Retraining injured workers for employment project - SA … SA Unions Report (web).pdf · Retraining...

Retraining injured workers for employment project

Presented to

WorkCoverSA

By

SA Unions

Project TeamCarole Strong – Project Manager

Caroline Cleland – Project Officer

Debra Snelson – Return to Work Facilitator

Report Date: July 1st, 2011

SA Union’s Retraining Injured Workers for Employment Project was approved by the WorkCoverSA Board and supported by the Return to Work Fund in 2009. Its purpose was to address the return to work goals of the WorkCoverSA Strategic Plan of 2008 – 2011.

Objectives of the Return to Work FundThe Fund is for commissioned or tendered projects which focus on developing and improving outcomes for all injured workers to help them remain at work or return to work sooner by:

• finding solutions to barriers to injured workers staying at or returning to work

• expanding training options for injured workers

• developing greater workforce participation options for injured workers

• improving the skills of people operating within the South Australian workers compensation scheme

• developing and implementing industry-specific solutions to achieve successful and timely outcomes for injured workers and employers

• educating people about the importance of the roles of employers and injured workers to achieve the best outcomes.

SA Unions Project was launched in March 2010 by Wayne Lines – WorkCoverSA Ombudsman

Disclaimer Copyright Statement

This report has been prepared by SA Unions in accordance with its contract with WorkCoverSA under the Return to Work Fund.

Foreword Janet Giles

SA Unions is proud to have developed and implemented this project which was supported by WorkCoverSA’s Return to Work Fund. The Union movement has always been at the forefront of the creation and development of workers compensation in South Australia and continues to be a strong industry partner in the system. We represent the interests of injured workers and advocate on their behalf to ensure they are treated fairly. We lobby and advocate for laws that balance the interests of employers and workers and we actively promote prevention of injury at work, high quality rehabilitation and return to work as the ultimate goal for workers.

It is our view that the area of training for injured workers is an important part of the rehabilitation process. We were keen to explore this issue in our project not from a theoretical position but with real workers, in real situations. It was our hypotheses that the system of return to work of injured workers was not connected to the experts in training and employment and this did not help the injured worker.

Our project was therefore not just about individual workers but also about how the systems could work more effectively to achieve better outcomes for all workers.

Our project staff have enormous skills and talent and we would not have been able to do it without them. The cooperation we have received from all the stakeholders has been a real success story and the goodwill and enthusiasm of the workers involved has warmed our hearts on a daily basis.

We hope this project will help everyone involved in the area of workers compensation in our State to put injury, training and employment together in a way that achieves sustainable employment for injured workers.

Project Team – from left to right: Debra Snelson, Carole Strong, Caroline Cleland

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

2. RECOMMENDATIONS 6

Developing and Maintaining the Injured Worker Relationship 6

Discovering the Training Pathway 6

Employer Behaviour and Actions 7

Improving the System To Encourage Return To Work Through Retraining 7

3. PROJECT OVERVIEW 8

Evaluation Plan 8

Methodology 9

Addressing the Whole Person 9

Life Long Learning and Training as a strategy for Return to Work 10

Training Preparation & Implementation (Skills Assessment, Career Exploration, Training Options, Labour Market) 10

Identified Barriers 11

Initial Barriers 11

Worker Barriers 12

Training & Employment Barriers 12

System Barriers 13

Learnings 13

4. PROJECT RESULTS 15

Project Deliverables 15

The Model 19

The Cohort 20

Acknowledgments 22

5. BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW 23

6. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE 29

7. APPENDICES 32

Appendix 7:1

– Original Model 32

Appendix 7:2

– Mapping the Injured Worker 33

Appendix 7:3

– Stakeholders 33

Appendix 7:4

– Wrap Around Services & Referrals for Worker, Partner or Family 34

Appendix 7:5

– Focus Groups 35

– Recommendations and Comments from Participants 36

Appendix 7:6

– Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) 37

Appendix 7:7

– Training Organisations and Courses 38

Appendix 7:8

– SA Unions Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work) 39

Appendix 7:9

– Work Placement Contacts 41

Appendix 7:10

– Employment 42

Appendix 7:11

– Community Centre Services 43

Appendix 7.12

– Results of Participant Survey 44

Appendix 7.13

– Mapping the Barriers, Problems and Strategies 46

7:13.1 Claim Context 46

7:13.2 Health Context 48

7:13.3 Rehabilitation Context 50

7:13.4 Work Context 52

Appendix 7:14

– Bibliography 54

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The SA Unions Retraining Injured Workers for Employment Project was funded through WorkCover’s Return To Work Fund (RTW Fund) to examine how best to return injured workers to meaningful employment through the provision of relevant training within an overarching rehabilitation program. We set out to work directly with fifty (50) workers in the Community Services and Manufacturing industries and comprehensively document that process. The first three months focused on developing client recruitment and other processes, evaluation strategies and researching good return to work practices. This work was refined through the remainder of the 18 month project in the context of actual engagement with the participating injured workers. Please see further in Section 3 – Project Overview.

The main objectives of the project were to:

• test how both training and rehabilitation systems can be better integrated to ensure effective return to work outcomes for injured workers and

• expand retraining options for injured workers.

An important goal was to change the way training and employment opportunities for injured workers are understood. Project staging was designed to explore changes to culture and practice leading to sustainable systems, while assisting individual workers by identifying and assessing their skills, linking them to appropriate training, along with any necessary personal support arrangements, and identifying suitable employment pathways and monitoring employment opportunities.

A cohort of fifty (50) injured workers participated in the project. Most were referred by the RTW Fund team at Employers Mutual (EML) which is the claims agent for WorkCoverSA. Four were referred by Unions and one was self referred from a self insured employer (SISA member). The participating injured workers recognised the project as an opportunity and were able to feel safe to take the time to think, reflect and make informed decisions about their futures. These workers established rapport with project staff and contributed greatly to our learning. We would like to acknowledge all participants for their generosity and openness.

As at June 2011 the project successfully gained training approval for thirty five (35) participants, some of whom are still currently in training. Nine (9) participants were successful in gaining employment, although two (2) of them did so directly following the skills assessment and training pathways part of the project and did not undertake training.

An innovative aspect of the project was collaboration with TAFE Regional to deliver a Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work). Six (6) participants are currently engaged in this training with five (5) in field placements as part of their study. This is the first time group training of the sort had been approved by the claims agent and the process created much learning. The relevant rehabilitation consultants and case manager involved with the injured workers collaborated with SA Unions staff and the training provider to ensure the opportunity could proceed. We look forward to attending the graduation celebration when the participants complete the Certificate.

4

A further innovation was to identify and link participants into local community services where needed and appropriate. One (1) participant had no idea there were so many local resources within walking distance available to him. Participants who attended focus groups and completed surveys in the project attested to gaining skills, confidence and the support necessary to move forward.

Case notes were kept to record all interaction with participants. Notes were taken in focus groups and a focus group also was conducted with rehabilitation consultants. The three (3) project staff worked collaboratively with case managers, rehabilitation providers and the training sector while seeking advice and direction from a small Management Group and input from a larger Reference Group of diverse stakeholders.

There are five major critical elements / learning that emerged from our project that can inform better practice throughout the system:

1) the manner in which an injured worker is approached and engaged is crucial to a positive result. We viewed the worker as an individual and considered the whole person including their relationships and families.

2) the success of our project relied on collaboration. We worked closely in good faith across sectors and with a range of stakeholders.

3) a focus on identifying existing skills of injured workers and opening up alternate training and employment options assists enormously in the recovery and return to work. Further, thorough research and exploration along with consultation around suitable training as well as facilitation of meetings between the training provider and the participant were essential for confident participation in training.

4) the resources and services in community centres and adult and community education (ACE) providers not only provides excellent local options for training outside formal institutions but also provides support and works against isolation of injured workers.

5) a healthy workplace culture and the value of workers expertise was strikingly absent once a worker became injured rendering our project work with employers’ complex.

The recommendations following derive from the findings of the SA Unions project.

5

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

While drawing attention to the five major critical elements / learning above, the project also offers detailed recommendations under four headings –

• Developing and maintaining the injured worker relationship

• Discovering the training pathway

• Employer behaviour and actions

• Improving the system to encourage retraining and return to work.

Developing and Maintaining the Injured Worker Relationship

The project found participants responded best when:

• the injured worker is viewed with respect, dignity, capacity, potential and having a voice, where self confidence is encouraged along with the principals of inclusion, meaningful existence and active participation

• home visits are conducted if suitable for the participant to identify barriers, resources and access to local services

• a genuine interest in both the injured worker and how the injury is impacting on the family is taken. This can be a tool to inform a holistic strategic approach.

• the value of wrap around services are recognised and utilized, i.e. referrals and support to connect the injured worker with local community service providers and to their local community

• the worker is clearly advised and understands their rights, the responsibilities of all parties and the process of the system

• maintain regular contact to find out how the participant is progressing, for example ringing or emailing every two weeks

• a culture of trust is developed with the worker

• decisions made are communicated clearly so that the injured worker understands the implications.

Discovering the Training Pathway

• a renewed approach to retraining for injured workers which incorporates an informed decision by the injured worker and practical up skilling for a sustainable employment pathway. (This is particularly important for “detached” workers who have to reinvent themselves).

• “detached” injured workers would benefit from access to a personal development course before they embark on a training pathway. We found workers in this situation were often grieving and confused about how to approach a new direction.

6

• an individually tailored approach is required where time is taken to thoroughly research training options and employment pathways in consultation with the injured worker

• conduct skills assessments with time taken to identify skills participants may not know they have or think are relevant along with potential for new learning

• best results are achieved with open, encouraging & collaborative attitude toward a chosen training pathway, considering the opinion of the injured worker

• case managers and rehabilitation consultants develop expert knowledge in how to navigate and digest training, training pathways and skills shortages information

• clear training pathways and options aligned to individual participants are required

• injured workers require assistance in how to navigate and understand the training system, in particular accompanying them to their first meeting with the training provider / lecturer to clarify the training and explore any recognition of prior learning (RPL) possibilities

• case managers and rehabilitation consultants to provide a timely process of approval for training to meet commencement / semester dates for training and most importantly to meet application / enrolment dates

• case managers and rehabilitation consultants to consult with employers to thoroughly explore training options for “attached” workers within their workplace.

Employer Behaviour and Actions

• promote and embrace a learning culture for all workers, including injured workers

• injury is a regular part of work, not a crisis and can be managed in a way that workers are valued

• viewing injured workers as valuable workers and the injury or incident as an opportunity and not a threat

• compliance with section 58B/C of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (the Act) to focus on retraining options as well as suitable duties focus on keeping people at work and using their skills and abilities in other ways.

Improving the System To Encourage Return To Work Through Retraining

• all work undertaken to assist injured workers to undergo continual quality assurance reviews to ensure performance is carried out in a consistent and mindful manner

• the system to develop a tool for early intervention in identifying psychosocial and compounding issues in situations where these are likely to be a barrier to return to work

• WorkCoverSA and its claims agent(s) to actively promote retraining as an important part of rehabilitation

7

• support the development of expertise about the operation of the training system, skill shortages and sustainable employment for scheme participants

• flexible training approaches and learning support services be developed in the training sector to assist with the retraining of injured workers

• WorkCover, claims agent(s) and rehabilitation providers to build strong relationships with TAFE and the ACE sector in order to better understand the options available and also for the training system to better understand the issues facing injured workers

• WorkCoverSA to develop a training policy

• WorkCoverSA to promote and celebrate best practice employers who have a learning culture approach to their workers, including injured workers as well as those workers who have successfully retrained and transitioned to alternate employment

• step-downs and other parts of the legislation cause barriers to participation in training that will lead to employment, particularly for low paid workers

• WorkCoverSA examine options available for injured workers in the Skills for All initiative and Commonwealth training programs and funding

• WorkCoverSA to develop a service similar to the Queensland workers compensation regulatory authority (Q-COMP) “Return to Work Assist” which helps workers who have no job to return to develop work goals. The service offers a personalised service of career planning, job readiness techniques, training, and return to work. http://www.qcomp.com.au/services/return-to-work-assist.aspx

3. PROJECT OVERVIEW

Evaluation Plan

SA Unions project staff worked with staff from the Australian Institute of Social Research (AISR) to set up an evaluation and reporting framework and submitted quarterly reports to AISR and WorkCover. Following are the agreed project aims:

• increase skills in a group of up to 50 injured workers enabling them to be employed in suitable duties with existing or new employers

• improve information and support for employers to better meet section 58B obligations through the provision of retraining (and hence retain valuable workers)

• increase understanding by case managers of, and coordination with, the training system, with improved embedding of training activities as part of the rehabilitation and return to work process

• improve understanding within the rehabilitation industry of, and coordination with, the training system, and the subsequent incorporation of more effective training opportunities within the rehabilitation process

8

• improve understanding within the training industry of the workers compensation and rehabilitation and return to work systems, and improve access for those in these systems to opportunities and information in the training sector.

