Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK
61 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
thanks Hilary, a really broad overview with several links to valuable further information. What else needs to change? Off the top of my head - Attitudes-
I'm about to dive into the Roguski Report you linked to- will have more to say later :-) -
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I think the Glenn inquiry has some similar things to say about domestic violence.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
Yes, the suggestion of an all party accord to come up with decent plans to address domestic violence ( as was done for the elderly so that they at least have a reasonable minimum income now) is a sensible one. I'd like to see these accords across all the areas Kiwis hold dear- education, tertiary student costs, but also disability, refugees and beneficiaries. In Finland, the Government has long term plans which are followed regardless of party politics, so that they have actually made progress in areas like education, instead of tending to move back and forth as we do with each change of government. I hope something really positive will come from the Glenn inquiry, it's past time something effective was done.
-
Thanks for posting. It's an area of slow moving change. More coverage in media/blogs etc might speed up the change in attitude.
-
One of the early lessons in setting up the It's Not OK campaign was that we can focus on better behaviours rather than waiting for attitudes to catch up.
Cracking down meaningfully on abuse does not mean more handwaving. Real enforcement by agencies who supposedly act on behalf of all of us would help right now. They have what is needed for that but some seem far more interested in upholding the interests of the people and organisations they contract with.
Changing that contracting model has some potential as well, which is being slowly piloted in various ways. But why do we have reviews every five years that identify the same structural problems, then do nothing to fix them? Real people get hurt. Not good enough.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
One of the early lessons in setting up the It’s Not OK campaign was that we can focus on better behaviours rather than waiting for attitudes to catch up.
The big win with It's Not OK was the joined-up campaign. When the TV campaign launched there was supporting information, numbers to call, etc, all in place. That's a good model: don't just raise awareness but give people information and something to do with that awareness.
-
First disability data from the 2013 census released. No longer one in five, now one in four with an impairment. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/health/disabilities/DisabilitySurvey_HOTP2013.aspx
-
Met Michael Roguski and David Russell today, authors of reports mentioned in this post. Both still doing good relevant work in the field. David Russell now involved with the investigation into Te Roopu Taurima Trust.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'll have a post on the disability survey tomorrow - preview here.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Looking forward to that. We have been waiting a long time for this data (ages since our last disability census and that was a bit limited). Hope this new one is going to be useful.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Depends what sort of useful. :)
The background notes mention an advance copy of the data being supplied to help the government design its limited funded family care policy.
In March 2014, we received a special and urgent data request from the Ministry of Health for embargoed provisional data from the 2013 Disability Survey. The data required was to inform their minister on policy-cost estimates for funded family care of disabled people.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I notice that it estimates intellectual disability at 2%. That's about 80,000+ people. Previous estimates have been 30-50,000. So that is a significantly larger number.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
In March 2014, we received a special and urgent data request from the Ministry of Health for embargoed provisional data from the 2013 Disability Survey. The data required was to inform their minister on policy-cost estimates for funded family care of disabled people.
Which is really, really odd because the FFC policy was already in place, technically from October 2013 although very few got funded before Christmas 2013 and there are still only a 100 or so across the country. So why would Mr Ryall want more data in March 2014 and what could possibly make the requirement so urgent?
-
The May Budget.
-
Sacha, in reply to
and the guy is an accountant
#howmany #howmuch -
Angela Hart, in reply to
aaah! He would've known the existing liability and that in the narrow, bent and dented FFC pipe so must've been interested in the results from Q3.
"To what extent are the needs of disabled people currently being met? What level and type of support do they need to perform everyday activities?" and Q5.
"Who are the main carers of disabled people and what types of support do they need?" The public doesn't have that data yet as fas as I can see.
There was a minor (unannounced) change to the FFC policy in April, perhaps there will be more.I believe that obliging some disabled people and their families to exist on bare bones income is a form of financial abuse, and the continual stress it puts on people is a potential trigger for other forms of abuse. For instance the MSD Supported Living Payment for a married couple is $217.75 for each person, (plus disability allowance to cover proven ongoing costs for the disabled partner). By comparison the equivalent payment on National Super is $282.26 per person. http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/brochures/benefit-rates-april-2014.html#SupportedLivingPayment6
If you have a permanent condition which not only prevents you from working but also makes you dependent on a carer, should you not be permitted a decent standard of living? If you and your spouse prefer to care for each other, you must be able to survive on $217.75 apiece. Moreover, if your spouse is able to earn income in addition to the caregiving role, that will impact on your SLA. You are both in a poverty trap. -
Sacha, in reply to
I believe he would have been interested in projected numbers who might be eligible for support, not on the answers about perceptions of whether it was provided. And yes, the detail about needs is released later. I'm having some trouble usefully untangling some of the numbers in what has been published so far.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
Yes, there was a lot of disinformation on projected numbers. The obvious way to assess the potential numbers was/is to use the MSD's Supported Living Payment numbers for caregivers and take out the spouses. There may be others who wish to shift from IF or residential services, but those would usually be cost savings.
I'll be interested to read your analysis of the data published so far. I couldn't see any dates given for the rest of it. -
Sacha, in reply to
analysis
might not be much of that to give at this stage. I'm more interested in the later stuff about needs and barriers.
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
me too, but no doubt that will be after the election.
-
Sacha, in reply to
July apparently
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
From the Glenn Report
"There is still a need for further work to better understand, for example, the experiences and realities of those affected by child abuse and domestic violence who also have disabilities, are Pacific or Asian, are associated with gangs, or are in same-sex relationships."
2.3% of contributors who were affected by child abuse and/or domestic violence identify as having a disability. That's got to be more to do with the accessibility of the report production process than with the actual incidence given the current estimate that a quarter of the population have some sort of impairment. -
Funny that the Tairawhiti report is the topic of conversation here. In the absence of reliable internetconnectivity whilst on the road I have been keeping my three brain cells stimulated by reading some of the reports on my hard drive. I remember the Roguski report's release....again we were on the road, but made the effort to download as soon as possible.
Do I recall correctly that at the time, Whaea Tariana was quoted as saying, in response to the report, along the lines of "I am pleased to see that disabled people are able to speak out about abuse"...???
She said little about the actual content of the report.
Most concerning to me was the depth of disconnection between carers and the people being cared for....especially in residential facilities. The most telling comments came from senior management when talking about the attitudes of some of their staff.
I also have a problem with the language used when discussing this issue.
Physical abuse is ASSAULT.
Financial abuse is THEFT.
Avoidable deaths at the hands of providers is NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.
If we insist on the correct terminology....perhaps the issue of crimes against disabled people will be taken more seriously by the wider community.
Very timely raising of this issue Hilary, with the Health and Disability Commission conference coming up.
-
Tariana Turia's press release from June 2013 on the Roguski report.
-
Thanks Hilary...I confess to having only heard the "commended the courage of disabled people ." bit on the radio when the report was released, hadn't realised that Tariana's spin doctors had gone to so much trouble to put such an inappropriately positive spin on what is actually a damning report.
The Roguski report....and I am in no way criticising the content....says nothing new.
And every time such a report is released, some Minister pops up and says how things are going to get so much better now the research is done and the data collated and the Advisory Group has made its recommendations...
Yeah right.
I want to see perpetrators of violence towards disabled people held accountable through the Courts. I want to see those who assault, neglect and terrorise vulnerable people punished to a greater extent of the law than those who commit similar crimes towards animals.
A young mother who answers the phone and her baby drowns in the bath is charged by the police and goes to trial.
A severely disabled person drowns in a bath in a care facility and the police find no grounds for criminal charges.
WTF?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.