About ACTCOSS
ACTCOSS acknowledges that Canberra has been built on the traditional lands of the
Ngunnawal people. We pay our respects to their elders and recognise the displacement and
disadvantage they have suffered as a result of European settlement. We celebrate Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander cultures and ongoing contribution to the ACT community.
The ACT Council of Social Service Inc. (ACTCOSS) is the peak representative body for not-forprofit community organisations, people living with disadvantage and low-income citizens of the
Territory.
ACTCOSS is a member of the nationwide COSS network, made up of each of the state and
territory Councils and the national body, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS).
ACTCOSS’ objectives are a community in which all people have the opportunities and
resources needed to participate in and benefit from social and economic life and the
development of a dynamic, collaborative and viable community sector.
The membership of the Council includes the majority of community based service providers in
the social welfare area, a range of community associations and networks, self-help and
consumer groups and interested individuals.
ACTCOSS receives funding from the Community Services Program (CSP) which is funded by
the ACT Government.
ACTCOSS advises that this document may be publicly distributed, including by placing a copy
on our website.
Contact Details
Phone:
Fax:
Mail:
E-mail:
WWW:
Location:
02 6202-7200
02 6281 4192
PO Box 849, Mawson, ACT 2607
actcoss@actcoss.org.au
http://www.actcoss.org.au
Level 1,
67 Townshend St,
Phillip, ACT, 2606.
Director:
Deputy Director:
Policy Officer:
Roslyn Dundas
Kiki Korpinen
Brooke McKail
September 2009
ISBN: 978 1 921651 09 0 (electronic version)
© Copyright ACT Council of Social Service Incorporated
This publication is copyright, apart from use by those agencies for which it has been produced.
Non-profit associations and groups have permission to reproduce parts of this publication as
long as the original meaning is retained and proper credit is given to the ACT Council of Social
Service Inc (ACTCOSS). All other individuals and Agencies seeking to reproduce material from
this publication should obtain the permission of the Director of ACTCOSS.
2
Table of Contents
About ACTCOSS ................................................................................... 1
Contact Details ............................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ................................................................................. 3
Acronyms ............................................................................................ 3
Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
Demand for Services ............................................................................. 6
Inadequacy of Current Funding .............................................................. 9
Community Sector Viability ................................................................... 11
Workforce Issues ................................................................................. 13
Queensland Pay Decision ................................................................ 14
Benefits of Investing in the Community Sector ........................................ 16
Government Inefficiencies .................................................................... 19
Early Intervention ................................................................................ 21
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 23
Reference List ..................................................................................... 24
Acronyms
ACOSS
ACT
ACTCOSS
AIRC
ASU
HACC
NSW
QIRC
SA
SACS
Australian Council of Social Service
Australian Capital Territory
ACT Council of Social Service
Australian Industrial Relations Commission
Australian Services Union
Home and Community Care
New South Wales
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
South Australia
Social and Community Services
3
Introduction
The community sector is an essential component in the development of an
equitable and socially inclusive community in the ACT. The health and
community sector employs approximately 8% of the working population in
the ACT making an essential contribution to the ACT economy. Approximately
78% of those employees are women, meaning the community sector is a
significant employer of women in the region.1 With almost 1 in 10 Canberrans
experiencing multiple deprivations at any one time,2 the community sector
will be called on to support a large proportion of the ACT population at some
point in their lifetime. By resourcing and supporting the community sector,
the ACT Government will be supporting the families and individuals in our
community experiencing the greatest disadvantage as well as maintaining a
valuable contributor to the ACT economy.
This submission focuses on the need to sustain the levels of funding to the
ACT community sector, and increase it if possible. The community sector
already operates in an environment of high demand for services and limited
funding. Wages and conditions are less than in comparable positions in the
public sector, making it difficult for community organisations to attract and
retain appropriately skilled staff. There are long waiting lists and high
numbers of people turned away from services. As unemployment levels and
costs of essential services rise the demand on the community sector will
continue to increase, and outstrip the capacity of the sector to meet it.
