Evaluation of the asbestos awareness training program sponsored by the Asbestos Disease Society of South Australia

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the asbestos awareness training program sponsored by the Asbestos Disease Society of South Australia Final Report Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency 31 July 2015

2 Acknowledgments This work was completed with the assistance of Andrew Morgan and Stephen Rochfort from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. We would also like to thank the many key informants including coordinators and students from Aberfoyle Park High School, Hallett Cove R-12 School, Pasadena High School, PEER VEET Training Centre, Rosewater Trade Training Centre, Mt Carmel College, and Yankalilla Area School. We thank them for their time and insights and trust that their views are adequately represented in this report. A full list of the individuals who participated in the project is in the Appendix. ARTD Consultancy Team Francis Matthew-Simmons Jane Ford Chris Milne ARTD Pty Ltd ABN Tel Fax Level 4, 352 Kent St Sydney PO Box 1167 Queen Victoria Building NSW 1230 Australia ii

3 Contents Abbreviations and acronyms... iv Executive summary... v Introduction... v... v Findings... vi Conclusion... vii 1. Introduction Asbestos and the construction industry Asbestos awareness training The evaluation Purpose and scope Methodology Key evaluation questions Findings Reaction Learning Behaviour Costs Conclusions and recommendations Appendix 1: Focus groups and interviews iii

4 Abbreviations and acronyms ADSSA ASEA CFS CITB DECD PEER VEET PPE RTO SES WHS Asbestos Disease Society of South Australia Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Country Fire Service Construction Industry Training Board Department of Education and Child Development Plumbing, Electrical, Electronic and Refrigeration; Vocational Education, Employment and Training Personal protective equipment Registered Training Organisation State Emergency Service Work Health and Safety iv

5 Executive summary Introduction Asbestos related diseases including asbestosis, mesothelioma, and other forms of cancer, represent a significant burden on the Australian community, with Australia having the second highest rate of mesothelioma in the world. Despite this, previous research has shown that awareness of asbestos-related risks is poor, including among tradespeople where it is an occupational risk. To address the lack of awareness of asbestos risks in the construction industry, the Asbestos Disease Society of South Australia (ADSSA) initiated an asbestos awareness training session in South Australian trade schools. The training comprises one session of around two hours, which includes a presentation, and a short film about the pathophysiology of asbestos-related diseases. The training is presented by volunteers with personal experience with asbestos related disease. The objectives of the training are to: increase student awareness of the health risks associated with asbestos exposure increase students ability to recognise asbestos on work sites increase the likelihood of students pointing out asbestos on work sites to supervisors and others. This exploratory evaluation was commissioned by the Australian Government Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (the agency). The evaluation investigated the impact of the training sessions on the awareness of young people who participated, how this has translated into changed behaviour on work-sites, and impacted on interactions with employers where asbestos related issues may arise. The evaluation was informed by the widely used Kirkpatrick model for the evaluation of training programs, and examined three levels: reaction (how well the training was received by participants and other stakeholders), learning (what information was retained by the participants), and behaviour (how the participants changed their behaviour as a result of the training). The main data collection activities were focus groups and interviews with students; and interviews with stakeholders, facilitators, training coordinators, and employers. In total, we collected data from 63 students and 15 other stakeholders, with consistent findings from all sources. Within the limits of the scope and methods for this evaluation, we are confident that the evidence provides a sound basis for the themes and issues in the findings. 5

6 Findings Reaction to the training Overall, both students and other stakeholders had had a positive reaction to the training session, and believed that it fulfilled an important need. The existing accredited trade training programs included very little information about the risks of asbestos on worksites and how to manage them. The training was also considered valuable because of the low level of awareness within the construction industry, particularly among smaller employers. Students said that one of the key strengths of the training was the personalised stories and films about the effects of asbestos, and that the trainers themselves had had personal experience with asbestos related disease. There were some negative comments about the training; some students said the course was too heavily weighted in favour of the health risks, and there was not enough practical advice about how to handle asbestos. Others felt that the course delivery was a bit dated. Learning Nearly all the students said that the course had influenced their attitude to protecting their own safety and their teammates safety in the workplace and protecting their family from associated risks. Most students in the focus groups said they had known very little about asbestos risks before doing the course. Students were able to describe a number of facts about asbestos and managing risks that they had learnt through the course, indicating that information had been retained. Behaviour There was less evidence about behaviour change as a result of the training. Many of the students who we spoke to had not yet been into the workplace since the asbestos training, but were about to go on work experience. Of those students that had entered into a workplace, results were mixed we did find instances of changes in behaviour in relation to personal safety and the use of protective equipment. For example, one student who was now working in the industry had used a mask on a job, even after an older employee had said not to worry about handling asbestos. However, other students said that they had worked in workplaces where they believed there might have been asbestos, but they had not taken any precautions. Stakeholders admitted that it could be intimidating to notify employers when asbestos might be found, as some of the old culture remains in the industry. Reluctance to report asbestos remains a significant issue for many participants. 6

