The Rebuttal

This is a response submitted to the Centre of Excellence for Disability Employment consultation on Disability Employment. You will gather, I don’t like the DES much. It’s a Waste of Space! Although I do not work in the employment space any more, I will do all in my power to draw attention to the disgusting and inhumane DES, until it is scrapped and replaced by a proper disability centred support!

Disability Employment Submission

I have been notified that The Disability Employment Centre of Excellence is seeking submissions in regard to the employment of people with a disability. As you know in Australia, despite currently being at full employment, the disability employment rate has remained static for several decades. In short, around 53% of people with a disability in Australia, who are able to work, are unemployed. This is an unacceptable statistic.

Much of this comes down to the totally inefficient and often cruel, Disability Employment Service. (DES)

By way of explanation, I worked for 14 years as a National Disability Coordination Officer for the University of Ballarat, Deakin University and the Centre of Disability Studies respectively. The program often interfaced with the DES to identify issues around transition and employability of people with a disability. I also worked in employment for the previously named Royal South Australian Deaf Society, The Deaf Society of NSW and Expression Australia, where I was the manager of Employment Services. I also worked as a Resume Writer under the old SkillShare system. I am well versed to comment.

Problems with the DES

There are many problems with the current DES system. It is a market system whereby to be sustainable a provider must place people. Getting people into employment generates income. Keeping people in employment generates income. The philosophy behind this is that the ‘INCOME’ acts as an incentive for providers to place people in employment.  It could be argued that this also acts as a disincentive for providers to place people who are regarded as being in the ‘TOO HARD BASKET.’

1)      Income as a Disincentive

What the ‘Placements for income’ actually does is encourage providers to focus on those who are most easy to employ. In this sense, those people most likely to be employed get the most attention. Those most likely to be placed and achieve placement milestones get the most attention. Those deemed as ‘TOO HARD’ get less attention.

Those in the too hard basket remain clients and get servicing fees, but meetings with these clients are generally short. Those with mutual obligations, who are not voluntary, are met and assisted to apply for work as they must, but to the bare minimum. Foe example, they will submit online applications just to meet the required number of job applications. Servicing is kept as short as possible so focus can be on those considered ‘most employable.’

There is very little incentive or motivation within this ‘MARKET/INCOME’ framework to work hard, advocate and develop a person with a disability considered to be in the TOO HARD BASKET. 

2)      Lack of Disability Knowledge

In my experience, in over three decades, there is a lack of genuine disability knowledge within many DES providers who are not Specialist Providers, which is nearly all of them. They employ people from marketing backgrounds or customer service backgrounds, for example, who have had little exposure or knowledge of disability.

Let’s use Deaf/HoH as an example. Unemployed Deaf community members require Auslan to communicate. Most people within the DES system do not know Auslan. Indeed, many providers will refuse to book interpreters for servicing meetings as this is an additional cost that they do not want to incur, particularly if they consider a person in the TOO HARD basket.

Many providers, despite knowing a person is Deaf/HoH, will insist on phoning the Deaf/HoH participant. When contact cannot be made, they are marked as non-attending. This can lead to payments being cut among other things.

It is worse if someone who is Deaf/HoH should attend an office and wish to obtain information. Front desk people and employment consultants are unable to effectively communicate with them or advise them. Similar issues exist for people with vision issues or cognitive issues.

There is a lack of knowledge of the adjustments that may be required such the technology that may be able to assist or workplace adjustments that may assist. Hence, when placing a person with a disability they often do not have the required adjustments in place for them to be effective workers. The lack of knowledge of these adjustments, often as simple as turning on the captions for a Teams meeting, using services such as Video Relay Interpreting or simply booking an Auslan interpreter means clients who are immensely employable are often placed in the ‘TOO HARD’ basket. More scarily, I have come across people in the DES system who have never used and understand less about how Jobaccess and the Employment Assistance Fund can support people with a disability in employment.

This lack of disability knowledge and understanding of reasonable and effective adjustments also means that providers are unable to effectively prepare many participants with disability for employment. It means they are unable to effectively advise employers as to how best to incorporate the person with a disability into the workplace.

Hence, rather than employ people with knowledge and design processes to effectively support participants with disability, the focus is on those considered employable, and those that are employable but have needs that are not well understood are placed in the ‘TOO HARD’ basket and serviced minimally.

This is the tragedy of the DES, namely that many of the people that work within it are ill equipped to support participants with a disability.

3)      Income and compliance drive, little focus on quality.