Although the Australian economy has so far avoided a technical recession,
the effects of the recent global financial crisis continue to be felt across the
country, including in the ACT community. A recent Australian Council of
Social Service (ACOSS) submission to the Senate Economics Committee
Inquiry into the Government’s Economic Stimulus Package notes:
Although unemployment rises quickly after recessions, it usually takes many
years to fall back to its previous level, if it does so at all before the next
downturn. The economy may begin to recover soon from this downturn, but
employment is likely to take much longer to recover, given high household
debt levels and the likelihood of slow growth in job-intensive industries.3
ACOSS goes on to state many Australians will not ‘bounce back’ as the
economy recovers. 4 It will be the people experiencing disadvantage,
unemployment and living on low incomes that will take the longest to recover
AIHW, 2009, Health and Community Services Labour Force 2006, additional
material, available at http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10677
2
ACOSS, 2008, Who is Missing Out? Hardship among low-income Australians, 3.
3
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Senate Economic Committee Inquiry into the
Government’s economic stimulus initiatives, 1.
4
AIHW, 2009, Health and Community Services Labour Force 2006, additional
material, available at http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10677
1
4
from the global financial crisis and will need on-going support from the
community sector to do so.
As well as increasing demand the community sector faces other challenges
including reduced investment income and corporate funding as a result of the
global financial crisis, the changes arising from the introduction of portable
long service leave, and an uncertain year as changes to industrial relations
and the new award impact on the sector in as yet unforseen ways.
In the current economic and social climate, the community sector has
nothing more to give to support the most vulnerable members of our
community and nowhere left to save. Cuts to the community sector will affect
people in our community who are experiencing the greatest level of
vulnerability and disadvantage. In particular cuts to the community sector
will impact on people experiencing mental illness, homelessness, drug and
alcohol misuse, single parent households and families living on low incomes.
The Government has highlighted the ‘unprecedented economic turmoil’ in
which this Budget will be delivered, including the deficit we face in future
years and the savings that must be found. ACTCOSS acknowledges the
leadership of the ACT Government in the past 12-18 months and the efforts
made to avoid cuts to organisations providing services to vulnerable and
disadvantaged individuals. We commend the Government for its commitment
to sustaining service delivery and employment levels in the ACT.
ACTCOSS thanks the Government for the opportunity to participate in this
Budget process. In particular we appreciate the efforts being made to ensure
suggestions and input from consultations are able to feed into the process.
ACTCOSS has had concerns in the past that by calling for submissions to the
Budget process later in the financial year, the suggestions made by the
community are received too late for genuine consideration in the allocation of
funding and priority setting.
In the preparation of this submission ACTCOSS consulted with a range of
community sector organisations about current issues and challenges facing
the community sector. Earlier in 2009 ACTCOSS prepared a submission to
the 2009-10 ACT Budget process, containing a large number of
recommendations and covering a broad range of issues. We note that many
of these recommendations remain current and pressing areas of need in the
ACT community. We enclose a copy of the ACTCOSS 2009-10 Budget
Submission, Prioritising People, to accompany this more targeted submission.
5
Demand for Services
According to consultation participants, there are ‘not enough hours in the day
to meet existing demand.’
The global financial crisis is adding to demand for services in the community
as people lose their jobs and families come under financial and other
pressures.5 Rising levels of unemployment combined with rising costs of
essential services including electricity, gas, food and transport are
particularly impacting on those living on low incomes and already facing
disadvantage. Concessions are not rising to match the real value of costs.
Unemployment in the ACT has risen approximately 1% in the 12 months to
July 09, to close to 4%.6 Rising unemployment will inevitably lead to more
people in need of support from community services.
The current economic situation is likely to result in an increase in part-time
and casual employment and a decrease in full-time positions. This is of
particular concern to people experiencing disadvantage as less skilled
workers are at higher risk of involuntary casual and part-time employment.7
Financial counselling services in the ACT are reporting large increases in
demand, as a result of people struggling to adapt to pressures brought about
by rising unemployment and underemployment.
The linkages between income and employment status and mental
stress/illness are clear. For example, an unemployed person on income
support is 2.22 times more likely to experience mental health problems than
someone on no income support.8 The result may be increased demand in
some areas of health care, including on community mental health services
and counselling services.
According to a recent national survey 65% of not-for-profits surveyed
reported an increase in demand for services as a result of the economic
downturn, and 83% expect an increase in demand for services in 2009-10.9
The services most immediately affected by deteriorating economic conditions
Access Economics Pty Ltd for NSW Public Service Association, May 2009, New
South Wales Government Services in the Global Financial Crisis.
6
ACT Department of Treasury, Labour Force – August 2009, September 2009.
7
Access Economics for Anglicare Australia, Catholic Social Services, The Salvation
Army and UnitingCare Australia, November 2008, The Impact of the Global Financial
Crisis on Social Services in Australia, 11.
