What does inclusion look like in your in organisation?

Although the Olympics and Paralympics are soon to be filed away as not-so-distant memories of 2021, during the Games coverage two headlines caught my eye causing an internal conflict that I just can’t shake. One caused feelings of deep visceral outrage, where the other made me feel so proud. Both were about Paralympians, human rights, and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC).

The first one read “Becca Meyers, six-time Paralympic medalist, withdraws 2021 Olympics after being denied medical accommodation”.

The second “US Paralympic athletes will receive equal pay for the first time at the Tokyo Olympics.”

One highlights how far we’ve come, where the other shows just how far we still have to go.

For context of the first article, in Becca’s words “the USOPC has denied a reasonable & essential accommodation for me, as a deaf-blind person to be able to compete in Tokyo, telling me repeatedly that I do not need a Personal Care Assistance (PCA) ‘who I trust’ because there will be a single PCA on staff that is available to assist me and 33 other Paralympic swimmers, 9 of whom are visually impaired.”

Within the Paralympian community some have shown their support for someone speaking up to address these human rights issues, where others like Roy Perkins have addressed these claims stating it is “not a human rights issue”.

Perkins goes on to say “This sounds horrible to the general public, who don’t realize that the majority of swimmers in every Games don’t have an assistant, despite often having disabilities which frankly are more severe than partial lack of sight and hearing…Full quadriplegic, fully blind, and intellectually impaired athletes have come without an assistant. Their teammates and the coaching staff helped them. They got through the Games safely and successfully. We build some character and learn to deal with doing sh*t we don’t necessarily want to do, living in non-ideal circumstances and leaning on each other while still performing at a high level.”

Let’s unpack this.

For anyone who has required personal care assistance or has provided this type of support to someone else, you know that the person is in a very vulnerable situation.

When reading Roy’s statement, on the surface it reads that the athletes are provided with support, though it raised the question was the support provided meeting the needs of the individual?

I believe you could argue no in both statements, it is just one person has decided to speak up where others before them have either tolerated the injustice or been ok with the support being provided by a stranger.

Simply, it is about choice.

It is a person’s right to choose who provides this very personal support, whether it is someone they trust or a stranger. It is about this choice being respected and listened to, to ensure their basic human rights are met. That is how it is a human rights issue.

When reading the second article I was humbled to read that in another instance, members of the Paralympian community’s basic human rights were met. For the first time US Paralympians efforts were being acknowledged equally at the beginning of the games, not an afterthought like in 2018.

It takes moments like this where we see a shift in the media, and what is ingrained into our subconscious mindset to showcase that people with disability are equally as talented as their able-bodied peers. This change starts will equal pay. This is a true reflection of inclusion, something we’re all striving for within the disability community.

Here in Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is one of the systems in place working towards inclusion for people with disability to uphold their human rights. The NDIS is built on key community development principles to enhance and highlight the strengths at an individual and community level. As a Disability Provider, you may be asking yourself what does true inclusion look like for your organisation and the people you support, and what changes you can make to help piece together the human rights puzzle?

Follow these key themes to start your journey in promoting inclusion today:

Share skills and resources

This is about seeing the person for who they are, and what strengths and attributes they can offer. It is avoiding the traditional altruistic model which focuses on an able-bodied person having all the answers and skills. Instead, it means sharing the power, understanding that the only way to move forward is to listen and learn from one another. If you’re ever unsure, ask the experts, who in this instance are the people you support.

Identify community assets

Disability providers are just one piece of the human rights puzzle, it is important all staff, especially support staff are networking and exploring what different services and supports are in the community. These assets go further than government agencies, or other disability providers; it is the local community house, or the community garden down the road, or a peer support group, or a games club. The list is endless.

Create links and foster relationships

This is about forming relationships with the identified community assets and creating links between them and the people you support. It involves participation where a person is actively involved, rather than just attending. It is through these connections and relationships that true inclusion will be realised, and people with disability will have a wider choice on what is possible, and the opportunity to continuously learn from each other to shape a better more equal world.

The post Inclusion, one piece of the Human Rights puzzle appeared first on Amergin.

I am a new mum. A FIRST-TIME new mum. I am 9 months post-partum and have the most beautiful son. I can’t say it has been the most beautiful experience though; we all have our story, and we all have our challenges.

The last 18 months have challenged many of us in a variety of ways.

As a first-time parent in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, most of our pregnancies and first few months with our newborns have been spent in isolation. Medical appointments were moved online, human interaction has been reduced along with the celebrations of the new life being developed, plus a constant fear, loneliness and anxiety plagued many of us. We have been forced to confront emotions and become comfortable with our own company.

During 2020 I was a Senior Manager of a newly established program, with shared responsibility of 50 staff members, across 16 sites, bordering 2 highly populated states. Now couple that with falling pregnant, COVID-19 hitting and a transition to a work-from-home environment. What a head spin!

As a result of the pandemic many community sector employees (myself included) were forced to take leave, reduce their hours or accept a redundancy. Employees were forced to take stock for the first time and review what was most important and find a balance physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially.

Since that time, I have had my son, leaned on my close supports, stepped well beyond my comfort zone and started to re-build my toolbox of ways to be a great first-time parent AND a staff member re-entering the workforce in this COVID-19 world.

Here are my top 5 ways to help others experiencing the same, or for employers to consider when supporting their first-time parents to re-enter the workforce:

Supporting staff (especially first-time parents) to re-enter the workforce and navigate the many changes the pandemic has forced upon us needs specialised advice and education.

