Merna - Part IV

Part IV – Jobs for the boys

Again in this blog I will be inviting readers to contact me if they have any information that might assist. Every piece of information will help make a difference.

In Part III of our blog, in our quest searching for answers why care services were not delivered to Merna on the evening she drowned after being left unsupervised in a bathtub, I suggested that I did not know if the reason was because of a lack of funding, indicating that it was all speculation at that time. See extract below taken from the 26 October 2019 update in Part III;

“Whilst there is nothing wrong with having lavish all expenses paid celebrations, there certainly is something wrong if you are celebrating with NDIS funding at the expense of not being able to deliver the services to the client in accordance with their NDIS plan simply because there is not enough funds to go around.

This at the present time is all speculation on my part as to the reasons why the services are not being delivered in accordance with the AFFORD quotations to provide such services, and to that end I shall be briefly examining their financial statements very soon to see if this is in fact the case.”

Therefore from the 26th of October 2019, and well before the release of the AFFORD 2019 Annual Report found on the AFFORD website, AFFORD management have affectively been on notice that their next annual report to be released will be put under some scrutiny.

Whether or not this impending scrutiny had some influence on the contents of the latest 2019 report I do not know at this point, but there are some changes I am concerned may have been made with the intent to act as a smoke screen. After all AFFORD management has a history of creating smoke screens.

After a quick glance at the AFFORD 2019 Annual Report I noticed a small change in some information presented in this 2019 report that essentially had remained the same from 2015 – 2018. Why the sudden change? I found it suspicious given the timing of the change coinciding immediately after the earlier warning I had given, prior to publication of the report, that the report will be scrutinised. Additionally my suspicions were further aroused with these changes because I have already had some reports that AFFORD management had pushed workers out and was providing “jobs for the boys (and girls)”.

When looking through the AFFORD annual reports for the periods 2012 – 2019 there is a striking difference in the presentation of the annual reports from 2015 onwards. From 2015 onwards the annual reports suddenly look like a brightly coloured and glossy professional advertising promotion. The inclusion from 2015 onward of the “NDIS” theme in the annual reports is noticeable.

You can read the AFFORD annual reports here:

https://www.afford.com.au/about/afford-publications/

Prior to 2015 the annual reports had just one or two colours in the theme but more importantly they appeared just like one would expect an annual report to look like. Certainly they did NOT look like professional marketing material.

I was left wondered what the significant event was that made everything change from 2015 onwards.

Noticeably in the annual reports from 2015, and in each and every report until 2019 there has been the inclusion of 3 members in the executive management group not seen before; namely Steven Herald, Stephanie Forsyth and Christina Emmanouel. These 3 were accompanied by their ID photograph and underneath a small narration about their history and current positions with AFFORD

It’s uncanny that these 3 new executive managers have featured in a number of reports I have received where the allegation is that the CEO, Steven Herald, has given these other two people high paying executive management positions not because of their academic backgrounds but simply because they were his friends and provided him with much needed loyal support. I would be really interested if any readers can shed some light on this allegation.

This allegation of stacking the deck with power brokers is a common theme and one I have had dealings with before at a totally different level but nevertheless involving registered charitable organisations and millions of dollars at stake.

In the 2015 annual report, it stated that Steven Herald started with AFFORD in April of that year. In this report and in each and every year after and including the 2019 report, narration under his ID photograph indicated that he previously held roles with Flight Centre, Mister Minit and Hoyts.

There was no indication of when Stephanie Forsyth and Christina Emmanouel started with AFFORD in the 2015 report, however seeing that they both did not feature in any previous reports before the 2015 edition, this indicated to me that it was likely they also started with AFFORD at around the same time as Steven Herald in 2015 and certainly before the 2015 edition was printed and released on the website. Based on the information provided to me, Steven Herald started at AFFORD before the other 2 and not the other way around.

However, referring to the small change I noticed and mentioned above, where suddenly there is a noticeable change in the latest report of 2019, it was in the narration under Steven Herald’s ID photograph where the change occurred. There is now a declaration that he started at AFFORD in 2016 and that he previously worked at Civic Disability. Since 2015 and in every annual report after that up to an including the 2018 annual report, it has always stated that Steven Herald started at AFFORD in 2015 and in this section there has never been a mention that he previously worked for Civic Disability, even though each year since he started it was stated that he previously worked for Flight Centre, Mister Minit and Hoyts

STEVEN HERALD B. Bus, CA

Chief Executive Officer

Steven joined Afford in April 2016 as Chief Executive Officer following a similar role with Civic Disability Services Limited

So whoever prepared this latest annual report, the 2019 issue, has got it all wrong with regards to who started first and I want to know why? Why suddenly is there a declaration that he started with AFFORD in 2016 and why is it now stated under his ID photograph that he previously worked for Civic Disability when this has never been stated here before ? If any readers can offer any information to assist, please contact me.

As previously advised, we will be taking a brief look at the lack of funding issue as a possible reason for not providing proper care services to Merna, because to be fair it might be a legitimate reason why the care services purchased from AFFORD by Merna through NDIS funding was not delivered that said evening.

On the other hand if a lack of funding is NOT the issue, then equally it is beneficial to know that for many sensible reasons.

One reason might be the possibility of AFFORD’s management being negligent in their duties.  Given AFFORD’s unwillingness to provide an explanation to Ms Petrus of what happened to her daughter and also a willingness to provide false details to Perry Duffin, the AAP news reporter about what happened, one must seriously wonder why this was so?

If a lack of funding is one of the reasons why the care service was not delivered to Merna when she needed this service most, it would not be unreasonable to assume that this lack of funding problem existed across the board and the whole organisation experienced the same lack of funding problem.

I would be interested to know amongst other things, the rates of pay for the senior management at AFFORD and what bonuses they might get? Can anyone help me here with that information?

****** Update 16 April 2020 ******

For several months we have been waiting for the release of AFFORD’s 2019 financial statements to the Australian Charities and Non-for-Profit Commission that were due on 31 January 2020.

We want to do some basic investigations into their financials.