8
Butterworth P, Crosier T, Rodges B, 2004, ‘Mental Health Problems, Disability and
Income Support Receipt: A Replication and Extension Using the HILDA Survey’,
Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 7(2), 151-174.
9
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2009, Impact of the Economic Downturn on
Not-for-profit Organisation Management, 2.
5
6
are in employment, housing, financial and general counselling and
emergency relief. One community organisation in the ACT recently estimated
they have seen a 30-40% increase in the past 9 months in people accessing
their emergency relief services. Many working families who would not have
sought emergency relief in the past are also being forced to turn to the
service to make ends meet. In April 2008, the Salvation Army gave evidence
to a Senate Inquiry, providing data from a survey of 1,250 clients accessing
its emergency relief program in South Australia (SA).10 The survey found
10% of those interviewed were purchasing their own house and paid 48.8%
or more of their income in housing costs. This is a group who have not
traditionally accessed emergency relief services.
Case Study: More people sleeping rough
Anecdotal evidence indicates a rising number of rough sleepers in Canberra
over recent months. Community members working in emergency relief
services and free food services have observed a growing numbers of
Canberrans accessing services accompanied by all their belongings,
indicating they were sleeping rough.
Despite the recent injection of funds through the National Partnership
Agreement on Homelessness, there is need for more targeted support for
people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. It is essential
that planning for these programs involves consultation with the local
community and the community sector. ACTCOSS supports a process that
steers as far as possible away from competitive tendering which places
organisations in competition with each other, rather than encouraging
collaboration.
In addition, the ongoing demands on community organisations continue to
exist. One community housing provider has reported a waiting list in excess
of two years in length. In July 2009, a Home and Community Care (HACC)
agency reported they had successfully brought their personal care waiting list
down to 10 months, which was a large improvement on previous months.
There were many in the Canberra community experiencing disadvantage
prior to the global financial crisis, and many will continue to experience
hardship when the crisis is officially over. Organisations have been reporting
very long waiting lists for many years now, across a range of sub-sectors,
including homelessness services, disability and aged care services and
mental health.
The existing capacity of the community sector is unable to meet current
demand. As the global financial crisis continues to impact on members of the
ACT community and unemployment rises we anticipate demand will continue
to increase. Further cuts to the community sector will result in more agencies
Salvation Army, 2008, Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Housing
Affordability.
10
7
being forced to turn away people in need of support or cut services to
existing service users.
8
Inadequacy of Current Funding
While demand continues to increase with more people turning to the
community sector for support, community organisations continue to report
inadequate funding from Government agencies. Only 7% of respondents to
the 2008 ACOSS Community Sector Survey11 believed that Government
funding covered the true cost of delivering contracted services.
A number of ACT community organisations have reported they have received
no increases in funding in a number of years (apart from indexation) despite
large growth in demand. Funding levels are described as ‘stagnant’ despite
increasing waiting lists and operation costs. Indexation, while essential to the
functioning of community organisations, does little to assist organisations to
meet increasing need.
As a result, organisations are reporting they have been forced to cut hours
their service is available or the amount of hours they can provide to service
users. A recent report into the impact of the economic downturn on not-forprofit organisations revealed that as demand increases and funding
decreases as a result of the global financial crisis, organisations are cutting
costs and utilising reserve funds to cover shortfalls.12 Unfortunately, not all
organisations have reserves, and this interim option is not open to them.
Additional funding is required to meet the existing demands on community
organisations. The additional funding allocated to emergency relief providers
in 2008 to address growing demand as a result of the global financial crisis
was very welcome. However emergency relief providers have reported
demand has not decreased, but has instead stabilised at the higher level that
prompted the additional funding. Ongoing funding is therefore required to
meet the longer term increased demand experienced by the emergency relief
sector.
Other areas of the sector requiring significantly more funding are highlighted
in the attached submission to the 2009-10 ACT Budget, but in particular
ACTCOSS will mention:
 The need for additional funding of advocacy positions for elder abuse,
health advocacy and the promotion and protection of human rights of
vulnerable people;
 Financial counselling, in light of rising unemployment levels;
 Disability services, who are being forced to turn away a high number
of service users;
ACOSS, 2008, Community Sector Survey, 112.
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2009, Impact of the Economic Downturn on
Not-for-profit Organisation Management, 2.
