Something to chill your heart?

by M Cotton Fri Apr 28, 2006 15:42

After a little more digging around I’ve found some information on the Department of Justice website (all caps are my emphasis):

The most striking thing to note is the disparity between the way the project is advertised - ‘Enhancing Disability Services’ in big bold letters across the top of the ad - which implies making additions to those services – and the real purpose of the project: ‘ Enhancing Disabilities Services PROJECT FUNDING’. So this is about funding. As I look at the advertisement again I see that the real project title was referred to once in passing within the text of the ad but nowhere does the ad specifically state that this exercise is intended to discuss HOW funding is awarded and to whom. We should all be very worried.

Here are some quotes from the website:

‘Funding will be granted to proposals which are deemed to demonstrate and innovative and cost effective APPROACH to service provision…and which have the capacity to be mainstreamed in the future. The Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform wish to ensure the Enhancing Disability Services Project Funding is used as strategically as possible to MAXIMISE THE ADDED VALUE arising from each project.

Translation: ‘Added Value’ everywhere it is applied = cutbacks. ‘Approach to service provision’ is not at all the same thing as service provision itself. Attached to the expression ‘cost effective’, it is arguably the complete opposite of service provision in that it almost certainly means a diminution of what services are already available.

‘Priority will be given to applications from umbrella groups or consortia that have a wide reaching impact and the capability to influence best practise among all organisations under the aegis of the applicant and across the disability field.’

Translation: Only the big boys need apply, smaller voluntary service providers will be stuffed. This is about relocating services to a handful of the mainly government controlled, larger players, almost all of whom are headed up by obedient government placemen. It’s about cutbacks, again and most importantly, control. And to make absolutely sure, the conditions for applying state that voluntary groups may be required to match the funding (up E250K per project). You can count on the fingers of your hands the number of organisations that would be able to do that.

And just to reinforce that point:

“Promotion of increased mainstreaming and cohesion of services CURRENTLY being provided through specific targeted initiatives.”

“It must be emphasised that it is intended that structural integration will play a key role in the next round of the Enhancing Disability Services Project Funding. To facilitate this emphasis a significant portion of the funds will be made available to projects that feature integration with other agencies on a long-term basis.”

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? The end of all this is that the idea of local services for local people is likely to disappear down the toilet. It also clearly spells the end of services which are parent driven – those are the most vocal, pesky and truly independent. They are often the most innovative and person-centred too.

We are also invited to nota bene that ‘The Enhancing Disability Services Project Funding is not intended for activities, which replicate existing service provision for persons with a disability.’

Translation: nobody should propose to add to existing service provision, even though mostly it is woefully scarce.

‘It is essential to identify a VARIATION OF APPROACH to existing measures.’

Why do we have such a quiet, ambiguous call for applications in respect of something so significant? This advertisement signals a massive change in funding for the disability sector. Where is or was the discussion about it? No doubt the advertisement and the ‘public’ meetings will be cited as evidence of ‘open’ or ‘full’ communication with the disability sector in due course. We should start asking questions, loudly, before it is again too late to stop this government from inflicting further damage on an already Fianna Fail and PD-battered disability sector.

by M Cotton Fri Apr 28, 2006 17:49

My guess is that the whole thing has already been worked out i.e.:

It's already been decided who will get the initial money to work out the schemes for future disability funding. Tha'ts why the call for groups to participate is so ambiguous and restricted to the big players;

What those schemes are and how and who is going to get funding in the future (certainly not any organisation that is critical of government policy)

by John Aherne Fri Apr 28, 2006 23:30

Hello Miriam,

Is it possible to go to all three meetings? If so I will attend all three, if not I will attend the one in Galway and would be only happy to compare notes.

I have already encountered a politician from the labour party who once challenged seems to have done a disappearing act. “I only asked for a meeting, ” http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75450

I wonder is that part of party policy?

Kind regards
John

by MC Sat Apr 29, 2006 14:15

I reckon they will present the same spiel at each of them.

It all adds up to this:

What we are intended to believe is that the Department of Justice is calling for applications from voluntary disability organisations to apply for money to be used to conduct studies into alternative forms of funding for the disability sector.

However, the guidelines for applying to do the study make it very clear that the applications for tranches of the study money must more or less state the conclusions that the proposed studies will arrive at before they have even been conducted.

This exercise is actually about weeding out the voluntary organisations that the government will appoint to control and regulate services for people with disability in future. The application process for the study money is in effect an organisational interview for who will get to be the regional service providers and it will have been completed by 14th July this year.

The studies themselves will, it seems, actually be about carving up the responsibility for disability services regionally and might well be done without reference to any agency other than the chosen few. Theoretically, there is room for collaboration between smaller agencies but my guess is that the stipulation that bidders MAY be required to match the study funding from government will be used to deter anyone they dont want involved. How many vol orgs could stump up 100-250K to be allowed to conduct a study? It just wouldnt be a priority even if they had the money to spare.

We really need to make people aware of what is happening - this has huge ramifications for everyone and questions need to be asked now. We should be emailing/contacting all our TDs and getting them to ask questions in the Dail etc etc. The thing that worries me most of all is that there is a clear intention to lump services for different sorts of disability under the control of fewer organisations. It almost certainly means a loss of specialist knowledge where existing services are aimed at specific conditions/disabilities.

We also have the increasing problem of the lack of accountability of voluntary organisations the biggest of which are really private businesses. To take just one example of an issue we need to be concerned about, now that the government has relocated the responsibility for inspecting residential facilities to one of its newest quangos (HIQA) and will not declare any enforceable service standards (which is really rights by another name), things can only get worse for individuals if are really to go down this road.

I despair.

by Kathy Sinnott MEP - Hope Project Mon May 01, 2006 19:47 hope.project at esatclear dot ie St. Joseph, Ballinabearna, Ballinhassig, co cork 021 4888503

Thank you for highlighting the latest move by Minister McDowell . Remember, he was the Attorney General in the case against my son's and every persons with a disabilities' right to education. He was the Attorney General in the Supreme Court Appeal to the Sinnott Judgment . In it he sought successfully to establish that persons over 18 did not as the High Court found, have a constitutional right to education and that judges had no right to make mandatory orders to ensure that people with disabilities are no longer neglected by the State.

As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he with his junior Minister for Equality proposed a Disability Bill that ignored the rights and recommendations of the disabillity community. He then passed in opposition to us.

There are a great number of disability groups. If Minister McDowell wants to limit the number of groups he only has to see that people with disabilities have their rights vindicated. Then we won't need some many campaigning groups. In the meantime a lot of groups does not mean we don't work together. The unity shown during the long campaign for a Rights Based Disability Bill and against the terrible bill we got shows that we can work together when we need to.

Maybe this is what Michael wants to avoid in future. Whatever his motive, I am sorry if I must suspect it is not for our benefit.

by John Aherne Fri May 05, 2006 19:41

I have notified Pobal through the email addy stated above on Sunday, April 30th, that I wanted to attend the meeting in Galway. As of yet there has been no reply. Is that normal?