Feedback from the RJCP Providers Network on Proposed RJCP … · 2015-06-24 · Feedback from the RJCP Providers Network on Proposed RJCP Reforms April 2015 . Page 2 ... blanket-cover

Feedback from the RJCP Providers’ Network on Proposed RJCP Reforms April 2015

Page 2

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3

ABOUT JOBS AUSTRALIA ........................................................................................................ 3 1.1 ABOUT THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK .............................................................................. 3 1.2 ABOUT THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3

2. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 4

3. FULL LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 7

4. CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 9

RJCP POLICY DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................................................ 9 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK ....................................................... 10 4.2

5. DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ....................................................................... 11

FEEDBACK FROM THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK ........................................................... 11 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 11 5.2

6. PROPOSED NEW WORK FOR THE DOLE REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 12

FEEDBACK FROM THE PROVIDERS’ NETWORK .................................................................... 12 6.1 PROPOSED WIDE (OR FLEXIBLE) DEFINITION OF WORK FOR THE DOLE ............................. 13 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14 6.3

7. NEW FUNDING MODEL .................................................................................................................. 15

FEEDBACK FROM THE PROVIDERS’ NETWORK .................................................................... 15 7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 16 7.2

8. IT & ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS ................................................................................................ 17

FEEDBACK FROM THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK ........................................................... 17 8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 17 8.2

9. DRAFT PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 18


10. JOB SEEKER COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 20


11. ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT FUND ................................................................................................ 21


APPENDIX A – ORGANISATIONS REPRESENTED AT THE JOBS AUSTRALIA RJCP FORUM ON 31ST MARCH – 1ST APRIL 2015 ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Page 3

1. INTRODUCTION

ABOUT JOBS AUSTRALIA 1.1

Jobs Australia is the national peak body for non-profit organisations that assist unemployed people to get and keep jobs. Jobs Australia helps its members to make the most effective use of their resources. Our services for members include industrial relations and human resources advice, blanket-cover insurance and general advice and policy and advocacy services.

Jobs Australia also hosts an Indigenous Network, consisting of Indigenous Organisations in urban, remote and regional Australia who deliver services including employment and training services in Indigenous Communities. The network supports member organisations to build their capacity to deliver services which improve employment and educational outcomes.

The Jobs Australia Indigenous Network provides a voice for Indigenous organisations to federal, state and territory governments regarding employment and educational needs of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Jobs Australia has been approached by organisations delivering the Remote Jobs and Communities Programme (RJCP) to facilitate and support a new RJCP Providers’ Network.

ABOUT THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK 1.2

The RJCP Providers’ Network was formed in April 2015, arising from a meeting of RJCP providers in Alice Springs. As its name suggests, it is a network of organisations that deliver the Remote Jobs and Communities Programme (RJCP). It does not, as yet, have a formal structure. All providers of RJCP are eligible to participate in the RJCP Providers’ Network and they do not need to join (or be eligible to join) Jobs Australia.

Jobs Australia has agreed to provide support to the Providers’ Network for the time being and is doing so from its own resources.

ABOUT THIS REPORT 1.3

This report collates feedback from organisations that attended a two-day RJCP Providers’ Forum in Alice Springs in April, immediately following the RJCP Providers National Conference which was arranged and hosted by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. A list of organisations that were represented the Forum is provided in Appendix A.

Page 4

2. OVERVIEW

In the short time available to them, providers have identified a number of concerns and unanswered questions about the reforms to be implemented from 1 July this year. Providers strongly share the Government’s objective of achieving a more effective programme, one that builds opportunities in remote Australia and which gets as many people as possible into employment where that is an option. Providers wish to engage in a constructive dialogue about this.

The Minister promised (in his media release of 6 December last year) that “to ensure we get this right, we will be discussing the new programme with communities on a community-by-community basis right up to and beyond its introduction in June 2015, to ensure Work for the Dole activities meet the needs of individual communities”. Despite that promise, providers and many community members are of the view that there hasn’t been sufficient consultation or discussion and that more needs to be undertaken to ensure that changes which are finally implemented have the support of individual communities, take sufficient account of their many different needs and circumstances, are likely to have the desired effect of getting more people into jobs and that targets and KPIs are actually realistic and achievable.

Unfortunately the pressure of time and the way in which these reforms have been put forward mean that this submission is more negative than it might otherwise be, and has fewer ideas for solutions than we would like to be able to present. This can be resolved by allowing more time to work through the challenges and the way that a new program structure might address this.

In the context of the current reform process, it must be recognised that most if not all remote communities and many providers (such as former CDEP providers) have been subjected to what seems to have been almost endless and relentless reforms over many many years. Many of the people involved are suffering what might be described as “reform fatigue” and are finding it difficult to engage constructively and optimistically in this current further wave of reform.