The report will address the results of each aim in Section 4 – Project Results.

Methodology

SA Unions project used a strength based / case management / action research approach to service, document and monitor progress of participants. Project staff agreed to work with participants to restore: self respect; dignity; confidence; inclusion; capacity; voice; meaningful existence; and active participation. These principals formed the foundation of our approach. We considered the stakeholders already involved with our cohort and negotiated to work collaboratively looking specifically at training and employment pathway needs. See Appendix 7:2 – Mapping the Injured Worker.

The holistic approach included visiting the participants in their homes (if appropriate) for the first few visits to establish rapport, identify barriers and resources, and gain consent for the project. For injured workers who could not travel due to injury or lack of resources we continued to conduct meetings in their home.

Our team process included weekly meetings to discuss the progress of every participant and ensure follow up. We identified a small management group to meet monthly and a larger stakeholder reference group to meet quarterly. See Page 22 under ‘Acknowledgements’ for a full list of stakeholders and supporters of the project. The project worked across sectors to collaborate in the best interest of the injured worker. See Appendix 7:3 – Stakeholders for how this was mapped.

Addressing the Whole Person

Project staff spent the first three months mapping the project: talking to stakeholders; reading the legislation; looking at what has been done in the past; looking at research into best practice and; creating mind maps – See Appendix 7:13.1, 7:13.2, 7:13.3 & 7:13.4 Mapping the Barriers Problems and Strategies. The mind maps and early research helped to form our strategies to utilize a person centred, holistic, mobile service where the individual was valued, their options and pathways thoroughly explored and where participants who had been detached from their pre-injury employer were fully informed and resourced before returning to work. Our Return to Work Facilitator reported that 80% of the cohort assessed suffered from non compensable psychosocial and other compounding health issues. This was raised a number of times throughout the project due to the barriers and challenges these issues created in taking a participant through our processes. (See early intervention recommendation above under ‘Improving the System to Encourage Return to Work through Retraining). Such reports lead to a number of referrals to address such barriers. See Appendix 7:4 – Wrap Around Services and Referrals for Worker, Partner and Family.

9

Life Long Learning and Training as a strategy for Return to Work

Project staff took the view in terms of our approach to training that learning is a lifelong experience and “active participation in learning is a contagious inspiration for others and provides a wealth of personal development with enormous potential for the whole State” Patrick Wright (prior Chair, ACE Reference Group, SA Training and Skills Commission and Reference Group Member of project).

Lifelong learning is a key career development principle where individuals are seen as having a career that is developmental, lifelong and not as linear or predictable as previously perceived. There are increased demands for flexibility, adaptability and the ability to learn new skills, hence the importance of openness to learning for all ages. These are economic imperatives to embrace lifelong learning. In addition, the concept of putting individuals in control of their career journeys is seen as providing other social benefits to the community, not the least of which is an individual’s satisfaction and sense of well-being. The SA Unions project team worked consciously to develop this positive regard to learning in participants and also with our work with case managers and rehabilitation consultants. This involved challenging individual perceptions of whether someone was too old to learn or unsuitable for training. At a more subtle level the challenge was to perceptions of what kinds of training were suitable for some participants. Lifelong learning principles need to be embraced to ensure flexibility of thinking around the potential that injured workers may have.

Further we viewed the local community of the participant as a safe and conducive place to commence flexible learning by connecting them back to their local communities where they were provided individual support. The ACE sector was vital for some of our participants, particularly those who had little or no prior education experience. Such services meant injured workers were able to access learning via a less threatening environment where they received individual learning support. See Appendix 7:11 for a list of community centres accessed.

Training was critical in assisting our “detached” participants to find their direction and begin to move forward. Many of these workers had to completely reinvent themselves and look at new employment pathways, some they had never considered before. Once participants moved beyond the “I can’t do this” barrier and familiarised themselves with a new learning environments, they commented to us that they found their confidence again and regained their zest for the future. This was a major aim of the project and for those that were appropriately referred and taken through the process, we saw them change, evolve and light up.

Training Preparation & Implementation (Skills Assessment, Career Exploration, Training Options, Labour Market)

Following are the steps taken to ascertain suitable training and gain approval from the claims agent:

Project staff suspected participants had many skills they were unaware of and we set about to discover them by conducting extensive skills assessment and thorough career exploration.

10

Our overall approach focused on the individual to assist them to identify potential and find suitable training options and pathways. Our training recommendations were based on an assessment of the participant and consultation with them. Project staff conducted at least three visits with each participant to gather information about their preferred skills, their values and the industry sectors that appeal to them. During these visits, informal conversation added to our information. Sometimes the participant suggested an area of training as a result of these discussions and we proceeded to research the options together, gathering relevant information to support the participant in their decision-making. For some participants a further session was provided where they had an opportunity to identify other factors that lead to exploration of appropriate training options. These were researched online, on site, via meetings with training personnel or via phone calls and included consideration of location, delivery method, electives offered, timing, available support, RPL possibilities and employment outcomes. Employment outcomes are further researched via the two most authoritative and reliable national sites: ‘myfuture’ and ‘joboutlook’. This investigation included determining the range of possible jobs available for the qualification, whether there is a demand, and whether that demand is sustainable.

Once the participant was sure they wanted to proceed on the chosen training pathway, SA Unions project staff sent a training proposal to the claims agent and the rehabilitation consultant. The rehabilitation consultant then prepared a training checklist which was submitted to the claims agent for approval.

Once training was approved SA Unions project staff supported participants through the application, enrolment and study process where needed. Project staff remained mindful that all participants volunteered to take part in the project and so we treated them accordingly, making ourselves available to address any barriers they may be facing.

Identified Barriers

The RTW Facilitator identified the need for any wrap around services and barriers that may impact on the participant. These were noted at the outset as well as during the skills assessment process which included the Depression and Anxiety Survey (DAS). Case notes were kept for each participant and participants’ progress was reviewed at weekly team meetings. Other issues and barriers were also discussed regularly and strategies devised. The initial project barriers, worker barriers and system barriers we discovered are as follows:

Initial Barriers

Language and terms used in the sector were a barrier for both staff and participants, such as: work hardening; in breach, non compliant; the difference between RTW Plans, suitable employment assessments and job analysis reports. It took us some time to understand the sector and how it functions.

Referrals to and understanding of our project were a barrier in the beginning. It took a few visits with the Claims Agent to clarify our project aims and approach. We found

11

incorrect information on referral forms and poorly targeted referrals in the beginning. We raised this at our Management Group meeting and in meetings with the claims agent RTW Fund Project Manager which helped to refine the process.

Worker Barriers

We found injured workers who were suffering from depression and / or other psychological issues. The majority reported they felt: angry; frustrated; weighed down; powerless; feeling as though they had no hope; disrespected and treated like a number. Many complained of putting on weight.

Mental Health and participants with compounding and “non compensable” issues proved a barrier for at least 80% of participants. To address this we referred the participant to the appropriate community service and / or tried to arrange round table meetings so that everyone was on the same page and came to an agreement on how to proceed. Sometimes these were also called by the case manager or the rehabilitation consultant.

Motivation due to feeling stigmatised, bored, confused, medication and pain was another barrier. Project staff spent a lot of time working with participants who were open to receiving extra support. We referred a small number of participants to the Globally Make a Difference (GMAD) personal development course as we saw how it benefited other participants.

The majority of participants faced financial hardship e.g. facing homelessness and no petrol money to attend training. We referred a number of participants to community services. See Appendix 7:4 Wrap Around Services for Worker, Partner or Family for further detail.

Access to technology proved a major barrier for most participants, particularly, once they started thinking about training and applying for jobs. We referred participants to their local community services. See Appendix 7:4 Wrap Around Services for Worker, Partner or Family for further detail.

Training & Employment Barriers

There were inconsistencies in return to work plans between job seeking requirements and training attendance. To address this we negotiated with the rehabilitation consultant for some changes so that the worker didn’t fail in their study.

Several participants who were seeking employment had very poor resumes which we viewed as a barrier. We provided assistance to improve their resume and assistance to write cover letters for job applications. We also gave participants interview strategies.

Having been a recipient of WorkCoverSA entitlements was the biggest barrier to employment. Several participants complained that once the prospective employer asked the question “have you ever been on WorkCover?” or they were asked to

12

answer the same question on an application form, the employer lost interest. No matter how much coaching we gave to participants, or referral to RISE positions, they continually grappled with this issue.

System Barriers

Changes of case managers and rehabilitation consultants necessitated our project to educate them about our project and where we were up to with the injured worker.

Waiting for decisions on claims proved another barrier for participants to be able to move forward.

The training proposal process in some cases required rigorous negotiation due to the “130 week capacity review” being viewed as the end of the line for many injured workers. The project had to consider carefully the time left until participants reached the (130 week) work capacity review when researching training with the participant. This influenced the type and length of training we could suggest.

One of our employed participants, now past the 3 month probation period has not revealed a WorkCoverSA claim to the current employer for fear of being stigmatised. The participant recently wrote to us saying: “My job is going well and I am very happy. My [prior injury is] holding up well. Congratulations on getting another year of funding, it’s great news. Now you can help more people like me who want to work and get on with their lives. I don’t have anything else exciting to write at the moment, but I think I had enough dramas the past two years to last me a lifetime. I like good old routine.”

Learnings

Following is a list of learnings discussed with stakeholders in Reference Group meetings:

• clear and thoughtful communication is the key to good collaboration with stakeholders and healthy rapport with participants

• good systems need to be constantly refined to meet the needs of the project

• the way our project engages and connects with all stakeholders including injured workers is critical to influencing any changes to the system in the future

• the community sector has much to offer in terms of resources and support for injured workers

• a one size fits all approach does not work and injured workers need to be assisted individually and time taken to listen to what they say to dig out the deeper interests and skills

• visiting injured workers in their own homes gives us a greater insight into how an injury impacts on the whole family

• support is needed for family members who are often impacted by an injury

13

• Industry Skills Councils could be an additional valuable resource for researching training and identifying skills in demand (MISAC in particular proved a great resource for the project)

• the rehabilitation process is often very slow and complex which frustrates participants

• there is a need for extensive knowledge of training and job pathways and resources available within the local communities of injured workers

• there is a need to consider carefully the worker’s attitude, ability to study, self esteem, pain and mental health management

• specific training for an individual takes time to research and it is not a simple process

• small, well thought out steps are better than sending a participant off to something they are half hearted about and then failing

• collaborative work in the best interest of the injured worker can be very productive

• work hardening and work placements need thorough thought & orientation and to enhance a pathway to sustainable employment

• retraining is not appropriate for all participants, particularly if they have pain, mental health and / or motivational barriers

• training needs to be considered in terms of semesters and terms and with the current changes to TAFE the SATAC cut off dates also need to be considered

• participants with an injury date greater than 12 months were under pressure to apply for jobs while completing a 12 month training course due to the 130 week work capacity review. This impacted on the types of training approved as well as their ability to complete the training. It also meant that we were unable to assist with the job search aspect of our project.

