related resources

on our site

news

Home page
> Management Advisory Committee > Employment of people with disability > Monitoring agencies’ performance > Next: Contributors
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 30 August 2006

Employment of people with disability in the APS

Chapter 6 Monitoring agencies’ performance

‘What gets measured, gets valued.’ Thus, monitoring agencies’ performance in providing employment opportunities for people with disability will be an important component of any cultural change strategy. To do that effectively, it is first necessary to establish a ‘base-line’ against which improvements can be demonstrated.

6.1 Current data

Reaching an accurate picture of that base-line is difficult to do, however, because of limitations with current APS data and data collection arrangements.

6.1.1 People with disability as a proportion of APS employees

APS figures on the employment of people with disability are drawn from APSED which, in turn, relies on data from agencies’ HR systems. That data indicates that, in 2005, the proportion of ongoing APS staff with disability was 3.8%, compared with 6.6% nearly two decades earlier (see Figure 6.1). In 1986, 9690 APS employees had a disability—out of a total of 147,081 employees; in 2005, 4642 APS employees had a disability out of 123,242 employees.¹²⁹

Figure 6.1: Proportion of ongoing staff with disability, 1 86 to 2005

Download Figure 6.1 as an Excel file

Source: APSED

6.1.2 Data limitations

However, the reporting of data on disability by APS employees to their agencies is voluntary and, as such, the APSED data can only be an approximation of the incidence of disability across the APS.

Information from other sources, including responses to an invitation issued by MAC to APS staff to participate in focus group discussions exploring reasons people choose not to disclose their disability status, as well as the staff surveys of some agencies and the annual State of the Service Employee Survey conducted by the Australian Public Service Commission, suggests the APSED data is under-reporting the actual numbers of people with disability in the APS.

Study of the reasons APS employees choose not to disclose their disability status

APSED has no information on the disability status of 31% of ongoing APS employees.¹³⁰ The non-response level is similar for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, which suggests that factors other than specific disability status may be responsible. To understand why the response rate is low, APS staff with disability who have not disclosed their disability status to their agencies were invited to contribute to a study of the reasons people choose not to disclose their disability status. To protect the privacy and anonymity of participants in the focus groups, the study was carried out by an independent consultant, Ms Jenny Oates.¹³¹ Over 100 APS employees from 15 departments responded to the invitation, of whom 25 actually participated in the focus groups.

Reasons cited by participants in that study for choosing not to disclose their disability status are outlined in Table 6.1. The most significant of those reasons, cited by 88% of participants, was concern or fear of stigma or discrimination arising from that disclosure. The second most common reason, cited by 56% of participants, was deficiencies in the way in which personal data was collected, most notably, that participants had disclosed their disability to their manager, but that information was not necessarily captured in their HR records or APSED data.

Table 6.1: Reasons for not reporting disability status

Reasons cited at focus group sessions*	% of total: n=25
Satisfied with current arrangements (3—each had a visible physical disability and currently receive assistance)	12%
Not relevant to workplace	0%
Deficiencies in way personal data is collected by agencies; reporting directly to supervisor but not reflected in APSED (14)	56%
Concerns/fear of stigma or discrimination (22)	88%
Other: Unaware condition classed as disability (2)	8%

* some participants identified more than one reason for non-disclosure.

State of the Service Employee Survey

On the other hand, the 2004 State of the Service Employee Survey, which also affords respondents anonymity, asked those who answered they had a disability: ‘Have you informed your agency of your disability?’ Only 11% responded they had chosen not to inform their agency, suggesting—in that case—that reasons other than a reluctance to volunteer the information were more significant. The 2006 State of the Service Employee Survey will again canvass this issue.

Of the APS employees who completed the State of the Service Employee Survey in 2003, 4% reported they had a disability. In 2004, 7% of respondents indicated they had a disability and in 2005 the figure was 6%. This data suggests the proportion of people with disability working in the APS in 2005 could be between 5% and 7%.¹³²

Individual agencies’ staff surveys

The results of staff surveys conducted by individual agencies also highlight discrepancies between the number of respondents who disclose a disability to those surveys, compared with the APSED data for that department for the same period. By way of illustration, staff survey information for DEST at 30 June 2005 shows 63 people chose to identify as a person with disability (based on an overall 75.2% survey response rate)—a figure that is higher than the department’s APSED figure for the same period—55 ongoing employees. On the other hand, the number of respondents to Health’s November 2005 staff survey, reporting a disability, matched the APSED figure for the department of 4.8% while the figure of 1.4% reported in the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) 2004 staff survey was lower than that reported in the department’s APSED statistical data for that period (1.8%).

These differing results from different sources indicate care needs to be taken in relying on APSED data, and that this data is likely to under-report the actual numbers of people with disability in the APS. These results also indicate the importance that agencies should put on collecting comprehensive data from staff and providing accurate data to APSED.

