Correcting uninspired errors

There is some misconception about the relationship bet­ween the Inspire Foun­­dation and the government. This should be clarified to allow the unfolding discussion about it to be made on a factual basis.

Individuals with a disability who are over 16 have nowhere to go, as there are not enough placesin government adult training centres or in supported living- Lino Spiteri

It is that the government funds Inspire. That is not the case. The government buys services from Inspire, for a number of young children who are intellectually challenged. It does that at a rate subsidised out of financial resources raised by Inspire.

Less than a third of Inspire’s revenue comes out of service supply contracts to the government. Ten per cent comes from parents. The rest comes from donations and fundraising.

Up to the end of 2009, Inspire supplied the services to the government under one services agreement covering health and education programmes. The element covering education cost the government €800,000. The part covering health (therapeutic services) cost the government around €190,000.

The education ministry still buys services from Inspire, putting up €800,000 (for years, not adjusted for inflation, but at least allowing Inspire to plan ahead). From 2010, the ministry argued that health services (therapies) should not be paid by it. However, the health ministry did not enter into a services agreement with Inspire – or with anyone else – to continue to purchase therapies.

That notwithstanding, in the expectation of a positive outcome from ongoing talks with the Health Ministry, Inspire went on providing the therapies by eating into its financial resources, incurring deficits for two years running, with another one in the making this year.

Deficits cannot continue indefinitely. This year Inspire had to try to compensate in part by raising the hitherto nominal charge for adult programmes, for which the Education Ministry had also refused to pay because it said 34-year-olds were older than 16-year-olds and 16 was the official school leaving age.

All this affected parents. Those of intellectually challenged adults have to pay more for essential care. Parents of children receiving therapeutic services which they expect from the government are uncertain whether Inspire will be able to continue to supply them.

Inspire has spent over two years trying to bring this quandary to the attention of the authorities, primarily of the Health Ministry. The result was very limited. Theministry eventually called foroffers for therapeutic servicescosting €37,000.

After a long delay, Inspire was awarded the tender. Since it continued to provide the therapeutic services which the government no longer paid for, the foundation was still left with an annual gap of €160,000 to €190,000 to fill.

I suspected that in its budget proposals the Health ministry had not asked the Finance Minister for the full amount previously allocated to the Education Ministry to buy therapeutic services. I felt it would be useful if I combined my role as chairman of Inspire and that of a columnist to air the situation as objectively as I could.

My resulting article was published here on December 18, after I had sent a courtesy pre-publication copy to the Prime Minister. Lawrence Gonzi did not acknowledge. Given the hectic times he was passing through he might not have read either my e-mail or my published article, which was a plea to him to intervene. Recently, the media have shown interest in the situation, in the context of growing parents’ concern. Parents also began to air their hurt views more pointedly than ever. Some wrote directly to the Prime Minister. The outcome so far is that he has invited Inspire to a meeting.

Meanwhile he made two comments. One was that Inspire should understand the government has other NGOs to take into account. Two, that one might consider a system of (capped) vouchers to parents of intellectually disabled children.

On the first point, government can call for offers for provision of services from NGOs, as the Health ministry eventually did. Inspire, a charitable foundation, expects no monopoly. It stands by the excellence of the services it provides, all subject to regular serious quality audit, as is the case with its finances.

If others can offer better services the government should be free to award service contracts to them. Note, however, that the services not bought from Inspire for three years were not acquired from any other sources, which would have left several hundred children in the lurch had Inspire not continued toprovide for them.

On the voucher proposal, let me quote what a parent told me: “The voucher thing is laughable – are we back to food stamps for the weak and poor? Stigma personified. The argument against this is obvious.

“The government cannot and must not differentiate between ability sets when providing education. If they want a voucher system, then that system must be for the entire education system, not just for those with enough challenges on their plates already.” The issue is broader than the relations between Inspire and the government. It relates to social justice. Shouldn’t children with intellectual disability – some 2,500 of them – have the right to essential services provided by the state, in the same manner that the government provides for children in state and Church school­s, plus giving tax breaks for parents of children in independent schools?

The answer is obvious and the government does supply a number of services to the disabled, at substantial cost. These were improved following the report on inclusion that bears my name as chairman of the working group that drew it up.

But fact is that the government ought to do much more. Hundreds of children with intellectual disability, which needs the earliest possible intervention, are still waiting for it. Similarly, individuals with a disability who are over 16 have no­where to go, as there are not enough places in government adult training centres or in supported living.

That harsh reality situation needs to be addressed with the allocation of increased financial resources by the government of the day. I know well enough, from my limited experience as finance minister, that is easier said than done. But social justice and conscience should dictate priorities.

Gonzi, for whom the disabled have always been dear, knows that well enough. I remain hopeful that he will be able to map out an early better way forward. Not for the sake of the Inspire Foundation. But for the sake of people with a disability, who cannot fight their corner with eloquence or voting threat.