Monday, December 31, 2012

Australian Family Paints a Glowing Picture of UK Services

Australian Family Paints a Glowing Picture of UK
Services for People with a Disability and their Families
Channel Seven's Sunday Night says Services in Australia are ShockingSunday 15 November 2009
An Australian Television Program Producer moved his family to the UK earlier this year because he was sick of battling for the under performing support services here in Australia for his son who has autism.

http://www.lisainc.com.au/userfiles/file/Family%20moves%20overseas%20to%20obtain%20rights%20based%20services.pdf
The little credible help there is in Australia, has been a long time coming, and is no thanks to the Federal Government. The politicians have all but turned their backs on people with autism spectrum disorder and their caring families.

Out of sheer desperation, and having hit a brick wall in Australia, Dr Kevin Maxwell moved his family to the UK. He says there is recognition, responsibility and a role by law that the UK local authorities provide intensive early intervention therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder at no cost. The very few similar services in Australia cost around $30,000.

All day, every day, Kevin's son receives what Australia failed to deliver - intensive therapy by pro-active and very caring service providers - the UK local authorities.

It is Australia's shame, that Australia cannot do it like the UK. Intensive early intervention is few and far between in Australia, and the Government funding level is a scandal, Dr Maxwell said.
LISA Comment: Although most of the services in Australia for people with a disability are "hand-out" rather than "rights" based, we consider increased government funding is only part of the answer to meaningful quality of life services. Much of the difference between UK and Australian services is attitude.

Providing the meaningful care which Dr Maxwell says his son is receiving in the UK, requires staff chosen on their ability to treat the person for whom they are providing care like their second family. Or like the Victorian Auditor General says:-
In 2007, about 94 per cent of DHS staff had a Certificate IV qualification (compared to DHS's estimate of about half at the time of the last audit). Many CSOs we audited did not have a minimum qualification requirement for their staff. Instead, they chose staff on the basis of their attitude and ability to provide support rather than [minder] care."
Nevertheless, parents who are getting meaningful intensive early intervention therapy for their member with autism, by whatever means, should consider, at present, parents do not live forever, and the level and quality of care in many group homes, and similar, is far from compatible.

This means, the meaningful intensive ("Active Support") therapy practices are not reinforced throughout the person's life, if they find themselves in such circumstances as a group home, or even respite. The Victorian Auditor General also said:-
"In most DHS and CSO houses we audited, funding and work arrangements did not readily allow for staff to care for residents individually. Staff were often under pressure to complete basic care tasks in the time allotted."
Tony & Heather Tregale
LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (LISA) INC.
Tel: 03-9434-3810: Email: vk3qq@optusnet.com.au Web:
www.lisainc.com.au : www.lisa-aus.blogspot.com

Service Entitlement v Charity Hand-Out



Service Entitlement v Charity Hand-Out

The intention of the State Government of Victoria in providing funding for care and support services for people with disabilities was/is that the funding shall provide entitlement services.

In total contrast, the Department of Human Services, Disability Services, sees their provision of direct care services, from this state government funding, as a charity hand-out to people with disabilities and their families – the consumer.

This department, therefore, in practical terms, sees no reason to be proactively accountable to the consumer, no reason to consider the consumer as at the centre of service provision and no reason to do other than force the consumer to prove the department is failing to provide services within the department’s care policies, standards and values. Rrather than they, DHS, having an obligation to prove to the consumer, in very practical terms and values, that they are providing services within the department’s care policies, standards and values.

One of the main intentions of the NDIS was that of moving existing care and support services out of the captive market/charity hand-out service philosophy, into a marketplace/customer focused service philosophy. This seems to have been placed in the NDIS too hard basket.

Nevertheless, marketplace/customer focused services can still be achieved within current state funding, by redefining service funding from the present ‘block’ funding, to ‘ISP’ funding, and remove the current DSR.

The residents of current group homes, for which they pay rent, would be free to, as a group, change service providers and service contracts or, individually, move to another service


NOTE: The above mentioned questionable occurrences are as a direct result of the failure of all levels of department management to properly, proactively and consistently manage the business of ensuring their direct care and support services for people with disabilities are well within the direction, intention and spirit of the department’s comprehensive and extensive care policies, standards and values.

These questionable occurrences are most disturbing to the great many direct care staff who want to do the job right, but are often intimidated by staff lore and house politics if they attempt to do so. This is especially so for those who have just completed Cert4, and are motivated by the quality of life aspect of the course. 

LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (LISA) INC.
Tel: 03-9434-3810 Email: info@lisainc.com.au

 vk3qq@optusnet.com.au  LISA Web: www.lisainc.com.au 

NOTE: We are always interested in feedback and information; general, specific, good or bad. If you wish anonymously: Our mail address is 73 Nepean Street, Watsonia, 3087

LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION

LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (L.I.S.A.) GROUP

One of the best places for those with an intellectual disability is to continue living with their family. Unfortunately, parents do not live forever, or are able to provide adequate support for ever, and other family members may not be able to take on the commitment. So, we urge families not to leave it to the last moment before investigating the option of supported accommodation for their family member. Equally, if your family member is living in supported accommodation we can help you better understand service level and quality entitlements.

We are a small unfunded lobby group working where the large funded advocacy groups are generally reluctant to tread. Our aim is to encourage quality of life improvement for those with an intellectual disability living in supported accommodation, especially that provided by DisAbility Services of the Department of Human services, by focusing our energy on those factors which directly effect the level and quality of service at the service point.

Those with an intellectual disability are generally unable to advocate effectively for themselves. They are therefore very reliant on support staff to provide a comprehensive level of care which should be designed and intended to enhance their lifestyle to the full extent of their ability. It is disappointing that many supported accommodation residents, especially those with high support needs, receive mainly basic care, with quite limited developmental, interactive and social activities.

Comprehensive care is often limited through the inability of service provider management to set, monitor and maintain staff work value expectations, and to provide support for the effective supervision necessary to ensure residents receive an overall quality lifestyle. Many service providers are also limited in their ability to select staff with the right attitude, and to monitor the right attitude is maintained. Where the overall level of care is good, credit is usually due to the integrity of particular direct care staff. We consider that service provider management should ensure the residents of all homes receive an overall quality lifestyle, not for residents to be lucky to have good staff.

Some service providers have a long standing reputation for making it as difficult as possible for anyone to question their level and quality of service provision, being more concerned with self-preservation than self-assessment and real customer service. It is therefore important for families and friends to be aware of what they can expect of the service, in order that they may ensure the person with the disability is receiving the very best service. Some of the areas which help to ensure service quality are:-

· Government response timelines.
· A formal grievance process.
· A care plan or service contract.
· Encourage early compliance with Standards
· Provide tenancy agreements.
· A comprehensive Key Worker policy
· Parent, family and general public involvement in service
management.
· More effective Community Visitors.
· Have service providers provide pro-active services.

For more information call Tony & Heather Tregale on telephone 03-9434-3810, or Email: vk3qq@optusnet.com.au

Parents fight bureaucracy

Parents fight for greater protectionDiamond Valley Leader NewspaperWednesday, October 28, 2009Disability Reporter: Engel Schemidi
A Watsonia couple's fight to have their son's voice, silenced by disability, heard by authorities has been validated in a damning report.


But Tony and Heather Tregale say the annual report by the Public Advocate's Community Visitors program, tabled in state parliament this month, scratches at the surface of the problems in disability group homes.

The couple are campaigning for Community Visitors volunteers who visit and report to the Public Advocate's Office on the conditions of homes caring for the disabled - to be compelled to speak to guardians of residents, many of whom are unable to communicate.

The Tregales are now content with the care their 33-year-old son, Paul, who has autism and an intellectual disability, receives.

But their concerns about violence and neglect in his previous homes are backed up by the report. "Those with limited intellectual capacity are extremely vulnerable to abuse and neglect, often by the people intended to care for them," Mr Tregale said.

He said Paul had been left to stare at walls for hours because residents were not taken out. "You would see his bank balance go up and that showed they had not bothered to take him anywhere."

Some of the findings from the report include: Concerns residents didn't complain for fear of reprisals; Staff monitoring conversations between Community Visitors and residents; and Poor staff-to-resident ratios impacting quality of care.

Mr Tregale said a clause should be added to the Disability Act 2006, outlining Community Visitors' obligations to speak to guardians. Mr Tregale said guardians could direct complaints to the house supervisor, regional director and the disability services commissioner, but that process had not resolved his issues in the past.

The Office of the Public Advocate would not comment on the Tregales' concerns. Community Services Minister Lisa Neville said Community Visitors could speak to guardians if they wanted and many disabled people could speak on their own behalf.
LISA Comment: It is interesting to note, the reporter got a "no comment" from the Office of the Public Advocate ("OPA")! Whereas the failure of commonsense by this pseudo government department, affects almost all residents of supported accommodation group homes throughout the State of Victoria.

Most residents have insufficient capacity to fully understand the level and quality of care they are receiving, or if this is within the service provider's care policies, standards and values. Those who might have some understanding, understand the consequences of saying anything.

Community Visitors therefore, at best, get only service provider staff views when visiting the majority of group homes, as the OPA ensures parents, families, guardians, advocates or friends of the residents are not consulted where Community Visitors have had no meaningful communications with a resident or residents during a visit to a group home.