6.1.3 Separations and engagements of APS employees with disability

Nevertheless, APSED remains the sole source of comprehensive data on APS employees and to that extent it is the most authoritative source of data available to the review.

APSED data indicates that, for each of the past 20 years except for 1990–91 and 2002–03, separations of people with disability have consistently outnumbered engagements (Figure 6.2). In 2004–05, the engagement rate for people with disability was 2.1% of all engagements and the separation rate was 4.1%.¹³³

Compared with the earlier period, the separation rate has improved (4.1% in 2004–05 compared with 4.7% in 1985–86)¹³⁴ but there remains scope for further improvement.

Figure 6.2: Employees with disability as a proportion of ongoing separations and engagements, 1985–86 to 2004–05

Download Figure 6.2 as an Excel file

Note: The separation rate is not available for 1985–86.

Source: APSED

Notwithstanding the likely data deficiencies, the overall trend is clear—fewer people with disability are being recruited into the APS, and existing staff with disability are leaving at a faster rate than new employees are being recruited.

6.1.4 Proportion of people with disability in individual APS agencies

In 2004–05, agencies with relatively high proportions of people with disability were the Australian Public Service Commission (11.1%), Questacon (9.3%), the Department of Human Services (DHS) (8.3%) and the National Water Commission (NWC) (8.3%) (Figure 6.3).

However, these are all small agencies, employing fewer than 250 staff. Consequently, the actual number of people with disability they employ is relatively small.

Figure 6.3: Representation of employees with disability in small agencies (with fewer than 250 employees), June 2005

Agency	Per cent
Australian Public Service Commission	11.1
Questacon	9.3
Human Services	8.3
National Water Commission	8.3
Australian Industrial Registry	7.7
Australian Film Commission	7.5
AIATSIS	7.1
Australian Research Council	6.5
Federal Privacy Commissioner	6.5
Commonwealth Grants Commission	5.4
Office of National Assessments	5.3
Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare	4.3
GBRMPA	4.2
Federal Court of Australia	3.8
NOPSA	3.6
Australian War Memorial	3.3
AOFM	3.2
National Museum of Australia	3.2
Aust. Broadcasting Authority	3.1
National Blood Authority	3.1
Commonwealth Ombudsman	3.0
ITSA	2.9
National Native Title Tribunal	2.8
HREOC	2.6
National Capital Authority	2.5
ARPANSA	2.5
Royal Australian Mint	2.1
CrimTrac Agency	2.0
Aust. National Maritime Museum	2.0
Administrative Appeals Tribunal	1.8
Productivity Commission	1.6
Federal Magistrates Service	1.3
AUSTRAC	0.9
FSANZ	0.0
Office of the Parliamentary Counsel	0.0
Aust. Institute of Family Studies	0.0
Office of Film & Literature Class	0.0
ACIAR	0.0
Torres Strait Regional Authority	0.0
Professional Services Review	0.0

Download Figure 6.3 as an Excel file

Source: APSED

In 2004–05, large agencies (that is, those with more than 1000 employees) which had the highest levels of staff with disability, were those delivering services to people with disability in the community (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4: Representation of employees with disability in large agencies (with more than 1000 employees), June 2005

Agency	Per cent
Centrelink	6.3
Health & Ageing	4.8
CRS Australia	4.4
Australian Bureau of Statistics	4.3
Family & Community Services	4.2
Veterans' Affairs	4.2
Environment & Heritage	4.1
Bureau of Meteorology	4.0
DEWR	3.6
DIMIA	3.4
Australian Taxation Office	3.2
Defence	3.2
DEST	3.1
Australian Customs Service	2.8
Child Support Agency	2.7
Industry, Tourism & Resources	2.7
Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry	2.3
Foreign Affairs & Trade	1.9
Transport & Regional Services	1.8
Finance & Administration	1.3
ASIC	0.1

Download Figure 6.4 as an Excel file

Source: APSED

The proportion of staff with disability in Centrelink was 6.3%, well above the average for the APS as a whole. Centrelink delivers a wide range of services to people with disability including the payment of income support and mobility allowance.

Other large agencies with proportions of staff with disability above the APS average were Health (4.8%),¹³⁵ CRS (4.4%), ABS (4.3%), FaCSIA (4.2%), and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) (4.2%).

The better performance by these agencies is almost certainly linked to their core business functions and the greater awareness and more supportive culture that has developed as a consequence of those functions.

However, in more than half of the largest APS agencies, the proportion of employees with disability was lower than the APS average of 3.8%.