Focus Group with participants

14

4. PROJECT RESULTS

Collaborative work with the case manager and rehabilitation consultants, although rigorous and difficult at times proved beneficial for the majority of our cohort. Participants referred to our project that made a commitment to training moved positively forward from the point at which we first found them. In addition to this project staff attempted to ensure participants received the level of flexibility and support necessary to succeed in completing their training. At the point of writing, nine (9) participants have returned to work, while a further twenty seven (27) are in training. We plan to monitor those employed to see if their employment is sustainable in the long term. It has taken us the life of this project to assist stakeholders to understand our project and where it sits in the scheme. We are already planning to make a number of changes to our second project to make the process smoother and improve communication. We have surveyed participants who participated and / or gained employment to see if our project contributed to their achievement – see Appendix 7:12.

The presence of a Reference Group and Management Group on the project contributed greatly to the success of the project. Having a range of stakeholders present, to raise concerns, test ideas and have open dialogue with was beneficial in shaping the direction of the project as well as having an impact on the system as a whole. A number of recommendations, learnings and strategies found in this project have been acknowledged and taken on board by WorkCover, the claims agent, the WorkCoverSA Ombudsman and the rehabilitation industry. We hope to see this positive collaboration continue in the interest of injured workers.

Project Deliverables

AIM 1:Increase skills in a group of up to 50 injured workers enabling them to be employed in suitable duties with existing or new employers

Increase in worker skills and aptitudes:Fifty (50) injured workers participated in the skills assessment and career development activities. 35 participants attended training. See Appendix 7:7 for types of training.

Proportion of workers employed with new employers: Nine (9) participants are now in paid employment.

Proportion of workers employed with existing employers: Four referred participants have remained in employment with their pre-injury employer. Two are on restricted duties and trying to build capacity while a further two are currently attending training.

Proportion of workers still employed at three months: One participant who has passed the three month period.

Workers placed with duties matching their skills and aptitudes: All employed participants except one have been placed in employment that match their skills and aptitudes. This participant attended and completed a training that was

15

not recommended by our project. He was unable to take up employment related to the training due to other specific job requirements that we would have alerted him to had our project prepared the training proposal.

Workers satisfied with employment duties: The majority of participants have reported they are satisfied with the employment duties.

Workers still with employer at 3, 6 and 12 months: We have one worker who has been in employment for four months. We plan to monitor all employed participants progress by keeping contact with them on a quarterly basis during the life of Project 2 and reporting progress through our AISR reports and database.

AIM 2: Improve information and support for employers to better meet section 58B obligations through the provision of retraining (and hence retain valuable workers)

Increase in number of employers understanding their obligation to meet section 58B: The above aim proved difficult to test as we only worked with 4 workers “attached” to their pre-injury employer. We believe there is a place for major work to be completed in this area.

Proportion of workers employed with existing employers: The four workers mentioned above are currently employed with their existing employer.

AIM 3: Increase understanding by case managers of, and coordination with, the training system, with improved embedding of training activities as part of the rehabilitation and return to work process

Increase in collaboration between case managers and training providers:Our Certificate IV group training with TAFE has required the interaction between case managers, rehabilitation consultants and the training sector. The case manager organised the transport for those with driving restrictions and kept in touch with the TAFE course lecturer. Project staff worked with both rehabilitation consultant and relevant community organisations to research and arrange suitable placements for participants in this group. The process was a complex cross sector collaboration which generated much learning and the development of steps in the process. See Appendix 7:8 SA Unions Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work) for further training information.

Increase in number of attendees attending relevant training: Thirty five (35) participants have attended a range of training. See Appendix 7:7 for further training details.

Trained workers gain employment in area of training: Six (6) of the nine (9) employed participants gained employment related to their training. Please refer to Appendix 7:10 for Employment details. Of those who did not gain employment related to their training, they conveyed that training contributed to their resume and gave them confidence to return to the workforce. See Appendix 7:12 Results of Participant Survey.

16

AIM 4:Improve understanding within the rehabilitation industry of, and coordination with, the training system, and the subsequent incorporation of more effective training opportunities within the rehabilitation process

Increase in workers approved for training in their RTW plan: The project was successful in thirty five (35) training proposals approvals for participants. Types of training approved can be found in Appendix 7:7. At June 30th 2011 there were 24 participants still attending training.

Increased collaboration between the rehabilitation and training industries: At the commencement of our project rehabilitation consultants were reticent to request training. As the project progressed they saw that we were having success and confidence to support our proposals was forthcoming. On more than one occasion rehabilitation consultants either accompanied us to meet with the training provider, or organised the training we proposed themselves. In the most complex cases though, we organised the training and accompanied injured workers to enroll.

The SA Unions project team developed a work experience placement process for the six (6) participants studying the Certificate IV – Community Services in consultation with the TAFE Lecturer and Vocational Placement Co Coordinator. The placement process was distributed to all rehabilitation consultants and students to ascertain a clear understanding of the steps and each person’s role and responsibility in organising the placement. The process increased communication between the rehabilitation consultants and the training provider as well as increased the communication skills of the student in securing an appropriate placement for themselves. The process was unlike the current practice of securing work hardening placements and should not be compared to this practice.

AIM 5:Improve understanding within the training industry of the workers compensation and rehabilitation and return to work systems, and improve access for those in these systems to opportunities and information in the training sector.

Increased flexibility in the training industry to cater for injured workers: We discovered a number of vital contacts in the training industry who understand and are prepared to cater for the needs of injured workers. We have acknowledged these people on Page 22 under ‘Acknowledgements’.

We found there was a need for assistance and attendance when enrolling some injured workers in study. This is due to the complexity and inconsistency of enrollment practices across the TAFE system. There were several instances where such assistance was revisited throughout the training period to ensure the participant was given the flexible training requested.

One example is setting up round table meetings with all parties involved. The rehabilitation consultants then have direct contact with TAFE lecturers in order to provide extra support for the participant.

Recognition of prior learning (RPL) was achieved by eight (8) participants. See Appendix 7.6. and 7:7 for further information on RPL and Training.

17

Increased partnerships between the Training Industry and other RTW Stakeholders: The Industry Training Advisory Boards were very supportive of our project. They were represented on our Reference Group and a vital link for injured workers to identify a personalised training and employment pathway.

AIM 6:Address known barriers to RTW and implement innovative strategies to embed retraining for injured workers.

Better return to meaningful work outcomes: Appendix 7:10 Employment outlines participants who have returned to work. Of the nine (9) participants employed, six (6) have returned to what the project considered meaningful and sustainable work. The other three (3) were employed on a casual basis which puts them at risk financially if the work diminishes.

Increased stakeholder knowledge of improved strategies for the RTW process: The majority of rehabilitation consultants we worked with embraced our project and we worked well collaboratively. One barrier was that there was no handover on several occasions when a consultant left the company and a new consultant took over. Some disregarded our project as they didn’t understand or it wasn’t recorded that we were involved. On the other hand, there were rehabilitation consultants and stakeholders that took up our suggestions and practices and adapted them as part of their practice. Attendance at a meeting with De Poi staff revealed that they had taken and used some of what they had learned from our approach. Claims agent staff also took an interest in the RPL process and skills development.

Increased awareness by Stakeholders of improvements to the system: The claims agent case manager assigned to our “detached” workers was very supportive of the project and worked hard to ensure that the proposals we submitted for training of injured workers were given consideration. We developed an open and transparent communication which we believe served the interest of the injured workers. Similarly, our work with the RTW Fund managers and the claims agent developed over time to a mutual commitment to achieve our project aims.

18

The Model

The project commenced with an original model which was re-developed during the course of the project. We found additional aspects needed to be included such as career development activities, assistance to negotiate with the training provider, and job search skills and development following training. Further, we found it complicated and time consuming to work with injured workers attached to their pre-injury employer and established that the practice was more complex than our model. See Appendix 7:1 – Original Model.

19

The Cohort

The following shows data relating to the cohort:

• 26 participants came from manufacturing and 24 participants came from the community services sector

• 6 people withdrew or did not sign consent for various reasons: 2 because of health; 3 because of favourable workplace development; 1 due to nearing retirement and; 1 due to immediate employment

• 70% of participants were either married or in a de facto relationship

• the majority of participants were referred through the claims agent. Four (4) were referred through the Union movement (one did not attend training due to the severity of injury), and one self-referred as a SISA participant.

66% of participants were born in Australia and 95% told us they speak English very well. There were two Aboriginal participants.

20

The average number of years with employer was 4.8 years with the longest time with employer as 19 years. The shortest time with employer was less than a year.

From the data collected regarding pre-injury employment 30 participants were permanent employees and 13 were casual. 27 participants reported they were employed 0.8 to 1.0 FTE with the average FTE overall recorded as 0.92.

The average amount of time between injury and commencement on the project was 578.2 days. The highest number of days between injury and commencement on the project was 1050 days. The shortest amount of time between injury and commencement on the project was 122 days.

There were fourteen (14) participants who were either not suitable or withdrew from the project at an early stage:

• 5 were not from the Manufacturing or Community sectors, and one of these had no capacity for training due to the severity of his injury

• 3 participants “attached” to their pre-injury employer failed to sign consent: one was fearful his employer would detach him if he participated in the project; another we monitored until the pre-injury role was modified and; the third gained capacity and returned to her pre-injury role

• 1 “attached” participant completed a skills assessment and researched study options but was apprehensive about training and will consider retirement in the near future

• 1 participant had already signed consent to participate in another project

• 1 was referred but was in a work hardening placement with the guarantee of employment

• 2 participants withdrew from the project after completing a skills assessment and considering training because of health reasons

• 1 participant was transferring to a disability pension.

The predominant injury was back and shoulder with 41% of participants having back injuries and 34% having shoulder injuries – some participants had both. Their restrictions were mainly time limited sitting and standing, driving and lifting.

21

Acknowledgments

A big thanks to our cohort of 50 injured workers who generously gave of their time and thoughts to our project.

Retraining Injured Workers for Employment Project Staff: Carole Strong (Project Manager) Barbara Rohde (Project Officer who worked to set up the project); Caroline Cleland (Project Officer); Debra Snelson (Return to Work Facilitator).

Management Group: Janet Giles (SA Unions); Alan Fairley (ASU); Jim Ricks (WorkCover); Andrea McGill (WorkCover); Ed Grue (AEU), Cara Gagliardi (EML), Jody Secker (EML); Stella Georgiadis (EML), Steve Richards (EML).

Reference Group: Janet Giles (SA Unions); Alan Fairley (ASU) & Chair of the Reference Group; Jim Ricks (WorkCover); Andrea McGill (WorkCover); (James Large initial set up WorkCover); Carolyn Mounce (EML); Cara Gagliardi (EML); Jody Secker (EML); Steve Richards (EML); Stella Georgiadis (EML); Derek Cupp (MISAC); Sandra Dann (WWC); Richard Hilton (WorkCover); Robin Shaw (SISA); Ross Womersley (SACOSS); Patrick Wright (Adelaide EDU); Ian Hutchinson (Insite); Debbie Black (BSISB); Alison Arbluster (CSSB); Leah Tickle (DEFEEST); Gil Moody (APRA); Deb Selway & Alan Harrison (Mind Savers) Karen Skinner (WEBD).

AISR staff: Dr Ann-Louise Hordacre; Dr Kate Barnett & Dr John Spoehr.

Other advisors / supporters: all staff at SA Unions; Wayne Lines (WorkCoverSA Ombudsman); Gael Fraser (WorkCover); Marie Smith (Community Centre’s SA); Tricia Gilroy (WorkCover); Phillip Marshall (WorkCover); Rob Brumfield (WorkCover); Andrea Costa (Costa Pericles); Cheryl Milburn (Workerscomp Matters); Brenton Smith (TAFE).

Employer representatives: Trevor Callary & Rick Santucci (BHP Whyalla); Jenny Knight (Whyalla Aged Care); Lisa Kinghorne (Bupa Care).

Training Contacts: Derek Cupp (MISAC); Jo Hicks & Marilyn Turner (Regional TAFE); Graham Creed (TAFE Regency Park); Harry Ennis (CITC); Ron Horne (TTC); Cheryl Priest TAFE (Tea Tree Gully); Ken Barton (TAFE Elizabeth); Des Leach (TAFE Elizabeth); Roman Diakiw (TAFE Salisbury); Julie Dickson TAFE (Port Adelaide); Deb Hosking TAFE (Mt Gambier); John Lawrence (NRS); Subrosa Solutions; SA Careers Consultants; Safe Place Training; St Johns; WEA.

