The following post is a reply from Stephen Dering, in response to our earlier article Daring Derings Gone. Since our comments close after a set period of time, to prevent spam, we decided to post Stephen’s response as a stand alone article.
There are a lot of rumours going around in relation to the company I set up 4 years ago. Because of a number of legal processes, we have not been in a position to respond to these rumours and put these right until those processes have completed.
In October 2009 we started a number of new contracts where referrals are to come from Jobcentre Plus – we cannot refer people directly onto programme. By Feb 2010 only 7% of the actual referrals were coming in that was expected. This is common to all companies in the same sector, we are not the only ones affected – every other organisation has a similar experience of low referral levels.
Therefore we had to undertake a review of which services are viable and which are not and to focus on those which are viable. In our market sector we receive fees for job outcomes achieved. No job outcomes = no fees therefore in some areas it is not viable to operate.
Unlike charitable organisations we do not get grants or legacies to deliver services. We have to make a profit.
We have therefore made some changes to remove or suspend the non-profitable elements and to focus on the areas that are profitable. That means in some areas like Melbourne, we have handed our service over to another provider who has the resources to carry on the work. In Cheshire we have terminated the service where the volume of customers was too small to be viable. In Brisbane we have entered into a joint agreement with partner organisation Interwork to deliver employment services together.
In many areas such as Birmingham, Derby, London, South East, Northern Ireland and France, our services are not affected at all and we continue to exceed expectations in the level of job outcomes. For example, we started delivering Employment Services for the first time in Devon & Cornwall in December and are delivering job outcomes that exceed contract requirements. In 2009 we worked with over 1,000 people and supported 244 into work. So far in 2010 we are on course to achieve a similar level of people into work through a tighter, more focused team working in areas which are the most viable.
Our Operations Manager is indeed leaving us at the end of March – however, she is going to Remark to manage a new service in April that is going to compliment the services that Dering provide by providing support in the workplace once Dering has supported a person into work. Therefore this is something that we welcome and look forward to working with her on.
Stephen Dering
Chief Executive
Dering Employment Services
There is never a dull moment in deafness and at the moment, here in Australia, it is all happening. First we had the Cinema Captioning Campaign and a nationwide protest. Then we had the shock demise of Dering Employment, the British company that raised the hopes of everyone and fell apart in Australia like a Flake chocolate bar. And then we had the likely demise of the grand concept of Deaf Services Australia with the joint CEO of Deaf Children Australia and Deaf Services Queensland resigning, although he remains at Deaf Children Australia. It is like a book you can not put down. Each day is like a page from a book and each page brings forward more excitement. Lord Byron wasn’t wrong when he said “The truth is stranger than fiction.”
Much has been written of the Dering and the captioning campaign in The Rebuttal lately. In the excitement of these two events the resignation of the Deaf Services Queensland CEO and its implications has slipped very much under the radar. A few years ago Deaf Services Queensland, then known as the Queensland Deaf Society, were in a bad way. Deaf Children Australia were branching out on an ambitious strategy to provide services all over Australia. Queensland was being targeted. As luck would have it Deaf Children Australia’s ambitions coincided with the old Queensland Deaf Societies problems. Somehow a partnership was struck and the Deaf Children Australia CEO became the joint CEO of both organisations.
Depending on who you believe, the Queensland Deaf Society were on the brink of extinction. They had massive debts. The new CEO tackled the problems head on. Over a period of years a number of sensible business decisions were made. Links with government were improved. Financially the ship was righted and the Queensland Deaf Society were saved. Hip Hip Hooray!
As luck would have it the Queensland Deaf Society problems coincided with the ambitions of Deaf Children Australia to establish Deaf Services Australia. It was almost a case of the strong taking advantage of the weak. By establishing a partnership with Queensland Deaf Society the Deaf Services Australia concept had a platform to build on. Let’s not kid ourselves. Deaf Children Australia, with its concept of Deaf Services Australia, did not assists the Queensland Deaf Society out of the goodness of its heart. In many ways it was a bloodless coupe, the first step in achieving the dream of a Deaf Services Australia.
But what is, or was, the concept of Deaf Services Australia? It was simply to have the deaf services organisations, the Deaf Societies, branded and operating under one banner. The idea is that as one organisation, with one fundraising and marketing structure and with a combined political strategy, Deaf Services Australia would have greater marketing and political power. In theory it is a great concept. Indeed Vision Australia and even The Guide Dogs Association have a similar strategy. However the Deaf Services Australia concept had a number of flaws.