In medium agencies, fewer than one agency in five reached the APS average. The medium agency with the highest proportion of employees with disability was the Family Court of Australia (Family Court) (6.6%) (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5: Representation of employees with disability in medium agencies (with 250 to 1000 employees), June 2005

Agency	Per cent
Family Court of Australia	6.6
Commonwealth DPP	4.3
Aust. Communications Authority	4.0
National Archives of Australia	3.5
National Library of Australia	3.4
Comcare	3.2
Aboriginal Hostels Ltd.	2.7
MRT/RRT	2.3
Prime Minister & Cabinet	2.2
Treasury	2.2
AusAID	1.9
Attorney-General's	1.8
IP Australia	1.7
ACCC	1.5
Communications, IT & the Arts	1.1
Geoscience Australia	0.9
ComSuper	0.9
Defence Housing Authority	0.8
ANAO	0.7
Australian Crime Commission	0.6
Australian Electoral Commission	0.1

Download Figure 6.5 as an Excel file

Source: APSED

6.2 Reasons for decline in numbers of APS staff with disability

6.2.1 APS organisational and structural changes

The decline in the numbers of APS employees with disability has been a consequence of APS organisational and structural changes over the past two decades, including:

• declining numbers of APS 1–2 positions
• outsourcing of corporate services such as mail handling, printing, and cleaning
• emphasis on a more educated workforce
• broadbanding and multiskilling
• greater focus on individual performance
• the impact of self-reporting on data collection.

Declining numbers of APS 1 and 2 positions

The number of APS 1–2 employees has fallen significantly over the past 20 years. In 1986, 44.2% of the total APS workforce were at the APS 1–2 levels (64,985 out of 147,081 employees) compared with 5.2% in 2005 (6353 out of 123,242 employees).¹³⁶

Employees with disability historically have been over-represented in the APS 1–2 classification groups.¹³⁷ Hence the long-term decline in the number of positions at these levels has disproportionately affected the APS employment opportunities open to people with disability.

Outsourcing

The decline in the number of APS 1–2 positions reflects, among other things, changes in the nature of the work undertaken in the APS and the outsourcing of functions that traditionally employed high numbers of staff at these levels, such as mail room, printing and cleaning services.

Readily available data on the outsourcing of these functions is limited. However, data from the 2004 and 2005 State of the Service Agency Surveys indicates that in each of the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 around 30% of agencies finalised new outsourcing contracts or contract extensions¹³⁸ in regard to some aspects of ‘other corporate services’. Around 40% of those agencies reported their outsourcing activity was in relation to those functions (outlined above) which traditionally employed people with disability.¹³⁹

It is likely that contractors providing outsourced services to the APS will provide employment opportunities to people with disability who will have formerly been directly employed by the APS, but the actual numbers are impossible to quantify.

More educated workforce, broadbanding and multiskilling

However, the continuing decline in the number of APS employees with disability cannot be entirely attributed to the decline in the number of APS 1 and 2 positions.

The decline in the proportion of employees with disability is obvious at all classification levels (including ongoing APS 1 and 2), with the most obvious decline at the APS 3–4 and APS 5–6 levels (Figure 6.6). In 1986, employees with disability occupied 7.2% of APS 3–4, and 6.3% of APS 5–6 positions, while in 2005, employees with disability occupied 4.1% and 3.4% respectively. The proportion of employees with disability in EL positions also fell from 6.0% in 1986 to 3.4% in 2005.

Figure 6.6: Representation of ongoing employees with disability by classification group, 1986 to 2005

Download Figure 6.6 as an Excel file

Source: APSED

The declining numbers of employees with disability at those levels can partly be explained by the APS move to a ‘graduate’ workforce. Almost half of ongoing staff and two-thirds of new recruits in 2004 had graduate qualifications.¹⁴⁰ However, APS employees with disability are less likely to have graduate qualifications than are other employees. At June 2005, 41.5% of employees with disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 49.9%.¹⁴¹ But while the difference in qualifications is likely to be a relevant historical factor, it will become less relevant over time as numbers of higher education students with disability increase.¹⁴²

The increased APS emphasis on an educated workforce has been accompanied by a gradual compression of the classification structure. More than 55% of new recruits outside Canberra now enter the APS at the APS 3 or 4 levels.¹⁴³ Increasingly, new recruits at those levels with prior experience will have an advantage over applicants without that experience. However, applicants with disability are less likely to have obtained part-time employment during the course of their studies, thus making it difficult for them to demonstrate their claims against the selection criteria.

APS positions are also increasingly filled by experienced mature-age workers, making it more difficult for applicants with disability to compete. More than 40% of new APS starters in 2003–04 were aged 35 or over, in contrast to fewer than 20% two decades ago. In 2003–04, almost half of recruits in this age group entered at the APS 5 level or higher. Similarly, more than 35% of EL and SES employees have worked in the APS for less than 10 years, with half of these joining the APS when aged 35 or over.¹⁴⁴

The increased focus on multiskilling and broadbanding of APS classifications has also had an impact. Multiskilling and broadbanding have been accompanied by broad selection criteria and the expectation that applicants are not only qualified for the duties in question, but also have the capacity and potential to fill all positions within the broadband. Those expectations discourage applications from suitably qualified applicants with disability who cannot objectively determine whether they could meet the requirements of the advertised position.