Local Community Centres such as: Pooraka Farm; Morella; Cheltenham; Gawler; Kilburn; Burton; Midway Road; Holdfast Bay; Aberfoyle; Woodcroft Morphett Vale; Parafield Gardens; The Paddocks; Glandore & Thebarton.

22

5. BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature reviewed for this project reflected the most current thinking about factors affecting return to work from October 2009 to May 2010. It informed the approach and processes adopted by the project, providing an understanding of the systems and factors affecting an injured worker, and an understanding of both the employment and training landscapes. Literature reviewed for this project covered five broad areas:

1) systems such as Return to Work, Rehabilitation, Workers’ Compensation and WorkCover

2) injury management, OHS, psychological injury

3) the two targeted industry sectors of health and community services and manufacturing

4) employment, skills shortages and labour market

5) training and skills providers.

This review describes how key readings informed the project. A more comprehensive bibliography is included in Appendix 7:14.

An area of principle importance was the quality of interaction with participants and the service that we provided for them. Best practice guidelines were readily accessible and consistent across resources, locally and from overseas. Many recommendations could apply, for example, as did Q-Comp’s Better practice in return to work guide, to any of the broad spectrum of rehabilitation practitioners and to this project1. These included a no blame support approach, and the way case notes were used to keep each of the team in the picture.

The 2005 report summary by Auer et al. Gender, workplace injury & RTW, made us aware of how workers found dealing with the ‘system’ to be the most difficult part of the whole experience of work injury and often experience a lack of respect and agency.2

The 2006 literature review, Barriers and facilitators to return to work, usefully recommended addressing people as individuals, adopting a coordinated approach and acknowledging that there are a range of factors that impact on the injured worker.3 It also provided information on positive factors like accommodation, early contact, self-esteem, locus of control.4 Of particular importance to the SA Unions project was the finding that self-esteem, self-efficacy and depression were highly modifiable.5

23

1 Q-Comp (n.d.) The better practice in return to work guide. WorkCoverSA Authority. Retrieved from http://www.qcomp.com.au/media/30408/better-practice-in-return-to-work-guide.pdf

2 Auer et al (2005) Gender, workplace injury and return to work: a South Australian perspective p.95.

3 Foreman, P., G. Murphy, et al. (2006). Barriers and facilitators to return to work: a literature review. Melbourne, Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe University p.11

4 Ibid. p. 39.

5 Ibid. p.41.

Much of our reading in psychological injury as with McAnaney and Wynne’s 2006 European study, raised our awareness of enabling factors such as family support, recognition of the complaint, social networks, good relationships, transparent communication and empowering the client.6 Such recommendations, in addition to local reviews and reports, by Clayton7 and by Blunden and Purse8 in 2009, for example, reinforced the holistic, supportive approach that SA Unions took in interactions with participants. The final report, Vocational rehabilitation framework-Model options, (commonly known as the Walsh report) published more recently on the WorkCoverSA site, provided further local information and reinforcement of this approach, stressing the need for a human interface and a holistic and tailored approach to individuals.9

As providers of a training service, SA Unions reviewed literature and resources with a particular eye to employability skills, labour market outlook, training providers and an appreciation of the relevance of current career development principles. Particularly important became the principles of accepting change, ongoing learning, developing awareness of self and opportunities, generating options and decision-making.10 Government guides such as that by DEST in 2006, provided useful understanding of the soft skills, the transferable skills, attitudes and behaviour, particularly important for sustaining employment that participants may need to demonstrate in re-entering the job market.11 It also was one of many readings that highlighted the need to provide transition or self-marketing skills for participants.

Of practical, immediate and frequent use was the DFEEST South Australian Workforce Wizard online resource, providing up to date, local job outlook information on occupations.12 Employment extra Issue 8, 2007 contained an inspiring collection of success case stories from the Goal 100 project.13 Common to these stories were

6 Donal McAnaney and Richard Wynne (2006) Stress, absence and reintegration: perceptions and practice of professionals in six European jurisdictions. International Journal of Disability Management pp. 31-41.

7 Clayton, A. (2009). Framework for rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCoverSA Scheme: a post-implementation review. Bracton Consulting Services.

8 Blunden, S. and Purse, K.(2009). Re-assessing the impact of changes to workers’ compensation law: a SA Unions research project: Round two. Adelaide, University of South Australia.

9 (March, 2011). Vocational rehabilitation framework-Model options. Prepared for WorkCoverSA. Retrieved from: http://www.workcover.com/custom/files/Vocational_Rehabilitation_Report.pdf

10 What is career development? Retrieved from the Skills SA website: http://www.skills.sa.gov.au/Careerdevelopment/Whatiscareerdevelopment/tabid/156/Default.aspx

11 DEST. (2006) Employability Skills: from framework to practice. An Introductory guide for trainers and assessors. Melbourne, Australia.

12 Workforce Wizard. Accessed from DFEEST’s Workforce Information Service: www.workforceinfoservice.sa.gov.au

13 DEEWR. (2007).The Goal 100 Project. Employment extra: Issue 8.

24

supportive mentoring that helped participants overcome personal issues. Key points that we took from O’Neil & Lumb’s 2008 report, were that training should be closely targeted to the needs of industry or local employers and match the interests of the cohort of job seekers, and that achieving a qualification or certificate is important for some participants and for some industries, as it signals to the employer competency, skills and employability.14 From the full Keating report which it summarised we noted also that voluntary participation, flexible delivery and some tailoring around the time commitments of the participants, individual learning needs are also important.15 Workforce SA’s Dec 2009 Labour Market Overview South Australia showed employment by Industry and employment Growth by Industry as at August 2009 and highlighted for us that our state has a comparatively low skill level and that most areas of skill shortage require three year degrees or apprenticeships.16

To acquire knowledge of training providers and courses, the List of Employment and Training Sites in SA from www.skills.sa.gov.au was supplemented by regular access also to the two national sites, www.myfuture.edu.au and www.joboutlook.gov.au. The SA Works website also provides a list and contact details for Adult Community Education (ACE) providers with details of what kinds of courses they may be offering. These became increasingly invaluable in addressing the multi-literacy challenges described in DFEEST’s 2010 report17 , especially computer literacy. Snapshots of each of the individual Skills Boards, including health and community services and manufacturing, came from desktop research, providing contact details, board members, standing committees, industry characteristics, priority skills and occupations, training packages, key issues and drivers of demand for skills, recent projects, and the future focus.18

In Summary of equity Stakeholder Messages: October – November 2009 National VET Equity Advisory Council, covering eight themes including barriers, there was recognition of the diverse ways people become engaged in training, pathways and pathway planning and the support required. Of particular interest to us are barriers caused by low self esteem, lack of confidence and lack of self belief, lack of literacy and numeracy and basic foundation skills and “economic and employability barriers that exist because skill demands have increased while attainment levels for disadvantaged earners have often stayed static and in some cases declined”.19

14 O’Neil, M. and Lumb, P. (2008) Assisting injured workers return to work: the economy needs you! Adelaide: SA Centre for Economic Studies p.2.

15 Keating, M. (2008) Review of skills and workforce development in South Australia: the challenge for the next decade. South Australia. Economic Development Board. p.110.

16 Workforce SA. (Dec. 2009) Labour Market Overview South Australia. p.10.

17 DFEEST, SA (2010) Strategic review of South Australia Works: Adult community Education (ACE) Program South Australia: p. 109.

18 Industry Skills Boards. Retrieved from http://www.skills.sa.gov.au/Supportingbusinessandindustry/IndustrySkillsBoards/tabid/107/Default.aspx

19 National VET Equity Advisory Council. (2009) Summary of equity Stakeholder Messages. p. 2.

25

Stakeholders included older people seeking to enter or re-enter the workforce, migrants, indigenous people, people experiencing hardship, and those who had low skills. These stakeholders reflected on the importance of community-based providers and the provision of both non-accredited and accredited courses and saw them as gateways to further training, motivating participation and engagement and building confidence and foundation skills. Complementing these findings that informed our approach to our participants were the findings that the support required could take many forms, making a learner feel valued; building self esteem and confidence; providing language, literacy and numeracy training; mentoring, coaching, case management, counselling; access to technology and interpreters. An important emphasis was that non-job outcomes need to be valued such as self-esteem, better self management and interpersonal skills.20

The 2008 review of skills and workforce development in South Australia, commonly known as the Keating Report, emphasised the ageing of the population, projected strong employment demand and, in nominating anticipated training places, anticipates the increase in employment participation will necessarily have to come from those people who are presently not employed.21

Of note also was the observation that another group that requires specific initiatives is males aged 25 to 54 years old, and particularly those with low skill levels.22 18 per cent of our cohort had attained education level below Year 12. 46 per cent of our cohort is male. 96 per cent of our cohort is over 25, and 42 per cent of our cohort is aged 50 or older. Barriers to employment that were described and subsequently encountered within the SA Unions project included literacy and numeracy skills, lack of accredited qualification, health, and the lack of provision of supporting services for older job seekers or students.23 To meet these challenges and the additional literacy, computer literacy, the ACE sector often provided first steps.

In the Strategic Review of South Australia Works: linking people, skills and jobs, commissioned by DFEEST and prepared by the SA Centre for Economic Studies, the importance of the ACE sector is emphasised again as an important training option to meet three critical challenges for the state of raising workforce participation, assisting the older age group to acquire further skills and to address low rates of literacy and numeracy.24 These challenges, including the non-English speaking background challenge, aptly describe the majority of our cohort. These challenges were again

20 Ibid. p.6.


22 Ibid. p.106.

23 Ibid. p.109.

24 DFEEST. (2010) A strategic review of South Australia Works: linking people, skills and jobs. Adelaide.p. 19.

26

emphasised in DFEEST’s review.25 With the ageing of the workforce and because “demand for new skills and skills is at a premium”, the importance of retention in the work force is elevated. This makes the success of our cohort of participants especially valuable.

Re-assessing the impact of changes to workers’ compensation law, 2009 findings of Blunden and Purse, from interviews with 13 workers, showed a perception of the system as frequently ineffective, slow and often not in the workers’ interests and often used as a tool to get injured workers off the scheme. Furthermore, the example given by Blunden and Purse of a 55 year old woman deemed capable of medical receptionist work by going to a 2 day seminar – no practical training, and a one week computing course served as a lesson to us of what not to do as part of our service.26 Providing information on what might constitute sustainable employment and viable training requests were publications such as DEEWR’s 2009 State and Territory skill shortage list, showing that industries with the largest growth in employment were education and training, construction and health care and social assistance with large employment reductions in public administration and safety, retail trade and manufacturing.

Some reports were particularly valuable for understanding the local system and informed the project on several issues. Alan Clayton’s 2009 report,27 for example, provided a review of the rehabilitation system and then a review of the subsequent implementations. Interesting were references to the NZ and British Columbia systems as exemplary and the shortcomings perceived in rehabilitation providers and case managers. Useful system knowledge was also provided by publications such as the Comparison of Workers’ Compensation Arrangements in Australia and New Zealand Safe Work Australia Feb 2010 with a particularly relevant section on recent development in South Australia including the WorkCoverSA Regulation Review with a summary of the elements and principles of best practice.28

The 2010 Skills for All consultation paper proposed the State government’s new policy direction for moving the VET system forward and seemed to us to suggest potential for some powerful synergy between retraining injured workers and the State government’s commitment to 100,000 additional jobs and training places. Referring to the training entitlement, for example, this paper envisages that the entitlement will be broad enough to support everybody, regardless of age, who wants to attain a minimum level of qualification and advance to higher level qualifications, as well as responding to

25 Ibid. p. 10.

26 Blunden, S. and Purse, K. (2009). Re-assessing the impact of changes to workers’ compensation law: a SA Unions research project: Round two. Adelaide, University of South Australia.p. 11.

27 Clayton, A. (2009) Framework for Rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCoverSA Scheme: A Post-Implementation Review Report. Bracton Consulting Services.

28 Safe Work Australia. (2009). Comparative performance monitoring report: comparison of OHS & workers compensations schemes in Australia and New Zealand. Workplace Relations Minister’s Council. p. 30.

