Interim Evaluation of the Northern Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Aged Care Workforce Development Projects - Attachments

Evaluators Tables

Up to Publications

prev pageprev page| TOC |next page

Table ET1: Summary of Employment Retention Reports

Community	Number of Positions Converted92	Number Retained in 31/12/09	Number of Workers Left Position
Alawa Aboriginal Corporation	10	9	1
Barkly Shire Council
- Ali Curung	10	8	0
- Alpurrurulam	10	12	2
- Elliott Creek	5	5	0
- Ampilatwatja	3	3	1
- Urapuntja (Utopia)	10	3	0
Belyuen Community	3	3	0
Calvary Home Care Services	5	10	5
Djabulukgu Association – Kakadu Health Service	3	3	0
East Arnhem Shire Council	49 (54)
- Gapuwiyak		6	0
- Galiwinku (Elcho Island)		7	2
- Yirrakala		2	0
- Ramingining		6	5
- Angurugu		13	2
- Gunyangara (Marngarr)		5	4
- Umbakumba		7	2
- Millingimbi		2	0
Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation	12	7	0
Mabunji Aboriginal Resource Association	8	8	1
MacDonnell Shire Council	47
- Finke (Apatula)		4	3
- Amoonguna		5	3
- Imanpa		4	0
- Titijikala		5	0
- Areyonga		4	2
- Hermannsburg (Ntaria)		10	2
- Ikuntji		not reported
- Papunya		5	3
- Mutitjulu		not reported
- Docker River		8	5
- Haasts Bluff		2	0
Malabam Health Board Aboriginal Corporation	9	6	0
Marle Ingkherekenhe Arndaritjika Aboriginal Corporation	4	7	4
Ngintaka Womens Council (Ngultju Tjutarnya Palya Kanyilpayi}	3	4	1
Ltyentye Apurte Arelhe Ingkerrenyekekenhe Aboriginal Corporation (Santa Teresa)	5 (salary units*)	3	0
Tangentyere’s Aged and Community Services	6 PTE @ 20 hrs/week**	3	0
Mampu Maninja-kuriangu Jarlu Patu-ku (Yuendamu Old Peoples Programme)	4 permanent PTE	9	9

* Note five salary units have combined to extend employees hours.
** 6 PTE @ 20 hours/week equivalent to 120 hours/week ie 480 hours/month.
Top of page

Table ET2: Summary of SAD Data Issues Relevant to Evaluation

Data Item	Issues Related to Data Integrity
Service Provider
Organisation name	Nil issues
Location	Nil issues
Service funding	Inaccurately entered; of 9 records reviewed 6 of 9 had incorrect identification of service funding.
Region	Nil issues
RTO conducting training	Nil issues
Workers
Name	Nil issues
Sex	Nil issues
Employment status	RTOs were requested in additional instructions to record all aged care workers as employees and other workers as community members. An audit of 4 SAD entries found 2 with major discrepancies in the staff numbers. The RTOs recorded significantly more staff than the service providers reported. It appears the RTOs included non-aged care workers as aged care workers. The end result is that the community aged care workforce profile most likely includes an unknown number of people who are not in the aged care workforce. In all likelihood this should have only a minimal effect on the profile but this cannot be said with certainty.
Role/position	The allocation of a role relates to the point above. Role is a required field in the SAD but the only roles that can be chosen are relevant to aged care. If employment status is not correctly filled in then there is no way to identify aged care workers through the role field.
Date of Birth	Nil issues
Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Origin	Nil issues
Help required with English?	Nil issues
CDEP status	CDEP converted positions do not appear to have been accurately recorded. The RTOs identified 92 staff in converted positions in 44 communities. The evaluators identified 168 staff in converted positions in 39 communities.
Employment Hours Worked	Nil issues
How long have you worked in community care?	RTOs were requested through additional instructions to record the length of employment in months in the Employment Year Start field. in this field. It was not recorded in 34% of cases.
Cessation of employment data	RTOs were requested to record the date that a person left their employment in the field Emp. Year Stop. The RTOs identified 25 staff in 44 communities who left the services since January 2009. The evaluators identified 43 staff in 39 communities who left CDEP converted positions since January 2009. This is an understandable discrepancy as the RTOs would have no record of staff that left before they completed their skills audits and may not know of staff that left after this.
School education level	Nil issues
Qualifications – Tertiary and Health/Aged Care	No specific information was included in the SAD User Manual. Additional instructions were provided.
Do you work shift work?	Database did not allow for collection; not collected.
Service Provider Coordinator - How many community aged care clients are serviced in HACC, CACP and Flexible Care?	Database did not allow for collection; not collected.

