Perhaps, if it created environments where disabled people could 'think differently' about themselves, gain confidence to go out into the community...???
But it's not our attitudes that they were meant to be addressing.
No, and it's very difficult to measure societal attitudinal change unless you put money into research and data collection alongside your project. With this project the really difficult task would have been deciding what performance measures would show success. I suspect media mentions would have been considered significant.
What happened to the big push a few years ago to get the media to use less 'inspiration porn' language when telling stories involving disabled people?
I recall, but cannot find a link to, a do at the House where media were instructed on correct 'disability language' and were told which organisations had the authority to speak on disability issues.
Whaea Tariana was there, and I'm pretty sure DPA NZ...but I'm damned if I can't find the exact press release.
the big push
never noticed it
never noticed it
It was around the time that rather large report came out.
Interesting. Such a shame they used US-centric frameworks in their report. Wonder who is evaluating what difference it has made?
Interesting sector briefing (policy paper) from the providers’ body the NZDSN
I've been having a look at this document Hilary, especially the section "Complaints/Safeguarding".
• The 2013 Putting People First Report found that abuse of disabled people in residential services is more likely to occur when providers are isolated. When providers stay connected with one another they are more likely to share knowledge and resources.
A quick search last night of one member of NZDSN in MSM produced 11 articles about abuse and neglect in the care of that provider.
This is a major provider, and a long term NZDSN member.
I am working alphabetically through NZDSN's member list...
There are a couple of organisations which have done some major work on their governance, management, staff training etc in the last few years. I would hope that all disability organisations also do constant self review. Not about just being risk averse but more about being ethical, transparent, respectful of their clients and families. Hard to do, but I think there are some good people out there (and the current head of NZDSN is one).
New access logo from the UN. Not sure about its official status, nor whether I like it.
It has links with the Apple accessibility icon
"It was a desperate situation, we were in a position of trying to find solutions. My cry now is for families like mine that suffer at the hands of inadequate support.
“There’s a lot of families out there that are not getting the help they need and if they are, it’s like ours, it’s not in a professional environment.
She said there was no funding for the care Otto needed. “I want [the Government] to institute the right mechanisms.”
Her son was briefly in the care of charitable trust Spectrum Care, which let him go because it could not get enough funding to cater for his needs, she said.
One needs to ask where the hell the NASC was in this.
"Needs Assessment and Service Coordination."
Now, for clarity...Spectrum flicked Otto off to these guys....http://www.caregroup.co.nz/about.html..who are in partnership with these guys...http://www.genevahealth.com/About-Us/Geneva-The-Community
All of them have slick, trust inspiring websites...yet...they sent an untrained, "independent contractor" to care for two high needs clients.
Nelson Marlborough DHB has held on to the services that used to be Braemar and Ngawhatu and now DSS is its own DHB business unit. I should know whether this is unusual or a good thing for a DHB, but don't. Rosemary, do you?
That saga....and the obscene behaviour of the NMDHB.....http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2555812/allegations-of-abuse-towards-disabled-teenager
This is truly harrowing stuff...
To answer you question Hilary....it does seem a bit weird, wasn't Brackenridge under the DHB....and now under a trust? I'll have to look into it.
I think what I need to find out is why some disability support services are under the auspices of MOH:DSS and some under DHBs.
Perhaps it is something to do with how various regions managed de-instutionalisation?
Or if clients have mental health conditions as well as learning disabilities?
Or if they come under the ID(CC&R) Act, with the associated NIDCA and RIDSAS.
I'm not at all sure...I bet someone out there has a grasp on this....
According to the FAQ on the MOH website
The Ministry of Health funds disability support services through Disability Support Services (DSS) for people with a physical, intellectual or sensory disability (or a combination of these) that is likely to continue for a minimum of six months and result in a reduction of independent function to the extent that ongoing support is required.
The Ministry of Health funds services for disabled people under the age of 65 years, with the exception of equipment and modification services which it funds for all age groups. Disability support services for people aged 65 years and over, or those with mental health needs, are funded by District Health Boards.
What happened to the big push a few years ago to get the media to use less ‘inspiration porn’ language when telling stories involving disabled people?
Yep, 'inspiration porn' is little more than a polite way of attacking the symptom. Too often it's an excuse to ignore the fact that the disabled need wheelchair ramps and sign-language interpreters.
is a not too bad bit of ‘inspiration porn’, featuring a couple of PA posters.
I felt the writer did quite a good job.
I have just received "info" from the Productivity Commission and had an opportunity to blog regarding their words around 'self directed budgets'. My blog was as follows (final sentence amended to include remark about employment):
"I note reference is made above to "able bodied" however it is suggested that "able minded" should be included.
My observations are that in general people who have mental disabilities find that their physical abilities are also affected. They can lose dexterity and fine tuning around their special judgement as it can be applied to manual tasks, especially if they are at trade level where previous high level skills have been lost. Further as a mental health recovery programme progresses beyond crisis a residual is high levels of anxiety and loss of confidence around practical application. They are no longer able to carry out practical or physical tasks that were once second nature, and so it affects their ability to find employment in an area where they have received previous training."
