Field’s SELF- DIRECTED APPROACHES FORUM 

FRIDAY 27^TH NOVEMBER, 2009

This forum explored the change that self-directed approaches will mean for the disability sector in both the reorientation of services and self directed funding / approaches. This has created opportunities to strengthen the sector as well as created challenges in the provision of service to people with disabilities.

This forum explored both the benefits and challenges associated with self directed funding from diverse perspectives.  The five presenters gave individual views and accounts of what self-directed approaches means to them individually, organisationally, and for people with varying disabilities in general.

The presenters were:

• Arthur Rogers; Executive Director Disability Services Division, Department of Human Services
• Professor Christine Bigby; School of Social Work & Social Policy, LaTrobe University
• David Glazebrook; CEO Impact Services
• Dr. George Taleporos; Coordinator of Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS)
• Carolyn Gallagher and John Theo; AQA Victoria

Outline of Self-directed funding approaches

A detailed outline of self-directed approaches can be found on field’s website; www.field.org.au

From the forum itself though, and as the name suggests, the actual challenges, outcomes and process needs to be fairly open.  The system and process needs to recognise individual abilities and be able to adapt and to provide appropriate services and assistance / support so that all individuals with disabilities can participate in and experience the benefits of self-directed funding approaches.

 Below are some of the key questions that came out of the forum that still need discussion.

Let’s discuss these questions below:

 Benefits

• What are the practical advantages to people with a disability in taking up self-directed approaches?
•  What if any flexibility around service provision is gained by using self-directed approaches?

Research suggests that self-directed approaches and the various models are biased towards people who are able to manage their own affairs and have strong social networks.  In particular people with an intellectual disability or people with a mental illness, in particular, may be disadvantaged by the current models of self-directed funding approaches

•  What can be done to ensure people with an intellectual disability and people with a mental illness can benefit from access to self-directed funding?

 The different approaches

• What advantages / disadvantages are there in taking up the self-employment model?
•  Do the benefits from taking up self-employment model outweigh the additional administration work it will entail?
•  What advantages / disadvantages are there in using a financial intermediary?
•  How do you know what approach to choose?

 Support networks

• What happens when parents are unable to continue to keep managing the Individual Support Package for their son / daughter?

Service providers

• What can be done with service providers that are fearful of thinking self-directed approaches will lead to financial hardship for their organisation?
•  How much will the positive and encouraging attitude of service providers contribute to the success of these new approaches?

Below is a summary of all the presentations

George Taleporos; Coordinator of Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS) 

-           

George gave an interesting account of his personal journey with self directed funding approaches.  His interest in it started several years ago when he was dealing with service providers.  He became dissatisfied with their service with issues such as shifts not being filled; not enough workers; not enough trained workers. He wanted a system where he was in more control of how his supports were delivered.

He discussed this with his service provider and eventually set up his own system which allowed him to have more control over the type of workers; times of shifts and a general sense of more satisfaction in his life.   He has gone a further step and now employs his own workers. This gives him even more satisfaction with his life.  He did admit there was one drawback which was all the paperwork which he now had to do sometimes on the weekend.  However this one drawback was minor to the satisfaction and control he now had over his life.

Arthur Rogers; Executive Director Disability Services Division, Department of Human Services 

-          Philosophy behind self directed funding

Arthur gave an account of how the delivery of disability supports had changed and developed from the miid-1990s to the present time.  He discussed how the delivery had gone from block grants to the present where individuals will now receive their funding either directly or through a financial intermediary.   He also discussed how the delivery of supports in day services will also change with the funding also going to the individual which will lead to more community involvement for people with disabilities.  However, it was acknowledged that for some with disabilities day services are still more suitable.  However, individually tailored packages and supports are becoming increasingly important and now represent 41% of budget (up from 24% in 2002-03)

One question Arthur was asked was what happens when parents take on the individual support package for their sibling, who can take it on when they are unable to keep doing it. Arthur was not sure of the answer to this question and said he would get back with the answer.  He also said if people had further questions they could contact him at DHS.

Professor Christine Bigby; School of Social Work & Social Policy, LaTrobe University

-          Implementing individualized funding-Taking account of diversity

Christine gave a different perspective saying that research has shown that  self directed funding approaches may not be suitable or beneficial for all people with disabilities such as people with intellectual disabilities or people with mental illness.  Research has shown that self-directed approaches may only be beneficial for people who can articulate their needs.  The question is how can we train people to know how to control their workers and resources?

Who will assist their decision-making (Stainton 2005).  This model does not take into account the diversity of disability; the experience or the capacity of people to express their needs and roles.  It does not recognise the complexity of needs.  She gave the example of two men with intellectual disability but who appeared to have different characteristics but had different needs and both had difficulty in articulating their needs. 

This illustrates how this system may not take into the varying abilities and capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities and people with mental illness.  Differences and choices vary from person to person.  There needs to be some greater clarity re processes and expectations and expose assumptions re proxy decision makers with different funding.

