NationStates Jolt Archive

ADCAP

Aged/Disabled Care Accreditation Program

Noting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance.

In addition, noting many richer nations would be willing to donate money to assist in providing such care but are reluctant due to the possibility of corruption and the money not being spent for the purpose it was originally given.

Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.

The basic standards of which should include, but are not limited to
Adequate housing
Nutritious and adequate food
Nursing care if needed
Transport if needed
Necessary equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, hoists, ramps ect) if needed
Medicines
Modifications of homes if needed

Administration and running costs of facilities and services may be included but nations must be able to account for how this money was spent.

The accreditation team will negotiate an agreement with each receiving nation to decide on a basic standards level to suit that nations needs, while ensuring aged/disabled citizens receive the care and attention they require to live their lives as independently and contributively as possible.

The team will also work with each receiving nation to ensure their own culture and/or religion is not infringed upon by meeting the basic standards anymore than is absolutely necessary.

The accreditation team will inspect in home services and aged/disabled care facilities in receiver nations 12 months after originally giving the primary donation to ensure the basic standards previously agreed upon are being met, and funds are being spent to benefit the aged/disabled citizens using the facility/service and not the individuals/government running them.

If all standards are being met the receiver nation will be noted as accredited, and may receive ongoing donations on a regular basis to maintain and/or improve those standards.

The accreditation team, to ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed terms of receiving donation money, will then carry out irregular surprise inspections.

If the agreed upon standards are not being met after the first inspection, the accreditation team may grant an extension of time for the nation concerned to comply.

If the receiver nation continues to refuse to meet the agreed upon standards and/or abuses the program, the accreditation team has the authority to suspend or refuse any further funding to that nation.

Any receiver nation may withdraw from the Aged/Disabled Accreditation Program at any time without penalty if they no longer want or need donation money.

I just had the idea for this earlier this morning and typed it up within the last hour. Because of that its as rough as corse sandpaper and probably has some spelling and grammar errors.

Please let me know what you think of the idea and if there is anything I can add, delete, rewrite to improve it :).

I spotted the first spelling mistake myself :D.

The proposal name is supposed to be ADCAS.

Aged/disabled care accreditation Scheme

Which category are you planning on putting this in? I suggest Human Rights. It seems to fit there nicely, with trying to help the elderly people.

Noting many poorer nations are struggling to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance, due to lack of funds.

In addition, noting many richer nations would be willing to donate money to assist in providing such care but are reluctant due to the possibility of corruption and the money not being spent for the purpose it was originally given.

Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care. The basic standards of which should include, but are not limited to, adequate housing, nutritious and adequate food, nursing care if needed, transport if needed, necessary equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, hoists, ramps ect) if needed, medicines, modifications of homes if needed and the aged/disabled citizens ADLs (activities of daily living). Administration and running costs of facilities and services may be included but nations must be able to account for how this money was spent.

This last paragraph is a little long, and discourages nations from reading it. I suggest breaking it up by putting in a list, like so:

Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.

The basic standards of which should include, but are not limited to:
~adequate housing
~nutritious and adequate food
~nursing care if needed,
~transport if needed,
~necessary equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, hoists, ramps ect) if needed, ~medicines,
~modifications of homes if needed
~the aged/disabled citizens ADLs (activities of daily living).

Administration and running costs of facilities and services may be included but nations must be able to account for how this money was spent

Just makes it a bit neater

Individual nations and the accreditation team will work together to decide on a basic standard level that suits that nation, but still ensures aged/disabled citizens receive the care and attention they require to live their lives as independently and contributively as possible. The team will also work with nations to ensure their own culture and/or religion is not infringed upon by meeting the basic standards anymore than is absolutely necessary.

This sound suspiciously like you are creating a commitee, and staffing nations on it. This is a big no-no in the Hack Laws (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Just take out Individual Nations from the beginning, and you should be fine.

The accreditation team will inspect in home services and aged/disabled care facilities in receiver nations 12 months after originally giving the primary donation to ensure the basic standards previously agreed upon are being met, and funds are being spent to benefit the aged/disabled citizens using the facility/service and not the individuals/government running them. If all standards are being met the receiver nation will be noted as accredited, and may receive ongoing donations on a regular basis to keep up those standards. Irregular inspections will then be carried out by the accreditation team to ensure ongoing compliance with the individual nation’s agreed terms of receiving donation money.