Firstly it assumed that under one brand and one name that fundraising and marketing would be more successful. Again in theory this is good. But the reality is that deafness has never been a strong performer in fundraising. Research has shown that if you ask the public who they are most likely to give to in terms of fundraising, deafness consistently finishes at the bottom of the league table. Unlike blindness, physical disabilities or even the homeless, causes which are visual and where it can easily be shown how the fundraising dollar makes a difference, deafness and its impact is hard to understand. Fundraisers consistently fail to show how the fundraising dollar will make a difference to deafness in a way that makes the general public respond with the level of donations required. The concept of one brand, one name, one market is admirable but it failed to address the public perceptions of deafness and show value for the dollar given.
The Deaf Services Australia concept also failed to take on board the political landscape of deafness. Deaf societies in Australia are funded at a state level. Having a National Deaf Society is all well and good but each Deaf society relies on funding from the State Governments. Different states fund to different levels. Unless you address the discrepancy of funding from state to state the concept of a national organisation for deafness cannot work. Can you imagine the uproar if NSW was getting ten times the funding per consumer compared to Tasmania. Consumers would rightly be demanding equal services .. without equal services the concept of as national organisation is a farce.
There is then the case of Deaf Children Australia (DCA). DCA is a relatively wealthy organisation. It has the capacity to support deaf children in Victoria to a very high level. The Deaf Services Australia concept originated from DCA. What this meant was that seeding funding for the concept of Deaf Services Australia came from DCA finances. What this also meant is that funds that could be used well to service a smaller client base were being spread thinly to service a national concept that had not yet been shown to be viable. What is more, DCA were seemingly propping up organisations that were financially in the poo such as Queensland Deaf Society and later the Western Australian Deaf Society. The dilemma was to either service the smaller market of Victoria well or try and service all of Australia in the hope that the Deaf Services Australia concept would take off. The risk was high.
Then there was the small matter of four state Deaf societies just not wanting to be involved. The NSW and Victorian Deaf Societies were simply not interested. I know not of Tasmania. The South Australia Deaf Society merged with Townsend House who in turn had no intention of joining the umbrella of Deaf Services Australia either. I know not of the reasons behind the reluctance to join but suspect it was a combination of mistrust, ego and, more likely, simply realising the concept of Deaf Services Australia was not viable. Without these four organisations the Deaf Services Australia empire could not be complete. It was dead in the water before it started.
Some six or so years after the concept of Deaf Services Australia started with the partnership between the Queensland Deaf Society and Deaf Children Australia the concept appears to be dead. The Queensland Deaf Society, now known as Deaf Services Queensland, has appointed its own interim CEO. It has made all the right noises about continuing the “partnership” with DCA but the reality is that Deaf Services Queensland is going it alone. How much money was wasted on the concept I do not know. Flights for staff, flights for the Board, accommodation, people hours, marketing etc etc … many thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, would have been spent on the concept. And to what gain? Well the Queensland Deaf Society survived and the Western Australian Deaf Society received a boost but did anything really change. For all the money that was spent the answer is quite simply no!
What next in the deafness area. Well rumour just in is that a certain organisation is trying to restructure how it pays interpreters in such a way that interpreters will be paid less. We hope its not true but there is never a dull moment in deafness so nothing will surprise us. Watch this space.
Nearly 110 years ago, a small group of people got together to discuss certain matters of their lives with particular regard to their rights. Their discussions revealed a disturbing picture and they came to the conclusion that something was very wrong with theirsituation. They then spent the next 20 plus years writing, talking, lobbying and eventually (after much frustration) protesting publicly. They went as far as chaining themselves to a fence in order to get their message across. What were they protesting about? The right for women to vote!
Almost 20 years ago, a small group of people got together to discuss certain matters of their lives with particular regard to communication. As they discussed and compared the picture of their lives to those of like people overseas, they concluded that something wasvery wrong with their situation. They then spent a number of years writing, talking, lobbying and eventually (after much frustration) protesting publicly and nationally. They went as far as buzzing thousands of people across Australia with a TTY. What were they protesting about? The right for Deaf, hearing impaired and speech impaired Australians to have access to the telephone.
20 years later it was a different type of situation. People attending the cinema concluded that although what was on the screen looked just fine, not knowing what was happening on the screen was unacceptable. Like the pioneers before them, they discussed and compared their lives with those of like people in similar countries and decided something was very wrong. From their discussions a protest eventuated on Saturday13th February at 11.00am (local time). Protests were held all over Australia in front of selected cinemas. The protests had a clear message, that Deaf and hearing impaired Australians wanted access to “All Films, All Cinemas, All Sessions.” And they want it “NOW!”
The cinema industry’s refusal to provide full access impacts on approximately 4 millionDeaf and hearing impaired Australians. If you consider that for each one of these 4 million who are directly impacted, it also affects their family and friends who would like to attend the cinema with them. If one friend and one family member from these four million people are affected, then this is a further 8 million Australians potentiallyaffected.