Hope this helps?
DSS was not living within its means and was effectively taking resources from core health services to subsidise its business
The change is a way of ring-fencing DSS under-funding. Kind of the opposite of what some DHBs did at governance level by merging their statutorily-required DSAC committees with their CPHAC ones. Also saving cost.
On the 12th September 1960 I “joined up”. At that time in history the term “joined up” was understood by everybody. The Second World War had finished only sixteen years earlier and during that period most people in the Western World, especially males had joined up. In the context of the nineteen sixties joining up meant entering an employment contract with the military. In my case and for my friends the contract ran for about fourteen years, and once signed there was very little chance of changing the terms and conditions in order to retrieve freedom of choice. You did as you were told; initially anyway, but as careers progressed it became much more an environment of collaboration and teamwork were roles were clearly defined and stuck to.
The military was famous for its bureaucracy; a chit had to be signed in order to achieve the simplest and most ordinary outcomes, but after a while the tiresome business became routine and a font for humour. For me it was a wonderful period of my life where I travelled the world at govt expense, but more importantly the training I received was the best and it kept me gainfully and usefully employed until I was able to retire. Secondly I made wonderful friends who I am still in contact with now, fifty five years later. Generally everyone in uniform new what the Mission of the ‘corporation’ was, and that was to Defend the Nation, and its allies against aggressors...horrible people.
I have noticed that “joining up” has become a topic in the more serious media recently, but to date the world of disability has not been mentioned. Tonight a media topic before me is around the NZ flag and now the anthem. It seems to me that there is a hunger for community and regionally based living, and a changing of hearts around individualism and self interest amongst the main core of the populace. My impressions are that the world of disability is far from joined up, and in particular there is a main divide between physical disability and mental disability, where in fact there should be none. My guess is that more often than not every individual who is classified as having a mental disability also has a degree of physical disability...it’s part of the nature of the illness. Disability has many dimensions.
Don’t worry this is not a call-to-arms for the disabled or those who try to help, it is just that there is a need for joining up and encouraging everyone to work as a team, focusing on what we have in common, not what keeps us apart. The day of chits is over. There are much better ways of joining up by the use of current and improving technology, as long as we learn to use it wisely, learn from mistakes and then make further improvements to the system.
The above was written a couple of days ago, but I have just received ‘info’ from the Productivity Commission which, low and behold, has an item in it that focuses on “Social Commons”, prepared by James Mansell // April 2015 for the Productivity Commission, and I think it is expressing my view but in far more specialised language. If you want to read it here’s the web site.
However I have my worries. To me the social order is becoming polarised. It’s those who have the required knowledge and skill, mainly computer literacy monopolising those who are vulnerable, i.e. those who lack skills and are not computer literate. I mentioned before that the NZ Treasuries “Living Standards: at the heart of our policy advice” reminds of a crusader citadel, thinking perhaps that the monopolising bureaucrats are on the inside and the vulnerable, who they are supposed to be serving will be kept out in the cold and discouraged from joining up with those who want it all.
Very interesting Tom. Certainly agree about the need for Joining up and working as a team to improve things.
My impressions are that the world of disability is far from joined up, and in particular there is a main divide between physical disability and mental disability, where in fact there should be none.
Firstly, an organisation representing the interests of a particular group (in the disability community) only has credibility and access to the bureaucrats you mention further down your comment, if they are receiving funding from the government.
Secondly, there is an organisation that receives government funding who claims to represent the interests of all disabled....
We actively work alongside other organisations and individuals to identify common disability issues and solutions and to promote these jointly to decision-makers
DPA is open to discussing cooperative projects with all organisations and developing ways to work together.
We collaborate with other advocacy organisations as equal partners
We collaborate with a wide range of disabled persons organisations (DPOs), including:
Blind Citizens NZ
People First NZ
Ngāti Kāpo O Aotearoa
The New Zealand Disability Strategy followed by the Disability Convention has helped us find a confident collective voice.
And as we work together with government departments and politicians, to further the interests of disabled people, our voice is becoming strong, clear and consistent.
Thirdly, there's this....http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacs/pdf-files/Fears-constraints-and-contracts-Grey-and-Sedgwick-2014.pdf
projects with the community and voluntary sector
seemed to indicate that the "independence‟ of the sector
from the state was being eroded so thoroughly that organisations were struggling to critique the nation‟s
political leaders and their policies.
This research was cited in some of the submission to the Productivity Commission, and the authors also submitted independently.
So...the bureaucrats will not listen to independent (i.e. receiving no govt. funding) voices because you're not on the list of 'approved 'spokespeople.
The approved spokespeople who have the ear of the bureaucrats and government have become so dependent on the government funding that they are too scared to actually do any real advocacy.
(I generalise,, there are one or two who facilitate dialogue and do criticise...but I'm loath to name them in case the Miserly trolls pull their funding)