• 1. Introduction
• Opening Address: Conversations of Possibilities
• Opening Address: The Foundation Today
• 2. Questions and answers regarding the stories
• 3. Key points made by workshop participants
• 4. Additional concepts and ideas
• Panel:  What issues haven’t been covered?
• 5. Closing
• 6. Additional issues raised in the breakout groups

1. Introduction

Apologies: Linda Beck, Jill Mills, Mary Harker, Gerard Rahman, Karen Stobbs, BLENNZ, Hazel Jennings, Chris Orr, Veta Endemann

Note: Minutes follow the order that the stories were printed and sent out prior to the meeting.

The RNZFB 2020 workshop ‘conversations of possibilities’ meeting opened with keynote addresses from Don McKenzie, Chairman, and Sandra Budd, Chief Executive. The text of their speeches follows.

Opening Address: Conversations of Possibilities

Don McKenzie Chairman

Kia ora. A warm welcome to each and every one of you – particularly those who have gotten up early this morning and  travelled and made that journey through the airports; not easy for blind people to do that and I want to thank you for making that special effort.

Not sure if anyone from Bayleys is with us but I want to say a warm thanks to Bayleys from the Foundation for making this magnificent venue available to us. I want to say thanks to the story cultivators for making the stories available to us; who have given birth to these stories, the scribes and so on. Our story tellers tell us we are in for quite a treat. Welcome to our special guests who will be with us later in the day; as Pat and Cathy said, thank you for giving up your Saturday. It’s really greatly appreciated.

Apologies from Linda Beck and Jill Mills (Board Directors) who are not able to be with us today for various reasons.

There are Braille and large print copies of the agenda and the workshops and the stories available on the table outside. Please make your needs known and that can be done.

I said in March that these forums were about catching ideas and the stories that have been developed certainly do that,  I like to think of it as the RNZFB unleashed, I think it’s really good – there has been an awful lot of thinking outside of the square. These stories are our cultural DNA, these are the stories that give us the ground of who we are, and probably stories are really not told often enough. I think we need to work more on the narrative of our stories, of what it is to live in a visual world as a blind person.

These stories signal to me anyway three ingredients for success:

First: the generation of new and useful ideas - creativity.

Second: they catch the good ideas of others - connectivity.

Third: there is a willingness to absorb, take on new ideas - flexibility.  The creativity, connectedness and flexibility suggests we're in for a cracker day and a good outcome for the project. Your stories are moving us from the actual to the possible.  Thank you for such spirited and enthusiastic input.  Now the task is to capture the best of these ideas, refine them and make them workable, acceptable and affordable.

The critical question is what value does the RNZFB add to society? What is our essential uniqueness?

One clear message from our March meeting was: we are in the people business.  Achievement comes from people, through people to people.  Since 1890, the Foundation has been a national learning centre where people with little or no sight have come to turn their lives around, to learn to cope with a different way of living, and to pick up from trained staff and other blind people the tips and tricks of dealing with blindness in a personal and functional sense.

At our first 2020 gathering Vision Australia and the RNIB shared with us valuable lessons about moving forward in today's economic and social climate.  Publicly funded supports for people with vision loss vary hugely around the world.  There is room for improvement in NZ based on a philosophy of investment to offset dependency rather than seeing blindness as a cost centre.  There is a job to do in selling that idea to the community and Government.  We have to find our own uniquely NZ solutions built on facts and relationships, both internal and external.  Typically, Kiwis favour a "fair go" society based on "mateship", where Jack is as good as his master and where pioneering resilience is valued.  "Give it a go".  "Just do it".  We're not wealthy compared to the countries we aspire to emulate.  We have to work out our own solutions.  Find common purpose among ourselves and with others.

As Einstein says, "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them".

Challenges posed by the stories

Are we about walking the journey with people who are coming to terms with sight loss; struggling to accept what cannot be changed; working at beginning to live life anew with dignity, meaning and purpose; enabling newly blinded people to focus on undreamed horizons and encouraging more effective living without sight; finding a new future by using other ways of knowing, other ways of doing and being?

Or, are we about being on the cutting edge of innovation; leaving that rehabilitation stuff to others in the health sector as it is with spinal and neurological disorders; providing maintenance and enterprise services to people already blind so that they might live rich and effective lives - "changing what it means to be blind"?

Or, are we a social change agency working with the political machine to get a fair deal for people with little or no sight?

If the answer is a mix of all the above, then what is the proportion of the mix - what should the cake look like?

Another thought to carry into today's discussions is, are we yet aware of the voices for whom these forums don't work?  Ruth is working with these voices through focus groups.

One message Gerard Menses left with us was, "let's cooperate as hard as we can for the best outcomes for clients".  But he warned there is no typical client.  There is only 2.5% agreement on what's needed.

Lesley-Anne Alexander reminded us how unbelievable it is that, in today's modern Britain, half the sight loss is preventable.  Dr Sharp stressed that early diagnosis helps hugely and that the treatment picture changes by the day.  Gene therapy, stem cell research and medications are making great advances but that progress will be limited by health economics.  That is precisely the Foundation's position.

As we stand, the Foundation works on behalf of only 1 in 333 Kiwis.  Social planners put us into the too hard basket.  We get forgotten.  But the census tells us that 1 in 50 Kiwis cannot read newsprint or recognise faces across a room.  1 in 5 people over 65 have sight loss that affects their lives.  There has to be a better way!

