Senior executive at disability service provider said CEO yelled at her after raising concerns over quality of care

Disability service provider the Australian Foundation for Disability (Afford) and the NDIS service regulator have come under increased scrutiny during the third day of the disability royal commission. A senior executive of Afford from 2015 until early 2020 contributed to the royal commission via a written statement. Under the pseudonym of Rachel, she outlined ongoing pressure from the company’s former CEO, Steven Herald, to recruit very large numbers of staff, up to 50 per month, to keep up with the rapid growth of Afford. Rachel said towards the end of her tenure, she had growing concerns staff being promoted from direct support roles did not have abilities to cope in managerial positions and that this may have had an impact on the quality of service. “Towards the end of my time at Afford, I was increasingly worried that the safety and quality of our services and respect for the rights of the clients were not the top priority,” her statement read. “It was run like a profit-driven corporation, rather than like a disability service provider.” A first-of-its-kind civil proceeding against Afford was set to open on Wednesday in the Federal Court over the death of 20-year-old Merna Aprem, but was vacated until May 30. Ms Aprem, an NDIS participant, died in 2019 when she drowned in a bathtub while living in supported accommodation operated by Afford in Woodbine, Sydney. “This event brought to the fore a number of issues and concerns I had been beginning to have,” Rachel said. Afford had no central person or department overseeing quality, compliance or work, health and safety, she said. It was assumed each division would deal with these types of issues. “I remember the CEO yelling at me for bringing up this issue and saying that a compliance person would try to find reasons why Afford could not open a new site or service, which would inhibit growth,” Rachel said. She told the inquiry that when she raised this concern during a teleconference with staff, she was reprimanded once again by the CEO, who answered her with words to the effect of “grow a backbone”. She sent a five-page report to a member of Afford’s board expressing concerns over risk and compliance by some team members, she said. Not long after, she was put on a suspension and told it was because of complaints made by colleagues. At the end of her tether she instead offered to resign. NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission registrar Samantha Taylor returned to the inquiry on Wednesday to answer questions about the commission’s auditing procedures. Ms Taylor explained there was no guarantee a site auditor would receive information about complaints against a service provider before conducting an audit but said the NDIS commission is considering if there should be. She explained it was the NDIS commission’s responsibility to explore complaints and reportable incidents and assess a provider’s response to them. “It is not the auditors’ job to assess whether a provider is providing safe services,” Ms Taylor said. The royal commission pointed out this may be a “blind spot”. “What I’m looking at is whether the guidelines are satisfactory to ensure that the audit process really interrogates what needs to be interrogated,” Royal Commission Chair, Ronald Sackville QC said. The commission was told on Tuesday of one NDIS participant who alleged he was “hosed down like a dog” after soiling himself while receiving respite care. Another investigation is underway into an Afford client who became unwell after he was allegedly fed solid food, contrary to his meal plan. Afford took two years to notify the NDIS commission of the alleged “reportable” incident in July 2019, only doing so after an ABC news report about it. In light of these events, the NDIS commission asked Afford to do a review of any incidents which may be considered reportable. “Afford operated on a very serious misconception of its responsibilities concerning reportable incidents, which involved the failure to administer correct medication,” Mr Sackville said. “And yet, we see nothing to indicate that the auditors had made any inquiry as to whether Afford understood its basic obligations.” Ms Taylor contended this may form part of a maturing of the auditing model.