The AFFORD 2019 Annual Report is nearly 3 months late and I am left wondering what the reason is seeing that the CEO Steven Herald is a Chartered Accountant and the Chairman, Ross Fowler is the principal of a Penrith-based firm of Chartered Accountants.

We will do some number crunching of the AFFORD financials when the latest official figures have been released.

It should be noted that AFFORD has released the AFFORD annual report for 2019 on their website, but this release takes on a different form to the version required by the Australian Charities and non-for-profit Commission which is the version we are waiting for.

What we will be doing is having a look at some of the trends in the financial reports of AFFORD over the last several years to see if we can identify how AFFORD is actually doing. Naturally, I will continue to monitor these trends over the next few years particularly in light of some comments made by the chairman of AFFORD and Mayor of Penrith, Mr Ross Fowler that will be discussed shortly.

If the matter proceeds to court, there may be avenue to subpoena certain accounts, in which case we can then more accurately identify spending habits and priorities.

As indicated in an earlier blog posting, a main issue of concern is the reason why some care services are not being delivered to the very people who need and purchased this care whilst at the same time growth is soaring Without the benefit of some assessments of the AFFORD financial statements we really cannot arrive at any conclusions with regards to this.

However, it is worth noting that not only at the same time some services are not being provided and growth is soaring, but also funds are being spent on generous executive bonuses, an abundance of alcohol together with flying 80-100 staff members around the country sometimes twice per year, all on the AFFORD tab, and to lavish locations with lavish functions with lavish food and open bar! If these are the reasons why services are not being delivered, there is an easy and quick fix here.

To give you an example of the bonuses, let’s say marketing do their thing and through their promotions, someone rings up and asked for an AFFORD brochure. If that person calls up and is directed to the staff member handling new business, who then goes onto sign up this client, they get a bonus added to their pay. For this example say the new client was a high needs client and required 1:1 staff. If the NDIS package was $500,000 pa, then the staff signing the new client up would earn and extra $10,000 pa on top of their already generous pay package.

At a later date I shall cover details about another bonus scheme offered to selected staff.

To use a simple analogy to understand what’ going on, let’s look at a pizza delivery business as an example. If the business is growing by 35% whilst at the very same time the number of customers not receiving their pizzas (after making payment) is increasing, and a few customers died because they ate pizzas where quality control was non-existent, something has to give. You don’t need to be a chartered accountant to work out that this situation is simply unsustainable.

By focusing resources on growth, and ignoring the quality control part of the pizza business, disastrous consequences are certain to follow. Not only will the growth of the business be impacted at some short time down the track but also the whole viability of the business will be in jeopardy. When viability issues begin to develop this will then thus further erode the service and quality control aspects of the business, the very items that the business was built on. It’s a recipe for the business to spiral out of control into financial ruin and further risk to the health and safety of the clients of that business.

With regards to AFFORD, with the emphasis on growth, has this compromised the delivering of “care” and satisfying clients’ needs?

Let’s not forget in the AFFORD 2019 annual report found on their website, the Chairman stated that AFFORD has grown by a whopping 35%. You can see his full report below.

So, on the back of the Ross Fowler’s chairman’s report, his side of the story is that this is an amazing effort!

this is an amazing effort and thanks go to the Board’s Property Committee, under the leadership of Director, Mario Bellantonio, for the work done in this regard.

Fortunately I have had the opportunity to hear the other side of the story, Ms Petrus’s side of the story.

No surprises here, Ms Petrus does NOT share the same assessment that it was an amazing effort as Ross Fowler does. How could that be? How could two separate assessments of exactly the very same organisation, covering exactly the very same period, with exactly the same staff and exactly the same clients, be at total loggerheads? I am left wondering if Ross Fowler would still think it was “an amazing effort” if he had  a child in the Woodbine group home that suffered the same fate as Merna?

Please do not think for one moment that I am taking a cheap shot at Ross Fowler, because simply put, I am NOT. Well not at this stage anyways and in all fairness there might well be no necessity to do so in the future. Let’s see how this pans out and provide him with the opportunity to prove that he is a man of his word!

I found it extremely enlightening to find in Ross Fowler’s report the following paragraph;

“The operational efficiencies and best practice approaches implemented by CEO, Steven Herald, and his leadership team place Afford in a prime position to foster the organisation and so deliver better outcomes for our clients”

Let’s not forget this was released online (from memory) in January 2020 and was almost certainly written well after the Merna incident in May 2019. Ross Fowler is saying; CEO, Steven Herald and his leadership team place AFFORD in a prime position to foster the organisation and so deliver better outcomes for our clients.

This is an outstanding statement and without doubt clearly shows leadership and intent to deliver. Possibly there is some foresight here and quite possibly there are some regrets too that things could have been handled much differently.

I’ve been quietly waiting and praying to see Steven Herald and Ross Fowler (also mayor of Penrith), take some leadership and provide some extra attention to the care of their clients whom are the very ones who came to AFFORD in the first place because they could not care for themselves.  I will be keeping a very close watch on what they do to deliver on that statement.

Let’s not forget after all that I am in the business of finding out, and find out I will. Fortunately I have other tools at my disposal to assist other than Google.

****** Update 17 April 2020 ******

Following up on the blog post yesterday it seems that the boys are already hard at work improving the care services that are supposed to be the backbone of the business.

Yesterday I indicated that…..”I will be keeping a very close watch on what they do to deliver on that statement.”

In accordance with my statement yesterday, I will be keeping a close monitor on the situation to see if the  improvement actually happens and isn’t just a marketing tool to capture more NDIS funding.

See copy of press release today.

A new Initiative by Afford that Promises Every Australian Access to Disability Supports in response to COVID-19

 

17 APRIL 2020 – In a first for the Australian disability sector, Afford (The Australian Foundation for Disability) has launched a new initiative called Afford Care, to combat gaps in disability supports caused by COVID-19 disruptions. Afford Care will benefit people living with disability, as well as provide more job opportunities to the thousands of disability workers across the country.

Afford Care is a new concept for the disability sector that guarantees that any person living with disability in Australia can access supports under Afford NDIS service offerings. This is available to them whether they are an existing Afford participant or registered with another organisation.

