Growing Together

Copy and Paste all the Following text into ChatGPT:

*

STEP 1: MY VALUES (answer these questions)

1. Should disabled people have the right to choose where and how they purchase services, or should they be required to use contracted DSS providers?
   (Consider whether limiting flexible funding to DSS-contracted services aligns with true choice and control.)
   ➡️

2. What risks or benefits do I see in requiring flexible funding to be spent only on DSS-approved providers rather than fully opening the market to community-based or innovative services?
   (Think about whether this restriction could limit access to high-quality, culturally appropriate, or individualized supports.)
   ➡️

STEP 2: MY EXPERIENCE (answer this question)

3. Am I worried that restricting flexible funding could one day leave me with no choice but to accept institutional care as my only option?
   How would this restriction impact autonomy, inclusion, and the right to live as an equal citizen in the community?
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 agree or disagree that flexible funding should be used to purchase a service or support that DSS provides through its contracted services/supports, as long as it offers an advantage (such as greater scheduling flexibility or proximity to where the person lives)? Why or why not?’ 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.

Key Principles to Embed:

✅ Ground my response in the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principles, UNCRPD, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Whānau Ora.
✅ Challenge the framing of "should" when "could" would have been a better fit, as true flexibility means choosing whether to use DSS providers, not being required to.
✅ Advocate for true choice and control, where disabled people can directly determine how, when, and where they access their supports.
✅ Critique the idea that flexible funding should be limited to DSS-contracted providers, explaining how this:

• Contradicts self-determination, as people should not be forced into pre-approved provider lists.
• Creates unnecessary restrictions, preventing disabled people from accessing community-led, culturally appropriate, and innovative supports.
• Reinforces outdated service models, instead of enabling new, person-directed approaches that align with EGL.
  ✅ Emphasize that a funding model must allow disabled people to choose from a broad range of providers, including:
• Independent providers who align with personal values, needs, and goals.
• Community-based supports that reflect Māori, Pacific, and other cultural perspectives.
• Direct employment models that enable people to build teams that best support their vision for a good life.
  ✅ Push for greater transparency around why certain providers are contracted and whether this system serves disabled people’s best interests or primarily government convenience.
  ✅ Propose solutions such as:
• Expanding funding to allow independent providers to be included in flexible funding options.
• Enabling direct employment of support workers for a more customized and responsive model.
• Establishing person-directed service cooperatives, where disabled people and whānau collaborate to create new, innovative services that are community-driven and adaptable.
  ✅ Provide clear, actionable recommendations on how flexible funding should be truly flexible—ensuring that disabled people can direct their support according to their actual needs, not just what DSS contracts allow.

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 Challenges the idea that flexible funding should be restricted to DSS-approved providers, highlighting how this undermines true choice and control.
4️⃣ Explains how limiting funding to contracted providers contradicts the principles of EGL, the UNCRPD, and Te Tiriti by restricting access to diverse, community-led, and culturally appropriate services.
5️⃣ **Pushes for a funding model that allows disabled people to:

• Choose services and supports that align with their personal vision for a good life.
• Access a diverse range of providers beyond DSS-contracted services, including community-based and independent options.
• Employ their own support staff or build a self-directed workforce that meets their specific needs.
  6️⃣ Calls for greater transparency in the DSS provider contracting system, questioning whether the current model:
• Limits competition and innovation.
• Benefits government efficiency over disabled people’s actual needs.
• Prevents disabled people from making choices that are best for them.
  7️⃣ Proposes practical, evidence-based solutions, such as:
• Expanding flexible funding eligibility to include independent providers, removing unnecessary DSS contracting restrictions.
• Enabling direct employment models, ensuring that people can choose and manage their own support teams.
• Establishing person-directed service cooperatives, where disabled people and whānau come together to design and operate services that reflect their real needs, values, and community strengths.
  8️⃣ Challenges the assumption that DSS providers should be the default, instead reinforcing that support should be designed around the person, not the provider.
  9️⃣ 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 prioritizes self-determination, real choice, and access to the most suitable and effective supports for each individual.*