, and in particular our community, can focus on the substantive issues and not let this become a personal attack on people, because it’s not a way through this.

Mike Pulman: What was your reaction to the NZDSN report in late 2019?

Paula Tesoriero: I’m sure like many in the disability community, I’m really concerned. I think we have a really, really serious issue in New Zealand where a whole lot of things come in a way for disabled people that doesn’t enable us to leave these lives. If you look at the poverty stats, you look at the employment stats, you look at the educational outcomes, the housing situation, and then the issues around funding for sports, we’ve got a real issue in New Zealand where we need to support disabled people better. I think that that report really highlighted some quite significant issues. So like you, I was pretty concerned, I’ve read the report a couple of times now, and it’s something that, you know, we need to continue collectively working on.

Mike Pulman: Were you at all concerned that the voice of disabled people was missing in that report? Was there much consultation from disabled people because there were suggestions that it was very much presented in the interests of providers.

Paula Tesoriero: I don’t know in terms of specific consultation. I know that in my discussions with NZDSN have always been driven around outcomes for disabled people. But there’ll always be that tension and service providers can’t and don’t speak for disabled people.

Mike Pulman: Last time we talked, you said that we need to have a discussion and cost out what it’s going to take in order to develop a system that delivers. Do you feel we are any closer to that?

Paula Tesoriero: I think that we’ve got some way to go in having the EGL principles truly embedded across government. I continue to listen to disabled people’s experiences and I welcome people sharing those experiences with me. I think that what I saw, particularly last year was the coming together of a number of really significant disability-related issues in New Zealand. I think we’re at a point in time where there’s a far greater awareness across government of the issues. I’m not convinced there are solutions by any stretch. These are the issues facing disabled New Zealanders. Here is the evidence. Here’s what we understand. So actually, there’s an onus on the government to ensure that they are adequately addressed.

Mike Pulman:  Yep. I totally agree. All right, well we’ll leave it there Paula. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it. We’ll talk soon, I’m sure.

Paula Tesoriero: Thanks, Michael. See ya.

Ministry of Health Offers Little Assurance To Disabled Community

The Ministry of Health may have fronted, but the detail on what’s next for Disability Support Services was light and uncommitted during the latest round of conversation.

During a live stream hosted last Thursday, the Ministry of Health shared its learnings and attempted to get close to something of a vision for the future after it held public events around New Zealand that engaged with the disability community. Continue reading Ministry of Health Offers Little Assurance To Disabled Community

It’s Time To Question Our Disability Leaders (Not Just Government And Providers)

The wider disability community has every right to question the effectiveness of its leaders and the advice they give to officials as a $100m and counting overspend on Disability Support Services continues.

Don’t just blame the government or say that disability support providers are simply trying to protect their own interests. This problem is far greater than that, and crying about it won’t help. Accountability needs to occur and hard questions should rightly be asked.

This should serve as a strong reminder to sector leaders that they simply didn’t get the actual resources required to deliver on the promises that they, and the Government, were making to the community. 

The disability sector now needs to find a way to get harder and demand that such an oversight never happens again.

The fallout from the report over the weekend has been intense as disabled people and sector leaders react to what’s become a major issue with serious ramifications for the Disability Support Services landscape moving forward.

If cuts to services were to be made on the scale that was being planned, it would make a mockery of what has been a substantial amount of work done over the course of many years to ‘Enable Better Lives for disabled people and families.

Plans by Government officials made for chilling reading that would make even the most positive of disability advocates cringe.

Cutting, wherever and whenever possible, the in-home personal care and community participation supports, on a mass scale was just one of the desired directions that officials were going to take in order to decrease spending by $10million this year and a further $20million in the years after.

The time for the disability community to ask some hard questions of its own leaders is now, and I’ll tell you why.

An Oversight On The Actual Realities Of Disability Support

This has been a substantial oversight on the part of those leaders, the officials in Wellington, and many of those involved in table discussions that have chewed up so much time and investment that many people rightly felt only scratched the surface of what was actually happening in the disability sector.

The resulting actions played a key part in a near $100million overspend on services.

Those actions didn’t have enough accountability for the appropriate parties, they lacked the evidence to suggest a long-term solution other than stating demand-driven support models are the ‘right thing to do’, and all decisions were primarily made on a faith-based approach when in reality there was no reason for decision-makers to have any trust that officials wouldn’t attempt to cut back on supports.