The post Re-entering the workforce as a new parent – 5 ways to put your oxygen mask on first! appeared first on Amergin.

As I sit in my home office listening to the sounds of nature, children laughing and playing next door, and the occasional lawnmower; I am reminded that this new post-COVID ‘normal’ has provided many employees with the freedom to escape the commute and office environment with so many positive benefits (even with the occasional lawnmower interruptions).

With all the positives however there has come a sacrifice; a challenge to ensure we can distinguish between work and home life when the two have now combined. How we can still balance the two when they are now only a kitchen table away.

While workloads (especially across the community sector) have yet to slow down, the thought of recouping an extra hour in our days given we can work from home does not seem to be something utilised by employees as well as it should.

Instead of exercise, mindfulness activities, family time, extra sleep, or similar; employees are logging on early to read emails, finalise To-Do lists and finish off tasks from the night before, and seem convinced that the extra time they have recouped is now simply extra work-time to keep playing catch up.

Instead of taking a sick day when unwell we are simply working from bed and not taking the time out to let our bodies rest and recover (employment data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (via ABC News) shows a 37% decrease in employees missing work due to sickness compared to figures prior to COVID-19).

The lines have now blurred without a professional work environment and travel/commute to separate our time. While we have the privilege of being able to pop a load of washing on in between meetings and walk to school pick up instead of drive, this means we are bartering with time and end up working into the evenings and weekends to make up for what we lost.

Historically, if we were in a traditional physical office environment and we wanted to do these activities they would either wait until the weekend or we’d take personal leave time. In the majority of positive workplaces, this would be welcomed without the expectation that you then spend the extra time that evening or on the weekend doing work activities.

Don’t get me wrong, historically the option of ‘starting early today to finish early tomorrow’ and ‘making up time’ has worked well for many and meant that projects can still be delivered on time, client expectations are met, and inboxes emptied. What is concerning now however is the regularity of this occurring in many workplaces and the disparity between juggling your usual workload and home life with juggling an increased workload AND home life.

American podcast and management leadership coaches Michael Auzenne and Mark Horstman of Manager Tools re-released an episode this time last year called ‘Work-Life Balance: The Yellow Peanut M&M Analogy’. While the timing could not have been more perfect (thanks COVID), it is a message that needs to be reiterated every few months now we are in a new state of ‘normal’.

Mark and Michael argue that work AND life should never be in balance. They describe keeping things in balance (like a set of scales) means when something tips lower on the scales something else rises higher. When more time is dedicated to working it raises higher on the scales. Family/friends/social life then lowers on the scales causing a sense of loss and disappointment – because you couldn’t keep them in balance. Every time you log back onto work at night for ‘just one hour’, you are not giving that time to your family = insert feelings of guilt and disappointment.

Employees who continuously work on balancing their time, trying to ‘manage’ it needs to stop, given time is not something that can be managed. Instead, priority management and understanding what to prioritise your time towards over something else is where we need to focus.

Here is where their Yellow Peanut M&M analogy comes in.

They encourage listeners to purchase a bag of peanut M&M’s and take out a yellow one. Hold the M&M between two fingers and hold it up to the sky. As you hold the M&M up, close one eye and position it right in front of the sun so that the M&M is now just blocking the sun/they appear the same size.

The purpose is for you to see that these two spherical objects appear the same size, in fact when aligned the M&M actually blocks the sun.

HOWEVER consider the M&M is your work and the Sun is your family. The M&M can be found all over the world, mass-produced, and is fairly insignificant. The sun, however, is the giver and maker of life on Earth and a source of incredible energy that powers our world.

Now sit with that statement for a while….. pretty impactful, isn’t it?

We need to be able to differentiate between the priority of work tasks compared to the time at home with loved ones. To still keep track of our start and finish times and work hard to close the laptop/office door outside of those hours. To take the sick leave when we are sick!

We will always need to balance things in life, especially in the caring profession when vulnerable people rely on our service however there is a way to ensure that work and our job is not more important than the rest of our life and what brings us joy.

Consider what can you commit to today to ensure non-priority tasks are assigned to another day or shared with another team member. Can you change expectations for not only your clients but your colleagues/teammates too?

If you are in a management position it is likely that you will still need to spend some external hours on urgent work tasks however consider the example you are setting for your staff and then the commitment you can make to yourself to tip the scales back on the ‘life’ side more than work each week. And then maybe sit down, relax, and finish off that bag of M&M’s

The post Work and Life – It’s Not Really About Balance appeared first on Amergin.

What role does accessibility play in your day-to-day life? I recently attended a national online forum discussing quality and safety surrounding the implementation of the NDIS for people living with a psychosocial disability. And despite being presented with a variety of informed presenters whose knowledge and expertise offered valuable contributions to the forum, for me, there was a huge elephant in the room that was so obviously distracting that I felt the need to write about it.

When I first signed up to attend this forum, the classic question “do you have any accessibility requirements?” was asked. I selected no and in all honesty, didn’t give it any other thought. That was, however, until I found myself at work on the day of the forum. As I sat in front of my computer without any headphones, surrounded by my fellow colleagues who were busy working with clients via Zoom, telephone or generally trying to concentrate on their own work, I found myself in a pickle. Should I tell everybody to keep it down (not quite possible in an office environment), skip the forum altogether, or do I adapt and try to follow along with the help of closed captions?

Not wanting to have to shuffle my schedule around to watch the forum at a later date, I opted to enable closed captions. After turning them on, I found myself half tuning in while also trying to take notes. To say I failed to achieve either task would be a huge understatement.

