Accreditation

Return to Training page










Acred link





We offer our professional members the opportunity to earn ACRI accredited member status. This can be earned by the business demonstrating consistent commitment to the provision of quality child passenger safety services. 

Becoming an ACRI Accredited member involves:

    1. Professional membership affiliation.
    2. Satisfactory completion of the practitioner training level (Program 'A') of at least two (2) Staff members. Return to Training page
    3. Appropriate Public Liability and Professional indemnity Insurance cover  (ACRI group plan)
    4. Successful completion of an assessment by an ACRI field representative concerning service delivery including, booking in procedure, record keeping, best practices, practical and restraint knowledge. This is best achieved after gaining real experience in the service field, but not limited to. (NB: Assessment process carries a fee of $280 (GST inclusive).
    5. Agreement to the ACRI Code of Practice demonstrating a commitment to the service standards of the ACRI member network.

Accredited training:

Delcon P/L, trading as Australian Child restraint Resource Initiative (ACRI) was the first company in Australia to develop and accredit child restraint courses meeting the standards of the National Training Framework** register. These were designed for;

    1. The ‘Professional provider of restraint installation and advisory services’ (Child Passenger Safety Technicians).
      Such as:
      • Installation services (NB: The installation aspect is the least difficult part of such services and our program reflects this.
      • Consultancy services and Train the Trainer roles.
  1.  The ‘Frontline user of a child restraint system’. Such as for:
    • Child carer or Family Services staff.

We currently have 5 certificate courses covering a wide variety of child restraint workplace exposures.

Please note: ACRI, as well as our Registered Training Organisation, (Yum Productions P/L)  does not participate in this Federal Government framework any longer. Please see below:**


  



** Delcon P/L (Trading as Australian Child restraint Resource Initiative) opted out of the Federal Government National Training Framework in 2011. The national development, support and intellectual property investment protection originally promoted by this government initiative were non existent.  The training framework system also failed to provide periodic re-evaluation and it provided poor feedback responses if any. ACRI was not satisfied with the quality and the cost that the government approval process added to the learner. ACRI now appoints a management committee of peer participants (all with decades of delivery experience) to develop, overview and review our programs. This has improved the range, pertinence, application and geographic availability of our course offerings. It has also reduced the cost and increased the quality of all ACRI accredited training programs for our industry sector participants.

Footnote: The words ‘licensed’, ‘approved’, ‘qualified’ and ‘authorised’ are often used to promote service providers who have some training and experience in this field.  There's no legal requirement* in any state in Australia that a service provider has to have any affiliation or training at all for installing a child restraint system. Which of course is less than ideal and why ACRI was originally formed. ACRI can provide anyone, anywhere appropriate workplace training, awareness and support, without exclusion or commercial bias.

*NB: Authority exception may relate in some states to engineering modification of vehicles.












OO



https://honey.nine.com.au/2019/03/11/14/22/car-seat-safety-installation 


Every now and again someone will do a media piece on child restraints. On one hand this is a good thing as it raises the profile that more can be done with transit safety. On the other hand the information imparted should at least be accurate and hopefully helpful to all who view or read the article.

Recently, there was another TV report aired, (see link) sourced from Sydney and was, in respect to being helpful to all parents, a miserable disappointment.

Some will say we’re being picky, but with safety the devil is in the detail, not the broad strokes. Let’s have a look at what was and wasn’t covered and how helpful it was for all viewers.

At 1 minute in, we see a FF Convertible seat that doesn’t have the seat belt through the correct pathway, but the comment was ‘it was very loose’.  Let’s be more specific than that, the correct seat belt pathway is one of the first basic requirements. That was the start of this problem and such additional information would have helped all viewers.

At 1.13 in, the parent says that she “never noticed that”. There are a few contributors to why that could happen:

1. The parent has never been made aware that that is what a Safety Seat does – ie: not move independent to the vehicle.

2. That it’s attachment to the vehicle needs to be checked regularly.

3. Relying on what someone else has done, in this case the husband apparently – in other words, not taking ownership.  (An ACRI view on this says that this seat was fitted correctly originally, but the seat belt had been disconnected at some stage and was then re- connected / routed - incorrectly. We’ve seen it occur multiple times in front of our eyes, by parents who are not connected with collision dynamics and the level of vigilance required.)

Other than the incorrect belt pathway, a similar ‘looseness’ scenario could have occurred even with a professional installation. If not monitored, this can happen to anyone, as many of our providers can attest. This is why ACRI advocates using checklist cards and anti-tamper labels, to protect service providers from the casual day to day monitoring by the user.

At 1.38, we have ‘another fail’. It would be fair to say that with video editing etc, we do not actually know what was wrong with this ‘install’.    Please tell us, as we’ve learnt nothing otherwise.

At 1.42 we have some confusion over the use of a “Lap belt instead of the required retractable one”. Although this of course can be the case with some Safety Seat products, the vehicle and safety seat scenario’s presented visually are both side seat positions, which should be Lap sash seat belts? Imagery is very important in education, as a person places them self ‘in the picture’. If the description doesn’t match the picture, we’ll learn nothing and possibly become even further confused.

Milosh’s mistake in using the ‘Lap belt’ was then further confused, as we were still working on the LHS seat position, with what appeared to be a manually adjustable Lap Sash seat belt. Something else was lost here, it was not clear and again we learnt nothing of value. 

Alternatively, it’s possible that the vehicle was a grey import and may have the wrong seat belts fitted to the side positions? But, that should have been a completely and private different discussion with the parent. We received no clarity over this point either.

Q: How does a manually adjusted seat belt become looser, easier than a retractable seat belt?  Confused? So are we.

At 2.10, we find a parent ‘Hoping’ that their child seats are still fitted correctly. Why? Because Chris is another misled parent who has become dis-empowered by the common curse spreading across the country, of believing that a parent should be relying on what someone else has done, instead of being empowered over their day to day safety activities themselves.

People from other parts of the world would watch this with their mouth open in disbelief.  “What do you mean, I need to rely on someone else, who isn’t there each day, to ensure that my child travels safely every time we travel in the car”. What the?  It is fair dinkum unbelievable!

At 2.15 we’re told that the seats are OK, but the straps are too loose, by whose standard? Looking at the force being used at other times in this presentation, we're a bit concerned at the level of tensions applied.  BTW Were the shoulder height discussed as that was looking a bit suspect as well.

At 2.47, the interviewer is told that her seats ‘shouldn’t move at all’. Well, that’s interesting. If you follow the certified and approved instructions that the product was tested, to meet the stringent Australian Standards, then it will move in most scenarios, resulting in the type of movement shown.  The NRMA has sat on the Standards committee for many years, have they not had some influence on this issue, if it so important?  What is the message this article is sharing with all parents? So far it appears to be about the ‘rock solid’ myth.  This has become a consistent, NSW culture, driven message. Some would say 'curse'. If this is the predominant message that service providers are going to give parents ignoring all other misuse aspects then it is a curse.

At 2.57, we’re being shown a lot of unnecessary strain being put on the equipment, why? What is this imagery proving to anyone, that weaker people can’t provide a safe environment?

At 3.20, National guidelines are stated?  No, the national road rules were quoted, they are not by any official standing ‘Safety guidelines’. They are an absolute minimum to abide to just avoid a fine from the police.  While they keep promoting such minimum use requirements, we’ll keep getting the minimum protection for our young Australians.

The RF restraint pictured is an international product, with no upper tether strap in place doesn’t send a consistent visual message either. (We know this is a small visual point, but too many people use RF seats without the using their upper tether, so we should be showing it at all times. 

At 3.45, It is suggested that ‘anyone over the age of seven can sit in the front seat’.  The article does add better advice later but, from an ACRI perspective the damage is already done at the opening statement.

The reference to 145cm of height, as a preferred guideline is also misleading.  A person’s overall height has nothing to do with protecting a passenger from misplaced seat belts, why are we not teaching people this other basic factor?  What will create injury, no matter what size or age the passenger, is a seat belt positioned against the body incorrectly.

There are a number of edited versions of this video going around, but in the original ‘to air’ version, safety aware viewers noticed that near the end, the very first seat that was refitted had a child strapped into it,  head and shoulders too big for the safety seat in use – This was not mentioned at all! Twisted straps were shown too and yet again – not mentioned!  Importance of the correct adjustment of the shoulder height and harness straps were also - not mentioned!

Although a large percentage of parents would benefit from having a good professional service concerning their child safety seat. The biggest benefit comes from the consultation and education part of the process, which is clearly not something every provider does. This builds an awareness of how important all of the factors are, not just how tight it’s attached to the car. Empowerment and awareness is the aim, not shaming people from highlighting one particular factor.

The total message this TV presentation provided was that ‘It's important to have your child's car seat fitted by a professional - because - a parent won’t be able to get it as tight’. What a lost opportunity to make a real difference with child safety!  ACRI