ACE WA response to the Exposure Draft 2009

Jul 1, 2009

ACE (WA) Association for competitive Employment GPO BOX H 513 PERTH WA 6001

 

Response to the New Disability Employment Services and Employer Incentives Scheme 2010-2012

 

Introduction

ACE WA is an Incorporated Association that supports Disability Employment Network providers, and other likeminded agencies through the facilitation of industry specific training and representing the views and opinions of its members. ACE WA’s mission is to maximize the participation and status of people with disability in employment regardless of the nature or extent of their disability. ACE WA is separate to and independent of ACE National and NDS. Being independent ACE WA has the option to work solely or in partnership with any peak body of its choice to best represent its members.

This response has been prepared on behalf of members of ACE WA in response to the Exposure Draft of the new Disability Employment Services and Employer Incentives Scheme 2010–2012 Purchasing Arrangements. 

This response was completed with the consensus of ACE WA members attained primarily at our consultation undertaken on 23 June 2009 and through other feedback mechanisms including the review of Disability Employment Services. The response is representative of metropolitan, regional and remote Disability Employment Network (DEN) providers in Western Australia. Of 24 DEN providers in Western Australia, 22 are members of ACE WA. ACE WA members are also members of ACE National and / or NDS.

Whilst ACE WA commends the government on the decision to uncap the disability employment services program, we understand that this may come at a cost to service provision and for some providers, ongoing service viability, should the proposed payments and fees be implemented. The heavy weighting of the fees on outcomes, whilst recognising high performance and achievement of sustainable employment, was developed in a very different economic climate.

The offer of an Invitation to Treat for high-performing DEN providers is welcome, however, ACE WA continues to query whether all existing services ought to have been offered an ITT. DEEWR has acknowledged that the new Program B will be larger than the existing capped program so there would have been residual business available for a competitive tender process. Whilst members are pleased that the Star Ratings have been discarded for the new Disability Employment Services (DES) model it does call into question its legitimacy as a true measure of performance.

Rural and remote members are very concerned about the application of the remote loading, whilst the Exposure Draft at 2.7.8 states that “Service Fees and Ongoing Support Fees will be 70 percent higher in Remote Areas in recognition of the increased servicing costs in these locations.” Only one member in Western Australia has been able to determine themselves as being fully eligible. The Exposure Draft is not clear on the application or the loading and has further complicated understanding with the excising of some locations.

Members fail to see how administration and red-tape has been reduced, from a day-to-day operational view it is apparent that it will markedly increase. Much of this is due to the apparent failure of DEEWR to recognise that Disability Employment Services cannot, by their very nature (the one that has continued to see the value of having Disability Employment remain separate from General Employment Services), emulate Job Services Australia, and yet the compliance requirements of the proposed model continue to assume a Job Services Australia service delivery model.

DEN providers have consistently reported their concerns about the quality of assessment by Job Capacity Assessor’s.  Job seeker’s invariably attempt to make a positive impression in a one-off interview so to determine work capacity and service fees through a system that the industry is already dubious about is a key concern of the proposed model. Noting that DEEWR refer to the “Funding Level Tool”, the JCA remains a vital element to the final outcome. That the DEEWR Q & A suggests that providers will be able to have the tool re-run where new information is identified by a provider subsequent to the referral is essential given our existing concerns.

The sector has long advocated that VET outcomes deserve greater recognition and incentives as an important pathway for more sustainable employment.  The proposed bonus outcome represents a better incentive for providers to work toward Australian Apprenticeships (Traineeships), and recognises the additional investment required by providers to achieve such outcomes.  However, we believe that the proposal to limit the bonus to areas of local skills shortages requires revision.  The proposal to limit the VET outcome bonus to outcomes achieved in areas of local skills shortages does not recognise the inherent value of VET outcomes generally to people with disability, particularly in light of sustained levels of low relative participation.  ACE WA believes that all investments in VET outcomes for job seekers with disability deserve recognition as a quality outcome and the result of quality service provision.  Furthermore, recent changes in the economic environment might have labour market effects on the skills shortage.  