It’s all very well and good to point the finger of blame factors like provider HR costs, the pay equity deal, rising residential service costs, increasing high and complex needs, or more people accessing services. All of these factors are real and have valid concerns, but they aren’t new problems.

This is why I label it an oversight and the reason why many should now be questioning the advice that has been given to Ministries.

These factors didn’t appear to be addressed in the funding models that were accepted by those responsible for ensuring that disability support is delivered in a way that lives up to the principles driving system change.  

Principles and flashy policy documents are just words on a page if the product or service doesn’t deliver in the way promised.

If the disability sector was as united as some say it is, then why was Enabling Good Lives/Mana Whaikaha left out of discussions surrounding the radical plans to cut $10million in support for the next year alone?

Surely people being affected by changes to NASC were going to be asking ‘what next’ and looking at how they could utilise what was only ever referred to as a ‘PILOT’ by top-ranking officials.

That ‘PILOT’, as well as the Waikato EGL demonstration, were both in holding periods until further decisions were made about rolling out a new system nationally.

That rollout was never certain and yet all the discussion suggested that a model such as this was going to be the way of the future, again, acting in good faith that the appropriate levels of funding would be provided once the level of evidence supporting such a system was provided.

Funding requirements in sustaining the new disability support options (EGL/Mana Whaikaha) for disabled people as well as keeping the status quo are not, and were not being met. This is no longer a point of opinion but unquestionable fact.

It’s also a fact that advocates and some organisations were raising from the very outset. Those leaders, our leaders, heard those concerns and many advocated fairly, yet we still find ourselves facing substantial cuts and organisations are labelling the current situation as a ‘crisis’.

Or is all this being hyped up so certain entities can protect their own interests? You be the judge of that.

Addressing Bad Attitudes In The Disability Workforce (From A Client’s Perspective)

With pay rates set to rise again for some in the disability workforce, attitudes toward the best ways of working need to rise as well. 

This isn’t going to be a blog that has all the answers, nor is it going to have excuses for what’s not working currently. Some of this will apply to support workers, other parts will be easy to talk about in theory. But if nothing else, this blog aims to talk about attitude and where it sits in a disability sector/community that is changing rapidly.

As a client receiving disability support services, some of these thoughts represent over 27-years worth of experience.

The outlook on whether or not attitude is improving through the workforce will vary depending on who you talk to and what their respective interests are. If you talk to many disabled people you’ll find that despite the pay equity settlement, something support workers deserve to a large extent, the quality of the workforce and services on offer aren’t exactly rising at the same rate.

If you talk to some support workers they will feel like their concerns aren’t being heard and that the needs of the clients they serve are given more attention. If you are a paid professional, a very big part of me would say that this is exactly as it should be. You chose to work in this sector, the people needing support didn’t choose to live in it. Some will attempt to place blame back on their own providers, or even more interestingly, some will say that the workforce is becoming too unfair because disabled people and families now hold more of the cards than ever before.

What I’ve noticed is that it’s often the smaller organizations that seem to grasp how to implement the principles behind choice and control in their service delivery and staff conversation. Despite that, these smaller organizations are often even more compromised than their larger, national-based organizations are from a financial and expertise perspective.

Those last two words being key… expertise and perspective. Not financial.

Addressing Bad Attitudes In The Disability Workforce (From A Client’s Perspective)

The success or failure of what new systems are trying to accomplish sit on the workforce to a large degree. Everyone needs to work together to make it better, but the onus needs to be on those getting paid an ever-increasing pay packet to sharpen up on what their actual role is.

I’ve long been a believer that a certain level of a certificate (and subsequent pay standard) that a support worker sits on doesn’t automatically confirm whether they are indeed a good worker or not. Being a good support worker and the requirements of achieving such are both subjective topics, but many would tell you that the best signals of it can be found in attitude.

The discussion of attitude goes far beyond just support workers, it’s sector-wide. The very fundamentals of what system transformation is built on is a shift in attitude. That takes a willingness to learn, to change, and to work together. These aren’t just three big buzz words that look good in policy or service design, they are requirements that if not met will mean that new systems such as Enabling Good Lives will ultimately fail.

The devil is in the detail (and old phrase I know) and many of the shifts in attitude we are talking about take place in the nitty-gritty, day-to-day, moment-to-moment interactions between the system and disabled people/families.

