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.

Instructs all member nations to ensure that all of their elderly and disabled citiens are provided with proper care.

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 thought I'd drag this out again and see if I could get some help on working out whether it goes against the "committee" rule. I don't want to submit it only to see it deleted and my rear end kicked ;).

If anyone has an opinion on whether the proposal is legal or not, please tell me :).

(I did write the thread title out in capital letters, don't know why it didn't stay that way :confused: )

Well to me it seems that the commitee is both mythical and not the main intention of the proposal, therefore okay

I thought I'd drag this out again and see if I could get some help on working out whether it goes against the "committee" rule. I don't want to submit it only to see it deleted and my rear end kicked ;).

If anyone has an opinion on whether the proposal is legal or not, please tell me :).

(I did write the thread title out in capital letters, don't know why it didn't stay that way :confused: )

I would call it a committee violation because its entire focus seems to be this accreditation team, but that's easily remedied.

Just add this before you form the committee:


Instructs all member nations to ensure that all of their elderly and disabled citiens are provided with proper care.

My objection is still that the committee violation isn't, I think - or at least shouldn't be - solely a technical barrier to be leapt. It is there for a reason. Resolutions that solely create committees are not good legislative practice. It still seems as though, even should you add in a couple of operative clauses, your main goal is still just setting up a committee.

I'm not saying your proposal will be ruled illegal, but I wonder the voters will rule it pointless. If you really want to do something about your concerns, do it. Setting up arbitrary bodies to investigate it seems counter-productive.

I would call it a committee violation because it's entire focus seems to be this accreditation team, but that's easily remedied.

Just add this before you form the committee:

Done and thanks TH :).

My objection is still that the committee violation isn't, I think - or at least shouldn't be - solely a technical barrier to be leapt. It is there for a reason. Resolutions that solely create committees are not good legislative practice. It still seems as though, even should you add in a couple of operative clauses, your main goal is still just setting up a committee.

I'm not saying your proposal will be ruled illegal, but I wonder the voters will rule it pointless. If you really want to do something about your concerns, do it. Setting up arbitrary bodies to investigate it seems counter-productive.

I am trying to do something :).

The aim of the proposal is to make sure donation money is being used for the purpose it was given, and I can't think of a way to ensure that without having a body oversee the procedure and regulate it.

No, there's too much emphasis on the work of the accreditation team for that to be quite true. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment or - although more formal presentation is always nice - construction of your proposal. But the overwhelming bias towards talking about the activities of the committee seems to me to be indicative of not really engaging with the problem. Perhaps you can prune this a bit, and still have it as - and hopefully more - effective.

No, there's too much emphasis on the work of the accreditation team for that to be quite true. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment or - although more formal presentation is always nice - construction of your proposal. But the overwhelming bias towards talking about the activities of the committee seems to me to be indicative of not really engaging with the problem. Perhaps you can prune this a bit, and still have it as - and hopefully more - effective.

Ok, I think I see your point :).

The problem the proposal is dealing with is collecting donation money and making sure its distributed where needed and the nations recieving it use it for the reason intended. I didn't want to go into demanding spacific standards from nations or mandating what they will and won't do.

I was having a go at writing a propsal as sovereignty friendly as possible, just to see if I am capable of writing such a thing :D.

I'll have a think and see if I can change anything major but still keep the proposal as what I want it to be ;).