So, does progress lie in finding common ground, negotiating common purpose wherein medicine, professional bodies, consumers and service providers work to market prevention, early detection, rehabilitation and service provision.  As Gerard Menses said, "there is value in creating a living partnership between service providers and users that is focused on solutions rather than problems.”  We know what the problems are; it’s solutions that count.

• Guide dog owners still get thrown out of restaurants;
• 60% of blind people don't have work;
• Around 70% of blind people live on minimal incomes;
• Blind children don't have equal access to quality education;
• The failure rate in tertiary education is high;
• Low vision services are scattered and inadequate;
• 86% of people attending eye clinics, at least in UK can't read their appointment letter;
• People lose their sight needlessly.  And so it goes.

At the end of this 2020 project those of us who have accepted responsibility for making decisions on the basis of your input will have to convert ideas into practical strategies.  As one Director said, "we will need some numbers to do that" and therein lie several dilemmas.  I turn to Albert Einstein for solace, who said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

For certain however, what we are about most emphatically is the Foundation's fitness to survive in a competitive world.  To adapt!  To control our own destiny! For sure, our job is to create a world in which blind and partially sighted people enjoy the same rights, freedoms, responsibilities and quality of life as the person next door. To live much like the rest of the community; "to live an ordinary life". So, let's take the stories, and what you make of them, and continue shaping our own future.

Opening Address: The Foundation Today

Sandra Budd Chief Executive

Thank you Don. Like you, I loved reading the stories that our wonderful teams put together. There are just so many exciting ideas contained in each story. The future told in the stories looks as though it holds huge potential and opportunities for the Foundation and for those at the heart of the organisation – our members, who I think of as our clients.

Today is about looking forward and having conversations about what we may become. Of course we need to go forward from a strong platform and so I thought I would spend a small amount of time today talking about some changes to the senior management structure I recently announced. Those changes will align us with our strategic direction. That was really affirmed for me after reading the stories and noting the common themes in them. These included the need to consider:

• Increasing our lobbying activity
• Reviewing and altering our property arrangements and investments
• Changing the structure of the workforce
• Shedding some services
• Delivering less services one – to – one in the home
• Providing much better information
• Being clearer about what we do
• Making better use of technology and remote support tools, like  Webcam
• Being at the forefront of standards and quality, and
• Building our profile.

In terms of the senior management structure, I have recently completed a consultation process, during which I presented to over 300 staff, volunteers, consumer group representatives and some members.  The consultation generated 104 formal responses as well as anecdotal feedback.   The consultation helped refine the final executive structure, which I announced on 27 May.  The new structure comes into effect a month from today. My vision for the restructure has been to build a leadership team that will work as one to deliver the Foundation’s future direction and sustainability.

I see an organisation with our clients at the centre of everything we do. Around them are our staff.  Beyond that are our management and executive team who support the work that our staff do. We all want a high performing organisation.  Crucial to this is a strong leadership team working together and this new structure will deliver that. The executive director roles under the new structure are:

1. Direct Client Contact Services;

2. Access, Innovation and Enterprise;

3. Strategy, Improvement and Performance;

4.  People and Culture;

5. Marketing and Fundraising; and,

6. Stakeholder Relations.

This team will give us the platform and power to deliver on the direction the Board sets as part of RNZFB 2020 ‘Sustaining our Future’.

So what about today?

Well, at the last workshop we heard from some inspiring speakers. Dr Dianne Sharp told us about some of the exciting developments on the medical front. Advances that may mean that some people no longer need go blind. That was wonderful news.

Our Chief Financial Officer, Gerard Rahman, who unfortunately could not be here today, told us about the financial future we faced if we carried on as we are today. He told us that by 2012 the Foundation would face an annual $2 million operating deficit. By 2020, that deficit would reach $10 million. In other words, without change, we are not sustainable as an organisation.

We heard from Lesley-Anne Alexander via video. She faced an even worse situation when she took the helm of the RNIB around four years ago. But we heard how she turned the organisation around so today they can now look at embracing new opportunities and entering new service delivery areas. Our Chairman coined the wonderful phrase, “there is life after bugger”. And I was amused to see that this slightly naughty idea was picked up and built on in one of the stories with 0900 OBugger.

And we heard from my colleague in Australia, Gerard Menses, who gave us the wonderful phrase, “conversations of possibilities”.

That is what we are here for today. To have conversations of possibilities. And I am delighted that we have five, well actually six, excellent stories to stimulate our thinking. And I believe that we’re going to hear the first three of those stories now. Thank you.

2. Questions and answers regarding the stories

The RNZFB 2020 stories were introduced and questions responded to. The following section lists the questions and answers given for each of the stories.

Story One: Teaching Blindness skills for 6/60’s

Toni Sharp & Chantelle Griffiths

Q      What is important in the 6/60 story?

A      The important thing we find in the 6/60 story is that we feel we need to restrict numbers, one of the ways that is going to be done effectively is by lowering the criteria for membership to 6/60 or a field of 10 degrees.

Q      What do you think makes this story work?

A      Making a clearly defined view, set structure, having people that are going to be held responsible effectively for taking care of new members, for ensuring that any member has easy access to staff or NASC service coordinators as and when they require it by using adaptive technology in the form of electronic communications.

Q      How would this story create a better Foundation for members in the future?