I pride myself on my touch typing abilities, however, my skill set was no match for taking notes from the captions and slide content at the same time. I suddenly found myself in a moment of enlightenment and realised just how heavily I rely on sound within my everyday life. The simple task of attending an online forum suddenly was not so straightforward, and, as this dawned on me, there was a sudden period where the closed captions just simply did not appear on the screen despite the speaker clearly still talking.

Looking back at my notes I tried to fill in the gaps and decipher what the speaker could be talking about, which is then when I also noted how drastically different my notes were from normal! In this moment of confusion and frustration, a burst of closed captions suddenly re-appeared across my screen in rapid succession. So rapid in fact, that I missed them altogether. I completely lost the concept of what was being discussed and suddenly, we were onto the next topic.

Unfortunately, this continued to happen throughout the forum at the times in which I could attend. The limitations of computer-generated captions had become obvious, and I soon found myself logging off to go and complete my other work. My notes were half complete, with important information completely missing or incomprehensible. By the end, I was left feeling anxious that I couldn’t complete my notes to the usual high standard that I aim for (the perks of being a perfectionist). Ultimately, this resulted in my decision to avoid the remainder of the forum and to make time to revisit the recordings at a later date.

And yet, I still felt plagued by feelings of failure and frustration over the whole process. On top of this, there was neither an Auslan interpreter present nor the option for the closed captions in a language other than English. And it got me thinking – was it because I had selected no accessibility requirements when registering? Surely not.

I got to thinking. What if my circumstances had changed? What if a colleague who required accessibility considerations needed to attend in my place? Should a certain standard of accessibility considerations not be met?

They say that in order to fully understand the experiences and challenges of another person, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. Although the shoes I walked in that day were certainly not the same as the shoes of someone who requires accessibility considerations in their day-to-day lives, I still found myself perplexed that I was not able to partake due to certain limitations.

My mind flashed to a vision of my father-in-law’s face when he is unable to participate in a conversation because his hearing aids cannot filter out the surrounding sound. He adopts a physical presence that tries to convey that it’s no big deal – but his eyes give it away. The eyes are the window to the soul, and it honestly hurts my heart to see his sadness at missing out on simple things like a joke or story shared amongst family and friends.

Naturally, I am now both frustrated and sad at the fact that accessibility considerations within the disability sector are not up to the standard they should be. If we can’t even get it right within our own sector, how can we lead others to take action within other sectors and further, in their own lives?

Food for thought.

The post Accessibility and the Gap Within Our Community appeared first on Amergin.

Regardless of where your team is working, even if it is remotely from the other side of the country, this doesn’t prevent you from implementing a series of simple practices within your everyday operations to help support your staff during moments of stress.

When our body responds to stress, one of the first reactions we have is our breathing usually changes to shorter, faster breathes that don’t extend down to the depths of our diaphragm. This is known as chest breathing and as your breath’s are shallower, this in turn feeds the stress response your body has entered.

That’s why the phrase “take a big breath in” is one of the most common phrases we hear when faced with a stressful situation. So why do we struggle so much with the concept of just stopping for a moment to re-focus our breathing?

We all know that stress raises our cortisol levels, resulting in a magnitude of impacts upon the human body including difficulties with emotional regulation and impaired brain activity. Essentially, the more stressed we are, the more likely it is that we will struggle within our everyday lives, tasks and work functions.

From a workplace perspective, stressed out staff may find their regular work practices and projects can suddenly seem harder, unachievable or impossible within the given timeframe. The usual mental clarity required to focus at the job at hand is clouded by the stress lens, which will continue to dominate individuals emotional regulation and focus unless the stress response is broken.

Which is where mindfulness practices play an important role.

This week’s Mindfulness May Practice is to – JUST BREATHE

The very simple act of deep breathing is a pretty miraculous healing exercise. It is involuntary for the most part and occurs naturally without us being aware. However, it is also an action we can control and regulate. Our ability to manipulate the breath makes it a valuable tool that can influence our minds and bodies and guide us towards a state of greater clarity and relaxation.

The breath is connected to the nervous system and by simply taking deep breaths in and out, we deactivate the ‘fight and flight’ or ‘stress’ response and activate the ‘rest and digest’ response of the nervous system. This immediately slows down our heart rate, brings more oxygen into our bloodstream and releases those ‘feel good’ endorphins throughout our entire body, allowing it to calm and settle, reducing anxiety and bringing us into the present moment.

You can now go about your day knowing you can integrate this practice as often as you like any time across the day. Some smart devices (such as the Apple Watch) have inbuilt apps or programs that can remind you to check in with your breathing and help you stay on top of your breathing throughout the day.

Just Remember, no matter what situation you are faced with and your stress levels begin to rise, take a moment or two and … Just Breathe.

The post Mindfulness May – A series of mindfulness practices to incorporate within your team appeared first on Amergin.

Today’s workplace is a very different place to what it was when I began my working career 45 years ago.

Being born in 1960, I’m a member of the demographically large generation born between the end of WWII and mid-1960s, known as Baby Boomers. The term ‘boomer’ is derived from the boom in births that took place after the return of soldiers from WWII.

Employers today are now leading workplaces which are more generationally diverse than at any other time in history. Having four generations in the workplace is going to require a level of dialogue, understanding and interaction between people that probably hasn’t happened before. Generational diversity, although facing some challenges, has great potential and presents many opportunities for staff to share their knowledge and experience.