Afford Care is a collaborative initiative where Afford staff and services step in to ‘fill the gaps’ and continue to deliver supports to individuals living with disability during COVID-19. This could be in the form of one-to-one supports, in-home care, Day Program or Allied Health professional support.

Afford champions the interests of people living with disability in every aspect of the organisation’s operations. An important part of delivering exceptional supports to participants under the NDIS is having dedicated staff to provide individualised care.

In advocacy of its workforce, Afford extensively and successfully lobbied with the Government to cover lost wages for disability workers. To bridge the gap while Government discussions were taking place, Afford committed to delivering four weeks of wages to every employee affected by reduced hours as a result of COVID-19, in an effort to retain their hard working and dedicated front line staff.

Organisational and employee initiatives have seen Afford lead the disability sector to be heralded as the best in Australasia (awarded by the Enablement Awards) and having the most engaged and satisfied staff (Voice Project’s Change Challenge Awards).

Steven Herald, Afford CEO, says “Afford Care will change the way disability supports are delivered across Australia. The new initiative will ensure that every person living with disability has access to essential supports to suit their individual needs.”

“The safety and health of our clients and staff are our top priority. Afford Care will allow individuals to continue to receive contact-free support to develop their skills, get involved in activities they love and have every opportunity to access supports to help them live a full and meaningful life on their terms,” Mr Herald added.

Afford is a registered charity and has been operating in Australia for 68 years, providing a range of disability supports to thousands of people every day.

As one of Australia’s longest-serving not-for-profit disability organisations, Afford goes beyond traditional service offerings to adapt to new operating environments to support individuals achieve their goals for work, home and life under the NDIS.

 More information:

 

****** Update 21 April 2020 ******

Interestingly today whilst working on the next posting, I received a comment posted from “Sneaky” from a very interesting email that I am certain was spoofed.

However, Sneaky raised the issue of “hearsay”, and I have elected to address this posting from Sneaky in the main body of the blog, just below, instead of the usual position right down below in the comments section.

Steven Herald

****** Update 1 May 2020 ******

For some many months now I have been in receipt of the above photographs, but I should point out that it did not take the post of “Sneaky” to flush them out. I always had good intentions of posting them at some stage whilst conducting this open investigation seeking answers in this still unresolved matter.

Like all investigators, I collect bits and pieces along the way. Without a doubt more things will be posted soon. Such things as documents, photographs, video recordings, and other tidbits that I have been fortunate to acquire over the last 12 months.

Also included on the list of things to be posted are some of the records of account from both carers that were on duty that fateful evening almost 12 months ago now when Merna drowned in the AFFORD’s Woodbine group home.

What I can say at the moment is that both of the accounts of what happened from both carers were retrieved very early in my investigation just after this incident occurred on 23 May 2019. Both accounts are different as normally is the case, but in this case they differed insofar as  both accounts could not be the truth. One account has to be a fabrication. If any of the readers are interested in some of the methods we use to capture data there is a page about this on this on my website titled DataFACT that provides some clues how it’s done.  Here’s the link to this page;

https://www.innersydneyinvestigations.com/data-fact

The CEO, Steven Herald made the choice to run with one of the two accounts of what happened that night, and failed to indicate that there were in fact two different version of events. Of grave concern, not only did he fail to declare this, he sided with the incorrect version.

If the blogger “Sneaky” has any more doubts about my ability to back up what I say on the blog I would be most pleased to answer any specific questions, and for that matter, not just from Sneaky but from anyone else too. That’s what open investigations are all about.

Earlier on in this part IV blog, I made reference to “jobs for the boys” and indicated the name of two persons alleged to have received special favour and special remuneration too, both of whom also worked with Steven Herald previously at Civic, namely Stephanie Forsyth and Christina Emmanouel.

The reader will recall I noted that there was a sudden change on the AFFORD website in the AFFORD Annual Report where Steven Herald was now listed in this report as commencing his employment with AFFORD in 2016 and NOT in 2015 as reported every year since starting at AFFORD at around 30 March 2015.

It should be noted that since reporting about this two things have happened. One, the date on Steven Herald’s profile on the AFFORD website changed back to 2015 and two, Stephanie Forsyth ceased working for AFFORD. I wish her well in her new position and hope she can find time to contact me.

On the topic of financials, until the ACNC website has been updated with the overdue AFFORD financial statements, I will still be looking at various aspects of the AFFORD financials and trying to understand the policy for prioritisation of account expenditure and level of expenditure allocated to that account. In other words I will try to find out the ethos or the philosophy behind the AFFORD spending strategy. Why one expense category gets the unlimited and extravagant funding approval and another category might only get the “lean” funding approval.

Once this is established it would be interesting to see how this spending accords with AFFORDS marketing of their image and services.  Using FlowerPower as an example, when viewing their website and marketing, brochures and other documents, one could reasonably expect to see vibrant and healthy plants inside one of their distribution centres. I’m sure that is still the case and it certainly was the case when I last entered a FlowerPower centre.  Their marketing to the outside reflects what’s on the inside and accords nicely.

At this point, in relation to AFFORD’s spending, one thing is for certain – somewhere in that spending philosophy is embedded the principle of opulence and no expense spared for certain expenditure items.

Although the event did not proceed as seen above with the picture of the “Invitation to Attend” the AFFORD Hollywood Gala Ball on 17th April 2020, there clearly was an intent to engage in yet another extravagant and opulent function. A quick read of the Vogue Ballroom will leave no illusions about my allegation of sheer opulence and corresponding price tag allocated on some expenditure items like this Hollywood Gala Ball with an abundance of cocktails, shots and other fancy drinks, not to mention the exquisite cuisine.

When referring to the pictures above, it’s easy to work out that the large number of guests shipped around the country for a “conference” (what happened to zoom) comes at a cost. The airfares, the drinks at the airport, the transport, the overnight accommodation, the conference function, food, cocktails, drinks etc come at a very heavy cost. Some of the cocktails depicted in the above photographs cost in excess of $20 per drink and up to $28 per drink!

I can recall going to a FRANS Christmas party in a school hall at Croydon with a DJ for entertainment and everyone brought a plate of something like party pies, sandwiches and plates of potato chips and liquorice allsorts. Still to this day it was one of the best Christmas parties I have been to.

