Site Contamination Prevention Australia Survey Results
In mid-November 2015, Site Contamination Prevention Australia distributed an online survey to current and past subscribers. The objective of the survey was get feedback from subscribers as to Site Contamination Prevention Australia processes and the scheme after its first twelve months of operation.
In total 135 people were contacted and 30 responses collected over the week the survey was run. Respondents who completed the survey went into a draw for three $100 gift vouchers.
In terms of respondent makeup, 20 respondents had either applied as practitioners or not applied and 9 had applied as auditors. This is an important consideration as the application process for practitioners is different from the application process for accredited environmental auditors. This fact is important to keep in mind when reviewing questions 1, 4, and 8.
Question 1: Compared with your expectations was preparing an application for Site Contamination Prevention Australia certification…..(n=29)
Question 2: How useful is the information on the Site Contamination Prevention Australia website in preparing an application for certification? (n=29)
Question 3: What sort of additional information would be useful for applicants?
More than half of responses were concerned with more information on how to apply for certification, including guidelines on preparing an application and also examples of previous applications. Responses included;
“Perhaps some examples of generic applicants who would and would not be suitable for qualification.”
“I found the information to be sufficient. I think there is a point where too much information can be provided or be made accessible and there should be a point where the applicant has to manage their own submission and/or further information/knowledge acquisition.”
“More information on what to do regarding extended leave from the workplace (maternity, etc).”
“More practical tips”
“I understand that the scheme is still “evolving” so the feedback from previous rounds is very useful”
Question 4: How much time did you spend preparing your application? (n=29)
Question 5: In relation to the above question on how much time spent on an application, do you think it was (n=29):-
Question 6: Based on information found on the Site Contamination Prevention Australia website, and information made available through presentations, what sort of concerns or reservations do you have about the assessment process? (n=29)
Verbatim for concerns other than No issues/concerns included;
“SCP needs to re-think the assessment process for senior professionals who are not auditors. There are many who make a significant contribution to the profession who cannot “tick all the boxes” with regard to field work. Need to consider how the components of the assessment can be weighted differently for people at different career stages.”
“The idea that 20 years of experience is judged in 1hr under potentially stressful conditions”- in reference to an interview.
“The panel that is assessing the applications are not made known to the applicant. Obviously the assessment is fair and arbitrary but being devil’s advocate there would be potential for a reviewer and an applicant to be known to one another and perhaps not on the best of terms – might consider listing the review panel for each period?”
“By the nature of our workplaces and jobs we get, some of the areas of expertise are difficult to get sufficient experience in. I found that not having experience in one or two areas resulted in me not being able to apply during the round I was trying to get my application in for. Have had to speak with my managers to see if we can drum up work in these areas so I can get appropriate experience.”
“I am just concerned that there are no real guidelines on what is expected as a competent practitioner for example while the Auditors have the Auditor guidelines on what they need to assess when reviewing a report but we are expected to be competent. So I am concerned that the Auditors will assess our level of skill against their own.”
“I don’t believe that the EPA(s) should be involved in the candidate selection process and should not be consulted in regard to who is suitable for certification/membership (or not). This should be determined by SCPA as a totally independent body.”
Many of these comments can be responded to by the Executive Officer and will be included into a FAQ and posted online. Alternately, if there are concerns or comments included or not included here which people wish to raise and/or discuss, please either contact the Executive Officer directly or post your questions/concerns on the Site Contamination Prevention Australia forums: http://scpaustralia.com.au/forums/
Question 7: If you participated in an interview, what is your overall feedback about the process? From your perspective what worked well?, why? And what did not work and why?
15 respondents did not participate in an interview. Comments other than not applicable, included;
“I found SCP very helpful in arranging my travel plans to get the SCP Panel interview in Melbourne. I found the SCP interview panel to be thorough and fair in their questioning and I thought the scenario had an appropriate level of detail given the time available.”
“I haven’t participated, but colleagues have indicated it was useful to expand on aspects, that may have been slightly under-cooked in the written application process.”
“Nerve racking, I walked out of my interview and intermediately thought of a dozen things that I wanted to say. It would be nice if the auditors asked a few more questions to prompt people.”
