Cover Page
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Contents Page
2
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Executive Summary
This section will be developed following feedback from members and the ongoing development of the
submission.
The principles and recommendations are in draft format and still require some re-wording and reworking.
Some sections are not complete and will be finalised this week.
Please be forgiving of formatting, layout or issues with sentences, grammar, etc.
The full list of references will be updated prior to submission.
3
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Section 1 Background to consideration of review of DES-DMS services
Disability Employment Australia welcomes the opportunity to put forward recommendations in
response to the Employment Services – Building on Success Issues Paper.
This response will focus on the Disability Employment Services – Disability Management Service
(DES-DMS) program. In a review that encompasses Job Services Australia (JSA) and DES-DMS, there
is a danger that the distinct role, features and user experience of the much smaller DES-DMS
program will be overlooked.
Indeed we note that some of the issues that have been raised in relation to JSA – like lack of
collaboration with other services, lack of focus on individual needs – are much less evident in DESDMS. Throughout this submission we have tried to draw out some of the distinctive features of DESDMS that support positive behaviours and outcomes, while pointing to areas where improvements
could be made.
A fundamental difference between the programs is the role of DES as part of an overall effort to
enhance the human rights of people with disability in Australia and to address their continuing
exclusion from social and economic life. DES-DMS is an essential part of Australia’s response to its
commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability
(UNCRPD), which was ratified by Australia on 18 July 2008. Article 26 of the UNCRPD relates to the
establishment of habilitation and rehabilitation services:
Article 26 Habilitation and Rehabilitation
1. States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures, including through peer support, to
enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental,
social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life. To that end,
States Parties shall organize, strengthen and extend comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation
services and programmes, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social
services, in such a way that these services and programmes:
(a) Begin at the earliest possible stage, and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of
individual needs and strengths;
(b) Support participation and inclusion in the community and all aspects of society, are voluntary, and
are available to persons with disabilities as close as possible to their own communities, including in
rural areas.
2. States Parties shall promote the development of initial and continuing training for professionals
and staff working in habilitation and rehabilitation services.
Article 27 recognises the right to work and the importance of the right to make choices about work:
Article 27 Work and Employment
State Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others [...]
this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a
labour market […] States Parties shall protect and promote the realization of the right to work,
4
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
including for those who acquire a disability in the course of employment […] by taking appropriate
steps […] inter alia
… (e) Promote employment opportunities and career advancement for persons with disabilities in the
labour market, as well as assistance in finding, obtaining, maintaining and returning to employment
[…]
The emphasis in the Convention on the rights of people to have a say in how services are delivered,
and the need to take special measures to improve their capacity to fully participate in society on an
equal basis are relevant to Australia today and must inform future thinking about the shape of these
services.
This section needs to include reference to the National Disability Strategy
Employment and disability in Australia
While Australia has a high employment rate, people with disabilities are less likely to participate in
the labour force, or, once in the labour force, to be employed:
Figure 1 Participation and unemployment rates 2009
While the rate of unemployment of people with disabilities has declined since 1993 in line with that
of people without disabilities, the participation rate has not increased at the same rate. In other
words, the gap has widened in the level of participation and has stayed the same in the level of
unemployment.
Australia ranks 21st out of 29 OECD countries in employment rates for people with a disability. It is
ranked 27th out of 27 OECD countries when it comes to relative poverty risk for people with a
disability (Thomas, 2011).
People with mental illness have poorer participation and employment rates. In 2009, while the
participation rate of people with physical disabilities was 49.7%, for people with mental illness it was
5
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
only 29.2%. The unemployment rate for people with mental illness in 2009 was 2 ½ times that of
people with physical disabilities.
Figure 2 Selected labour force characteristics by disability group 2009
While some are born with disabilities, many will acquire them. Disability increases with age (Chart 1,
ABS (2012)). The largest group of people with disabilities are in the 45 to 54 age range. While
mature aged people are more likely to be in work, if they lose their job they are much more likely to
become long term unemployed. Age discrimination is more likely to be experienced by those who
have an illness, disability or injury and who have a low level of educational attainment (National
Seniors Productive Ageing Centre, 2012).
Those who acquire a disability, or experience an illness or injury that limits capacity to work are a
substantial and growing proportion of our potential labour force (Chart 1).
6
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Disability by age (,000s)
600.0
500.0
400.0
Moderate core activity
limitation
300.0
Mild core activity limitation
200.0
Schooling or employment
restriction
100.0
All with reported disability
0.0
15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–59 60–64
ABS 4430.00 Disability, Aging and Carers, 2009
Chart 1 Disability by age
The complexity of the challenge of securing employment for people with disabilities was described in
WORKability II: Solutions (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2005, p. 13). That
report identified and summarised three sets of obstacles facing people with disability and their
actual or potential employers.
Information – an absence of easily accessible and comprehensive information and advice
that assists in decision making processes and responds to ongoing needs;
Cost – concern about costs of participation for people with disability and possible costs
borne by employers when employing a person with disability; and
Risk – concern about any possible financial and personal impact on people with disability
and their employers, especially if a job does not work out.
The 2009 Shut Out report informed the development of Australia’s National Disability Strategy
(National People with Disabilities and Carer Council, 2009, pp. 38-42) and highlighted barriers
experienced by people with disability in employment:
‘By far the biggest barrier identified was employer attitudes’ (2009, p. 38);
Misconceptions about workplace adjustments and their costs;
Stereotypes and misconceptions influencing attitudes and behaviours of employers,
recruiters and government;
Perception of ‘employment as charity’; and
Inflexible Disability Support Pension acts as a disincentive to work.
More recently, the United Nation’s Thematic study on the work and employment of persons with
disabilities (2012, p. 4) highlighted the following barriers, many of them relevant in the Australian
context:
Negative attitudes or opinions;
7
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Deeply rooted stigma and stereotypes;
Lack of interest from governments, employers and the general population; and
Lack of access to education and training in skills relevant to the labour market.
Disability discrimination has been the most common complaint received by the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission over the past five years (2012, p. 131).
Figure 3 Complaints received by Act over the past 5 years
The challenge of securing equality in opportunity of access to employment is highlighted by the
Australian Public Service itself where, despite stated intentions, the level of employment of people
with disabilities has declined.1
By international standards, Australia’s record in enabling people with disabilities to secure work on
an equal basis is poor. There is no evidence that this is changing despite relatively good overall
economic conditions. Those who acquire a disability later in life are disadvantaged both by their
disability, illness or injury and by their age (Sedgwick, 2012).
The role of DES-DMS
This program is described as designed for “job seekers with a ‘temporary or permanent disability,
injury or health condition who require the assistance of a disability employment service, and who
may require flexible ongoing support but are not expected to need regular, long term support in the
workplace at any point in time.”
This is a somewhat circular definition. It might make more sense to think of people accessing DESDMS as people who are undergoing, or are attempting to manage, a major life transition arising (at
least in part) out of a disability, injury or illness.
In many cases this will be an illness injury or disability acquired later in life. This is reflected in the
age profile of participants in DES-DMS compared with other labour market programs which is heavily
skewed to the older age groups (Chart 2):
1
See, for example, comments by Public Service Commissioner Sedgewick on 16 May 2012 http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-andmedia/speeches/2012/aps-disabilty-employment-strategy
8
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Chart 2
Age Profile Across Selected Employment Programs
STREAM4
15 to 20
STREAM3
21 to 24
25 to 34
DES-ESS
35 to 49
50 or more
DES-DMS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
LMAO Dec 2011
The aim of the DES-DMS program is to assist people to manage the impact of their condition so that
it no longer has a practical effect on their ability to work. This often includes securing the assistance
of allied health professionals to assist in managing the condition itself, but it may also include
adjusting to a new type of career and to a range of other changes that might have occurred
associated with the illness/injury or disability. In other words, the purpose of DES-DMS is vocational
rehabilitation – whatever helps someone with a health condition or disability to stay in, return to or
move into work.
Many in the DES-DMS program do not identify themselves as people with a disability. They are more
often on Newstart Allowance than the DSP (Chart 3). They may have considerable work experience,
but they are extremely vulnerable to long term unemployment because of the challenge in
managing a major life transition, because of their disability and, for many, because of their age.
Chart 3
Income Support Types (proportion)
DES-ESS
Newstart Allowance
Youth Allowance (other)
STREAM4
Disability Support Pension
Parenting Payment Single
STREAM3
Parenting Payment Partnered
DES-DMS
Not on income support
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
9
100%
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
While a higher proportion of people who access DES-DMS services have physical disabilities than
those who access DES-ESS, there are as many people with psychiatric/psychological disabilities in
DES-DMS as in DES-ESS (Chart 4). DES-DMS is an important part of the rehabilitation infrastructure
for those who experience a period of mental illness and are in the process of recovery.
Chart 4
Primary disability by DMS and ESS
(most common categories)
Vision
Neurological
Intellectual
Specfic learning
Psychiatric
Physical
0
5000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Employment Support Service
Disability Management Service
DEEWR caseload data, 31st Oct 2012
DES-DMS has been relatively successful in achieving employment outcomes, particularly full time
employment, for people who have a disability (Table 2).
Table 2 PPM Outcomes (December 2011)
DES-DMS
DES-ESS
Stream 3
Stream 4
Stream 3 (PWD)
Stream 4 (PWD)
Employed
40.1
34.4
34.9
29
37.9
27
Total positive
47.3
43.6
49
42.4
53.7
39
Not in Labour Force
28
28.6
22.7
31.2
19.3
37.2
DES-DMS has achieved a higher rate of employment, particularly full time, for those over 50 (Table
3). Mainstream services are not always perceived as appropriate by mature aged job seekers (need
ref). The DES-DMS service is likely to be perceived as more appropriate as it is (a) less volume driven
(b) more geared to older aged job seekers (c) more professionalised.