Now, it’s exactly a year to the day since the donating of $15,000 by SUEZ to the 844-876 The Northern Rd, Llandilo property owned by AFFORD.

See below some photographs of how the gardens were pre the $15,000 donation;

See below some photographs of how the gardens are today 1 year post the $15,000 donation;

The first thought that came to my mind when looking at the before and after photographs above, was – “what happened?”

The second thought – was this some sort of clever marketing strategy? Please be aware that I have no evidence to support this, but it’s merely a thought, based on observation and previous experience.  Big business tend to want to move seamlessly into an area especially when they are building a power station, or major industrial site for example, and generally where there is going to be a lot of trucks and noise and risk of pollution and opposition from the local community. In order to achieve that, they often embark on a community based program in the local primary school and also build local council a new library or new chambers or something like that to get that project up and running with as little opposition from anyone as possible, and as little time in the Land and Environment Court. It’s far cheaper this way and it works like a charm.

Having a little deeper look into the Cherrywood site, it was not purchased but rather acquired by AFFORD as a result of a donation.  The 22 hectare site was redeveloped 4-5 years ago and therefore would have had Penrith council involvement and scrutiny in the process.

It would be interesting to know how this process meshed together given the land is said to be also inhabited by an endangered species of frog. The property, I am told, is riddled with asbestos and this might be the reason why the Cherrywood site that was occupied by about 40 residents with special needs soon after redevelopment, no longer has any residents at all, other than the caretaker and his family.

So 40 or so residents moved in, and then they moved out and were re-located. The property thus also has served as a great marketing tool for AFFORD for a relatively short period of time. See the photographs below.

In fact a whole professional promotional video was made for Facebook, and you can watch it here on the following link;

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214010163063855&id=189057270938

****** Update 4 May 2020 ******

As I have indicated a few paragraphs back, for almost 12 months I have been collecting bits of information along the way. One of my favourite pastimes is the study of OSINT and data acquisition methods, including an old favourite SET (social engineering techniques).

These days, there are loads of websites where leaked data is just sitting, waiting to be explored. The Panama Papers is one such depository, not to mention WikiLeaks the famous Australian led organisation that specialises in gathering data and making it publicly available.

In addition to these depositories of data, there is a group out there competing with each other to see who can make the best tool for gathering online data – the science is breathtaking. The point I’m trying to make, is that if you want to hide data, you do that from the outset. There is no benefit trying to hide data once it has been out there on the internet, emailed, SMS’d, or even tweeted. The classic example is someone suddenly changing their privacy settings on Facebook and thinking they can hide all their friends that previously were publicly available.

In the search for relevant data in this part of my investigation, the financial investigation, a tool managed to find a link to the document about AFFORD’s ethos – it is quite possibly the CEO’s manifesto.

The document is impressive and likely to have been dated around 2017, so it is relevant in terms of the current planning strategy. A quick examination revealed, in my view, some major flaws.

The underlying basis of the document indicates the intent of changing employee culture to one accepting the shifting of responsibility from management to the employees that are heading up the individual premises, called the Team Leaders. They are referred to as “owners”, as if they are some kind of franchisee.  See excerpt from the CEO’s manifest below;

Our Culture and Foundations


Culture is crucial to the success of Afford’s overall strategy. While operational guidelines govern how employees should act, where these are yet to be formed or do not exist, it is culture that will step in as an employee’s guiding force. The past 2 years has seen the setting of foundations and the emergence of our new culture. We have morphed from a staid, employee centred, bureaucratic culture to the beginnings of a commercial, flat, customer-centred culture. To fully achieve the right culture will take another year or two as we juggle significant organisational & market changes with our own journey of cultural change. Conversely, our cultural change is what will dictate our success in traversing the changing market and where we land in the years to come, the biggest factor in the next 2 years being our ability to cope with change. Beyond this horizon we need the right culture to succeed as a Multi-Site Service Retailer, and we are already well on our way to this.

The stark reality here is that these team leaders are neither trained nor skilled in executive management, and thus not equipped to deliver at this level. If it was that simple, businesses everywhere would hire team leaders instead of executive managers, and save hundreds of thousands in salaries.

I am not qualified to argue the pros and cons of this strategy. But what I am qualified to do is investigate and examine the data I find.

I do know from people whom I have spoken to within this organisation that those who have been burdened with this level of responsibility are afraid to report certain things to management because management don’t want to hear it and they get bullied and/or forced out of the organisation if they continued to do this. So many key personnel have left the organisation already.

It’s interesting to note that since the current CEO arrived in 2015, AFFORD has had 5 CFO’s and if my information is correct, they don’t have a CFO at the moment.

I must question if this forced cultural change, of making team leaders enforce lean budgets and then rewarding them for complying, is actually a good thing. Readers will recall in one of the earlier parts in this blog, it was reported to me that it is common for sites to have little resources such as cleaning products, gloves, wet wipes, changing mats, disposable bathroom aprons, sanitisers/hand wash, kitchen stock such as milk/tea etc. There have also been reports of a lack of food for the clients with relatives bringing in food and on occasion staff has to put their hands in their pockets to cover it. There are often no supplies onsite for client activities such as arts and crafts.

There is a system known as PACES. If staff maintains a lean ship, by not taking sick leave, not accepting overtime, working within strict guidelines, and settling complaints within 30 days, they receive bonuses. If they don’t do this they are punished in one way or another and forced out of the organisation.

See another excerpt below from the CEO’s manifesto. So here we have it, “The flat lean structure has been achieved and our Senior Executive structure is the very best in the sector by a long way.”

There are two structures, a lean structure for everyone else and the largesse that big business brings that is clearly enjoyed by the Senior Executive crew.

 

Flat, Team-based and Lean structure


Afford embodies a structure that is simple, team-based and lean. There is no place to hide in a lean organisation; performance becomes far more transparent and results can be quickly attributed and where needed, corrective action taken. Our teams are led by a Team Leader. Leaders leading leaders, and turning everyone into a leader. The NDIS demands that even our front line staff must think as leaders & problem solvers as thousands and thousands of hours of services will be provided 1 to 1, in the absence of Team Leaders or supervision. This structure is not just financially the most viable. More importantly it allows for agility and imbeds a frugal ‘small business’ approach as opposed to the largesse that big business brings. The flat lean structure has been achieved and our Senior Executive structure is the best in the sector by a long way. Our competitors are living in the past.