A      We feel it would make a better Foundation effectively with the restricted             numbers, being able to assist the members we have more effectively, keeping costs down and having the access on hand when members require it.

Q      What about the downsides?

A      Downsides – what we are looking at is having three rehab centres throughout New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch) – the downside would be if there were a lack of communication through localised community bases in getting service delivery requirements for our members if and when they require it.

Story Two: Investing in members

Jenny Rickit & Dianne Armstrong

Q      What is important in investing in members?

A      Some of the important factors about our story are that New Zealand residents will be the ones that will be receiving services and that the criteria will be slightly tighter than the 6/24 but not much tighter. That pre-members (people who don’t quite meet the criteria) will be able to access our services at a fee. They will have to pay if they want specific services. Some of the other important things about our story is the strong lobbying voice in Wellington. There is going to be a strong group of people specifically lobbying for funding, and that the library will become a wholly owned subsidiary, it will receive complete government funding.

We want to look at a disability insurance in the same manner that is being introduced into Australia – it might be for individual members or for a government run insurance, and we believe that Guide Dogs remain a key service.

Q      What makes the story work?

A      We think we have a number of access options, one of which is 0900 OBugger, we will have a website, webcams, video links and an 0800 screen number where people can ring in. We are going to have generalist staff who will be called “Core Service Providers” and then we would have them supported by some specialists. They’d be counsellors, guide dog instructors, adaptive technology and volunteer coordinators. We believe that in 2020 we should be lean, streamlined, and flat with in house training. We will have fewer offices. We want to have at least one Eye Bus. We want a core service provider van and want it filled with all the equipment so that they will be able to whip out and get whatever is required. We will only deal with clients where blindness is the primary disability and we will look to retain, maintain our staff and volunteers.

Q      What will make this a better Foundation?

A      We will be experts in blindness. Our image and brand. We will be a nationally and internationally recognised organisation. The first thing that will come to people’s minds when they think about blindness will be the Foundation.

         The Generalists will mean that clients will be working with one person specifically, rather than a whole lot of staff. The strong focus on lobbying in Wellington will bring funding for the Foundation; and the fact that members will continue to support each other with phone service and various other means as well. We will have clarity about what services we provide and be effective for members and be effective as a business with our image and brand. Our brand will tell people what we do. Every staff member will carry that brand with them in a positive manner so that people will be very clear about that.

Q      What is the negative?

A      The only negative we saw with our story was that we would need to take             every client, every staff member and every stakeholder with us – all on     this journey with us

Story Three: The Experts

Moira Clunie & Lucy Mackintosh

Q      What’s important in the Experts story?

A      Not one simple answer to any of the questions – first thing that’s important is that it is flexible. We want to try and offer services that genuinely meet individual and local need. Because we focus on prevention and we provide services to anyone with a related need, we can help reduce preventable blindness; also help reduce the gradual loss as its happening. Linked to that it very much recognises functional need, not purely a clinical criteria, we would be seeing ourselves as being here for people who need us and can make good use of us, rather than people who can tick a particular set of clinical boxes. Related to that, we have said in this story that clients are a wider group than just governing members, so we don’t just tie ourselves into providing services for just blind, deafblind and partially sighted people, where other groups clearly have a shared interest – our example of that would be the wider print disabled community and information access services.

We think that it makes sure that the prestige and expertise that the Foundation has actually benefits all blind and partially sighted and deafblind people regardless of other needs. It doesn’t buy into the concept that there is such a thing as a primary disability, and it doesn’t assume that complex needs can be met by just gluing together the input of our service and another service. It recognises that impairments and other issues interact to create a different set of needs that we need to find whole new ways of meeting. It tries to recognise individual’s real complexity both in terms of multiple impairments and in terms of cultural background, values and aspirations. Finally, it cares about supporting meaningful lives. It doesn’t assume that one person’s meaningful life looks like another person’s. Some people will care deeply about independence and supporting independence will be the priority in that person’s life; others will have other priorities we will have to focus on.

Story Four: For Members, by Members

Paul Manning & Wendy Chiang

Q      What is important in this story?

A      We are trying to utilise the biggest resource base which is the members themselves and the volunteers as well. By doing that we are hoping that if we use this group of people who will grow to reflect our membership base as it grows, the volunteer base would grow as well – so if we do that it will free up the expert staff to go into research and develop new resources and skills and research new knowledge that can be fed back into this group and the community in general regarding blindness related skills and knowledge.

Q      What makes For Members, by Members work?

A      The main point is that by doing this we are hoping that everyone who is involved gets a sense of satisfaction in contributing to help others, so basically, if you love what you do then hopefully you will keep doing it and do it to a really high standard.

Q      How will it create a better Foundation for members/clients in the future?

A      We hope it will shorten the time for people to access support and information; and that more members will be seen in the public doing work and that group work will become the norm and therefore we are hoping to reduce issues of loneliness and isolation.

Q      What are the downsides of For Members, by Members?

A      Obviously because we are so reliant on the volunteer base group, of course not all members will want to be involved and there is a lot of assumptions involved in this idea and basically reliance on the organisations ability to change as a whole because we have such a large membership base and culture is diverse and ages are diverse. It is very reliant on everyone wanting to be involved and moving in the same direction. In short, we need the right people on the bus and if we don’t have that it won’t really work.

Story Five: Getting on with Life

Neil Jarvis & Adrienne Henderson

Q      What is important in your story?