7 Costs The training course is subsidised by grant funding and is presented free of charge to clients. Using figures provided by the training provider, we calculated the average cost per student in 2015 at approximately $83 for country students (19 sessions delivered in 2015), and $35 for city students (31 sessions delivered). Conclusion There is strong evidence that asbestos awareness training is needed for new entrants to the construction industry. The ADSSA training session was considered valuable by students and training stakeholders, and shown to improve the knowledge of students and their attitudes towards the risks of asbestos. The limited evidence available to the evaluation on changes in participants behaviour in the workplace pointed to positive responses for some but not all participants, and no negative consequences. The report makes a number of practical recommendations for improving the training to support participants learning and to change behaviour in the workplace. More broadly, awareness of and attitudes towards asbestos in the construction industry in South Australia varies, with few if any controls on small worksites, and very little concern shown by some workers. There is some evidence that students who have completed the training can influence other employees in the workplace. However barriers to changing behaviour in the workplace remain, with some young employees and students reluctant to tell their boss or workmates something they may not want to hear. The challenge for this short training session is to develop more enduring ways to reinforce the messages and support more young people in reporting asbestos risks that they observe in the workplace. Given the significant financial and economic costs of asbestos related disease, this initial evaluation suggests that a relatively small investment in training may lead to a large benefit for individuals involved in the construction industry, and the community more broadly. On this basis, further implementation of the training is worthwhile, and in line with the precautionary principle in the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management. Any extension should be accompanied by monitoring and evaluation to build the evidence for further improving the program and assessing its effectiveness. vii

8 1. Introduction 1.1 Asbestos and the construction industry Asbestos related diseases represent a significant burden on the Australian community. These diseases, including asbestosis, mesothelioma, and other forms of cancer, are caused by inhalation of asbestos fibres and are often not diagnosed until many years after exposure. Australia has the second highest rate of mesothelioma in the world. In 2011 (the most recent year that data is available), 606 deaths in Australia were caused by mesothelioma, and 125 deaths were caused by asbestosis 1. The financial and economic costs of asbestos related disease are also significant; costs for providing treatment for once case of mesothelioma have previously been estimated at $57,000 (2001 estimate) 2. Currently the main area for potential exposure to asbestos fibres is through the renovation or demolition of older buildings. Due to the widespread use of asbestos in building construction in Australia, the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres remains substantial. It is expected that new cases of asbestos related diseases will continue to be reported over the next 40 years. Despite this, previous research has shown that awareness of asbestos-related risks, particularly among tradespeople, is poor. As such, there is an existing need for practical information on asbestos and how to manage any potential exposure Asbestos awareness training In order to address the lack of awareness of asbestos risks in the construction industry, the Asbestos Disease Society of South Australia (ADSSA) initiated the delivery of an asbestos awareness training session in South Australian trade schools. The training is part of the Construction Industry Training Board syllabus, and is targeted at Year 11 and 12 students about to enter construction industry trades. It has also been provided in South Australian Trade Schools and through the State Emergency Service (SES), the Country Fire Service (CFS) and councils. The objectives of the training are to: increase student awareness of the health risks associated with asbestos exposure increase students ability to recognise asbestos on work sites, and strategies for risk mitigation 1 Safe Work Australia, Asbestos-related Disease Indicators, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, Regulatory Impact Statement of the Proposed Phase Out of Chrysotile Asbestos, Colmar Brunton, Asbestos Awareness Research,

