A process evaluation
of Healthy@Work:
Finding and
implications
Dr Theresa Doherty
Dr Fiona Cocker
Seminar Aims
• Present selected findings of the H@W process
evaluation
• Identify key themes which impact on
implementation
• Open discussion on implications for future
workplace H&WB programs in the TSS
Defining Evaluation
‘The systematic collection of information about the
activities, characteristics, and/or outcomes of
programs to make judgements about the program,
improve program effectiveness, and/or inform
decisions about future programming.’ (Patton
1997)
Purpose of the Evaluation
• How was Healthy@Work implemented
across the Tasmanian State Service?
– What happened?
– What happened, in what circumstances which
led to particular outcomes?
– In light of these findings, would we implement
a workplace H&WB program differently?
Process Evaluation
Methodology
1. Reviewed and analysed H@W files – the
‘formal’ story
2. Interviewed key informants – ‘informal’
story
3. Synthesised these data – deeper
understanding of H@W
4. Report and disseminate the findings
H@W
Healthy@Work was a four-year program
(2008-2012) to support the implementation of
workplace health and wellbeing programs
throughout the TSS
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
H@W Guidelines
H@W Website
H@W grants program
A professional development program
An online survey
MD23
• identify and address issues specific to the needs of the Agency
and employees;
• involve voluntary participation by employees;
• include strategies addressing individual, organisational policy
and environmental changes;
• promote equity in the workplace by meeting the needs of
employees irrespective of their current health status;
• be coordinated within the organisation with governance and
management structures in place;
• be focused on prevention and proactive strategies; and
• complement occupational health and safety goals, but ultimately
be subordinate to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.
Ministerial Direction 23
Key question: How did the agencies respond to MD
23?
• All agencies implemented health and wellbeing programs
and complied with formal reporting requirements by
completing annual audits between 2009 -2012.
• MD 23 was received positively by the agencies. It was seen
to confer authority and legitimise workplace H&WB
programs.
• A starting point – ‘kick the agency into gear’
• Review, reorganise, formalise existing H&WB activities
• Plug established HWB program into a policy framework
Implementing the MD23
.
All agencies
•
•
•
•
Coordinator position
Coordination mechanism
Needs assessment
Evaluation and review process
Evaluation and review
‘We also report to Agency exec at the end of each
program .…to say that what the highlights and
achievements were that we got from that program and
propose the new one.
We say “This is what we did with the last one, this is
what we’ll be doing with the new one” and get their
engagement and support for the types of activities we’re
proposing, moving forward.’
Promoting H@W
Key question: How did agencies promote H@W
to their employees?
• Existing internal communications methods to promote
H&WB. These include the intranet, e. newsletters,
emails and some set up specific H&WB intranet
pages /mailboxes
• FIVE organisations had set up a brand specifically for
H&WB separate from HR or OH&S.
H@WB programs
Key question: What sort of H&WB programs/
strategies did agencies put in place?
• Mental/Psychological health,
• Physical activity
• Nutrition
Agencies used a mixture of in-house expertise and
external providers for their H&WB programs
.
One
organisation said they had not used external
providers due to ‘executive caution’ in a time of financial
constraints
Management engagement
Key question: How did Head of Agency engage
with H@W?
• Little difficulty in gaining senior management support
• HofA /CEO were generally already ‘on board’.
• Support was demonstrated in different ways
• H&WB on the executive agenda
• Commits resources for HWB
• Actively participates in H&WB programs
Management Engagement
Examples of Senior
Management
Engagement
2010
(14 Agencies,
Authorities)
2011
(14 Agencies,
Authorities)
2012
(19 Agencies,
Authorities)













Executive Group reviews and approves proposals for H&WB initiatives
Approves allocation of resources for Agency
Approved & participate in the program
Are very supportive of health & wellness in the workplace
Fully endorse & participate in program
Allow the program to be conducted in work time
Encourage all staff to get involved
Committed to having a budget for H&WB initiatives
Provision of information, resource allocation and reporting on progress
Developed the framework
Oversee program content
Have a key role in supporting staff to actively engage in H&WB activities
Funding support for various programs
Access to programs
Key question: Was there equitable access
H&WB programs?
•
•
•
•
•
•
shift workers
working in remote locations
in single officer sites/ very small work groups
no access to computers
itinerant workers
specific occupational groups with a negative ‘culture’.
Employee engagement
Key Question: Did employees engage in H&WB
activities?
• varying degrees ‘hardly at all’ to ‘really good’
• Estimate engagement numerically- 10%, 30% or
50% without formally measuring
Two common themes emerged
• the already engaged participated in workplace H&WB
• The people who ‘needed it most’ did not participate
Engagement
• ‘There were lots of worried well who engaged
but they are the fit and healthy people who
simply used H@W as an extension of what
they were already doing’ Key Informant
Interview
• ‘The ones who are interested and were
previously interested in their own H&WB were
really involved. The ones we’d like to target,
we made no difference to at all’ Key Informant
Interview
Sustainability
Key Questions;
• Do agencies have formal H&WB policy?
• Has agency continued to resource
H@WB programs/ positions?
• Has agency workplace culture
changed?
Sustainability
• Audit data showed a steady increase in the allocation of
resources, both time and money, to H&WB from 2009-2012.
• All agencies continue to fund a H&WB coordinator position
• Only three organisations identified H&WB as a specific budget
item. Others funded H&WB activities out of H@W grants, from
HR or OH&S allocations or from ’retained ’ program funds
• Most organisations have a H@WB plan but not all are current.
• Key informants did not believe H@W had resulted in any major
workplace cultural shifts but most reported increased awareness
of H&WB and increased openness and discussion about H&WB
in the workplace.
agency H&WB profile
Key question: Has agency Health profile
changed?
• Can’t yet answer this yet.
• Analysis of the Menzies H&WB 2013 survey
underway
Themes
Workplace HWB programs only engage the already engaged
8
Workplace H&S compliance overshadows workplace HWB
Structured training important but networks provide ongoing
support
7
Workforce is heterogeneous and geographically dispersed
5
Organisation identifies as 'small'
5
HWB brand is a communication strategy
5
Central H@W support prematurely withdrawn
5
Economic argument an important driver
5
Politics of investing in public sector workplace HWB
3
6
Implications for H&WB in the TSS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Size counts +ve and –ve
Workplace or organisation
Politics matter
Competing priorities
Informal networks are important
Support/training needs are ongoing