• Story 1: Teaching Blindness Skills for 6/60s
• Story 2: Investing in Members
• Story 3: The Experts
• Story 4: For Members, by Members
• Story 5: Getting on with life
• Story 6: Human Services

Story 1: Teaching Blindness Skills for 6/60s

What we most liked

1. Definition of blindness

2. Distribution of reading material through public libraries

3. 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

2. Need statistical analysis regarding eligibility criteria

3. Not flexible enough – ‘one size fits all’

4. What happens to people who fall between the cracks?

5. 6/60 criteria 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. Keep Children’s Services 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 would need to 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 of Story One

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 2: 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

8. Insurance concept good, but not if it means the poor miss out

9. Linking branding to Guide Dog Services is dishonest

10. Access to services outside of main centres

What we’d do differently

1. Branding – expand images, specifically to include children

2. Define intent of assessment visit

3. Define eligibility criteria

4. Staff retention and retaining expertise

5. Need to enhance efficiency and waste less time

6. Van would be logistically difficult, maybe some group services could be considered

7. Need to ensure that someone who is paying does not receive priority over a member who is not paying

8. Define how services would be delivered

9. Lobbying needs to be stronger.

Overall Assessment of Story Two

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 3: 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 seen as experts.

What we didn’t like

1. Too similar to now

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 quality

2. Costings

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. Over reliance on the State.

Overall Assessment of Story Three

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 doubt about affordability.

Story 4: 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. Crippling reliance on volunteers

2. Assumptions regarding affordability of technology

3. The name Vision New Zealand, we have a good name

4. Using volunteers for needs assessment

5. We want the best person for the job, emphasis has to be on ability

6. Concern about volunteers –if they have the skills, they should be paid

7. Replacing permanent staff with contractors

8. Consumer organisations doing their own fundraising

9. Members may feel used and that too much is 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 paid job

2. 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 of Story Four

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. Overall, Groups tended to give this a ‘thumbs down’. While acknowledging the value and skills of members was welcomed, the model appears unsustainable due to the over reliance on volunteers.

Story 5: 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. Anyone can access – income is not a barrier

4. Member fee and the payment for services

5. Functional approach

6. Buddy system

7. Flexibility in service delivery model

8. Attention to governance

9. Choice and can do approach

10. Clarity, creating a definition of core/preferred services

11. Workforce retention, technology focus and being cutting edge

12. 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 no significant financial change

8. Who decides what is essential?

9. 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 might help.

13. 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

3. Membership is too broad – it needs 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 of Story Five

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or not about the concept overall. Overall, this tended to be more ‘thumbs up’.

Story 6: 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’

2. Didn’t say how it would work

3. Loss of offices would create loss of visibility

4. Cost associated with working with the family

5. Theory, no detail, no clear direction

6. It is necessary to teach total independence because can’t rely on the family

7. Bi-cultural, not multi-cultural

8. Difficult to get to the kernel of the story

9. Lack of clarity around the terminology/understanding, not specific enough.

What we’d do differently

1. Use simple language and smaller words

2. Shift from 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. It’s just a series of theoretical statements.

5. What about consumer groups?

6. Staff – holistic approach

7. Concern about losing the library and accessible formats

8. Outsourcing – how feasible, especially for vocational services?

Overall Assessment of Story Six

Groups were asked if, generally speaking, they were positive or note about the concept overall. Overall, Groups had difficulty rating this concept 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.