In the light of the recent price guide and the rhetoric that quality will suffer, we are going to continue our analysis of the current litigation against NDIS Service Providers (part 1 available here)  We have to remain vigilant on the quality and safeguarding mechanisms we are implementing. We must think about how we can achieve better quality outcomes with less financial impost. The longevity of our organisations and more importantly the people receiving supports depend on it.

NDIS service provider #2

Ms KL was a young (28-year-old) Indigenous Australian woman, who lived with her Family in Orange NSW. On 2 February 2022, KL sustained burns to 35 to 40% of her body while receiving bathing support services from Organisation 2. Tragically, five days after this bath, KL passed away in Hospital. The medical records refer to her death as being caused by burns.

KL had Cornelia de Lange Syndrome, intellectual disability and other health conditions. She could have difficulty regulating her temperature, was prone to eczema, had minimal subcutaneous fat and muscle, and her skin became infected from time to time. She was small in stature, unable to independently mobilise herself, and non-verbal (but could be vocal).

KL had been receiving services from Organisation 2 for over 11 years. The services changed over the years, but in prior this horrific incident she was receiving:

• Personal care and bathing support (started April 2021)
• Community access and day program support between 9:00 am to 3:00 pm Monday through Friday and 10:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday for a period of 10 weeks,
• Respite support.
• Domestic assistance.

Organisation 2 provided bathing support to KL, without incident, 80 times. Each occasion had two workers were present.

To support KL, Organisation 2 had the following documents:

(a) a “Safe Work Client Manual Handling Plan” dated 25 May 2016;

(b) a “Client Risk Profile” dated 5 April 2017; and

(c) an “Interim Behaviour Support Plan” dated November 2021

None of the risk assessments identified risks arising during bathing supports, specifically the risk that water can be hot and someone may get burnt. Therefore, they were deemed not adequate to manage the risk present.

On the day in question, one of the workers ran the hot water tap in the bath then added cold water for approximately 1–2 minutes. She then scooped her bare hand in the bath water (closer to the tap than the side of the bath) to check the temperature. She considered the temperature to be fine and did not observe steam coming off of the water.

Taking this into account, the courts found that whilst Organisation 2 did provide some training and competency assessment to staff, it was not adequate. The competency question was too vague as it did not specify that the correct water temperature of the bath or shower is up to a maximum of 40 degrees Celsius.

Organisation 2 was fined $1.8 million for their failing to meet the NDIS Act.

As the provider of a training and competency assessment tool, this case gave me pause. How complex were the questions we were asking staff? Did it really identify if they had learnt something or were they just going with the obvious answer? We have now changed all of our questions to ensure you can have confidence that you team have LEARNT and not just completed your online learning. I urge you to review your learning management system and make an assessment. IF something bad occurred in your service, are you confident that you have trained staff well?

The second area of pause for service providers with this case, is that it wasn’t the absence of support documentation that they were fined for. It was the absences of documenting a single risk. I have always taken the view with disability service risk assessments that if it is a risk for a member of the general public then standard precautions apply and it does not need to be documented. Admittedly, in KL’s case, she had additional needs which increased the risk of hot water burns, so I hope I would of addressed it. But once again, Providers need to review their risk assessments to ensure they have appropriate measures in place for all risks relating to their service provision. That final part is critical as you will spend forever risk assessing if you haven’t clearly defined the services being receive.

NDIS service provider #3

Mr G. had an intellectual disability, tuberous sclerosis, epilepsy, adenoma sebaceum and obstructive sleep apnoea. He died on 17 March 2023, when he was 38 years-old, having been hit by motor vehicle after leaving his supported independent living residence alone some time after one am. Despite two to one active support, he was able to leave without the knowledge of the two support workers with him that night. It is alleged that one support workers had fallen asleep whilst the other heard the back door open but did not investigate further

The Allegation from the commission is; “It is alleged that Organisation 3 failed to provide supports and services in a safe and competent manner with due care and skill, resulting in harm causing death,” It is also alleged that the service provider was restricting Mr G’s access to Pepsi and television and that this was likely a trigger for Mr G.to engage in harmful behaviours.

The judgement handed down on 26 June 2024, allows the NDIS Quality and safeguards commission to continue to investigate this incident with the view of further court proceedings, despite the provider going into liquidation. The reasons for this judgment were:

• In the public interest of compliance to the NDIS Act
• Protecting and promoting the interests of NDIS Participants generally
• Promoting the deterrence of conduct which contravenes the NDIS Act
• Vindicating a public right that has been breeched
• Addressing particular conduct that may have contravened the NDIS Act.

 

The Judge is quoted as stating “the respondent’s alleged failure to provide services to Mr G.in accordance with the conditions of its registration as a NDIS provider caused harm of the utmost seriousness to a person of disability who, by virtue of his disabilities, required protection from harm”.

The last part of the sentence concerns me as it re-shapes the duty of care Vs dignity of risk debate. All humans should be protected from harm by others. Vulnerable people like those with disability, older people or children, require a higher threshold and coaching to support successfully approaching possible danger. But to simply state because of disability you require protection from harm, I think it minimises the rights and autonomy of the person with disability.

We still don’t know a lot of the details of this case as it hasn’t been fully presented to the courts, However, services providers should take note:

• Unauthorised use of restrictive practices WILL be prosecuted, particularly if the person has come to harm. Even if there isn’t clear linkage between the two
• As a service provider, how do you ensure your staff are not being restrictive in the way they provide daily supports.
• As a service provider, how do you ensure staff efficiently do the job they are paid to do. As an investigator and HR Exec, I have conducted hundreds of reviews into staff sleeping on shift. And that only the ones that have been found out.

 

The nature of community living means that SIL services are going to be spread out. You are not going to have supervision at all moments and people do dumb stuff.

This case demonstrates the challenges of distant service provision. The SCHADS award (and the NDIS) advocate that support work does not require high education or special skills. We are entrusting this working group to deliver effective supports, often unsupervised. The nature of this is unlikely to change. But, I have long advocated for a “don’t be a dickhead policy” and been wisely advised against it. However, there is something to be said for providing all staff with directions on what a reasonable days work looks like for example, do not fall asleep whilst on shift. This then needs to be supplemented with training for the frontline employee to enhance their understanding and training for the leaders, to identify behaviour slippage and correct (AND Document) before its too late.