Addressing the positives and challenges of the age-diverse workforce begins with an understanding of the priorities and needs of each generation. From Baby Boomers to Gen Xs to Gen Ys (or Millennials) to Gen Zs, each group brings a different view on careers, technology and life in general. Here’s a look at the 4 generations comprising the work force today.

What Are The Generational Differences?

Today, there are roughly four generations employed in the workforce:

1. The Baby Boomer Generation born between 1946-1964
2. Generation X born between 1965-1980
3. Generation Y or Millennials born between 1980-2000
4. Generation Z born between 1995-2015

A Step Back In Time – My Experience With Technology in the 70s Workplace

I was employed as a Stenographer. For many of you unfamiliar with the term, a Stenographer transcribes speech in shorthand used especially for taking dictation. Shorthand is a phonetic system where the symbols do not represent letters, but sounds. These sounds are then represented by strokes which differ only in thickness, the thin stroke representing “light” sounds, the thick stroke representing “heavy” sounds. Vowels were also represented with dots and dashes. Doing this required a specialist fountain pen with a very fine, but flexible nib. Writing with shorthand symbols allowed you to write at a quicker speed than traditional handwriting so speed and accuracy were essential. Shorthand was used widely in the office as recording and dictation machines were yet to be invented.

After taking dictation, the next step was to decipher the strokes, dots and dashes and, using a manual typewriter, type the letter or document back into longhand. We were trained to ‘touch type’ which meant you weren’t to look at the keys as you typed so that your focus was completely on your shorthand notebook.

The process for using a typewriter went as follows – manually set your margins, place a piece of paper behind the cylinder and roll the paper up using a dial at the side until the paper is where you need to start typing. Align the paper, then push back the paper lock and the paper release lever and start typing. When you finish typing a line, the typewriter would activate a bell to let you know it was time to return the carriage manually to its original position with the carriage-return lever, and you would then continue typing on to the next line.

When the type began to fade it was time to change the ribbon spools. The ribbon is what transfers the ink to the paper when you strike a key. The ribbon was threaded through the carrier. Once the ribbon carrier was raised, we had to be sure it was threaded correctly and the new spool put back in the same way. Some typewriter ribbons have two different coloured pigments (usually black and red) which could be selected if the typewriter had a switch to allow for words or sentences to be written in a different colour when required. Today we click Bold or Italics, or both and have a wide selection of font sizes and colours to choose from.

Typically, a typewriter had an array of keys, and each one caused a different single character to be produced on the paper. If you made a mistake while typing, you had to start again – there were no delete buttons on a typewriter.

Today, we take for granted that modern technology allows us to print unlimited copies of documents from our computers, however photocopiers weren’t a luxury in most 70s offices, so carbon copies of typewritten documents had to be made instead. When placed between an original and a second piece of paper to be copied onto, carbon paper would transfer marks made by the pressure applied by a typewriter making a clean, legible copy of the original.

Typewriters continued their dominance in the 70s albeit with improvements. For example, electrical typewriters made an introduction to the workplace in the late 70s and were designed to minimize noise in the office environment. When there were many stenographers working in one office, in what was called a typing pool, the noise could be deafening when all were typing at once. A cartridge was also used to replace the ink rather than ribbon and spools so this was a big step forward.

A telex machine was a must in most workplaces. The telex is essentially a large typewriter with a punch-tape unit. It operated entirely in upper case and, prior to transmission, a tape would be prepared and checked. It could then be transmitted automatically once the number had been dialled and the connection made. Telex was a major method of sending written messages electronically between businesses. Its usage went into decline as the fax machine grew in popularity in the 1980s.

The telephone also looked very different than today’s office phone systems. Our offices and desks were outfitted with rotary dial phones. Like the mobile today, everybody had one, and they ruled domestic and office communications. All that changed in the 1980s when they were replaced by the push button telephone.

Office design, furniture and technology have changed substantially to reflect ever-shifting economic and cultural changes through the decades, setting the stage for some of the most advanced products today.

The Digital Age

The relationship between technology and Boomers is vastly different in comparison to the newer generations, particularly now the ‘digital age’ has emerged. We’ve gone from rotary phones and telex machines being the height of office innovation, to instant messaging, video conferencing and the quest for a good wi-fi connection so you can work from the cosy coffee shop nearby. The introduction of computers has diminished the need for huge filing systems, duplicate copies and off-site file storage.

A common misconception of Boomers is that they lack understanding of and/or fail to effectively utilise technology however, the expansion of radio, television, mobile phones, personal computers and the Internet have all been pioneered by Boomers.

Today Gen X and Millennials (children of the Baby Boomers) aren’t just the future leaders of industry – they’re already running the show as Managers. Gen Z, born after 1995, are also entering the workforce en masse. These three generations, all digital natives, are already shaping the workplaces of the future.

Millennials have grown up in a time of rapid change, giving them a set of priorities and expectations sharply different from the Baby Boomers. They have come of age during a time of technological change which has given them a different set of behaviours and experiences than their parents. By the year 2000, the entrance of social medial allowed customers to articulate their satisfaction with companies and make decisions based on the company’s behaviour and not just on price alone. So at this point, companies also began to react and change.

Current digital systems such as computers, smartphones, tablets and laptops have evolved over time. The availability of the Internet provides us with ready access to information anytime, anywhere. Connectivity enables us to conduct our shopping and banking online. We can stay in touch and communicate instantly with friends and family anywhere in the world via social media.