In recent times, communities and providers provided extensive input on the design of the RJCP and made huge efforts to accommodate, implement and respond to the changes which the RJCP entailed. They did so in good faith and were prepared to use their best endeavours to make the then new programme the best it could be, respecting the prerogative of the then government to make the many changes which the RJCP entailed.

Following the coming to office of the new government in 2013, and well into the actual implementation of the RJCP, they were informed (beginning with relatively modest reforms announced by the Minister in November 2013 and followed in December 2014 with Ministerial announcement of the major reforms being implemented now) that the new government intended to scrap many of the changes made by the former government and to make changes to improve the Programme’s relevance and its performance. The uncertainty for communities and providers which has arisen as a consequence has impeded the effective delivery of services in communities and has not enabled communities and providers to become actively engaged from the time of the government’s announcement last year about major reforms in consultation and discussion about how best to shape and implement them.

RJCP providers have identified concerns under three headings: impact on community and individuals; impact on providers and program effectiveness and process for achieving a better program. These issues are summarised here, with our primary recommendation about the way forward.

Page 5

A. Potential impact of proposed changes on communities and individuals

Providers are concerned that the proposals for reform in their current form may have substantial unintended consequences including:

Removal of an increased number of people from income support which may in turn place greater pressure on families, housing and lead to increased criminal activity;

Increased movement of people either between remote communities or into regional/urban centres;

Reduced demand for paid labour in job poor communities;

Undermine the principle of a fair wage for a fair day’s work in remote communities;

Inappropriate placements of people with significant non-vocational issues into Work for the Dole;

Increased community disillusionment with Government and services as a result of broken promises and failed consultation.

Regardless of the final form of the programme, providers submit that transparent mechanisms should be put in place now to monitor the above and other possible unintended consequences.

B . Potential impact of proposed changes on providers and program effectiveness

Providers have had little time to consider these proposals or their impact on their operations. There remains a lack of clarity and necessary detail in many areas. However the following major issues have been identified:

The proposal for 25 hours per week, 12 months per year of Work for the Dole does not take account of the local conditions in some communities and for some people. It would limit providers’ ability to develop truly ‘work like’ activities;

The payment structure would provide a perverse incentive to place people who are not fit for 25 hours per week activity into Work for the Dole;

The proposed outcome payment structure and definitions do not appear to take account of local labour market conditions or the need for long term investments in skills, particularly for younger people;

The current administrative and IT requirements need to be radically reduced to free up time to work with individuals on employment pathways and to enable more local Indigenous people to be employed;

The proposed funding deed and performance framework are unduly onerous, unclear and one sided. We have provided separate feedback on the performance management framework which was not discussed or considered at the March National Conference or the Provider Forum which followed it. On questions concerning the proposed extensive and comprehensive variation of the current RJCP Deed to give effect to the proposed reforms, Jobs Australia has sought expert legal advice on behalf of providers present at the Forum and will make this available to the Department as soon as it is to hand.

Page 6

C. Process for achieving a more effective programme

Major changes are being proposed to a 5 year contract that has been in place for less than two years. Providers have been given two weeks to comment on a draft funding deed, in which many areas are still uncertain or are intended to be included in guidelines at some later point. At this point the proposal raises substantial operational issues, while not addressing some of the opportunities that we see to generate better employment outcomes in remote areas.

It is also clear that peak bodies, community leaders and participants have not been given the opportunity to consider or express their views on these proposals. Community buy in is critical to the success of these initiatives.

Neither of these objectives can be achieved within the current timeframe for negotiation of contract variations. A longer timeframe would enable parties to engage in a constructive and informed discussion.

It is recommended that:

The timetable for negotiation of contract variations is extended for another six months. This would not prevent regions where there is provider and community agreement piloting proposed new arrangements earlier;

Mechanisms be established to resolve issues in relation to the current proposals for changes to RJCP and to consider provider proposals for improvements to the programme;

Departmental officials work with providers to facilitate engagement and consultation with communities to get their feedback about how RJCP can more effectively achieve local objectives as well as the Government’s overarching objectives in relation to work, school attendance and community safety.

Page 7

3. FULL LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Slow down the process of reform and delay the start date for proposed reforms to allow the time necessary for genuine consultation.

2. The delay to the start date should be at least six months.

3. The Minister and/or the Department should use this time to discuss the new programme with communities on a community-by-community basis, as he has committed to do.

4. In the meantime, some aspects of the scheme (like 5 days per week Work for the Dole) could be piloted where the RJCP provider and community leaders agree.

5. The Government should take the opportunity to consult with communities about a more appropriate programme of Work for the Dole and other mutual obligations.

6. Work for the Dole requirements should allow for appropriate leave and accommodate school holidays, extreme weather and cultural practices- all of which need to be clearly spelled out and communicated to communities and to providers.

7. Only work-like activities should be described as Work for the Dole activities. Other activities may form part of mutual obligation requirements but should not be misleadingly described as ‘working for the dole’.

8. To the extent possible, there should be parity in the requirements for job seekers in remote and non-remote areas.

9. Terms other than ‘Work for the Dole’ and ‘mutual obligation’ should be used. New names should be developed in consultation with communities and may draw on the strong sense of community in remote areas of Australia: for example, a name such as Community Work Placement could replace Work for the Dole; and Community Obligation could replace Mutual Obligation.

10. The full details of any proposed new payment model should be made available and should be completely clear and transparent to providers so that they can make considered and informed assessments about their financial viability.

11. Government should consult with providers and negotiate a payment model that more appropriately reflects the risks and costs that must be borne by providers and which is more consistent with the commitments that the Commonwealth made in the existing five-year contract. The new payment model should include:

- enough monies upfront to offset the risks and costs of case management and the establishment of activities for job seekers aged 18-49 who can’t or won’t participate in WFD activities (while providers would use their best endeavours ;

- flexibility around the period in which 13 and 26 week employment outcomes may be achieved and short term employment outcomes (ideally, a 4 week outcome, consistent with the jobactive arrangements), in recognition of the seasonal, casual and intermittent nature of employment in some remote regions; and

- Retain education outcomes, or include some other payment for skills and education, to maintain incentives and support for job seekers to obtain the skills that employers need.

Page 8

12. Government should also consider:

- Providing additional funding to providers with limited Participation Account funds available or reallocating some of the existing funds; and

- Allowing providers to claim Employer Incentive Fund payments to create genuine opportunities for paid employment.

13. The Department should consult providers on how it may further streamline and automate IT processes.

14. Systems should be designed for efficient operation in remote regions, including in areas where mobile phone and internet access is not available or is limited.

15. Due to the extensive issues with the Performance Framework, detailed feedback is being provided to PM&C in a separate document. In summary, our recommendations are that:

- Realistic and achievable KPIs and Performance Measures are developed in consultation with providers and informed by historical performance data;

- Raw performance ratings are not used to compare providers across different regions;

- Ambiguous language and terminology in the draft performance framework is clarified and corrected;

- Items that imply mandatory services (such as post-placement support and mentoring) be removed and left to provider discretion;

- The right to terminate for poor performance be clarified; and

- Future amendments be subject to appropriate notice and consultation with providers.

16. Decisions that affect a job seeker’s benefit payments should be made by DHS and not by providers.

17. Providers should be able to exercise discretion about activity requirements if they believe that a participant’s assessed work capacity is out of date, pending reassessment.

18. Appointment, contact and reporting requirements should be flexible and appropriate to remote communities where services are delivered via outreach.

19. Restore funding for job creation activities to previous Community Development Fund levels.

20. Involve RJCP providers and their peak bodies in the development of processes and guidelines to establish the Enterprise Development Fund.

Page 9

4. CONTEXT

RJCP POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 4.1

The initial RJCP program was developed after several rounds of community consultation, including in remote communities, opportunity for public submissions, and with the advice of an Expert Panel comprising Indigenous leaders, employment services industry representatives and a representative from the Minerals Council. The contracts were set at 5 years in recognition of the need for long term commitment in these communities. The Government supported providers through investing in their capacity to deliver.

Since the implementation of the RJCP some problems have emerged with the programme. Amongst other things, these arose from rushed implementation following late announcements of successful tenderers, uncertainty over promised investments from the Community Development Fund, inappropriate IT systems, inconsistent application of job seeker penalties and highly burdensome administrative arrangements. These compounded already challenging conditions for operating in remote Australia. Despite these challenges, RJCP providers have connected over 20,000 people to activities, facilitated or delivered new initiatives to promote school attendance, and implemented several changes to job seeker compliance arrangements since the program commenced.

In the May 2014 Budget the Government announced its new directions in Indigenous Affairs, while assuring organisations that existing contracts would be honoured. This commitment to honour RJCP contracts was reinforced by PM&C at a provider conference in Alice Springs on 11 June 2014.

In December 2014 the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, announced changes to the program, specifically:

a requirement for “[a]ll job seekers aged 18 to 49 … to be involved in Work for the Dole activities for up to 25 hours per week, based on their individual assessed capacity” for “five days a week, 12 months of the year”;

funds of $25 million to establish “local businesses such as butchers, hairdressers and other businesses that you would find in any small town”; and

the abolition of remaining (grandfathered) CDEP Wages.

The Minister also committed that:

“Our approach will be very different. To ensure we get this right, we will be discussing the new programme with communities on a community-by-community basis right up to and beyond its introduction in June 2015, to ensure Work for the Dole activities meet the needs of individual communities….

“These changes will be rolled out carefully and methodically - it won't be rushed. Providers will receive close support over the next 12 to 18 months. We are committed to not disrupting communities by repeating the mistakes of the past.”

Basic information about the new fee structure was provided electronically by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) at the end of January, and basic information about the changes to the programme were provided electronically in mid-March. At this point it became clear that the

Page 10

Government was proposing major change to the financial structure of the contract, although details (for example in relation to outcome definitions) were not available, so that providers’ capacity to respond was limited.

PM&C then held a forum of RJCP providers in Alice Springs 30-31 March and it was at this point that the Department gave providers more substantial information about the proposed requirements, although, as discussed below, there is significant operational detail that the Department wishes to implement through guidelines. PM&C officials outlined the transition process for the implementation of the reforms, released drafts of the new RJCP Deed and performance framework and invited providers to submit their feedback to the Department by 15 April. To date this two week period has been the only opportunity for providers to consider and respond to the Government’s proposal to substantially alter the current contractual arrangements. The two week period is insufficient to enable providers to obtain independent legal or financial advice on the proposals.

Putting these pieces of information together, it is now apparent that the proposed changes include, in addition to the changes listed in the Minister’s media release in December:

An altered definition of Work for the Dole, so that participation in non-vocational programs, tasks related to school attendance, some forms of training and provider appointments may be included in the 25 hours, and may be included as mandatory activities under the Social Security Act; and

Significant changes to the funding model, including substantially different outcome payments and definitions, the abolition of the Participation Account and restructuring of service fees.

While providers are aware of some visits by PM&C officials to communities in recent weeks, it does not appear that the proposed changes – particularly the changes to participant obligations and the early abolition of CDEP wages – have been discussed with participants, community leaders and/or peak bodies.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK 4.2

Jobs Australia hosted a forum for RJCP providers in Alice Springs on 31 March – 1 April (with both Jobs Australia members and non-member who provide RJCP) immediately after the PM&C forum. At the forum, the providers decided to form a new RJCP Providers Network to allow the providers to engage with the Federal Government as a group, complementary to any feedback that would be provided by individual organisations. Jobs Australia agreed to support the network by collating feedback and preparing it for submission to Government.

Page 11

5. DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

FEEDBACK FROM THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK 5.1

The Network is dissatisfied with the level of consultation to date. The Network has noted that:

The Government has not met its own commitment to consult with Indigenous people and communities about what works;

Greater consultation with Indigenous community groups and individuals would improve understanding of the Government’s priorities and would reduce the anxiety that providers and communities currently feel about the reforms; and

Genuine consultation needs to give the stakeholders the opportunity to suggest changes to the policy design, and the shape and timing of the reforms themselves.

The proposed Funding Deed, guidelines and performance framework set out a prescriptive framework for delivery. The initial design of RJCP provided scope for community level variation, including in the arrangements for participation and reasonable excuses. This flexibility recognised the significantly different circumstances, resources and leadership capabilities in different communities.

Providers are concerned that it will be difficult to build local commitment to the objectives of the RJCP if the way it is operated and measured is determined centrally. It will be much harder to secure support and engagement if these changes are perceived as top down and do not enjoy community support.

RECOMMENDATIONS 5.2

1. Slow down the process of reform and delay the start date to allow the time necessary for genuine consultation with communities and negotiation with providers.

2. The delay to the start date should be at least six months.

3. The Minister and/or his Department should use this time to discuss the new programme with communities on a community-by-community basis, as he committed to do.

4. In the meantime, some aspects of the scheme (like 5 days per week work for the dole) could be piloted where the RJCP provider and community leaders agree.

Page 12

6. PROPOSED NEW WORK FOR THE DOLE REQUIREMENTS

FEEDBACK FROM THE PROVIDERS’ NETWORK 6.1

The proposal for all 18-49 year olds to do 25 hours over 5 days every week of Work for the Dole is unrealistic for many individuals, communities and providers. It does not take account of the unique opportunities, capacities and needs of communities, including those that are small, outstations and those with limited infrastructure. It is a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Problems that may arise from this approach, if imposed in a ‘top down’ and uniform manner, include:

Limitations on the ability to develop and implement appropriate, ‘work like’ activities. For example, in many areas extensive travel is required to work sites. Structured activities that include long days working on country, or in activities like mustering, would be impractical under enforced 25 hour, 5 day working weeks as too much time would be spent on travel and set up. While the suggestion has been made that long days could be worked, with activities on the other day or days being ‘checking into the office’, or’ making sure kids get to school’ (noting that not all job seekers are primary carers), there is a significant risk of this type of activity being seen as meaningless.