A      We think the important thing about the story is it is about giving clients choice, it’s enabling them to have the power to decide what services they want. We would be really clear as an organisation about referrals, so if a member or client were referred to a service that we provide (or we didn’t provide) we would refer them to people who did. And that’s another central tenet of what this story is about is that ‘we don’t do everything – we are very clear about what we do and we are very clear about what we don’t do’, and that is something which we think is very important. We would be information brokers so we would ensure that everyone knew what the options were, we would put it in front of them and we would ensure that they know how to go about accessing those options.

Q      What makes getting on with life work?

A      We work with people who are having any difficulty at all with their sight loss and help them to develop the skills that they need to be independent. We are very customised in what we do, we are very focused in what we do, and as our values say – we are responsive so when people identify their needs we have that real ‘’can do’’ attitude  - we can help you sort it!

We are going to do it even better next time so that each time we will look at what we are doing and how we can do it better and we will always be open and honest in whatever we do.

Q      How will this story create a better Foundation for members in the future?

A      We will be a very focused organisation – we will be experts in what we do because we will be clear about what we do and we won’t get pulled into doing things that it is not appropriate for us to do. We will be focused, clear and we will give people what they want.

Q      The downsides?

A      Charging is one of the things we have in our story and some people might have difficulty with that, but we will have a welfare fund where there is the opportunity for people who are unable to pay for what they needed that it could be provided. Generally speaking, services could be provided as of right when there is need, but there was just a concern about how people interpreted what was ‘needed’ and what was a ‘preferred service’.

Story Six: Human Services

Summary read by Joanne Kersey & Pauline Rowe.

There were no questions.

3. Key points made by workshop participants

The following section lists the key points raised by the breakout groups when they were invited to comment on the key issues their groups had identified.

Story One:  Teaching Blindness Skills for 6/60s

What we most liked

1. Definition of blindness
2. Distribution of reading material through public libraries
3. Start multi-tasking – one key contact
4. Lobbying and prevention
5. Clearly affordable because had trimmed the most
6. Focus on core services
7. Education and support assistance for communities
8. Focus on NASC

What we didn’t like

1. Emphasis on ‘cutting back’ the Foundation
2. Need statistical analysis regarding entry criteria
3. Not flexible enough – ‘one size fits all’
4. What happens to people who fall between the cracks
5. 6/60 criteria is not good – it excludes people and is too narrow
6. Funding criteria is not defined
7. Too reactive to current economic situation
8. Removing Breeding Services

What we’d do differently

1. Include children more. Keep Children’s Services – not move to BLENNZ, and focus on rehabilitation.
2. More flexibility – infrastructural/development work
3. Cultural values – needs clarification and scoping
4. Re-visiting of vision criteria – more statistical analysis about the change from 6/24 to 6/60
5. Lobbyist will be in parliament full time
6. More centres relevant to demographics
7. Show how transition group can be managed
8. Reliance on volunteers and local service providers.

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall.

Overall, this was given a ‘thumbs down’ mostly because of the tightening of the eligibility criteria.

Story Two: Investing in Members

What we most liked

1. Strong branding of the Foundation and the core service provider
2. Use of technology – utilising time more effectively.
3. Technology resulting in responsiveness
4. Access to services in rural NZ
5. Strong lobbying
6. Recognition of the need to provide for ‘pre-membership’
7. Mobile services
8. ‘On demand’ services and instant access

 What we didn’t like

1. How many vans?
2. Felt like it was done to us
3. 3-4 hour session is too long for a first appointment
4. Ignores children with multiple disabilities
5. No focus on staff retention
6. Library farmed out
7. One shoe doesn’t fit all sizes
8. Insurance concept good, but not if it means the poor miss out
9. Linking branding to Guide Dog Services – dishonest
10. Access to services – located only in main centres
11. How would services be delivered

What we’d do differently

1. Branding – expand images, specifically to include children
2. 3 hour visit – van – define intent of assessment
3. Define eligibility criteria
4. Staff retention
5. Need to enhance efficiency and waste less time
6. Van would be logistically difficult, maybe some group service could be considered
7. Need to ensure that someone who is paying does not receive priority over a member who is not paying.
8. Retaining the expertise
9. Define how you would deliver services
10. Lobbying needs to be stronger

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall.

Overall, this was more ‘thumbs up’ although there were some concerns over logistics.

Story Three: The Experts

What we most liked

1. Acknowledgement of multi-cultural environment and provision of information in range of languages
2. Individualised funding and willingness to pay
3. Multi skilled instructors
4. Seamless and humane
5. Rights based
6. Individual flexibility including funding
7. Services were responsive
8. Emphasis on UN Convention of people with disabilities
9. Members would be seen as experts.

What we didn’t like

1. Similar to now – not gone far enough, not enough change
2. Farming out to public libraries
3. Removing counselling services
4. Funding would be a problem because of the complex structure
5. Concerned about the elderly and people who couldn’t pay or didn’t receive funding
6. Connection problems – should be more hands on
7. Information broking – maybe too much referral
8. Functional vision criteria and how it will work
9. Children not included.

What we’d do differently

1. Ensuring the highest quality service is provided
2. More statistical data – analyse cost before changing library services
3. Growing our membership, making them the experts
4. Clarity around children
5. What happened to those who didn’t meet the criteria
6. Realism around the criteria, need some sort of checklist
7. Functional split between services for child/adult, because they are different
8. Library services – if it was farmed out there would be more funding from the city councils and we do pay rates
9. We would have to take a look at how we charge for services
10. There may be an over reliance on the State

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or note about the concept overall.