Focus on individual performance

Changes to the APS classification structure have also been accompanied by a greater APS focus on individual performance and productivity. That focus has, among other things, resulted in APS employees with disability, particularly at the APS 3–4 and 5–6 levels, being more likely than other staff to receive redundancy packages.¹⁴⁵

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that staff with disability feel ‘targeted’ for redundancy offers and ‘pressured into’ accepting those offers.¹⁴⁶

Data collection and self-reporting

A contributing factor to the apparent decline in the numbers of people with disability in the APS is the tendency of some APS employees with disability not to report their disability status.

The results of the study of the reasons people choose not to disclose their disability status, undertaken as part of this review,¹⁴⁷ suggest more could be done by agencies to improve their present data collection arrangements by encouraging a more accepting and supportive environment for people with disability which dispels concerns about discrimination and encourages greater self-reporting.

Resort to strategies for recruiting people with disability

Table 6.2 details the use made by agencies in 2004–05 of strategies to recruit people with disability under the decentralised employment arrangements devolved to agency heads on the enactment of the Public Service Act 1999.

Table 6.2: Agency strategies to recruit people with disability, 2004 to 2005

Recruitment strategy	Number of agencies (N = 82)
	in place	being developed	not in place
Special employment measures limiting employment opportunities only to persons with intellectual disability	1	0	81
Working with organisations that specialise in placing people with disability in employment	21	3	58
Providing opportunities for people with disability to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme	5	3	74
Providing assistance during the application process	48	3	31
Appropriate accommodation made to any testing situation	40	0	42
Training of selection panels in appropriate interviewing methods for people with disability	20	7	55
Providing information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace	53	0	29
Seeking expert assessments on reasonable adjustment in relation to specific cases	38	0	44
Other	6	0	76

Source: State of the Service Report 2004–05, p. 218.

Twenty-one of the 82 agencies worked with organisations specialising in placing people with disability in employment; 48 provided assistance during the application process; and 53 provided information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace. However, only five agencies provided opportunities for people with disability to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme in 2004–05 and only one agency used the special employment measures for people with intellectual disability.¹⁴⁸ The absence of current guidance for agencies in administering those measures (outlined in Chapter 3) may have contributed to the decline in the numbers of APS employees with intellectual disability.¹⁴⁹

The Public Service Commissioner (in consultation with other relevant agencies) will issue a circular to advise agencies about the availability of the existing special employment measures to raise awareness and usage.

6.3 Overseas and interstate comparisons

While a direct comparison is hard to make, the APS performance in employing people with disability does not fare well in comparison to that of international, as well as State and Territory, public sectors. Internationally, the APS employs a smaller proportion of people with disability than the New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States and Canadian public sectors. Locally, it trails the Queensland, Tasmanian, Victorian, New South Wales and ACT public sectors (see Appendix 3 for details).

6.4 Perceptions of APS staff with disability

The 2005 State of the Service Employee Survey also highlights differences between the perceptions of existing APS staff with disability and those without disability.

The survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement: My agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with disability; 57% of respondents without disability agreed with the statement, compared with 47% of respondents with disability. This difference is consistent with the views of employees in other EEO groups, where members of the EEO group were more likely to believe their agency should be doing more to support them than were other employees.

The survey also asked whether employees thought their agency needed to do more or less to support the employment, development and promotion of people with disability; 51% of people with disability felt their agency needed to do more to support them, compared with 31% of people without disability.¹⁵⁰

Other statistically significant differences between the two groups included:

• 66% of respondents without disability (compared with 55% of respondents with disability) were proud to work in their current agency
• 46% of respondents without disability (compared with 31% of respondents with disability) were satisfied with the overall say they had in decisions that impacted on their work
• 70% of respondents without disability (compared with 59% of respondents with disability) agreed that, generally speaking, the most senior managers in their agency act in accordance with the APS Values
• 78% of respondents without disability (compared with 65% of respondents with disability) agreed they receive appropriate training and/or have access to information that enables them to meet their client service responsibilities
• 44% of respondents without disability (compared with 34% of respondents with disability) agreed their most recent performance review would help them to perform well
• 68% of respondents without disability (compared with 57% of respondents with disability) agreed their workplace culture supported people to achieve a good work–life balance.¹⁵¹

People with disability were also more likely to disagree that their agency routinely applied merit in a number of employment decisions, including the engagement and promotion of staff, transfers from other agencies, transfers within agencies and temporary higher duties.

Whilst job satisfaction for people with disability has increased over the past few years, it is still significantly lower than for people without disability (although the six percentage point difference in 2004–05 is not statistically different).¹⁵² One quarter of people with disability selected career development as one of the most important job satisfaction factors (compared to 35% of people without disability).

However, people with disability reported higher levels of dissatisfaction with this factor. Similar proportions of people with and without disability included provision of regular feedback and recognition of effort and chances to be innovative and creative¹⁵³ in their most important factors; nevertheless, people with disability reported higher levels of dissatisfaction with these factors. Participants in focus groups conducted as part of this review also cited a lack of career development opportunities, particularly where employees required reasonable adjustments such as part-time hours, as a concern.