Building An Inclusive Culture In The Workplace

Today, both Baby Boomers and Millennials have access to the same technology. However, the behaviour towards technology and its usage differs between the two generations. The Boomers for instance, use the technology to assist them with getting the information they need and increasing their convenience. The technology in the hand of the Millennials is being used mostly for connections. The older generation sees the social networking and mobile technology as ‘new technology’, whereas for Millennials, it is just the where and how of interaction. Recognition and self-expressions are some of the goals the Millennials also want to achieve through technology.

Because of the fast growth in the technological evolution, the Boomers only had the opportunity to grow up seeing it, whereas the Millennials grew up knowing it.

Generations will come and go. Once it was a world with Baby Boomers, today it is the Millennials and soon, the world will be taken over by the next generation. Technology on the other hand will always stay and always evolve. It will always evolve in the hands of the current generation, who will pass it on to the next generation and by this, the technological evolution will keep on changing the generation’s behaviour and workplace culture.

Even though Millennials have studied and naturally learned to thrive in this digital age, the Boomers did well for themselves long before technology monopolized the workplace. They hold a lot of knowledge and insight into important things that future generations need to understand. Not to mention that people learn better when they feel respected, as they are more enthused to listen and become educated on unfamiliar topics.

Organisations are a diverse place. Employees of different generations have diverse management preferences not only because they view the world differently, but also because they are usually at very different career stages. The pivotal Millennial group prefers their manager to act like a coach or mentor, while Baby Boomers prefer a dependable and consistent manager. Beyond that, Millennials and Baby Boomers can complement each other well in a work setting, filling in the gaps to create a diverse and accomplished team.

Respecting and understanding each other’s views and values will allow different generations to increase their appreciation of one another. Mutual respect for one another – in the workplace and life in general – should always be first and foremost.

Leadership is the driving force of workplace culture. Management sets the behaviour standards through their words and actions, along with policies and procedures. A business must pay attention to the presence of stereotypes in its organization if it is to be successful and retain its most productive, knowledgeable employees. This in turn, will lead to better communication and collaboration because employees are now talking from a sense of appreciation and acknowledgement.

The post Technology and the Generational Gap in the Workplace appeared first on Amergin.

No, I’m not talking about Anne-Marie Smith in particular – rather the tragic scenario that has exposed significant failings in the NDIS and specifically, accountability of the Providers who are responsible for the welfare of the participants they serve.

So… What really went wrong? The answer is simple in some respects, yet more complex in others. To get a complete picture, we need to look at some key milestones along the relatively short NDIS timeline.

It’s not a secret that the NDIS has been behind the eight ball from very early on. Back in 2017 and 2018 a week wouldn’t go by where the NDIA wasn’t under fire for one thing or another. This included the lethargic uptake from Providers and Participants, to unsustainable pricing caps, to the significant cost blowouts required to help the Scheme gain momentum. This was a time when each state and territory government oversaw their own provider registration and compliance. These varied from state to state, which meant there was no national uniformity or standardisation of rules and regulations.

Nevertheless, the NDIS, established by bipartisan agreement, had to succeed, no matter what. The existing system was clearly not working and there was little oversight of the industry, particularly relating to what providers were doing on the ground.

The NDIS was brought about as a new way to stop the abuse and neglect and bring ‘choice and control’ back to those the disability support system was meant to support. However from the get-go growing whispers began to circulate, questioning whether the NDIS would solve the systemic issues of the old system and actually deliver on its promises.

As the NDIS began to grow, the market saw an influx of new providers, lured by the promise of a massive $22 billion in annual funding, of which they could be part. A number of these operators were later identified as businesses that had been booted out of family day care and other government-funded systems – often because of fraudulent or unethical behaviour. These operators became known as ‘industry hoppers’ and posed a significant problem for the NDIS.

Unfortunately, at this point the NDIA didn’t have any real way to monitor what was actually going on in the market. There was little oversight of provider behaviour or a way to gauge participant experience, let alone industry performance. This meant unethical behaviour was going unchecked and providers whose focus was more about making a quick dollar rather than actually helping those more vulnerable in our community were doing just that.

Then came the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the NDIS Commission) – one body to rule them all! The introduction of the NDIS Commission brought with it the promise of:

• consolidation of provider regulation under a federal banner;
• improved regulatory mechanisms for greater market transparency; and
• a way to pull everyone in to line and boot those not playing by the rules out.

New South Wales became the first State to make the transition. Within 12 months, the NDIS Commission reported over 500 cases of abuse and neglect. This was surely a hint as to what was to come once the other states and territories moved across in the following months and years.

At this point, we saw media scrutiny distinctly intensify. More cases of abuse and neglect came to the surface and the NDIS Commission realised they needed to do something. They appointed a dedicated 100-person Fraud Taskforce to put a stop to ‘dodgy providers’ – however by this stage, the problem was already too big. Whilst several big busts by the Taskforce hit the front page of newspapers across the country, many are still operating and hidden from plain sight (for the moment).

So, where are we today? According to the latest COAG Disability Reform Council Quarterly Report (March 2020), we now have a market with over 15,000 providers (not all active), serving 364,000 participants across Australia – and the NDIS Commission is still struggling. There is a percentage of providers still not being held to account and subsequently, participants still experiencing varying degrees of abuse and neglect.

To add fuel to the fire, there is a growing spate of unqualified, private organisations posing as consultants, training experts or other specialists offering poor advice and support to new (and existing) providers. Many of these services offer the world but fall dramatically short in practice. They too are trying to make a quick dollar out of the Scheme, but this time off the providers themselves.