A risk that Work for the Dole activities will displace real jobs or preclude the creation of real jobs. The anticipated 30,000 Work for the Dole places far outstrips any number that have ever been involved in CDEP or Work for the Dole activities in these areas, and the number of hours far exceed any worked under these programmes. Just as the existence of CDEP reduced pressure on Governments to employ additional workers, this huge influx of labour is likely to reduce pressure on local employers to employ people. It will ‘soak up’ some of the demand for services that might otherwise help start small businesses - for example, a project that includes home maintenance may reduce the demand for equivalent commercially provided services.

Less focus on employment. The demand on skills and resources within RJCP providers that will be required to maintain this level of activity over months and years is also likely to reduce time available to work on development of employer or economic development strategies. At the individual level, 25 hours per week of structured activity may ‘crowd out’ job search, including efforts to consider work outside the community1.

Perceived unfairness by participants. The Work for the Dole obligations proposed for Remote areas (where the vast majority of job seekers are Indigenous) are more onerous than those that apply to job seekers elsewhere in Australia. Indeed, they are even more onerous than the arrangements for Full-time Work for the Dole first implemented in 2005 by the former Coalition government as part of its Welfare to Work measures, which were targeted at “job avoiders” (in labour markets where jobs were more readily available) and which only involved 25 hours per week for 10 months of each year. At 25 hours per week, the implicit rate of pay when working for the dole is significantly lower than the minimum wage. In both CDEP and Work for the Dole there has been acceptance that the minimum wage represents a broad benchmark against which reasonable hours that can be required should be determined.

1 Borland, J 2014, ‘Dealing with unemployment: What should be the role of labour market programs?’, Evidence Base, ANZSOG, Issue 4, 2014, retrieved 17/04/2015 < https://journal.anzsog.edu.au/publications/25/EvidenceBase%202014Issue4Version1.pdf>

Page 13

Non-compliance associated with caring responsibilities. At present the focus is on having parents engaged in activities while their children are at school. But there is no accommodation for school holidays in communities where few school holiday programs are available. Nor is there recognition of the level of care work that many people do for relatives (including the aged, people with disabilities, the ill and children in extended families). This can include taking people to appointments, shopping, or to spend time on country, all of which can require significant travel.

Problems developing and maintaining activities for the required numbers of people that can be performed in the wet season, when heat and torrential rain can make outdoor Work for the Dole activities unviable and roads may be closed.

Difficulties creating sufficient Work for the Dole placement opportunities which will retain peoples’ interest and not displace what should be paid work.

Lack of transport. Public transport options in remote communities are severely limited and job seekers may be required to travel long distances to participate in Work for the Dole activities.

There is community resentment towards terms like ‘Work for the Dole’ and ‘mutual obligation’

Unlike CDEP, where ‘top up’ was available, the proposals offer no reward for those who participate and work hard. Reward for effort is just as much part of a ‘work like’ experience as ‘no show no pay’. (Note that the proposed funding deed also expressly prohibits providers from paying incentives).

Already Indigenous people are more likely to be ‘breached’ than non-Indigenous people. Increasing requirements in communities with limited social or health supports and already high rates of homelessness and crime, may exacerbate existing pressures on families and the vulnerable. Already many providers have identified a significant number of people withdrawing from, or being removed from, the income support/employment services system. Providers are concerned at the potential social impact of increased removal of people from income support.

There may be solutions to some of these problems. Ideas that might be investigated include:

Allowing ‘banking’ of hours across the year.

Excluding school holiday periods.

Providing form of payment for additional hours beyond the 15.

Packaging employer incentives and business support to enable providers to employ people directly on wages in social enterprises.

Renaming the program.

PROPOSED WIDE (OR FLEXIBLE) DEFINITION OF WORK FOR THE DOLE 6.2

Information from PM&C suggests that some of the difficulties outlined above may be ameliorated by adopting a more flexible approach to Work for the Dole. According to the information provided:

“In remote Australia, ‘working for the dole’ will mean different things for different job seekers. Some job seekers may participate in a single work-like activity for 5 hours each day, while other job seekers may be ‘working for their dole’ by participating in a number

Page 14

of different activities 4 hours each day including non-vocational support, training and work experience.”

According to Minister Scullion, Work for the Dole will also include “getting and collecting their children from school”. Departmental representatives have suggested that attending a rehabilitation program might be an activity for some.

It is recognised that the intention is to prevent negative consequences of imposition of 25 hours structured activity. However the risk is that the idea of ‘structured’ or ‘work-like’ activity becomes meaningless. For example in the case of someone with a substance addiction, they may have access to rehabilitation for 3 hours a fortnight but the provider may be aware that an expectation that they ‘make up’ the other hours in structured activity will be likely to lead to a breach. While it is recognised that the Government’s aim is to shift the balance towards structured ‘work like’ activities, imposition of a one size fits all 25 hours per week requirement will not benefit, and may harm some people. This is particularly the case in locations where support services are limited, waiting lists for health and rehabilitation services can be long, and ESAts, where they are available at all, are inadequate.

Possible solutions include:

Shifting the emphasis in the program to structured activities for those that have the capacity to work;

Retaining a second ‘activities’ stream for those who do not have capacity to benefit from structured activities at present, with an emphasis on moving people towards structured activities (similar to arrangements which operated under the former Personal Support Programme (PSP)).

RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3

5. The Government should take the opportunity to consult with communities about a more appropriate programme of Work for the Dole and other mutual obligations.

6. Work for the Dole requirements should allow for appropriate leave and accommodate school holidays, extreme weather and cultural practices.

7. Only work-like activities should be described as Work for the Dole activities. Other activities may form part of mutual obligation requirements but should not be misleadingly described as ‘working for the dole’.

8. To avoid unduly onerous and discriminatory requirements falling on people in remote parts of Australia, we propose that the participation benchmark for ‘work like’ activities be set at around 15 hours per week for 11 months per year – roughly commensurate with the minimum wage. That providers are able to work with job seekers and community representatives to arrange project hours so that the annual total is retained, but that hours are worked to suit local priorities and circumstances like school terms, extreme, weather, projects ‘on country’ that require long travel and days, and cultural practice.

RJCP providers recognise the Minister’s willingness to alter the name attached to activities performed by job seekers under the programme. New names should be developed in consultation with communities and may draw on the strong sense of community in remote areas of Australia: for example, a name such as Community Work Placement could replace Work for the Dole; and Community Obligation could replace Mutual Obligation.

Page 15

7. NEW FUNDING MODEL


There is currently insufficient detail about how the proposed funding model will operate, particularly in relation to Work for the Dole Payments. In Section 44 of RAC1 of the draft Deed, the term “placed” appears to be used to refer to both the initial placement of a job seeker in an activity and ongoing participation in an activity for the purpose of calculating WFD payments. Clarity is urgently required, as this determination will have a critical impact upon the financial viability of the programme.

More broadly, the payment model appears to substantially transfer risk to the providers. For example:

If a job seeker fails to turn up for Work for the Dole (even for reasons outside of the provider’s control), it appears that the provider will not be paid – despite the provider having incurred associated costs. If this is correct, then providers will not be funded to work with compellable participants who can’t or won’t participate. These are likely to be the most vulnerable job seekers.

Payments for job placement and 7 week employment outcomes will be abolished, so that providers will not be rewarded for placing job seekers in short-term seasonal and casual work.

Flexibility has been removed from 13 and 26 week employment outcomes, so that they will only be paid for long term placements with no breaks. Again, this fails to appreciate the value in short term work and does not fit well with remote labour markets in which seasonal, casual and intermittent employment may be all that is available.

Educational outcomes will be abolished, so that providers will not be rewarded for improving job seekers’ skills.

Providers will not be able to access the new Employer Incentive Funding. This restricts the potential for providers to establish social enterprise and create job opportunities for their job seekers.

Together these changes increase financial risks for providers. They also pose risks for some participants, by not funding the delivery of services for those most in need. They also create incentives for providers to provide most assistance to the least disadvantaged participants (ie: ‘creaming’) because the least disadvantaged are the most likely to generate payments for the provider. More disadvantaged job seekers will receive less support (ie: ‘parking’) because they cost the most to service and are the least likely to generate payments for providers under this model.

New arrangements for the Participation Account are welcome, but the Department will need to deal with issues arising for providers who have already fully or substantially expended their Participation Account funds. The Department may wish to exercise its powers under the existing Deed to reallocate Participation Account funds between providers, where appropriate.

The extensive changes to both the service requirements and the payment model go well beyond a ‘variation’ to the existing deed. Providers have incurred significant set-up costs in the expectation of the income promised in the five-year agreement they signed up to. It is not clear whether they will

Page 16

now be able to recoup their set-up costs. The RJCP Providers’ Network has asked Jobs Australia to seek legal advice on their rights under the existing deed. Jobs Australia will share the advice with Providers and with PM&C once it has been finalised.

RECOMMENDATIONS 7.2

9. The full details of any proposed new payment model should be made available and should be completely clear.

10. Government should consult with providers and negotiate a payment model that more appropriately reflects the risks and costs that must be borne by providers and which is more consistent with the commitments that the Commonwealth made in the existing five-year contract. The new payment model should include:

- enough monies upfront to offset the risks and costs of case management and the establishment of activities for job seekers aged 18-49 who can’t or won’t participate in WFD activities;

- flexibility around the period in which 13 and 26 week employment outcomes may be achieved and short term employment outcomes (ideally, a 4 week outcome, consistent with the jobactive arrangements), in recognition of the seasonal, casual and intermittent nature of employment in some remote regions; and

- Retain education outcomes, or include some other payment for skills and education, to maintain incentives and support for job seekers to obtain the skills that employers need.

11. Government should also consider:

- Providing additional funding to providers with limited Participation Account funds available or reallocating some of the existing funds; and

- Allowing providers to claim Employer Incentive Fund payments to create genuine opportunities for paid employment.

Page 17

8. IT & ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS

FEEDBACK FROM THE RJCP PROVIDERS’ NETWORK 8.1

Administrative and IT processes have been based on the mainstream contract and assume that the most effective way of delivering services is with people based in offices, entering information into computers, and that phone and mail are effective ways of contacting job seekers. These assumptions are not necessarily correct in remote Australia.

The over reliance on Information Technology and complex administrative systems means that:

Most staff spend most of their time in front of computers rather than getting out to talk with employers, service providers or to engage with difficult to engage job seekers;

The recruitment pool for many roles is limited to those who are proficient in information technology, and are highly literate – which excludes many people who could be very effective in motivating people and connecting them to work;

Key processes, like IPPs and NARs, may be double handled (e.g. where outreach is being done in locations without internet) or can be extremely slow because of poor internet connections. This wastes time and is frustrating for job seekers and case managers.

Examination of the draft changes to the Funding Deed indicate that this problem has not been addressed, so the Minister’s frustration with continual ‘interviewing’ with poor outcomes will not be resolved.

Possible solutions:

Remove the requirement for JSCI;

Remove the requirement that IPP/JP be updated on line at each visit, with the option to retain paper JPs and to update them only when circumstances change;

Remove the requirement to lodge local vacancies on line;

Review processes related to the calendar so that it can be used only in circumstances where formal compliance action is being taken.

RECOMMENDATIONS 8.2

12. The Department develop a process with providers to review administrative and on line processes to ensure that they: (i) add value to the effort to get job seekers closer to work (ii) minimise time required in front of the computer or need for computer skills/literacy skills to perform key RJCP roles (iii) minimise double handling.

13. Systems should be designed for efficient operation in remote regions, including in areas where mobile phone and internet access is not available or is limited.

Page 18

9. DRAFT PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK


Providers have previously not been assigned specific performance targets. A framework was intended to be introduced shortly after the commencement of RJCP in 2013, but it did not eventuate. The framework would have included targets negotiated with each provider and informed by data on previous performance in JSA.

The new framework has not been negotiated with providers and sets targets that are unrealistic, probably unachievable and not based on any previous performance data.

The issues include:

Key Performance Indicators for Work for the Dole attendance, non-Work for the Dole activity attendance, skills and training, support services, same-day follow-up of non-attendance, and 26-week outcome targets are set at 100%. It is highly unlikely that any provider will be able to achieve a 100% target for these indicators, given the range of factors beyond the provider’s control that may affect, for instance, a job seeker’s attendance in Work for the Dole.

Over prescription of services by allocating a 100% target to services that are usually provided only where appropriate. For example, post-placement support and mentoring each have a target of 100%. In general, providers have a strong incentive to provide post-placement support and / or mentoring where needed, because of the weight given to 26-week employment outcomes. These measures will force them to provide post-placement support and mentoring in all cases – even where the provider thinks it is not required. These services are expensive because they are one-on-one and it is costly to source and train mentors.

The framework indicates that raw performance ratings will be compared across the 60 RJCP regions, without any consideration of the different characteristics of labour markets and client profiles.

Some measures are ambiguous or confusing. For example, the measure for non-Work for the Dole activities is ambiguous; the phrase “as appropriate” adds a level of vagueness to certain measures; the terms “Category 1” and “Category 2” are used differently in the KPIs and in the Ratings; the 5-point scale indicates that 5 corresponds to a measure greater than 100%, when that seems impossible to achieve.

The framework indicates that providers could have their contract terminated if they fail (over an extended period) to reach a rating of 75% or more, when it is not clear whether that rating is realistically achievable or not.

While earlier draft Performance Frameworks recognised the importance of addressing local community aspirations, this document does not appear to allow for any adaption to community needs.

Page 19

RECOMMENDATIONS 9.2

14. Due to the extensive issues with the Performance Framework, detailed feedback is being provided to PM&C in a separate document. In summary, our recommendations are that:

- Realistic and achievable KPIs and Performance Measures are developed by agreement with providers and informed by historical performance data;

- A dispute resolution mechanism is identified;

- Raw performance ratings are not used to compare providers across different regions;

- Ambiguous language and terminology in the draft performance framework is clarified and corrected;

- Items that imply mandatory services (such as post-placement support and mentoring) be removed and left to provider discretion;

- The right to terminate or introduce competition on a region for poor performance be clarified; and

- Future amendments be subject to appropriate notice and consultation with providers.

Please refer to our separate Feedback on the Draft Performance Framework.

Page 20

10. JOB SEEKER COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK


Under the new framework providers will be responsible for making reasonable excuse decisions for the application of benefit sanctions for job seeker non-compliance. DHS will no longer follow up with job seekers and providers will effectively be responsible for decisions that result in the non-payment of benefits. This raises a number of concerns, including:

Sanctioning responsibilities conflict with providers’ role as support organisations and undermine relationships with job seekers.

The decisions are reviewable, and providers may be exposed to legal costs in the event that their decisions are challenged in Administrative Appeals or legal processes.

It imposes additional costs on management, including the cost of training staff in the decision-making framework.

It raises security issues that will need to be addressed at the provider’s sites; it also raises security concerns for staff outside of work hours.

The compliance framework appears to force providers to place people into inappropriate activities if there is a delay in obtaining an ESAt.

Inflexible requirements may not be able to be met. For example, it may not be possible to make contact with the job seeker on the same day that they miss an appointment, because some communities are unreachable by telephone and the only way to make contact is to travel to the community.

RECOMMENDATIONS 10.2

15. Decisions that affect a job seeker’s benefit payments should be made by DHS and not by providers.

16. Providers should be able to exercise discretion about activity requirements if they believe that a participant’s assessed work capacity is out of date, pending reassessment.

17. Appointment, contact and reporting requirements should be flexible and appropriate to remote communities where services are delivered via outreach.

Page 21

11. ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT FUND


The $25m Enterprise Development Fund (EDF) is welcome, but it is small compared to the 5 year, $237.5m Community Development Fund (CDF) that it replaces. The CDF was designed to support job creation and community development projects, aligned with Community Action Plans (CAPs) developed through consultation and reflected community priorities. RJCP was promoted to communities by Government and providers on the basis that significant investment would be made on job creation and community development through the CDF. This was reinforced by the CAP process which was also supported by Government.

Providers have received very little funding for job creation activities (and, in many cases, none at all). Many community stakeholders feel let down, yet again, that the job creation activities that they identified through the CAP are not being supported.

Related entity rules which inhibit access to employer incentives, wage subsidies and ownership of purchased assets will continue to limit the capacity of RJCP providers to develop sustainable businesses that can employ local people on award wages. Despite many years of promises, this issue has yet to be satisfactorily addressed.

Providers and peak organisations such as Jobs Australia have considerable knowledge and experience of the development of successful social enterprises which could be utilised by Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS 11.2

Government should:

18. Restore funding for job creation activities to previous Community Development Fund levels.

19. Prioritise community job creation initiatives identified in the CAPs for IAS demand driven investment.

20. Involve RJCP providers and their peak bodies in the development of processes and guidelines to establish the Enterprise Development Fund including ensuring that employer incentives are available to providers to generate social enterprises and that appropriate business support mechanisms are provided.

Page 22

APPENDIX A – ORGANISATIONS REPRESENTED AT THE JOBS AUSTRALIA RJCP FORUM ON 31ST MARCH – 1ST APRIL 2015

Anangu Jobs

Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

Bynoe

Campbell Page Ltd

CatholicCare NT

Central Desert Regional Council

Centre for Appropriate Technology Ltd

Complete Personnel

Darwin Skills Development Scheme

East Kimberly Job Pathways

EPlus

IS Australia

Jobfind Centres Australia

MatrixIT

MEEDAC

Mission Australia

Miwatj Employment & Participation Ltd

MPREC

MWW AC

My Pathway

National Joblink

Palm Island Community Company Ltd

Right Hand Remote Solutions

SkillCentred Queensland Inc

Tangentyere Employment Service

Thamarrurr Development Corporation

Tiwi Islands Training and Employment Board

Warnbi Aboriginal Corporation

Winun Ngari Employment Services

WISE Employment

Yulella Inc

Documents

Feedback from the RJCP Providers Network on Proposed RJCP … · 2015-06-24 · Feedback from the RJCP Providers Network on Proposed RJCP Reforms April 2015 . Page 2 ... blanket-cover