11
12
9

Homelessness services, which have a turn-away rate significantly
higher than the Australian average.13
Case study: Demand for Financial Counselling Services
Jeff and Sarah are a young couple with two small children. Sarah has been
working full time with an income of approximately $70,000 and Jeff has been
working part-time with an income of $30,000.
They purchased their first home approximately 3 years ago and have a large
mortgage. In addition they have a $25,000 car loan and about $15,000 of
credit card debt.
While Sarah and Jeff were working they were able to service their large level
of debt. Unfortunately as a result of the recent financial crisis Sarah’s
company has had to downsize and she has had her income and hours cut.
She is now earning $30,000 per year less than she was six months ago.
As a result Jeff and Sarah are struggling to make repayments on their loans,
and finding it difficult to make ends meet each week.
Having never sought assistance from a community organisation before, they
were reluctant to admit they could not cope on their own. After much
discussion they approached a financial counselling service for assistance and
support.
Unfortunately, Sarah and Jeff fell outside the eligibility requirements of the
financial counselling service, as they are not considered to be living on ‘low
income’. The financial counselling service was able to provide them with
some information and brochures to assist them, but was not able to take
them on as clients or provide advocacy support to them. Reluctantly the
service was forced to turn them away without further support.
There are a growing number of families and individuals in similar
circumstances with services available in Canberra to support them.
The financial counselling service expressed concern the group of people
unable to access financial counselling and advocacy will continue to grow as
unemployment and underemployment continues to rise. Although people
living on very low incomes will continue to require support and there must be
financial services available for this group, there is a growing need for
additional financial services for people like Sarah and Jeff.
13
SAAP Demand for Accommodation and Client Collections, Table 9.1.
10
Community Sector Viability
In developing the 2010-11 ACT Budget, the Government must consider the
specific challenges currently facing the ACT community sector, and the
impacts these challenges will have on the ability of the community sector to
deliver services and find savings.
In particular, organisations are concerned about the additional costs of the
proposed portable long service leave scheme. While ACTCOSS welcomes the
Government’s commitment to subsidising the establishment of the scheme, it
appears that organisations will still face increased costs. Organisations will
also lose interest gained from their own long service provisions, which for
some organisations is the only source of income outside of government
funding. As well as acknowledging and addressing the increased costs, the
Government must ensure adequate time is given to organisations to factor
the new costs into their budget and operations.
The award modernisation process is also expected to impact heavily on
community organisations in the next financial year. The Australian Industrial
Relations Commission (AIRC) has stated it will deliver its final decision
regarding Stage 4 industries (including the Social and Community Services
Industry) by 4 December 2009.14 Organisations are likely to require
significant information and support to understand how the new awards will
impact them. However there remains a lack of clarity around when all
conditions of the new awards will take effect for community organisations.
For conditions taking effect from 1 January 2010, community organisations
will have only 27 days before they must implement changes to their
operations.15 This will likely require community sector organisations to invest
a significant amount of knowledge, time and funding across the traditionally
quiet period of the December school holidays to implement the modernised
awards.
In addition, organisations are experiencing some increase in administrative
work from the move of many government contracts to ACT Procurement
Solutions. Many organisations are finding the process increasingly
complicated, having to allocate more time to tender and application
processes. There is concern the process is too focused on the cost of tenders,
rather than the quality of service delivery. Organisations are in competition
with each other to submit tenders at the lowest rate, a rate that may not
match the real cost of providing quality services. In addition to other
administrative demands, including different reporting requirements across
AIRC, AIRCFB 641, AIRC Decision: s576e – Procedure for carrying out award
modernisation process, 28 March 2008.
15
Councils of Social Service Network, 2009, Submission to the Industrial Relations
Commission, 7.
14
11
different ACT and Commonwealth departments, this is a heavy administrative
burden which is not adequately provided for by Government funding.
The community sector is already reporting they have no further capacity to
give to the community, and are instead facing overwhelming demand. The
additional challenges faced by organisations in the coming 12 months will
only add to this situation. The Government cannot make budgetary decisions
for 2010-11 without considering the burdens already on the community
sector.
ACTCOSS and the community sector have been raising workforce and sector
viability issues for many years, including through the Community Sector
Taskforce in 2006, the Pricing Principles work in 2007 and the development
and consultation for the Finding Solutions16 report in 2008. The work of the
Community Sector Viability Working Group in 2009 to develop sector viability
strategies indicates there is still a pressing need to address sector viability
issues. ACTCOSS hopes this work will be progressed by Government through
the review of industrial relations arrangements of the ACT community sector
and the work around developing outcomes based procurement of human
services. This work must be accompanied by adequate funding and
commitments to implementation.