The underlying theme to these cases is that in Human Services, things are going wrong far more often than they should and the consequences are devastating. Not just for the families of MA, KL and Mr G. and others like them, but I would imagine the staff involved will also carry the burden of the impact of their ineffectiveness.

It is easy to vilify the providers involved, but the root cause of these tragedies is far more complex and multifaceted. To help you sleep at night, we can assist you to do a full orgainsational risk assessment. One that is tailored to you and the needs of the people receiving your services. We will balance these against you fair work and safe work risks for supporting your team. We will then work with you to identify streamlined ways to continue to identify and mitigate risks in your service delivery.

With all the chaos and noise in the sector right now, the one guarantee we have for the future is that good quality and safe supports are critical to doing business in the disability sector.

 

To read all our other blogs visit here.

The Australian Government has released their formal response to the Royal Commission into violence, abuse neglect, exploitation and discrimination against people with disability. And LinkedIn has been ablaze. Words like:

• Gutless
• Lacklustre
• Disappointing
• Underwhelming

The cynic in me views the 306-page response as a wonderful piece of advertising material for the Labour Government. It’s an ode to look at all the great things we have ‘proactively’ done to meet the recommendations for the Royal Commission. Everything else we are just going to keep kicking the can further down the road, but keep reminding you how committed we are.

This blog isn’t going to focus on the individual recommendations from the Commission and the Governments response. You can find that in the government summary. Instead it is going to focus on the process and the actions that have been committed to, whilst comparing to behavours that have been demonstrated (no I’m not a behaviour support prac).

 

The final report on the Disability Royal Commission was handed down in September last year. The Government was due to provide a response in March of this year, but delayed. They stated it was complex and they needed to do public consultation and complex issues required more detailed analysis. So 10 months later, they have developed a response based on public consultation that garnered 335 questionnaire responses and 118 written submissions. Assuming each of those was an individual and one entity hasn’t done multiple responses, they have received ‘public consultation from 0.01% of the population with disability. Or if we want to be more generous 4.5% of the number of people that shared their trauma with the commission.

 

Pages of the response document were spent rehashing budget allocations. $371 million has been allocated in the budget. But there is very little rigour around what that money will actually buy. For example the government as committed $12.3 million to improve national approaches to accessible information and communications, including Auslan. Yet the media briefing did not include an Auslan interpreter in the shot. Nor has the government insisted on putting in closed captions when televised or replayed. $12.3 million is a lot of money when the simple action of providing news about people with disability and for people with disability is overlooked.

We work with many mainstream organisations on how to improve disability inclusion. Our answer is you don’t have to throw a lot of money at it. Your small, but continuous gestures which reduce stigma and foster inclusion will be far better received that grand aspirations with no tangible improvements felt.

 

My key takeaways from reading this propaganda is:

• No risk profile model. There is a large focus on people identified as being at heightened risk of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation, particularly those living in supported accommodation and channelling dollars and additional support to this group. But within the document the government has confirmed that they are yet to design a Risk Profile Model to better identify NDIS participants who may be at risk of harm and are likely to need comprehensive individualised response strategies. For example by 30 September 2025, this cohort of people at heightened risk are meant to have support coordination included in their NDIS plans, with sufficient funding to facilitate face-to-face contact at least monthly. How can you build this into a person’s plan, if you cant identify who the person is?
• The government has made a commitment to preventing conflicts of interest in support coordination, it reads as though the exception might be where there are thin markets. However they have also committed to the implementation of Navigators stating, “All governments are committed to working together to support the development of a nationally consistent health navigation framework, which will be coordinated and aligned to complement the reshaped disability navigation function of the NDIS and would include scoping of disability health navigation in partnership with state and territory governments”. So Support Coordinators and the people they support are still in the dark about what the future is likely to hold in that space
• A commitment to following through on the legal separation between SDA and SIL. They didn’t state if this would apply to ensuring ownership / directors couldn’t be the same across different companies.
• The jury is still out on a national disability support worker registration scheme, noting “The NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce will provide a report with advice and recommendations to Government in mid-2024”.
• There will be no pay rise under SCHADS, the government has instead deferred to a review by the independent Fair Work Commission to consider possible gender-based undervaluation in certain priority modern awards, including the SCHADS Award.
• Implementation of class or kind determinations to allow the commission to manage the volume of reportable incidents. This could be a big one for registered providers who diligently report their incidents. Historically, all reporting and investigating does put your neck on the chopping block. It would be nice to see some credit go to the organisations that are committed to investigating and making changes when things go wrong.
• The government stays commitment to the National Disability Data Asset but there is currently no commitment to fund it beyond 2025, suggesting this needs to be negotiated with states. This tells me that it will stay live but how useful or beneficial it will be, time will tell.
• We don’t need a Minister for Disability as “The Australian Government supports strong national leadership on disability policy and programs. The Government currently has two Cabinet positions with responsibility for national disability policies and programs: The Minister for Social Services and the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)”.
• Restrictive practices = bad. The government is committed to the reduction of restrictive practices but not understanding why they are used and how to safely address the root cause. Strengthening the evidence base on reducing and eliminating restrictive practices. They don’t want to conduct a longitudinal study, stating “would impose significant methodological challenges and may pose risks to study participants”, but then wants to establish targets and performance indicators. Once again, how can you develop reasonable targets and metrics without understanding and fixing the underlying drivers. This approach to me is riddled with risk for people at high risk of violence. Restrictive practices wont stop, but the recording of it might if there is incentive enough to do so.
• Supported / substitute decision making. Given how pivotal this is in ensuring human rights, I was shocked to find the government was fairly silent on this recommendation. Once again states they’re committed but no action or outcomes. It reads that they have this covered due to their commitment and recognising that substitute decision making is only a last resort. But anyone who has dealt with the Office of the public guardian will tell you that this has not been addressed.
• Group home reform was one of the contentious issues in the Commissions final report. And it has not gotten cleared. Instead, the government has committed $49.7 million for design and consultation to support better home and living options for NDIS participants. The measure includes targeted compliance activities and an education campaign to ensure Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) providers are aware of and meeting their existing conflict of interest obligations. Not to be negative, but we have been here before with the NDIA holding rounds of innovative housing models, but there is yet to be a tangible way that people can access alternative models or that service providers can fund. ILO is still being critically underutalised, my guess is because LACS and Planners don’t understand it. The continue focus on SDA providers is also alarming as this only applies to a cohort of people requiring home and living supports.