The Self- directed approaches provides challenges  for decision making processes for people who assist people with intellectual disability and people with mental illness to make decisions  – what roles do parents, management, support workers  now play on a daily basis in this new system?  

David Glazebrook; CEO Impact Services

-          Successes and Challenges experienced by impact

David spoke about the challenges that self-directed approaches were and will bring to Impact as a service provider. However it is also an exciting time where we need to respond to clients’ needs quickly and responsibility which DHS expects.

With self-directed funding people can choose how they spend their funding and expect service providers to respond to their requests.  He gave examples of what some clients requested and how they were able to meet their requests.

David also spoke a new dating service for people with disabilities which will begin in February 2010

Carolyn Gallagher / John Theo – Manager AQA / service user

       Benefits and challenges experienced in Attendant Support

Carolyn spoke about their participation in the southern region of the direct payments trial with one client.  They could do this because AQA already offered self-rostering; flexible tailored support; the ability to work with all funding options under the model; clients could choose their level of participation in the management of their program and funding was already individualised.

The challenges for AQA are promoting awareness of their agency to planners; promoting awareness that AQA can still provide services to clients in this system,

One exciting area will be that they are about to use IT to increase and enhance communication with clients and staff.

John spoke about his accident which brought him to using the services of AQA. He explained how he receives direct payments from DHS and AQA sends him the invoices and he pays them directly.  He also said that although you may have

more choices and control over how you spend your funding, if you spend your funding on something other than support hours, you must remember that it might be at the expense of the amount of your support hours you have, and for him, that is not an option, because his support hours are important to him to live his life each day.

Self-directed funding

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Setting the scene

My name is Maree Ireland and I work as Project Co-ordinator with field. I have been working with field for 12 months. We are interested in trying to get the views and dialogue from, people with disabilities on different topics.  I am starting this blog on different topics for discussion and input.  I hope you will join us in these discussions.

 This topic is social inclusion.

 Government policy – social inclusion is the key principle

 Social Inclusion has become the key principle of most of our government’s policies and planning.  As examples of this we have the Victorian State Disability Plan and the Disability Act.  With these policies in place and the introduction of self directed funding and employment of disability support workers, people with disabilities are beginning to be able to do a lot more in the community.  We are able to participate more in community events and facilities such as the library, gym and shops

 But what are we meaning by social inclusion?

 Does attending community facilities lead to “social inclusion”?  In the Victorian Government’s policy, “A Fairer Victoria” “social inclusion” is defined as:

 “Social Inclusion is an approach that builds social and economic participation for all individuals, groups and communities without leaving anyone behind. In Australia there are growing concerns that despite economic growth, there are still people and communities who are excluded from social and economic participation and are, therefore, not able to make a contribution to or share in the benefits of community life.

Building social and economic participation and linking them together will improve living standards and the quality of life for all Victorians. People who are socially included are accepted, respected, and valued. They know that they have something of value to contribute to their community and the broader society. People who are economically included contribute their knowledge and skills, enhance the community’s productivity and have the financial means to choose to participate fully in social, political, civic and cultural life.”

The above definition starts from the premise social exclusion is about non-participation in social and economic life and when people are able to achieve this type of participation, they will be socially included.  For people with disabilities, there is still another layer of exclusion before the majority of us may be able to feel socially included.  This layer of exclusion involves the inaccessibility of most of the built environment, for example, most neighbour’s houses and most places of business are still inaccessible for people with disabilities.   Although there has been some progress in this area, there is still some way to go before the built environment is totally accessible.

 Social Inclusion should start within one’s own neighborhood.  But although there has been some progress made towards the elimination of “having a person with a disability living next or opposite you”; there is still reluctance to get involved beyond a friendly wave or how are you.  There are people who are still so “blind” as to forsake a friendly relationship that could develop

 Further to the above, another layer of social exclusion is the decreasing supply of suitable disability support workers for necessary daily activity shifts, let alone shifts that would enable and assist people with disabilities to participate in community activities which would enable meeting people within that community.

 Social inclusion can be different outcomes for different people

In a paper “Australians with Disabilities and Social Inclusion: Getting on the Agenda”  by Fiona Smith in 2008 there is an informative discussion on what  Australia needs to do to ensure Australian society begins to take social inclusion seriously for people with disability

 A quote from Fiona’s Presentation clearly articulates the above:

 “…………………if the social inclusion agenda were to embrace these principles: Empowerment and Participation, Universal Design and Accessibility, Accountability, Equality and Benchmarking and Evaluation, underpinned by the recognition of people with disabilities human rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can be effectively implemented in Australia”

 At a Roundtable on Social Inclusion sponsored by Leadershipplus

 Elleni Bereded-Samuel – Victoria University Engagement Coordinator discussed that the Federal Government has established a Social Inclusion Board to look at ways social inclusion can become more of a reality for people who are disadvantaged in society.  The Board has developed 4 principles which they think are barriers to social inclusion for some peoples.    These are:

1. poverty
2. disadvantage
3. gaps in / to take up opportunities
4. restrictions in life events

 It was also stated that this Social Inclusion Board has set up an “advisory board” to look into issues for people with disabilities which prevent social inclusion for them. 