ACTCOSS, 2008, Finding Solutions – Towards the long term viability of the ACT
Community Sector.
16
12
Workforce Issues
Workforce issues continue to be a significant concern for community sector
organisations. In the current circumstances of rising demand, the impact on
organisations due to staff turnover is particularly great. Many organisations
struggle to cover vacancies and to find the additional resources required for
recruitment, orientation and training of staff.
Community sector organisations continue to have a large number of casual
and part-time staff, particularly among front-line service delivery staff. Along
with the retail industry’s average of 30.1 hours per week, the health and
community services industry had the lowest average weekly hours for
workers of 30 hours a week in 2005.17 According to a recent Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare Report, 21% of community services workers
work less than 19 hours per week and 30% of workers work between 20-34
hours per week. A study of disability services found 40% of employees were
casually employed and another 8% were employed under temporary or
contractual arrangements. The study indicated 93% of managers and 94% of
coordinators of disability services were permanently employed while 49% of
support workers were casual staff. This casualisation did not necessarily
reflect the level of experience of workers with 27% having more than 5 years
service, 20% 3-5 years and 23% less than one year.18
There are a number of consequences of the high number of casual and parttime workers in the community sector. With such a low number of average
hours per week, many workers are underemployed, and are forced to seek
higher paying jobs, or jobs that can offer full time employment. As a result of
the high level of casual employment, community sector workers also have
among the lowest levels of access to paid leave. Statistics relating to
disability workers indicates staff have few career paths, with many remaining
in part-time or casual employment after a number of years employment.
The Australian Services Union (ASU) describes the situation currently facing
the ACT community sector as follows:
The sector faces increased responsibilities and regulation with less funding,
competition of scarce resources and a predominantly female workforce
strongly motivated by values and commitment to their work but impacted by
heavy workloads, long hours and low pay.19
17
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, Australian Social Trends,130.
Disability ACT, 2004, The Disability Workforce, 6.
19
ASU, 2009, Recommendations for Building a Safe and Healthy Community Sector
into the Future.
18
13
Queensland Pay Decision
In May 2009 the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) handed
down a decision awarding wage increases of between 18% and 37% to
workers in Queensland under the Social and Community Services Award
(SACS). As a result Queensland community sector workers will now be paid
at rates comparable to the Queensland public sector.
The QIRC considered the fact that approximately 85% of workers in the
community services industry are female. The decision was based on a finding
that work performed in the community sector has traditionally been
undervalued. In the decision the QIRC considered a range of factors which
had contributed to the undervaluation of work in the Queensland community
sector including that care work is considered to be an extension of women's
work in the home and characterised as ‘female’.
The QIRC acknowledged the difficulties community organisations face in
recruiting and retaining staff and drew comparisons between the services
provided by parts of the Queensland Public Sector and the community sector.
The QIRC found that there had been a historical undervaluing of the work
performed by the community sector in Queensland, stating:
The overriding public interest consideration in this matter is to ensure that
employees in this sector are remunerated commensurate with their work
value and in a way that is affordable to the funding bodies. This will ensure
that qualified, competent employees are attracted to and retained in the
sector to provide quality services, that services users receive appropriately
funded quality services so as to properly assist them to increase their
capacity.
The Queensland Government has since provided assurance to community
organisations that sufficient funding will be allocated to ensure they can meet
the requirements of the increased wage scales.20
ACTCOSS is of the opinion ACT SACS workers are similarly deserving of
recognition and their work has been equally undervalued over a long period.
The competition between the public sector and community sector to attract
and retain quality staff is equally (if not more) acute in the ACT, as
organisations must compete with both the ACT and Commonwealth public
service in a limited pool of workers.
In announcing the additional $414 million over four years to increase the pay
rates of Queensland SACS workers, the Queensland Government stated:
Karen Struthers, Minister for Community Services and Housing, Queensland
Government, Media Release 16 June 2009, Community Service Budget is one for the
Battlers.
20
14
The global recession means we have been forced to make some tough
choices, but cutting back on key services such as communities’ funding was
not an option… Workers in this sector look after some of our most vulnerable
citizens and the extra funding means we can meet our obligations to the
community and key community service providers.21
ACTCOSS hopes the ACT Government will follow the lead of the Queensland
Government by providing those who are working to support our most
vulnerable with the recognition and remuneration they should be entitled to.