Table 3: Outcomes for people aged 50 or more years (June 2012)
10
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Stream 3
Stream 4
DES-DMS
Employe
d fulltime
(%)
Employe
d parttime
(%)
Employe
d total
(%)
6.4
6.9
9.4
28.1
18.9
28.7
34.5
25.8
38.0
Unemploy
ed
(%)
Not in
the
labour
force
(%)
Educatio
n&
training
(%)
Positive
outcome
s
(%)
41.9
39.2
29.4
23.6
35.0
32.5
15.2
15.3
9.0
45.9
38.1
44.4
Awareness of assistance to make workplace adjustments and experience in negotiating job
flexibilities are more likely to be found in DES providers, which have a specialist focus in this area.
While a significant number of people leave the labour force after participating in DES-DMS (Tables 2
and 3), more will remain engaged than their counterparts in Stream 4 or than over 50s in Stream 3.
In the light of Government efforts to reduce new entries to DSP, the DES-DMS programs success in
this area is critically important.
The specialised nature of DES-DMS, its focus on case management rather than volume, and its
involvement of vocational rehabilitation professionals appear to be important to its successes in
achieving outcomes for people with disabilities, particularly mature aged people.
DES-DMS plays a specific role in the suite of employment programs available in Australia. It is
specialised – it addresses those with complex needs rather managing large volumes of relatively
employable job seekers. It is geared to that group that need transitional assistance, and is
particularly important to assisting mature aged people. While we believe outcomes can be
improved, it is important to preserve those features of the program that have enabled it to achieve
good outcomes for this group.
Improving the system. The problem of dealing with complexity.
Public employment services range from the straightforward (e.g. provision of information about job
vacancies to job seekers, supporting more effective job search) to the highly complex (addressing
employer bias, assisting clients with multiple disadvantages). While the structure of JSA has been
designed to minimise deadweight and deal with large volumes of relatively job ready job seekers,
the DES program includes very few people for whom the transition to work is straightforward.
The DES program can be characterised as one concerned with ‘messy’ or ‘wicked’ problems. A
problem where the relationship between an action and a result is not clear, which relies on multiple
human actors, an open system of influences and sustaining long term behavioural change. The
Demos think-tank publication System Failure (Chapman, 2004) argues that the application of
reductionist policy approaches to messy problems is liable to fail. Unintended consequences will
arise and performance of the system will decline.
There is evidence that this is the case in employment services:
While the introduction of a JCA/ESAt assessment is an attempt to ensure that jobseekers
are connected to the right service, the average wait for an employment service
increased (DEEWR, 2012, p. 17). Because the assessment is so important to performance
11
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
rating and funding, DES providers invested time in redoing the assessment and
negotiating with the ESAt/JCA, reducing time available to work with the job seeker to try
to secure work;
While the program is aimed at maximising capacity of participants to participate in work,
many of the incentives for providers (and some for participants) emphasise describing in
detail disadvantage and incapacity;
While the program is uncapped, the need to compete for star ratings may lead providers
to keep recruitment of new clients to a minimum (to ‘protect the denominator’);
Similarly, services to those with the lowest support requirements may be prioritised to
achieve faster results;
The star rating system discourages collaboration and compromises the opportunity to
work to address structural barriers in an area to employment of people with disabilities
(e.g. working with a particular local industry or employer); and
While apparently offering choice, procurement based on star ratings stifles innovation
and drives risk-averse, homogenous services.
When unintended consequences arise the response from governments has often been to introduce
another level of scrutiny and/or regulation. But, if we take the view that this system is characterised
as one concerned with ‘wicked’ problems, the answer is not to attempt to micromanage, but to take
a system wide view of the problem – we need to step back rather than plunging deeper into the
detail.
At the same time, as Chapman and others have argued, complex problems require greater user
engagement (co-production). While objectives are set at a high level, delivery systems are coproduced locally.
A shift from block funding to funding which rewards achievement of employment has been positive.
Job seekers come to employment services because they want a job, not because they want to be in a
service. The use of indicators which measure the proportion of participants that achieve
employment is clearly relevant. But the indicators that drive the calculation of star ratings (and
payment of funds) are far more specific and far narrower than the outcomes that the DES program is
intended to achieve.
The Public Service Commission has noted that:
There is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level
indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even
distort or constrict the services being delivered by making the indicator (or target) rather than the
service the focus of provision
(Also Nevile, pp63-64)
In the case of DES, there are signs that the overwhelming focus on payable outcomes may, indeed,
be at the expense of delivering a service that meets the needs of all of its clients.
In discussing the performance of employment programs, DEEWR has tended to focus on job
placements and outcomes and make comparisons between these and past programs or overseas
12
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
experience.2 However the evidence is that most people will not achieve lasting employment
through the program. Latest Post Program Monitoring data shows that around 48% of DES-DMS
clients will move into work or education after participating in the program. Around 33% will be
unemployed, while 26% will have left the labour force. Of those in work, 37% identify themselves as
‘seeking more work’ (i.e. underemployed). No net impact data is available for DES-DMS or its
predecessor programs.
ANU Report pp29-31 reflects the experience of staff that they have had to shift away from spending
time with all their clients to spending time with those for whom they can quickly achieve a
placement. The move away from a holistic service is one reason that skilled workers are leaving
employment services (ANU, p38).
Nevile and Lohmann (2011, p. 64) propose a shift away from the current performance management
framework to one which is characterised by continual dialogue between funder and service provider
about what is working and what needs to be changed. Provisional goals are set, but then revised in
the light of experience. The contractual relationship is characterised by shared goals and monitoring
focussed on diagnosis/learning, not compliance.
In considering how we can get better overall outcomes from DES-DMS, we need to think of it as a
program designed to deal with complexity. This has implications for its structure. It means that
clients must be engaged as much as possible in developing solutions. It means that objectives and
KPIs must be able to be adapted to changing circumstances and learnings. It means that
collaboration over shared long-term goals will need to take priority over achievement of narrowly
defined outputs.
2
See, for example, DEEWR Annual Report 2010-11, APM Evaluation 2010.
13
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Section 2: Meeting the needs of Job seekers
This section … covers three design principles designed to meet the needs of job seekers.
Develop introduction / summary.
Design Principle 1
Participants should have a greater say in how, when and what services are delivered. Participant
engagement in, and satisfaction with the program should be increased.
DES was established to enhance the lives of people with disabilities, specifically through supporting
their access to employment. It is framed by the Disability Service Standards (DSS) that are designed
to ensure that the rights of individuals receiving the service are protected and enhanced.
The delivery of disability employment services takes place within the context of exclusion of people
with disabilities from many aspects of social and economic life, it is important that the way in which
services are delivered enhances the sense of control and inclusion of the people who participate in
it, rather than disempowering them. The guiding principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with a Disability include “Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the
freedom to make one's own choices”.
The framing of disability employment services as facilitating the human rights of people with
disability underlies the culture and history of the program. It is therefore crucial that the criteria by
which government considers its recommendations should include the extent to which proposals
would enhance the rights and freedoms of people with disability. This includes the ability for all
participants in the program to be treated with dignity and the opportunity to choose services that
are appropriate for them.
Further to this, there are issues of effectiveness as well as basic rights. The long-term sustainability
of outcomes is critically dependent on a good match between the participant, the position and the
employer. As people experience greater the sense of control around decision-making, they make a
bigger investment in making it work. Employers frequently complain that people referred to them
do not really want the job. By showing greater respect to participant wishes and increased time
spent looking at labour market options, better long-term matches are generated for both job seeker
and employer.
In its Disability Care and Support Report the Productivity Commission highlights that is generally
more efficient for people to make their own decisions – because no matter how good the case
manager, the individual has more information about the complexities of their lives than anyone else.
Therefore, they are best able to determine the path that will suit them (2011, p. 356). Self-efficacy
can be built through participation in employment services where they are designed to foster
decision-making and control by participants. Programs that build self-efficacy respond directly to
employer feedback that identifies abilities to make decisions and solve problems as key recruitment
attributes.
Participants in client directed services report greater satisfaction with the services, with life
in general, greater use of mainstream services (Productivity Commission (2011) (esp 359361), Fisher et.al (2010)). Continuing improvement in the level of satisfaction and perceived
efficacy of the service will contribute to increased participation of volunteers and those who
could benefit from early engagement in the service.
14
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Current position
Overall, participants in the DES-DMS service are positive about the service.
Table 4 – Overall quality of service?
Survey
Type
Program
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied or
dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very
satisfied
EA/PPS
DMS
5.9%
5.3%
11.5%
40.1%
37.2%
EA/PPS
ESS
7.6%
6.5%
12.9%
39.1%
34%
EA/PPS
DES total
6.8%
5.9%
12.2%
39.6%
35.6%
6.7%
5.8%
11.8%
39.2%
36.6%
Overall average
12.5%
11.8%
75.8%
(PPM 1/1/11-31/3/12)
However qualitative interviews with participants in DES services show that program design does not
always enable individuals to exercise significant control over services. Lantz and Marston (2012)
interviewed 80 DES clients over a 12 month period. They found that:
“[…] some of the participants experience the administrative and service delivery processes as deindividualising, as failing to recognise their inherent capabilities and internal motivation. The
employment services policy and its implementation are perceived as being overly focused on
individual deficits, rather than strengths and capabilities. And in the process of implementing this
policy, individuals have little capacity to be self-determining; they are asked to choose from a range
of limited options that are narrowly determined in terms of education and training to increase
employability.
Few participants saw that the continuous flow of required ‘activities’ as meaningful steps to
achieving employment. They saw it as a ‘performance’ required to fulfil their contractual
obligations.” (Lantz & Marston (2012), 865)
Aspects of the process raised in the interviews included: the assessment process, which was
perceived as focussing on what people could not, rather than could do; frustration at activities for
their own sake; lack of time with consultants; being forced to switch providers after eighteen
months in the program.