 Does the fact that there are few people with disabilities on the Social Inclusion Panel say anything about a real attempt at Social Inclusion?

 In a report called “Shut Out:’ in 2009, issues preventing social inclusion are stated as exclusion and discrimination.  This came about because of lack of services and the lack of the provision of disability supports,.

 Father Joe Caddy

There is also an issue of “social inclusion” within our remand and prison system.  Approximately 40 – 50% of people in remand or in prison are people with an intellectual disability or have mental health issues.   They do not receive the assistance or support they vitally need to re-enter society.

Keran Howe  – Executive Officer, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network

Keran believes the way to social inclusion is through\ community participation  by people with disabilities at their local facilities .  For example, Keran goes swimming at a swimming pool which caters for all her accessibility needs.  That’s social Inclusion in practice.

However, as the “Shut Out” Report states people with disabilities are the most excluded from society and women with disabilities are doubly disadvantaged.  Added to this, women with disabilities experience the most violence in society.

 Her vision for a socially inclusive society is one based on the following principles:

1. Respect
2. Opportunity
3. Access
4. Accessible transport
5. Celebration of diversity within society

The fact that the Social Inclusion Board does not Have people with disabilities is poor.

So What do you think?  Are people with disabilities socially included or excluded?  Do you feel socially included or excluded?  Is it just theory or reality?

27/06/2008 by Fiona Smith, Chairperson
Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission
Social Inclusion Down Under

 THE   GREAT DEBATE, 2009

Have services improved for people with disabilities? 

WEDNESDAY 24^TH SEPTEMBER 2009

Well, the Great Debate has come and gone!  What did we learn?  Have services improved for some people with disabilities and their associates, and not for others?  Why is this so?  Is the way people go about getting services effective for some and not for others?  Does the way we go about getting services need to be re-examined and new ways and strategies thought of?

 Christian Astourian – Disability & Diversity Advocate

 The debate began with Christian Astourian giving his story about the challenges he has gone through to obtain the support services he requires to live the life he wants. 

 Christian spoke about how he now manages his own support services and how this has given him more control over his life. This has allowed him to pursue interests and employment options.  Although services have improved for Christian personally, he still knows there are still many issues like inaccessible public transport, buildings and housing which still need vast improvement.

Julie Phillips – Manager, Disability Discrimination Legal Service

Julie, through her work at the Disability Discrimination Legal Service, gave a very different picture to this question.  Through her legal work with people with disabilities she spoke about the struggles people with disabilities and their family are having in getting the supports they require in both education and employment.   She spoke of horrific cases where the lack of appropriate disability supports had led to the depression and, in some cases, suicide, of people seeking assistance

Julie concluded that the answer to this question should not be sought in the policies of the department nor the glossy publications of service providers.  The answer should be sought from people with disabilities and their families who are continuously struggling to get disability support services for their son/daughter so they can have the lives they want and parents can be assured their family member will have the lives they want to live.

 Chris Aquino – Disability Division – Department of Human Services

Chris gave an overview of the change in policy direction from institutionalisation to person centred planning to self directed funding and employment. She gave an overview of the Victorian State Plan and all the policies that have emerged from the. plan.

She pointed out how these policies have been put in place to go towards improving the lives of people with disabilities.

David Craig – Executive Officer – Action for Community Living

David gave an interesting presentation. He asked first how do we test the failure or successes in the disability sector.  He put forward some criteria such as 1. would you find it acceptable if you received these services? 2. does it comply to equal opportunity and human rights available to other citizens? Do we   make the person whose support needs are the most challenging the test case for our program effectiveness?  How open is the sector to criticism?  Is there a sense of continuous struggle to find better strategies and outcomes or are we formula dependant?  Does our work support the human rights of people with disabilities and encourage responsibility and contribution.

 The sector’s shortfalls usually happen through a denial of basic citizenship rights; lack of leadership; not hearing the voices of people with disabilities; short changing the adventure of living full lives; unhealthy or non-productive communities; and no passion for the rights of the vulnerable.

 He then highlighted how we should change our approach around assisting people with disability by actually listening to people with disability’s hopes and aspirations and what they want to do with their lives.

Stella Young – Activist / Comedian

Stella gave a humorous presentation about the obstacles she has faced in her life. She spoke about experiences she has confronted and illustrated the funny side of such experiences.   She talked about how she is now working at the Victorian museum in a position she loves.  Although the position is unrelated to ‘disability’ there are some situations where she has been able to raise some disability awareness.

  However she did concede that her life is much better than it was predicted 20 years ago. 

 Adam   Jones – \Lawyer at Disability Discrimination Legal Service

 Adam gave a presentation starting by saying people with disabilities are amazing.  He then gave us an overview of the obstacles he had to face doing his Law Degree. He believes it is time society became more adaptable towards people with disabilities rather than people with disabilities having to adapt and “fit in” with  society.