This means the problem of fraud is extending from beyond those unethical providers to those supporting providers. What’s of particular concern is the potential long term, systemic risks associated with the ‘quality of provider’ now operating in the market: a problem that will very difficult to address by the government agencies trying to regulate the Scheme as time goes on.

What’s the NDIS Commission’s response to this? To close ranks and declare the problem is outside of their remit. By saying ‘we don’t endorse consultants’ which is essentially saying, ‘it’s not our problem to fix’. Whilst this move by the NDIS Commission does acknowledge there is a problem, it doesn’t address the elephant in the room that will directly impact what the NDIS Commission is trying to achieve. The said elephant is allowing Providers to be ‘supported’ in a way that neither aligns with the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, best practice or ethical behaviour. This issue will ultimately help continue the cycle whereby participants are placed at risk of harm.

It’s important to acknowledge that the NDIS Commission has and continues to take measures to help providers register and operate as good NDIS providers. However, the complexity of the scheme and its compliance requirements mean that providers often need dedicated and individualised time, guidance and practical support to understand and implement their obligations. The flow on effect is growing demand for good industry support bodies, including quality consultants.

What can the NDIS Commission do now?

• Look outwards. By increasing collaboration with industry and credible private enterprise, it will be able to facilitate quicker action and still maintain control and direction of the marketplace.
• Be brave. Do things differently. After all, it’s a fundamental principal that underpins the Scheme. Make sure decisions are based on what the industry needs, not the politics of the day.
• Learn from the mistakes and shortcomings across other industries or marketplaces. Aged Care is showing how badly things can and do go wrong.

Let’s bring it back to Anne-Marie Smith. A shocking example of why the system meant to improve services to people living with a disability still has a long way to go.

Ann-Marie Smith had been receiving full-time care, six hours a day, seven days a week since 2013. She had been supported by the state-based Disability SA until 2018, when the introduction of the NDIS meant she moved to Integrity Care. Ultimately, we have all now been witness to a tragedy that shouldn’t have happened.

The post Anne-Marie Smith: Why Her Death Was Inevitable appeared first on Amergin.

Julia Cameron once wrote, ‘we need to bridge our sense of loneliness and disconnection with a sense of community and continuity even if we must manufacture it from our time on the Web and our use of calling cards to connect long distance. We must “log on” somewhere, and if it is only in cyberspace, that is still far better than nowhere at all’. Who would have thought something written a decade ago would resinate so much today?

While we might be feeling disconnected to people and the world around us, we should remember that we are not alone, and we are all connected together deep down, we just need to “log on” somewhere and find it. So, what are some way you can “log on”?

First let’s start with a connection through technology, which once upon a time used to seem so impersonal and disengaging to people.

By now most of us would be using video calling (like facetime) and social media (like Facebook) to chat and see people when you physically cannot. Which is a great way to check in on someone and visually see their expressions to know if they’re going okay. But have you thought outside the box and considered, having an online game night, a Netflix movie party, taking an online class together or even put on a virtual fashion show/karaoke? The next time you’re planning on connecting with someone online, make it unique and try something different. You might find that by doing that something extra besides a message/video call brings you closer together and you’ll remember and look back on this time more fondly. Especially if you sung horrendously in your lounge room to your grandparents during your virtual karaoke night.

Now for some non-technology connecting, which can be considered “old-fashioned” but can be an unexpected way to connect with friends, family or strangers.

Of course, the first and probably one of the best things is a handwritten letter to someone, even if it’s just a few words. To change this up, in your letter send someone a hug. Put down a large piece of paper (or maybe a few glued together), lay your back down with your arms stretched out and draw the outline of you onto the paper. Get up and cut your outline out and fill the inside with photos, memories, jokes and anything you want. Fold it up and send it to your friend or family and when they open it up, they can wrap your arms around them. Add in an instant heat pack, to make it a warm hug.

Other things you can do, is send someone a care package, drop a book/movie off with your review for them to read/watch it, do a random act of kindness, join the kindness pandemic, participate in the neighbourhood bear hunt or grab some chalk and draw positive pictures/words along the footpath or driveway.

There are so many things you can do to stay connected with others around and far away, so get creative and “log on” in any way you can to make lasting memories to think fondly over this time.

The post Log On and Connect appeared first on Amergin.

The case of Ann Marie Smith – and more broadly NDIS Participant Safety – continues to make news headlines around the country and shine light on one of the darkest parts of the disability sector. A case so horrific that it terrifies others due to how perfectly replicable it is. How easily a system designed to protect vulnerable Australians like Ann Marie Smith failed her for so long.

And yet we are still left with questions that have no answers.

Why did Ann Marie’s carer, the person trusted to provide her with the daily support she required, sit by day in and day out watching her suffer and do nothing to help?

Her carer has since been charged with manslaughter, but it’s difficult to understand how they could let another human being live in conditions that police have described as nothing short of degrading.

How could the organisation engaged to provide her disability supports not have appropriate systems in place to safeguard the wellbeing of participants, such as processes to conduct basic employment clearances and supervise workers, when they are a registered NDIS Provider?

Ann Marie’s disability support provider has shown a complete lack of disregard for her wellbeing and safety and since news of her tragic – yet preventable – death hit news headlines, their actions have only appeared to be trying to cover themselves.

It has been reported that 33 submissions for required employment clearances were lodged in the aftermath of Ann-Marie’s death from her disability support provider. That means 33 workers have potentially been supporting other people with disability or older people, without being screened to undertake such work.