9 increase the likelihood of students pointing out asbestos on work sites to supervisors and others. The construction industry is complicated, fragmented and diverse. Work sites range from large constructions with an overall project manager involving a multitude of trades and subcontractors variously engaged over time, to small sites involving one tradesman, to occasions of informal work. Major stakeholders in relation to safety include construction companies, building owners, unions and safety regulators. For young people, training providers can be influential. By targeting young people entering into the industry, the ADSSA hoped to engender cultural change within the industry over the longer term, to increase the level of awareness of asbestos not only among the young people themselves, but the industry more generally. ADSSA considered it important to focus on smaller worksites, rather than larger ones, where there may be already adequate risk management procedures in place, and where removal of asbestos would be more likely to be undertaken by qualified professionals. Smaller worksites were considered to be those where there was less awareness and/or mitigation of the risks of asbestos: It s not the 2000 professional asbestos removers that we need to worry about they are trained to remove asbestos safely and they have the appropriate equipment. It s the 2 million guys doing small jobs we need to educate. John Carter, Asbestos & You Delivery and scope The course was designed by Asbestos & You; a specialist Registered Training Organisation (RTO) based in Adelaide. Asbestos & You delivers the training through two accredited trainers with experience in WHS and asbestos management. The training comprises one session of around two hours 4, which includes a presentation, and a short film about the pathophysiology of asbestos-related diseases. The training covers: the production of asbestos the range of products that may contain asbestos (including bagged samples of asbestos material) the health risks of asbestos, emphasising the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres asbestos related disease trajectories; the fact that people exposed to asbestos this year may not become ill for another 40 years management of asbestos risks, including asbestos registers 4 This is considerably less time than the 8-hour sessions each required for Certificate 1 and 2 training courses to safely remove asbestos, but considered to be enough to help students identify and manage risk. 2

10 what precautions to take in activities such as drilling holes, excavation or demolition where there is likely to be a risk. The clear message to students is to be wary of building sites where asbestos is likely to be found, wear protective clothing such as gloves and masks, and take care not to break up asbestos. The students are given practical ways they might raise safety concerns if they come across asbestos in the workplace, such as suggesting to their employer that they will check the asbestos register, or obtain appropriate safety equipment/clothing to do the job safely. They are also provided with practical information on how to mitigate risk themselves, including ways to minimise dust, by using plastic and masking tape, wetting the product, using a hand drill rather than an electrical drill and keeping their face away from the dust. Figure 1. Examples from presentation/booklet 3

11 Participants are provided with a booklet which includes the same information that is provided in the presentation. They are also given links to an information website (created by Asbestos & You, Carter Corporation) and a 24/7 advice line (also funded by the Carter Corporation). We give them a booklet and point them towards the asbestos info website and tell them to teach the old fellas give it to Dad or their employer. It shows them the reasons, including the legal reasons, why they have to pay attention to the safety message. In 2014 the programme provided training to 400 students, and in 2015 the program provided training to 922 students overall, in 50 individual sessions. The program s trainers, John Carter and Maggie Thomas are volunteers with a background in WHS training Funding for the training The training is funded from a mix of sources, including a grant from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and South Australian government sources including SafeWork SA. The training program is managed through a partnership between the ADSSA and the Carter Corporation which formed Asbestos & You and the informational website, Asbestos Info, to support the training. The program is part of the South Australian Government s Asbestos Safety Action Plan, and is sponsored by SafeWork SA. Asbestos & You receives funding from a variety of grants, including from the Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) and the industry funded, Construction Industry Training Board. Asbestos & You returns any unused funds to the ADSSA to help support people with asbestos related disease Program logic ARTD developed a program logic model for the training, based on the Kirkpatrick training model (see Figure 2, for a description of the Kirkpatrick model see Section 2.2) which outlines the intended outcomes of the training and how it contributes to the longer term program outcomes. The learning outcomes cover changes in knowledge and attitudes of the students. The behavioural changes refer to whether they will act in line with this in the workplace, and the factors influencing this. While the program logic represents a training program, it also includes the additional input of the website and telephone hotline. The learning outcomes and behavioural change include using the website and telephone hotline when needed. 4

12 Figure 2. Asbestos awareness training program logic model Long term program outcomes More asbestos related risks identified in the industry Stronger safety culture in the industry Behaviour Learning Students identify risks of asbestos Students are aware of asbestos risks Students take responsibility for their safety (eg PPE) Students know how to recognise asbestos risks on worksites Students communicate risks to others (e.g. supervisors) Students feel responsible for safety of themselves and workmates External factors: Attitudes of others in industry Workplace culture Reaction Students react positively to the training Outputs Suitable 2 hour asbestos awareness training delivered to construction industry students ( ) Inputs Training materials Accredited trainers Funding Website and telephone hotline Problem: Low awareness of asbestos related risk among workforce in construction industry 5