Here again below is another excerpt, showing the ownership culture I spoke about earlier.

Ownership by our People


Personal accountability and ownership allows for Afford as an organisation to ‘think big’ while our sites maintain an unrelenting focus on delivering person-centred and exceptional customer service to clients. Leaders need to show that they follow through on promises, deliver and lead by example. All of our people are owners of their business and while we have a way to go to reach the level of ownership that we desire, we are starting to see Team Leaders taking ownership for their site and clients, and importantly, staff. As the framework is now clear with progression through the ranks to different roles and our Step Up program for future leaders, Team Leaders are mentoring their team members rather than relying on Head Office. This is seeing the emergence of much greater camaraderie and commitment to a group in the site by site teams, and the emergence of a small business culture.


So here we have it below, the formula for success. Enjoying fortnightly unlimited Margaritas’ or the cocktails of your choice, is a reward for being frugal and running a lean centre. Being flown all expenses paid to 4 / 5 star hotels with unlimited alcohol is success. Buzz nights cost about a few thousand dollars each night, for each team each month, depending on the size of the team so the cost can vary more or less around the $2k figure.  There are about 50 team leaders so potentially this costs AFFORD up to $100,000 per month or more. I have heard reports of Senior Executive managers (who shouldn’t be Senior Executive managers) putting their AFFORD credit card behind the bar, covering up to $10,000 worth of drinks for a large group. Is this really success? A magician costs about $350 for a 2 hour on site magical show, and I’m wondering why this isn’t a measure of success too.

The bonus systems are generous all the way up the management chain to the top for running a lean ship.


Celebrating Success – what gets rewarded gets done


To remain engaged and striving as an employee, people must feel that their individual efforts make a difference. We have implemented numerous methods to recognise and celebrate success. This ranges from the most significant being PACES team incentives to monthly customer service awards to monthly staff meetings/buzz nights and so on.

 

The CEO commenced on a salary of about $350,000 in 2015, plus bonuses. So it is evident that Senior Executives and upper management need to be showered with huge bonuses and enjoy regular functions and banquets fit for royalty, or otherwise they cannot do their jobs properly despite their huge salaries. Rewarded for running a very lean ship down the bottom end and making profits at whose expense?

So in a nutshell that’s the system in place. The clients provide the funds so they can “enjoy” a lean ship and suffer all the other consequences that go with it that have been discussed before in this blog, and the upper management shower themselves with huge salaries and bonuses and other rewards for bringing in new clients. So the emphasis has shifted from delivering care – to being a big business deploying clever marketing techniques to secure new clients and their NDIS funding packages.

Equality and Egalitarianism


There is no such thing as privilege of rank at Afford. Visible signs of superiority that boost egos, are a divisible wedge between those who get them and those who don’t. Salaries & Wages reflect the market price for performance of a role, and not the seniority of the role.


Managing for Change, Growth & Sustainability

These three aspects are what underpin the long-term success of Afford and cement the care we are able to provide to our clients into the future. In short, this means cultivating a business acumen in our Leaders, a commercial view. The way we talk as a Senior Exec, the various forums we have every week and the calibre of Leaders we are developing has seen a rapid move from a welfare culture to a commercial one. New stars have emerged in the team who may have had retail experience and understand margins, location and selling techniques.

While sustainability is multi-faceted, the bottom-line is that it requires profit. Afford believes in our organisation making a profit and maintaining a profitability focus. We accept that unless our organisation is consistently profitable, it cannot sustain operations and create opportunities for future investment. Modern Not for Profits all recognise the importance of surpluses to fund the exploration of new opportunities and ensure ongoing viability. We know that in a competitive marketplace profit is the best way to measure whether we are providing a service that the community values

 

Thus I make the conclusion from what I have observed from the outside, in the AFFORD’s marketing campaigns, does not accurately reflect what was observed thus far from the inside. There is a clear disparity. It is evident that a huge chunk of funding is not being allocated to the areas requiring the funds needed to deliver the care that the funding was initially intended for.  The funds have been diverted for ulterior purposes and information gleaned indicated that the vast spending on alcohol and lavish parties has been disguised from the normal accounting and funded from the companies investments, as opposed to NDIS funds.  

Let’s not forget that we cannot create clients. There is funding for each and every client meeting the NDIS guide lines, so if AFFORD missed out on an opportunity to recruit a client, that client would not miss out. However, by using aggressive and misleading marketing to secure new clients, AFFORD has denied the client the opportunity of the very best possible care because;  

a) they, AFFORD, spent the funds on marketing and rewarding themselves for doing this and,

b) denied the client a place in another organisation that provides better care.

The extra funding that is required to suitably deliver care to the clients that are in desperate need of this care is being greedily gobbled up by those few running the enterprise under a very sinister guise to reward the organisers and the supporters of this scheme for doing this with huge salaries, bonuses and lavish parties. There is of course thus, a quick fix for all of this.

It’s essentially bribery with a powerful and well-funded propaganda machine used to convince everyone on the outside, and the providers of funds that all is good at Disneyland by reporting glowing profits and glowing reports in glossy magazines to ratify the deal, and the ones at the bottom lean end, are in the main incapable of expressing a view.

Little wonder clients are being left unattended in bathtubs in premises not fulfilling minimum safety standards. It would not be too difficult for authorities to examine the accounts and establish the costs for replacing the many substandard doorknobs throughout the organisation’s premises the following day after the Merna Aprem incident of 23 May 2019. Certainly this subpoena to produce to get this information is at the top of my list.