Table ET2A: RTOs Issues with SAD

RTO Comments

Information provided through interviews with RTOs included:

• All interviewed RTOs reported they completed the skills audits on paper first (on-site) and entered them into the database later (off-site) because of the necessity to connect to a printer as the database did not save the skills audit information.
• The time taken to collect information regarding each worker varied between RTOs; however, it generally took between 15-30 minutes per worker This was acceptable to RTOs.
• RTOs identified that some workers were shy and reticent to communicate, which impacted on their ability to clarify previous training and units that had been completed. This issue highlights the challenges of working with people in remote locations for trainers whose language and culture is very different.
• All RTOs found the SAD User Manual helpful in providing information to assist SAD users. Two RTOs suggested that there could be more detail in the manual regarding zipping and unzipping the database as this step had proved difficult to carry out without prior knowledge of the process involved. This demonstrates that users of the database may not all have high levels of database skills. One RTO suggested that a built-in online ‘Help’ function would be beneficial.
• Two RTOs reported difficulties with data item requirements changing over the course of the project, commenting that it was frustrating and time-consuming. RTOs recommended that the tool and data requirements be finalised before project commencement.
• One RTO stated that the skills audit database was a data collection tool, rather than a skills audit tool; the latter requiring detailed notes and information which was not possible in the SAD.
• One RTO reported that the tool was cumbersome; records could not be deleted if mistakes were made, the print function needed to be used rather than a save function, and the note fields had limited input.
• One RTO reported there were difficulties with the education section of the tool, citing that there were many situations where workers may have partially completed qualifications. However, there was nowhere to flag this and not enough room in the notes section to make this clear, which may lead to misleading data
• One RTO also commented that the employment section was ambiguous. They also reported that the drop-down boxes for units of competency were missing some competencies and that trying to add them to the notes section was difficult due to a character limit on the notes field. They also commented that the ‘role’ section of the tool was limiting as there was no way to assign a role to other members of the community who participated in training.

Top of page

Table ET3: Communities Participating in the Workforce Development Projects

RTO	Shire/Municipality	Communities	Training Status – RTO Report	Included in Evaluation Sample
Charles Darwin University	East Arnhem Shire	Angurugu	Yes
		Galiwinku	No training to date
		Gapuwiyak	Yes
		Millingimbi	Yes
		Ramininging	No workers
		Ski Beach/Marngarr	Yes
		Umbakumba	Directions Australia
		Yirrkala	Yes
	West Arnhem Shire	Jabiru/Djabulukga	No coordinator
		Maningrida	Yes
		Minjilang	Directions Australia
		Oenpelli/Gunbalanya	Yes
		Warruwi	Directions Australia
	Roper Gulf Shire	Barunga	N/a – no aged care service
		Beswick	Yes
		Borrooloola/Mabunji	No training to date
		Bulman	Yes
		Hodgson Downs/Minyerri	Yes
		Manyallaluk	Yes N/A – hearing impairments of staff
		Mataranka	Yes
		Ngukurr	Yes
		Numbulwar	No training to date
	Katherine	Kalano	Yes Kalano HACC
			Yes Kalano Flexi
Henge Education	MacDonnell Shire	Amoonguna	Yes
		Apatula/Finke	Yes (service reported)
		Areyonga	Yes
		Docker River	Yes
		Hermannsburg	Yes
		Ikuntji	Yes
		Imanpa	Yes
		Kintore	Yes
		Mt Liebig	Yes
		Mutitjulu	No training to date
		Papunya	Yes
		Santa Teresa	Yes
		Titijikala	Yes
	Alice Springs Municipality	Tangentyere	Yes
HK Training & Consultancy	Victoria Daly Shire	Dagaragu	Yes
		Nauiyu	Yes
		Peppiminarti	Yes
		Timber Creek	No training to date
		Wadeye/Thamarrurr	No training to date
		Yarralin	No training to date
	Darwin Municipality	Belyuen	Yes
		Larrakia	Yes
Steps	Central Desert Shire	Atitjere	Yes
		Lajamanu	No training to date
		Laramba	Yes
		Nyirripi	No training to date
		Ti Tree	Yes
		Yuelamu	No training to date
		Wilora	N/A – only 2 workers
		Yuendumu	Yes
	Barkly Shire	Ampilatwatja	Directions Australia
		Ali Curung	Directions Australia
		Alpurrurulam	No
		Elliott Creek	Directions Australia
		Julalikari	Yes
		Utopia	Directions Australia

Top of page

Table ET4: Training Provided by RTO Reports and Evaluators Data

	RTO Data		Evaluators Data
Training Area	Total		Total
	Service Providers	%	Service Providers	%
Food preparation	22	58%	21	64%
Domestic assistance	6	16%	7	21%
Personal care	14	37%	11	33%
First aid	13	34%	11	33%
OH&S	14	37%	11	33%
Other	9	24%	3	9%
Dementia	1	3%	1	3%

Note: RTO data is based on training delivered to 38 communities comprising 39 services – Kalano is counted as 2 services. Evaluator’s data is based on training delivered to 33 of the 39 services in the sample.