13 2. The evaluation 2.1 Purpose and scope This evaluation was commissioned by the Commonwealth Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (the agency). The evaluation was exploratory in nature, and aimed to investigate the impact of the training sessions on the awareness of young people who participated, and how this has translated into changed behaviour on work-sites, and impacted on interactions with employers where asbestos related issues may arise. The scope of the evaluation was the delivery of the programme in 2014 and The purpose of the evaluation was to inform decisions about future government funding for the training, and to consider any potential improvements 5. Whilst the agency partially funded a number of training sessions, the evaluation was not concerned with looking at only those sessions which were funded by the agency, but the training as a whole. 2.2 Methodology Evaluation design We used a theory-based design for the evaluation, informed by the Kirkpatrick model, a widely used model for the evaluation of training programs 6. It describes four levels to be examined in understanding the effectiveness of training. They are: Reaction (how well the training was received by participants and other stakeholders), Learning (what information was retained by the participants), Behaviour (how the participants changed their behaviour as a result of the training), and Results/Outcomes (the final outcomes in relation to the original need that the training aimed to fulfil). In this evaluation, we focused on the first three of these levels, given that the final results/outcomes that the training would ideally hope to achieve (a reduction in asbestos related disease) was not possible to measure. It also should be acknowledged that opportunities to apply new knowledge gained as a result of the training varied across individuals in different work environments. Some students may have had no opportunities to change their behaviour, as they may never have come across asbestos. Therefore, the absence of change in behaviour should not necessarily be seen as a failure of the training. 5 The agency also provided a grant towards implementation of the program in Kirkpatrick, D. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (4 th ed.). San Francisco: Berret-Koehler,

14 2.3 Key evaluation questions The evaluation sought to address these key questions, which are organised according to the program logic model. Reaction Learning Behaviour How valuable is the training considered by students, teachers and other stakeholders? Has the training given students an increased awareness of: the risks of asbestos? how to recognise asbestos? what to do when asbestos is suspected on the work site? how to get further advice To what extent have students: identified the risks of asbestos in the workplace? taken responsibility for their safety? communicated these risks to others? What are some of the barriers and/or facilitators for students to do the above? Costs What is the cost of providing the training? Methods for data collection and analysis The main data collection activities were focus groups and interviews with students and interviews with stakeholders, facilitators, training coordinators, and employers. We used a snowballing strategy to identify suitable metropolitan and regional schools, using a convenience sample based on the availability of coordinators, teachers and students within the short timeframe for the evaluation. Coordinators were the main gatekeepers who facilitated access to both students and employees. It was difficult to locate employers who were willing or able to participate in the evaluation. Some employers had gone out of business, some were too busy, and others did not think that they had anything relevant to contribute. The samples of schools and interviews are in Appendix 1. In total, we collected data from 63 students and 15 other stakeholders. In many cases we were expected to conduct focus groups with teachers present, which in some cases may have limited the responses of students. In several cases, however, the teachers were useful in prompting students to respond. We also asked students to complete a short survey during the group, with varying degrees of enthusiasm or capacity. Interviews with individual students provided more detailed responses. Within these constraints, we collected rich information on the views and experiences of students and stakeholders, in different contexts. 7

15 We conducted a thematic analysis of the focus group and interview data in line with the key evaluation questions about what students remembered from the course, what they had used and their thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the course. In addition to the data collected through the focus groups and interviews, we also obtained from the trainer the set of paper-based post-course assessments that students completed. We analysed a random sample (n=20) of assessments to explore reactions to the course. We extracted the qualitative comments to provide an indication of what students thought about the course (whether they had a positive or negative reaction), the suggested areas for improvement and the impact students believed it would have on their behaviour in the workplace Ethics and privacy Reports from focus groups and interviews were confidential to ARTD, and no individual students, coordinators, teachers or employers are identified in the report. The main ethical risk was finding potentially dangerous practices. A couple of students reported having dealt with products that possibly contained asbestos, this information was provided with the teacher present and did not relate to their school work experience placements Limitations and confidence in the findings Although this was an exploratory evaluation, we need to note some limitations to the data. One limitation is that we could not determine how well the participants in the evaluation represented the broader student population that undertook this course. There were also instances where the presence of teachers in the focus groups may have influenced what students were willing to discuss. Finally, the scope and size of the evaluation precluded the use of other methods to determine the effectiveness of the course in increasing knowledge or changing behaviour (for example we were not able to measure the knowledge of a similar group who had not taken the course). Whilst acknowledging these limitations, the information provided by the different sources was consistent, and no countervailing views were identified. While the sampling may have led to a positive bias, we are confident that the themes and issues that emerged in the findings provide sound evidence to inform the evaluation questions. 8