The Productivity Commission distinguishes between individualised funding and self-directed
support. It identifies key aspects of self-directed support as follows:
Resource allocation based on the individual’s needs and aspirations;
Capacity for informed and genuine choice;
Access to their own individualised budget; and
15
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Power for the person to tailor the mixture and type of services (including from whom
services are received), subject only to their overall budget and reasonable administrative
constraints. (Producivity Commission (2011) 354).
The Commission points out that while Disability Employment Services have individualised funding,
they do not have real consumer power.
What features of the current system support participant involvement in the decisions that affect
them?
The Disability Service Standards set out a framework that places individual needs and aspirations at
the centre of the service.
In particular:
Service Standard 2 provides that the individual’s employment goals are used as a basis for
service provision;
Service Standard 3 requires that the individual be afforded the opportunity to participate in
making decisions about the services and that the service provide acts on the outcomes of
their input; and
Service Standard 5 requires that individuals be supported and encouraged to participate in
the community – reflecting a wider set of values than the simple focus on work.
Adherence to these standards is independently audited. The standards have reinforced centrality of
clients’ rights and decision-making. Many frontline workers in the sector have a strong sense of
ownership of these standards. Advisory and/or governance structures that involve consumer
representatives are a characteristic of many long-standing and recently formed DES providers.
The importance of appropriate services that are founded on human rights is reinforced by the
availability of the independent Complaints Resolution and Referral Service as well as a range of
disability advocacy services.
Recommendation
The Disability Services Standards should continue to be applied to DES-DMS, including ensuring
provision of feedback to providers based on client interviews by independent auditors. The CRRS
should continue to serve as an independent complaints resolution service for DES-DMS.
Other features of DES-DMS support greater responsiveness to participant wishes. Compared to JSA,
DES-DMS caseloads are smaller and the program has less burdensome reporting requirements, this
enables front-line workers to spend more time talking with participants and tailoring plans to suit
their needs. DES-DMS providers either employ, or work closely with vocational rehabilitation and
other allied health professionals. In general the DES workforce has a higher skills/qualification base
than JSA and lower turnover [do we have any evidence?]. The removal of the ‘time to place’
measures from the DES performance framework signals a greater capacity for providers to focus on
job quality and to investigate options to recognise social outcomes.
What could be improved?
While current program structures are designed so that they can be tailored to individuals the degree
of service user control is highly constrained:
16
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Choice of provider is constrained the choice can be exercised only once, there are limitations
on capacity to choose providers outside an ESA;
The range of provider offerings is limited. If the experience of JSA is anything to go by, we
can anticipate further convergence of provider practice. Competition for star ratings,
financial pressure and prescriptive contracts have inhibited innovation and diversity in
services on offer;
Service users have no control over resources; and
Service users cannot make decisions about appropriate hours-benchmarks or about what
might be a ‘good outcome’ for them.
Disability Employment Australia proposes a number of changes to improve participant control over
services:
Greater control by participant over pace and nature of job goals. Participants in Lantz and Marston’s
study suggested that the determination of what and how much work they should do should be a
conversation with their case manager informed by medical advice. This means using third party
assessments of job capacity where necessary, and as a reference point. But third party assessments
should not be determinative of what a good outcome is. Removal of third party assessments as a
matter of course would also reduce cost and red tape, and enable participants to access services
faster.
Recommendation
Participants should be able to work with their service provider to identify pace and level of hours,
drawing on expert advice and/or referral to JCA only if this is needed. Third party assessments
should not, ultimately, be determinative of what a good outcome is for that participant.
Less early focus on ‘barriers’, more on strengths. The UNCRPD emphasises the importance of
strengths based assessment (Art 26 above). This principle will underpin the new NDIS assessment.
A recent study by the UK Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights Team (‘Nudge unit’) found that
outcomes were considerably improved (by nearly 20%) where the first contact with employment
services focussed on goals and progress rather than form filling and identification of barriers (Boffey
(2012)). At present, in DES-DMS, job seekers must pass through several contacts with DHS and JCAs
as well as initial processes at the provider’s office, each of which focuses on assessing barriers,
before they can talk about how they will move forward.
Recommendation
Participants should be able to directly register with DES-DMS, with the focus of early engagement on
strengths, goals and progress not form filling / assessment of barriers. DEEWR administrative
requirements should be modified to enable this shift to occur.
Processes associated with compliance. Lantz and Marston’s research into participants’ perceptions
of DES services also found that participants often felt that they were being ‘treated as though they
were unwilling to work’ (863). The processes associated with JCA assessment, formal appointments
and EPPs, both focus attention on processes (as opposed to strengths, aspirations and outcomes)
and emphasise the need to continually monitor behaviour. DEA is proposing that this administration
and monitoring activity to kept to a minimum.
17
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Recommendations: In addition to removing the requirement for a JCA assessment,
Greater control over services and resources. DEA is cautious about recommending a move to fully
individualised budgets in this area. A key challenge is the nature and level of funding. In an
extremely resource constrained environment, DES-DMS providers rely on flexibility in deployment of
resources in order to be sustainable. DEA is also concerned about the information available to
consumers at the point of entering DES-DMS – there is less opportunity for a ‘learning curve’ when
one is choosing transition to work services. DEA has proposed a trial of individualised budgets for
NDIS Tier 3 clients to explore these issues. While DEA is cautious about all funding being applied
through individual budgets, participants can and should be given control over resources associated
with long term learning and support. Elsewhere in this submission we argue that investments
should be made in long term job retention and career development (XXXX). This could be achieved
through establishment of a training and careers account controlled by participants.
Recommendation
That individual budgets for employment services be trialled in the context of the NDIS (noting that
this is most likely to be relevant to DES-ESS participants). That a new participant controlled learning
and careers account be considered (see further below).
In considering client-focussed design, one of the influential principles is ‘no wrong door’. In the DES
context this principle might mean that participants could choose from a range of organisations,
provided that they are accredited and are able to provide a service. This could include DES-DMS and
DES-ESS providers (wherever located) and could extend to some accredited JSA and other disability
specialists. Ongoing Support and Jobs in Jeopardy services should, similarly, be controlled by
participants. This change would give participants greater capacity to influence providers through
switching – providing, of course, that there is sufficient diversity in the market.
Recommendation
Jobseekers should be able to move between DSS accredited providers if they feel that they may get a
better/more appropriate service elsewhere. This should include moving to any specialist provider in
the State, and any provider in their current or adjacent ESAs. Should long term support be required,
clients should be able to choose a different provider.
Greater support for understanding and decision making about financial consequences of returning to
work. The effect of employment on income is highly complex, particularly in an environment where
around 60% of participants will move into casual work which is more likely to have irregular hours. It
involves understanding of rules around income support, taxation, the health care card and other
systems like public housing and child care support and the risk of long term loss of benefits (if on
DSP). The more complex the decision the more likely that people will stick with the status quo or
will avoid making decisions (Reeson and Dunstall (2009). While providers may attempt to assist job
seekers with these decisions, access to better tools and specialist assistance is needed (refer, for
example, to the ‘Better off in Work’ calculation in the UK, and the EarnBenefits program delivered by
Seedco in the US).
Recommendation
18
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Every client should be entitled to have a clear understanding of their financial position taking into
account their personal circumstances and job options. Government should provide providers and
jobseekers with tools and/or direct assistance to enable them to calculate the financial
consequences of moving into employment at different wage rates and/or hours over the short and
long term.
Reduced emphasis on coercion, participation reporting.
Continued improvement of skills of workforce. [refer Principle 7]
Indexation to ensure caseloads can be maintained or reduced. [see principle XX]
(change name of program to Transition to work or similar ??)
Map the service users’ experience. In May 2012 the Government’s Advisory Panel on Employment
Services Administration and Accountability recommended that:
R2.2 That DEEWR identify and pursue further opportunities to empower jobseekers as the key
participants in, and the immediate beneficiaries of, the Programs…. This work would be informed by
independent research on the experiences of jobseekers.
At this point we are not aware of independent research commissioned by Government that
documents the experience of users in the system. If we are genuine about providing greater say for
participants in these services, then mapping their experience of the services and capturing their
views on how it might change is critical.
Recommendation
To inform the design of services from 2015, the Government should commission an independent
study of the experience of participants (and employers in the system) – what steps they take, where
they are asked to repeat information and at what points they experience program requirements as
getting in the way of their progress.
In keeping with the UN Convention, user experience of the program should continue to drive
program delivery and policy change over the course of the next contract period. This should be
independent, transparent, widely shared and include both positive outcomes and unintended
consequences of the program:
Recommendation: Move to independent monitoring and evaluation, with an emphasis on
capturing both positive and negative outcomes, and disseminating information across the
sector.
Consideration should be given to renaming the program to encourage all eligible job seekers
regardless of whether they identify themselves as a person with a disability.
Draft Principle 2
Our focus should be on increasing the ability of people to gain, retain and advance in employment
over the long term, acknowledging the changing labour market that means that transitions will be
inevitable.
19
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
The DES Funding Deed describes the overall objectives of the program as follows:
‘The Objective for the delivery of Disability Employment Services is to improve the nation’s productive
capacity by employment participation of people with disability, thereby fostering social inclusion.’
‘The objective of the Program Services is to help individuals with disability, injury or health condition
to secure and maintain sustainable employment. The Program Services will increase the focus on the
needs of the most disadvantaged job seekers and will achieve greater social inclusion. The Program
Services will boost employment participation and the productive capacity of the workforce, address
Skills Shortage areas and better meet the needs of employers.’
From a providers’ point of view, the objectives are operationalised in Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs). In particular, KPI 2, which focuses on achievement of prescribed employment outcomes,
drives the calculation of star ratings and financial returns for providers. To date, KPI 3 (quality) has
had little impact on the way the market operates, in part because it is pass/fail.