21
Ibid.
15
Benefits of Investing in the Community Sector
The 2010-11 budgetary situation means there is a need to prioritise where
available funding will most benefit the community. The many benefits of
investment in the community sector mean it is a socially and economically
responsible option for the ACT Government in a time when we need to get
the most value for every dollar.
As well as supporting people with the highest level of need, research
indicates communities where people can access community services have
higher levels of social capital. Societies with high levels of social capital tend
to have lower crime rates, improved child welfare, better public health, better
public administration, reduced political corruption, more efficient capital and
labour markets and better educational performance.22 ACOSS reports that
having a strong community sector builds community cohesion and social
capital through meaningful community involvement in and responsibility for
providing community services.23 This acts as a safeguard against some parts
of society becoming marginalised or alienated.
The community sector provides a wide range of opportunities for people to
interact and form meaningful connections with one another. Strong trust and
networks arising from these connections can generate a range of benefits
including increased social inclusion, socially minded behaviour, and a better
knowledge of the community.24 For example, data collected by the
Department of Victorian Communities shows that people who are volunteers
or members of groups are more likely to be able to get help when needed.25
Many community organisations in the ACT also employ people with lived
experience, who have previously or continue to be service users of
community organisations.
The Allen Consulting Group, in their paper to the Victorian Department of
Communities highlighted the growing role of community organisations in
promoting and developing social capital. They state as demographic and
social changes impact on communities (particularly the ageing of the
population, growth of female participation in the workforce and higher rates
of marriage break-down) the traditional ways of building social capital and
connectedness through the family unit are becoming less relevant.
22
Robert Putnam, Note for discussion, Meeting of OECD Education Ministers, 18-19
March 2004, accessed at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/55/30671102.doc.
23
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry in to the
Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector, 12.
24
The Allens Consulting Group, 2007, The economic and social contribution of the
not for profit sector, 13.
25
The Department of Victorian Communities. 2004, Indicators of Community
Strength in Victoria, 10.
16
Community organisations which bring people together around a different
centre such as a common purpose or interest are becoming increasingly
important in building social connectedness between people.26
ACOSS undertook consultations in the development of its submission to the
Productivity Commission Inquiry in to the Contribution of the Not for Profit
Sector. Consultations identified a number of benefits of a strong and diverse
community sector, including:
 The community sector has an ability to respond holistically and flexibly
to a full range of client needs;
 Client and consumer representation in management structures,
program development and delivery empowers consumers;
 The community sector has the ability to develop innovative solutions
based on practice to both anticipate new needs and to respond more
effectively to ongoing and deep seated inequalities;
 The mission and altruistic purpose of community organisations
generates goodwill which mobilises additional human and material
resources, including valuable networks and relationships.27
In addition to the social benefits of a strong and cohesive community sector,
there are a range of economic benefits to investing in the community sector.
The ACTCOSS report, The Contribution of Community Services to the ACT
Economy found expenditure on community services promotes economic
development by:
 Creating a high number of jobs per dollar spent;
 Directly contributing industry value added and stimulating value added
in the economy as a whole;
 Promoting local employment beyond the sector through consumption
effects;
 Providing avenues for volunteer work;
 Facilitating the economic participation of disadvantaged people who
otherwise have limited access to the labour market.28
As well as the direct economic benefits of investment in the community
sector, the sector contributes indirectly to the ACT economy by helping to
maintain the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities thereby
providing the human resources needed for the economy to function.29 In a
time of financial uncertainty investment in the community sector is
responsible, both economically and socially, as the sector supports those
The Allens Consulting Group, 2007, The economic and social contribution of the
not for profit sector, 2.
27
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry in to the
Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector, 12.
28
ACTCOSS, 2003, The Contribution of Community Services to the ACT Economy,
35.
29
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry in to the
Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector, 12.
26
17
people most in need of assistance and most unable to absorb further
hardship.
18
Government Inefficiencies
The benefits of investing in the community sector have been shown to
include both economic benefits and the generation of social capital and social
inclusion. Consultation participants noted that while the community sector
generally delivers cost-effective service provision, the ACT Government does
not always deliver services in the most cost effective manner.