Furthermore, it was not Ann Marie Smith’s disability support provider who reported her death to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; a requirement that all registered NDIS providers are supposed to undertake within 24 hours of a person passing away. The provider has since been issued with a $12,600 infringement notice for this failure.

$12,600. Frankly, I’m extremely disappointed.

There are 525,600 minutes in one year. Even if you allocated $1 per minute in infringement fines for the pain and suffering Ann-Marie experienced, this infringement notice would only cover just shy of 9 days of Ann-Marie’s life. What about the other 356 days?

What about the other reported compliance issues relating to participant safety that also warranted a compliance notice from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission? In August 2020, Ann-Marie’s disability support provider had its NDIS registration status revoked and was issued a banning order. Whilst this action is warranted, correct and a step in the right direction, why it took 4 months for this to occur remains unanswered. That’s another 4 months of other NDIS Participants’ safety being put at risk.

The Safeguarding Task Force, which was established on 21 May in response to Ann-Marie’s death, released their final report on 31 July.

The final report found the following fourteen Safeguarding Gaps:

1. Potentially vulnerable participants are not routinely identified and assigned ongoing support coordination in their NDIS Plan;
2. The support coordinator can be from the same agency that provides other core services for the individual, creating a conflict of interest;
3. Participants are not routinely linked to community activities, so they are often isolated;
4. Participants are not identified as potentially vulnerable by the NDIA and prioritised by LAC [Local Area Coordinators] when carrying out the community connection role;
5. NDIS plans do not routinely include strategies to minimise participant risk, for example, coordination of health care (including dental, sexual and mental health), technology to aid independence and safety, capacity building for asserting rights, and recognition of cultural matters;
6. Participants and their families are unclear about how to raise matters of concern with the Commission and the Commission does not routinely undertake proactive inspections to vet the performance of service providers;
7. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission does not adequately consider the risk factors associated with the use of unregistered providers of personal support, particularly for potentially vulnerable participants;
8. The Commission does not explicitly require of all providers of personal support that there be at least two support workers for that individual (not necessarily at the same time) and that workers in participants’ homes have regular supervision;
9. Regular health checks are not routinely made available to all vulnerable NDIS participants and their NDIS plan does not routinely include coordination of their health care;
10. There is currently no State agency to report abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults under 65 years of age;
11. The DHS Screening Unit is not quickly and fully provided with relevant information by the Commission, the NDIA and some State agencies, compromising the availability of information on an individual worker that might affect their suitability to work with people with disabilities;
12. The commencement of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissions on 1 July 2018 in South Australia has created issues with the scope of the Community Visitor Scheme;
13. State and local government agencies have not yet invested sufficiently in achieving the goals of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018; and
14. State has not invested in individual advocacy to assist people with disabilities to navigate the service system and the community.

Fourteen may not sound like a big number but when you actually sit and review these safeguarding gaps and start to link them together, then apply them to vulnerable people like Ann Marie Smith, it paints a picture of the significantly flawed current systems we have in place designed to protect people with disability. This report highlights safeguarding gaps at both a State and Federal Government level and notes that there is no magic wand approach to addressing these gaps: there is no single approach that can be taken that will address all the issues identified.

The safeguarding gaps represent a set of systemic issues that range from lack of processes to identify and provide ongoing support to vulnerable NDIS participants, the complex nature of the current NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s complaints process (potentially resulting in complaints or warnings being missed), the lack of overall oversight on providers from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and a lack of processes to ensure vulnerable people with disability receive regular health checks.

In response to the identified fourteen safeguarding gaps, the Safeguarding Task Force has made seven recommendations:

1. The State Government communicate matters raised in the report to the Commonwealth Government, with special reference to the identified safeguarding gaps 1-9, with the intention of seeking a response on how these gaps must be addressed as soon as possible;
2. The State Government address the need for vulnerable NDIS participants to have regular health checks and include communicating to the Commonwealth Department of Health (in response to safeguarding gap 9);;
3. The State Government extend the scope of the [South Australian] Adult Safeguarding Unit to include younger adults at risk of abuse prior to 2022, starting with people with disability (in response to safeguarding gap 10);
4. DHS revisit the [South Australian] information sharing guidelines as they impact on the screening on workers, and in particular, the availability of relevant information from the Commonwealth (in response to safeguarding gap 11);
5. The State Government reaffirm the value of a community visitor scheme as an additional safeguard for potentially vulnerable participants and work with the Commonwealth to establish a complementary scheme (in response to safeguarding gap 12);
6. State and Local Government agencies provide better access and inclusion for people with disability so they can fully participate in society and the community (in response to safeguarding gap 13); and
7. The State Government invest in individual advocacy to assist individuals with accessing what they need from the NDIS and the community (in response to safeguarding gap 14).

While the findings of this report are difficult to digest, it sheds light on the issues people with disability experience everyday and offers recommended actions that both State and Federal Governments need to take to begin addressing these.

The recommendations have also set out clear actions required by the State Government, providing some transparency of the issues within the state system and how they could begin to be addressed.

The report concludes that essentially, due to the insurance-based nature of the NDIS, in practice it does not take responsibility for participant safety – and that “the risk and responsibility is deemed to lie with the individual participant”. It also states that ““the best safeguard for any potentially vulnerable individual is to have a number of people in their lives, who make sure the person is not left to their own devices when things go wrong.”

That doesn’t sit well with me.

Essentially, the report is stating that in the current system, both Federal and State, a vulnerable person is responsible for their own safety and well-being – and needs a large a number of people in their support network to help keep them safe.