 

The report closes by stating

“All jurisdictions have agreed to the National Disability Royal Commission Monitoring and Reporting Framework (the Framework). The Framework outlines arrangements for governance and the ongoing monitoring of implementation progress of all reforms in response to the Royal Commission. A web page dedicated to reporting on the implementation of the Disability Royal Commission recommendations will be developed and managed by the Department of Social Services”.

Once again, this just seems like words on a page and not dedicated action. It has been 10 months. I have built (with tech support of course) a website in 10 hours…… This would have been a nice touch if it was ready to go. Or at the very least a time commitment for it being live. And lets not forget some of the background noise. Mr Shorten has attempted to push through new NDIS Legislation quickly and without a lot of consultation on the basis that this can come later. Yet the enactment of a Disability Rights act, is subject to further consideration. Stating “This will ensure a holistic approach is taken to ensuring the rights and freedoms of all Australians are respected and protected”. Should the same liberty not be awarded to the 600,000+ on the NDIS and the families and service providers that support them?

Words are cheap especially regarding disability rights.

But actions are real and there was very little concrete action which could be measured and reported on. This macro response provides very few decisions that allow us to predict the values and standards we are going to hold our government accountable to. I would love to see a supporting document that is focused on the next 12 months, and the micro actions. What specifically will be done to ensure that Australians with disability and their supporters are not just left with good intentions.

 

To read all our other blogs visit here.

In today’s fast paced, high tech and rapidly changing world, our brains have to rely on a whole bunch of shortcuts so that we can make decisions (like should I get out of bed). Our brains truly are amazing. It can form associations between different concepts based on past experiences without us even realising that’s what we have done. These associations can influence our perceptions and actions without us being aware of them. This can be known as unconscious bias or implicit bias.

It is not uncommon for people to have at least one (if not all) of these unconscious biases surrounding disability inclusion:

• I don’t give need to worry about people with disability as it doesn’t impact me
• Disability inclusion is currently the buzz in the business world and we can do our bit with a cute morning tea
• Disability inclusion is a “special project” that is done in addition to your normal day job vs a strategic objective that shapes how your business operates
• You have successfully navigated disability inclusion if your business meets the building accessibility requirements. But did you know a disability bathroom may meet the standards and still be totally inaccessible to a person in a wheelchair as they can’t navigate opening the door.
• Disability inclusion is fought with risk. If we get this wrong, we will be on the cover of the newspaper

Unfortunately these unconscious biases prevent us from taking simple actions to improve the world for many people.

One tool to get you closer to dispelling an unconscious bias is having a workplace adjustments policy.

Very simply a workplace adjustment policy tells staff that you want to remove the barriers that may prevent them from performing at the top of their ability. Reasonable adjustments don’t have to apply to just people with a disability. It helps everyone to bring their best selves to work each day. Some common examples of workplace adjustment are:

• Physical modifications to the workplace (e.g., ramps, adjustable desks).
• Assistive technology and equipment (e.g., screen readers, ergonomic chairs).
• Flexible work arrangements (e.g., part-time work, modified hours).
• Provision of auxiliary aids and services (e.g., interpreters, note-takers).
• Job restructuring or task reallocation

Despite this simple definition, many people with disability often will not ask for a workplace adjustment. Some of the reasons I have heard are:

• I don’t want to lose my job
• I don’t want to be treated differently
• I don’t want to be seen as a ‘princess’
• It’s just easier to organise the adjustment myself
• My employer doesn’t have the right to know I have a disability as it doesn’t impact my job.

By having a clear and concise policy, you send the subliminal message that asking for an adjustment is ok here. That is not only the feel good part but it is also a legal requirement. The Disability Discrimination Act (1992). This legislation states:

Australian Organisations must “ensure that workplace barriers are removed so that skilled people with disabilities are able to perform the inherent requirements of their positions. To facilitate this, employers are required to provide reasonable adjustments within the workplace whenever it is necessary, reasonable, and possible to do so”.

Despite the legal driver, some business will still avoid engaging with workplace adjustments, some of the reasons being:

• We don’t have many people with disability who need reasonable adjustments
• It would cost too much
• It means we treat our staff differently and we don’t want to be seen to have favourites

Your workplace adjustment policy should include the following detail:

Purpose

We are committed to providing an inclusive and supportive work environment.

The policy is to ensure that all employees, including those with disabilities, have equal access to employment opportunities and can perform their role and individual duties effectively. This policy outlines the procedures for requesting and implementing reasonable adjustments in the workplace to accommodate employees with disabilities.

Legal Framework

This policy is guided by the following legislation:

• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)
• Fair Work Act 2009
• Work Health and Safety Act 2011

The request process

Consider a streamlined and confidential approach that maps to other ways your employees may already operate – eg use your leave system.

Frame the request by starting with the barrier to performance and the expected outcome if that barrier were to be removed. Then ask the person to suggest options.

The assessment process

What factors will the organisation consider when deciding to approve the adjustment. Be specific with thresholds for:

• Improvement to be experienced by the person
• Proven effectiveness
• Feasibility
• Cost and whether subsidised programs such as the JobAccess Employment Assistance Fund (EAF), are applicable
• Impact on operations

Who will be making the assessment and what timeframes do they have to adhere to? Will the assessor come back to the applicant with other possible adjustments that may meet both the individuals need and the business need. Is there a process for appeal if you don’t agree with the decision. I am a personal believer that requests that don’t fit in with the thresholds identified above should be reviewed by a panel with reasons documented and shared with the applicant.

Monitoring and Review

How will the organisation ensure that the workplace adjustment is working in the way it was intended? What systemic reviews will the workplace do to identify if other policies should be adapted. For example, you may decide to change your procurement policy to ensure all future purchases meet accessibility standards, such as variable height desks.

Training and awareness

How will you ensure all staff know about this policy and can use it. Will you provide regular training and awareness programs for all employees on disability inclusion and the importance of reasonable adjustments?

 

This is all very simple to document in a blog, and if it was that easy, you would have done it by now. But it isn’t hard, sometimes you just need someone in your corner helping you with additional operational effort and specialist expertise. We can be that for you at Supporting Potential.

To read all our other blogs visit here.

The NDIS continues to be uncertain and turbulent. NDIS Providers are rallying for an increase to the price guide and the reintroduction of complex payments. But in my view, this isn’t the biggest crocodile in the water. It’s quite possibly the baby with the mumma lurking behind. The big croc in my opinion is the current litigation against NDIS Service Providers.