Overall, this tended to be more ‘thumbs up’ but there was some doubt about its affordability.

Story Four: For Members, by Members

What we most liked

1. Acknowledged members and members knowledge
2. Peer support
3. Inclusion of members as volunteers, we can both receive and contribute – members have expertise
4. Employing more staff members, as long as they have the qualifications
5. Best way to provide services, without increasing costs
6. Really clear mission – non ambiguous
7. Emphasis on older people having power
8. Independence for the Foundation created through funding arrangements.

What we didn’t like

1. Structure is reliant on volunteers, it could cripple the organisation if it doesn’t work out
2. Too many technology assumptions are made especially the affordability of technology
3. Don’t like the name Vision New Zealand, it’s a copy; we have a good name
4. The Needs Assessor’s role is a specialist one – uncomfortable using volunteers to perform this role
5. We want the best person for the job, emphasis has to be on ability
6. Concern about level of volunteers – do they have the skills and if they do, they should be paid
7. The use of contractors replacing permanent staff
8. Consumer organisations doing their own fundraising; this would create confusion and competition
9. Concerns members may feel used – the concept is good but they may feel too much is being asked of them
10.  Apartheid message for the blind.

What we’d do differently

1. Provide scholarships so members can become the right people for the job, it is a professional job
2. Importance of training volunteers if they do an initial assessment
3. Invest Government funding in more training for members and staff
4. Get the best person for the job of CEO
5. Volunteers are good, but reliance on them is not
6. Needed a more realistic balance between staff and volunteers / paid and unpaid
7. Don’t change the name.

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or note about the concept overall.

Overall, Groups tended to give this a ‘thumbs down’.  While some concepts surrounding the value and skills of members were welcomed, overall this seemed unsustainable due to the over-reliance on volunteers.

Story Five: Getting on with life

What we most liked

1. Very empowering – “we will help”
2. Removed restrictions around eligibility – anyone can use the service
3. Clarity around services
4. Anyone can access – income is not a barrier
5. Member fee and the payment for services
6. Functional approach
7. Buddy system
8. Flexibility in service delivery model
9. Attention to governance
10. Loved choice and can do approach
11. Clarity, creating a definition of core/preferred services
12. Workforce retention, technology focus and being cutting edge
13. Prevention campaigns.

What we didn’t like

1. Group settings – for service provision
2. Technology is important but should not replace the human factor
3. Means test unpopular
4. Core/non core division – need detail
5. Appropriateness of group training especially for O & M
6. Confusion over charging regime, how would it work?
7. Not different enough to now, hence not significant change to financials
8. Who decides what is essential?
9. Don’t like BLENNZ providing services, they are education, not rehabilitation
10. Any consumer group representatives on the Board
11. Lacks an ‘older’ persons perspective
12. Cost might be a barrier although the welfare fund or other established funds might help.
13. Lack detail on prioritising people’s needs
14. Over population – not enough staff to meet needs.
15. Not accommodating Deafblind or complex needs.

What we’d do differently

1. Computer vs adaptive technology – needs clarification
2. Incorporating partnership concept with family from Story 6, would be a positive addition
3. Concept of membership is too broad – it does need to be more defined
4. Sort out the fee structure more clearly
5. Tighter criteria for service – it’s trying to do too much
6. Recognise issue around group provision – need clarity and to consider the human factor
7. Instead of doing research and prevention – link with universities and medical       schools.

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall.

Overall, this tended to be more ‘thumbs up’.

Story Six: Human Services

What we most liked

1. Whole family embraced
2. Very NZ focussed, doesn’t rely on overseas models
3. Holistic, includes everyone
4. Reduction of management
5. Multi-cultural focus is “we”, not “I”
6. Service provided in people’s homes
7. Whole partnership
8. Focus and acknowledgement of buildings and places

What we didn’t like

1. Mainly focus on culture – short on ‘how to’
2. Didn’t say how it would work
3. Loss of offices – loss of visibility
4. Lateness
5. Cost associated with working with the family
6. Theory, no detail, no clear direction
7. It is necessary to teach total independence because can’t rely on the family
8. Bi-cultural, not multi-cultural – left out the Indo-Chinese
9. Difficult to get to the kernel of the story
10. Lack of clarity around the terminology/understanding, not specific enough

What we’d do differently

1. Use simple language
2. Bi-cultural to multi-cultural
3. Focussing on individual and giving them the power to stand on their own, not just with the family
4. Its just a series of theoretical statements, but what about consumer groups?
5. Staff – holistic approach
6. Concern about losing the library how will members get material in accessible formats
7. Use smaller words
8. Outsourcing services – how feasible is this especially for vocational services

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or note about the concept overall.

Overall, Groups had difficulty rating this concept at all due to the lack of detail and clarity.  However, it was suggested that there may be some relevance which could be brought over to other stories.

4. Additional concepts and ideas

Break-out groups suggested:

1. Partnering with youth, mentor youth and look to them as the source of new leaders.
2. Look at commercial opportunities from the library – the library could be seen as affording commercial opportunities for revenue rather than as drain on RNZFB resources.
3. Sell the expertise we have.
4.  Vouchers for members so they can buy services.
5. Books on line – electronic books via libraries – they would be much lighter than braille volumes!
6. Undertake an analysis of property sales.
7. Early intervention.
8. Consider issues regarding balancing lobbying and service provision roles.
9. Break out groups were very valuable – a great experience.
10. Some people not keen on term ‘client’, see it as impersonal, wouldn’t have contributed as much for free over the years if had not been viewed as member.
11. Isolation is not just about the elderly.

