Lessons from IncludeAbility

IncludeAbility webinar
On 24 November the IncludeAbility team hosted a webinar with the Centre for Social Impact Swinburne on the lessons from IncludeAbility.
On this page you can find the webinar recording, transcript and answers to the questions raised by the audience during the webinar.
During the one hour webinar we heard from:
- Professor Simon Darcy, IncludeAbility Ambassador
- Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths
- Kane Blackman, CEO, Good Sammy
- Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission
- Professor Erin Wilson, Professor and Uniting Chair in Community Services Innovation at Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne.
The webinar explored:
- The history and background of the IncludeAbility Project
- IncludeAbility Evaluation Findings
- What was valuable about participating in the IncludeAbility Pilot Employment Program
- Lessons learnt about increasing employment of people with disability
- Next steps
Watch the Webinar
Webinar Q and A
During the webinar we received many questions from the audience that we were unable to answer due to time constraints.
You can find the questions and our answers below.
Question: Geoff talks to what meaningful employment means for people with disability? Did they find that meaningful employment is highly personal and different for everyone in the workforce?
Answer: Absolutely it is a personal issue. But some things are universal also. Everyone wants to learn something new. Not stagnate in their role. That's been one key similarity. Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths.
Meaningful employment terminology is used by some to describe factors such as the job being: a source of economic independence, ongoing or with the significant prospect of becoming ongoing, fulfilling and inclusive. A person-centred approach is best practice. Kane Blackman, CEO, Good Sammy.
Question: What support and assistance was being provided to the people with disability particularly with intellectual disability by intermediary, and being considered by the project to ensure that the candidates weren't being filtered based on unclear inherent requirements?
Answer: It differs for each person. Typically information, advice. access to key resources, supportive onboarding, training arrangements, regular-peer check-ins. Kane Blackman, CEO, Good Sammy.
All participants that expressed interest in participating were offered roles and if the role or some of the requirements of the role weren’t suitable the intermediary worked with the employer to adjust or customise the role, or look for another role. No candidates were filtered out of the program based on unclear inherent requirements. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: What ongoing support did people with disability continue to receive for ongoing support to ensure continuity of the employment?
Answer: Peer support, ongoing advice, additional communication and advice. Kane Blackman, CEO Good Sammy.
Question: I am interested in whether the Good Sammy pilot was supported by having access to funds for participants under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)?
Answer: Unfortunately not. Kane Blackman, CEO Good Sammy.
The Good Sammy pilot participants were in receipt of NDIS funding. However, the quick turnaround required for this pilot meant that the individual’s plans could not be reviewed in time. Good Sammy provided the support utilising other funds they had access to.
Any future initiative would require the NDIA to be able to respond quickly to a change in circumstance (such as starting employment) and provide the necessary funds to support the recruitment, onboarding and post placement support.
Also, non-DES providers such as Good Sammy do not receive an outcome payment for the placement and there is not funding available to work with employing organisations to set up these types of projects. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: Did you encounter any barriers or resistance internally? What were they and how did you get around those?
Answer: The biggest barrier was trepidation; wanting to make sure everything was perfect before we even met candidates. ‘Perfection is the enemy of done’ was a phrase used a lot. Those of us that work in inclusion know this is messy, know we won’t get perfection, but those we support will appreciate us trying. Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths.
Question: Does Woolworths have an intended target percentage of how many people with disability (particularly more significant disability such as ID cohort) are employed within the group? What percentage does this look like now?
Answer: We are currently developing a disability action plan (to the AHRC framework) this will include a target. So stay tuned. Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths.
Question: How diverse are the roles that you have been able to create? Did those roles already exist and require adjustments? Or were they newly created and defined roles?
Answer: One of the positives of Woolworths is that there is very rarely a time where we are not hiring. However that does not mean every person is right for every role. Understanding the person has been key in this project. Ensuring some level of job customisation is always on the table. Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths.
Across the pilot sites a mix of roles were created, some were customised or carved, and many already existed; some requiring adjustments and others not. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Has the project resulted in employment across WA stores, or is it a couple of key stores? ... ie, is it important to have stores that are champions that have groups of disabled workers who support each other and a team that is trained in integrating the new cohort? Or is the program sophisticated enough that we would expect to see this resulting in people with disabilities in all stores (I work for the retail union, we will want to understand and support these employees as appropriate). What support did employers find most useful?