ACE WA concurs with ACE National, that the requirement for apprenticeships to be linked to skills in demand in order to be eligible for bonus payments is far too narrow. The bonus payments should be linked to any apprenticeship undertaken by a person with disability, as is currently the case in DEN.

ACE WA commends the direct registration of “certain school leavers” as this encourages services to work proactively to facilitate school-to-work transition. Early intervention and responsive service provision for this particularly vulnerable group has long been an objective of ACE WA members. It would appear, depending on the definition of “eligible school leavers”, that providers will be able to finally establish partnerships with schools to offer services as needed. ACE WA further acknowledges the offer from DEEWR to consult with the industry to develop the eligibility for school leavers that will be incorporated into the RFT.

ACE WA continues to call for improvements in the opportunity for people with disability participating in Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE) to transition to open employment.  The current policy on transition from ADE to open employment continues to discourage workers who might wish to make the transition.  We repeat our call for DEEWR to reinstate the policy on this transition that was in place prior to our transition to DEEWR.

ACE WA concurs with ACE National, its support for the traditional distinctions between DEN and VRS. That is, VRS (Program A) providing interventions with a rehabilitation / restorative nature and DEN (Program B) providing longer-term support for people with permanent or likely to be permanent disability. We believe these definitions are consistent with the Disability Services Act and as a result, would seek to have the distinction between Program A and B articulated in this way in the final RFT.

The Exposure Draft includes a number of features that we would like to provide feedback on, and this response is constructed accordingly.  In consultation with its members, ACE WA has identified seven areas for further consideration.  These are:

1. Red Tape and Administration Issues
2. Ongoing Support Assessments
3. Payments and Fees
4. Compliance
5. Key Performance Indicator’s
6. Regional Issues
7. Transition of Australian Disability Enterprises (ADE) clients into DES programs
8. General

1. RED TAPE AND ADMINISTRATION

Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) and Ongoing Support Assessments (OSA)

With the key focus of the purchasing arrangements being the reduction of red tape and administration, a number of areas were of concern to members of ACE WA.  These being summarised as follows:

Continued concerns as to the clarity and accuracy of the JCA Process and within the new framework the OSA.  We strongly urge DEEWR to consider the Ombudsman’s report on the JCA process and implement its recommendations.  Of particular concern is the strengthened role of the Assessment process in not only the referral stage but funding determination.  Already the sector has demonstrated the problems in the referral process associated with specific, targeted training and experience of JCA’s in the Disability Employment arena, poor complaints/error correction processes and in general lengthy and time consuming delays in obtaining reviews of inappropriate referrals and assessments.  It is of serious concern that not only will an already flawed process be carried to the new model – without obvious improvements in procedures, but the intent of the proposed KPI’s will result in the DES provider being deemed to be performing poorly where the delays are linked to an external assessment provider i.e. processing a challenged referral. Additionally, it is contingent upon the JCA provider to train their staff but we have found that DEN have been responsible for assisting JCA to understand DEN, with JCA staff turn-over it has been an ongoing and haphazard approach.

Recommendation:

• Review and update the JCA process in regards to the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s Report.
• Strengthen the Appeals process beyond a “Questioning of the Assessor” phase, and ensure a degree of accountability and transparency in referrals (be accountable for the high degree of rejected referrals by DES providers). 
• Implementation of an independent State Contract Manager within DEEWR to manage the JCA contracts.
• The sector believes that JCA and OSA providers must have a universal, standardised and mandatory induction procedure that includes in-depth understanding of Program A and B i.e. presently a JCA in Perth may have completely different understanding and knowledge about JCA and DEN to those in other states.

IT-based Funding Level Tool – Upfront Assessments:

ACE WA understands that the DPI will be replaced by an IT-based Funding Level Tool which will determine which of the two funding levels for Program B will apply. That the tool will draw on information in the participant's JCA and Centrelink data.