16 3. Findings We report the findings from the consultations according to three main levels of training outcomes in the Kirkpatrick model: 1. Reaction how valuable the participants felt the training was. 2. Learning what new information the students felt that was provided by the training 3. Behaviour what new behaviours occurred as a result of the training 3.1 Reaction The first level we examined was reaction: the extent to which the participants and other stakeholders felt that the training was valuable and worthwhile. Overall, both students and other stakeholders had had a positive reaction to the training session, and believed that it fulfilled an existing need. It was mentioned that existing accredited trade training programs usually had very little information about the risks of asbestos on worksites and how to manage them. For example, it was estimated that the existing Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) syllabus had minutes on asbestos, out of around 100 total hours of course content. Another reason the training was considered valuable was the existing level of awareness within the construction industry, particularly among smaller employers. Many of the interview participants felt that in general, tradespeople had a relaxed attitude to handling asbestos, and lacked understanding of the health risks. Therefore, younger tradespeople needed to be equipped with knowledge about the risks they might face in the workplace, so that they could make informed decisions about how they would manage them. This was particularly important for young people who worked in smaller workplaces where some of the old attitudes to safety were more likely to still prevail. This [training] is very important because many employers do not have this information. It is important in protecting the students from exposure to asbestos in the workplace and it is also important in enabling them to understand their individual responsibility in ensuring workplace safety. It helps empower them to speak up by providing them with information they need to make decisions about whether it is safe they can t just rely on employers. Program manager, Department of Education and Child Development Industry is ignorant they don t know what they don t know older generations have little understanding of asbestos risks. Young people need to know employers don t know. Regulations allow for tradespeople to remove up to 10m 2 of asbestos without calling in a professional, so it was also possible that young tradespeople might be asked to do this. A range of participants said some employers were reluctant to call in professionals to remove asbestos because they did not want the hassle or to slow the job even if they are 9

17 prepared to pay the additional cost of 85c/ kg to have it removed. In this context, it was important to inform young workers about how to limit their exposure. Both students and teachers/ trainers generally said the course was very valuable. The students felt that the training highlighted a significant workplace risk, of which many of them had been unaware of (or only vaguely aware of) beforehand. Students were asked to nominate which components of the training were the most useful. Table 1. Highlights raised by students Awareness of asbestos The broad range of examples provided to show where asbestos might be found The list of materials in which asbestos could be found The explanation of the different types of asbestos e.g. blue and brown asbestos Advice that asbestos is only harmful if it is disturbed and fibres become airborne Information about the length of time fibres could remain airborne Dangers of asbestos Information about the potential to expose family members and workmates through clothing Personalised stories and plain language about asbestos-related diseases Level of fear generated through the story telling, which grabbed attention and made students focus on the danger Managing asbestos risks in the workplace Importance of taking precautions (wearing masks, gloves, not drilling etc.) if asbestos is likely to be present Information about the website and hotline For students, a key strength was the personalised stories and films about the effects of asbestos, and that the trainers themselves had had personal experience with asbestos related disease (John was a strong supporter of prominent anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Bampton and Maggie s father died of asbestos-related disease at the age of 52, having insulated pipes in confined spaces in naval ships in the UK). In the eyes of many of the students, this set the asbestos awareness training apart from other health and safety training they had received, and made it more memorable. One student said: This course was particularly good because it had that personal emphasis it wasn t just a detached, general approach. I thought the course was an eye opener with the examples of people who had been affected. Satisfaction with the awareness training was also reflected in the short post-course assessments that had been collected from each student in hard copy. Many students added comments, and overall the comments on the training were positive: 10

18 Good to hear the stories. Now I know more about asbestos and I m questioning whether I ve been exposed before. Be careful with asbestos and wear PPE. The approach was great, showed the seriousness of the situation and the speaker was great. I learnt that asbestos is still everywhere even though it got banned. It taught me not to drill anything if I m not sure. I will be using the information to promote a safe work ethic. Provided great information about asbestos, underlining dangers and procedures. I believe it was great that he didn t just give us information but gave us stories too. I liked the way John had some bags with different stuff that had asbestos in it. Negative comments on the feedback forms tended to focus on the length of the presentation and the delivery: Just talking through a PowerPoint isn t very engaging but it was informative. It went for a long time and I zoned out at the end. The reason I did not enjoy the approach is that we were just sitting down and talking through a PowerPoint but the information given was eye opening and informative. Boring but helpful. Too much talking, too long, found it difficult to stay awake. Whilst the reaction to the training was positive overall, there were some weaknesses identified by focus group participants. Some students said the course was too heavily weighted in favour of the health risks, and there was not enough practical advice about how to handle asbestos, given that regulation allows for the removal of up to 10m 2 of asbestos without requiring specialist removal. For example: For me, the identification of it was something I wanted to learn. I didn t really learn that aspect. I want to know how to identify where asbestos is if you look at a wall or something you can say it is asbestos. But I wouldn t know what it is unless it has the sticker on it, saying Warning, don t go near it. Apprentice during focus group Some apprentices also reported that the course delivery was a bit dated. Interviewees suggested that the course might be improved by: more practical (bagged) examples of asbestos larger pictures of asbestos highlighting the key identifying factors 11