This article goes into detail about the untimely and tragic deaths of people with disability whist receiving supports. The focus of this article is to use publicly available information to look into the actions taken by the service providers and apply it to what is likely common practice, without retraumatising organisations or individuals connected to these cases. At no point do I intend to minimise the loss of these individuals but want to use their tragic story to create positive change for the future.

We also need to note that court rulings form precedent and precents becomes law. So lets dive into what we should know and apply to our services:

1. Organisation 1 (case study in this week’s blog) – Death in care, seizure management
2. Organisation 2 (case study in next week’s blog) – Death in care, bathing support
3. Organisation 3 (case study in next week’s blog) – Death in care, inattentive supervision

Organisation 1

The NDIS Participant (M) was nearly 21 years old. She loved Star Wars and 1980s hits. M had epilepsy and autism was receiving supported independent living from Afford. M sadly passed away on 23 May 2019 when she drowned in a bathtub. There were three residents at home and two staff, but neither of the staff were aware that M had epilepsy. M was left in the bath, unsupervised for approximately 25 minutes.

The courts found that Organsiation 1 failed to provide supports to M in a safe and competent manner. Specifically, they didn’t

1. Develop and implement adequate measures within the Epilepsy Management Plan specifically bathing or showering.
2. Develop an action plan to address the risks posed by M’s epilepsy, including the risks associated with having a seizure whilst bathing.
3. Ensure that M was adequately supervised, or adequate alternative risk management procedures were in place, whilst bathing on 23 May 2019.
4. Document M’s diagnoses and support needs in client records.
5. Take adequate steps to ensure that the support workers responsible for providing supports and services were made aware of any or all of the following:
   1. M was diagnosed with epilepsy.
   2. M could experience seizures.
   3. The terms of M’s Epilepsy management tool and/or Comprehensive Health Assessment Tool.
   4. Measures required to address the risks posed by M’s epilepsy whilst bathing, including a bathroom door with an internally lockable doorknob which could not be unlocked from the outside.

The Organisationshas owned their failings in this case, but I suspect the “failings’ are far more common in practice. How often, in this current staffing crisis have you placed an unoriented worker with a new NDIS Participant? Are any of your support plans out of date? How have you confirmed that staff are not only aware of their existence, but understand the steps they need to follow.

In essence, Organisation 1 did not follow their own procedures.

1. They had a buddy list checklist for new staff to demonstrate they had been shown how to provide supports with care and skill, this was not completed.
2. Their epilepsy policy identified steps to support a client with epilepsy whilst bathing, this was not followed.
3. They had risk assessment tools, but they were not completed correctly.
4. They had supported M to gain an epilepsy management plan and comprehensive health assessment, but did not complete the prompts within those documents to ensure she stayed safe

Organisation 1 was ordered to pay civil penalties to the Commonwealth totaling $400,000.

The Judges finding, which you can review here in detail  Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission v Australian Foundation for Disability [2023] FCA 629 (fedcourt.gov.au) states: “Organisation 1 had in place policies and procedures in respect of epilepsy and seizure management does not mitigate the conduct, as these matters did not prevent the patent failures occurring in this case. There is no point having such procedures and policies if they are not complied with”.

Which then begs the question, as an Executive, can you recall the different directives in your policies? If you can’t, how do you expect a frontline support worker to.

Policies need to be the foundation of a good organisation.  They set out how the organisation intends to meet legislation and regulation, but too often this is viewed primarily as an administrative task. Orgs buy off the shelf policies (which I support as a start, but then they need to be reviewed and adapted for your organisations size and complexity) or senior leaders state that its someone else’s role to develop that. The NDIS Quality Audit process was always designed to test HOW organisation embed their policy and procedures, but that’s an article for another day. I challenge executives to review their policies and procedures. How many pages are there? How many 3 syllable words are used. How many long sentences are there. Many support workers have limited education or may be from a non-english speaking background. This creates a bigger challenge for service providers.

We have seen huge successes with implementing our simple read work instructions. It’s a step up in terms of complexity from an easy read, but captures all the tasks that support workers are likely to encounter in their daily operations. It is done in simple English with images linking to the systems and tools used by the organisation.

Organisation 1 was precedent setting for the sector as it was the first provider that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission brought civil proceedings against, learn from this sad example and don’t follow their mistakes. Next week we will be looking into the Organisation 2 and 3’s court findings.

When read together, these documents paint a bleak picture for organisations who rely on the “this is how we do it here and it worked so don’t change it” approach.

 

To read all our other blogs visit here.

This fortnight in the realm of NDIS we are not going to look at a single provider, but at the complex web of reviews, analysis and maintaining the status quo.

We have been assured time and time again that “The Government is dedicated to creating a safe and inclusive Australia, where all people with disability are supported to thrive”

But you would be forgiven for having head spins and not knowing who is doing what when and how. The last 12 months has seen a huge array of reports, recommendations and taskforces. Some of which are very loosely linked and make for one hell of a mess. The below table is my interpretation of what is going on:

Isn’t it interesting that the above nearly totals $1 billion, the same amount that is being investigated for fraud. The same amount it is going to cost to delay approving the new NDIS bill. So, by reducing unnecessary spending, coupled with fraud and a little bit of theatrics and we can save $3 billion. Just like that…

But nothing happens quickly in government. And this isn’t the first rodeo. We have had previous reviews of a similar nature.

The 2019 review of the NDIS Act by Mr David Tune, where all 29 of the recommendations were supported by government. The ‘tune review’ highlighted issues around ‘transparency’, ‘consistency’ and ‘timeliness in decision-making’, combined with many reports of subpar experiences when working with the NDIA.

Alarmingly the ‘every Australian counts’ campaign commented that the Tune review was  “singing to the same old tune” as what has already been well established, and let’s not forget to quote our NDIS Minister, Bill Shorten, who at the time was the Shadow Minister said, we didn’t need “yet another review to tell us that this Government’s neglect of the NDIS is hurting people with disability.”

For those that are interested, I have gone down the rabbit hole of actual actions in response to the Tune review and am happy to share, but this article is already too longwinded.

Getting down from my soapbox now, my question is how do you know where to start in the mess. The government can say “The proposed changes to the legislation are the start. They will enable design and testing of changes with people with disability as further improvements are made to the Scheme.” But that seems like a fairly blunt instrument.

