No to charity (and overpaid executives)

VILLAGEApril/May 

OPINION SUZY BYRNE

ONTHS of debate on the funding of organ-

isations that provide services to people

with disabilities have ignored the nature of

the services that are provided and the experiences of

those who need to use the services. Resignations of chief

executives and boards of directors and diﬃculties get-

ting ﬁnancial information have become a game for the

inquisitors, and clouded any examination of the budget

cuts in the sector.

There has been no debate about the rights of peo-

ple with disabilities. The few targets set in this area

are largely unmet and other commitments have been

parked due to austerity and a lack of obligation on any-

one to do anything. Yet tributes are regularly paid to

organisations that provide services to people with dis-

abilities, and their donors. The general public and people

with disabilities remain largely unaware of who pays for

what, and what services people should be receiving.

People trying to hide their salaries behind the char-

ity wall and its lotteries speak about the ‘vulnerable

people’ who use their services. Politicians

and media join in this chorus. However, we

have no rights-based legislation or legisla-

tive imperatives to ensure needs are met.

The ‘vulnerable people’ are not heard in this

debate. They are only seen when organisa-

tions need stories to raise funds or to object

to cuts in funding.

The charity model, developed historically

through Catholic institutions, has been per-

mitted to continue. This is due to resistance

on the part of the State to conferring rights

on people with disabilities, to services and

supports. The overarching shadow of ‘char-

ity’ has left people with disabilities and their

families and friends rarely questioning the

supports they receive. They are expected to

be grateful for anything they get.

The Government and the HSE, despite

funding most of the services and organi-

sations involved, seem to know little about

the people who are being served by these

services. The databases for recording the

numbers of people with intellectual, physical

and sensory disabilities are widely believed

to be incomplete. Due to the preoccupation

with mainstreaming those with so-called

‘milder’ disabilities, they exclude many peo-

ple who need supports. Beyond the numbers

involved, there are no data on the individual plans for

people with disabilities.

Value-for-money audits are pursued. But these con-

centrate on larger and leaner models of provision. They

do not examine the needs of people with disabilities

or see them as individuals. More recently ‘Resource

Allocation Models’ are being explored for the disabil-

ity services sector. These are even further away from

rights-based approaches and supporting people to have

lives of our own choosing. Private-sector for-

proﬁt organisations are entering the market

or preparing to do so. This has the not-for-

proﬁts trying to compete or arguing that

they cannot be expected to do so.

Ireland has yet to ratify the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of People with

Disabilities and does not appear to be in a

hurry to do so. This is perhaps due to con-

cerns about the ability of the state to deliver

on the appropriate rights. The Disability Act

 contains commitments to assessments

of need but no right to have these assess-

ments provided for. The assessments for

anyone over  years of age have been parked

due to austerity.

This situation will continue as long as

politicians continue to see people with disa-

bilities as unfortunate, vulnerable or ‘models

to have resources allocated to’ rather than as

humans with lives to be lived and communi-

ties to contribute to. Oireachtas committees

should be hearing from people with disabili-

ties about what it is like to use the services of

the organisations run by these high-salaried

executives and golden circles of directors.

Rights-based legislation, individual assess-

ments of needs and person-centred supports

should be top of the political agenda.

The people aﬀected should be leading the action and

should be enabled to blow the whistle and take action,

rather than endure the showboating in Oireachtas

Committees and behind closed doors. •

No to charity

(and overpaid executives)

People with

disabilities

have rights

that should be

enshrined in law

and practice

The Disability

Act 2005

contains

commitments

to assessments

of need but

no right to

have these

assessments

provided

for. The

assessments

for anyone

over 5 years of

age have been

parked due to

austerity

“