On the subject of doorknobs I am wondering what the mayor of Penrith and chairman of AFFORD, Mr Ross Fowler has done about the many sites in the Penrith area within his jurisdiction where the premises used for disability services were of a substandard level. If he does not know how many doorknobs were changed on 24 May 2019 in all the AFFORD premises then he should know. He if did not send out building inspectors to all of the sites, then he should have.  We have seen him time and time again at AFFORD avail himself for marketing promotions alongside big business and dignitaries, but what has he done here? Quite frankly I do not know, but I am very keen to hear what he has done, and so far as marketing for AFFORD goes, it could not come any better (and cheaper)  than a statement from him highlighting what he has done in this regard to ensure the AFFORD clients are safe and receive the appropriate care.

The doorknob is relevant here for many reasons. So far as poor Merna was concerned, even if the carers heard her fall, or scream for help, they couldn’t get into the bathroom for about 30 minutes. As far as I can find out thus far, the doorknob was substandard and there was no risk management plans in place to address the issue of what happens in a situation like this, ie how to get into the bathroom quickly with that type of fitted doorknob .

Little wonder there is silence from management and gagging orders pushed on witnesses in this incident. They don’t want to risk interruption to their income streams is the only conclusion I can make at this point.

Little wonder when a female client is writhing in pain all day, management instruct the carers NOT to call an ambulance and dump her home ASAP. And make the election not to inform the parents of this!

Little wonder staff members are having sexual relations with senior management after being induced by ranking positions with high salaries and bonuses even though they are unqualified, and to cover this, we see the policy , Salaries & Wages reflect the market price for performance of a role, and not the seniority of the role.” It’s interesting to note some staff with seniority and qualifications were replaced by juniors with no qualifications well before they could prove their performance of a role. Seems to be in some cases a pre-emptive promotion based on a premonition of outstanding performance.

Little wonder staff are stressed to the limit and often minding many other clients along with their 1:1 client and sometime supervising up to 12 clients where funding is being paid for 1:1 or 1:2 supports!

Little wonder clients are driving company vehicles, sitting in soiled attire for hours on end, or made to sit in the transport mini-bus for extended periods and sitting inside all day when funding was provided for them to attend day activities. The list goes on……

Staff are being bullied and sexually harassed and when voicing their complaints are being terminated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

****** Update 23 May 2020 ******

One year on today, the 23rd of May 2020, Tanya Petrus is still trying to understand what happened to her daughter, Merna Aprem.

AFFORD were entrusted with caring for Merna, and still to this day has not provided Tanya with any truthful explanation of what happened. Let’s not fool ourselves here that AFFORD does not know what happened. They are in receipt of their own independent investigation report, employee incident reports, and interviews with the two carers rostered on duty that evening, and of course a myriad of other documents required for completion by law including reporting for insurance matters.

AFFORD’s omission of a truthful explanation to Tanya of what happened speaks volumes. When AFFORD was pressured to provide an explanation as to what happened that night when Merna drowned in a bathtub whilst in their paid care, they delivered an untruthful account of the facts to the mother Tanya Petrus. In light of what we have uncovered in this investigation seeking answers, the readers can draw their own conclusion as to why they did this. There was ample opportunity to simply deliver the truth but they lied.

One thing is for certain, if we as investigators acting for the mother of the deceased, can manage to get hold of some of the facts, then so too can AFFORD. They have desisted in providing a truthful explanation, I will assert, in the hope that it would all fade away and the AFFORD PR machine would continue unabated mining for NDIS packages.

As we have exposed earlier, AFFORD’s game plan clearly shifted from an organisation providing care to one whose primary focus was aimed at securing NDIS packages as a measure of success. All this at the very expense of those clients that the NDIS packages were meant for in the first place.

It’s a rather brash statement to make as an investigator, that AFFORD erred in their business model, from one that has focused in  providing care for people with disabilities, to one focused in the mining of large end NDIS packages.

For those readers who have followed the earlier blogs they will be fully aware that AFFORD and their lawyers have not dealt with this matter in a manner that could be deemed responsible, or in a manner that is supporting of the front line carers being able to deliver the care they give, out of the goodness of their hearts, to those in desperate need of their care and trust.

Tanya and I met with Steven Herald, CEO of AFFORD and their lawyer, Lucinda Lyons of Clyde and Co. Prior to attending that meeting I had established that there were indeed 2 reported versions of events that night that I was able to trace. Notably the CEO provided the version that I alleged earlier was the incorrect version, and I further alleged that he provided that version knowing full well it was not the truth. I will get to that point in the follow up blog tomorrow.

However, unawares of greed and ulterior motives I tried to resolve the issue of Tanya being supplied with an erroneous version of events by the AFFORD CEO at our meeting and therefore wrote to the lawyer representing AFFORD, Linda Lyons of Clyde and Co indicating that I would be happy to travel to the city to meet with her to get to the bottom of it. Her response was one that totally sidestepped the issue and instead tried to misdirect the attention towards errors on my website. I just cannot fathom how the death of a young woman with disabilities, something as vitally important as that, was ignored by Ms Lyons, and the subject of her response was instead one designed to be an attack on my credibility. She was not concerned with the death of a young woman resultant from sheer neglect, however she was concerned I will allege about launching into an attack in an attempt to discredit me and completely and intently sidestepped the real issue.

Let’s briefly look at AFFORD’s lawyer Lucinda Lyons to see why she was at the meeting. She is partner of the firm Clyde and Co that boasts (as at 10 June 2019), revenue of $1,137,310,000.  So in a nutshell she works for a legal company and earns vast sums of money for them and her  by fighting claimants to deny or minimise their insurance claims.  When I approached her about the death of a young woman who was insured by the people who pay huge sums to her company, she was primarily concerned with her own self-interest and did want a bar of the facts.

Now let’s see how the CEO of AFFORD, dealt with the matter. No apology, no support and no truthful explanation forthcoming to the mother, Tanya Petrus as to what happened that led to her daughter being unattended and drowning.

I’t’s an extraordinary situation when a company that pays huge sums of money preaching to the community about the award winning care they provide, with the sole intent of securing NDIS funding, is in a situation requiring them to put this care to practice, doesn’t care in any shape or form. The care was nowhere to be found so far as Tanya was concerned.

We do know however that there was ample care about the AFFORD image in the media and social media. AFFORD went around sacking people who shared a link to our blog reporting on this matter. AFFORD, I suspect with the assistance of their lawyer, set about getting others to sign confidentiality agreements so they could not report on what happened.