I believe the government may have lost sight of the end goal. The uniting vision:

“An inclusive Australia is one that treats disability as a part of human diversity and understands disability itself as a diverse category”.

I suspect the path of least resistance that service providers create their own operating model which drives efficiencies, reduces your risk and allows you to survive with the changing price guide and other external drivers.

So, if your strategic plan looks anything similar to a version in the last 10 years then you will become collateral damage of the governments inefficiency. Contact us to book in an appointment to do your strategic planning differently.

 

To read all our other blogs visit here.

Did you know:

This is the current disability Pride flag

The disability pride flag was originally released in 2019. But… by 2021 it had to undergo an accessibility redesign. It was found the original design brought on symptoms such as seizures and migraines for individuals with visually triggered disabilities.

See, not even the disability sector gets disability inclusion and accessibility right all the time.

July is disability inclusion month. It is also the first month of a new FY so a chance to kick off those well-meaning projects which often lag behind the priority ones. Disability Pride month 2024 is the perfect time to start making your organisation more inclusive for people with disability!

Over the coming months, we are going to share a fortnightly update with tips and tricks for something you and your organisation can do to improve disability inclusion. In 2022, the Australian Disability Strategy implementation measurements suggested that 77% of employers were positive about hiring people with disability. Yet only 42% of Australian businesses reported feeling confident in their disability inclusion practices. With such a gap, this instalment will be focused on some myth busting and truth telling.

Research suggests that many organisations want to be disability inclusive, but don’t take action for a range of reasons:

• They think that it’s going to cost a lot of money
• They’re worried they will get it wrong and offend someone
• They wholehearted believe they treat everyone equally without realising the difference between equal and equality.
• They don’t have personal insight into why this is such a significant issue
• They have tried to be a more inclusive employer, but people with disability don’t apply

 

All of those are beliefs. And beliefs can be changed with lots of small but continuous improvements. To counter those beliefs, here are some quick-fire facts on why this is not only the right thing to do, but why it makes good business sense to do it now:

 

• People with Disabilities and their loved ones who make buying decision represent a huge, yet reasonably untapped market. Globally it is estimated to be 13 trillion dollars. In the USA the total after-tax disposable income for working-age people with disabilities is approximately $490 billion (Source: American Institutes for Research)
• Disability-inclusive companies are 28% more likely to have higher revenue, 30% higher economic profit margins, and 2x net income. (Source: Accenture Report: Getting to Equal)
• The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Discrimination of People with Disability has stated that the Australian federal, state and territory governments should leverage their buying power by adding disability inclusive employment practices to their procurement rules
• 1 in 3 People with Disability state that mainstream goods and services currently don’t meet their needs (Source: Australia Human Rights Commission)
• 33% of Australians with disability aged 15 and over, avoid situations because of their disability. One of the most common situations avoided were going to shops, banks etc. (34.3%). (Source: Australia Human Rights Commission)

 

Our first tip… be kind. Any action, no matter how small it may seem is better than no action. And you are probably doing better than you realise.

Second tip…. Understand where you are starting. You may be further along the disability inclusion journey than you might think.

Take this short quiz to find out where you are currently doing well and pinpoint the areas where you might need to invest some more effort.

How inclusive is your business for people with disability? (scoreapp.com)

 

Third tip… Keep trying even if you get something wrong.

Apologise, learn from the error and keep moving forward’. So long as you learn and correct the error moving forward, but to try and stop you from getting it wrong in the first place, here are some things the disability community want you to know (note this is a generalisation based on our knowledge as it is not possible to cover the views of every person with a disability)

• A disability is not a specific condition. Disability is as broad as the human condition.
• Focus on the person, not the disability
• Reference a person’s disability only when it’s relevant.
• Avoid pity terms, such as ‘suffers with’ or ‘afflicted by’. Having a disability does not mean having a lesser quality of life.
• People with disability often have a strong preference for either person-first language (people with disability) or identity-first language (disabled people). If in doubt, ask the person what they prefer, and being aussies, you can’t go wrong with a ‘mate’.

 

And the final tip for today….. Remember the rule of marginal gains?

Making consistent, small improvements can accumulate quickly and generate results better than could have been imagined. By reading this article and putting some of the tips into practice you have already slightly improved. The next step is to record your plan and achievements in an inclusion or organisational strategic plan as what you measure you will improve upon.

 

Our blog next fortnight will look at reasonable adjustments. Do you currently have a policy?

If you can’t wait for this information to come to your inbox each fortnight, get in contact with us for a confidential chat about where you are currently at and how you can get to where you want to be.

To read all our other blogs visit here.

So, it is the last working day of the financial year. Why would you expect more than 6 working hours of notice on what you can charge for your services in the new FY?

The headlines from the new NDIS price guide

1. There appears to be more robust rules on what is reasonable and necessary and claiming for ancillary services (but I haven’t deep dived here yet)
2. Standard support prices have increased 3.19%, but the SCHADS award has increased by 3.77%. The reason for the backwards movement appears to be the removal of the Temporary Transition Payment
3. For another year, there has been no increase to Support Coordination and Plan Management

New NDIS price guide:

We have quickly dug into the NDIS Direct Support Cost model to see how the Agency has developed the prices for next FY and I am not a mathematician (and would love to have this confirmed to me) but I have found a 1 cent discrepancy. I know that it’s likely to be a rounding issue, but you tell me, when you add up the FY24/25 direct worker costs do you get $48.62 or $48.63?

Table: Comparison of the FY 23-24 and the FY 24-25 Disability Support Worker Cost Model Assumptions and Methodology

I got the higher number but the cumulative impact actually makes it a 2 cent difference to the final price. Now I know my math skills are very crude, but I’m thinking that 1 cent difference to the hourly base direct support cost driver might save the government over $12 million next FY alone. Now that’s a lot of speech writers…

You do your own math, how may service hours are you likely to deliver this FY? Times that by 0.02 and you have the financial impact of this rounding issue to your org.

