Speaker: SIBs: The reality of "return-based outcomes"
99 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Interesting post by NewsTalk ZB's James Robins, includes the small matter of the 'successful pilot scheme' that the govt were trumpeting when they promoted SIBs for mental health, but which they refuse to release any information about.
-
Kyle MacDonald, in reply to
Very interesting, in particular the quote:
"There is a clue to this mindset in the 2013 cabinet paper mentioned above. It says “government agencies are now focusing on what is being achieved, not how services are delivered.”
-
Sacha, in reply to
fits their ideology that it doesn’t matter who or how.
unfortunately when you're dealing with people rather than baked beans, they do matter.
-
and the what is being achieved is measured in terms of easy numbers like how many are now employed, rather than in qualitative terms more appropriate to the lives of human beings. This initiative looks like a work scheme. One definition of work used by this government has been an hour of paid employment per week, so numbers relating to getting people into work are not necessarily meaningful in terms of actual benefit to the people concerned, or even to the taxpayer. Additionally, in the case of people with mental illness, there is a risk that the existing legal capability to pay some disabled people a couple of dollars an hour because of their assessed lower productivity may be applied here too. Arbeit macht frei is the real catchphrase for this government. Never mind whether you need treatment or support, just get a job and all will be well. Magical thinking indeed.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
‘successful pilot scheme’
-
Sacha, in reply to
doesn't sound like a pilot though, more of an approach.
-
Rosemary's Workwise piece reads well though the evidence base referred to is not referenced and there is no verifiable evidence provided. I don't doubt that, for many people, having regular, satisfying work with decent pay supports their mental health. The proposed SIB is unlikely to provide that.
In fact the Workwise piece sounds like another employer subsidy scheme. -
Yes, and they should read well, but nowhere in their website or newsletter do they mention...http://www.thewisegroup.co.uk/content/
It could be a complete coincidence, no relation at all.
But I am a suspicious old biddy....and this outfit tweaks my antennae...
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
-
Marc C, in reply to
That code pretty much stands on paper, the HDC only investigates a very few complaints they get, and often they only offer a wet busticket on the wrist kind of recommendations. I know of doctors getting away with things they should not get away with, and one of them is a Dr David Bratt, the Pincipal Health Advisor of MSD and WINZ:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
Read his snide comments about the HDC further towards the end of this presentation just above.
Read also this post:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/designated-doctors-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc-the-truth-about-them/And I know of people who complained about misconduct and bias by such "designated doctors" to the HDC, same as about ACC assessors, and the HDC wants nothing to do with the issue and concerns that some affected persons have.
The HDC is a sick joke, in some ways:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/health-and-disability-commissioner-can-we-trust-in-hdc-independence/So what does the Code really mean, when we have this situation?
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
But, but, it the Code!
Perhaps we should be slamming the thing down till the dust rises....
Call their bluff.
-
Hawkes Bay writer calls a spade a spade.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Very interesting, in particular the quote:
“There is a clue to this mindset in the 2013 cabinet paper mentioned above. It says “government agencies are now focusing on what is being achieved, not how services are delivered.”
So they're saying "focusing on what's being achieved" like it's a bad thing?
-
Apologies if this has been posted already, but I found it helpful... http://staffblogs.le.ac.uk/management/2015/02/11/anti-social-finance/
-
Kyle MacDonald, in reply to
I think it's more that they're saying they have no interest in "how". To me this is the danger.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Yes, but to get "justice", we need money, or pro bono favourable lawyers:
http://eveningreport.nz/2015/03/24/frances-joychild-qc-on-the-fading-star-of-the-rule-of-law/The battle has never been harder for decades now, to get any justice, any justice at all, in little ol NZ.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think it’s more that they’re saying they have no interest in “how”
or who.
both matter. -
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Yes, but to get “justice”, we need money, or pro bono favourable lawyers:
http://eveningreport.nz/2015/03/24/frances-joychild-qc-on-the-fading-star-of-the-rule-of-law/The battle has never been harder for decades now, to get any justice, any justice at all, in little ol NZ.
But the bastards, if they lose in the Courts, will just change the bloody law...as they did with the PHDAct(2). It's like that whole thing never happened.
What "Atkinson" did was establish, just for a wee while, entitlement to funded care for MOH:DSS disabled. This was very, very significant...although most folk don't recognise it.
Hats off to Francis Joychild (and the other members of the OHRP team)....but it was really all for nothing.
-
That word is anathema to the Misery. No-one is entitled to any support. This philosophy is deeply embedded and unlikely to change without serious effort. The worst of it is that they see no flaws in this philosophy, no need for real change. Which is why it's hard to take the nice words in policy and strategy documents at face value.
-
Gallery journo finally writes about what govt has been quietly engineering in social services for years, and why Paula Bennett may be politically crucial.
One of the major successes so far of the Key Government has been its ability to reframe that debate in a way that has carried the public along with it so far. That has been achieved by favouring a softly-softly approach over what English refers to as the "crash through" approach of the past. Focusing on doing what works, rather than ideology, in other words.
But public sentiment could change, particularly as the social sector changes start to pick up a head of steam. A run of bad headlines would play into Labour's hands in terms of reviving the "scary" connotations of the past.
Installing Bennett at English's side in his post-election reshuffle was a signal that Key is aware of those risks.
In her time as Social Development Minister, she succeeded where other National ministers have failed in the past at putting a softer face on its brand of "compassionate conservatism".
She has been a potent weapon for National in arguing the case that its carrot-and-stick approach to welfare has been more about improving lives than cost-cutting.
But her biggest selling job may still lie ahead.
-
Interesting that one of our best investigative journalists has now gone to the dark side as PR for the government in Paula Bennett's office.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Gallery journo finally writes about what govt has been quietly engineering in social services for years, and why Paula Bennett may be politically crucial.
If a watermelon is green on the outside and red on the inside, then what’s red on the outside and blue on the inside? Whatever the answer is, it's not New Labour Blairism.
-
linger, in reply to
red on the outside and blue on the inside
Obvious answer: A bloody depressed former Labour voter.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Obvious answer: A bloody depressed former Labour voter.
Good guess, but not what I had in mind. What I had in mind was more a 1-word term for a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or a so-called ‘compassionate conservative’, who pretends to be centre-ground but is still a Ruthenasian at heart. I would have used ‘Ruthenasia with a human face’, but that term is an inherently contradictory mouthful. ‘Chickenhawk’ has the sort of vibe I’m after but it’s too narrowly focused.
-
linger, in reply to
Small-(government-)minded?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.