In total contrast, when the community visitors concept was first enacted under the Intellectually Disabled Persons' Services Act 1986, community visitors were actively encouraged to go everywhere, meet everyone and spread their personal contact details through cards and posters. And we did! As we were community visitors for six years from when the program first started in 1987.

Now, under the Disability Act 2006, the program legislation is watered down, the program is introvert and community visitors protected from the very people they are intended to protect - vulnerable people and their families.

Finally, the reporter failed to mention, "The Minister responsible for the services in supported accommodation group homes, is the same person responsible for the service monitor - the Community Visitors Program"..... It is little wonder the program has been watered down, sanitised and introverted!


LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (LISA) INC.
Tel: 03-9434-3810: Email: vk3qq@optusnet.com.au Web:
www.lisainc.com.au : www.lisa-aus.blogspot.comNOTE: We are always interested in feedback and information; general, specific, good or bad. If you wish anonymously: Our mail address is 73 Nepean Street, Watsonia, 3087

PLENARY GUARDIANSHIP

PLENARY GUARDIANSHIP

What is Plenary Guardianship? It is what all parents have as a legal right, legal jurisdiction over their children’s activities, until their children reach the age of 18 years, or unless withdrawn by a court order.

The law considers that upon reaching the age of 18 years, the person is an adult, no longer under the influence or direction of parents. Most families celebrate this even as being a significant milestone in the young persons life.

It is indeed morally correct that there should be a time limit when parents no longer have legal authority over their offspring, and that the young person have freedom of decision over their own life.

Unfortunately there are some young people who, for various reasons, are unable to responsibly handle their new found freedom, potentially placing themselves and others at risk, and themselves disadvantaged. In this respect, this article will consider only those who are in this category because of their sever intellectual disability.

Many parents of severely intellectually disabled children, those who are totally unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning his personal circumstances and or estate, are concerned that after years of providing special care and protection, they are suddenly advised they have no legal rights after their son or daughter reaches the age of 18 years, and that anyone can challenge any of their decisions.

The very wide range of abilities of those with an intellectual disability makes the decision on the degree of freedom a complex process. It is for this reason that the government set up a body to independently consider if an intellectually disabled person is in need of assistance after reaching the age of 18 years.

In 1988 the government of Victoria passed legislation, the Guardianship & Administration Act 1986, to provide a body to consider the special circumstances where it is not desirable, for reasons of the person’s disability, to allow them full legal freedom over their lives at the age of consent, 18 years.

The Guardian and Administration Board (GAB) was established within the Act and under the Office of the Public Advocate to review applications from parents, family members and other who consider the person’s disability may disadvantage them, or place them and others at risk.

The GAB considers if there is a need for a person with a disability to have a degree of protection after the age of consent, similar to that which they received before. Prior to the age of consent, the person providing the protection is called the “Parent”, afterwards, the “Guardian”.

Within the legislation of the Guardianship & Administration Act 1986 there is two basic levels of guardianship, “Limited” and “Plenary”. These levels are provided to allow the GAB to tailor the degree of guardianship to needs and best interests of the disabled person, ensuring the disabled person is allowed as much freedom of choice as their disability will allow them in protecting their best interests.

For a person who is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate, Limited Guardianship cannot cater for their overall needs.

When considering Guardianship for those with a severe intellectual disability, only Plenary should be considered because the person’s ability will most often be considerably less than a non disabled person under 18 years, for whom the parents automatically have effective Plenary Guardianship. Plenary Guardianship is effectively that automatic legal protection which all parents have until their children reach the age of 18 years, or unless withdrawn by court order.

The Guardianship & Administration Board Act indicates in Section 22 (1) that in making a Guardianship Order the Board must be satisfied the person, (a) has a disability, (b) is unable by reason of this disability to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any of the matters in relation to his or her person or circumstances and, (c) is in need of a Guardian.

This section goes on to indicate that the Board must be satisfied that, (a) the needs of the person could not be met by other less restrictive means, (b) a Order would be in the best interests of the disabled person, (c) the Board cannot make a Plenary Order unless they are satisfied that the disabled person’s needs cannot be met with a Limited Order and, (d) any Order must be the least restrictive on the person with the disability.

We believe Section 22 of the Act has little significance when considering those with a severe intellectual disability!

Section 23 0f the Act of the Act indicates that the Board must satisfy itself that the proposed guardian is suitable to undertake the task.

IN SUMMARY:-

1. RIGHTS:
As parents you have no legal rights over your son or daughter after their 18th birthday!

2. NEEDS:
A person with a severe disability, which by reason of this disability they are unable to make reasonable judgements in respect to all or any matters concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate, is clearly in need of a plenary guardian. Similar to the situation before they reached the age of 18 years, as their ability remains significantly unaltered!