The financials mean little to disabled people and families, apart from them receiving funding packages that met their needs.

It is my view that disabled people and families should be aware of what their packages are, how much money is available, and absolutely, all the ways it can be spent whether directly or through a host.

The day-to-day stuff is what matters to disabled people and families, including the nature in which the support is carried out in those moments. It shouldn’t be their concern, worry, or even responsibility to be direct managers of that. If disabled people and families are capable and willing to take on this direct employer, manager, self-funder role then go ahead and do it but at the same time realize how vulnerable a position you could be putting yourself in.

For as much as the disability sector has talked about supporting disabled people through the process of being their own self-managers, it’s also done very little to address what happens when that goes wrong. I know that from first-hand experiences, bad first-hand experiences.

There needs to be some serious attention placed on attitude improvement through action. Leaving people in vulnerable managerial positions is an attitude of neglect. For support workers who have to work together to serve the needs of clients, not being a team player and having a ‘bare minimum’ attitude will lead to you having more and more performance review meetings, and ultimately your employment could be at stake, whether you resign or are terminated.

Think of it from a business perspective. If partners of the business weren’t pulling their weight or delivering on targets set, that partnership wouldn’t last long. The exact same principle should be applied in the disability sector because it is a business for many involved and the very best outcomes should be expected.

If these outcomes are not met, questions need to be asked as to why. A better attitude in the workforce is required, and less responsibility being put on disabled people to help deliver that.

The Realities Of Managing My Own Disability Support

After nearly two years of being the employer and client of my support staff, the lessons I’ve learned along the way were ones that I was completely unprepared for, and other disabled people may be too. 

Support for disabled people to learn about how to be good employers is going be a critical aspect of the new system which prototypes in the MidCentral beginning this October. Some aspects of that new system have already been practiced in the Waikato under the Enabling Good Lives demonstration, and I can say that for myself personally, I would have benefited greatly from some hands-on training prior to becoming an employer of my support staff.

Not that people actually have to take on this role if they don’t want to, they will have a choice about that, and I suspect that many will leave the direct managerial responsibilities to a third party. In a lot of cases, that may be a wise decision because being the direct employer does come with a lot of time requirements, and disabled people who choose to go into the new system actually want to spend more time focusing on other things.

There will be options to have a provider manage all the day-to-day HR requirements, including payroll and the hiring/firing aspect. You can also choose to have something of a hybrid of both, where you or your family can manage the money side of things and just pay a monthly invoice to the provider.

Like others in the Waikato during the EGL demonstration, I was in the unique position to have experienced the realities of self-managing using both of these approaches.

When I first transitioned to living independently, I hosted my funding in a bank account but chose to have a provider manage payroll, rosters, and the hiring of new staff. Six months after doing things that way, I transitioned away from a provider and took on the direct employment of staff, which included drawing up contracts, negotiating pay rates, organising rosters, and doing payroll every fortnight. 

Each has its own pros and cons, and it will come down to the personal preference of disabled people and families based on what is important to them. Many don’t want the hassle of taking on the responsibilities of being an employer, they just want to be in control of where and when the supports are delivered.

But at what cost? 

When I was using a provider, I found that it wasn’t always as simple as saying I wanted X, Y, and Z on this particular week. When you couple that with the costs that providers will charge for their own overheads, often it can end up being slightly more expensive per fortnight than it would if people took care of all the management themselves. 

The difference wasn’t major but it was enough for me to justify making the leap to being an employer.

But the struggle with that is learning about the responsibilities that being an employer presents, including the negotiation aspect and the complexities of employment law. In my case, I didn’t feel adequately supported to make that transition but it was one I needed to make nonetheless due to the need to remove the impacts on the budget that the overheads of the providers were having.

Part of the issue, as always, is ensuring that disabled people and families are informed about what services are out there. For example, in the Waikato there is a company called FuturesNZ that can help with employment networking and solutions. I heard about them through my Connector/Tuhono, and there are also plenty of resources online that can help with building employment contracts.

Disabled people who choose to be employers must be equipped with everything they need to know before making the transition into what is a position that comes with some serious legal ramifications if it goes wrong. Because when it does go wrong, and I know this from personal experience, the legal costs will come out of your support budget, therefore having the potential to impact directly affecting your ability to pay your support workers.