Fortunately we care and we are good at extracting data from computer systems. We have extracted so much data that they (AFFORD) don’t know what we really have.

My investigations will prove that AFFORD sells care to the public. They are the self-proclaimed best carers in the world if you read any of their advertising material that earn big bonuses for those putting them out there, but history will show that they didn’t care about the client (Merna Aprem) who needed care and who drowned in a bathtub as a result of this lack of care. They didn’t care about the mother of the client who died as a result of this lack of care we are talking about here, and they surprisingly did care about an employee sharing a link to this blog who was subsequently sacked for sharing the link. In fact all the evidence I could find about caring was that they cared about their public image and nothing more.

To boggle your minds, this gross lack of care is coming from a company that is “non-for-profit”, has growth of over 35%, $6m cash in the bank and assets of about a $100m and who report to the government that they are deserving of over $40m of taxpayers funds because they deliver care.

Evidently in order to deliver this care the executive management of AFFORD have to share in huge bonuses and lavish all expenses paid parties as some sort of reward for running lean on the care that they deliver to people with disabilities that is promoted as award winning. They self-reward themselves and it is evident the bonus system and lavish partying then becomes their focus of concern, and not the very people whom are their clients and in need of care. Let’s pat ourselves on the back for securing NDIS packages and whatever happens to those in need of the care can just accept the situation whether or not they get the care, so long as profits are made.

At AFFORD “success” is defined by growth and not by care. The mayor of Penrith endorses this. As far as the AFFORD management is concerned, and because of the structure pushing responsibility onto each care site, the carers cannot do their jobs properly. Their complaints and recommendations for changes falls on deaf ears and by the mere structuring of the system of PACES, they lose money (bonuses) by stepping out of line. Sweeping matters under the carpet so as not to tarnish the self-proclaimed and widely advertised award winning care services is rewarded by favourable treatment and financial reward. Care has been pushed out of the formula in favour of greed.

Celebrating Success – what gets rewarded gets done


To remain engaged and striving as an employee, people must feel that their individual efforts make a difference. We have implemented numerous methods to recognise and celebrate success. This ranges from the most significant being PACES team incentives to monthly customer service awards to monthly staff meetings/buzz nights and so on.

So, thus far from my investigations in the Merna Aprem case I have concluded that AFFORD management cover up matters that are likely to attract negative publicity for the organisation, which in turn is likely to affect the bonuses that they receive, as opposed to remedying the situation. It is now evident that it’s all about profits, growth and greed and nothing to do with care of people with disabilities.

Recently we saw a statement by AFFORD in the media on 17 April 2020 (as reported earlier in this blog) that they (AFFORD)  have launched a NEW initiative called AFFORD Care. A check revealed that www.affordwecare.com.au is several years old.

The press release by AFFORD was allegedly in response to Covid-19. However, I will assert it was instead just another PR campaign designed to secure new client’s bearing huge NDIS packages. To support my findings, let’s look at a few recent photographs taken from one of the AFFORD sites providing care all under the advertised guise of safety for their clients.

“The safety and health of our clients and staff are our top priority. Afford Care will allow individuals to continue to receive contact-free support to develop their skills, get involved in activities they love and have every opportunity to access supports to help them live a full and meaningful life on their terms,” Mr Herald added.

 

To give an example of what I am alleging here, let me refer to another matter highlighting the fact that matters are swept under the carpet to prevent any adverse publicity. Adverse publicity in social media evidently takes precedence over the wellbeing of clients.

I’ve managed to secure a communication sent to senior management, see below, and it is disturbing that management’s response is centred around the fact that the matter was reported on social media and not the well being of the client.

“Afternoon Ms McKay

I am feeling much better thank you. I have responded below. I will touch base on a time and date for meeting next week.

Thanks

My response to the Facebook screenshot taken from my Facebook account.

When I shared that post it brought up a memory of what had happen to one of our clients named BBBBB from XXXXXX XXXX, BBBBB was very unwell this particular day for the whole day and crying in pain. I was asked to take BBBBB home at 2.45pm-3pm.

I informed my Team leader at the time  she doesn’t look very well should we call an ambulance, Team leader advised me to take her home ASAP, I told the Team leader I am not comfortable taking her home in her state of well being without another staff member in the van with her, I had begged for another staff member. A staff member was available. Once we arrived to BBBBB address no parents were home. I didn’t want to leave client home alone, although she had access to enter her home, staff member CCCCCCC rung Senior to ask what we do next as she wasn’t looking any better, we were told It’s okay BBBBB father was 10mins away and we can leave her home, we then made our way to carry on with PM run.

Later that evening BBBBB had died.

I feel in some belief she could of been saved if she was seen by an emergency team the last day she was at centre. There was no talk or offered of support to our clients or staff regarding the beautiful client we had lost. It just felt like we couldn’t mention her name. It was a very cold week.

We have had many clients come in sick and we are still giving them supports while they are sick or unwell, I feel this is a health and safety hazard for all. We have very vulnerable clients in wheelchairs. This also could prevent life threatening situations.

In regards to what I posted about clients being left alone, this has happened in XXXXXX XXXX for quite sometime, we have voiced our concerns at team meetings many times, Team Leaders, seniors & staff are well aware of this happening. We were never told to alert these issues from TLs or Seniors on these particular clients.

Client name DDDDD is seen to be walking around inside and outside around the centre.

EEEEEEE has been left in the little room off the hub sitting with a laptop by herself or outside the training room chairs by herself.

I have witnessed FFFFFFFF what looks to be 1:1 support given when he arrives to centre although the staff is allocated 1:2 FFFFFFFF has been seen hand n hand with the staff member alone.

Many clients arrive to centre at 9am and their allocated staff members are out on the am run, which makes it impossible to get the correct support from 9am with no staff around specially in the training room and sensory room areas.

Many occasions I’ve called out to staff asking to keep an eye on their clients or find cover. I’ve taken clients to their allocated staff members numerous times.

I’ve also let a Team leader know when I’ve noticed a 1:1 client sitting by himself.