“I found the interview process to be very well executed. Having the case study allowed me to more easily explain the assessment process and the panel were able to probe for further information to assess knowledge and identify gaps.”
“the panel was supportive. Interviews get side tracked by panel questions”
“worked well as it tested what you know. Feedback was good”
“Process was ok. Expectations a little vague.”
Question 8: If you have already completed an assessment process, how satisfied are you with the overall feedback provided on your application?
Question 9: In your opinion how can feedback from the assessment process be improved?
Three quarters of respondents either had nothing to add or selected not applicable. Those who provided comments included;
“I was very satisfied with the feedback received.”
“By allowing applicants to discuss comments with the assessor/s”
“Feedback was interesting however, not particularly relevant/productive as it was received at the same time as notification of successful application.”
“I found it difficult in some ways to express ~20 years of experience in 3-4 paragraphs and get judged on that. There could be scope to bring in a more senior person with a close working relationship to make comment on the extent of the experience of an applicant in more detail than is currently done.”
“Maybe a bit more detailed feedback could be provided.”
“The current format is very transparent. It appears that all comments are lumped in to the report. On the one hand it is good to see all comments, even if some are contradictory. However, it might seem more professional and constructive if the 3 panelists agree on summary comments for each competency under structured headings (i.e. demonstration of concepts, reference to guidance, cited examples).”
“No – I was impressed with the feedback process (from my point of view as an assessor).”
Question 10: What sort of information/services would you like to see regularly from Site Contamination Prevention Australia? (n=23)
Comments included;
“Impact of SCPA accreditation on members – i.e. what has accreditation meant to the professional career of an accredited member. Where is the clear/demonstrated value in accreditation?”
“information on training which may be provided by Site Contamination Prevention Australia or others. This could really assist future applicants and current practitioners in planning how they are to achieve and maintain the yearly PD requirements.”
“links to short courses / seminars. updates on standards and legislation.”
“Would be good to see some examples from regulators clients where the accreditation is being recognised.”
“Updates around new technologies for remediation and risk management. ALGA run a really good information evening series which is also available via webinar and works really well.”
“Is there a Linked In page? this might be useful for practitioners nationwide to pass around information freely?”
“A regular update/e-newsletter of activities and perhaps profiles of recently certified practitioners.”
“Impact of SCPA accreditation on members – i.e. what has accreditation meant to the professional career of an accredited member. Where is the clear/demonstrated value in accreditation?”
Question 11: How can we improve your experience of Site Contamination Prevention Australia?
There were many different suggestions on how we can improve your experience of Site Contamination Prevention Australia which is being taken on board. But some comments include;
“Register “list” of certified practitioners should be rotated, as it appears random and it is reasonable to assume that someone looking for such services will start at the top of the list, meaning those on subsequent pages are at a disadvantage.”
“Possibly facilitating mentoring opportunities for younger practitioners.”
“I think it is still very early days and no doubt there will be more expansion, so it is hard to judge the experience thus far. However it might be beneficial to have annual seminars or tie ins with Ecoforum or Clean up where SCPs can have a set forum. Emails of upcoming certified CPD events would also be useful to remind SCPs to keep up on CPD.”
“I am concerned about the impact of having 3 separate schemes, with different accreditation requirements. I would like to see SCPA working with regulators to see the SCPA-standard recognised for its high professional standard.”
“Updated on lobbying/collaboration with other relevant industry groups.”
I would like to thank you everyone who participated in the Site Contamination Prevention Australia survey, as your views are valued. This summary report was tabled with the National Executive Committee Site Contamination Prevention Australia for their comment and review, especially in considering future policy directions and initiatives for the scheme. If you have any additional comments to share, or seek specific responses to comments made in the survey, please feel free to contact me directly. Alternately, you can also post your views for discussion on the Site Contamination Prevention Australia forums at: http://scpaustralia.com.au/forums/
Paul Saeki
Executive Officer
Site Contamination Practitioners Australia
Phone: 08 83023933
Mobile: 0437224158
Email: admin@scpaustralia.com.au