Support Needs Assessment - Accreditation of Assessors

Question

Senator STEELE-JOHN: Because we have an opportunity to get a snapshot of where we are now before we further expand the process. Senator McAllister: It's an important line of questioning, but can I just prompt Mr Verlin to, in the briefest of terms, indicate how this built on the desktop assessment, which has been another part of the validation process. Mr Verlin: Certainly. We've undertaken around 7,000 desktop reviews, essentially, with agency staff looking at information on the files for existing participants. There were no live-to-live simulations that were occurring. What then commenced was our live simulations directly, and, as I said, they were really around three things: one was about participant experience; two was a core part about undertaking the accreditation for our assessors; and three was about validation of the support needs assessment model. As I said, we've achieved 290 to date, but that is certainly ramping up now that we have additional time. Senator STEELE-JOHN: For people following along at home, when we're talking about 'live to live', we're talking about talking to people, aren't we? Mr Verlin: human to human interaction. Senator STEELE-JOHN: And desktop is a human being sitting down and looking at the data on the file, but they don't actually interact with the person. Mr Verlin: Spot on. Senator STEELE-JOHN: Okay. Who are those individuals conducting those simulations? Mr Verlin: The assessors are agency staff. We have now ramped up our additional assessor capability. Part of undertaking the simulations-and the participants are aware of this when they come into the design hub. They are aware that this activity is being undertaken as part of accrediting the assessor or that this part is actually being undertaken by an accredited assessor to start to work through. There are two separate, different assessments. To be accredited through the consortium, our assessors have to have undertaken an I-CAN with a participant, so we need to be really clear about which testing is being undertaken. Senator STEELE-JOHN: I think there might be a little bit of confusion here, because we've got the simulations work being done by the design hub and we've got the desktop reviews, as the minister mentioned. As I understand, there's also been a third process underway, which is to test the validity and experience of the I-CAN tool, and that's not a simulation being done by the design hub; it's another process that participants have been involved in. Is there that third process? Mr Verlin: Yes, but that's been conducted through the design hub. The design hub is just the area and the function that may actually undertake those various activities. When we engage with participants and seek their nomination, we let them know which piece of training they are undertaking. Senator STEELE-JOHN: Let's clear this up then, because we've got a couple of things going on at once. We've got desktop reviews, of which there have been 7,000. We've got the design hub simulations, of which there have been 290, and then we've got a third category, which is- Mr Verlin: That's the accreditation of the assessors that's being undertaken. Some of those would be included in the 290 because they're being undertaken with the participants. I can give you a breakdown of those when we provide that information to you. Senator STEELE-JOHN: Please do that.

Answer

Please see attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• NDIA SQ26-000156.pdf (opens in a new tab)