Panel:  What issues haven’t been covered?

1. Worrying if we don’t do this again.  Need to consider these things in the future and what we will learn.
2. All stories looked at the population as though it would be the same as today, ie dominated by an older population.  Potentially the type of client will be different, demand will be higher and more complex, due to factors such as diabetes which could affect younger people, say 30 – 50 years old
3. Raising the RNZFB’s profile in the community – generating funding, such as income generating seminars – educate the educator, other allied group resources.  Use expertise to get income such as consultancy services, new buildings, signage etc.
4. All stories use lots of assumptions – they don’t move the environment forward.  What will consumer organisations be like going forward? Few stories placed emphasis on consumer organisations – they may evolve and become competition for the Foundation in future.
5.  We don’t really know about the new barriers, have not looked outside NZ greatly and how things will change – globalisation having an impact – potential for collaboration and for partnership
6. Medical technology will create enormous change in next decade – treatment options/gene therapy.  The major issue is health economics. The RNZFB will need to lobby for funding for treatment
7. Look at governance – changing so Board members only sit two terms. Response: External review of the Foundation five years down the track – due to be undertaken.
8. Shortage of ophthalmic practitioners and lack of low vision services.  It is not profitable for optometrists working in the low vision area – difficult to do in general practice due to funding but necessary to make services more accessible
9. Stigma society places on blindness, associated with fear.  What will stereotypes be like in 2020 and how will it affect ability to get on with life? People are afraid of loosing their vision, it is helpful to have access to the Foundation and facilities and buddies – it takes away the fear and stigma. Thrilled to see ease of access coming out of stories. Primarily it must be a function of the Foundation to make that change – it’s all about presentation.  It’s up to us to tell the story - there is a positive change in NZ school curriculum – people are appreciating and respecting difference. As a consumer group it is up to us to inform persons, whanau and community – being out in the community, talking to the people. Blow away the assumptions of visual impairment
10. Need to consider what effect environmental drugs and alcohol are having on babies who are being born addicted and affected in unheard of ways.  How will this impact on future clientele?
11. Take the opportunity to develop our leaders of the future.

5. Closing

The following keynote address was given by Don McKenzie, Chairman, and Sandra Budd, Chief Executive.

Closing Address: Don McKenzie and Sandra Budd

Well, what a day! We’ve covered an awful lot of material we’ve covered. What a wealth of ideas we have considered. Thank you. Thank you for being part of the conversation of possibilities. It’s been a huge wealth of ideas, I think that sharing these things, somebody said I don’t know if we should be doing this too often, I think we should be doing it more often in effect because this is a very rich ground where we can share ideas and I think this has been extraordinarily valuable and I want to thank each and every one of you for taking part in Conversations of Possibilities.

Thanks Don, yes I am still at the moment Chief Executive and I think it is a really good idea what the message I took from that was I had written “great” because what I see is that what you were really talking about in that story was developing our leaders of the future; and that’s what I really think is the issue.

It has been a great day, and as Don said we’ve heard so many things today that have sparked our imagination. It was great for me to be here, not to actually be out front all the time as we had to be on the first session and to have all of you talking and giving back your feedback and that’s been really special. We’ve heard the passion of the stories, we’ve heard the vision for the future, and we have to remember for those who wrote the stories and put your heart and soul into them, don’t feel concerned because people have been critiquing them and saying we need more detail because we will just remind all of us, that is actually the next stage and what you did was to give some very good pointers for the group who will come next and will be doing the work to actually analyse all of that work and say now what is possible, what out of these conversations, what actually is possible. And that is the next piece of work that will happen, the people who are involved in that group.

There will be some of the staff as well as consumer groups and other interested parties; obviously Ruth will be involved in that and I need to say to you Ruth, that the feedback I got from the people that were on the creative groups with you, was, what a spectacular facilitator you were and that they really enjoyed working with you (so we’re expecting great things out of you in the next phase).

Some of our senior staff will be involved with that process; Gerard Rahman, and Adrienne Henderson. Also involved are Chrissie Cowan and Clive Lansink who both bring an important perspective to the analytical process. In addition, we’re getting some external support, from KPMG, Arrowhead Consulting we are also looking at, many of you may have heard we had an opportunity to work with the Strategic Leadership Institute who critiqued us in great detail – we had 25 Senior Executives from around the country and overseas review the Foundation as a case study. And there was some amazing feedback we received from that and it will be going into this whole process; and we are going to be asking some of those people that were on that group to be involved in that analytical process as well.

Then we will be meeting back here on the 6th September and our topic for that day is RNZFB 2020 Considering the Possibilities. That will be when all of the work has been done and when we will get all of those figures and data, and does it really work.

So that in fact the benefits that you and I have had are passed onto future generations, and what can be a better gift. I want to thank in closing, the panel for being with us; some very sincere and loyal friends - Dianne Sharp, Prof Steve LaGrow, Kiran Valabh, Chrissie Cowan, Rose Wilkinson and Kevin Beaver, it’s very good of you to give up your Saturday, and I think there might be a wee token of our appreciation. Thank you also to Pat and Cathy, they have done a magnificent job.