Under the current funding model DEN providers undertake a functional, context based assessment of a job seeker’s disability-related support needs using the Disability Pre-Employment Instrument (DPI), an instrument specifically designed for this purpose.  Based on this assessment, the job seeker is streamed to one of four funding levels.  There were three factors in this policy decision at the time:

• The evaluation of Phase One of the case based funding trial found that the Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI), which is based on a range of demographic details, did not provide an adequate measure of the level of support required by a job seeker to find and keep a job and that some measure of an individual’s disability-related support needs was required. 
• In order to maximise the quality of this up-front assessment of disability related support needs, it was acknowledged that DEN providers had the necessary knowledge and experience to undertake such an assessment, and that as part of their normal business they would be engaging in a number of assessment activities anyway that would gather the necessary information; and
• The integrity and transparency of the assessment tool could be maintained by scoring the assessment independently and keeping scoring mechanism confidential, supported by reviewing validating evidence through compliance monitoring regimes, such as Quality Assurance and contract management reviews.

Evaluations of the DPI / DMI funding model for DEN providers have consistently validated the current funding classification process.  Whilst DEEWR implies that the Funding Level Tool, and the consequent demise of the DPI will reduce administrative burden, it is evident that DES providers will continue to need to collect information as they would have done for a DPI. The red-tape in this regard remains. It would appear that DEEWR perceives a conflict of interest in DEN providers undertaking the assessment that determines their level of funding and that this is the instigator of the change in determining service fees and not that it is reducing red-tape or administration for DEN providers.

ACE WA would like to see further analysis to support the proposed change to the funding classification mechanism before this decision is made.  ACE WA recognises that the DPI is an important part of DEN service practice.  It provides an opportunity for DENs to consolidate the range of data and information that they already gather as they work to get to know the job seeker, their employment goals, and the nature of the support required to assist them in achieving those goals. 

Up front assessments are inherently problematic in providing quality assessment outcomes particularly because of the lack of time for establishing trust with the job seeker to ensure that adequate and appropriate information can be gathered to inform the assessment.  One of the reasons for this is that many people with disability do not disclose important personal information in an initial interview due to choice, fear, lack of trust, or out of a desire to make a ‘good impression’.  The information gathered during these up-front assessments will be used to inform the funding classification decision and set the work capacity that will determine whether an outcome is pathway or full. They will apparently also aid the tailoring of a program to meet the individual needs of the job seeker.  These assessments then are critical to financial and performance outcomes of Disability Employment Services, the importance of getting them absolutely right cannot be understated. 

DEN providers have consistently reported concerns about the quality of assessments by JCAs.  By the nature of their up-front assessment situation, JCAs only have a very limited amount of information available to them with which to make an assessment.  Attempts at gathering further information tend to take extensive periods of time.  With the current DPI methodology, DEN have over four to six weeks of observations, interventions and support to develop a wealth of information that enables a quality assessment to be undertaken.  They also have access to a range of professional skills within their own organisations, and relationships with other relevant professionals and service providers to allow them to access further information on a timely basis.

If the decision is made that the funding classification should be based on demographic details, ACE WA has given some early consideration to the kind of job seeker characteristic data that should be gathered to ensure a quality assessment outcome and ensure that DEN providers have the best information possible.  These suggestions go beyond broad demographic characteristics and include critical personal background information:

•  
  • Disability information (eg disability type, or mental health condition, age of onset, dual diagnosis);

1. Important for understanding how they might respond in a workplace setting.
2. Potential use of behaviour scales.

•  
  • Medication e.g. what medications are they on for their disability/mental health/illness and what are some of the impacts of these, are they compliant with their medication regime,
  • Networks of support e.g. does the person have family support, are they a single parent, are the people around them working,
  • History of service use e.g. mental health or drug and alcohol, or other service history, did they participate or were they actively engaged in their programs, what were the outcomes of programs,
  • Education (level of attainment),
  • Career aspirations,
  • Criminal history,
  • Cultural issues e.g. are they living in an environment where the people around them will support their job search,
  • Living conditions e.g. does the person have stable and secure accommodation, are they homeless,
  • Transport (cost and availability)
  • Employment history (tenure and conditions)

The Exposure Draft states that an IT based Funding Level Tool will be developed and that the factors used to stream participants to the two funding levels will be determined in consultation with an industry reference group.  ACE WA concurs with the Exposure Draft statement that “A Provider will be able to have the Funding Level Tool reapplied should new information become available that indicates that a higher funding level could be applicable”.