Answer: The project has actually resulted in employment in more stores than we thought it would. With store managers moving since the start of the project they have then reached out to Good Sammys to build a new relationship at their new store. And a key member of our team has made the move from WA to Qld so again spreading the message literally across the country.
For us we know we will never be the expert in the person with disability, so the support most useful was getting that insight. Geoff Trappett, Disability Inclusion Lead, Woolworths.
Question: Are there any culturally adapted processes for implementation of IncludeAbility, or plans for co-creation with persons with lived experience who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander?
Answer: There will be an opportunity for co-creation with First Nations people with disability next year as part of IncludeAbility 2.0 co-design and implementation. We are in very early stages of planning this and will have some more announcements and invitations before the end of the year. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Are all the Ambassadors staying on for IncludeAbility 2.0? and same question for Employers? If not have they shared their reasons as part of evaluation or review?
Answer: Ambassadors and Employer Network Members were invited to contribute to the evaluation of the IncludeAbility Project. All Ambassadors and Employer Network Members will be invited to express their interest in being part of 2.0, and all will be invited to contribute to the 2.0 co-design workshops. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Sometimes the phrase ‘inherent requirements of the job’ can be an all purpose excuse to just not employing people with disabilities. Are there any principles that we can apply that really allow us to judge what’s an ‘inherent requirement’?
Answer: Unfortunately, in many instances the term ‘inherent requirements’ has excluded people with disability.
See below for more detail. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Having worked across many accessibility and inclusion initiatives, I was advised that using the term 'reasonable' in relation to adjustments, opens the door to subjective interpretation and/or a reason to deny adjustments. Surely 'workplace' adjustments is more dignified? Same with the term Disclose -it implies 'hiding' information. Sharing surely is less loaded? Is there a sector consensus or pilot consensus?
Answer: Language is evolving and terms that are commonly used in this space can be problematic.
The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommended that the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) should be amended in regard to this. Recommendation 7.26 to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) states:
Section 21A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) should be amended to expand the factors to be considered in determining whether a prospective or existing employee would be able to carry out the inherent requirements of a particular role.
These factors include the:
- nature and extent of any adjustments made
- extent of consultation with any person with disability concerned.
The Australian Human Rights Commission supports this recommendation and has recommended that the Australian Government amend the Disability Discrimination Act to clarify that a failure to make reasonable adjustments, except when it would impose unjustifiable hardship, constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act.
With regard to disclosure, discussions have been had within the sector, including at many of our Employer Network meetings about the term ‘disclose’ and what meaning this may have, or what it may infer. Alternatives such as ‘identify’ and ‘share’ are commonly used.
The Australian Human Rights Commission very much welcomes further discussion on both of these issues raised, and support amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act as proposed above. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Did the Board and Executives of the 17 participating employers publicly advocate the pilot both inside and outside of their organisations?
Answer: Not all Board Members and Executives of the Employer Network publicly advocated for the pilot. However, CEOs of Network Members committed to publicly and privately advocating for other employers to review their policies and processes to address barriers to the employment of people with disability. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: What learnings from this pilot do you think would be transferable to small and medium size employers?
Answer: This project specifically targeted large national organisations, which are often very complex. However, pilot two in Illawarra had some smaller organisations engaged and the learnings did transfer. The key learnings would be the role of the intermediary – that is the employing organisation having access to a trusted partner to walk alongside them and to create a safe space to ‘get it wrong’. All employers also need intermediaries who can problem solve and know the new employee well so they can create solutions if issues arise in the workplace.
Lastly, recruitment practices of small to medium organisations can also create barriers for people with disability, particularly if there is no mechanism to request adjustments. This is something all organisations could address.
Please see information about the Diversity Field Officer project undertaken by Deakin University and the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations for more information about Small to Medium Enterprises. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: National Disability Services, as the peak body for disability service providers, is looking to support providers to show leadership by employing more people with disability in their organisations. Many of these are smaller organisations with fewer HR resources than Woolworths. Have you looked at what support is required to overcome barriers specific to small to medium size workplaces?
Answer: See above response.
Question: You mention in your slides one of the challenges many organisations/companies have is actually finding suitable candidates living with disability to fill their positions. We provide a specialised recruitment service that focuses solely on placing people with disability into work. How can we work with IncludeAbility to help solve that problem for these companies you have mentioned?