19 more information about how to handle asbestos in different circumstances perhaps by getting students to wear the correct personal protective equipment and show how to deal with asbestos situations, such as cutting a hole in an electrical board a quiz immediately following the course to solidify their understanding. 3.2 Learning The second level of successful training is learning; what new information is retained by participants. We looked at the extent to which the training gave students an increased awareness of: the risks of asbestos how to recognise asbestos what to do when asbestos is suspected on the work site how to get further advice Most students in the focus groups said they had known very little about asbestos risks before doing the course. Trade apprentices also reported knowing very little about the health risks of asbestos and how it affected the respiratory system. Whilst there was a general awareness of asbestos and that it was dangerous in some way, for many students they did not know anything beyond that. For example: I knew asbestos was deadly but I didn t know how. I thought if you touched it, it would give you a rash or something. Both students and apprentices agreed that they had been unaware of how extensive the use of asbestos had been in the past, and that it had been very useful to learn that asbestos could be in materials such as carpet underlay, insulation, electrical insulation, pipe insulation, landfill, paint, pavers, roofing, fencing materials, glue as well as cement sheeting. One student, whose grandfather, a fitter and turner, had died of asbestosis, said he had learned a great deal about the different types of asbestos and the way asbestos fibres attach to the lungs from the course. I remember him talking about long term exposure he told us that it doesn t just affect [the tradesperson] but it affects their family because he brings in the fibres in asbestos covered clothes. He gave us examples of wives who had suffered from asbestosis just from washing the clothes. Nearly all the students said that the course had influenced their attitude to protecting their own safety and their teammates safety in the workplace and protecting their family from associated risks. Many said that they would ensure that they had a mask and many also said they would ask to call a professional in most cases rather than handle asbestos. Students from each focus group also mentioned the need to be cautious with work clothes that might have been exposed to asbestos dust to protect family members from exposure. Comments about what students would do in the case of finding asbestos included: 12

20 If you saw it, you would avoid it step 1. I would raise it with my boss or another worker. I would to the boss first. If he doesn t do anything I would say to him: I ll just get someone in. I would probably call an expert. I would definitely go and get a mask and a vacuum cleaner. [The course] makes you more cautious. If I was in an old house, I wouldn t just drill into a wall. I would think about it first. If it was just a sheet, I would take it down but I d be careful not to break it. 3.3 Behaviour We looked at the extent that students changed their behaviour, or intention to behave, as a result of the training. In particular, we looked at the extent to which they had identified the risks of asbestos in the workplace, taken responsibility for their safety, and communicated these risks to others. We also considered the barriers and/or facilitators that influenced the capacity for students to change their behaviour. Many of the students who we spoke to had not yet been into a workplace since the asbestos training, but were about to go on work experience. When asked if the training had changed anything they might do at work, students comments included: I think it just makes you more inclined to think more about how you might approach a job. It makes you think about your responsibility to the team. I would raise the issue with an employer. If an employer wants to have a go at me, I d say: Look, it s dangerous. I m not dying 20 years from now from that. Course coordinators advocated that the teachers get the students to use the sample asbestos register, to practice identifying asbestos around their school or in neighbouring properties. But only a few students had looked at the asbestos information website where the register was held (the website was developed by Carter Corporation). Most said they would if they needed to, and a couple had asked relatives working in building and construction to look at it. Those who had looked at the website thought that it was useful, and many others felt relieved to know that there was a telephone hotline that they could call. Prior to the training, many students were not aware of the telephone hotline. As one student explained: Before the course, I did not realise there was somewhere where you could call and they would provide advice, free of charge. I would have thought you would need to call an expert and that would be costly. 13