Case study: Services for people with disabilities
Participants in consultations expressed concern about the service system for
people with disabilities. Participants felt the system not only failed to
promote social inclusion of people with disabilities in the Canberra
community, but was also unnecessarily expensive for Government.
Many people with disabilities in Canberra are required to enrol in special
schools, live in designated disability accommodation and access disability
services. As a result we have a secondary system of infrastructure that is
expensive to run. For example, Housing ACT is responsible for the provision
and maintenance of public housing in the ACT, while responsibility for
housing for people with disabilities is spread across Disability ACT, Housing
ACT and community organisations, increasing administrative and operational
costs. As well as increased costs, the specific infrastructure means people
with disabilities are excluded from the rest of the community, reducing
opportunities for social connectedness.
While there is a need for specific and targeted services for some groups of
people and individuals, the lack of flexibility in the Government’s response is
concerning as it fails to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Case Study: New Government services
A program run by an ACT organisation has been operating for some time,
and has been very effective in supporting families, linking marginalised
people into services and networks and increasing social inclusion.
The ACT Government has announced they will be developing a similar service
in the same area. While there has been some reference to partnership and
collaboration, to date the organisation has not been consulted or asked to
share their experience and knowledge of the local community, or involved in
the design of the new services.
The costs of developing a new Government provided service are likely to be
more than it would have cost to continue funding the community service. In
addition, we risk losing the social inclusion benefits that flowed from linking
in isolated and marginalised people with services and community.
19
ACTCOSS is concerned about the expectations placed on community
organisations to meet unreasonable formulas relating to wages and
administrative costs while continuing to deliver high quality services.
Community organisations are already paying far lower wages than equivalent
positions in the ACT public service. An example of the ACT Government’s
reluctance to provide reasonable funding for administration costs is the
recent funding provided to emergency relief providers to assist in meeting
demand. Only 9% of the funding was allocated to administration.
Administration generally includes training, supervision, operational costs
including rent and wages for management and administrative staff.
There is concern the same limitations do not appear to apply to Government
agencies. Although we have been unable to obtain figures and formulas, it is
apparent that agencies have higher wage formulas and more flexibility
around training, management and administrative costs than is allowed to the
community sector.
If the Government insists on restricting the funding available to the
community sector in this manner, it must at least apply the same constraints
to its own operation, and show it is providing equally as cost-effective
service.
20
Early Intervention
Consultation participants reported that due to increased demand and limited
capacity, many services are only able to assist consumers who are
experiencing or close to experiencing crisis. Research shows this is an
ineffective and costly way to build inclusive and healthy communities.
Research clearly shows the benefits of investing in prevention and early
intervention programs. Prevention and early intervention is and should be an
important component of the work undertaken by the community sector.
However many organisations are unable to engage in prevention and early
intervention work as they are only funded to provide services to those at the
‘pointy end’ of the spectrum.
Prevention and early intervention lessen risk, increase resilience and keep
people out of crisis systems, including hospital emergency wards, mental
health facilities, homelessness services, child protection systems and prison.
In relation to children and young people, evidence continues to build that
early intervention can counteract biological and environmental disadvantage
and set children on a more positive course of development. In 2008, Access
Economics found that the financial benefits of implementing early
intervention programs targeting youth disengagement outweigh the costs of
the programs. The return on program investment over the program’s lifetime
for government is 7.6 times their initial outlay.30 Similarly, evidence suggests
that investment in interventions for people with alcohol or other drug
dependencies and changes to drug policy which emphasise early intervention
can result in substantial savings in the medium to long term.
However, while the early years are crucial, early intervention is not limited to
childhood. There is also a need to develop effective programs targeting
adolescents, adults and families. The Social Policy Research Centre at the
University of NSW found in 2007 ‘early intervention has been shown to
achieve at relatively modest cost, changes that prevent harms that are very
expensive to remediate.’31 For every $1 spent on early intervention the state
reaps a return of between $2.36 and $19 over time.32
Access Economics for Interface Councils Group, 2008, Staying Connected: A Cost
Benefit Analysis of Early Intervention.
31
University of New South Wales. Social Policy Research Centre. Valentine, K, and
Katz, I, 2007, Review paper on the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programs
for Queensland.
32
QCOSS, 2009, Prevention and Early Intervention.
30
21
Case study: Early intervention for children with disabilities
A small organisation works with children with disabilities, supporting children
and their families through early intervention and education. Their aim is for
all children they work with to attend mainstream schools and participate in
general community programs, increasing the social inclusion of children in
the Canberra community.
