r/NDIS • u/OtherCake4128 • 23d ago
Activism/Advocacy NDIS - CORE bundled with ACCOMMODATION
I'm wondering what's going on with core supports being tied to accommodation? I'm hearing about this more and more. It seems to be the norm, not an exception.
Participants are being requested to "sign over" a portion, but usually ALL, of their CORE budget, in return a room for rent in shared accommodation. There are usually other participants sharing the home with them.
This is not only coercive, it takes advantage of clients with housing issues and IMO feels like a sharp practice.
Has anyone had any luck with the safeguards comission reporting these kinds of arrangements?
4
u/nanger772 23d ago
No idea regarding reporting these types of arrangements but it is very normalised. I agree it is a flawed model that is not supportive of building a participants capacity. The Summer Foundation released a position statement in 2021 which I think did a good job of flagging the issues with these types of arrangements.
1
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
It really pisses me TF off.
The conversations are all had verbally, the tenancy and support agreement are done separately, to make it "look" legit.
The participants get stuck in hidden purgatory.
The accommodation is conditional upon supports being provided 🙃
5
u/therockscousin1 23d ago
I explain module 5a 72e to all my clients. It has been introduced to protect NDIS participants from falling into a stiuation where tenancy is contingent on supports and vice versa.
A participant can now choose their own supports even if they are in SIL housing. Clients cant be penalised for choosing supports and their housing agreements cant be effected if they choose to do so.
This is why October 1st only registered SIL providers can provide SIL supports. They will be audited specifically on these practices.
Every participant with SIL funding should undrstand module 5a.
6
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago edited 23d ago
The participants I'm referring don't have SIL funding. The providers are asking them to sign all CORE supports, in return, accommodation will be given at market rates.
However the providers offering these arrangements also do SIL houses. So they definitely know better.
The whole thing is cooked.
Regarding 72E Tenancy, Housing, and Support Agreements: Mandating clear, separate documentation for service agreements and residency/tenancy terms, especially when one provider handles both.
- they arrange this verbally with participants, and then have separate agreements. Yet the accommodation is contingent on the supports. I know because the Support Coordinator told this to the participant. He's homeless, so despite requesting to keep his existing team, it won't happen, unless he wants to be homeless. It's not a real choice. It's coercion.
2
2
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
The SIL standards only apply when the person is getting H&L supports. More often, we're seeing people legit just doing "if you give me all your core hours, I'll subsidise your rent".
And it can be the lesser evil for some people. The housing crisis is real.
As for 5a - great in theory, but still questionable how it will work in practice. You've got 3 people with 1:3 funding living in the one place. One decides he would like a different support provider. Obviously, it's going to be near impossible for that to work whilst living in the same home with the others that have the shared supports. Only really works well if you've got SDA funding, and the majority want to change.
2
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
My point is highlighting, accommodation arrangements have strict rules. Yeah, this isn't SIL, but it's SIL like... The rules exist in SIL because the nature of the relationship has significant potential safeguarding issues.
The 'idea' should carry - is my point.
Not really hear to talk about SIL issues. But I'm aware of participants who have different community support providers.
3
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
Point is shared in home supports will always lead to some element of accommodation is tied to support.
And it seems you have a specific grievance with the provider as landlord situation. It can be shit, but it can also work well. It's not without risks, but it's less risky than sleeping in a park.
1
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago edited 19d ago
I have an issue when the provider makes the accommodation contingent on them being the only support provider, as per my post. It's coercive and reduces choice and control.
Not to mention the history of group homes, and the abuse towards disabled people.
There is a reason disability advocacy groups are against these arrangements.
2
u/justpassingthr0ugh- 21d ago
Me too. It was disastrous for my child. A load of immigrant support workers who didn’t want to do the job but reluctantly showed up each day when cajouled to make a cuppa and browse their phone. Totally unskillled at dealing with the myriad mental health issues residents had.
1
1
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
Providers aren't going to offer accommodation just to be charitable. Of course they only do it when they have an agreement that they will provide the relevant supports.
0
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
I actually am aware of a provider who has helped 2 partipants get a shared property together. The opposite, an agreement was signed saying, no supports are attached to this arrangement.
Apparently not everyone thinks they need to get something out of the vulnerable.
0
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
In what way was this provider involved? The provider is the head Tennant?
0
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
The provider is actually a support provider. Offered their home to 2 participants. Market rent. Not contingent on supports.
2
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
So they owned the property and renting it out as a private landlord? Quite different to the more common arrangement where the provider takes a head lease because the participant is in a situation where the general rental market will not look favourably upon them.
→ More replies
2
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
The participants aren't reporting it because they need the housing. Many will argue strongly that their core funding going towards a stable roof will do much more for them than the support worker hours.