Recommendations:

• The Funding Level Tool should be able to be updated at any time by DES providers, as new information about a job seeker becomes available over time, or as a rapport and trust is built and they are confident to disclose information that they might not be willing to at the outset.
• Any new information should then be used to review the assessed work capacity which informs whether an employment outcome is pathway or full.
• Any new information should then be used to review the ascribed funding level.

 

General Administration

At clause 86 of the Draft Deed and 2.7 of the Exposure Draft, Program B is required to undertake minimum contacts of Fortnightly for Participants receiving Employment Assistance and Extended Employment Assistance, Fortnightly for Participants receiving Moderate Ongoing Support, Weekly for Participants receiving High Ongoing Support.  These prescriptive requirements of face-to-face meetings and use of Diary sessions to document said meetings are both impractical and resource intensive (time, staff, computer access).  To reiterate a point, DES staff do not sit in front of a computer as a Job Services Australia provider staff member may.  To meet the requirements of flexible service delivery to people with disability and employers and being “there when needed” rather than when scheduled, Disability Employment Services have provided flexible, mobile support to meet the individual needs of each person with disability and their employer, with on-site support being a key difference between Job Services Australia and Disability Employment Services. The current experience of the diary sessions do not allow for the spontaneous and responsive nature of our business. Appointments cannot be entered retrospectively they imply that the participant has attended an office-based appointment. DES providers maintain their own database of client contacts, the duplication of process required with the diary sessions is an additional administrative burden and significantly increases red-tape. Those with Uncapped experience had to add administration staff to respond to these similar compliance requirements. 

The model appears more about Social Security compliance measures than Disability Services Standards compliance and the two are often in direct opposition of purpose. Further to this, regional and remote providers simply do not have the resources to fulfil the complex compliance measures. For instance, a regional West Australian provider, gave the example of a client in Norseman, some 200km from the service location in Esperance, two staff, for risk mitigation, travel from Esperance to Norseman, approximately a 2 hour journey on hazardous roads (with various roaming wildlife and road-trains) to arrive at the job seeker’s house for their face-to-face appointment, to find they are not there, even though an appointment had been made and confirmed. The drive was necessary as there was no public transport to the service in Esperance and the consumer does not have a driver’s license. The current requirements in the Exposure Draft fail to recognize the service model of Disability Employment Services and appear to be trying to fit us to the existing Job Services Australia model. Job Services Australia are not required to have certification against the Disability Services Standards. Disability Services Standards requirements often work at odds to the compliance framework. 

Recommendation:

• Removal of the fortnightly requirement and use of a minimum service support based upon monthly requirements. 
• ACE WA concurs with the recommendations outlined in the ACE National Response which details a minimum of 3 contacts a quarter as a starting point, and welcomes the opportunity to work further on the client contact guidelines. ACE National also advocated that the way in which the contact is administered (i.e. face to face/phone/internet) should also remain flexible.
• That DEEWR consider having Disability Support Certification has some real value in addressing contact concerns i.e. Standard 2: Individual Needs Each person with a disability receives a service that is designed to meet, in the least restrictive way, his or her individual needs and personal goals...

2. Ongoing Support Assessments

The development of the new independent Ongoing Support Assessments again suggests that DEEWR has concerns of a provider conducting an assessment and determining the funding result for their clients i.e. the current Disability Maintenance Instrument (DMI).  The proposed OSA process is overly onerous and demonstrates no identifiable reduction in red tape for providers and represents an increased administrative burden for the program as a whole.  The training and development of the members of the National Panel of Assessors would also come at significant ongoing cost to DEEWR for the general running of the program, additionally it will prove difficult to find substantial numbers of qualified individuals with the industry experience required to perform the role effectively. 