I’m sure I don’t need to spell out how far from reality that situation can be for many people with disability.

And yet, despite the report’s findings, there is no clear plan of action from here. In particular, given the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission are both Federal Government agencies, I would have expected at least some further action to have been taken by this point in time. The largest two organisations in the country responsible for disability support funding and the protection of people with disability have taken no visible action to change the systemic issues that caused Ann Marie’s death.

I understand the time-pressures, KPI’s, immense workloads and sometimes difficult working conditions that the people working for these agencies experience everyday they go to work. But it’s the Frameworks and top-level policies and processes that dictate how these agencies are run; how these workers are required to do their job. Change needs to come from the top before it can impact the everyday lives of people with disability.

Essentially, the burden of action now lies with the Commonwealth Government to address the issues presented and create change.

I do acknowledge the Commonwealth Government has recently accepted all of the 29 recommendations made by the Tune Review, relating to amending current legislation to support introduction of a Participant Service Guarantee as well as a number of operational reforms. The Review itself acknowledged actions the Commonwealth Government and the NDIA have already taken to improve the experience of NDIS Participants.

I also understand the time-pressures, KPI’s, immense workloads and sometimes difficult working conditions that the people working for the NDIA and NDIS Commission experience everyday they go to work. But it’s the Frameworks and top-level policies and processes that dictate how these agencies are run; how these workers are required to do their job. Change needs to come from the top before it can impact the everyday lives of people with disability. And further visible change is greatly needed to assure Australians that meaningful action within the sector is being taken.

Martin Luther King Jr said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that”. My only hope is that the Commonwealth and State Governments work together to bring some light to a sector that is slowly fading into darkness.

The post Ann Marie Smith and NDIS Participant Safety: It’s Time To Action Change appeared first on Amergin.

Your palms are sweaty, knees are weak, arms are heavy…feelings of trepidation and uncertainty take over. No, you aren’t unwell (or in the middle of an American rap song) – it’s the all too familiar feeling of an impending review against the Aged Care Quality Standards!

Aged Care providers across the country whether newly approved or well-established within the sector, know the above feelings all too well. Even the most confident and prepared provider still feels a sense of nervousness given the weight and consequence of the outcomes from contact with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (the Commission).

However, repeatedly (and understandably) providers fix their focus on COMPLIANCE. They ensure their T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted, and every piece of evidence/documentation is ready to demonstrate exactly how they comply with each of the aged care quality standards. And while compliance remains the key focus, providers need to remember however, it is not enough to simply just comply with your requirements, it is equally as important to expectations of the consumers receiving your care and services.

For many this seems like a daunting task, how do you ensure you are complaint with all of your provider requirements while also going above-and-beyond for consumers? The answer is simple, it is likely you are already doing it.

Contrary to what the media reports, most aged care providers across Australia are providing exceptional care and really thinking outside the box when it comes to making sure consumers are living their best lives thanks to their support.

There are providers who implement day programs that allow and engage consumers to educate staff about cultures, customs, and anything in between. There are providers who manage dignity of risk and choice in ways that not only support a consumer to pursue activities that bring them joy, but also alleviates stress and confusion at the same time. There are also providers who value their team so highly that they implement innovative flexible working arrangements that create efficiencies internally and increase consumer satisfaction in return.

Where providers often fail themselves however is in the detail – how is this all recorded? As we all know, if you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen. This rings true for all of the positive work your organisation is doing also as this demonstrates how you are exceeding expectations and going beyond compliance.

Is your Feedback and Complaints Register full to the brim with detailed complaints management activities and continuous improvement actions based on these? Providers need to think about the positive feedback and compliments as well. How are these being not only documented but shared and celebrated across your organisation and the sector?

How heavily are you guided by consumers and their representatives when it comes to implementing new programs or changes across the organisation? Do you involve consumers within your board or executive leadership meetings, recruitment processes or other business/operational processes and decision making? If consumer engagement is at the forefront of your strategic planning, how is this recorded and how often does this occur?

When recruiting for new staff, what strategies do you use to identify and ensure new recruits are kind, caring and respectful (thinking beyond just their qualifications)? How are these strategies documented as opposed to simply ticking boxes within a recruitment form and going by your ‘gut feeling’?

Are you integrating technology and online platforms or applications to ensure consumers remain connected with their community, loved one’s and your services? How is your organisation being innovative utilising technology to prevent social isolation and increase/improve independence?

Don’t get me wrong, all of the above leads to meeting your compliance requirements against the aged care quality standards however, if you have embedded an organisational culture of exceeding consumer expectations then you no longer have to work so hard at it.

By setting examples from your Governance level and ensuring your workplace culture is built on the foundations that striving beyond compliance is key; your team don’t focus on going above and beyond as a one-off event, it is simply ‘the way things are done here’. You will find your team constantly search for ways they can enhance the way a consumer receives your care and services and in turn, you increase the value of your service and are able to identify new opportunities with every interaction.

Consider, as adults we are interacting with the world and receiving services or products of some kind every day. Of course, we are satisfied when we receive what we asked for, however when someone goes beyond what we expected it guarantees to leave a much bigger impact. The same applies as we age. As we age and change from service provider to service receiver, we would want the same too. We want our provider to ensure they are compliant and meeting their required responsibilities BUT, also to value us so highly that they strive to exceed our expectations any way they can. In return, as a consumer we are more likely to do the same. Afterall, a person who feels appreciated will always do more than what is expected.

The post Aged Care Quality Standards: It is not enough to just COMPLY… appeared first on Amergin.