The organisation noted their client base had increased 25% in the last twelve
months. The organisation receives a small (approximately $5000) grant to
assist with administration. All other support and case work is provided by
volunteers.
The organisation estimated a 50% increase in funding (only a few thousand
dollars) would make an enormous difference to the lives of many of the
children in the program. This is a very small amount in the context of any
Government Department, and far less than the money received by Therapy
ACT in the previous Budget. Small amounts of money can make huge
differences in the lives of real people, through early intervention and
promotion of social inclusion.
While ACTCOSS understands the ACT Government’s need for savings over
the next five years, we continue to encourage the Government to consider
long term solutions that will result in significant future savings. The social
and economic benefits of investment in early intervention in areas including
youth, mental health, health, AoD and homelessness are undeniable. A viable
long term solution will result not only in Government savings but also
improvements in the quality of life of members of the ACT community.
22
Conclusion
The primary recommendation of the 2010-11 ACTCOSS Budget Submission is
the ACT Government must find other places to make savings, as the
community sector has no capacity to accept further cuts and is already facing
overwhelming demand. Facing numerous challenges, including workforce
issues, uncertainty about the changing industrial relations environment and
an increasing administrative burden, the community sector is stretched to
breaking point.
The effects of the global financial crisis and measures to address climate
change are filtering through to Canberrans experiencing disadvantage
through rising unemployment levels and increases in costs in essential
services. In addition, Canberra continues to have high costs for food and
basic household goods, limited accessibility and high costs for medical and
dental services and a large gap between people experiencing disadvantage
and the rest of the community.
In a time of economic uncertainty, investment in the community sector is a
responsible use of public funds, benefiting those members of the community
most vulnerable and reaping social and economic benefits for every dollar
spent.
23
Reference List
Access Economics for Anglicare Australia, Catholic Social Services, The
Salvation Army and UnitingCare Australia, November 2008, The Impact of
the Global Financial Crisis on Social Services in Australia.
Access Economics for Interface Councils Group, 2008, Staying Connected: A
Cost Benefit Analysis of Early Intervention.
Access Economics Pty Ltd for NSW Public Service Association, May 2009, New
South Wales Government Services in the Global Financial Crisis.
ACOSS, 2008, Community Sector Survey.
ACOSS, 2008, Who is Missing Out? Hardship among low-income Australians.
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry in to the
Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector.
ACOSS, 2009, Submission to the Senate Economic Committee Inquiry in to
the Government’s economic stimulus initiatives,
ACT Department of Treasury, September 2009, Labour Force – August 2009.
ACTCOSS, 2003, The Contribution of Community Services to the ACT
Economy.
ACTCOSS, 2008, Finding Solutions – Towards the long term viability of the
ACT Community Sector.
AIHW, 2009, Health and Community Services Labour Force 2006, additional
material, available at
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10677.
AIRC, AIRCFB 641, Statement: s576e – Procedure for carrying out award
modernisation process (Request from the Minister for Employment and
Workplace Relations 28 March 2008).
ASU, 2009, Recommendations for Building a Safe and Healthy Community
Sector into the Future.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, Australian Social Trends.
Butterworth P, Crosier T, Rodges B, 2004, ‘Mental Health Problems, Disability
and Income Support Receipt: A Replication and Extension Using the HILDA
Survey’, Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 7(2).
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2009, Impact of the Economic Downturn
on Not-for-profit Organisation Management.
Councils of Social Service Network, 2009, Submission to the Industrial
Relations Commission.
Disability ACT, 2004, The Disability Workforce.
Karen Struthers, Minister for Community Services and Housing, Queensland
Government, Media Release 16 June 2009, Community Service Budget is one
for the Battlers.
24
QCOSS, 2009, Prevention and Early Intervention.
Robert Putnam, Note for discussion, Meeting of OECD Education Ministers,
18-19 March 2004, accessed at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/55/30671102.doc.
SAAP Demand for Accommodation and Client Collections, Table 9.1.
Salvation Army, 2008, Submission to the Senate Select Committee on
Housing Affordability.
The Allens Consulting Group, 2007, The economic and social contribution of
the not for profit sector.
The Department of Victorian Communities, 2004, Indicators of Community
Strength in Victoria.
University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre. Valentine, K,
and Katz, I, 2007, Review paper on the cost-effectiveness of early
intervention programs for Queensland.
25
26