27

industry demand for higher skills, and views the ACE programs as key mechanisms for people facing barriers to participation in the workforce.29 The feedback from this consultation was collated to inform the final Skills for All document which retains the offer of entitlement to all South Australians over 16, a commitment to the most disadvantaged and to broader utilisation of the ACE sector.30

In addition to informing our approach and processes our literature review raised three concerns that could be explored further and which will become more critical as more of our participants achieve a qualification.

1. A qualification does not guarantee job readiness or employability. Choice of training is an important first step and a career development approach to career assessment and course choice are important initially. Equally evident are the need for career planning and counselling and especially the need for accessible and topical information on courses and employment outcomes. In addition, upon completion of courses, participants require some support with self-marketing. Defining and articulating employability skills and attributes are increasingly necessary to transition from study to work. These requirements are described in the Keating report which says that many unemployed people will need to acquire a set of basic ‘employability’ skills before they enter the labour market. These are commonly regarded as reliability, punctuality, neat appearance and politeness. Employability skills include attributes and generic skills and these are detailed in the report.32 It became evident that some of our project participants, despite their level of education, needed help in demonstrating these in job applications and interviews.

2. The length of study time available to participants is not equal to time required to gain the skills in demand by the economy. To illustrate the recommendation in the 2010 final report of the strategic review of the South Australian Adult Community Education (ACE) Program that students be helped to persist longer in their studies, an example is given of the minimum number of hours of instruction to achieve a one-step increase in literacy. Most programs fall far short of this.33 This same report cited both the Keating and Henry Reviews as acknowledging that the major growth in labour force in the future will come from those aged 45 – 64.34 Furthermore,

29 DFEEST. (2010). Skills for all: Productivity and Participation through skills p. 28. Retrieved from: http://www.dfeest.sa.gov.au/AboutDFEEST/Strategiesplanspolicies/SkillsforAll/Pastconsultation/tabid/366/Default.aspx

30 DFEEST. (2010). Skills for all: the strategic direction for vocational education and training in South Australia 2011-2014. Retrieved from: http://www.dfeest.sa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c7XGLnOx9Do%3d&tabid=267

31 NVEAC. (2009). Summary of equity Stakeholder Messages: October – November 2009. Australia: National VET Equity Advisory Council. p.4.


33 DFEEST, SA. (2010) Strategic review of South Australia Works: Adult community Education (ACE) Program South Australia: p.13.

34 Ibid. p. 2.

28

predictions of job openings over the decade of 339,000 are tempered by the prediction that just under one third of all job openings in the next decade will be at the professional / managerial level, with one quarter at the intermediate level. Just over 14 per cent of job openings will be at the trades / advanced level.35 These skill levels require courses longer than the three or six months available to most of our participants.

3. A pool of employers that welcomed re-trained workers would be a useful adjunct to any up skilling or retraining program. This is mentioned in both the Keating review36 and the Clayton report37. Though, Clayton refers to the Corporate Champions program as a ‘moribund initiative’ with only two successful placements, Keating’s description of an active labour market approach rather than a passive approach and the idea of engaging more with employers would have benefits for our participants, especially those seeking work placements as part of their courses. Participants to date have not found the RISE scheme a completely satisfactory solution due to the stigma associated with being identified as an injured worker, and the brevity of such placements. The sustainability of work for our participants will depend increasingly on the selection, the quality and the length of their training as well as the job search support that they receive at the end of their training.

6. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Retraining is a powerful tool for keeping injured workers at work and tapping into their knowledge and expertise in the best interests of the workplace rather than workers being disconnected from it. If WorkCoverSA acknowledges and promotes retraining as a road to return to work, then all the providers will receive a clear message that it is to be encouraged. Practices that discourage training as revealed in discussions with rehabilitation consultants and participants serve to perpetuate a culture unconducive to sustainable return to work.

The project also clearly demonstrated that there is a large knowledge and skills gap of WorkCoverSA and claims agent staff, claims managers and rehabilitation consultants about the training system, skill shortage issues, skills analysis and the link between skills and employment. This is not to blame any of these groups but to highlight the urgency of ensuring there is better training and education of staff in this area.

Increasing skills and participation in training and employment is high on the political agenda of the State and Federal Governments and substantial resources have been put into this. The time is right for those who deal with injured workers to determine

35 Keating, M. (2008) Review of skills and workforce development in South Australia: the challenge for the next decade. South Australia. Economic Development Board. p. 3.

36 Ibid. p. 109.

37 Clayton, A. (2009). Framework for rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCoverSA Scheme: a post-implementation review. Bracton Consulting Services. p. 29.

29

how they can best develop flexible and sustainable programs in partnership with the training system to more effectively access training programs that lead to workforce participation.

SA Unions would like to see all stakeholders acknowledge the spirit of the Act as set out in ‘2 – Objects of the Act’ rather than literal translation. We found that rigid adherence to the letter of the Act rendered participants nameless, faceless and powerless. This could be addressed by education, training and changing the culture and language of stakeholders so as not to lose sight of the whole person and the impact that an injury has on their lives and that of their extended family. This change would need to be initiated by WorkCoverSA and the claims agent.

SA Unions found the ‘step down’ payment system impacts heavily on the injured worker creating financial disadvantage. Participants expressed that the reduction of entitlement severely limits their ability to control any accumulation of debt or live an equitable life. They struggled with this, at times to the point where relationships broke down, homes had to be sold and their ability to attend training was disrupted and in some cases ceased. Further, participant’s inability to obtain transport or a health care concession added to their lack of mobility and ability to return to work. This can only be changed at a legislative level.

SA Unions would like to see the practice of section 58B of the Act reviewed due to evidence of employers not adequately and thoroughly researching suitable duties for injured workers. Once a worker is “detached”, they need so much more support to reinvent themselves particularly if they can no longer pursue the same career and have to think of other alternatives. It takes a lot of resources to work with a person to ensure they can pursue a sustainable pathway that they feel they are in control of. We believe that a more inclusive culture needs to be embraced by employers to develop strategies to inhibit the stigmatizing of injured workers. The Return to Work Inspectorate could have a more holistic approach to the issue of suitable duties and consider the options for assistance in retraining and different options available at a workplace as part of their processes. The focus should be on keeping the injured worker at work, assessing their skills in a holistic way and working with the employer to find duties that not only address their injury but also address their current skills and knowledge and identify what training could assist in transitioning them to other positions within the same workplace.

SA Unions project would like to see WorkCoverSA review the management practice of rehabilitation providers and ensure they have a comprehensive understanding of the training and employment systems. We observed a number of very poor resumes, job applications and suitable employment assessments from rehabilitation consultants. The Walsh report is a welcomed beginning to rethinking around this issue as are meetings between the WorkCoverSA CEO and Union representatives.

30

SA Unions project would like to see WorkCoverSA develop a service similar to the Queensland Workers Compensation Regulatory Authority (Q-COMP) “Return to Work Assist” which helps workers who have no job to return to develop work goals. The service offers a personalised service of career planning, job readiness techniques, training, and return to work.

http://www.qcomp.com.au/services/return-to-work-assist.aspx

We call for this because of the manner in which one of our participants has been cut off the system with little or no support. The participant had not finished his training and has language barriers. A service such as this would at least give the worker some assurance of assistance after their entitlement ceases. His only alternative was to try to register for Centrelink or a Disability Pension which in the end was not possible.

31

7. APPENDICES

Appendix 7:1

Original Model

We re-developed the model submitted with the funding application and found during the course of the project further aspects now need to be included such as support to negotiate with the training provider, extensive career development and job search assistance following training. See recommended model above.

32

33

Appendix 7:2

Mapping the Injured Worker

We began by looking at who was already involved with injured workers and how we might work to fit in with what stakeholders were already doing. We were shocked to find how many people are either intervening or impacted by the injury. We decided that we had to take a very unobtrusive approach if we wanted to engage workers in our project.

Appendix 7:3

Stakeholders

At the same time we looked at how we could connect, have input and work with all the stakeholders. We set up a small Management Group who met monthly and a larger Reference Group who met quarterly during the life of the project. We worked collaboratively with the rehabilitation consultants, the case managers, and the employers and reported to WorkCoverSA and Australian Institute of Social Research (AISR) on a quarterly basis. See above for names of stakeholders involved in the project.

Appendix 7:4

Wrap Around Services & Referrals for Worker, Partner or Family

Mental Health / Personal Development Related: Men’s Shed x 1 Gym x 2 Local Community Centre x 7 Salvation Army Self Development Program x 1 Financial Counselling x 2 Globally Make a Difference (GMAD) x 2 De-escalation of volatile situation with rehabilitation consultant

Training Related: Computer Courses @ Local Community Centre x 4 Computer Access and assistance setting up email address x 3 Assistance at Information and Assessment Session + enrolment x 3 NESB School Placement opportunity (St Leonards Primary School, Glenelg North) x 1 Literacy and Numeracy at the Midway Community Centre x 1 Training / Course enrolment support x 4; Additional Classroom / assignment support x 1 SATAC enrolment assistance x 2 Work Hardening support x 2 (Meals on Wheels) Transport requests x 4 Renegotiating Courses x 3 Scholarship Information x 2

Employment Related:Employment Agency x 1 MISAC x 7 + MISAC employment site register x 3 Electro Technology x 1 Manufacturing Seminars x 2 RISE position referrals to participants and Rehab Consultants x 10 Career 1 position referrals x 6 Indigenous Employment Register x 2 Resume assistance x 8 Job Application, Interview practice and thank you letter x 1 Intensive Job Search Assistance x 5 Police Clearance x 3 Centacare Placement x 1 SafeWork SA enrolment and attendance x 1 Free Career Counselling in local area x 2

Partners or Family Members:Greenplaces Nursery’s x 1 Anglicare x 1 Family Counselling x 1 Employment opportunity x 2 Training x 1

34

Other:Working Women’s Centre x 2 WorkCoverSA Ombudsman x 4 Relevant Union x 3 SafeWork SA x 2 Nominations for WorkCoverSA Awards x 2 Medical Panel support x 1 Meeting with a local member x 1 Seniors Cards x 2 Assistance with planning a WEA Course x1

Appendix 7:5

Focus Groups

SA Unions project conducted three focus groups with participants to assist and guide us as to what we could do better and how we could recommend improvements to the system. We held one in the north; one is the south and one central to try to capture as many cohort as possible. Following is a summary of comments and recommendations from participants who attended the focus groups:

Focus Group 1 – Barbeque Someone cares; treated as an individual; if we cannot come to you, you come to us; happy because I am learning something new; feel a sense of satisfaction and confidence; every time I go [to the community centre] I learn something new and I feel better

Focus Group 2 – Afternoon Tea I am not so isolated; I feel useful; I CAN do something again; I have a future / purpose; training is something to look forward to in the day; I feel challenged;

Focus Group 3 – Afternoon Tea I now have a reason to get up in the morning; study has given me a new life; the RTW Facilitator was a Godsend; Training has helped me to change direction; the RTW Facilitator encouraged & believed in me; the RTW Facilitator asked me “what would you like to do? No one has ever asked me that before”; now we are retrained we would like access to ‘real jobs’;

We concluded after the 3rd focus group that detached workers who are job seeking in a new field need extra support. These workers often lack confidence and are fearful of applying for jobs where prior “experience” is required. We also found that computer literacy & access to computers an issue that needs to be addressed.

35

Recommendations and Comments from Participants

During the course of the project and as part of the focus groups we recorded workers views on how the system could be improved. This was a way of diverting conversations from focusing on the negative. Following is a list of the most common recommendations from participants:

• the first letter sent to an injured worker needs to contain more information about the process. Injured workers would like to be informed of their entitlements and would like more information at the outset of a claim. There was a suggestion of an Information (Introduction) Pack.

• injured workers would like to know who is meant to tell them their rights and give them information about the processes they will encounter along the way

• the continual changing of case managers & rehabilitation consultants should cease as workers have to explain their story over and over

• participants with driving restrictions requested a better booking system with more reliability. A to B are good and drive injured workers in a mindful manner. Other issues were taxi drivers who drive in a jerky manner.