Table ET5: Units of Competency and Certificates Attained to 5 March 2010 (from RTO Progress Reports 1 to 4)

Certificates	Unit Code	Competency/Qualification/Training	Student Attendances	Statements of Attainment	Certificates
Certificate II in Community Services Support Work			3	1	2
Certificate III in HACC			8		8
Certificate IV in Aged Care			3		3
	CHCAC316B	Provide food services	15	6
	CHCAC318A	Work effectively with older people	7	0
	CHCAC319A	Provide support to people living with dementia	4	4
	CHCCOM302C	Communicate effectively with clients and colleagues	13	9
	CHCICS301A	Provide support to meet personal care needs	80	34
	CHCOHS312A	Follow safety procedures for direct care work	78	43
	HLTCSD307B	Care for the home environment of clients	38	34
	HLTFA301A	Apply first aid	74	46
	HLTFS207A/B	Follow basic food safety practices	110	69
		Informal documentation skills requested by workers and co-ordinator	8	0
		NYKS Use computers for learning	7	5
		Eating & Drinking Module	6	0
Total			454	250	13

Note: Student attendances are not a count of individual students.

Table ET6: RTO Workshop Feedback

Workshop Name	Comments
Workshop 1 Darwin 2009	All RTOs agreed that the workshop was useful for networking and gathering information. One RTO commented that there were too many participants and too much information provided, which made it very confusing. All RTOs agreed that the workshop notes that were provided were very useful, although two RTOs commented that the delivery of the notes could have been more timely. One RTO suggested that the Darwin workshop format was a little confusing because there was an expectation that RTOs be fully briefed and knowledgeable about the process and project details prior to the workshop, when this may not have been the case. Workshop should contain more information for people new to HACC and training. RTO’s should have a separate session from other stakeholders, perhaps disconnecting from general proceedings on the second day of workshop when information was focused on other stakeholders. RTOs could have had a more training-focused session. Workshop should more accurately describe the expectation of RTOs and the content and scope of the training delivery. Provide a list of ALL contacts rather than only those attending workshop as it was evident a number of stakeholders from some areas were not present on the day.
Workshop 2 Alice Springs 2009	One RTO considered the presentation and content of the Alice Springs 2009 workshop very good, citing that it was informal, brief and to the point. One RTO suggested that RTO component of presentation was adequate, but given it was early in the process, was not very useful. They commented that the other part of presentation was more focused on the communities, which seemed to be an ‘upsell’ of what was presented at the Darwin 2009 workshop. ‘It was good but a bit confusing’. RTOs also commented that the Darwin 2009 and the Alice Springs workshops should have included more collaboration around the development of materials, adding ‘there needs to be more of this in the scope of the project - specifically for the central area’.
Workshop 2 Darwin 2010	One RTO said the facilitator for the Darwin 2010 Workshop was ‘terrible’. One RTO reported that the structure of the Darwin 2010 workshop was too long and dragged on, and that the handouts and activities did not seem particularly relevant for the last workshop session. It was suggested that in future it may help to have a guest speaker talk about topics relevant at that point in time. ‘It seemed like a waste of time talking about how to contact services. It seemed a little insulting to be getting told how to do really basic things at this point in time’. One RTO suggested that this workshop should have been earlier, around September 2009 and should have focused more on networking with other RTOs.

Table ET7: RTO Progress Reporting Feedback

Feedback

• RTOs did not consistently complete all sections of the progress report template, especially the staff and trainee report
• Only one RTO reported the total number of students attending and the total number of aged care workers attending each unit and the total number of statements of attainment for aged care workers. This information is in the SAD; however it is not easily retrievable.
• The skills audit data base information did not match the information contained in the progress reports
• Progress report tabular entries (service profile report, staff and trainee report and skills audit report) are not cumulative, so it was difficult to ascertain accurate data as to the achievements to date
• There are a large number of unit code numbers and courses being delivered by the varying RTOs and not all RTOs are using unit codes to describe the training delivered
• There is no way to clearly identify (either through the SAD or the progress reports) the number of training participants who received qualifications through the recognition of prior learning (RPL) process
• Some RTOs are indicating additional training needs generically such as ‘dementia or palliative care’ for all communities that they were providing training for. Whilst these may have been identified training needs, it is unclear why specific needs were identified by certain RTOs and not others.

Top of page

92. DoHA document: nd: Location of Home and Community Care and Flexible Aged Care jobs created from CDEP processes in the Northern Territory

prev pageprev page| TOC |next page