The Rebuttal

A couple of weeks ago a well known Deaf community member asked some questions on Facebook. They asked about Deaf organisations. Is there room for so many? Is one organisation better? Or is it not a good thing that we have a lot? The questions were along these theme. I am going to explore these themes in this article. What follows are my opinions and mine alone. It must be noted that I work in the Deaf sector. I have no wish to cause any conflict. The aim of this article is simply to explore the issues and help the reader think more deeply about them. There are no right or wrongs, just options. I ‘don’t want a war!

We are now in the NDIS world. Disability organisations, including Deaf organisations, no longer have the same control of their funding. In the past they received “Block Funding” from Governments. The Government would give them X amount of dollars to deliver agreed services. For this money (that was never enough by the way), organisations would agree to support X number of clients per year, covering X amount of hours and delivering an agreed number of supports. For Deaf organisations, that might be recreation, interpreting, counselling, case management, youth groups and so on.

In this “Block Funding” world organisations had an enormous amount of power. The organisations, usually led by non-disabled people, decided who, what, where and how services would be delivered. Many disabled people got nothing because the services that were delivered were not relevant to them. Others got a lot but how much they got was generally dictated by the disability organisation, the size of its “Block Funding” and its success in fundraising. Ethics, humanity, dignity etc, were words that one struggled to use in a sentence in this world of fundraising. But I digress.

The NDIS changed all of this. Disability organisations lost most of their “Block Funding”. There were still grants that they could apply for, but once the NDIS was introduced millions and millions of dollars that were once allocated in “Block Funding” were lost. Instead, it went directly to consumers who, in theory, decided where they would spend this money. They “Self Directed” their funds.

What has this meant for Deaf organisations who had traditionally “Looked After” the Deaf Community? For a start it has meant that they lost millions of dollars in funding. This funding was traditionally and mostly provided by State Governments. Across Australia the amount of this funding was very different depending on the policies and decisions made by the particular State Government. Big states like NSW and Victoria generally received a lot more funding because of the relative wealth and demand in these bigger States. Smaller states often, in comparison, received a pittance. It was not an equal world.

The NDIS changed all of this. Now funding was delivered equally and directly to the consumer and right across Australia. There are some who will argue that the funding allocation to people with a disability is actually inconsistent and unfair. That is a whole other article.

After the NDIS was introduced the problem was that in some of these smaller states the services on offer from Deaf organisations were minimal. It’s fair to say that in the early days of the NDIS, many Deaf people received all this money for supports but, depending on where they lived, they had very little choice of supports. Why? Well, because many of the traditional service providers were too small to deliver the services on the scale that was needed.

What happened when the NDIS was introduced was really complex. But in a nutshell, people with a disability had more control and could decide where they wanted to spend their NDIS support money. Of course, the money had to be spent on support for disability but no longer was there an all powerful service provider who decided who got the support and when. And more significantly, to survive these service providers, who now no longer had the “Block Funding”, had to convince people with a disability that they were the best organisation to support them. ME! ME! Pick ME! It was bit like that.

So it became a bit of a war between service providers. It became a bit like Coles vs Woolies. In the Deaf Sector providers were offering interpreting, Auslan support, support work, audiology, technology, support coordination and so on. But now Deaf people who controlled their own support dollars could choose which service provider that they wanted. If you were in Victoria, you could use a support provider in NSW if you wanted, just as long as that support provider could provide you with what you needed.

In the Coles and Woolies vein, some of these service providers started to try and control the market. Seeing that there was a profit to be made, they set up shop in other states and began to offer services. In the early days of the NDIS, there really wasn’t much choice for the Deaf community, apart from the old locally based Deaf Society. But as the NDIS grew, so did the number of service providers.

I wouldn’t say it was a plethora of options but it certainly was a lot more than what was on offer in the past. The old community based, welfare model that had controlled the Deaf community in the past was no more. Suddenly, it became a big business where these service providers had to convince us Deaf people that they were the best and that we should use them! What is more, small private businesses were established. These businesses were often set up by Deaf people themselves. It was almost a war, where to survive service providers had to convince Deaf people that the services that they were offering were the best!

WAR, WAR, what’s it good for? Well, it’s certainly good for choice. It’s certainly means that Deaf people rather than Deaf organisations are more in control of where their funding dollar goes. It certainly created more demand for interpreting which all of these service providers combined are finding hard to meet. It has certainly created challenges for service providers to survive; they either convince us to use them or they sink.

For me, one of the things that I think has been lost is the spirit of cooperation. I am a bit old school. I remember the times when Deaf Societies cooperated with each other. They lobbied together for a common good. They combined to host conferences and assist the Deaf community to address the issues of inequality that they were facing. They provided a community base for the Deaf community. A base where the Deaf community felt safe and at home. A lot of this spirit of cooperation has been lost and that’s sad.

Would one service provider be good? One organisation servicing the whole of the Deaf community all over Australia? One service provider controlled by Deaf people? One service provider using its profits to support advocacy based organisations like national and state based advocacy? One service provider using its profits to provide Deaf clubs and a safe community base for the Deaf community? One Service provider has many benefits but It would be a monopoly of sorts. This in turn could limit the choices of Deaf people.

OR – Lots of service providers offering services and supports? Offering value for money to entice the consumer? Offering choice to the Deaf community so that their NDIS dollar is used effectively? Choice and competition ensuring the the Deaf community get high quality and diverse choices? BUT, lots of organisations competing against each other for the almighty dollar and less emphasis on providing for a strong Deaf community. A survival of the fittest model, so to speak! Pros and cons, pros and cons!

OR – A combination of the above, where there is cooperation and where the needs of the Deaf community are put first? A model that recognises that there is room for multiple organisations that offer quality supports and who put the Deaf community at its centre. Organisations that find common ground despite the competitive world in which they exist. BUT, in this competitive and survival of the fittest environment, would this be possible?

Or – Perhaps I am just a dreamer. An old man from a past era who is struggling to keep up with the change. Highly possible and highly probable. But that tune continues to ring in my head;

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh

Maybe it is time to take stock.

Or for me to go out to pasture!