The protest strategically targeted inaccessible cinemas across the country. Over 450 people attended these protests. They were waving creative and colourful banners that vented their frustrations at being denied access to the cinema. Whether it was a banner, a T-Shirt or simply a verbal testimonial, their passion and desire for change was clear for all to see.
At the Melbourne protest, over 20 people came forward and spoke publicly to the gathered protesters. They shared personal stories of frustration, disappointment, sadness and expressed their anger at the violation of their human rights. Many of these stories came from parents, children and friends of the affected. It was clear that it was not just the Deaf , hearing impaired and visually impaired protesters who were affected. It is not an exaggeration to say that 8 to 10 million Australians could be directly and indirectly affected by the lack of access to cinemas.
One hopes that the marketing people, shareholders and directors attached to the cinema franchises are beginning to realise the revenue that they are missing. If 8 million people pay $15 a ticket to attend just one movie a year, this is $120 million of box office takings missed out on annually. Yet the cinemas cry foul, citing unjustifiable hardship. What hardship, when they have missed out on a potential $700 million profit in the 6 or so years that they have been negotiating with our advocates such as Deaf Australia?
It is difficult to understand the cinema industry’s protestations. The cost to make a cinema accessible is .00125% of the total box office taken in a year. This is mere ‘petty cash’ in the corporate world. Any shareholder of any business that would miss out on a potential $700 million in profits would demand the resignation of their bosses. Yet still the cinema industry cannot see the big picture.
It has been 20 years since a large scale national protest such as this one has been seen. It took an enormous amount of work to bring it all together. There were hundreds of emails, and postings on Facebook. There were countless number of text messages and phone calls. High profile people were contacted for support as well as the media. Numerous meetings were held and people travelled hundreds of kilometres to attend. Yet despite the mounting evidence and overwhelming voice that screamed for change there were doubters and naysayers. How wrong the doubters were.
At the campaign the Channels 2, 7, 9 news crews arrived to record the event for the national news. Channel 2 made the campaign a national news item that was over 2 minutes in duration. This news item received saturation coverage all over the country. Local and state newspapers conducted interviews and there were even radio interviews. There were messages of support from leading ex-politicians, entertainment icons, community leaders and MPs.
So successful was the campaign that rural and outer suburban areas wanted to organise their own campaigns. Interest was expressed in areas as diverse as Ballarat, Parramatta, Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and Darwin. In fact there is a strong call for further nationwide protests. Several organisations that were at first uncertain and seemingly unwilling, are now fully backing the campaign. Emails are still coming in commending the campaign from as far as away as New Zealand and the UK. The sentiments expressed are usually along the lines of “Onya Aussies!!”
Federal Ministers and relevant advisors are continuously receiving email and hard-copy letters and postcards asking them to support the campaign against the cinemas. With this year being an election year it is essential that the energy generated by the campaign is flamed and maintained. We need to let the MPs know that OUR VOTE COUNTS!
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) will very soon announce its decision to either accept or reject the Cinemas’ request for a DDA complaints exemption. At the time of writing, the cinemas have yet to respond to any of the questions that AHRC compiled from the 450 submission made against this exemption. The question remains – Just what will thecinemas do? What are they thinking? Will they demonstrate Corporate SocialResponsibility? Will they listen to their current and future market? Or will they justignore us all?
It remains to be seen. At the current time we understand this campaign has generated around 250 discrimination complaints to the AHRC in regard to cinema accessibility. Will theAHRC show us all that they have some teeth or will they once again bow to corporatepressure?
We have possibly 10 million Australians directly affected by the lack of cinema accessibility. The AHRC has received 450 formal submissions rejecting the exemption submission. 250 individuals have lodged a formal complaint against the cinemas. Can the message be anylouder or clearer than this? Will they take heed, not just for us, but for the futuregenerations to come?
Just as the women of today look back and say thanks to those women who chained themselves to walls all those years ago for the right to vote, may the future generations look back on what we have done and say “Thank you for making my life that much better, not just for me, but for everyone around me.”
“One, who earns leadership of the masses by working ceaselessly for people’s welfare finally realizes that he has been rewarded with many added advantages. ”
The first social event for the Professional Deaf Australians [PDA] social and networking group, was held on Saturday 30 Janaury 2010. It was a successful first event, and more are in the pipeline. The venue, Kelly’s On King, is fast become popular with Deafies as a meeting place of choice. It possesses a good vibe, which [...] […]
Professional Deaf Australians had its first social networking event last Saturday, 30 January 2010. It was a successful event that saw a mix of Deaf and Hearing people turn up to inaugurate the group. Held at Kelly’s On King Street [a venue in Newtown, Sydney, that is becoming quite popular with Deaf people], the meet and greet was a social event intended a […]