The Building on Success Issues Paper highlights the continuing structural changes in the Australian
labour market and the increased importance of skilled labour (pp9-10). At the same time, work is
becoming more insecure. Employees can expect to move jobs more often and many, particularly
those most disadvantaged in the labour market, will find themselves in casual positions.
DEA proposes that, in this context, the objective of employment services is not just to assist people
to get work, but to build their capacity to manage transitions between jobs and to support the
development and application of skills. This wider role is encompassed by the concept of
employability:
Definition of employability: the ability to gain initial employment, maintain employment and
make transitions between jobs and roles within the same organisation to meet new job
requirements; obtain new employment if required, that is, to be independent in the labour
market by being willing and able to manage employment transitions between and within
organisations
The profile of DES-DMS is of a group that have experienced a significant event that is likely to mean a
change in the type and pace of work that they can do. They are, on average, older than clients in
DES-ESS or in Streams 3 or 4 of JSA. Some are starting again. There is a considerable risk that these
clients, many of whom have skills and have worked, will become trapped casual or part-time work,
or jobs where their skills are underutilised. Available evidence suggests that people with disabilities
are particularly vulnerable to losing their jobs, and least likely to sustain them (Ref). In other words
while the productive potential of the participant group in DES-DMS is likely to be high, this is a group
that is likely to struggle to achieve that potential in our labour market.
Overall, DES-DMS has achieved a better rate of full time employment and a lower rate of
underemployment than JSA (or DES-ESS) (Table 5). In our view this reflects the specialised focus of
this service and the importance of job seeker aspirations to services, reinforced through the DSS.
However the available data still shows that around 58% of those who gain employment will find
themselves in insecure work (Table 5). Research evidence shows that casual workers are less likely
to receive training and are more likely to lose their jobs if changes occur [ref]. DES-DMS job seekers
20
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
are likely to be mature aged and this, too, is associated with less access to employer funded training
and a greater chance of becoming long term unemployed [ref].
More needs to be done to ensure that DES-DMS participants remain in work, are able to apply
existing skills and re-skill over time.
Table 5 – Employment Outcomes, June 2012
JSA Stream 3
JSA Stream 4
EA/PPS – DMS
EA/PPS – ESS
Permanent
employee
(%)
26.7
34.9
33.1
31.0
Casual, temporary
or seasonal
employee
(%)
64.0
56.8
58.1
63.8
Selfemployed
(%)
9.2
8.3
8.8
5.3
Employed,
seeking
more work
(%)
50.9
48.3
37.1
44.2
Full-time
employed,
seeking
more work
(%)
5.4
11.3
4.0
3.4
Part-time
employed,
seeking more
work
(%)
45.2
37.5
32.8
40.2
Employed
& studying
(%)
16.0
14.6
10.0
14.4
What is currently working?
The specialised DES program and its two distinct programs have promoted the development of
providers and workers with capability in helping people to find new ways of applying existing skills
and to manage difficult transitions.
The application of the DSS has reinforced the importance of building self-reliance, and the
importance of participant aspirations and of the quality of employment. Smaller caseloads in DESDMS and the involvement of allied health professionals have facilitated focus on making a successful
transition (back) to work.
Inclusion of 52 week sustainability indicators in performance measures is positive. The fact that they
are not connected with a payment may assist in ensuring that these indicate truly sustainable
(quality) jobs.
The availability of Flexible Ongoing Support and the Jobs in Jeopardy service have ensured ongoing
support provision to retain work. This has been reinforced by the welcome inclusion of Jobs in
Jeopardy in the performance framework. But there are limitations in the ongoing support
framework – explored further below.
What could be improved?
Current prescriptive requirements around ‘outcomes’ encourage specific, narrowly defined targets,
not long term strategies to ensure labour market attachment. While 13 and 26 week (and even 52
week) outcomes may be indicative of employability in the broad sense used above, they are not the
same as it. The fact that many job seekers will find themselves underemployed, in jobs that have no
career path, in jobs that don’t use their skills and that they may find themselves back on income
support, are all fundamental problems if our goals are to enable to gain sustainable work and to
enhance productivity.
As Nevile discusses in her study of DES, there is a tendency to ‘reward A while hoping for B’. This
arises because of a desire for simple, visible measures and an application of a single framework to
what are quite different local circumstances (Nevile & Lohmann, 2011, pp. 63-64). Along with other
21
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
expert commentators in this area, Nevile and Lohmann propose that, rather than emphasising rigid,
quantifiable outcomes, complex programs like DES should be based on setting initial goals and then
constantly revisiting these in the light of efforts to achieve them (see also Marsh & Spies-Butcher,
2009).
The emphasis, in this view, should be on diagnostic information and efforts to improve, rather than
on fixed benchmarks. This analysis highlights the reason that picking any set of indicators (e.g. 26 or
52 week outcomes) is bound to generate unintended consequences and prompt government to
introduce new prescriptions to address these. It should also be noted that the adoption of this type
of approach would facilitate achievement of government objectives in relation to collaboration – see
XXX below.
Disability Employment Australia recognises that adoption of this approach would require substantial
change for both the sector and for DEEWR. Operationalising it would be challenging and would
require close engagement with the sector. Elsewhere in this submission we have suggested that,
initially, this approach could be applied to specific highly disadvantaged communities (xxx). More
immediately, options for consideration might include increasing the period of engagement in the
service to three years, with a measure of degree to which all participants have achieved ‘full’ (i.e. not
under) employment combined with wages and satisfaction measures.
Recommendation: A high value should be placed on the wider concept of employability –
the extent to which a person is able, over an extended period, to maintain work and
manage transitions between jobs. Long term attachment to the labour market should be
included in the Performance Framework, provided that the services to deliver longer term
career support are properly funded.
Recommendation: There should be an emphasis on continuous learning and improvement
embedded in the program structure. This should drive continual focus on the (changing)
cohort of people who are missing out on employment or failing to achieve lasting
employment.
Recommendation: The program should not discourage providers from supporting job
seekers to find their own employment. Nor should it discourage provision of appropriate
assistance (e.g. ongoing support) where this is needed to improve achievement of quality,
sustainable work. Ability to manage employment transitions should be considered a
positive outcome from the program.
While Government has invested and continues to heavily invest in vocational training, training is not
always relevant to the needs of the employer or the job seeker at the time it is delivered. JSA
participants often complain about training for its own sake, or training that doesn’t lead to a job
(Murphy, Murray, Chalmers, Martin, & Marston, 2011, p. 131). Additionally, we know that casual,
part-time and older workers are less likely to receive training from their employer once in work.
A more efficient and effective option is needed for people with illness, injury or disability to access
career advancement and training support as they enter or re-enter the workforce. Disability
Employment Australia proposes that DES-DMS clients be provided with a learning account that
22
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
would entitle them to an amount of career advice and vocational training over a set period (say, 3-5
years).
This could be funded through redirecting or notionally assigning existing vocational training funds
available to jobseekers and existing workers. This fund should be controlled by the participant not
by providers. It is important to note that we are not proposing an Employment Pathway Fund, which
is not controlled by participants and has been associated with (apparently) poor targeting, red tape
and increased caseloads.
Recommendation: Government should establish of learning accounts for DES-DMS clients,
enabling them to receive an amount of vocational training and careers support for a
period of up to 5 years post referral to DES-DMS.
Jobs in Jeopardy [outline limitations of service and recommendations for change – note that this will
also be referred to under ‘employers’]
Jobs in Jeopardy should be reformed ….and eligibility should be extended to those receiving Sickness
Allowance. More can and should be done to encourage those on Sickness Allowance to access
vocational rehabilitation (disability management) services through DES-DMS.
A payment for people who are employed or self-employed who temporarily cannot work or
study because of an injury or illness.
The logic that follows is that is more cost-effective to intervene early, as is usually the case with
those receiving Sickness Allowance, in order to avoid long-term illness and its associated costs.
Most Australian labour market programs have focussed on supply of job seekers,
rather than generated demand from employers (Marston & Larsen, 2010, p. 388). While
there have been more demand side initiatives in the area of disability employment
(through programs like the NDRC, Job Access and wage subsidies) discrimination and
lack of willingess or capacity to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ still critically impact
on job opportunities for people with disabilities.
The Jobs in Jeopardy element of the Disability Employment Services is an important part of the
existing program framework, but it has even greater potential as a tool for working with employers
and preventing detachment from the labour force.
The OECD report Sickness, Disability and Work recommends that Australia can do
more to support employers to retain employees with illness or disability, to avoid
them ending up welfare (2010). This recommendations is strengthened by DEEWR’s
own evidence, that confirms employers are much more likely to retain an employee
with mental illness, than recruit a candidate with mental illness (DEEWR, 2008a, p.
27).
This suggests that a strategy aimed at employers and employees who have or acquire a disability,
injury or illness during their employment is likely to be more effective than intervention after the
employment relationship has been ended . However, uptake of the Job in Jeopardy initiative has
been relatively poor. In 2008, DEEWR released the report Promoting best practice use of job in
23
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
jeopardy assistance and intermittent support, which found poor JiJ uptake a result of employers
having no knowledge (or understanding) of Job in Jeopardy and that its name was too negative(p. 2).
Addtionally, providers found the guidelines complex (DEEWR, 2008b) and reported that the funding
was insufficient to make JiJ viable.
Despite increased funding made available for JiJ in the 2010 DES contract, our members indicate that
a key reason that JiJ uptake is low because there was no weighting attached to them in the 2010
performance framework. Considerable effort is required to engage employers and employees in this
program. The apparent lack of value placed in it by DEEWR reduced its priority for many
organisations (compared, for example, to the engagement of Eligible School Leavers).
Nor has the program been promoted through other channels, like Centrelink, employer bodies or
services like JobAccess. Many who could benefit would struggle to find the service.
The recent parliamentary inquiry report into mental health and workforce participation was critical
of the information and support provided to employers and potential participants concerning the Job
in Jeopardy program. It recommended that the program be actively promoted and that eligibility
criteria be reviewed to encourage greater uptake and awareness of the program (Australian
Government, 2012).
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government support and, where
necessary, amend the JobAccess, Employment Assistance Fund and Jobs in Jeopardy
initiatives to ensure that:
The scope of eligibility requirements does not prohibit employees and employers who
require support; and
Ways of accessing and information about the JobAccess, Employment Assistance Fund and
Jobs in Jeopardy programs and their benefits, including for employment of people with a
mental illness, be clarified and readily available to employees and employers.
(Australian Government, 2012, p. xix)
If disability increases with age, and Australia is experiencing an ageing population and looming skills
and labour shortage, and Government is making efforts for people to keep working for longer, then
DEEWR can and should reform JiJ to better work with employers and build their disability confidence
to retain their current employees through JiJ.
We know that employers consider disability employment risky due to a lack of confidence and
information (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2005; Waterhouse, Kimberley,
Jonas, & Glover, 2010). As this confidence builds through the provision of expert disability
employment assistance, trust and rapport with the employer result as business needs are met,
opening the door for other candidates with disability (DEEWR, 2011; Sardo & Begley, 2011, p. 9).
Given the potential of the Jobs in Jeopardy to better meet the recruitment needs of employers, and
to reduce welfare dependency through early intervention, we believe enhancements are required to
increase public visiblity of the service.
24
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Sickness Allowance applicants should be given greater access to, and visibilty of, Job in
Jeopardy. By definition this is a group of people who are not able to return to work due to
sickness, illness or injury.
The current rules around providing service to a person with a residential address in an ESA
are limiting and makes it hard for providers to market a service they know they can deliver.
It is the nature of JiJ that it is an employer facing service. DEA recommends JiJ provision is
permitted where the participant has a residential address in the LMR the provider is
contracted in. This allow providers and employers certainty over who will providing what
support. Alternatively, DEEWR might consider allowing registrations for employees whose
employer is located in a contracted ESA.
Job in Jeopardy should be renamed more positively and to reflect its intent to better meet
the recuitment needs of employers. For example, Workplace Assistance Program,
Employment Assistance Program, ‘Staying at Work’ etc.
Government can and should actively promote JiJ through the NDRC, DHS, Job Access,
Australian Job Search website, employer networks, HR professional networks, rehabilitation
services and trade unions.
Recommendation: The Jobs in Jeopardy program should be enhanced so that it can better meet
the needs of employers wanting support to retain or reintegrate employees with an illness, injury
or disability. This would include: renaming the program to be more attractive for employers (e.g.
Workplace Assistance Program, Employment Assistance Program, etc.) active promotion of the
program to employers through NDRC, Job Access, employer networks, HR professional networks;
promotion to employees who might benefit through DHS, rehabilitation services and trade unions;
relaxation or removal of the limitation on provision of services to clients outside the ESA; enabling
services to work with clients to secure another job – regardless of with which employer
Principle 3
The program should support the development of an effective participant / case worker
relationship
The quality of the working relationship between each participant and their case manager is critical to
successful outcomes. Case workers need good labour market knowledge and understanding of
employers, they need to understand the range of impacts that illness and/or disability can have on
work and the strategies that can overcome these, they need excellent skills in engaging people who
may be reluctant, disheartened or hostile. They also need time to listen to people’s needs, to affirm
their strengths and build their confidence.
Evidence from JSA suggests that these factors, that underpin quality working relationships, are
increasingly rare. Considine et al (2013) paint a picture of declining qualifications, declining age and
increasing caseloads.
(oculd be strengthened, especially with some data on DES and the startlingly awful stats on JSA) also
check Goerge’s work
25
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Compliance data suggest a heavy reliance on bureaucratic mechanisms to engage clients – for
example there were over 400,000 income support suspensions in the year to 30 June 2012 (DEEWR,
Jobseeker compliance data, June Quarter 2012). This suggests a lack of skill and/or time to find
more effective means of engaging jobseekers, even though more positive engagement is more likely
to yield better results for the job seeker.
There is some evidence that these problems are less pronounced in DES-DMS. For example the
attendance rates of activity tested job seekers is considerably higher for DES appointments, and DES
staff are much less likely to report that non-attendance was for an invalid reason. This suggests
more effective engagement that would contribute to greater efficiency.
Attendance at appointments with
employment services
DES
JSA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Activity tested job seekers 1/7/11 - 30/06/12
Program Appointments attended
Appointments not attended Valid reason
Appointments not attended Invalid reason
Appointments not attended Discretion
Disability Employment Australia considers that it is vital to delivery of effective services to people
who have complex needs, like those in DES-DMS, that there be increased focus on and investment in
skills. We note that this need is reinforced by the UN Convention which states that:
(Art 26, clause 2). States Parties shall promote the development of initial and continuing training for
professionals and staff working in habilitation and rehabilitation services.
Recommendation: Minimum qualifications standards should apply to staff working with
clients with an emphasis on vocational rehabilitation qualifications and/or case
management. The requirements should be flexible enough to enable providers to employ
people from backgrounds reflecting the client base (eg Indigenous staff, people with
experience of mental illness) with supervision by qualified staff.
Recommendation: That providers be required to implement an ongoing program of
professional development with mandatory requirements for those working in the sector.
Government needs to recognise that the service fee structure represents a key constraint on the
ability to pay improved wages to attract and retain skilled staff. Demand for skilled workers in the
disability sector will be substantially increased as a result of the implementation of the NDIS and
possibly the National Injury Insurance Scheme. The Productivity Commission has suggested that
26
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
there is potential for severe staff shortages in this area which will need to be addressed through,
amongst other things, higher wages (693). In the lead up to, and during the next contract there is
likely to be upward pressure on wages for skilled staff in this sector.
Recommendation. That the fee structures be adjusted to reflect the true cost of delivery by
a more experienced and skilled workforce.
While skills are essential, they are not enough:
A highly skilled worker who is a committed and strategic advocate for service users can learn to
‘work the system’, but their effectiveness as a worker depends on the institutional design into which
their work fits. If such institutional design does not invite and support them in working effectively
and democratically with a service user. They cannot make up for this deficit by their own dedication
and skills. (Yeatman (2009), 210)
The APESSA Report found that:
The very high rate of staff turnover in providers is indicative of systemic problems. The explanations
given for the annual average rate of 30% (NESA submission) are the low rates of pay, the high level of
administration which is incompatible with the primary interest of many staff to help clients, the mix
of pastoral and administrative requirements, the low levels of training, and the emotional toll related
to this kind of work (APESSA Final Report, p10).
While the situation is better in DES, Nevile and Lohmann’s 2011 research highlighted that the
problems of administrative load, lack of capacity to spend enough time with clients, pressure to
achieve inflexible KPIs are all placing pressure on staff and making it harder for them to be retained.
Disability Employment Australia considers that there is scope to improve program design to ensure
better support and greater investment in this critical relationship. Many of the measures that would
improve the relationship have been identified under Principle 1 above. A program that is focussed
on participants’ strengths and aspirations, that gives them greater control over services, provides a
much stronger basis for a collaborative working relationship at the frontline.
We also propose two measures that will reduce red tape and increase time spent focussing on
strengths and progress:
Recommendation: The initial period of engagement with a client should be focussed on
building a strong case management relationship rather than administration and
compliance. Provider requirements should be minimal eg: after the initial commencement
into the service is recorded, for the first three to six months of assistance there should be
no further requirement to record appointments. An initial EPP should record only the
provider’s agreement to offer the service and the participants agreement to participate.
Recommendation: Rather than try to use the EPP as a case management plan, the EPP can
be simplified so that it reflects the bare minimum requirements to meet the activity test. A
more detailed EPP might be developed in cases where activity tested job seekers were
persistently non-compliant. EPPs would be updated only when they needed to be changed.
Shorter, simpler EPPs would reduce administration/IT time and make obligations easier for
27
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
participants to understand. EPPs would not be required for volunteers. In accordance with
good case management practice and the DSS, case workers would be expected to keep
records of their work with clients, including individualised plans, agreed actions,
milestones and goals.
28
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Section 3: Stronger Partnerships with other Services
If participants have more say in the delivery of services (Principle 1) and if the case managerparticipant relationship is strengthened (Principle 3), then better linkages with other services should
follow. However there are structural impediments to collaboration which are explored here.
Principle 4
Program design, performance measurement and evaluation mechanisms should provide the
settings for improved collaboration.
Many stakeholders that interact with the ‘mainstream’ employment services system express
concern over the lack of collaboration – either between providers or between providers and external
organisations.
It appears that DES providers have tended to operate more collaboratively than their counterparts in
JSA. An academic study of DES providers which explored collaboration in the network found that, in
addition to high levels of collaboration through industry bodies, conferences and local forums:
Over 70% of providers were able to name a specific example of collaboration, ranging from the
formation of joint companies or establishing cross-over directorships, to more ad hoc and limited
collaborations (Marsh and Spies-Butcher (2009) 247).
They noted that these were “a powerful source of best practice information” and that “most
collaboration, involving 40% of all respondents, came through engagements with other open
employment providers” (248).
However this same study found that providers were finding it harder to collaborate. Competition
was seen as a major obstacle to collaboration. Working with other organisations might be good for
clients, but it also boosts potential competitors and decreases the chance that your own
organisation will stand out from the crowd – either in star ratings or in a tender.
The willingness of governments to replace long-standing providers in an area with organisations
from other locations can also undermine collaboration. Collaboration thrives in the context of ‘thick’
networks – where relationships operate on a number of levels (senior managers, front line workers,
range of forums) and are built over time. Organisations seeking partnerships with employment
service providers complain about frequent turnover of personnel. Longer term partnerships may be
thwarted by changes in provider.
Finally, collaboration is undervalued where financial and organisational survival depends on 13 and
26 week outcomes. Collaboration can be time consuming and risky, and it typically focuses on long
term outcomes rather than short term outputs. Investment in collaboration initiatives can be hard
to justify in a resource constrained environment with narrowly defined KPIs.
The Government’s recognition of the importance of collaboration reflects its understanding that the
challenges of getting a greater number of very long term or disadvantaged people into work are
complex ones. It is in the nature of complex problems that they cannot be solved through
application of simple solutions.
29
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
The Public Service Commission has noted that:
There is an ever present danger in handling wicked issues that they are handled too narrowly. The
shortcomings of traditional approaches to policy making are also due to the social complexity of
wicked problems—the fact that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the
perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders and that any package of measures identified
as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple
organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively (Public Service Commission (2007)).
DEA notes that DEEWR has developed a number of initiatives that reflect the need to engage and coordinate efforts of multiple stakeholders in generating longer term strategies:
Employment of Local Employment Co-ordinators in 20 priority areas;
Implementation of Family Centred Employment Projects; and
Development of new, flexible approach to KPIs within the Remote Jobs and Communities
Program.
While Disability Employment Australia notes the improvement focus on employment in DES-ESS
following the shift from grant based funding to the current arrangements, this has come at the cost
of collaboration that could foster longer term impact.
The Public Service Commission has noted that while there are benefits of competition (e.g. the
ability of consumers to choose between providers) stakeholders typically assume a win-lose
outcome (Public Service Commission, (2007)). The study cited above clearly demonstrates that this
is increasingly true of DES providers.
The alternative, a collaborative – ‘win-win’ – approach, requires greater flexibility in terms of
program design, willingness to make mistakes, and an emphasis on local ‘institution building’ so that
local stakeholders are engaged, share accountability and investment. Kania and Kramer have
described the features of successful approaches applying these principles, coining the phrase
‘collective impact’ (Kania and Kramer (2011)).
DEA considers that a ‘collective impact’ approach, based on harnessing the skills, networks and
resources of diverse local organisations, offers significant advantages over market solutions in highly
30
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
disadvantaged communities. However we also recognise that this would represent substantial
change and would require very different approaches from providers and Government. On this basis
we suggest that ‘collective impact’ initiatives be implemented initially in a few highly disadvantaged
communities. This would include, in those locations, capacity to adjust local KPIs, recognition of
‘shared outcomes’ and a strong focus on shared learning and accountability.
Recommendation: In purchasing services, DEEWR should place weight on long standing
community connections and engagement, including evidence of past collaboration.
Recommendation: There should be greater flexibility to adjust local objectives and KPIs to
reflect local community needs. Through this process it should be possible to identify
shared objectives to which many service providers, employers and community
organisations would contribute. Outcomes may be attributed to multiple or all
organisations that contribute to these shared goals. Funds should be available for
collaborative projects.
Recommendation: DEEWR should pilot ‘collective impact’ initiatives in key disadvantaged
communities, with an emphasis on collection and sharing of evidence at the local level,
development of shared objectives, adjustment of local arrangements to reflect community
need.
Mitigating risk selection
Pathway Proposal
We propose that program settings are changed to allow providers to claim both a pathway and full
13-week outcome in the same period of service.
This can be done in a cost-neutral manner by making the full outcome payment a pro-rata payment
if the pathway outcome had already been claimed. The functionality already exists in the
Employment Services System through the ‘zero’ dollar claim.
In this way, a provider can elect to spread the funding they would receive for a full 13 week outcome
over a 26 week period. It is predicted that more employment and education opportunities will be
offered to participants, as opposed to fortnightly appointments, or job clubs. This is because
providers could achieve additional performance and financial rewards above and beyond quarterly
service fees. We submit this will result in greater numbers of participants being engaged in capacity
building activities, as demonstrated in the following table.
Level 1 ESS
Level 1 DMS
Level 2 ESS
2nd Service Fee
$890 or
$1595 or
$1900 or
13 Week Pathway
$945 + 5% stars
$945 + 5% stars
$1450 + 5% stars
13 Week Full (Pro-rata)
$1915 + 20% stars
$1915 + 25% stars
$2950 + 20% stars
13 Week Full
$2860
$2860
$4400
Disability employment practice (or the open employment ‘place then train’ model) tells us that a
principal focus on starting competitive employment sooner rather than later is generally more
effective than traditional employment approaches. For example, traditional approaches include
‘train then place’, vocational counseling, sheltered employment or job clubs.
31
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
The evidenced-based model is clear: assessment is best conducted as a continuous process of
experience(s) in competitive employment. Evidence also shows that people who secure jobs that
reflect their own choices remain in their jobs twice as long as when jobs are not aligned with their
preferences (Cocks & Boaden, 2009). Therefore, it follows that:
Promoting decision-making and choice will lead to more sustainable employment outcomes;
and
Employment sustainability is predicated upon a quality job match, informed through
reflection on previous employment experiences.
We submit that allowing providers to claim both a pathway and full 13-week outcome in the same
period of service will diversify service offerings that better meet evidence based principles of
disability employment. The principle of jobs as transitions, where all jobs are seen as worthwhile,
positive experiences – and do not represent failures to achieve optimal outcomes. But do lead,
through continued disability employment assistance, to competitively obtained, permanent
employment.
It is anticipated that acceptance of our proposal will result in a higher retention rate to optimal
outcomes, because the best way of determining a persons’ capacity to work is for them to choose,
get and keep employment and to reflect on those experiences. Changing program settings in this
way provides greater scope for a participant to exercise choice and control over their vocational
pathway by leaving the provider and participant with the opportunity to achieve an optimal
outcome in the same period of service. It allows participants who might believe that they cannot
work the benchmark hours suggested by medical practitioners or external assessors, to gradually
build up their hours. Providers will have a greater incentive to engage all job seekers in pathway
type activities with a view to claiming a pathway or full time outcomes. Low rates of pathway
outcomes at present suggest a tendency towards an ‘all or nothing’ approach in the context of a
highly competitive marketplace.
The current framework limits choice by valuing a single job over employment, as providers perceive
a disincentive to offer participants any opportunity that is not a full outcome. . The imperative to
achieve full outcomes over pathway outcomes could also encourage risk selection: a process by
which efforts are focused on those most likely to achieve a full outcomes, while participants that
might need to take smaller steps will receive less. Risk selection is likely to be mitigated by
rewarding interim milestones which increase capacity of the part of participants to achieve full
outcomes (Nevile, 2012, pp. 12-13).
32
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Section 5 – Working in partnership with employers
Principle 5
Improved engagement with employers
The DES-DMS service is rightly designed around services for participants. This is reflected in the fee
structure, which is participant based, and the performance and quality frameworks. The principal
means by which DES-DMS providers engage with employers is around the needs of a specific
individual and a specific job. This engagement might be quite intensive and include job carving,
education for the employer and co-workers and assistance to identify and secure workplace
adjustments. Quite often, a good experience in recruiting one person through a DES provider will
open the door for more placements over time. Some employers go on to become champions in
their local communities for employment of people with disabilities. The skills and expertise of the
disability sector has informed good practice in ‘mainstream’ services.
This approach to securing employment is both proven and effective. It reflects evidence of what
works. Research into what is most likely to influence decisions to hire people with disabilities shows
that personal contact is much more likely to be influential than either industry based campaigns or
public campaigns [DEA Conference paper check ref and content].
It is particularly effective in working with small-medium enterprise – which accounts for 70% of all
employment, and the sectors with the largest growth.
Chart 5
Employment by business size (2009/10)
Large (200+)
30%
Small (0-19)
47%
MediumMedium
(20-199)
23%
(ABS Cat 8155.0)
The DES-DMS service is strengthened by its capacity to offer employers ongoing assistance through
Flexible Ongoing Support and Jobs in Jeopardy, and through access to a range of employer subsidies,
advice and assistance services available through the Employer Assistance Fund and JobAccess.
33
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Recent reforms to the NDRC will better equip this body to improve engagement with larger
employers.
There is room to strengthen the ability of DES-DMS services to support employers and, through this,
to support current and future program participants.
Research in the vocational rehabilitation sector highlights the fact that the most important factor
influencing whether and how fast a person will return to work is the attitude of the employer to that
worker. Many of the people who access DES-DMS were in some form of work when they acquired
their illness or disability. Service engagement with their employer at the earliest possible point
might make it possible for them to return to that job or employer. And, in fact, the Jobs in Jeopardy
service has the potential to meet this need. This form of early intervention could generate major
improvements in prospects for individuals and substantial budget savings through prevention of long
term unemployment. However awareness of the service is poor. Nor is there a focus in Centrelink
or in other relevant agencies on referral for preventative action.
Recommendation: The Jobs in Jeopardy program should be enhanced so that it can better
meet the needs of employers wanting support to retain or reintegrate employees with an
illness, injury or disability. This would include: active promotion of the program to
employers through NDRC, Job Access, employer networks, HR professional networks;
promotion to employees who might benefit through DHS, rehabilitation services and trade
unions; relaxation or removal of the limitation on provision of services to clients outside
the ESA; enabling services to work with clients to secure another job – regardless of with
which employer.
While there are strengths in the employer by employer approach, it is limited in its ability to address
emerging and projected skills and labour gaps. It is inherently short term (ie addresses an
immediate vacancy) and individualised.
DEA believes that there is also an important role for demand led strategies that seek to develop long
term pathways to skilled work for a larger cohort of job seekers. We note, in particular, the
challenges of enabling more people with disabilities to access apprenticeships or to access
employment with larger employers, like the Public Service.
The NDRC has potential to make a substantial contribution to development of demand led initiatives
but its scale, reach and funding structure would limit its current capacity. Enabling it to act as a
‘broker’ for wage subsidies and training funds may enable it to pursue this role.