I’ve watched up to 12 clients while supporting my 1:1 client while staff have had to do pc changes or other errors.

I was told I could do a pc change to a wheelchair client on my own. I had asked the question again a few days later in a text message. That was from a team leader. Photo attached. I did not change my wheelchair client on my own I also let the clients family know.

I’ve watched many clients from 2pm-3pm been left in the hub while staff breaks are getting taken pc changes transport runs cleaning areas are taking place.

It is do able? Yes

Is it right? No

Ratio are not working during these times

What needs to happen? Having seniors more involved on the floor-to ratio the allocations -instead of allowing 1 or 2 staff to watch countless clients in survival there will be no alerts.

As breaks need to be taken

Personal cares need to be done

A roster time for personal cares might need to be put in as there is always a line up coming back from programs and some clients need to be transported home earlier then others

These should cover the wrong supports given- where the 6 hour charge is been claimed.

With all this been said it makes me wonder is this company really looking after our clients, does this company really care? or do we just have minimal staff and management are just pushing it?  Or does this all fall under the NDIS? 

I understand I breached the AFFORD policy regarding social media now, I wasn’t thinking of that at the time and I did delete my post within minutes of writing it. At the time I just felt so much anger and disappointment and as u have read above these are what has boiled down to the issue of my reasons.”


6 thoughts on “Part IV – Jobs for the boys

  1. There is a lot of information here, but how can you verify it? It seems to me it’s people’s opinions, and any good investigator knows that isn’t evidence. It’s just hearsay, which does not count as evidence

    1. Dear Sneaky

      You raise a valid point about hearsay. But I have only one thing to say about that.

      Tony Johns
      PI

    1. Dear RH

      Thanks for your input here RH. In all fairness it’s a valid question and one that I also asked when I received the photo some months back. Fortunately that photo was one in a series of photos released, and the rest of the photo’s indicated in all likelihood, that particular photograph is legitimate. The reader can make their own mind up about the photo.

      But in saying that, you are dead right, I don’t know for sure that photo is from head office Minchinbury. I will try to investigate that photo and see if I can get a location from the metadata.

  2. Hi. I have only found your site recently. I always thought Steve a very upstanding man trying to get the best exoerience for staff and clients. The Board squeexed him out and are nw paying themselves Directors fees of over $200,000 per year!!! I am disgusted. The Directors should donate their fees to Merna’s mum. I am so angry

    1. In reply to Donna xx.

      Dear Donna xx, I am pleased to hear that you have positive feedback to report about the ex-CEO from your experiences. I am certain many others can report the same, although besides you and one other, I have not heard from these many others.

      Hopefully the ex-CEO can now reflect on his management of AFFORD and this incident and understand with his capabilities that he could have responded to Merna’s incident in a responsible and caring way. Hopefully he might now understand the difference between the job description of managing an organisation where profits and performance of assets are paramount, as opposed to one where the safety and well-being of people with disabilities is the primary focus.

      I can understand the ex-CEO’s focus say for examples in the capacity of managing a manufacturing corporation, or an advertising agency. His actions are not dissimilar to those constantly reported in the media about other executives, and more recently the iCARE matter where contrary to the belief of iCARE’s ex-CEO’s, the fund was not set up for his benefit but actually was set up for the benefit of injured workers who paid for this benefit each week on the back of it being an insurance scheme whereby the benefit was derived from care if and when they were injured in the workplace.

      At the end of the day, the ex-CEO may have a plausible account of why he managed AFFORD in the particular way that he did. I would be pleased to hear from him.

      The ex-CEO now also has a choice in how he manages the situation hereafter. Donna, if as you say, he was an upstanding man trying to get the best experience for staff and clients, he is still that man and he certainly has the opportunity to show this and deliver this care, plus provide a true account of what really happened.

      I met with the ex-CEO on Wednesday, 7 August 2019 with the express view to bringing resolution to the matter as Ms Petrus just wanted to know what happened to her daughter. However he turned up to the meeting with an insurance lawyer. The ex-CEO and the insurance lawyer both conducted themselves in a manner I found extremely disappointing, they both were disingenuous, both had agendas and both displayed a willingness to distort the truth of the matter to support their agendas.

      I am aware that Ms Petrus recently wrote to AFFORD seeking clarification of what the ex-CEO meant when he said words at that meeting of 7 August to the effect, “the (bathroom) door was closed in a split second”. The response she received back from AFFORD indicated that he, the ex-CEO could not remember saying that, see excerpt taken from a recent letter from AFFORD that Ms Petros kindly forwarded to me.

      “To the best of his recollection, Mr Herald does not consider that he made any comments or statements to the effect that your daughter was left in the bathroom for a short period of time, let alone a “split second”. Further, he has no recollection of making any comments or statements that could reasonably be interpreted in the manner complained of.”

      I find the above response lacking credibility and thus disingenuous. The reader should note that also present at the meeting of 7 August 2019 was the AFFORD insurance lawyer, Lucinda Lyons and his 2ic at the time, Ms Stephanie Forsyth.

      If the ex-CEO could not recall making this statement about the door being closed in a split second, the response should have been something along the lines, “Mr Herald does not recollect making this statement and shall consult both his lawyer and Ms Forsyth who were present at the meeting to refresh his memory…..”.

      It’s a very important point for many reasons and insofar Ms Petrus is concerned because I had just delivered information to her indicating that Merna was left unattended in the bath for a long time before she was checked, and the ex-CEO was using words intimating that it all happened very quickly and reasonably one could draw the conclusion from his statements that it was an unavoidable accident because it happened so quickly.

      I put it out to the readers of this blog that I am of the view the ex-CEO alleges he now cannot recall saying that statement and did not seek clarification from anyone else at that meeting because a) he does not want anyone outside that meeting to know he said this, b) it was not a truthful account of what happened, and c) it caused a lot of pain and grief for Ms Petrus to hear this from him in the knowledge it was not a truthful account. There can be no disputing that 30-45 minutes is not a split second.

      One can see where this is headed because I have not disclosed if I secretly recorded that meeting nor have I disclosed if anyone else was in fact at that café under my instructions at the time filming that meeting. After all, that’s what private investigators do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *