Letter from Anne Murphy

Received June 2, 2006

Hello Chris

With reference to your questions we would firstly state that:

We find the continuing insinuations from the media sensationalistic particularly when the audit pertains to somewhat tedious every day matters and is largely to do with improvements to existing procedures. The media's ongoing investigation and fascination with our service is extremely stressful to staff and detrimental to our clients, some of whom have expressed annoyance at the continuing visits to their homes by auditors. The negative attention exacerbated by the media is extremely distracting to our every day business of providing support and assistance to people who need it.

An action plan, including time frames has been submitted to the Auditor and the Ministry of Health. A follow up meeting with MOH Representatives is being held on Thursday 22nd June.

We acknowledge that there is always room for improvement following an appraisal of an organisation and as a consequence aspects of our quality management are being reviewed to ensure that our processes are robust and will maintain our culture of continual improvement.

All clients are informed are informed about their right to an advocate, information includes Who are advocates, How does an advocate work and What can an advocate do for you. All services users receive the Health and Disability Commissions handout

Currently we have advocates from the Health and Disability Commission visiting their homes to ensure that residents are fully aware of their rights. We are also in the process of gaining the services of an independent advocate.

The views of our clients have always been important to us. As a process of improvement we are working on ways of increasing service user participation in all aspects of service delivery.

The only addition recommended by the audit to our complaints procedure was that a follow up letter from the Quality Manager be sent to ensure that any complainant was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation. All clients receive information regarding our complaints procedure.

The Organisational Management Systems review found all financial management criteria were fully attained and the Financial and Claims Audit stated "Focus is a profitable business… No inappropriate expenditure was noted".

The reason why HIF and HBSS funded hours are not distinguished is the Ministry of Health invoicing system. It is up to the Ministry to identify a code if they wish to create a separate purchase for these hours.

As to how our capital is to be used there is a decision already in motion to enlarge our main facility at Coyle St to provide additional space for the parents and children attending our Conductive Education programme, and to accommodate our expanding service.

The Board will make its decision as to further priorities and it is not up to me to second guess. What I would personally like to see is the further development of the Conductive Education programme and to provide residential accommodation for parents and children who attend our centre from outside of Auckland.

With reference to your question 3 - Having the CEO on the Board of a private company is almost universal. Focus 2000 adopted this model at the inception of the business in 1996 and the growth and success of the business can be partly attributed to this model as it provides ease of connection between the day to day management of the company and the governance of the company. The one Executive Director cannot out vote the non-Executive Directors The Board has received the comment from the Auditors and after due consideration I am sure the Board will arrive at decision regarding this matter.