By nature, the DES is compliance driven. It is pedantic and focused on ticking boxes.  This is a disincentive to specialist providers and providers that are client focused and who go above and beyond to support clients.  The system does not recognise nor accept the unique challenges of clients with a disability and how this can impact on their ability to meet the strict rules of the DES. Nor does it recognise the additional advocacy work that is often required to support clients with a disability. For example:

A)      Clients with literacy and language issues who do not fully understand the rules.

B)      Clients that fail to meet mutual obligations because they lack the capacity to meet minimal requirements, often set by assessors who do not understand their disability.

C)      The DES does not recognise the hours of advocacy that are often required to assist clients. For example, current practice of many recruiters is to use online platforms. These platforms use AI technology that often invite clients to online interviews at short notice. If you are Deaf or HoH these platforms are often audio based and inaccessible. Because interviews are organised at short notice communication support such as Auslan interpreters cannot be arranged. Hours were spent advocating and informing companies of the difficulties Deaf/HoH clients had accessing these online platforms so as to try and create opportunities. None of these efforts are recognised in quality frameworks. By nature, placing people with a disability often takes longer and requires intensive advocacy and negotiation to open doors. None of this is recognised or paid for.

The consequence?  Providers go for the easy placements that generate income. Many people with a disability are just thrown in the ‘TOO HARD’ basket but kept on the books to claim servicing fees, with no intent to place. Worse, providers that do go the extra mile, are financially punished when clients struggle to meet compliance. Extra effort to support these clients is not recognised nor funded.

4)      Assessors do not know what they are doing!

A person with a disability must navigate a thoroughly complex and often inaccessible registration process. They are assessed by occupational therapy companies who gauge the level of support that is required. These assessors often do not fully understand disability. In the case of participants who are Deaf and use Auslan, they often refuse to book interpreters or any required communication support. If a client does not show for an assessment or if communication proved difficult these assessors often just put in standard reports that in no way reflect the true need of the client. 

For example, a Deaf refugee, who learnt Auslan as a fourth language, who is functionally illiterate and can not communicate by speech was supported by a mainstream DES. The DES informed the client of the upcoming ESAT assessment, without an interpreter. Consequently, the client had no idea as to what was required or when. The assessor, despite having never met the client because the client did not show at the meeting, produced the assessment that required the client to apply for 15 jobs a month. This is an impossible task for a client that cannot read and with severe communication barriers. They also ranked the client at level two, as only needing moderate support. Several times, because compliance was not met, the client had their income support cut, with no understanding as to why. Examples such as this are, sadly, all too common.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The DES is a cruel and heartless system that is based solely on compliance and financial outcomes. It does not recognise the unique needs of participants who have a disability. These needs often require specialist knowledge, intense capacity building and intensive advocacy. The intensive advocacy is required  to not only find placements but also address the systemic barriers that people with a disability seeking employment confront every day.

The employment needs of many people with a disability require patience, time, commitment and a fair deal compassion. The income and compliance obsession of providers and the DES administrators is not conductive to any of this. 

In addition to this, many employed in the DES sector lack knowledge of disability and the ability to support people with a disability with more ‘complex’ needs. This means that too many people with a disability who want to access the DES do not get the level of support that they need. This extends to assessors contracted by the DES who often do not understand the needs of people with a disability who have more ‘complex’ needs and rather than make the extra effort, take short cuts and produce inadequate assessments. This probably also occurs because the assessors wish to complete assessments in the shortest time frame possible and generate the highest income possible for their business.

The consequence is that providers seek the easy placements that will generate income and ensure all compliance is met. Those clients that are TOO HARD, do not get the required level of support needed to successfully obtain and retain employment.

Certainly, the fact that the unemployment rate for people with a dfisability has remained unchanged since the introduction of the DES in 1997, supports the view that the DES is totally ineffective.

It is recommended:

1)      The DES market-based model be scrapped as a means of providing employment support for people with a disability.

2)      That it be replaced by a specialist disability model where agencies understand and can support properly their disability cohort.

3)      That these agencies receive ‘Block Funding’ so that they can provide the required level of support.

4)      That agencies be able to demonstrate that their staff have the required understanding and experience to work with and support their disability cohort.

5)      That the NDIS be explored as a potential avenue to provide the funding for employment support for people with a disability so that this funding can be client centered and controlled by the client as much as possible.

6)      That punitive measures such as cutting income support for non-compliance be scrapped. This is a ‘blame the victim’ approach that is cruel and inhumane.

With respect

Gary Kerridge