I hope this date will be convenient for as many people as possible wishing to attend.
Expressions of interest in presenting at or attending this seminar have been received from people with disabilities, academics, federal and State MPs, federal and State public servants, disability service providers and advocacy organisations, community-based groups and families of people with intellectual disabilities from Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT, as well as from NSW. (Suggestions have also been made already to stage similar seminars in Adelaide and Brisbane.)
I am pleased to advise that the NSW Minister for Disability Services, Andrew Constance MLA, has accepted an invitation to open and attend this seminar, and that Professor Christine Bigby from Latrobe University, whose recent thought-provoking article - contending that there should be "limits to consumer choice" in supported accommodation models funded under any future NDIS - has also accepted an invitation to deliver the key-note address.
This seminar is designed to provide an opportunity for an informed, stimulating and in-depth discussion between those who share Professor Bigby's concerns about the potential for re-institutionalisation under new accommodation models, such as "villages" and intentional communities; those who support or are involved in the development of such models for some people with disabilities; and those who just want to explore the latest research, evidence and arguments, for and against, before making up their minds.
Bookings
As the NSW Parliament theatrette only seats 170 people, it will be essential for anyone interested in attending to book as early as possible. Although the theatrette is relatively small, this venue has been chosen because of its central Sydney location and because the theatrette is being made available free of charge, enabling ticket prices to be kept as low as possible.
Other than for those who will be presenting at the seminar, and people with disabilities who are welcome to attend at no charge, the cost of admission will be $30 per person, which includes a buffet lunch and tea/coffee.
To secure a booking, please deposit payment directly into the bank account of Fighting Chance Australia, which is hosting this event (BSB 032 123; account number 256 045), and please also email me at fightingchancefund@gmail.com to advise how many tickets you have paid for. Any money deposited after all seats have been allocated will be returned.
Thank you for your interest in this seminar, and please onpass this email to anyone you think might be interested in attending.
Sue O'Reilly
Fighting Chance Australia
EDITORS COMMENT
Prof Christine Bigby, Head of the Postgraduate Programs in the School of Social Work and Social Policy at Melbourne's LaTrobe University, published a thought-provoking article on an online site, contending that any future National Disability Insurance Scheme "cannot afford to leave the supply of accommodation services, staff and organisational practices to consumer choice or the market alone. The scheme must regulate the type of accommodation service that can be purchased to those with the potential to facilitate required outcomes. Better still it must separate housing from support, so type or place of housing is not restricted by the degree of support a person requires." (For full article, see Limits to choice for consumers with disabilities A national disability insurance scheme must limit some choices like housing to ensure best outcomes. Christine Bigby - posted 15/4/2011)
I am not so sure I agree with all of what is proposed by Bigby. I suggest the post is read closely and if you disagree then go along and make sure your views are heard.
My comments are included below; she says...
Should there be unrestricted choice of accommodation type in the new scheme, or as with clinical interventions should choice be mediated by the evidence base of what works? Should consumers be able to choose to use public money on accommodation choices that evidence shows obstruct rather than hamper [sic] the broader outcomes that as a society we seek for people with disabilities.
...
The proposed scheme will remove one part of the equation of poor implementation. It cannot afford to leave the supply of accommodation services, staff and organisational practices to consumer choice or the market alone. [Agreed]. The scheme must regulate the type of accommodation service that can be purchased to those with the potential to facilitate required outcomes. [Don’t agree]. Better still it must separate housing from support, so type or place of housing is not restricted by the degree of support a person requires. [Agreed]. The scheme must also ensure ongoing rigorous independent monitoring of individual outcomes against benchmarks of social inclusion and quality of life. These must be finely tuned for different consumer groups. People with severe intellectual disability will be a significant group in the new scheme. But there are also mild & moderately disabled as beneficiaries of NDIS. They have limited bargaining power, many cannot self report, and do not always have resourceful family members or advocates alongside them. For this group, the benchmark of quality is not care alone or staff doing things for people but 'active support' to be engaged in their own everyday lives and to facilitate convivial social encounters.
The counter view, articulated passionately by my wife, is that there must be choice. Some people will best fit in an intentional community; some will want to live alone. Some can live in shared housing, some will want to stay in the home that they know – e.g. Sunnyfield’s congregate care Carinya & Hostel. Some new clients will even still need those older models as the best answer for their case.
To force one person to fit in a model they don’t want is an undemocratic and bad thing.
And remember Prof Galbally makes the point that community housing sometimes means disabled people can just as easily be “shut out”.
Chris Howells
No comments:
Post a Comment