If the agreed upon standards are not being met after the first inspection, the accreditation team may grant an extension of time for the nation concerned to comply. If the receiver nation continues to refuse to meet the agreed upon standards and/or abuses the scheme, the accreditation team has the authority to suspend or refuse any further funding to that nation.

Any nation receiving donation money under the accreditation scheme may leave the scheme at any time it wishes to without penalty.

The last part sounds like an optional clause, which is again a no-no in the almighty Hack Laws:

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out

Overall, this seems to be a very good idea. I hope you take some of my suggestions and run with them. A general problem I found was run-on sentences, which are annoying to read. Try breaking up these sentences. Other then that, I would like to say good job, Waterana.

OOC: I take it you're British. Well, Americans don't respond kindly to the word "scheme"; I'd replace it with "Program," "Project," "Plan" -- whatever have you -- if you want U.S. players on board.

:cool: it should include healthcare in some way, like a perscription plan (how do the residents get medication>, see a doctor?). care for seniors and disabled depends on their access to easy and affordable health services of some type. Just an idea for the draft.

On first reading, we like this idea quite a lot. We will, as usual, reserve final judgment until we have an opportunity to learn from the debate. But the intent is excellent, the idea seems sound, and the proposal is well-thought-out.

Just two preliminary comments:

First, the comment of the honorable delegate from Omigodtheykilledkenny may seem a bit odd or trivial, but we believe he's entirely correct. "Scheme" can be a trip-wire word, and those things can be dangerous. We suggest replacing "scheme" with "program."

We don't see a significant problem with run-on sentences in the draft, but we do note that the paragraphs are "heavy". Breaking them up with lists or sub-paragraphs would create the impression of easier reading and should make readers more comfortable with the proposal.

We look forward to seeing the results of your further work on the draft and will be pleased to help if we can.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We will support this.

OOC: I take it you're British. Well, Americans don't respond kindly to the word "scheme"; I'd replace it with "Program," "Project," "Plan" -- whatever have you -- if you want U.S. players on board.
I believe she's Australian. I don't really care one way or the other about using "scheme" here. Scheme is fine, project would be fine too.

I believe she's Australian. I don't really care one way or the other about using "scheme" here. Scheme is fine, project would be fine too.

For public relations purposes many people associate a "scheme" with something rather underhanded... so we would second the suggestion that that be renamed.

We're as yet undecided on support of the concept.

Which category are you planning on putting this in? I suggest Human Rights. It seems to fit there nicely, with trying to help the elderly people.

To be honest, I haven't thought that far ahead. This was a rushed proposal written in under an hour. I'll look at the catagories later, but like you suggest, I think human rights at this stage.

This last paragraph is a little long, and discourages nations from reading it. I suggest breaking it up by putting in a list, like so:

Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.

The basic standards of which should include, but are not limited to:
~adequate housing
~nutritious and adequate food
~nursing care if needed,
~transport if needed,
~necessary equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, hoists, ramps ect) if needed, ~medicines,
~modifications of homes if needed
~the aged/disabled citizens ADLs (activities of daily living).

Administration and running costs of facilities and services may be included but nations must be able to account for how this money was spent

Just makes it a bit neater

Agreed, and it will be changed. I'll spread things out when I do the reformat :).

This sound suspiciously like you are creating a commitee, and staffing nations on it. This is a big no-no in the Hack Laws.

Just take out Individual Nations from the beginning, and you should be fine.

The only committee I'm creating is the accreditation team itself. The individual nation mentioned is the one recieving the money and I want to put across that each nation will be treated individually according to its needs ect. A one size fits all set of standards won't work because every nation is different. I can see why you thought that way though and will reword that.

The last part sounds like an optional clause, which is again a no-no in the almighty Hack Laws:

No, no. I'm giving nations who are recieving funds under the scheme (soon to be renamed program) the chance to leave the scheme when they no longer need it within the proposal. I'm not giving any nation the chance to opt out of the propsal alltogether. I'll try to find a better way of rewording that too :).

OOC: I take it you're British. Well, Americans don't respond kindly to the word "scheme"; I'd replace it with "Program," "Project," "Plan" -- whatever have you -- if you want U.S. players on board.

Ok, I'll change scheme to program.

:cool: it should include healthcare in some way, like a perscription plan (how do the residents get medication>, see a doctor?). care for seniors and disabled depends on their access to easy and affordable health services of some type. Just an idea for the draft.