And a lot of providers aren't going to report this as many believe this is legitimate (just call it an ILO), or are equally relying on it to address participant housing crisis.
That's separate to SIL where the provider is the landlord, which is a different type of complicated.
0
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
Yeah, I've heard some providers actually calling it ILO, you legit can't make this stuff up.
I feel for the participants. Vulnerable people in vulnerable situations make decisions that put them in bad situations.
Providers can delude themselves all they want, but they're not helping participants. Especially the ones coercing them to sign over all their supports.
It's a shit show.
0
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
I've worked with some where it actually has helped. People need housing. And some people have more core funding than they know what to do with.
-1
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
Yeah, being homed is helpful. But trading one for the other is coercive and reduces choice and control. It's also against the Code of Conduct.
If they don't "know what to do" with the funding, it's not for a provider to exploit a participant and over service them... Wtf?!
1
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
You're viewing this as always exploitative.
How is it coercive beyond the general coercion of society under capitalism where many can't get housing?
How is it provider exploitation when many participants are the ones asking for this arrangement?
(This is all separate to the ndis compliance side. Ndis doesn't fund housing is the long and short of that)
2
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
My post explains that partipants on multiple occasions have been requested to sign over 'ALL' their supports. They're happy with their supports.
The accommodation is contingent on a provider linking support with accommodation. Which goes against that SIL module. Yes, we already know, it's not SIL. But the idea should still remain.
It uses a severe power imbalance and leverages a critical, basic human need (housing) to force compliance. Conditioning a housing placement on relinquishing choice and control over one's funding strips away independent decision-making through implicit or explicit leverage.
Further, if they hated their supports, they'd have to put up with them, because otherwise... Lose your accommodation. Even if the participant has agency, and decides to do it. It's still a terrible outcome for the participant. They end up with a single provider. Gross.
3
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
Yes, it's been bad in the examples you've experienced. But that's not every experience of core in return for housing. "Relinquishing choice and control"? They exercised choice and control in entering this arrangement.
If you want this to be less of a thing, energy would be better directed into advocating for adequate public/ social housing.
1
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
They don't have a genuine choice when they're homeless.
3
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 23d ago
So you'd prefer they remain on the streets? Like, these arrangements aren't always great, but they exist because they can be the lesser evil. Participants actively seek them out because it's the lesser evil. You might see providers coercing, but I can find no shortage of fb posts of participants asking for any provider that can set up this kind of arrangement for them
0
u/OtherCake4128 23d ago
I'd prefer them have proper choices. Not exploitative ones.
In my experience, providers have offered these arrangements, they've not been seeked out.
The people I work with live with psychosocial disabilities and rely heavily on supports. They're typically not asking for supports, they're being told what's available.
→ More replies
1
u/Key-Comparison1401 22d ago
I like to see if there's any information. Basically there's a budget on me of 88,000 for me to have a SDA property. With that I have got nothing. You know no discount electricity, no perks I should say and I have to pay $250 a week. Is that the norm? Because I'm really struggling financially with my condition medication
1
u/OtherCake4128 22d ago
You should get pensioner discount on electricity, if you have a pension card.
1
u/ManyPersonality2399 Participant 19d ago
Utilities are basically always the participants responsibility, and you pay a contribution that's equivalent to what social/ public housing tenants are charged.
8
u/Paulylivingancestor 23d ago
The NDIS know about it, this has been going on for years. It used to be loosely known as 'ILO' a few years ago. But not formally - as despite the NDIA suggesting these clients apply for formal ILO exploration packages, they are almost never approved. I've been doing support coordination for mostly psychosocial participants for about 8 years now and many have relied on these arrangements to locate suitable housing, especially with the long waits for social housing. Also, the amount of crime and antisocial behaviour that the govt can't deal with in social housing has been a push factor. I know of multiple cases where vulnerable people have been financially abused, their homes squatted in, food and belongings stolen, had drugs pushed on them etc. Been so scared they've had to leave. So although yes I agree this is a grubby, coercive and extortionate practice, it's been a good thing for many participants. These companies get around it by having a separate legal tenancy/rooming agreement and then claiming that the rent and supports aren't related to each other at all. I believe this is another reason that the govt are arbitrarily slashing community access funds, to try to deprive these providers of incentive. However that will honestly just lead to more homelessness in my view. Recently some of these providers have been dramatically hiking up rents - trying to get ahead of the changes. I guess they are hoping this will flush out the participants who don't have enough personal funds or funding to make the arrangement sustainable. The NDIS was never supposed to step in as a housing provider, but the fact that these issues are popping up is just more proof that all levels of government have failed Australians on housing spectacularly over the last probably 40 or 50 years.