21 There was anecdotal evidence that the course had improved awareness in those other than students; one student who had worked with his uncle in the construction industry had raised the issue with him, and had seen a marked change in his attitude. I pointed it out to my uncle when I was on work placement last year up in NSW I had a little bit of training he didn t really pay much heed to it but after he went to the course himself I noticed a big change in his approach to it. There was evidence of changes in behaviour in relation to personal safety and the use of protective equipment. One student who was now working in the construction industry said that he had used a mask on a job, even after an older employee had said not to worry about handling asbestos. Another student said the course had changed the way he handled his work clothes and he now ensures he has full overalls and a full filtered mask when handling asbestos. One employer, who had hosted a student that had undertaken the training, noted a difference between older and newer employees in terms of their attitudes and behaviours (however it is difficult to attribute this to the training alone). I believe there is a bit of a culture difference between the older employees and younger tradies with respect to asbestos some of the older guys are a bit more blasé because the risks were not so well known. You see them sometimes on site picking it up with their hands, no masks etc The young kids are completely different they are afraid of it and have learnt a lot more about it. This view was supported by a teacher: It has come a long way since I was an apprentice We had asbestos blankets, we had asbestos down in the tunnels we used to have asbestos cabling that we used to strip and wire up We had nothing [to protect us against the dust] we were lucky to have a hanky to put over your nose. The propensity to express safety concerns in the workplace is inevitably linked to a person s perceived locus of control, and their confidence in speaking to people in positions of power. This idea emerged from several focus groups in which more selfconfident speakers were inclined to say that they would raise safety issues with an employer or use PPE even when others around were not, whilst less confident students admitted they had not or would not raise any such issues. A number of students said that they had worked where they believed there might have been asbestos, but they had not taken any precautions. One student said that he thought he might have picked up roof tiles containing asbestos with a bobcat, but hadn t thought about the risk. Another student said he had been told by an employer that some material he was pulling off the side of a house might have had asbestos in it, but the employer had told him he would be fine given where he was standing. The teacher then asked whether he had used a mask but the student quickly said he was pretty sure it did not have asbestos in it, apparently seeking to deflect attention from the issue. 14

22 There is also the issue of other risks; asbestos may not always be the most immediate risk that some people think of. A female construction student who also volunteered with the Country Fire Service said that CFS volunteers often forgot about the asbestos risk in old houses and water tanks at the height of the emergency. A reluctance to report asbestos, or to notify others such as employers, remains a significant issue and was something that many participants noted. Stakeholders admitted that it could be intimidating in some circumstances, particularly for girls, as some of the old culture remains in the industry. The training attempts to address this issue, to encourage students to have confidence to speak up about asbestos. It seeks to provide students with a sound knowledge base, to facilitate further behaviour change. Furthermore, students are encouraged to consider not only their own safety, but importantly, the safety of others on the site, and the safety of their families. They learn that it is a ticking time bomb and they are taught out of respect to their fellow workers and their own personal safety, they have an obligation to raise any concerns about asbestos with the employer. Trainers also encouraged students to think about the bigger picture when thinking about how they act. The thing I stress to students is: if you come across what you think is asbestos, your supervisor or employer has to convince you that either that it isn t or they are giving you a safe way of working with it. Because if they can t convince you of that, do you want to be there? 3.4 Costs The asbestos awareness training has been funded from a range of sources, of which the agency is one. The training course is provided free of charge to clients because it is subsidised by grant funding and the volunteer trainers. Course coordinators and teachers indicated that schools and training organisations did not face additional costs in organising the training. The training organisation Asbestos & You was established to secure grant funding to provide the training. The training organisation, in turn, subsidises the victim support activities of ADSSA. City/suburban courses receive grant funding of around $645 per course, and regional/rural courses $1,445 per course. This covers covering course materials, certificates, travel, and accommodation (where necessary). Any unused funding is returned to ADSSA. Regional/rural courses are bundled by location to reduce the marginal and average costs of additional courses. The booklet students receive is produced in-house (at a cost of $6.58c a booklet) with small amounts of company sponsorship. Using the above figures, the average cost per student in 2015 was 15

23 approximately $83 for country students (19 sessions delivered so far), and $35 for city students (31 sessions delivered). The training has been subsidised in a number of ways. It may often take up to two hours just to book a school. Carter Corporation also initially developed the course materials, the website and the hotline. The national hotline is operated by John Carter and Ian Shepherd, and receives around 100 calls a week. The hotline is not externally funded. 16