Just in summary, there are some things that need to be said, there are some messages that I’ve picked up and I want to say that I think this has been a very mature conversation and I would like to pick up on is the wisdom and perspective that has come from a group like this. Several things have struck a cord with me today, the Foundation as a ‘supermarket’ for example, I found that a very neat idea, and Sandra will be an excellent check-out girl. (laughter). The Foundation has got be a supermarket with choice and clear brief about what its all about and individual service programmes as well as group work need to be clearly part of it, that’s a message I have taken on board.

The Foundation as a resource that enables people to take part in the wider community, I think that’s the thing that I have picked up. Working in partnership with other groups, being a dynamic, when one job is done we move onto another; cultivating leadership amongst our younger people. The notion of pre-membership is there, prevention, we have a good feel for that, also the notion of the Eye Bus, there are warnings out there, don’t forget about the middle New Zealand  project, our cultural mix into the future, we shouldn’t be forgetting about that. Steve mentioned about the impending disability that is moving upon us and Chrissie mentioned that also with respect to the drugs; moving forward together, there is strength in unity. The Board will navigate a course and ensure that the Foundation is fit. I think we should all remember that above all that was music to my heart was, “keep your overheads down”, so I am going to say goodbye and thank you and leave it to Sandra to close.

Ijust want to thank finally those people who have facilitated today and especially those who have helped with the stories. In appreciation, we have a token to say thank you more fully if you would come forward and receive it. I will ask you to come forward as I call your name. Thank you Dianne Sharp, Steve LaGrow, Kiran Valabh, Chrissie Cowan, Rose Wilkinson, Kevin Beaver.

And thank you to those of you who also worked on the stories.  Your ideas provided a wonderful platform for our discussions today. Thank you: Owen Wilson, Ina Smart, Jenny Rickit, Moira Clunie, Toni Sharp, Dianne Armstrong, Neville Bennett, Delwyn Lopez, Adrienne Henderson, Neil Jarvis, Geraldine Glanville, Wendy Chiang, Michael Ocean, Kiran Valabh (again), Jonathan Godfrey, Chantelle Griffiths, Lucy Mackintosh, Kevin Prince, Paul Manning, Joanne Kersey,  Pauline Rowe and Alison Marshall. And in their absence, thanks also to Veta Endemann, Chris Orr and Jackie Lovelock.

Facilitators, you kept humour and did a wonderful job.

Thanks to you all for your energy, your enthusiasm and your honesty, we have enjoyed it throughout the day, we look forward to seeing you back on the 6th September, safe journey home and just before we finish I am going to ask Chrissie if she can close the meeting for us.

Meeting closed with a Karakia

6. Additional issues raised in the breakout groups

The following section lists additional points raised in the breakout groups.

Story One: Teaching Blindness Skills for 6/60s

What we most liked

1. Definition of blindness is liked
2. 6/60 definition of ruling requires strict monitoring
3. People coming together for rehabilitation and socialisation
4. Clarity of information provided
5.  Public libraries holding braille, talking books
6. NASC
7. Transferrable skills
8. Prevention and advocacy has paid off
9. One person is point of contact
10. Offering a way forward economically
11. Shows an ideal world
12. Attention to potential of residential rehabilitation
13. Education / support / assisting other communities
14. Clear goal.

What we didn’t like

1. 6/60 criteria too high
2. Why 6/60?  No science to back up, what about others who have a need?
3. Need to get over stigma of blindness
4. Emphasis on cutting back of Foundation
5. Concern about having information in public libraries – quality could be affected
6. Medical criteria versus functional vision
7. Limited eligibility
8. Exclusion of guide dog breeding
9. Selling off of community based centres
10. Excludes people from service
11. Huge reliance on volunteers
12. Standard setting is the only thing but there needs to be more
13. Reliance on state
14. Being more relevant to a smaller group rather than larger group
15. Assumption that everyone will want to or be able to travel
16. Addressing economic issues, reactive to money issues

What we’d do differently

1. Referral system – intensive initial service delivery, lobbyist at Parnell (full-time)
2. Benefits would be resourcing people to be more self reliant
3. Set standards for agencies which result in higher quality services
4. Addressing issues – Foundation will provide quality assurance
5. Would do children service, but not education
6. Reduce the cost by early intervention
7. Don’t limit options
8. Synergies with other agencies
9. Extend  membership criteria
10. Listing services available, but only make them available when required / relevant
11. More centres relevant to demographics.

Overall Assessment
Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

One group gave this thumbs up

One group was neutral

Six groups gave this thumbs down.

The reduction in the eligibility criteria was the primary factor that resulted in stakeholders at the workshop giving this ‘thumbs down’.

Story Two: Investing in Members

What we most liked

1. Pre-members can get paid services
2. Core service provider and mobile services such as Eyebus, van with equipment, disability insurance
3. 0800/0900 telephone lines
4. Strong and visible lobbying
5. Image / brand focussed

What we didn’t like

1. Maintaining library services as a stand alone service
2. Access to main centre locations (buses could have instructors)
3. Remote service – follow-up too long (could be more flexible)
4. Need to be more responsive (lacks specialist core services

What we’d do differently

1. Library continues
2. Develop alliances
3. Define member,  non-member
4. Payment processes
5. Focus on everywhere, discussion on lobbying, query expertise

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

Five groups gave this thumbs up

Two were neutral

One was thumbs down.

