There is a problem in disability systems that can be surprisingly hard to see:
Families get very good at making gaps disappear.
A provider doesn’t show up, so family fills the hours.
Something isn’t covered, so the household buys it.
The necessary support isn’t available for an activity, so eventually the person stops planning the activity.
A standard solution doesn’t work, so the family develops a workaround.
Do this long enough and something interesting happens:
The person may remain healthy.
Stable.
Living in the community.
Few crises.
And the data can make the system look successful.
But what if that success exists partly because the individual and family became exceptionally good at compensating for what the formal system did not provide?
That is why simply asking whether someone’s needs were ultimately met isn’t enough.
We should also ask:
Who met them?
Was the necessary support delivered by the formal system?
Did family substitute for unavailable services?
Did the household privately purchase what wasn’t covered?
Did the person go without something?
Or did they eventually stop asking because they learned it wasn’t realistically available?
There is another problem.
If we study only people whose community arrangements remain successfully intact, we may miss the people whose arrangements already failed—the caregiver who could no longer continue, the person who entered a facility, or the household that simply couldn’t keep compensating.
That can teach us the wrong lesson.
A system can select for extraordinary families and then mistake extraordinary performance for ordinary capacity.
Successful adaptation deserves recognition.
But it should not become evidence that less support was needed.
Sometimes the most important question isn’t:
“Is this working?”
It is:
“What—and who—is making it work?”
#familyproviders #lifeisprecious
Comments