Significantly fewer respondents with disability had applied for a job in the APS in the last year. Of those who did apply, 89% applied for a promotion (compared with 73% of people without disability). Of these employees, 22% were offered the job compared to 37% of respondents without disability.¹⁵⁴

In summary, compared to people without disability, APS employees with disability tend to experience lower levels of overall job satisfaction, have lower levels of success when applying for jobs, and have lower perceptions of merit-based selection processes.¹⁵⁵ Employees with disability also are more likely to report that they have less access to leadership development opportunities. These results suggest APS managers could do more to improve employment opportunities for people with disability.

6.5 Defining disability

6.5.1 Definition of ‘disability’

One reason why it is difficult to make comparisons across the whole of the APS and, ultimately, to accurately measure agencies’ performance in employing and retaining people with disability, is that there is no single definition of ‘disability’ used by agencies to develop recruitment and retention polices or to collect employee data.

The literature on the different definitions of ‘disability’ and their impact on policies, programmes and data collection arrangements is extensive.¹⁵⁶ Much of it is beyond the scope of this report. Instead, the focus here is on two issues:

1. what definition of ‘disability’ should the APS use to develop APS recruitment and retention policies?
2. what definition of ‘disability’ should the APS use for employee data collection?

For APS recruitment and retention policies

To ensure a consistent conceptual framework for developing APS recruitment and retention policies, agencies are to adopt the definition of ‘disability’ in section 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in developing those policies.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 defines disability as follows:

disability, in relation to a person, means:

1. total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions
2. total or partial loss of a part of the body
3. the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness
4. the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness
5. the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body
6. a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction
7. a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour and includes a disability that:
8. presently exists
9. previously existed but no longer exists
10. may exist in the future
11. is imputed to a person.¹⁵⁷

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is the most relevant Australian Government legislative framework related to disability, and the definition of disability it adopts is deliberately broad and inclusive. The aim of the definition is to ensure cases brought under the Act focus on the alleged discrimination rather than becoming bogged down contesting the applicant’s disability status. The definition is also consistent with a ‘social model’ approach highlighting physical and attitudinal barriers while, at the same time, based on a medical approach that includes a mix of impairments, diseases and disorders.¹⁵⁸

For employee data collection

However, while the breadth of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 definition ensures it is conceptually strong and thus appropriate to guide overall policy and direction, it can be difficult to operationalise at the practical process of data collection. It would be difficult, for example, to collect data on disabilities ‘imputed to a person’.

For this reason, agencies are to use the definition of disability adopted by the ABS in its 2003 Disability, Ageing and Carers Survey, to collect data and statistical information from APS employees. That definition provides the basis for the most recent data used by analysts in Australia. Its comprehensiveness and clarity make it easy to use in practice and thus provides the best opportunity to maximise self-reporting.¹⁵⁹

According to the ABS definition:

… a person has a disability if they report that they have a limitation, restriction or impairment, which has lasted, or is likely to last, for at least 6 months and restricts everyday activities. This includes:

• loss of sight (not corrected by glasses or contact lenses)
• loss of hearing where communication is restricted, or an aid to assist with, substitute for, hearing is used
• speech difficulties
• shortness of breath or breathing difficulties causing restriction
• chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort causing restriction
• blackouts, fits, or loss of consciousness
• difficulty learning or understanding
• incomplete use of arms or fingers
• difficulty gripping or holding things
• incomplete use of feet or legs
• nervous or emotional condition causing restriction
• restriction in physical activities or in doing physical work
• disfigurement or deformity
• mental illness or condition requiring help or supervision
• long-term effects of head injury, stroke or other brain damage causing restriction
• receiving treatment or medication for any other long-term conditions or ailments and still restricted
• any other long-term conditions resulting in a restriction.¹⁶⁰

In adopting both the Disability Discrimination Act and the ABS 2003 definitions of disability, this report acknowledges the views expressed about the perceived inherent problems with both definitions. Some peak representative groups do not agree that the Disability Discrimination Act definition reflects a social model.¹⁶¹

Others feel that neither definition adequately covers depression and related illnesses such as anxiety and other behavioural and emotional disorders.¹⁶²

On balance, however, the current Disability Discrimination Act and ABS 2003 definitions are preferred as they do appear sufficiently broad to cover all medical conditions, whether or not readily diagnosed or recognised and it is undesirable to develop yet another definition of disability.

6.5.2 APS data collection arrangements

To ensure consistent APS-wide data collection, and to allow meaningful comparisons of that data across the APS as a whole, agencies are to collect details of the disability status of their employees, by asking the following two questions:

Question one ‘Do you have a disability?’ [referring respondents to the ABS definition of disability as proposed on the sample page following]	Yes / No
Question two ‘Do you have an ongoing disability that requires a work-related adjustment?’	Yes / No

Incorporating both questions allows agencies to differentiate between the numbers of staff who identify themselves as having a disability and the numbers whose disability requires reasonable adjustments to be made to the workplace. They allow agencies to identify the steps they need to take to support their employees with disability. Having the second question, alone, is not recommended because some people with disability not requiring immediate work-related adjustment, such as people with depression or other episodic illness, may not feel encouraged to report their disability.