24 4. Conclusions and recommendations There is strong evidence that training of this nature is needed for new entrants to the construction industry. Awareness of and attitudes towards asbestos in the construction industry in South Australia varies, with few if any controls on small worksites, and little concern shown by some workers. The ADSSA asbestos awareness training session was considered valuable by students and training stakeholders, and has been effective in improving the knowledge of students, and their attitudes towards the risks of asbestos. Much of the course s success lies in its passionate delivery and story-telling. Many students said that this made the message stronger and the course more meaningful. Although the training program provides some practical examples of how to handle asbestos by not drilling or disturbing, wearing protective clothing, taping up gaps so as not to spread dust and carefully dealing with work clothing for example some students wanted more of this type of information. It was difficult to provide this in the existing training due to the two hour session length and the scope of the training. We found some examples of where students had used the information they had learned in the workplace, and there is evidence that students in the workplace who have completed the training may influence other employees. Trainers and teachers have also observed a marked shift in the younger generation s attitudes towards handling asbestos, compared to those of the old guard ; however it is not possible to attribute this to the training course. This evaluation had limited scope to assess the influence of the training session on changing the behaviour of participants once they were in the workplace and faced risks of asbestos. The available evidence indicated that the training was consistent with achieving behaviour change, with positive examples provided by some participants, and no negative consequences identified (such as encouraging riskier behaviour). Despite this, barriers to changing behaviour in the workplace remain. Behavioural change depends on many factors, not least the students capacity to speak to people in power, and many young employees and students may be reluctant to tell their boss or workmates something they may not want to hear. Traditionally, many construction students have not been strong in literacy or communication, and neither have their employers (as an example of this, in one focus group a student relied on the teacher to read the questions and write the answers on the questionnaire; this student also spoke with the most authority and knowledge about asbestos and how to manage it). The challenge for this short session is to develop more enduring ways to reinforce the messages and support young people in reporting asbestos risks that they observe in the workplace. 17

25 The evidence from this initial evaluation indicates that a relatively small investment in training may lead to a large benefit for some individuals in this high risk group, in avoiding asbestos exposure. The training also has potential to further increase the number of individuals who adopt safe behaviour and influence the wider industry. Given the significant financial and economic costs associated with asbestos related disease, it is likely that investment in this training is valuable. On this basis further implementation of the training is worthwhile, and in line with the precautionary principle in the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness and Management 7. Any extension of the training should be accompanied by ongoing monitoring and evaluation to build the evidence for further improving the program and assessing its effectiveness. From the results of this evaluation, we make the following recommendations for practical improvements to the training course: Reaction ADDSA refine the post-course assessment form to include participant details (e.g. school student or apprentice, gender). ADSSA should also record responses electronically (in a database or spreadsheet) to enable greater monitoring of feedback. Learning The course be reviewed to consider issues raised by students in section 3.2, including a short quiz at the end of the session, to reinforce and monitor learning. Behaviour change The course content be refined to provide more practical information about identifying asbestos when it poses a risk. This would encourage greater knowledge among participants, and also provide more scope for the training to influence behaviour, as it would provide more opportunities for participants to utilise their knowledge in a greater variety of situations. Practical information could include providing larger pictures and more information about how to identify asbestos information about how to safely seal an area in which there is asbestos a practical demonstration of how to fit masks effectively, and how to safely remove protective clothing after dealing with asbestos. Trainers incorporate a practice run with the Carter Corporation asbestos register in each session. There is likely to be continued reluctance among many young people to notify their employers of asbestos; the course should reinforce practical strategies for raising this with employers (in particular, what to say to employers and how to say it)

26 Explore whether use of the telephone hotline and website by course participants could be monitored, including circumstances of the call and how the caller knew about the hotline or website. 19

27 Appendix 1: Focus groups and interviews Scoping interviews (May-June 2015) Stakeholder Position Date Ian Sheppard ASSDA 22/5/15 John Carter Director, Asbestos & You 22/5/15 Steve Birnie CITB, Doorway2Construction Construction Program Coordinator, DECD 29/5/15 Malcolm Baxter Coordinator PEER VEET 10/6/15 Maggie Thomas Trainer, Asbestos & You 1/6/15 Focus groups and interviews with students Schools Location Date Group profile Number Mount Carmel College Metro Adelaide 15/6/15 Year 11, all male 9 Yankalilla Area School Regional 17/6/15 Year 9-12, all male 11 PEER VEET Trade School, Albert Park Metro Adelaide 10/6/15 Apprentices, all male 8 Aberfoyle Park Outer Metro Adelaide 19/6/15 Year 11, one female 15 Hallett Cove R-12 Outer Adelaide 24/6/15 Plumbing 15 Pasadena HS Interview Metro Adelaide 23/6/15 Past student female 1 Pasadena HS Interview Metro Adelaide 24/6/15 Past student male 1 Pasadena HS Interview Metro Adelaide 24/6/15 Past student male 1 Pasadena HS Interview Metro Adelaide 23/6/15 Current student 1 Stakeholder interviews Person Position Date Malcolm Baxter PEER VEET WH&S Manager 10/6/15 John Rogers PEER VEET apprenticeship coordinator 10/5/16 Shane Gubbin Peter Smith Manager Rosewater Trade Training Centre Mt Carmel College MTC Trainer Rosewater Trade Training Centre Mt Carmel College 15/6/15 15/6/16 20