Recommendation: Pilot demand led initiative with NDRC as the lead to determine
program design that might support this approach.
If demand led approaches are to be encouraged then the structural impediments to their
development need to be addressed. To be worthwhile, demand led projects generally need to have
reasonable scale. They require considerable investment. But any one provider will have a limited
number of people on their caseload interested and/or suitable for work in a particular job/industry.
The current competitive model means that providers are loathe to give a leg up to competitors. Nor
34
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
can they justify the considerable upfront investment required to develop a long term partnership
with an employer / industry. Localised, collaborative solutions will need to be developed to address
employer needs.
This review of specific programs and the literature confirms that there can never be one, single,
optimal labour market program…Nevertheless this review indicates there is broad agreemet on
several key principles that should be incorporated into the design of programs..[these include the]
need to engage the local community (resources, employers, local organisations etc in programs,
particularly to address local labour market conditions. Local employers should be involved in the
design of programs. (O’Neil and Neal (2008) 35)
Recommendation: Provide a pool of short term, project funds available to providers in
collaborative arrangements (with each other as well as employers) to address industry
needs provided that opportunities are promoted across the relevant labour market/s.
Allow outcomes to be shared.
Intermediaries or employers wishing to develop and invest in strategies to engage more people with
disabilities are also frustrated by the lack of any one entity that can aggregate the caseload – a
mechanism by which the number of people interested in working in a sector might be identified, or
through which opportunities can be communicated. DEEWR has pioneered various attempts to use
information technologies to improve connections between people wanting opportunities and those
who have them. DEA is of the view that information technology solutions, designed in consultation
with participants, providers and employers, have significant potential to better connect people with
opportunities.
Recommendation: Explore and pilot IT strategies that provide employers and
intermediaries with greater ‘visibility’ of candidates with an interest in their positions.
While we know that people with disabilities and mature aged workers are more likely to ‘stick’ in
jobs, there is still a perception that they represent a high risk to employers. Wage subsidies are
important in encouraging employers to accept this ‘risk’. Strong take up of Wage Connect by DESDMS demonstrates the potential of this program to stimulate demand for participants.
Recommendation: Wage subsidies, particularly Wage Connect, should be continued and
uncapped
Disability Employment Australia strongly supports the emphasis on employment in the open labour
market and efforts to ensure all employers provide equal access to work in their organisations.
However we recognise that opportunities for people with disabilities are not currently available on
an equitable basis. Direct discrimination, failure to consider workplace adjustments, lack of
accessible transport, a legacy of poor education / unemployment all contribute to a generally poor
rate of employment for people with disabilities.
Social enterprises have been developed that aim to address that gap, either through permanent
employment or through transitional jobs that provide people with skills and experience necessary to
work elsewhere. Social enterprise can also be important in generating jobs in job poor communities,
or in creating different types of jobs that are more accessible for some people. If we are to address
35
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
the employment gap between people with disabilities and those without, then we need to stimulate
initiatives that create more jobs – provided that these are ‘real jobs’ provided on just terms.
Recommendation: Encouraging take up of wage subsidies to support job creation and
demand led projects, including in social enterprise, by enabling them to be accessed
through social enterprise intermediaries (like SOFA, Social Traders) or identified demandled project leads.
36
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Section 6 – New ideas for a better system
Principle 6
The purchasing and contracting systems should foster a diverse sector (size, specialisations, skills,
focus)
The case for diversity
As the Issues Paper points out, the process of structural change in the economy is ongoing. The
solutions that might work today may not work tomorrow. The challenge of raising the employment
rate of people with disabilities is a complex one.
Continual adaptation and innovation are needed to ensure that outcomes for people with disabilities
continue to improve. Different labour markets have different challenges. Flexible, localised
responses are required to address complex challenges through strong local stakeholder engagement
(PC (2007), SIB (2010)).
A homogenous provider base is unlikely to deliver diversity in strategies or ongoing program
innovation. Nor is it likely that increasing concentration of contracts in fewer, larger, providers will
facilitate localised responses. Program design and purchasing has enormous implications for the
sector. The implementation of Job Network was meant to harness the innovation and flexibility of
the private and NGO sector. However it has been characterised by reduction in provider numbers
and convergence of practice (Considine, Lewis, O’Sullivan (2012)).
In the establishment of JSA the Government encouraged providers to sub contract organisations,
particularly those with a specialist focus on particular cohorts amongst the hardest to place (e.g.
disadvantaged youth, homeless). However, to the extent that these arrangements exist at all (and
they appear to be quite limited), many smaller providers complain that the terms of these
arrangements are unfavourable.
In the United Kingdom, prime providers in the Work Programme were, similarly, expected to draw
on a range of specialist organisations to ensure strong local connections, innovation and a wide
range of expertise. However it appears that the involvement of local or specialist organisations has
been much less than expected, with many ‘primes’ opting to deliver in-house (Rees, Taylor and
Damm (2013)). Far from devolving decision making, and promoting engagement of more
stakeholders, the use of ‘primes’ seems to further disempower those organisations that are closest
to the community.
Historically, the DEN sector was characterised by relatively small local organisations that had close
links with local community organisations and FAHCSIA contract managers. More recently a number
of larger organisations have developed through mergers and entry of new players. While there are
specialists in particular areas of disability, the experience of Job Network is that the very fact of
being ‘unusual’ (i.e. being a specialist) can bring mixed fortunes in a highly competitive, risky and
volume driven market.
The Issues Paper has implied that greater alignment of the DES and JSA contracts might reduce red
tape, noting that some providers hold both contracts. In this submission we have outlined some of
37
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
the key characteristics of DES that distinguish it from JSA. In our view, a process which meant that
Disability Employment Services became more like JSA is likely to diminish the programs capacity to
respond to the individual needs of participants and to address complexity. It would almost certainly
reduce the diversity of the DES provider base. The likely decrease in red tape seems slight – and
likely to be of most value to the largest, least specialized providers. But the potential negative
impacts for job seekers in greater concentration of the market are substantial.
Features of the current system that support diversity in DES deliver include:
The ability to bid for small or large contracts;
Reasonable level of up front payments, so that capital requirements are not a barrier to
entry;
Capacity to bid as a specialist;
Capacity to directly register clients so that providers can develop new approaches and target
specific cohorts for engagement;
Retention of two specialist DES programs; and
Weight in the purchasing process given to local connections, including, in the most recent
tenders, a process of verifying claims in relation to connections.
What could be improved?
Government’s reliance on periodic purchasing rounds in response to highly prescriptive
specifications limits the development of more localised responses to challenges to issues as they
arise. There is little scope for the shape of services to be adapted either in the light of experience or
of changing circumstances.
The program is based on ‘one size fits all labour markets’ – there is no ability for new models (e.g.
social enterprise, demand led) to be generated either through non-compliant tenders or through
more ‘organic’ development at the local level.
DEEWR makes limited investment in sector development, relying on the market to identify
specialisations. This means that some areas that might benefit from a specialist service and some
specialisations (eg Indigenous services) remain unexplored.
DEEWR does not explicitly consider additional social value created through its purchasing process,
including the extent to which any surpluses will be reinvested in local clients or the local community.
Recommendation: DES-DMS should be retained as a separate program from JSA. Ideally,
the differentiation between DMS services – where the employment impact of the illness,
injury or disability is expected to require transitional support only – and ESS, should be
maintained so as to support differentiation of service offerings and strategies.
Recommendation: The purchasing process should encourage a range of providers,
including small providers and providers with specialist expertise. Consideration should be
given to allowing ‘non-compliant’ tenders, to encourage organisations to put forward
alternative models.
Recommendation: Rather than rely on the market to offer diversity in an area, DEEWR
should work with local stakeholders in key areas to identify needs. This might mean, for
38
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
example, that DEEWR encourages development of particular specialisations in an area of
high need (e.g. mental health, AOD, Indigenous).
Recommendation: DEEWR should consider encouraging new entrants by testing a regime
that allows licensed organisations (those that comply with Disability Service Standards and
have appropriate experience) to offer services to the Very Long Term Unemployed on a
payment by results basis (with shared outcomes).
Recommendation: DEEWR should consider adoption of wider social value commissioning,
particularly in highly disadvantaged communities.
Principle 7
Any new system should improve overall employment impact
Ultimately the measure of success of any system should be the extent to which it improves overall
employment rates and equitable distribution of opportunities. In the area of disability employment
we would expect to see a decline in the gap between people with and without disabilities in (1)
participation rate (2) unemployment (3) underemployment/insecure work (4) wages and/or poverty.
At this point we do not have evidence of the net employment impact of the disability employment
programs or of the wider employment services system. However some commentators have
suggested that the early gains from the introduction of active participation have now trailed off, and
new approaches will be needed if we are to make further inroads. Certainly the evidence of
increasing numbers of people in the VLTU category; and the lack of any evidence that the gaps in
participation or unemployment are closing for people with disabilities; suggest that we need to try
something new.
DEA considers that the range of recommendations in this paper should contribute to improved net
impact, particularly over the longer term. In addition, DEA suggests that better targeting of
assistance and increased investment in job generating activity can improve net outcomes.
Better targeting of DES-DMS
At present, JCA Guidelines state that:
Job seekers with barriers that are not sufficiently stabilised or require long term assistance, or job
seekers who have multiple non-vocational barriers that prevent them from obtaining and sustaining
employment or undertaking further skills development will not benefit from Disability Employment
Services and should not be referred to this service. An example of such a barrier is untreated
substance abuse or from medical conditions.
One of the outcomes of this is that jobseekers with disabilities or illness/injuries that could benefit
from the rehabilitation focus and skill set of DES-DMS are not referred to this service. For example,
despite the prevalence of disability and chronic illness amongst Indigenous people, they are poorly
represented in the DES-DMS service (Chart 6). People who have acquired a disability, or who have
had a period of illness but who face other challenges are referred to Stream 4 so that those other
‘non vocational barriers’ can be addressed – but they are not referred back to DES-DMS even though
they could benefit from ongoing support.