Thankyou for the suggestion :).

Medicines is already included but I want to avoid the whole hornets nest of health care. The main focus of this proposal is distributing donation funds where needed and making sure they are spent properly by the nation recieving them. Every nations health care system is different and trying to cover them all in one proposal such as this one would be very hard if not impossible. Health care could and probably would be one of the basic standards discussed and agreed upon by the accreditation team and receiver nation.

Thanks to all who have commented so far :).

It might sound better if you changed:
Noting many poorer nations are struggling to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance, due to lack of funds.
To
Noting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance.
The original sounded like the disabled citizens were in need of assistance due to lack of funds.

It might sound better if you changed:

ToNoting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance.

The original sounded like the disabled citizens were in need of assistance due to lack of funds.

True, and if you don't mind me stealing your suggestion, I'll reword it exactly that way :).

ADCAP

Aged/Disabled Care Accreditation Program

Noting many poorer nations are struggling, due to lack of funds, to provide adequate in home or in facility care to their old aged/disabled citizens whom are in need of assistance.

In addition, noting many richer nations would be willing to donate money to assist in providing such care but are reluctant due to the possibility of corruption and the money not being spent for the purpose it was originally given.

Forms the aged/disabled care accreditation team to collect donations from willing nations, distribute these funds to poorer nations who request it on a needs basis, and monitor the money is spent only on aspects of aged and disabled care.

The basic standards of which should include, but are not limited to
Adequate housing
Nutritious and adequate food
Nursing care if needed
Transport if needed
Necessary equipment (wheelchairs, walkers, hoists, ramps ect) if needed
Medicines
Modifications of homes if needed

Administration and running costs of facilities and services may be included but nations must be able to account for how this money was spent.

The accreditation team will negotiate an agreement with each receiving nation to decide on a basic standards level to suit that nations needs, while ensuring aged/disabled citizens receive the care and attention they require to live their lives as independently and contributively as possible.

The team will also work with each receiving nation to ensure their own culture and/or religion is not infringed upon by meeting the basic standards anymore than is absolutely necessary.

The accreditation team will inspect in home services and aged/disabled care facilities in receiver nations 12 months after originally giving the primary donation to ensure the basic standards previously agreed upon are being met, and funds are being spent to benefit the aged/disabled citizens using the facility/service and not the individuals/government running them.

If all standards are being met the receiver nation will be noted as accredited, and may receive ongoing donations on a regular basis to maintain and/or improve those standards.

The accreditation team, to ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed terms of receiving donation money, will then carry out irregular surprise inspections.

If the agreed upon standards are not being met after the first inspection, the accreditation team may grant an extension of time for the nation concerned to comply.

If the receiver nation continues to refuse to meet the agreed upon standards and/or abuses the program, the accreditation team has the authority to suspend or refuse any further funding to that nation.

Any receiver nation may withdraw from the Aged/Disabled Accreditation Program at any time without penalty if they no longer want or need donation money.

First redraft.

I think I found all the "scheme" words and changed them to program.

Also broke things up a bit, reworded the problem areas raised in the posts above, and used Yeldan UN Mission's suggestion for the first line.

Human Rights, Significant?

Significant, probably yes :).

Human rights I'm not too sure about. Have just looked at the sticky and social justice seems to fit too.

Human rights I'm not too sure about. Have just looked at the sticky and social justice seems to fit too.

I don't think it matters which category you put it in. Both seem to fit fine with this proposal.

I'll go with social justice at this stage, but will have a careful look at the catagories before I submit this and make a final decision then :).

I've just had a TG from one of the regulars on this draft and was told it may violate the rule on establishing committees.

I looked up the rule concerned and had to agree. It states...

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Without the committee (accreditation team) I don't have a propsal so it can be said that the committee is all the proposal does. On the other hand, my committee don't just sit and talk, they run the program, have authority to make decisions and have teeth.

So I am very confused whether this draft is legal or not and would really welcome comments and advice on this from the more experienced players :).

Legal or not, Flanagania likes this proposal. I'm sure any legal problems can be sorted out.

A mods opinion would be extremely helpful here.

Now the solar panels repeal has made quorum (congrats to the author(s) for that by the way:)), and things on that subject should die down a bit now, I want to bump this up to see if I can get some advice on my post above.

I want to aviod having to drag this into moderation if I can, so would really appreciate it if some of the experienced members could answer, please :).

Bump.