Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. How important is flexible funding in enabling disabled people to live as full citizens, with autonomy, dignity, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to their communities?
   (Think about what a truly person-directed funding model should allow disabled people to do, ensuring they have the same rights and freedoms as any other citizen.)
   ➡️

2. A Trust-Based Approach to Funding

   EGL in action: Funding is provided with the assumption that disabled people and families are best placed to decide what supports they need. Instead of restrictive lists and heavy oversight, the system invests in capacity building and guidance, ensuring people have the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions. Support is available to navigate choices, but decision-making remains with the person and their family.

   Not EGL: Funding is controlled through rigid rules, excessive oversight, and pre-determined lists, assuming people might misuse funds rather than trusting them to invest in what works best. Instead of building capacity, the system focuses on compliance and restrictions, limiting people’s ability to direct their own lives.

   Guiding Questions:

   • How does a system built on trust and capacity building empower disabled people and families to take control of their lives?
   • What role should guidance play in helping people make decisions, without restricting their choices?
   • How can funding be truly person-directed, ensuring people have the skills and confidence to use it effectively while avoiding restrictive policies?
   • ➡️
   
   

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question)

3. Have I ever had to fight for the right to use funding in a way that truly met my needs, only to be told ‘that’s not how the system works’? What barriers did I face, and how did they limit my ability to build an independent, fulfilling life?
4. Do you have any other insights or experiences that could help shape a better solution?
   ➡️

STEP 3: GENERATE MY RESPONSE (press enter) 

"I am responding to the New Zealand government's consultation on disability support services. The question I am answering is: ‘Do you have any suggestions on how flexible funding can be used to allow disabled people and carers as much choice, control, and flexibility as possible, while still providing transparency and assurance the funding is being used effectively and supporting outcomes?’ Make sure you answer this question.

Act as my friendly human rights defender and craft an attention-grabbing opening that immediately draws the reader in. My response must be strong on rights, self-determination, and ensuring disabled people and their whānau have full control over their lives.

Push back against restricting funding to only contracted providers, as this limits autonomy, creates power imbalances, and risks repeating past failures seen in institutional care. Reference the Royal Commission findings on how system-driven models failed to protect disabled people and emphasize that self-directed, community-based supports provide stronger safeguards.

Write a strong response opposing any requirement for disabled people to ‘achieve outcomes’ to maintain support. Emphasize that disability is not a condition to be ‘fixed’ and funding should support an ordinary life, not enforce progress measures. Push back against medicalized models and highlight that true flexibility means funding follows the person’s fundamental human needs, not predefined goals. Argue that accountability should ensure support enables a good life, not force disabled people to prove their worthiness.

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Challenge any approach that prioritizes bureaucratic oversight over self-determination, ensuring disabled people are trusted to manage their own support.
✅ Advocate for a funding model that:

• Provides true flexibility, allowing disabled people to determine how best to use their funding.
• Ensures transparency and accountability without creating restrictive oversight that limits choice.
• Recognizes that funding must address both impairment-related needs and the disabling societal barriers that create additional costs and challenges.
  ✅ Position capacity-building as an antidote to compliance, ensuring that:
• Disabled people and carers are given the tools and support to manage their funding confidently, rather than being subjected to unnecessary bureaucratic control.
• Trust-based accountability mechanisms replace deficit-driven compliance checks.
  ✅ Highlight that the government’s failure to fully implement EGL nationwide has already restricted choice and flexibility, reinforcing the need for a funding system that prioritizes autonomy over control.
  ✅ Emphasize that flexible funding should be able to:
• Support the direct employment of support staff in ways that align with a disabled person’s life and vision.
• Fund innovative, community-based solutions that enable inclusion, rather than just DSS-contracted services.
• Enable disabled people and carers to build sustainable support networks that reduce reliance on crisis-driven services.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how funding can be managed in a way that maximizes choice, control, and transparency without restricting self-determination.

Now, based on my answers, create a strong and persuasive response that:

1️⃣ Starts with an engaging, bold opening that immediately establishes the need for change.
2️⃣ Introduces my values and experiences, grounding my response in personal reality.
3️⃣ Advocates for a funding model that prioritizes disabled people’s self-determination, allowing them to direct their own support without restrictive lists or bureaucratic processes.
4️⃣ Calls for transparency and accountability to be based on outcomes rather than micromanaging how every dollar is spent, ensuring flexibility is not undermined.
5️⃣ Pushes for a simple, person-led accountability process that is co-designed with disabled people, ensuring reporting is not overly burdensome or controlling.
6️⃣ Emphasizes that disabled people and whānau should be trusted stewards of their own funding, in alignment with the UNCRPD and EGL approach.
7️⃣ Recognizes that flexible funding should be used to address both impairment-related support needs and the additional costs created by systemic barriers, such as:

• Accessible transportation, housing modifications, and assistive technology.
• The need for culturally responsive and community-based support.
• The compounding impact of discrimination and exclusion over a lifetime, which creates financial and social disparities.
  8️⃣ Proposes practical, evidence-based solutions, such as:
• Self-directed outcome reporting, where disabled people define their own success and track how funding is used to achieve their goals.
• A capacity-building approach that provides optional financial tools and training without enforcing restrictive oversight.
• An EGL-focused national disability navigator service, ensuring disabled people and whānau have access to clear, unbiased information about how they can use their funding effectively.
• Support for direct employment models, enabling disabled people to hire and manage their own workforce in ways that align with their vision for a good life.
  9️⃣ Challenges the idea that excessive oversight is needed, highlighting how well-designed systems can ensure trust, reduce waste, and improve efficiency while maintaining self-determination.
  🔟 Ends with a compelling summary that reinforces the key message and calls for urgent reform.

Use clear, direct, and persuasive language to make this response as strong as possible, ensuring that it highlights the need for a funding model that provides true flexibility and choice while ensuring that accountability remains person-centered, empowering, and does not restrict disabled people’s autonomy.*