Story Three: The Experts

What we most liked

1. Services responsive and localised
2. Choice and flexibility of service delivery method – home, group, residential and offered alternatives
3. Sharing and selling of expertise
4. Accessibility to technology
5. Advice and information
6. Acknowledgement of cultures – information in other languages
7. Expert generalist supported by rehabilitation assistant

What we didn’t like

1. Public library may not be as well positioned
2. Not some personalised service
3. Commercialised approach / income stream
4. Similar to now – clear vision
5. Still reliant on state
6. Expanse of providing funds/services
7. Staff cultural change difficult
8. Focussed more on staff than members / clients
9. Reliance on individual funding
10. Assumption that people will be happy to pay
11. Children did not seem to be included
12. Costs money to provide TB Magazines

What we’d do differently

1. Need to get Council money
2. Braille
3. Client focussed – lessons waiting list
4. Ensure highest quality so clients do not take funding elsewhere
5. Start to talk about changes / charges

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

Three groups gave this ‘thumbs up

Two groups gave this ‘more thumbs up’

Two group were neutral

One group was thumbs down.

The affordability of this story was a concern to the stakeholders at the workshop however, the humanity was appreciated.

Story Four: For Members, by Members

What we most liked

1. Use volunteers – peer support, consumer groups independent
2. Focus on independence (though possibly over emphasised)
3. Using knowledge of members, employ more members as staff – supporting members
4. Recognition for blind people having potential
5. Early intervention – key to success
6. Financially viable, only story to achieve the required aim of reducing costs property
7. Community houses are affordable way to have a community presence
8. Like name change (for not blind)

What we didn’t like

1. Blind CEO – not an aspiration in its own
2. Reliance on volunteers was too emphasised
3. Concerned that volunteers would have skills to provide services at a high enough level
4. Reducing Government funding would be a major trade off
5. Not recognising need for blind and sighted people to be a team
6. Best person for job
7. Name – sounds like it is copied
8. 3 hub – contractors, can lose team synergy
9. Not rational – idealism (may suit some people)
10. May not be able to rally enough people or members to provide service
11. Selling off of assets

What we’d do differently

1. Apartheid – for the blind, blind person doing job, worthy of pay as is volunteer
2. Requirement for CEO to be blind / partially sighted
3. Investigate Government funding
4. More training for members (emphasise it more)

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

Zero groups gave this ‘thumbs up’

Five group were neutral

Three groups were thumbs down.

Generally, stakeholders considered that this options was not sustainable. However, they welcomed the emphasis on members as experts in blindness.

Story Five: Getting on with life

What we most liked

1. Membership fees
2. Individual services (paid)
3. Early intervention, and effective lobbying
4. Like the functional approach
5. Formalised member / buddy system
6. Clarity, structure to core services
7. Equipment in community, specialists adaptive technology support
8. Partially sighted – recognition of PVI
9. Two options for needs assessment
10. Client choice
11. Lack of income is not a barrier
12. Anyone can access (vision can not be corrected by lenses)

What we didn’t like

1. Who decides what is essential?
2. Group mobility framing would be bad
3. Means test was unpopular and defining
4. Core / non-core is difficult
5. Follows international trends – very popular
6. Fee structure is complicated
7. Is it different enough to save money
8. Picking up some other agencies responsibilities
9. Deaf Blind, complex needs, special needs – services discontinued
10. Lacking in detail
11. Get overpopulated
12. Children service provided by BLENZ – Rehabilitation does not mean education
13. Family service with education is not the right fit
14. Lack of focus for current older members (technology)
15. Focus on technology detracts from use of braille, be careful
16. Lack of clarity in add on services
17. Representation on board

What we’d do differently

1. Tighter criteria for service
2. Sort out fees (some think fees per service, some think membership fees)
3. Need to fundraise including other disabilities
4. Include partners of visually impaired
5. Include more detail e.g. criteria, vetting process

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

Six groups gave this ‘thumbs up

Two group were neutral

Zero gave this ‘thumbs down’.

Story Six: Human Services

What we most liked

1. Definitions of core services nicely worded
2. Family focus
3. Cultural focus
4. Staff / Foundation focus
5. Commercial backbone – charity exterior focus
6. Not to sell assets
7. Humanistic approach
8. Acknowledgement of expertise within organisation
9. Annual Quality review, supporting staff
10. Young member orientated
11. Starting point
12. “The key is we”

What we didn’t like

1. Quite confusing language, difficult to read, theory based
2. Idealism versus realism
3. Holistic approach (Family), they are the support network and they fit into society and attitude
4. Farming out non-core services “Counselling Cases” again has specific risk and lack of focus
5. Culture – short on how to have concepts included in other stories, doesn’t prop itself up
6. Holistic family – funding costs
7. This story focuses on one key ethnic group, many more cultures add up to majority
8. Outsourcing – historically are they going to do it better – quality control

What we’d do differently

1. Ensure that member can stand on their own if needed
2. Jettisoning library
3. Strong on philosophy theory, weak on detail
4. More of a mission statement
5. Ensure staff understand holistic approach to service delivery
6. Work collaboratively with all consumer groups
7. More examples
8. Analysed more, put into a framework
9. Rational argument

Overall Assessment

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. This was indicated by the expression “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”:

One group gave this ‘thumbs up

Five groups were neutral or could not assess it

Two groups gave this thumbs down.