• prompt reimbursements were requested as these are often delayed for 3 – 4 weeks (also applies to chemist payments)

• improved view of “customer service” as participants were told they had a legal obligation to call the claims agent back in 24 hours when often this was not reciprocated and at times disregarded

• participants would like their process of grief to be taken into account and not brushed aside as they experience loss (from being detached from their workplace and career) but find there is no empathy from the case managers or rehabilitation consultants

• participants conveyed difficulty surviving financially once their entitlement reached the 80% step down

• participants would like to have a support group as they very often feel isolated

• participants spoke of their pain and anger and how this often impacted on their relationships and how they would also like support for partners

• employer culture and attitude to injured workers needs to be addressed – “I went from a valued member of the employer / organisation to a ‘bugger off’, once I was injured”

• employers need to be called to account as often there are no changes to the workplace after injury

• participants requested to have some kind of identification card (ID) to identify injury in case of accident.

36

37

Appendix 7:6

Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

As mentioned above each participant completed a comprehensive skills assessment, looking at qualifications, work experience, values, and work areas of interest. Eight (8) participants were granted RPL based on their qualifications, skills, and current job descriptions. RPL can be useful to consolidate the above aspects into a nationally recognised qualification enabling the worker to build on that qualification. The following photo is an example of a number of qualifications gathered over the years by one participant which were consolidated along with his resume and work experience to 2 points short of a Certificate II in Engineering.

Appendix 7:7

Training Organisations and Courses

Training Industry and Community Organisations accessed by the project: TAFE SA:• Regency Park• Elizabeth• Salisbury• Port Adelaide• Tea Tree Gully• TAFE Regional (2)Subrosa Solutions (Security) Transport Training Centre Construction Industry Training Centre National Risk Solutions SA Careers Consultants Innovative Training & Recruitment Safe Place Training St Johns First Aid WEA 14 Local Community Centres

Types of training requested and approved:8 Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work) 2 Senior First Aid 11 Identify and Respond to Children and Young People at Risk (Mandatory Reporting – 8 from Certificate IV in Community Services and 3 from Certificate III in Education Support) 7 RPL toward qualification plus 1 complete Certificate II in Engineering Production 1 Certificate CAD 1 – not completed 1 Diploma of Professional Counselling 1 Certificate IV in Occupational Health & Safety (plus Diploma at own cost) 2 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment 1 Certificates II & III in Information Technology 3 Security Training 1 Train the Trainer 3 Introductory Vocational Education Certificate I 2 Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Estimating) 3 Certificate III Education Support 1 Certificate III Business Admin/Medical Certificate 2 HR & Fork Lift Licence 2 White card’s & Licences 1 Certificates I & II in Transport 1 TIG Welding, 1 – Soldering 1 MYOB, Adobe, Intermediate Excel 3 Computer training (excel, word, email, internet) 5 Computer Training and / or English Conversation / English as a Second Language at community centres

38

All training organisations were made aware of the needs of injured workers by our RTW Facilitator who accompanied most participants to their first meetings with the training organisation or community centre. All of the registered training institutions have had to interact with the case manager involved with the injured worker to make the third party payment. Claims agent staff have commented on and encouraged to date the successes of our project.

Another innovative aspect to our project was connecting participants with their local community. We referred participants to community centre / neighbourhood centres such as: Pooraka Farm Community Centre; Morella Community Centre; Cheltenham Community Centre; Gawler Sport & Community Centre; Kilburn Community Centre; Midway Road Community House (Elizabeth East); Holdfast Bay Community Centre; Aberfoyle Community Centre; Woodcroft Morphett Vale Neighbourhood Centre; Burton Community Centre; the Gardens Recreation Centre. The referrals were made so that injured workers could access computer courses as well as English language courses mostly for a gold coin donation. See Appendix 7:11 for more detailed information.

Neighbour houses and community centres have served as both learning and support centres for injured workers. Most of our participants did not know that such services existed in their areas. We held 3 focus groups in neighbour houses at the Paddocks, Glandore and Thebarton.

Appendix 7:8

SA Unions Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work)

The project negotiated with Regional TAFE Outreach to run a Certificate IV in Community Services (Community Work) with eight (8) identified participants. Two (2) participants withdrew and two are struggling to complete the course due to compounding health and life difficulties.

We currently have three (3) participants in work placements and we expect four (4) participants to complete their electives and find employment in the community services industry.

We were pleased to see participants begin to glow and gain confidence in taking control of their lives once again. This was the first time group training has been approved and the process was an excellent collaboration between TAFE, SA Unions, the claims agent’s case managers and rehabilitation consultants. A lot of hard work went in to finding placements for participants and steps for the placement process have now been documented. We would like to thank the TAFE staff for putting in the extra mile to ensure participants were supported to complete their electives.

39

Certificate IV in Community Services Participants with Regional TAFE Lecturer Marilyn Turner

40

Figures below show the course study book and the participants with their lecturer.

Appendix 7:9

Work Placement Contacts

Placement Contacts provided for Certificate IV in Community Services Students:Legal Services Commission White Lion St John’s Youth ServiceCatherine HouseMagdalene CentreDomestic ViolenceHutt Street CentreSeniors Information serviceDepartment of Families Disability SA HighgateConsumer Advocacy Group (DANZA)Aged Care AssociationCan do for kids Tutti Ensemble / Tutti Arts Day optionsNovitaSoundwavesOnkaparinga CouncilDSA community options programSouthern Community Living ProjectDomiciliary CareChristies Downs Community CentreHackham West Community CentreWoodcroft Community CentreReynella Community CentreElizabeth HouseACHA GroupBrain Injury Network of South Australia IncCitizen Advocacy South Australia IncDisability Advocacy and Complaints Service of SA IncFamily Advocacy IncIndependent Advocacy SA IncMALSSA IncNPY Women’s Council Aboriginal Corporation

41

Appendix 7:10

Employment

The first participant to gain employment considered training but decided that he could get a job without it which he did.

The second participant did not gain employment in the area of training although she has stated it helped her with her confidence and she could see how it could be used as she advanced in the company.

The third person to gain employment actually used his training qualifications to secure a full time position as a HR Truck Driver.

The fourth person to gain employment did not participate in training but was taken through the skills assessment process. The participant has a psychological injury and we believe that he should have been given psychological (from psychologist or psychiatrist) clearance to participate in our project as he was very difficult to engage at the outset (took 6 weeks to gain contact). The RTW Facilitator reported that she was not sure if the participant had the mental capacity to comprehend the information about the project.

The fifth participant to gain employment stated that the RPL Certificate granted and training listed on his resume helped to show that he had not been idle and that he had been working to upgrade his skills. This participant gained employment as an electrical tagger and tester which was helped along by his RPL qualification of Certificate II Production Engineering and computer training.

The sixth participant to gain employment was trained and employed in security. His comments about how the project helped him are:

“Before I came on the SA Unions project I felt really down because I had been applying for lots of jobs and they just didn’t want to know! I reckon employers saw no value in me and wouldn’t give me a chance because I was on WorkCoverSA and because of my age. I am really proud of myself for learning computer skills at the Midway Road Community Centre and the bloke [the teacher] there said I did really well and I even taught him a couple of things on the computer that he didn’t know. What I have learnt will be useful in my job if I work on a gate at a factory and I need to enter info into the computer.”

A seventh participant is currently using his training to train others in a work trial and will be employed in July 2011. The participant is currently funding his own Diploma in Occupational Health & Safety and completed a Certificate IV in Occupational Health & Safety and a Certificate IV Training and Assessment.

The eighth participant to gain employment trained in security but is now working as a fulltime motor detailer and upholsters car detailer. This participant was mentioned earlier regarding the training not being proposed by our project.

The ninth participant gained employment as a Youth Mental Health Support worker. This participant did not commence any training but participated in the initial assessment process and attended a number of meetings with staff.

42

Appendix 7:11

Community Centre Services

The community centres we referred participants to during the project proved to be a great resource for injured workers offering a diversity of workshops for free or at a very low cost:

Pooraka Farm Community Centre – Computing and Technology, Computing Club

Morella Community Centre – Computing & Technology, Language & Literacy

Cheltenham Community Centre – Basic Computing, Basic Computing for people with disability and migrants, Computer Club, Leatherwork, Needlecraft, Water colour painting and World Vision Craft Group.

Gawler Sport & Community Centre – Dance, Fitness, Gym, Tai Chi & U3A

Kilburn Community Centre – Career Development Outreach Service, Community Lunch, Art & Craft, Social Support Program, Housing SA Outreach Service, Personal & Family Groups.

Midway Road Community House (Elizabeth East) – ACE courses, Computer classes – basic Word, PowerPoint, Internet; One to One Computing for people with additional needs, Counselling, Support groups, Support services for people with intellectual disabilities – including literacy, numeracy and home skills courses, Volunteer work.

Holdfast Bay Community Centre – Computer Courses in various Microsoft packages – only 6 students & 2 tutors per course. Voluntary work available in basic computer tutoring, ground maintenance & gardening, community bus drivers and helping in the HACC program, Recreation. Social & Fitness activities, Home & Community Care Program (HACC).

Aberfoyle Community Centre – Women’s Programs, Tai Chi, ACE English Literacy Programs, Weight Loss, Men’s Breakfast, Painting, Sewing and Cooking.

Woodcroft Morphett Vale Neighbourhood Centre – JP, Tax Help, Computer Training – Beginners, Intermediate, Internet, Excel Introductory, Publisher, PowerPoint, Tai Chi, Art & Craft, English Skills, Writing, Learner Driver, Women & Wellbeing, Keep Fit, Gardening, Community Breakfast, Leatherwork Social Group,

Burton Community Centre – Language & Literacy, Computing and Technology (Internet Access), Volunteering, Social Support, Communication Workshops, Meditation, Aerobics.

The Gardens Recreation Centre – Recreation activities.

43

Appendix 7.12

Results of Participant Survey

Statement Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral/Don’t Know

Disagree Strongly Disagree

N/A

The SA Unions Project assisted me to gain additional information about the WorkCoverSA system

3 6 1

The SA Unions Project Skills Assessment & Course exploration was helpful

4 6

The SA Unions Project staff considered my requirements as an individual and I felt valued

6 4

The training I attended assisted me in gaining confidence 1 4 2 3*

The training I attended has been a great addition to my resume 3 2 2 2*

I feel the training I attended will assist me to gain employment 3 3 2 2*

I would like to see thorough skills assessment and training exploration as part of the rehabilitation system for all injured workers

5 4 1

I feel more confident that I will be able to return to work (once I have completed my training)

2 4 2* 2*

SA Unions Project helped me to see other options and pathways to return to work

4 5 1

I would like to make the following comments about the SA Unions Project:

The project helped me with my confidence and to think, I can do this. It also helped be more realistic with my goal setting.

I think that the training help you are giving is a good thing, otherwise you would just be sitting around until you get booted off the system.

Thank you SA Unions.

I would like to make it clear that if an injured worker is totally interested to get back into the workplace that SA Unions Project is a great benefit.

The project was different to the normal process I have followed with my rehabilitation consultants.

Viable project. Helpful to most people. Left me with positive thoughts on Unions because past experiences have been negative.

*filled out when employed or exited project – note some participants did not attend training

44

Appendix 7.13

Mapping the Barriers, Problems and Strategies

7:13.1 Claim Context

46

7:13.2 Health Context

48

7:13.3 Rehabilitation Context

50

7:13.4 Work Context

52

54

Appendix 7:14

Bibliography

(2007). “Seven ‘principles’ for successful return to work.”. Institute for Work & Health.

(2008). “Current initiatives to meet skills shortages in the resources industry”. pp. 7.

(2009). “Draft recommendations for traineeship arrangements for CHC08”. pp. 14.

(2009). “Productivity Places Program – priority occupations and qualifications list”. pp. 27.

(2010). “Career Snapshot: Older Workers”. CDAA: Australia, pp. 4.

Abenhaim, L., Rossignol, M., Gobeille, D., Bonvalot, Y., Fines, P., and Scott, S. (1995). “The prognostic consequences in the making of the initial medical diagnosis of work-related back injuries.” Spine, 20, 791-795.