There is no obvious administrative savings for providers as they will still be required to collect data and evidence to be provided to the Assessor to support their findings and the volume of data will not differ from that collected now for DMI. 

Currently, the assessment of a worker’s ongoing support needs occurs at the achievement of the 26-week employment outcome using the DMI which is completed by DEN providers.  As per the DPI, this decision was based on a recognition that DEN providers had the best knowledge of support needs to inform the assessment, and that the integrity and transparency of the funding classification system could be maintained through confidential scoring and independent reviews of evidence. 

Should the proposal for external, independent assessments be upheld, ACE WA members identified a number of considerations for managing the impact of independent, external assessors entering the workplace and how the various sources of information about support provided would be considered and weighted.  It is important to consider that some of the ongoing employment support is provided to workers off the job.  Furthermore, where an employee has exercised their right not to disclose their disability to their employer it would be inappropriate to visit the workplace.  Where assessments are undertaken in the workplace, the entry of an external assessor into the workplace would need to be done in a way that created minimal disruption and demand on employers.  Assessors need also to understand that DEN providers go to considerable effort to make the support they provide as invisible to the employer as possible, and so the degree of support provided might not be immediately obvious to the employer and conveyed to the assessor. 

Whilst ACE WA considers that the current Supported Wage System assessors would be the most appropriate external assessor in the capacity of an OSA as they have experience with DEN providers, understand the context within which we operate and have some understanding of the nature of disability employment support, the number of OSA’s required means that having an experienced and suitably qualified assessor will be difficult to achieve.

ACE WA queries how enough qualified and quality assessors will be engaged for the number of assessments required and this is an even greater concern for regional and remote providers.  With particular reference to transition; if there are some 45,000 people with disability currently receiving assistance and 50% are workers at $420 per assessment that’s a cost of $9.45M, which does not consider rural and remote – or that they may not be able to get an appropriate assessor.  At clause 102.1 of the draft deed it is stated that “If a Participant is a Transitioned Participant and is deemed at the Deed Commencement Date to be in Ongoing Support, the Provider must arrange for an OSA of the Participant within 16 weeks of the Deed Commencement Date.” That’s a lot of assessments to be completed and is contradictory to the statement that “Initially, Providers will determine the level of Ongoing Support best suited to an individual participant's needs. Once a participant has been supported in work for 52 weeks from the date of Job Placement, further support will be determined by an Ongoing Support Assessment (OSA).” At page 9 of the Exposure Draft. It is understood that transition arrangements are yet to be determined, however, 102.1 must be considered in terms of the “red tape reduction” claims made throughout the Exposure Draft.

Ongoing Support, the requirement “Each time the Participant requires more than 6 Instances of Flexible Ongoing Support in any 26 week period, a new OSA must be conducted.” The very fact that someone is on Flexible Support may be due to an episodic condition, likely to be mental health related, so the imposition of a “must-do” OSA is contradictory to the Disability Standard of “Meeting Individual Need”...The provider cannot expect any additional funding than the 6 per 26 week period, if the provider deems that an OSA will be beneficial to the participant i.e. they may be reassessed to Mod or High support, at that point they could elect to arrange an OSA.

Recommendation:

• ACE WA seeks clarification on what the rationale or ‘goalposts’ for defining and measuring ongoing support would be in the new model, and whether or not there would be potential for review of funding levels over time as needs change to ensure the assessment is current. 
• ACE WA propose a risk management approach be adopted in relation to the Assessment process, whereby a trained assessor from the National Panel of Assessors is allocated to a provider to conduct a review or audit of a random sample of assessments completed by the Provider i.e. as with our current Disability Services Certification process.  Should anomalies be identified by the Assessor, then a more thorough review would be triggered.  This process would substantially reduce the number of assessors required, the cost of the system and the potential burden and intrusion on employers and people with disability.
• The inclusion of an independent worker fee to acknowledge the achievement of service independence, of an amount that would have otherwise paid for an OSA. 
  • Revise the “must” to a “may” as regards Ongoing Support Assessments being triggered when more than 6 instances of flexible support have been claimed. The request for an OSA should be by provider discretion and our judgement as disability provider professionals.