Now $12 million in a $40+ billion dollar scheme is hardly consequential. But when you already have 55% of providers reporting a loss (Stuart Brown, StewartBrown_-_FY23_Disability_Services_Financial_Benchmark_Report_final.pdf)

And the NDS State of the sector 2023 report stating:

We are worried we won’t be able to provide National Disability Insurance Scheme services at current pricing

Category	Disagree or strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree or strongly agree
Not for profit	14 percent	14 percent	72 percent
For Profit	22 percent	11 percent	67 percent

 

A 2 cent per hour reduction, based on rounding plus the removal of the Temporary Transition Payments that were introduced on July 1, 2019, combined with Super increasing up by .5% from July 1 and the industry rate for all insurances increasing; may see many providers finally slip into liquidation.

The TTP was originally designed to support registered NDIS providers during their transition to the NDIS market. It was meant to be temporary, but the impetus was to provide additional funding to help providers cover the costs associated with adjusting to the new pricing arrangements and regulatory requirements of the NDIS, ensuring they can continue delivering high-quality services while adapting to the new system. My question is – has the sector stabilised with the pricing and quality regime to state we are no longer in a period of transition?

Given we still don’t have a formal government response to the Disability Royal Commission or the Independent review of the NDIS, my guess is that only more changes are to come.

I welcome the NDIS review recommendation for pricing to be taken over by the Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority. But the realist in me knows that is still a way away.

Providers need to take the future into their own hands now and look at how to adapt their services to the already lean margins. What can be automated? What can be streamlined? Where are you overservicing? How can you ringfence your quality and safeguards liability?

I don’t want to see more providers leave the sector. That goes against the original intention of strong markets and choice and control. But if there was ever a signal that you MUST start doing things differently. This price guide is it.

To read all our other blogs visit here.

Today’s insight from the realm of the NDIS comes from a support provider for individuals with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. This provider is noted for their diligent reporting of incidents, but they’ve been encountering issues with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission’s delayed responses, sometimes taking years to close submissions (5 years is the longest I’ve seen).

Despite the provider’s consistent efforts in reporting, the Commission’s feedback has been generic and slow, raising questions about the efficiency of their processes.

I find it a little hypocritical that NDIS Service providers must prove their continuous improvement, but the practice standards were last reviewed in November 2021 and reportable incident detailed guidance was last updated in June 2019.

Issue 1: The NDIS Commission expects providers to respond with very little upfront details to work with

But I digress, this is about specifics. The provider received a call from the commission in May this year at 5:45pm one evening. The details of the complaint were (paraphrased for privacy and names changed):

“It is alleged that in August 2023 one of senior managers Jane Doe verbally abused and threatened NDIS participant named Sam at SIL house located: street address in Australia.

Please be advised that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) received relevant complaint

As this allegation has been classed as possible abuse of person with disability and mandatory reporting rules for Registered Providers apply, you will be further contacted”.

On the phone the provider was advised verbally that investigating this complaint with an external investigator would be a good approach to this complaint / reportable incident.

The provider called me. Confused. He asked if I would take on this investigation so that they can maintain their compliance. He then advised that no participant named Sam had ever received support from the SIL location they advised. We also did not have a last name for Sam.

Whilst I am a true believe that any allegation of poor practice from a person employed by a disability service provider to a person paying for services MUST be reviewed, I am also a realist. To initiate an investigation on this matter, would only prejudice the senior manager. There was no way to initiate any form of questioning about something that vaguely happened over 9 months ago. The provider had never received any negative feedback about Jane. The CEO’s personal opinion is that Jane was the type to overly advocate for participants rights. We also couldn’t be sure who “Sam” was, as the organisation provides services to 3 Sams. To be on the safe side, we reviewed all incident reports from August 2023, which mentioned “Sam” and “Jane” or ‘senior manager’. We found 2 notes for different “Sam’s”. Both were about when the Senior Manager was required to intervene as ‘Sam’ was escalating and the rostered worker was not sure how to respond. To ensure a risk approach, we risk assessed Jane’s ability to continue to provide support and have filed the record. There was also a push from the provider to participants on how to make complaints.

I’m not saying that this complaint should not have been raised with the provider, but there is a continuous improvement opportunity to be driven by the commission. They could provide guidance to providers on what to do with complaints of this nature. There should also be the reciprocal responsibility for the Commission to provide more guidance to providers when they request information. What did the provider do well, in addition to their own corrective actions, is there something else they should consider. This does not need to be a formal compliance action, but a soft recommendation, have you considered xxxx. Other providers like you have had good results by doing yyyy.

Issue 2 – The NDIS Commission’s systems are not connected, resulting in duplication and the chance something critical might be missed

Simultaneously, they have been fielding other enquiries. Over the last 10 months, they have responded to the same enquiries from 3 different departments in the Commission. Long story short, the provider caught out one of their front-line workers not behaving in accordance with their values. They investigated and terminated the staff member and made a reportable incident to the commission:

1. 1. Six Months after the incident, the reportable incidents team emailed asking for more detailed information, with a 10 day turn around.
   2. Two months after that the Compliance and Enforcement Branch emailed, asking very similar questions. This time there was a 20-day window to respond.
   3. This month they received another email looking very similar to the first 2 with an additional question from the NDIS Worker clearance team.

A suggestion to fix this seems simple – Invest in a technology solution that allows you to see trends and share information across departments. Small features that should be considered in your scoping:

1. 1. The ability to track correlation between reportable incidents and complaints
   2. Visibility of multiple complaints against the same service provider which all might have a slightly different skew, but all lead to a systemic issue
   3. One reportable incident / complaint = one file. Everyone in the commission adds to that file (with appropriate security provisioning of course). Reducing the time and effort needed by all parties
   4. Ability to track advice given to providers. Is there a consistent issue that needs to be fixed across the scheme
   5. And finally remember to declare any fancy lunches that are bought for you during this selection process.

 

Issue 3 – No clear boundaries or scope of practice for complex supports

And then the final one for the month was again, a complaint. At least this one had some detail but allegations included:

• NDIS Participant was living off soft drink and cereal and was not provided with an adequate supply of food of sufficient nutritional quality and variety
• The NDIS Participant was admitted to hospital and absconded whilst under hospital admission. It is alleged the provider was negligent.

As an investigator, this was a reasonably simple investigation as the provider kept copious forms regarding their service delivery. My concern with this complaint is that it is outside of scope for the commission. I appreciate people with disability are more likely to have a premature death, mostly due to preventable causes such as being overweight or not having a nutritionally balanced diet. But in a scheme where we are pushing a reduction in restrictive practices and the agency is continuing to push back on funding activities of normal daily living (such as groceries), how should a provider navigate this?

