Mailing address
La Trobe University
Victoria 3086 Australia
T + 61 3 9479-1065COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, HEALTH AND ENGINEERING E: lids@latrobe.edu.au
SCHOOL OF ALLIED HEALTH, HUMAN SERVICES AND SPORT www.latrobe.edu.au/lids
MELBOURNE CAMPUSES
Living with Disability Research Centre Bundoora
Collins Street CBD
Franklin Street CBD
REGIONAL CAMPUSES
Bendigo
Albury-Wodonga
Mildura
Shepparton
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Supplementary Submission to Inquiry on NDIS Workforce
This supplementary submission is focussed on the NDIS National Workforce Plan released on June 2021, and also includes some commentary on the NDIS Workforce Capability Framework which is referred to in the Workforce Plan and was realeased around the same time. The Living with Disability Research Centre, La Trobe University, is an applied social research centre that aims to build an evidence base to improve the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. I write this submission as Director of the Research Centre and as a researcher with a very strong track record of rigorous, peer reviewed published research conducted in collaboration with government and non government disability support services. For the past two decades, our primary research program has focused on what makes a difference to the quality of specialist disability support services for people with intellectual disabilities. More specifically, we have researched the skills disability support workers, front line managers and practice leaders need to have in order to deliver quality support. Further to this we have identified the organisational features associated with quality support services, which provides some indication of the knowledge and skills required by managers and senior organisational leaders (doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2019.1685479). We have developed free, evidence-based online training materials on a range of these topics, the most recent being on Frontline Practice Leadership (https://www.practiceleadershipresource.com.au/). More recently, we have also pursued a program of research about supported decision making for people with intellectual disabilities and for people with acquired brain injury. This has led to the development of an evidence-based practice framework and associated training materials that are relevant to a range of disability workers, including front line direct support staff, practice leaders, service coordinators, advocates and case managers (https://www.supportfordecisionmakingresource.com.au/).
ABN 64 804 735 113
CRICOS Provider 00115M
In my previous submission I have directed the Inquiry to some of our published research that addresses issues of the workforce skills of front line direct support workers and front line managers. I would also like to direct attention to the evidence that demonstrates that service culture is associated with abuse. Service culture and abuse are inextricably linked, and one of the most effective ways to safeguard people and prevent abuse – particularly in regards to supported accommodation services – is to ensure high quality staff practices. There are many positive aspect of the Workforce Plan, though overall it remains at a high level and provides little sense of mechanisms for implementation. I raise the following issues of concern. Absence of evaluation or evidence of success of previous initiatives and those that will be continued. The plan refers to the quite substantial range of initiatives around workforce issues that have occurred over the last few years and the significant funding from the Sector Development Fund. There is however no indication of the impact of these initiatives on the problems they sought to address or evaluation of the effectiveness or otherwise of the strategies that have been adopted. This is significant omission as evaluation of past initiatives should help to inform new strategies and avoid the mistakes of the past. For example, the plan proposes a continuing role for the Boosting local care workforce program but provides no indication of how effective this program has been in meeting its objectives. I suggest it may be useful to undertake an audit of projects funded around workforce issues since the NDIS commenced, analyse the strategies and outcomes achieved and use this learning to inform the more detailed implementation of the new plan. Inconsistent recognition of the role of higher and further education institutions in training and furthering strategies for improving the quality of the workforce. The recognition of the role that training and micro credentials might play in upskilling the workforce is commendable and takes account of the diversity of NDIS participants and contexts. Going down this path may also avoid the limited value of generic qualifications such as TAFE certificate 3 or 4 that have been the minimum in Victoria. However, across the workforce plan there is limited and inconsistent recognition of the role of Universities, TAFE colleges and other training organisations play as key partners in developing the workforce. Universities not only create evidence about required workforce skills, but also play a significant role in development of evidence-based training for support workers and front-line managers, and in development organisational capabilities necessary to enable a competent workforce and deliver quality support.