To encourage employees to identify, agencies are to not only ask for this information when the employee is first engaged, but to regularly offer employees the opportunity to update their status.

Some participants in the focus groups carried out as part of this review indicated that, although they had responded ‘YES’ to the question of whether or not they had a disability, there was no follow up by their respective agencies. Agencies should follow up all employees who report a disability, to ensure their reasonable adjustment needs are identified and that they are familiar with the support arrangements available to them.¹⁶³

6.5.3 APSED data collection

The Australian Public Service Commission will continue to collect data on APS employees with disability from individual agencies, through existing APSED arrangements. APSED will also adapt its definition to match the ABS definition of disability. The two definitions are very similar, hence time series comparisons will not be compromised.

Some APS agency representatives suggested it might be more desirable for APS employees to provide their individual information directly to the Australian Public Service Commission (rather than through their agencies) as employees may be more likely to reveal their disability in those circumstances. This approach is not recommended. Monitoring workforce trends is an agency responsibility. In addition, the value of the information, on balance, is that it allows agencies to identify those staff who may require reasonable adjustments and to arrange those adjustments directly with them. Hence agencies are encouraged to foster a culture within the organisation in which employees with disability feel comfortable disclosing their disability.

While, for the reasons outlined above, direct data collection by agencies is preferable, the Australian Public Service Commission is considering supplementing agencies’ collection of voluntary data, including disability status.¹⁶⁴ The Commission could contact APS employees for whom the voluntary data variables in APSED have not been provided (about 30% of APS employees overall). It is anticipated that this supplementary data collection, in order to improve the quality and integrity of APSED data, would be an annual exercise,¹⁶⁵ and that the data collected will be provided to agencies.¹⁶⁶

6.5.4 Advising staff why disability data is collected and how it is used

A consistent definition of disability will not, by itself, overcome the under-reporting of disability. Staff (particularly those with mental illness) can be reluctant to identify they have a disability because of past experience with, or fear of, discrimination. The experience of the Mental Health Council of Australia, for example, is that in the past 12 months every person who contacted the Council, who was suffering a psychiatric disorder and had disclosed their disability, had suffered some form of discrimination.¹⁶⁷ The results of the study undertaken as part of this review of the reasons people choose not to disclose their disability status (detailed in Chapter 6) confirm these findings.

Cultural change that results in a more accepting and supportive environment for employees with disability should result in greater self-reporting over time.

In the meantime, a clear written statement about why personal and employment data (including data on disability) is being collected and how it will be used, will go some way to addressing the existing concerns of people with disability around disclosure. Information Privacy Principle 2, set out in section 15 of the Privacy Act 1988, requires that agencies take steps to ensure employees are generally aware of those matters. Calls for a written statement of this nature were made often enough in focus groups to indicate that employees are likely to find a written confirmation reassuring.

Agencies are to incorporate a written statement of this nature when collecting information from employees. The Australian Public Service Commission’s information sheet, Your Privacy and the Australian Public Service Employment Database (APSED),¹⁶⁸ will assist agencies in developing a written statement that is specific to their particular circumstances.

6.6 Measuring progress—the goal of ‘continuous improvement’

Agencies are being asked to demonstrate continuous improvement in recruiting and retaining people with disability.¹⁶⁹

6.6.1 Is there a role for targets?

The view of some of those consulted as part of this review (including some employees with disability, representatives of disability advocacy groups, private sector employers and officers of State government organisations) is that there is unlikely to be a significant increase in the numbers of employees with disability in the APS until specific targets or benchmarks are set and pursued seriously and systematically by individual agencies.¹⁷⁰

One of the strengths of pursuing a target is the significant role this plays in achieving cultural change by raising awareness and advancing the valuable contribution employees with disability can make.

On the other hand, a major difficulty is determining what that target should be.

Some organisations (including IBM) set a target that reflects the proportion of people with disability in the total population (currently around 20%). Others set different targets. In 1997, the NSW Government announced a ‘benchmark’ of 12% of employees with disability, and 7% of employees requiring some sort of work-related adjustment. In 2005, the ACT Government announced a 50% ‘target’ for graduates with disability in its 2006 graduate intake.¹⁷¹

There is also the risk a focus on achieving a target may come at the expense of truly effective steps to address the underlying issue. European experience suggests some organisations meet targets by employing people with ‘minor’ disability at the expense of people with more ‘serious’ disability that requires more complex and focused attention.¹⁷² Similarly, targets may also contribute to underemployment, that is, employing people with disability simply to ‘boost the numbers’ rather than appointing them to a position which closely matches their demonstrated skills and ability.