Secondly, the intersection between health, justice and disability is currently done very poorly. The person who should hold the accountability for good outcomes is the participant themselves, but often due to their disability and trauma, they don’t have the skills or capacity to fulfil this type of role. So we are left with an NDIS regulator that can only hold registered service providers to account when the broader system fails an NDIS Participant.

Now some of you might call me a cynic, but my guess (and we shall see in the Q4 Commission activity report) is the NDIS Commission is ticking boxes. They still only have a 55% closure rate for complaints in 90 days. And if you were a bigger cynic than me, you might also suggest the regulator is trying to find ways to drive up their compliance action numbers….

Imagine a realm where all parties involved in support to a person with disability had a consistent understanding of what to expect from other stakeholders. Whilst a very large task, the Commission could devise the baseline skills required for all the different roles in the scheme. There is a wealth of safeguarding structures already fundamentally built in. The issue is people haven’t been fully educated on their broader role of safeguarding. Behaviour Support Practitioners, Support coordinators, Ots, Speech therapists, the list goes on… If everyone has the same expectations about what good quality service looks like, we can all regulate each other.

Regulatory oversight is crucial, the current system needs refinement to ensure it is effectively serving those it is meant to protect, avoiding bureaucratic delays, and focusing on meaningful improvements. Whilst the NDIS Review pointed to some positive improvement suggestions, it did not go back to first principles of how to properly develop and deploy a functionally successful enterprise. Without fundamental changes to ‘how’ the commission functions (not necessarily on “what” they regulate), the scheme will continue to battle safeguarding issues and be an inefficient use of taxpayer funds.

To read all our other blogs visit here.

Unfunded Supports

I have had the opportunity recently to hear from both providers and participants about their experiences within the NDIS. The provider bashing of late, framed by Minister Shorten’s letter to NDIS Participants, is fueling an adversarial context. Over the next few months, I am going to share some of the provider and participant lived stories as I am hopefully that by sharing the good and the bad, we can acknowledge that we are all on the same team and the best ending is a self-sustaining insurance scheme, where NDIS participants are appropriately supported to access the opportunities of life equal to their peers.

In the stories the names of providers and participants will be changed to protect their privacy and integrity. This is also done intentionally to show that the felt experience is not all that different across the board.

If you are a service provider or participant and you want your story shared, please email angela@supportingpotential.com.au

Our first story is about ‘Daisy’ and her SIL provider ‘Amazing Services’. Daisy loves to spend time with her people and will never present herself without a beautiful hairpiece. She has lived in this location with this SIL provider with her friends since well before the NDIS was thought of. Daisy has a formal diagnosis of severe intellectual disability, epilepsy, bilateral talipes, lymphedema and type 2 diabetes.

To live her best life, she needs help to mobilise in almost every setting. After a prolonged hospital visit following a severe covid infection at the height of the pandemic, the progression of her lymphedema had led to her being less physically mobile and having pain and swelling in her legs. This has meant she is having more falls, is relying on her wheelchair more and putting on weight. Daisy has received reasonably consistent funding from the NDIA. She goes to day program four times per week and has a loving family that like to take her out during the weekends. The agency have previously funded a manual wheelchair, and other assistive technology such as a standing lifter for transfers and a camel lifter.

Daisy likes to be as independent as possible. Often during her funded sleepovers she will try to get out of bed on her own and suffer injuries from falling.

Daisy is very proud of her appearance and her personal care routine is important to her. Given her recent weight gain and her reduced mobility Daisy needs 2 support staff to safely help her stay clean and present herself the way she wants. On a good day, she will try to do step transfers with a little help, however, on bad days she needs a backup full-body hoist, and continues to require 2 staff.

Over 12 months ago, Amazing Services put in a change of circumstances to the NDIA because of Daisy needing more help to maintain her life. In this wait, Amazing Services have paid for:

• A power assist attachment for her wheelchair.
• Workers compensation claims due to multiple support workers suffering an injury due to the lack of the power assist and from Daisy falling onto staff while helping her with her previously unsuitable shower/commode chair.
• A new bariatric shower commode.
• 2:1 supports for 2 hours per day to safely and comfortably help Daisy get out of bed and ready for her day and then to clean up after her day and go to bed.
• A wheelchair accessible van for Daisy to safely access the community.

None of this has been funded. Amazing Services is a small not for profit. It is clear from seeing Daisy, her family and the brilliant staff, that there is a genuine desire to help Daisy live her own life to the best of her ability.

Fast forward to the start of May, despite calls and emails from her Support Coordinator and family, 1 year on from the original lodgement of the change of circumstances, Daisy is contacted by a planner. The planner booked in the time for the meeting with Daisy and her supports. The planner changed the meeting at the last meeting to be over MS Teams. She had never previously met Daisy. She also confirmed at the start of the meeting that she had not read all of the documents, paid for by the NDIA and needed to support the change of circumstance submission. Unfortunately, Daisy would not be getting any other funding as there was not an assessment to confirm her disability. Further, her need for more support and assistive technology, was due to her lymphedema, which is a medical condition.

This story has presented several complexities and challenges. Fortunately for Daisy, her service provider has continued to meet her needs, but this comes at a cost. Conservative estimates suggest that Amazing Services have provided over $50,000 of additional and unfunded supports to Daisy. Their ability to do this is due to the longevity of the organisation and a well-kept, historic, balance sheet. And yes, they are not for profit, but how long can that last for.

Amazing Services are stuck in the difficult position of risk shopping.

Do they:

1. Continue to provide unfunded supports to Daisy (and likely others) and continue to watch their resources dwindle, to the point they realise they are insolvent. All the Amazing Services participants would have to find a new service provider and the existing employees would no longer have a job
2. Amazing Services only provide the services that they are funded and have agreed in their service agreement to provide. This then creates a different risk proposition:
   1. Does Amazing Services direct their staff to conduct unsafe manual handling, putting the staff and Daisy at risk of harm as well as breaching WHS legislation.
   2. Does Amazing Services direct their staff that they can not safely do manual handling and therefore Daisy is to remain in bed until her plan can be reviewed. This would then be a potential breach of both the NDIS and Disability Discrimination act.

 

If you are the CEO of a service provider like Amazing Services, what do you do?