ACTU Congress. (2009). “Future of work: rehabilitation and compensation for injured workers policy”. ACTU, pp. 8.

Amadio, P., Silverstein, M., Ilstrup, D., Schleck, C., and Jensen, L. (1996). “Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: the relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures.” J Hand Surg [Am], 21, 338-346.

ASU. (1991). “Career moves: career development for women”. ASU.

ASU. (2009). “Employer’s guide to best practice return to work for a stress injury”. Victorian WorkCoverSA Authority: Melbourne, pp. 24.

ASU. (2009). “Injured worker’s guide to best practice return to work for a stress injury”. Victorian WorkCoverSA Authority: Melbourne, pp. 16.

ASU. (2009). “Support person’s guide to best practice return to work for a stress injury”. Victorian WorkCoverSA Authority: Melbourne, pp. 12.

Auer, J., Cunningham, J., and Jennings, K. (2005). Gender, workplace injury and return to work: a South Australian perspective. Report, Working Women’s Centre, Adelaide.

Australian Rehabilitation Providers’ Association. (2008). Review of job capacity assessment program. Submission.

Beaton, D., and Richards, R. (1996). “Measuring function of the shoulder.” J Bone Joint Surg [Am], 78-A, 882-890.

Beurskens, A., de Vet, H., and Koke, A. (1996). “Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.” Pain, 65, 71-76.

Beyondblue. (n.d). “Keeping active – Fact Sheet 8”. Beyondblue, pp. 4.

Beyondblue. (n.d). “Reducing alcohol and other drugs – Fact Sheet 9”. Beyondblue, pp. 2.

Beyondblue. (n.d). “Reducing stress – Fact Sheet 6”. Beyondblue, pp. 2.

Beyondblue. (n.d). “Sleeping well – Fact Sheet 7”. Beyondblue, pp. 2.

Beyondblue. (n.d). “What causes depression – Fact Sheet 3”. Beyondblue, pp. 2.

Blunden, S., and Purse, K. (2009). Re-assessing the impact of changes to workers’ compensation law: a SA Unions research project: Round two. University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Bohle, P., Finn, J., Quinlan, M., and Rawlings-Way, O. (2009). The OHS of home contract workers in Adelaide and the Barossa region. Report, Office of the Employee Ombudsman, Adelaide.

Bondjers, G., Bongers, P., Fingerhut, M., Kauppinen, T., Leka, S., Schulte, P., Taipale, V., and Uusitalo, H. (2009). Meeting Future Needs of Finnish Working Life Through a Healthy Workforce: 2009 INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

Bruser, D. (2010). “WSIB fixes troubled injured worker re-training program”thestar.com.

Bush, K., Kivlahan, D., McDonell, M., Fihn, S., and Bradley, K. (1998). “The AUDIT Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 1789-1795.

Butterfield, P., Spencer, P., Redmond, N., Feldstein, A., and Perrin, N. (1998). “Low back pain: predictors of absenteeism, residual symptoms, functional impairment, and medical costs in Oregon workers’ compensation recipients.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 34, 559-567.

Campbell Research. (2009). 2008/2009 Australia and New Zealand Return to Work Monitor.

Carmona, L., Faucett, J., Blanc, P., and Yelin, E. (1998). “Predictors of rate of return to work after surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome.” Arthritis Care and Research, 11, 298-305.

Cassitto, M. G., Fattorini, E., Rengo, C., Gonik, V., Giloli, R., Fingerhut, M., and Kortum-Margot, E. (n.d.). “Raising awareness of psychological harassment at work”, W. H. Organisation, (ed.). WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 3.

55

56

Cheadle, A., Franklin, G., Wolfhagen, C., Savarino, J., Liu, P., Salley, C., and Weaver, M. (1994). “Factors influencing the duration of work-related disability: A population-based study of Washington State Workers’ Compensation.” American Journal of Public Health, 84, 190-196.

Clayton, A. (2009). Framework for rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCoverSA Scheme: a post-implementation review. Report.

Cleary, M., Flynn, R., and Thomasson, S. (2006). Employability skills from framework to practice: an introductory guide for trainers and assessors. DFEEST, Melbourne.

Clements, R. (2009). “Improving organisational performance by building emotional resilience”. Centre for Corporate Health: Sydney, pp. 8.

Comcare. (2005). Working well: an organisational approach to preventing psychological injury – a guide for corporate, HR and OHS managers. Canberra.

Comcare. (2007). “Bullying in the workplace: a guide to prevention for managers and supervisors”, Comcare, (ed.). Canberra, pp. 26.

Comcare. (n.d.). “Work related psychological injury: a guide for managers”. pp. 9.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). AQTF 2007: building training excellence – excellence criteria for registered training organisations. Draft report.

Cossettini, N., and McOmish, L. (2009). “Exploring good practice in RPL: workshop 20 – Practical solutions to recognise worker skills in children’s services”. Training WA.

Cossey, B. (2011). Review of the Impact of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Scheme Review) AMENDMENT ACT 2008.

Cotton, P. (2008). “Psychological injury in the workplace.” InPsych: The bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 8-11.

Crook, J., and Moldofsky, H. (1994). “The probability of recovery and return to work from work disability as a function of time.” Qual Life Res, 3 Suppl 1, S97-109.

Crook, J., and Moldofsky, H. (1996). “The clinical course of musculoskeletal pain in empirically derived groupings of injured workers.” Pain, 67, 427-433.

Crook, J., Moldofsky, H., and Shannon, H. (1998). “Determinants of disability after a work related musculoskeletal injury.” Journal of Rheumatology, 25, 1570-1577.

DEEWR. (2007). “Ripple effect – Goal 100 project creates futures” Employment extra. DEEWR, pp. 27.

DEEWR. (2008). “Employment assistance for people with mental illness: literature review”. DEEWR, pp. 55.

DEEWR. (2008). “Employment assistance for people with mental illness: literature review”. DEEWR, pp. 52.

DEEWR. (2008). “Good practice professional development strategies to support the development of skills in assessing and reporting employability skills”. DEEWR, pp. 4.

DEEWR. (2009). “State and Territory Skill Shortage list”. DEEWR.

DEEWR. (2009). Vocational rehabilitation services star ratings.

DEEWR. (2009). Vocational rehabilitation star ratings June 2009. DEEWR.

DEST. (2006). Employability skills: from framework to practice. An introductory guide for trainers and assessors. DEST, Melbourne.

Deyo, R. (1986). “Comparative validity of the Sickness Impact Profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain.” Spine, 11, 951-954.

DFEEST. (2008). “A guide for education and training providers in South Australia” Quality-e-news. DFEEST: Adelaide.

DFEEST. (2010). Strategic resource allocation plan – 2010/11 training plan. Draft report, DFEEST.

DFEEST. (2010). “A strategic review of South Australia Works”. DFEEST: Adelaide, pp. 45.

DFEEST. (n.d.). “South Australia Works to recognise skills”. DFEEST: Adelaide, pp. 1.

Foreman, P., Murphy, G., and Swerissen, H. (2006). Barriers and facilitators to return to work: a literature review. Australian Institute for Primary Care, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

Fransen, M., Woodward, M., Norton, R., Coggan, C., Dawe, M., and Sheridan, N. (2002). “Risk factors associated with the transition from acute to chronic occupational back pain.” Spine, 27, 92-98.

Garton, P. (2007). “Looking beyond the physical”Injury management conference: working together ... a better future. WorkCoverSA WA: Perth, pp. 2.

Gatchel, R., Polatin, P., and Mayer, T. (1995). “The dominant role of psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic low back pain disability.” Spine, 20, 2702-2709.

Gay, R., Amadio, P., and Johnson, J. (2003). “Comparative responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release.” J Hand Surg [Am], 28, 250-254.

57

58

Gluck, J., and Oleinick, A. (1998). “Claim rates of compensable back injuries by age, gender, occupation, and industry: do they relate to return-to-work experience?” Spine, 23, 1572-1587.

Great-West life for mental heath in the workplace. “Return to work”.

Hagen, K., Tambs, K., and Bjerkedal, T. (2002). “A prospective cohort study of risk factors for disability retirement because of back pain in the general working population.” Spine, 27, 1790-1796.

Harder, H. G., McHugh, G., Wagner, S. L., and Harder, K. A. (2006). “Disability management strategies: a preliminary investigation or perceptions, policies and return-to-work outcomes.” International Journal of Disability Managment Research, 1(1), 1-9.

Hashemi, L., Webster, B., Clancy, E., and Courtney, T. (1998). “Length of disability and cost of work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 40, 261-269.

Hashemi, L., Webster, B., Clancy, E., and Volinn, E. (1997). “Length of disability and cost of workers’ compensation low back pain claims.” J Occup Environ Med, 39, 937-945.

Hazard, R., Haugh, L., Reid, S., Preble, J., and MacDonald, L. (1996). “Early prediction of chronic disability after occupational low back injury.” Spine, 21, 945-951.

Hogg-Johnson, S., and Cole, D. (2003). “Early prognostic factors for duration on temporary total benefits in the first year among workers with compensated occupational soft tissue injuries.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 244-253.

Holmes, B. (2009). “Adult & Community Education – Delivering to the COAG Agenda”, A. L. Australia, (ed.) The Definite Article. Australia, pp. 21.

Iles, R. A., Davidson, M., and Taylor, N. F. (2008). “Psychosocial predictors of failure to return to work in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65(507-517).

Infante-Rivard, C., and Lortie, M. (1996). “Prognostic factors for return to work after a first compensated episode of back pain.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 488-494.

Jankus, W. R., Park, T. J., VanKeulen, M., and Weisensel, M. (1995). “Interdisciplinary treatment of the injured worker with chronic pain: long-term efficacy.” Wis Med J, 94(5), 244-9.

Jennings, J. (2009). “How to prevent psychological injuries at work”The Age. Melbourne, pp. 5.

Jensen, M., and Karoly, P. (2001). “Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults.” Handbook of Pain Assessment, 15-34.

Jensen, M., Strom, S., Turner, J., and Romano, J. (1992). “Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland Scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients.” Pain, 50, 157-162.

Jette, A. M. (2006). “Toward a Common Language for Function, Disability, and Health.” PHYS THER, 86(5), 726-734.

Johnstone, R., Quinlan, M., and McNamara, M. (2008). OHS inspectors and pscyhosocial risk factors: evidence form Australia. Working paper 60, ANU.

Kalbfleisch, J., and Prentice, R. (1980). “The statistical analysis of failure time data.”

Katz, J., Punnett, L., Simmons, B., Fossel, A., Mooney, N., and Keller, R. (1996). “Workers’ compensation recipients with carpal tunnel syndrome: the validity of self-reported health measures.” American Journal of Public Health, 86, 52-56.

Labour Economics Office SA. (2008). Overview of demand for trades skills: South Australia – December 2008. DEEWR, Adelaide.

Labour Economics Office SA. (2009). Overview of demand for managers, professionals and technicians: South Australia – June 2009. DEEWR, Adelaide.

Lepping, V. (1990). “Work hardening. A valuable resource for the occupational health nurse.” AAOHN J, 38(7), 313-7.

Levine, D., Simmons, B., Koris, M., Daltroy, L., Hohl, G., Fossel, A., and Katz, J. (1993). “A self-administered questionnaire for the assesment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome.” J Bone Joint Surg [Am], 75, 1585-1592.

Lines, W. (2009). “The WorkCoverSA Ombudsman and investigation of complaints about rehabilitation”.

Lobel, E. (1995). “Post-contact chronic eczema: pension or rehabilitation.” Australas J Dermatol, 36(2), 59-62.

Lumb, P. (2006). “Young women and injured blokes: gender and change in rehabilitation work.” Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 12(1), 37-45.

MacEachen, E., Chambers, L., Kosny, A., and Keown, K. (2009). “Red flags/green lights: a guide to identifying and solving return-to-work problems”. Institute for Work & Health: Toronto, Canada, pp. 52.

Manufacturing Skills Australia. (n.d.). “Manufacturing. Alive.”. pp. 137.

McAnaney, D., and Wynne, R. (2006). “Stress, absence and reintegration: perceptions and practice of professionals in six European jurisdictions.” International Journal of Disability Management Research, 1(1), 31-41.