This is where things like capability funding for groups of disabled people and families become important, and it’s great that this will be available in the MidCentral during the prototype. It would be great to see a series of workshops that provide that hands-on employer training and advice for disabled people and families who choose to take the leading role in the day-to-day support.

The Realities Of Managing My Own Disability Support

Apart from the gigantic learning curve, my experience being directly responsible for the employment and management of my support staff has been a rewarding experience.

The important thing to remember is that the people who support you are just that, people, and they’ll all bring different skill sets to the table. They’ll have days where they exceed your expectations and days where they may not meet them, and how you manage all the different factors of the employment situation is ultra important because all these factors contribute towards what can be an incredibly vibrant or terribly toxic working relationship. Another big lesson I’ve learned is about the importance of being a good communicator and having the ability to have those tough conversations when required. 

 

Disability’s Brave New World Needs Strong Attitude To Be Successful

The disabled voice matters, and doesn’t everyone in the disability sector know it. 

Care needs to be taken to ensure that disabled people truly experience the value of what the current movement of greater choice and control represents. Yes, it is about a more flexible funding model that enables tailor based supports based on the individual. Yes, it’s also about allowing the disabled voice to reach a larger, more mainstream audience, that ever before.

But what it is also about is attitude.  More thought needs to be put on deciding what attitude that disability sector actually wants to have moving forward.

Attitude! Attitude! Attitude!

Politically correct, or sensitive language and updated policy matters little in comparison to attitude.

A better and stronger disability community in New Zealand cannot be achieved without a significant change in attitude, both from Government and the NGO’s that are funded. Policy will always remain, NGO’s too, but it’s the attitude and desired outcome behind them that really matters.

As has been said time and time again, don’t do things for disabled people, do things with disabled people. Each person is an individual, and that means that their ideals of the best support structure will vary.  

2017 has been a whirlwind year for the disability sector, a year of complete uncertainty and a ton of promises from the Government that claims it hears and respects the rights of people with disabilities.

In just three months, a co-design group came up with the roadmap for what the Government promises will be a complete systems transformation. But prior to that, new approaches like Enabling Good Lives used the Individualised Funding (IF) model to begin the journey towards what looked like a brave new world for disabled people and their families.

And, ironically, the term was named as such.

What Does “The Brave New World” Really Mean?

The term “brave new world’ has been thrown around a lot over the past couple of years. But what it really means is a new style, or way, of supporting people with disabilities.

The funding models of the past haven’t provided any choice around how and when people get the supports they need, and until now, funding models could best be described as “one for all”. There was limited choice, and despite the closure of institutions two decades ago, many disabled people still lived in residential services with little opportunities for genuine access to their community.

Time and time again the disability sector has had issues with inadequate funding, and it has struck right across the board. The majority of people barely got enough support to enable them to live any sort of good life, whether in residential living or in their own homes.

Education and employment opportunities have been, and still are, the other two hot issues that challenge the sector.

Get The Disability Sector Out Of Its Own Silo

The disability sector has been guilty of being more reactive than proactive in the past. Whilst that is slowly changing, it’s also been met with some reluctance. But another key issue has been how silo’d the sector has become, and that is one aspect that hasn’t improved since the likes of Enabling Good Lives Access Alliance have come along.

It is crucial that that the sector is careful about how it views itself, and this is where it ties back to attitude. For too long now, all things disability has been kept largely too itself and operated within its own, well setup community. That needs to change.

Cabinet Paper for new Disability Support System released

The Cabinet Paper detailing high-level design for a new Disability Support System has been released by Nicky Wagner – and it makes for an interesting but not too surprising read.

Wagner, the Minister for Disability Issues, announced that changes to the DSS system were incoming earlier this year. Today, the first details of the cabinet paper have been released, and a new funding model aims to reduce assessment hurdles for disabled people.

“Disabled people will experience a real and meaningful difference with the new system. There will be a lot less red tape, more choice about the support on offer, and a range of easy ways to find information.”

The new system is set to include an information hub that provides people with various ways to make contact and be contacted. That hub will also be digital and can be accessed on smartphones and tablets. For those not wanting face-to-face contact; communication can occur via phone or email as a preference.

The new funding model will reduce assessment, therefore taking less time to implement, and is promised to give greater flexibility to users.

Personal information is managed by disabled people and their families – and the monitoring of progress will reduce compliance and works under the amount of funding each person receives.