Another difficulty is the issue of sanctions to be imposed if targets are not met, particularly the nature of penalties that can be appropriately applied to public sector agencies. While the damage to the reputation of an agency which failed to meet a target could, on occasions, be a powerful ‘sanction’, on balance, the setting of a target was not considered practical.

6.7 Reporting progress

Australian and overseas experience suggests regular reporting on, and monitoring of, organisational performance contributes to effective cultural transformation and attitudinal change.¹⁷³

The 2005 State of the Service Agency and Employee Surveys incorporated a number of questions relating to the employment of people with disability.¹⁷⁴ Responses to surveys of this kind provide useful insights into the numbers of employees with disability in the APS, as well as useful qualitative information on the barriers and difficulties experienced by people with disability and current practices and strategies to address them.

The Australian Public Service Commission will continue to survey agencies and APS employees on issues relating to disability and the Public Service Commissioner will report on the recruitment and retention of employees with disability in the State of the Service Report.

In light of the outcomes of the 2008–09 State of the Service Report, the Management Advisory Committee, through the Australian Public Service Commission, will review the achievements and progress of APS agencies at that time.

 

129. APSED.
130. Australian Public Service Commission, Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 111.
131. Jenny Oates and Associates Pty Ltd.
132. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 12. Note: As the State of the Service Employee Survey is a sample survey, the results are subject to sampling error. Sampling error can be estimated mathematically and one way to measure it is the standard error. There are about 19 chances in 20 that a sample estimate will be within two standard errors of the true population value. This is known as the 95% Confidence Interval. In this case we are 95% confident the estimate of APS employees who would report having a disability in 2005 is between 5% and 7% (an estimate of 6% and a confidence interval of +/-1% based on a standard error of 0.5%).
133. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Table 9.12, p. 215.
134. APSED.
135. The figure for Health includes the Therapeutic Goods Administration (with 15 out of 545 employees reporting a disability). If the Therapeutic Goods Administration was reported separately, the Health figure would increase to 5.1%.
136. APSED.
137. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 213–14.
138. Of contracts worth more than $100,000 (departmental funds) or $5 million (administered funds) over the life of the contract.
139. In 2003–04, of the 26 agencies that reported that they had finalised new outsourcing contracts or contract extensions in regard to some aspect of ‘other corporate services’, 10 agencies (38%) reported that their outsourcing activity was in relation to those functions outlined above that traditionally employed people with disability. In 2004–05, 23 agencies (28%) reported they had finalised new outsourcing contracts or contract extensions in regard to some aspect of ‘other corporate services’. Of those agencies, nine agencies (39%) reported that their outsourcing activity was in relation to those functions outlined above that traditionally employed people with disability (Australian Public Service Commission 2004, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results— Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra).
140. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 10, 18.
141. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 214.
142. In 1996, 1.9% (11,656) of 600,061 students reported a disability. In 2004, that number had increased to 3.7% (24,593) (cited in Department of Education, Science and Technology 2006, Commencing and All Domestic Students by Equity Group, 1995 to 2004 (Appendix 3.1)).
143. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 20.
144. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 17–21.
145. Figures collected by the Australian Public Service Commission in 2005 indicate employees with disability are 60% more likely than other staff to be retrenched. This is, in part, a result of the high proportion of people with disability employed at lower classification levels and the high proportion of retrenchments at these levels.
146. Focus group discussions and consultations with employment agencies and other advocacy organisations that participated in this review (November 2005–February 2006).
147. See the discussion in Chapter 6 of this report.
148. Australian Public Service Commission, Public Service Act 1999 Advice No 3: Special Employment Measures <http://www.apsc.gov.au/ circulars/psa99advice3.htm> as amended by APSC Circular No. 2000/7: Amendments to the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions <http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular007.htm>
149. Clause 4.2(6)(b)(ii) of the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999.
150. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 221.
151. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
152. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 222. Also discussed in J. Graffam et al 2005, Keeping Quality People Engaged: Workforce Satisfaction within the Disability Employment Industry, Deakin University, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences.
153. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 26.
154. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 3.
155. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Employee Survey Results—Unpublished Data, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 3, 25 and 27.
156. Examples of this literature include R. Madden and T. Hogan 1997, The Definition of Disability in Australia: Moving Towards National Consistency, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Canberra; AIHW 2003, Disability Prevalence and Trends—Disability Series, AIHW, Canberra; Productivity Commission 2004, Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Report No. 30, Vol. 1, pp. 297–303; N. Meager and J. Hurstfield, ‘Legislating for Equality: Evaluating the Disability Discrimination Act 1995’ (pp. 75–89) and A. Daniel and C. Woodhams, ‘Disability Frameworks and Monitoring Disability in Local Authorities: A Challenge for the Proposed Disability Discrimination Bill’ (pp. 91–105) in A. Roulstone and C. Barnes (eds) 2005, Working Futures? Disabled People, Policy and Social Inclusion, The Policy Press, University of Bristol.
