Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: It’s just a bout of Chronic Sorrow, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I've read a handful of posts. Does she talk about what her children experience or want?
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
the DPA NZ submission was very good
Really? I admire Victoria (now gone back to Deaf Aotearoa), but I thought putting that alongside the NZDSN submission wasn't flattering.
-
Speaker: Sex, monsters and outrage, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Herald on Sunday's Lynley Bilby, for one - education round seems one of her focuses.
-
Speaker: Sex, monsters and outrage, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
TEAR Fund
Interesting. Do they get their TV adverts for free?
-
in case people want to use the fancy indented quotes, all you need to do is type this minus all the spaces:
< q > text you are quoting < / q >
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
there is a deliberate plan
yep. http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/social-bonds-new-zealand-pilot
-
Access: Disability as a wicked policy problem, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
“Still working for love?
Recognising skills and responsibilities of
home-based care workers ”NZDSN's submission seems well-written (though I know you don't like them, Rosemary) and includes related points.
Thus, the Inquiry clearly has efficiency as its key focus. NZDSN supports efficiency as a goal of all social services and notes that it is a very different concept from the concept of “cost containment / cost cutting” and its manifestation known as “cost shifting”.
In fact, the disability sector has become very weary of cost-shifting, having been subjected to its pervasive negative impact over many years. Effectively, in the disability sector, costs are shifted from government onto private individuals and households, because of systemic underfunding. Rather than the reasonable costs of disability services being met by government, effectively they are shifted onto,
i) sector workers (who receive lower pay) and,
ii) clients and their families (who get less service at a lower quality than they might reasonably expect).
and, iii) 'clients' and their families (who are expected to work for free or as close to it as governments can get away with).
-
Same changes on the way for NGOs supporting vulnerable people.
The implication was that money would be switched from providers that were seen as not being as effective as others, with the services targeted for reprioritisation were in prevention and early intervention.
It acknowledged that re-allocating money carried some risk and that some providers may need to lay off staff or become financially unviable with an impact on other services they deliver.
Ah, the glorious market.
-
Envirologue: Multi-no-choice –…, in reply to st ephen,
if we continue behaving like we are, places like the EU will be able to use our foot-dragging to block our exports.
-
Envirologue: Multi-no-choice –…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
except the joint research into agri emissions which buys time before farmers need to get off their chuffs.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 228 229 230 231 232 … 1971 Older→ First