Answer: In 2024 the Commission will be inviting organisations to submit Expressions of Interest to collaborate on Pilots, and work with the Commission and employing organisations to find talent and support talent as part of the Pilot Employment Program. This will be advertised on the IncludeAbility social media and networks. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: I worked with NDS NSW in 2026 on an employment pilot for Disability Support Workers based on Values based sourcing and selecting. It seems we are STILL trying to crack this nut in 2023! Will we really see a radical shift at scale versus discrete pilots/projects with great stories but minimal sustainability?
Answer: The Commission leading this project means that the findings can be shared widely and inform the policy development work that is needed. There are also new projects specifically targeting employer support through the Department of Social Services Building Employer Capacity grants and the Business Council of Australia projects just announced by the Hon Amanda Rishworth, Minister for Social Services. CSI continues to advocate to government that support to employers must be a priority if the numbers are to shift and we remain hopeful that the current environment might enable that to happen. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: Erin mentioned the Critical Friend role Swinburne held, can you explain that a little further and perhaps could someone from IncludeAbility team comment on how that role worked - was it beneficial/challenging?
Answer: The Critical Friend role enabled CSI researchers to bring evidence about ‘what works’ into the project in real time, drawing from their knowledge of the academic literature. CSI provided advice and information through fortnightly meetings that were structured like a Community of Practice, and were available at other times as required. CSI also undertook the project evaluation. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: At what level in the organisation are the roles that the people with disability from the project have been hired on?
Answer: Pilot employees were hired in varying levels, particularly in the IncludeAbility Illawarra Pilot. Most pilot employees were hired in entry level positions. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: What will the next steps be now that the pilot program has been done? Is there a way to be part of the implementation process?
Answer: The current iteration of IncludeAbility will now wrap up, and in the new year the next phase will commence with co-design workshops. The Commission will be inviting interested parties to contribute to these workshops. This will determine the implementation. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: The outcomes are incredible, did you see any specific areas of improvement that may require a pivot in the program?
Answer: The second phase of IncludeAbility will shift a greater emphasis to the pilot activity and the ‘learning by doing’. The evaluation highlights a need to also support the organisations involved in the first pilots to continue to ‘roll-out’ this model into new sites and regions, using the learnings and model of the first pilots as a prototype for this. The evaluation suggests that it is important to continue to support this roll out and to capture learnings from this scaling phase of the work within organisations. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: Are these employees on supported wage? (ie a wage below the Award level based on assessed productivity)
Answer: All employees were paid full award wages. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Have any local councils been involved in the program? If not, any potential for future involvement?
Answer: Yes – City of Syndey Council is an Employer Network Member. Stage 2 is in early stages of planning. More information will be provided in 2024. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: People on disability support pension have their benefit shaved after earning more than $180 per week, is there scope to use this program to lobby for people claiming benefits, but who also want meaningful employment, to have income limits raised so they are able to live more comfortably, ie not being stuck below the poverty line?
Answer: While the IncludeAbility Project did not aim to specifically address this issue, the Commission acknowledges that it is a significant issue in Australia. An ongoing point of advocacy for the Commission is that adequate standard of living, social security and employment are fundamental rights that cannot be addressed independently of one another.
The Commission hopes the findings from the report can contribute to policy reform such as this more broadly. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: Congrats on this terrific project. I was wondering if the evaluation only covers the pilot period or the retention of employees post-pilot period?
Answer: The evaluation only covers the pilot period. However, now that the project has been extended there is a potential opportunity to follow the employees in stage 2.0. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.
Question: How can the model used be applied to intersectional disadvantages with employment? for instance Indigenous people and disability?
Answer: This model is appropriate for any cohort that is experiencing disadvantage in relation to employment. It is also a model that encourages a partnership approach. For example, an Aboriginal Controlled Organisation could partner with a disability services provider and a large employer to create a similar outcome. Each would need to bring resources to the partnership and a willingness to work together to create a safe environment to learn. Centre for Social Impact Swinburne Representative.
Question: Great work, I'd like to know what other champion medium to large employers have been identified through the life of the project in addition to Woolworths Group?
Answer: The IncludeAbility Project worked with 17 Employers over the past three years. A list of Network Members can be found on the Meet the Employer Network page. Australian Human Rights Commission Representative.