39
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Chart 6
Participation of equity groups all programs
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
DES-DMS
25.0%
DES-ESS
20.0%
STREAM3
15.0%
STREAM4
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Indigenous
CALD
Sole Parents
PWD
DEA is of the view that the smaller contracts and less volume driven approach of DES-DMS would
provide a good foundation for effective engagement and placement of highly disadvantaged job
seekers and that the program should be modified to enable them to access the service. DEEWR
should encourage the development of specialist provision in areas of need, for example services for
Indigenous people or people with Alcohol or other Drug dependencies. Non compliant tenders
would enhance innovative approaches in these areas.
Participant control would be encouraged by enabling participants to choose between JSA or DESDMS provision, provided that they have a disability illness or injury and that the Disability Service
Standards were applied.
Recommendation: That eligibility for DES-DMS be extended to those who meet current
requirements and have complex non vocational barriers. That substantial weight be given
to client choice in determining whether to opt for DES-DMS or JSA.
Early intervention based on voluntary engagement by highly vulnerable people
DES-DMS has been designed as a program that facilitates entry or re-entry to work after a significant
event (illness, injury, acquired disability). Sometimes (but not always) early engagement in work or
pre-work activity can facilitate other transitions. For example there is considerable evidence of the
importance of work in a positive setting for people recovering from mental illness.
National Disability Strategy includes a specific reference to ensure that people with disabilities
leaving custody have access to services that will decrease recidivism including education, preemployment and employment services. The very high proportion of offenders in this category
suggests that a much greater emphasis should be placed on promoting access pre-release to DES
services.
40
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
We have already recommended the early promotion of Jobs in Jeopardy services to employers. The
promotion of early access to people who are or may be eligible for DES-DMS is also strongly
encouraged.
The extension of DES-DMS to people with multiple barriers, the reduced reliance on third party
assessments and/or reporting requirements in the early stages of assistance, and the application of
the ‘no wrong door’ principle where providers are appropriately accredited would all contribute to
facilitating early access.
Recommendation: That the DES-DMS program be adjusted to remove existing obstacles to
early engagement and intervention with people who are likely to be eligible for the
service. This would include engaging with people in rehabilitation programs, the justice
system, and the health care system. Providers should be entitled to engage a participant
with JCA assessment (if required) able to be deferred. JCA assessment should not result in
a change of provider unless the client chooses to exercise the option to change.
Place based focus
Under Principle 4 we explored the challenge of implementing a collaborative approach to complex
challenges. Unemployment is concentrated in key communities and is associated with a range of
other indicators of disadvantage and, often, a range of specific challenges associated with a changing
labour market (eg decline in manufacturing, narrow industrial base). If we want to improve overall
employment impact, it is in these areas that we should focus – as recognised by DEEWR in its
identification of employment priority areas. The need for localised responses is confirmed in the
literature:
DEA proposes that it is in these communities that a collective impact should be developed and
tested, with an overall goal of improving overall employment in that area and improving the
equitable distribution of employment. The principles outlined by Kania and Kramer (developing a
backbone organisation, developing shared objectives and indicators and using data to inform
continuous improvement efforts) could be applied in these places to try to achieve a ‘step change’.
Recommendation: DEEWR should work with providers to establish a shared agenda for
increasing overall (net) employment in key employment areas. In these areas ‘outcomes’
may be attributed to more than one contributor. Flexible funds should be made available
to support projects that reflect agreed collaborative objectives and strategies.
41
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Principle 8
It should offer value for money
Australia enjoys low unemployment rates compared to the OECD, while spending significantly less
on employment services (OECD (2012). In particular, Australia is well behind most comparable
countries in its investments in job generating initiatives.
Any additional investment needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it is well targeted. This is
particularly the case in the light of recent allegations of ‘gaming’ and the potential for public concern
should companies be perceived as making profits while failing to deliver improved performance.
The UK Cabinet Office (Office of the Third Sector) provides the following definition of value for
money in commissioning:
Effective services can maximise value for money for the public purse by delivering activities in a way
that:
1. makes the best use of financial and non-financial resources, including the time and skills of the
service users themselves;
2. generates positive and lasting service-level outcomes that both create value and prevent future
costs;
3. contributes to wider benefits across social, environmental and economic objectives.
(NEF (2009))
Figures are available in relation to ‘cost per outcome’ in Job Services Australia but they have not
been made available for Disability Employment Services – DMS. We know that JSA is relatively
cheap. But the assessment of value for money in employment services requires a wider analysis
including:
The extent to which financial resources are actually invested in activities that contribute
to long term outcomes, as opposed to other activities (e.g. administration, rationing);
To what extent the programs are successful in engaging the non-financial resources of
range of community actors including community organisations, employers and job
seekers;
To what extent the programs are successful in achieving net improvements in
employment over the longer term; and
The extent to which the program contributes to other benefits (e.g. alleviation of
poverty or homelessness, improved productivity through application of skills) or losses
(e.g. ill health associated with poor quality work, income insecurity, loss of self-esteem).
At this stage the available evidence does not shed much light on these wider questions of value. In
particular, the lack of long term evaluation of service level outcomes or of wider community benefits
is disappointing.
However there are a number of indications that value for money could be improved:
42
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Considerable financial/human resource is applied to administration that does not appear to
contribute to employment outcomes or to be necessary to management of an effective
system. Examples are provided in DEA’s submission to the APESSA review and the Efficiency
Assessment of DES prepared by Nous.
It appears that a relatively large amount of the time of frontline workers and of job seekers
is spent in processes that are not aimed at getting work (registration, referral to JCA, rereferral, EPF revisions, reporting on job search activity, monitoring of activities). This could
be redirected to more productive activities.
Attention is focussed on outputs (13, 26 week job outcomes) not service level outcomes –
this means concern for attribution of placements over, for example, collaboration with other
providers/complementary services. It also means potential waste of productive capacity, as
workers are placed in jobs that don’t use their skills.
Over 50% of participants in DES-DMS remain out of work after participation. It is not clear
that any positive outcomes have been achieved for this group at all – and anecdotal
evidence that they may be further marginalised by their experience. Over time this group
become less ‘employable’ and more likely to suffer the negative personal, health and family
consequences of long term unemployment. This, in turn, generates social cost.
Disability Employment Australia is of the view that better value for money could be achieved by:
Redirecting resources away from rationing and job seeker compliance processes, and
towards forming stronger positive relationships from the beginning of the services;
Increasing skills level and resourcing for case management services (which could include
minimum case load requirements as well as skill levels);
Maximising client choice, including reduction in compulsory activity and emphasis on
encouraging voluntary engagement / self-referral to services;
Including, in the performance framework, longer term evaluations of service level outcomes
and acknowledging attribution of outcomes to multiple players;
Developing an approach to purchasing / market allocation based on wider assessment of
social value;
Ensuring wide access to information about strengths and weaknesses in the program with
DEEWR taking a lead role in honest assessment of what is working and facilitating processes
to improve overall system design;
Considering demand side initiatives to prevent long term scarring and wider social impacts
of unemployment for people who do not achieve an outcome from services.
Each of these areas has been addressed elsewhere in this submission. However it is important to
restate some key points.
The pathway to work for people who have an illness, injury or disability is often very
complex. It is a period of great change and of vulnerability. The changes that they will need
to make are not achieved through coercion, they are achieved through engagement. If we
want better outcomes then we need to ensure that participants are engaged, that we work
with them on strengths and progress, and that we eliminate processes that get in the way.
We have identified some proposals for eliminating red tape that is getting in the way of
better outcomes, but unless we engage service users in identification of red tape and of
solutions, then we will not improve the system.
43
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
Australia has had active labour market programs in place for many years. We need new
approaches if we are going to achieve greater impact. The JSA system has not generated the
level of diversity and innovation we would have hoped for. In fact it looks increasingly ‘one
size fits all’. Greater concentration of the market through merger of contracts will not
deliver local, ‘bottom up’ solutions. This is more likely to be achieved through devolution of
resources and decision making. The savings that might be generated for larger providers
and in DEEWR’s contract management/purchasing function do not warrant greater
homogenization of the market.
Supply side initiatives will not suffice. If we are to increase the employment rate of people
with disabilities in Australia then we will need to increase investment in demand side
initiatives including wage subsidies, employer led initiatives and job generation in social
enterprise.
44
Employment Services – Building on Success
Response to Issues Paper
References
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012). Annual Report 2011-2012. Sydney.
Chapman, J. (2004). System Failure. Retrieved from
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf?1240939425
DEEWR. (2012). Interim Evaluation of Disability Employment Services.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2005). Workability II: Solutions. Sydney.
Marsh, I., & Spies-Butcher, B. (2009). Pragmatist and Neo-Classical Policy Paradigms in Public
Services: Which is the Better Template for Program Design? Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 68(3), 239-255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00637.x
Murphy, J., Murray, S., Chalmers, J., Martin, S., & Marston, G. (2011). Half a Citizen: Life on Welfare
in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
National People with Disabilities and Carer Council. (2009). SHUT OUT: The Experience of People
with Disabilities and their Families in Australia. Canberra.
National Seniors Productive Ageing Centre. (2012). Barriers to Mature Age Employment: Final Report
of the Consultative Forum on Mature Aged Participation. Canberra.
Nevile, A., & Lohmann, R. (2011). "It is like they just don't trust us": Balancing trust and control in the
provision of disability employment services. Canberra.
Sedgwick, S. (2012). APS disability employment strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/speeches/2012/aps-disabiltyemployment-strategy
Thomas, M. (2011). Disability employment in Australia and the OECD. Retrieved from
http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/disability-employment-in-australiaand.html#more
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2012). Thematic study on the work and
employment of persons with disabilities: United Nations.
45