 Whilst I appreciate the time, commitment and brainpower that has been invested into the Royal Commission and the NDIS Review, I don’t believe either have presented solutions that are ‘outside of the box’. And whilst the realist in me appreciates that any solutions will take too long to have a positive impact for Daisy, we need to go back to fundamentals so that the future ‘Daisy’s’ might benefit.

What if….

• The Agency moves to a system were Participants store and control access to all their own data and reports in one convenient application.
• The participant can give and take back access to their documents as they see fit.
• They can say the different types of the support they want and providers can say how they would go about achieving this.
• Artificial Intelligence can then overlay the extensive words that surround a person’s NDIS funded supports to provide summaries of key changes or needs. Streamlining the process of plan reviews.
• What if as the participant’s information changes, e.g. a new functional assessment or multiple incident reports, this creates a flag to the agency that a review is needed for this person. All automated based on consistent criteria.

The benefit of this approach ensures the supports are person centered as the participant controls their own information, rather than the current environment where the Service Provider develops a support plan. Creating triggers based on data that automatically trigger a response from a human to review the changes in information.

Now… Given the way the Proda portal and Pace run; we have more chance of the government scrapping the scheme than this ending coming to fruition. So, what about the different government agencies just collaborate on supports needed. In Daisy’s case, is it really relevant if lymphedema is a disability or a medical condition? The goal should be to ensure all people can engage with the environment around them. If left unsupported, both the health care system and NDIS are likely to experience much higher costs.

Stay tuned for our next adventure in NDIS Land. And please feel free to email me with any blue sky solutions for the NDIS.

To read all our other blogs visit here.

In today’s volatile business climate, diversity and inclusion have become cornerstones of corporate responsibility and competitive advantage. Yet, when we have reviewed diversity equity and inclusion plans and policies, we often find that disability inclusion is often overlooked, or it is a footnote in the plan without any funding identified.

That said many organisations have begun their disability inclusion movement by:

• Initiating employee reference groups
• Conducting culture audits
• Seeking feedback from their stakeholders.

But… diversity, inclusion and equity is more than demographic data and statistics, it’s the “firsthand experiences” of your employees and customers. It’s the feeling of “I belong’ and “I am welcome here”. And this is where it gets tricky.

Disability Pride Month is coming up in July. This doesn’t tend to garner a lot of attention in Australia, but it does provide an excellent opportunity to fully understand where you are in your disability inclusion journey and plan your next step.

Click the link below and spend 3 minutes identifying where you are currently at or better yet, get your boss to also complete it to see if you are on the same page with your strengths and weaknesses.

How inclusive is your business for people with disability? (scoreapp.com)

Summary of our visit to the Impact Australian Disability Network Conference

Supporting Potential were privileged to meet so many passionate disability inclusion allies at Impact 2024, hosted by the Australian Disability Network. The conversations with this group were passionate, robust and itching to make positive action but many acknowledged that it was difficult to get their broader organisation invested in the drive for change. One of the fabulous presenters, Caroline Casey, Founder of the Valuable 500, suggested that to get change you need to follow the money.

• The disability dollar is largely an untapped market in Australia. We know that products and services designed with accessibility in mind, not only appeal to consumers with disabilities but also improve usability for all consumers. This universal design approach can lead to product innovations that differentiate your brand in the marketplace.
• Inclusive companies often report higher employee satisfaction and lower turnover rates. Employees in an inclusive environment feel valued and are more likely to remain with a company long-term.
• Many leaders also understand that demonstrating commitment to diversity and inclusion enhances your company’s reputation, aligning your brand with social responsibility and ethical practices that are increasingly important to consumers, investors, and partners.
• Organisations are often eligible for tax incentives, grants, or subsidies for companies that hire people with disabilities and invest in creating accessible environments. Additional funding is often available to support training programs and to adapt workplaces to be more inclusive, offsetting initial costs.

Supporting Potential has reviewed the Australian websites of over 250 public and private organisations. Over 150 of those organisations didn’t have a specific Disability Inclusion Action Plan (or alternative disability specific positive action documents of a different name). Of the 100 private Australian organisations, 33 didn’t even have a publicly available diversity and inclusion plan. Some of our observations include:

• A single statement on websites talking about how important inclusivity and accessibility is
• Selective focus areas such as women, pride or reconciliation. Very rarely does disability take centre stage.
• Often diversity and inclusion is hidden deep in the dark depths of a website and takes lots of looking and mouse clicks.

For those organisations beginning their disability inclusion journey, our suggestion is to start with the endpoint, not a broad, wishy-washy statement, such as:

• We want people of ‘all abilities’ to feel included and valued.
• We embrace diversity and strive to create conditions that provide everyone with an equal opportunity to thrive.
• “Make diversity, equity, and inclusion part of everything we do—from how we build our products to how we build our workforce.”

Firstly, they scream ‘tokenism’, but my main focus with these disappointing inclusion statements is:

Based on what agreed-upon metrics? Based on what agreed upon timeframes? Based on who’s version of success?

Start small and appreciate where you are at now. Build tangible action items. Learn from Simon Sinek, Disability inclusion should be viewed as an infinite game, defined as “known and unknown players, the rules are changeable, and the objective is not to win—the objective is to keep playing, keep perpetuating the game”.

Our recommendations to start your disability inclusion journey. Start small but start public.

What are three definitive actions you can accomplish in the next quarter? It might be:

• Write and publish a reasonable adjustments policy, then track the data.
• Start telling people in your job ad what the recruitment process looks like so they can understand if they will require an adjustment.
• Implement a guaranteed interview process for those that request reasonable accommodations.
• Survey people with disability on how your organisation could better serve them.
• Conduct an independent disability inclusive review to pinpoint your baseline and highlight your easy opportunities to make great progress.
• Initiate role specific training about how to support disability inclusion.
• Conduct leadership training on identifying and managing common attitudinal barriers to success with inclusion objectives.
• Get support to build a systematic approach to understanding your current situation, the desired future, in line with your organisational strategic plan, and then the tangible strategies to bridge the gap between the two

Investing in disability inclusion is your key mechanism to enhancing your resilient, adaptive, and innovative company.

You will stand out, not just for what you sell, but for commitment to making a positive impact on the world. Join us in leading the change toward a more inclusive everyday experience, where disability is not a barrier but a valued perspective that drives us forward.

Let’s discuss how we can transform your business through the power of inclusion. Contact us today to start your journey towards becoming a leader in disability inclusion Contact – Supporting Potential

To read all our other blogs visit here.