2 / 5
Maintaining the quality of NDIS participant supports will depend on the quality of the training, micro credentials, and ongoing professional development available to workers in the sector. It will therefore be important to recognise the role of the education sector and begin to work closely with it in findings mechanisms to map and develop training programs and micro credentials over the next 5 years. The NDIS Workforce Capability Framework provides an excellent framework to use as the reference points for these, it may however be important to provide some form of coordinating body to support self-accrediting institutions such as universities to ensure some degree of uniformity in training and act as a central repository for micro credentialled training programs. The issue of cost is not considered and does need to be addressed. It is not clear where the costs of training development, delivery or participation will lie. At present many evidence-based quality training programs are available free online for participants to complete at their own pace. Although most include exercises, few have the means of assessing these or of tracking engagement with and completion of training by disability workers. Micro credentialling is likely to come at a cost to workers if they are to demonstrate learning from and completion of training. It may be valuable to consider grants to training providers to develop assessment components of existing training and training credits for disability workers to cover their costs of completing micro credentials. Incentives to employers to hire trained disability workers While the value of training is well recognised in the Workforce plan there are few incentives to disability support providers to hire trained workers, or for workers to engage in training. A scheme similar to the Victorian Disability Workers Registration scheme may be worth considering, that will enable annual professional development benchmarks to be established and workers with required minimum experience or qualifications to be easily recognised by potential employers. Recognising the link between funding and provision of organisational infrastructure that supports good leadership, supervision and peer support The Workforce plan states (p.17) that employers lack of time and resources for training and supervision but does not give this issue the attention that it requires or indeed link it to other parts of the plan. The plan seems to imply that a peer network might be sufficient to motivate and support workers to avoid isolation and compensate for lack of training and supervision from employers. Yet in contrast the NDIS Workforce Capability Framework recognises the significance of organisational capabilities in enabling and motivating disability workers, and ensuring a culture that values practice and rights through for example front line leadership, supervision and coaching. The Capability Framework lays
3 / 5
out the type of organisation infrastructure necessary to support quality support and which is so vital to enabling workers to function effectively, but these factors, many of which are found in the literature, are given little emphasis in the Workforce Plan. The link between recruiting and retaining a skilled and competent workforce, and organisational infrastructure must be recognised more explicitly, i.e., the significance of organisational culture, senior leadership that values practice and frontline leadership that provides supervision and coaching and facilitates team work must be recognised in the Workforce Plan and reflect the excellent analysis of these components in the Capability Framework. So too must the link between the workforce, organisational infrastructure, and the pricing structure of the NDIA. At present the NDIA pricing structure particularly for groups homes (SIL services) does not recognise the value of workers having effective front line leadership to coach and supervise, team meetings to foster collaboration and team work, or indeed core training in skills such as Active Support. The Workforce Plan and the Capability Framework must be harmonised together with the pricing decisions of the NDIA or it will not be feasible for them to be implemented. Overlap between sectors The data in the Workforce plan provides a clear indication that the majority of NDIS providers do not work in other sectors such as aged care. This is important given the differences in orientation and expectations of workers between the two sectors. It is somewhat worrying therefore that the Workforce plan appears to be favouring a common workforce and training between these sectors. This position requires much more justification and debate. Values are insufficient On page 11 there is a comment that values are more important than skills. Assertions such as this undermine the valuable work encapsulated in the Worker Capability Framework and recognition about the importance of training and micro credentialling in the Workforce plan and should have no place in the plan. It may be that some people with disability can self- direct workers to carry out tasks but as the Capability Framework spells out recognition of one’s role in itself is a core capability not simply a value.
Further Development of the Worker Capability Framework
The NDIS Worker Capability Framework is a welcome piece of work that provides a framework against which training programs designed for support workers, frontline leaders and senior managers can be mapped. It is suggested that the Framework be regarded as a living document to which additional elements of core capabilities or specialist capabilities might be added. It does appear to be somewhat uneven in its development and goes into much greater depth on some capabilities, particularly around positive behaviour
4 / 5
support, than others. There seems to be omission of the specific capabilities required to engage and support participation of people with intellectual disabilities whilst in their own homes or SIL services, whereas capabilities to support participation in the community are well explicated. There is also for example no recognition that Active Support is a core evidence-based practice that should be used by support workers with people with intellectual disabilities in all contexts, and this practice is only mentioned in the context of implementing positive behaviour support (see p. 145) Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this supplementary submission.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Christine Bigby, PhD. Director of the Living with Disability Research Centre, La Trobe
University
5 / 5