3. ACTION:

Apply to the Guardian & Administration Board (GAB) for a PLENARY ORDER.

Request, at the time of the application, that the Hearing be recorded, and that you be entitled to a copy of the tape/s, or transcript of the tape/s. Ensure you have a written agreement to this effect well before the Hearing date.

Before the Hearing commences, ensure the secession is being recorded, as per your written agreement.

4. AT THE HEARING, INSIST:-

(a) The disabled person’s ability has not altered on reaching the age of 18 years!
That having automatically have PLENARY GUARDIANSHIP, as parents, before 18 years, little has changed to alter the need after 18 years!

(b) The disabled person is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate.

(c) The disabled person is clearly in need of a guardian in respect of being unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matter concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate, and for these reasons is in need of a guardian for all life areas – a PLENARY GUARDIAN!

(d) That the disabled person is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning their personal circumstance and/or estate, having someone (a guardian) to look their best interests cannot be considered restrictive. There can, therefore be no least restrictive considerations!

(e) That the disabled person is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matter concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate, there is a clear need to cater for all life areas in respect to the provision of guardianship if the disabled person’s quality of life is to be preserved and enhanced. It is clear, therefore, that the person’s needs cannot be met by other than a PLENARY ORDER!

(f) In view of the clear need for a PLENARY ORDER where the disabled person is unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning their personal circumstances and/or estate, the Board should concentrate its efforts on ensuring the continuing suitability of those persons making the guardianship application under Section 23 of the Act, rather than concentrating almost exclusively on reasons of need, when it has been clearly established that the disabled person is totally unable to make reasonable judgements in respect of all or any matters concerning their personal circumstances and or estate.




WORLD REPORT ON DISABILITY by WHO & World Bank

"
World Report on Disability by the World Health Organisation and the World Bank – Some key points …


More than one billion people in the world live with some form of disability, of whom nearly 200 million experience considerable difficulties in functioning. In the years ahead, disability will be an even greater concern because its prevalence is on the rise. This is due to ageing populations and the higher risk of disability in older people as well as the global increase in chronic health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and mental health disorders.

Disability is part of the human condition – almost everyone will be temporarily or permanently impaired at some point in life, and those who survive to old age will experience increasing difficulties in functioning. Disability is complex, and the interventions to overcome the disadvantages associated with disability are multiple and systemic – varying with the context.

Problems with service delivery:

Poor coordination of services, inadequate staffing, and weak staff competencies can affect the quality, accessibility, and adequacy of services for persons with disabilities.

People with disabilities were more than twice as likely to report finding health care provider skills inadequate to meet their needs, four times more likely to be treated badly and nearly three times more likely to be denied needed health care.

Many personal support workers are poorly paid and have inadequate training.

A study in the United States of America found that 80% of social care workers had no formal qualifications or training

Inadequate funding:

Resources allocated to implementing policies and plans are often inadequate. The lack of effective financing is a major obstacle to sustainable services across all income settings. In high-income countries, between 20% and 40% of people with disabilities generally do not have their needs met for assistance with everyday activities

Inadequate policies and standards:

Policy design does not always take into account the needs of people with disabilities, or existing policies and standards are not enforced

Negative attitudes:

Beliefs and prejudices constitute barriers to education, employment, health care, and social participation. For example, the attitudes of teachers, school administrators, other children, and even family members affect the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools. Misconceptions by employers that people with disabilities are less productive than their non-disabled counterparts, and ignorance about available adjustments to work arrangements limits employment opportunities.

Lack of provision of services:

People with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to deficiencies in services such as health care, rehabilitation, and support and assistance

Poorer health outcomes:

Increasing evidence suggests that people with disabilities experience poorer levels of health than the general population. Depending on the group and setting, persons with disabilities may experience greater vulnerability to preventable secondary conditions, co-morbidities, and age-related conditions.

Some studies have also indicated that people with disabilities have higher rates of risky behaviours such as smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity.

People with disabilities also have a higher risk of being exposed to violence.


Full Report - 300 pages - 3.9MB LINK

Report Summary - 24 pages - 1.2MB LINK

LIFESTYLE IN SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION (LISA) INC.
Tel: 03-9434-3810.
NOTE: We are always interested in feedback and information; general, specific, good or bad. If you wish anonymously: Our mail address is 73 Nepean Street, Watsonia, 3087

Thursday, October 01, 2009

NEW WEBSITE now OPERATIONAL

Tony & Heather announce, the new web site for LISA is NOW FULLY OPERATIONAL at: www.lisainc.com.au