157. Section 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 <http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/311/0/PA000080.htm>
158. A key concern in defining disability is the extent to which a particular definition is seen as focusing unduly on a ‘medical’ or ‘deficit’ model at the expense of a more empowering and inclusive ‘social’ model which describes discrimination in terms of physical and attitudinal barriers to participation. For a discussion of the social versus medical definitions of disability, see Productivity Commission 2004, Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Report No. 30, Vol. 1, p. 298.
159. The ABS approach, which according to many respondents to this review is arguably based on a purely ‘medical’ or ‘deficit’ model, is that of a simple yes/no structure leading respondents into various categories of severity according to how much their disability affects their lives (without necessarily any explicit reference to the broader social context offered by the DDA 1992 framework). For instance, it gathers information on whether the disability restricts ‘core activities’, ‘non-core activities’, or both, where ‘core activities’ are mobility, self-care and communication and ‘non-core activities’ are employment and schooling. In this respect, the ABS categories align closely with the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) structure which ‘defines disability as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions’, denoting ‘the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environment and personal factors)’, cited in ABS, Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings 2003 (2004), p. 72.
160. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings 2003, Glossary, pp. 72–3, Catalogue No. 4430.0, ABS, Canberra.
161. Interviews with consultants and various peak disability groups conducted as part of this review (November 2005–February 2006).
162. Interviews with peak disability groups (November 2005–February 2006). The 2004 Productivity Commission Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Report No. 30, Vol. 1, p. 299 refers to comments made by the Mental Health Council of Australia and beyondblue in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 definition.
163. Consideration was given to the option of asking two sub-questions in the case of respondents who say ‘YES’ to the question ‘Do you have a disability …?’ If yes, please specify the nature of disability using the definitional categories provided, by ticking from the list the conditions related to your disability (ies)’; and/or: If yes, ‘Is your disability age related? Yes/No’. Currently, some agencies are unable to respond effectively to the needs of their employees with disability because they do not have enough relevant information on the nature of those disabilities. Responses to both these questions could better equip agencies to make more informed choices in improving the employment circumstances of their employees (for example, by devoting resources to education and support on mental illness if responses indicated a significant proportion of their employees experienced mental illness). However, given the privacy concerns raised by such questions, as well as the existing reluctance by employees to self-report their disability, this report takes the view a high degree of cultural and attitudinal change is necessary before such specific questions could be pursued. This approach could be reviewed in three to five years from implementation of this report’s recommendations.
164. Voluntary data variables are diversity details, educational qualifications and previous workforce status.
165. The frequency of supplementary data collection will be reviewed after the initial exercise. It is expected that over time the improved quality of data provided by agencies will make such exercises redundant.
166. APS> employees contacted for the supplementary data collection exercise will be advised that if they choose to provide their data it will be given to their agencies.
167. Interview with the Mental Health Council of Australia for this review (March 2006).
168. <http://www.apsc.gov.au/apsed/privacy.htm>
169. A key element in demonstrating continuous improvement is the ability to measure existing performance so as to assist management to plan for further improvement. However, the literature notes that performance measurement in general, and monitoring disability in particular, can be a complex exercise due to a number of variables, including the need to monitor the group of employees with disability at regular intervals in order to identify changes in status as many employees are likely to pass in or out of the group during their working lives; the difficulty in gathering data on impairments that are frequently hidden and seen as ‘personal’; and the complications deriving from varying perceptions and definitions of disability, particularly given that not all employees with impairment see themselves as having a disability. For a discussion of performance indicators and measurements and continuous improvement monitoring, see Daniel and Woodhams 2005, ‘Disability Frameworks and Monitoring Disability in Local Authorities: A Challenge for the Proposed Disability Discrimination Bill’; A. Halachmi 2005, ‘Performance Measurement: Test the Water Before You Dive In’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 71, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 255–66; M. Dubnick 2005, ‘Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms’, Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, March 2005, pp. 376–417; R. Boyle 2005, Civil Service Performance Indicators, CPMR Discussion Paper No. 29, Institute of Public Administration, Dublin; M. Armstrong 2006, Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines, 3rd edn, Kogan Page, London.
170. Interviews and focus group discussions for this review (November 2005–March 2006).
171. See the discussion of the ACT Government’s 2006 graduate recruitment process in Chapter 3 of this report.
172. Anecdotal evidence raised in consultations for this review, including discussions with ACROD–National Industry Association for Disability Services (January–March 2006).
173. One useful example, which may inform the reporting and self-monitoring of agencies, is the Disability Standard developed in 2005 by The Employers’ Forum on Disability in the United Kingdom. See The Employers’ Forum on Disability 2005, The Disability Standard 2005: Benchmark Report Summary.
174. Australian Public Service Commission 2005, State of the Service Report 2004–05, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Public Service Commission   A-Z index   Privacy, legal & copyright   Contact us
This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/mac/disability6.htm