59

60

Medibank Private. (2008). “The cost of workplace stress in Australia”. pp. 11.

Michael K. Nicholas, P. (June 2002). Work Hardening/Conditioning: Functional Restoration and Pain Management Programs For Injured Workers with no “red Flag’ conditions.

Muenchberger, H., Kendall, E., Domalewski, D., Anderson, C., and Murphy, P. (2006). “Addressing psychological injury and its consequences in the workplace: the intensive case management trial.” International Journal of Disability Managment Research, 1(1), 114-124.

Muenchberger, H., Kendall, E., and Mills, E. (2006). “Creating successful rehabilitation partnerships between health professionals and employers.” International Journal of Disability Managment Research, 1(1), 10-20.

National VET Equity Advisory Council. (2009). “Summary of equity stakeholder messages: October-November 2009”, NVEAC, (ed.). pp. 7.

Norman, J. “Exploring good practice in RPL: workshop 1- Hunting and gathering. A different approach to evidence gathering.”. Training WA.

Oleinick, A., Gluck, J., and Guire, K. (1996). “Factors affecting first return to work following a compensable occupational back injury.” Am J Ind Med, 30, 540-555.

DFEEST, SA. (2010). Strategic review of South Australia Works. Report, prepared by The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, Adelaide.

O’Neil, M., and Lumb, P. (2008). Assisting injured workers return to work: the economy needs you! , South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, Adelaide.

O’Neil, M., and Lumb, P. (2008). Review of Initiaves Into workforce Re-Engagement of Long Term Disengaged Workers.

Peachey, K., Hardman, P., and Wilkins, C. (2009). “Exploring good practice in RPL: workshop 6 – Fast Track Apprenticeships. Recognising skills, strengths and ambition.”. Training WA.

Perry, D. (n.d.). “The basics of vocational assessment: a tool for finding the right match between people with disabilities and occupations”. ILO, pp. 14.

Piip, J., Thornton, M., Forbes, J., Miller, A., and Hunwicks, M. (2009). ICT tools for RPL assessment. DFEEST, Adelaide.

Productivity Commission. (2010). Performance benchmarking of Australian business regulation: occupational health & safety. Draft report.

Public sector workforce relations. (2009). A guide to the recent Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1986) SA changes. Adelaide.

Purse, K. (2007). “Getting WorkCoverSA back on track”. Hawke Research Institute: Adelaide, pp. 21.

Q-Comp. (n.d.)). “The better practice in return to work guide”, W. c. r. authority, (ed.). pp. 42.

Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. (2008). “QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CRISIS ASSISTANCE AWARD – STATE 2008.” Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, 191(2), 19-59.

Rick, J., and Briner, R. (2000). “Psychosocial risk assessment: problems & prospects.” Occupational Medicine, 50(5), 310-314.

Roland, M., and Fairbank, J. (2000). “The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.” Spine, 25, 3115-3124.

Roland, M., and Morris, R. (1983). “A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.” Spine, 8, 141-144.

Rossignol, M., Suissa, S., and Abenhaim, L. (1988). “Working disability due to occupational back pain: three-year follow-up of 2,300 compensated workers in Quebec.” Journal of Occupational Medicine, 30, 502-505.

SA Centre for Economic Studies. (2010). Strategic review of South Australia Works: Adult Community Education (ACE) program. Final Report, DFEEST, Adelaide.

SA Health and Community Skills Board. (2009). “Traineeship guidelines”. pp. 3.

SA Unions. (2007). Submission to the Review into the South Australian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. Submission, SA Unions, Adelaide.

Safe Work Australia. (2009). Comparative performance monitoring report: comparison of OHS & workers compensation schemes in Australia and New Zealand. Workplace Relations Minister’s Council.

Safe Work Australia. (2009). Work-related injuries in Australia 2005-2006:Health and community services industry.

Safe Work SA. (2009). “”Hey presto! I’m a self-employed contractor. What’s OHS?””. Office of the Employee Ombudsman.

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. (2009). “Compendium of OHS and workers compensation statistics”, R. a. C. C. Safety, (ed.). Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, pp. 60.

61

62

Samra, J., Gilbert, M., Shain, M., and Bilsker, D. (2009). “The business case for psychological safety and health”. Consortium for Organizational Mental Health Care, pp. 2.

Samra, J., Gilbert, M., Shain, M., and Bilsker, D. (2009). “The health case for psychological safety and health”. Consortium for Organizational Mental Health Care, pp. 2.

Samra, J., Gilbert, M., Shain, M., and Bilsker, D. (2009). “The legal and regulatory case for psychological safety and health”. Consortium for Organizational Mental Health Care, pp. 2.

SAUnions. (2010). “Turning Injury into Opportunity”. pp. 1.

Schultz, I., Crook, J., Meloche, G., Berkowitz, J., Milner, R., Zuberbier, O., and Meloche, W. (2004). “Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model.” Pain, 107, 77-85.

Sears, J. M. W., Thomas M. (2010). Evaluation of the Vocational Rehabilitation Pilot Program. University of Washington, Washington.

Segal, M. (1995). “Extending the elements of tree-structured regression.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 4, 219-236.

Selander, J., Marnetoft, S.-U., and Åsell, M. (2007). “Predictors for successful vocational rehabilitation for clients with back pain problems.” Disability & Rehabilitation, 29(3), 215-220.

Selim, A., Ren, X., Fincke, G., Deyo, R., Rogers, W., Miller, D., Linzer, M., and Kazis, L. (1998). “The importance of radiating leg pain in assessing health outcomes among patients with low back pain. Results from the Veterans Health Study.” Spine, 23, 470-474.

Shaw, W. (2009). “Workplace factors in rehabilitation and return to work: translating research into practice”.

Shrey, D., Hursh, N., Gallina, P., Slinn, S., and White, A. (2006). “Disability management best practices and joint labour management collaboration.” International Journal of Disability Managment Research, 1(1), 52-63.

Skills Australia. (2009). Annual Report 2008-2009. Commonwealth of Australia.

Smith, T., Armstrong, C., and Hartwig, A. (2009). “Exploring good practice in RPL: workshop 18 – Breaking the silence. Recognising the skills, knowledge and expertise of domestic and family violence workers in WA”. Training WA.

Spoehr, J., Barnett, K., and Hordacre, A.-L. (2009). “Return to Work Fund Evaluation Information for Projects”. Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide: Adelaide.

State Workers Compensation Authorities. (2009). “Multi-state workers compensation guidance material: return to work processes and obligations”. pp. 14.

Sullivan, M., Bishop, S., and Pivik, J. (1995). “The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation.” Psychological Assessment, 7, 524-532.

Tate, D. (1992). “Workers’ disability and return to work.” American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 71, 92-96.

Taylor, J. (2009). “Exploring good practice in RPL: workshop 8 – Closing the gap. Using web based materials to support RPL gap training.”. Training WA.

The Training and Skills Commission. (2009). Skills for jobs: priorities for developing South Australia’s workforce. Five Year Plan, DFEEST, Adelaide.

Tidswell, A. (2009). “Workplace employability”. Mining, energy and engineering academy.

Turner, J., Franklin, G., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Egan, K., Wickizer, T., Lymp, J., Sheppard, L., and Kaufman, J. (2004). “Prediction of chronic disability in work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a prospective, population-based study.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 5(1), 14.

Turner, J., Franklin, G., and Turk, D. (2000). “Predictors of chronic disability in injured workers: A systematic literature synthesis.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 38, 707-722.

Turner, J., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Franklin, G., Wickizer, T., and Wu, R. (2003). “Comparison of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and generic health status measures.” Spine, 28, 1061-1067.

Underwood, M., Barnett, A., and Vickers, M. (1999). “Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures.” Spine, 24, 1104-1112.

Veronica, R. (2006). “Injured workers balked by retraining methods.”

VicHealth. (2006). Workplace stress in Victoria: developing a systems approach. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Melbourne.

Victorian WorkCoverSA Authority. (2006). “Clinical framework for the delivery of psychological services to injured workers”, V. W. Authority, (ed.). State Government Victoria: Melbourne, pp. 17.

Volinn, E., Van Koevering, D., and Loeser, J. (1991). “Back sprain in industry: the role of socioeconomic factors in chronicity.” Spine, 16, 542-548.

Von Korff, M. (2001). “Epidemiological and survey methods: assessment of chronic pain.” Handbook of pain assessment, 603 – 618.

63

64

Von Korff, M., Ormel, J., Keefe, F., and Dworkin, S. (1992). “Grading the severity of chronic pain.” Pain, 50, 133-149.

Vozella, K. (2001). “Retraining after Injury at Work: learning to learn” Macquarie University News. Macquarie University, pp. 1.

Waddell, G., Newton, M., Henderson, I., Somerville, D., and Main, C. (1993). “A Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability.” Pain, 52, 157-168.

Wall, C. L., Ogloff, J. R. P., and Morrissey, S. A. (2007). “Psychological consequences of work injury: personality, trauma and psychological distress symptoms of non-injured workers and injured workers returning to, or remaining at work.” International Journal of Disability Management Research, 2, 37-46.

Walsh, J. (2011). Vocational rehabilitation framework – Model options Final Report. PWC.

Ware, J., Kosinski, M., and Dewey, J. (2000). “How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey.”

Webster, B., and Snook, S. (1994). “The cost of 1989 workers’ compensation low back pain claims.” Spine, 19, 1111-1116.

Wimmer, S. (2009). “Views on gender differences in bullying in relation to language and gender role socialisation.” Griffith working papers in pragmatics and intercultural communication, 2(1), 18-26

WorkCoverSA NSW. (2009). “Dignity and respect in the workplace charter”. pp. 1.

WorkCoverSA NSW. (n.d.). Retraining of injured workers. WorkCoverSA NSW, Sydney.

WorkCoverSA. (2007). “’Employment Services’ classification guide”. WorkCoverSA, pp. 13.

WorkCoverSA. (2007). “Guide to assessing qualifications for rehabilitation consultants”, W. SA, (ed.). WorkCoverSA: Adelaide, pp. 14.

WorkCoverSA. (2007). “Information on vocational rehabilitation for workers compensation patients”. WorkCoverSA: Adelaide, pp. 5.

WorkCoverSA. (2007). “Information, approval and payment guidelines for retraining: for vocational rehabilitation providers”. Health and rehabilitation unit: Adelaide, pp. 13.

WorkCoverSA. (2007). “Injury and case management manual: Glossary of terms”. WorkCoverSA: Adelaide, pp. 35.

WorkCoverSA. (2008). “Injured at work? We’re here to help you get back to work”. pp. 15.

WorkCoverSA. (2008). “Who does what in the workers rehabilitation and compensation system”. WorkCoverSA, pp. 2.

WorkCoverSA. (2009). Annual Report. WorkCoverSA, Adelaide.

WorkCoverSA. (2009). “Fostering a return to work culture in South Australia.” Newslink: for SA employers and their workers(19 ).

WorkCoverSA. (2009). “Injury and case management manual”. WorkCoverSA: Adelaide, pp. 60.

WorkCoverSA. (n.d.). “Return to work fund”.

WorkCoverSA. (n.d.). “WorkCover’s supervision and competency program for vocational rehabilitation providers”. WorkCoverSA Corporation, pp. 2.

WorkCoverSA WA. (2007). Best practice in injury management and return to work: literature review. Literature review, Perth.

WorkCoverSA NSW, and Services, G. P. a. I. M. (2010). “Operational Instructions”. pp. 3.

Workforce Information Service. (2009). Labour market overview: South Australia. DFEEST, Adelaide.

World Health Organisation. (2003). “ICF checklist Clinician Form for International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health”. WHO, pp. 15.

65

Retraining Injured Workers for Employment Project

SA Unions

46 Greenhill Road Wayville 5034 South Australia

(08) 8279 2222

www.saunions.org.au

SA Unions use Environmentally Friendly Tudor RP Digital High White Smooth

Printed by Digi.we.doo

Retraining injured workers for employment project - SA … SA Unions Report (web).pdf · Retraining...

Documents

Transcript of Retraining injured workers for employment project - SA … SA Unions Report (web).pdf · Retraining...