The first roll out of the new system won’t occur until July 2018 in the MidCentral region – but that is dependant on how much progress is made during the detailed design process.

More to come.

DSS System Transformation Co-Design Group aims to keep it simple

After a difficult first few weeks – the co-design group charged with transforming New Zealand’s Disability Support Services is beginning to gather some real momentum.

Two more workshops were held in Wellington, and the latest from the group is positive as synergy and shared visions align.

Past lessons based on research and insights led the group to determine that simplicity and shared visions were key to the design process. With a paper due for cabinet reading by mid June, the group scheduled two days of workshops back-to-back beginning next week where work will continue.

Information delivery and accountability is a key design challenge for the overhaul – but it doesn’t end there.

Another big challenge for the overhaul is how to ensure that people and families have a simpler process. That process includes everything from the initial contact with support providers, to the needs assessments, and crucially, the implementation of support.

Putting the person firmly in the driving seat of this process is one thing, but finding a way of doing it that both works for them, and the new system, is a diverse challenge. Some people may enjoy making all the decisions, whilst others may need assistance, especially with the variety of support styles and organisations currently in the sector.

Some people don’t know what services like Enabling Good Lives, Individualised Funding, and Community Residential Support actually are.

The group acknowledges that whatever happens, support services must fit with the person and their families. Every situation is different – so it’s great that the group agree on that.

One of the arguments that co-design group may also need to take on is service provision – and where that fits moving forward. In New Zealand; there are many different organisations going after Government contracts, all based on providing support to people with disabilities. Some of those organisations continue to struggle financially, and their future remains unknown.

Is this just a part of the challenging sector that continues to undergo change after change?

While positive and full of momentum; the co-design group still find themselves with a lot of challenges ahead. Perhaps the biggest challenge is to make sure that everything is fitted into conversation.

The next meeting is scheduled for May 16th.

“Greater National Consistency” behind CCS Disability Action restructuring

Like a lot of disability support providers, CCS Disability Action faces a difficult transition into the new style of disability supports.

There is a push for more choice and control over supports, but more importantly, people and families want more say in how that support is delivered to them.

According to numbers of the past financial year, CCS Disability Action revealed that 69% of their revenue was from Government contracts. 76% of expenditure was spent on staff training – including coordinator training.

The difficulty area was the cost of programmes – a total of 55% of expenditure by National office.

The organisation, under the leadership of David Matthews, decided to head in a different direction in 2016. Deemed “the journey towards a brave new world”, the change wasn’t met without some push back from staff around the country. Fears were that existing workloads would only increase, and that some jobs would be lost along the way.

Matthews argued that a greater consistency for the organisation was key, while promising to look for ways to ensure the costs for delivering services were managed.

The change was immediate and resulted in branch managers being shifted to become regional managers. Northern, Midland, Central, and Southern now had their own regional manager, someone who would look after the various CCS Disability Action branches within a region.

At the national level – new roles were established to complete the new leadership structure. A National Coordinator for Maori Development, plus the following roles:

National Contracts Manager

Service Leadership & Quality Manager

National Operations Manager

Matthews promised that national office would provide efficient support and leadership to the organisation and its various regions. In early 2017; Matthews was selected for the Government’s Disability System Transformation co-design group.

 

 

CCS Disability Action coordinators guilty of poor practice

With coordination charged at $46.00 per hour – CCS Disability Action may need to crack down on poor practice by some within the organisation.

A lack of communication among coordinators, poor management, and a lack of responsibility has led to some clients being left without their entitled support hours.

The Real Michael Pulman understands that a woman in Hamilton was previously left with less than half of her allocated support each day. The woman was entitled, by way of funding based on her needs assessment, to over 50% more of the support she was getting on a weekly basis.

Reasons for the lack of full support hours are believed to be on availability of support workers.

The situation has since been rectified, but problems with the coordination department continue to be at an all-time high.

According to CCS Disability Action’s Memorandum of Understanding with its clients, coordinators are to take responsibility for the organisations policies and protocols that ensure a quality delivery of service to their clients.

These protocols are across all teams of support within the organisation; including Youth & Adult and Vocation services.

Sources have informed The Real Michael Pulman that some coordinators have been found guilty of ‘passing the buck’ following mishaps that have resulted in people being left either without support at all, or with an agency carer as a last-minute replacement.

More to come.