3. Payments and Fees

The new proposed model is complex, making it difficult to forecast/project for budgeting purposes and day-to-day operations thereby querying the “reduction in red tape”

The funding is directly linked to the JCA work capacity assessment. Another complexity and compliance drain as evidence obtained may demonstrate that the assessed work capacity is incorrect – so time spent on challenging assessed capacity – again red tape and administrative burden. Further, when additional information is obtained by the DES provider the current model requires yet another assessment. For clients who are already marginalised and assessed at every turn, a point that DEEWR has acknowledged e.g. for the School Leavers answer 74 of the Q & A for the DES ED “There is general agreement with feedback from industry that people with disability have already had extensive assessments”...and yet the procedures then require assessment and reassessment – is this not red-tape, administration and cost to DEEWR? There appears to be a lack of trust and much of the requirements are implemented due to service integrity being called in to question. There are mechanisms in place to assess service compliance with DEEWR audits, financial audits and Disability Support Certification audits – these systems ought be better used rather than increasing complexity in day-to-day operations to, as at 1.3 of the ED, “ensure taxpayer funds are spent efficiently, effectively and ethically”.

Members of ACE WA with JCA experience have advised that the 30 hr bandwidth is used as a default selection if medical evidence is not provided – this is of great concern and must be addressed where work capacity is going to determine pathway or full outcome achievement and KPI performance.

Recommendations:

• that standard minimum hours for all participants be set as is now for capped and uncapped and quality of outcomes are assessed through the KPI’s and Disability Support Certification audits.
• That current work capacity and not future work capacity be the reference against which outcomes are measured – preferring this reference to an individual’s work capacity be removed in its entirety and continue with our current set minimums due to our aforementioned concern with the quality of JCA’s in determining work capacity.

Job in Jeopardy

ACE WA congratulates DEEWR on the acknowledgment of a 26 wk outcome for Job in Jeopardy, however, Job in Jeopardy in the Exposure Draft has the eligibility hinging on 13 weeks consecutive employment, at what point is a job a job? Perhaps DEEWR may consider maintaining the 8 hr minimum per week, as we have had this requirement in previous contracts, but reducing the weeks of work to one. The pertinent point is that we can save a job and a site, an employer’s experience of people with disability is key here and this goes a long way to raising the positive profile of people with disability and Program B services. It can also lead to further employment for other people with disability.

Recommendation:

• That for job in jeopardy, DEEWR consider maintaining the 8 hr minimum per week, as we have had this requirement in previous contracts, but reducing the weeks of work to one.

Higher weighting on outcome payments

Whilst ACE WA acknowledges the focus on outcomes is positive for people with disability, with the economic down-turn such a measure may impact on service viability.

Recommendation:

• That the weighting be adjusted to a 50/50 split between service fees and outcome payments. This is a higher weighting than currently and so still places the emphasis on achieving outcomes. The performance model and KPI’s should be aimed at the outcomes as a focus and high performing services will score highly in these areas.

Job placement triggering the discontinuation of service fees

This measure creates complexity of administration, an apparent disincentive to claiming a job placement (e.g. if a quarterly service fee is pending...).  It assumes the job will go on to achieve outcome payments, and whilst the Q&A from DEEWR explains that where a job does not continue service fees are restarted, why add administrative burden.

Example Program B Level 2

	One job at month 8 proposed model	One job at month 8 no Job Placement Fee but continuation of service fees
1st quarter	1900	1900
2nd quarter	1900	1900
3rd quarter	1900	1900
4th quarter	0	1900
Job Placement	1540	0
13 week outcome	5500	5500
26 week outcome	7700	7700
Total	20440	20800

Recommendation:

• That service fees continue until a 26 week employment outcome is achieved and then roll over to flexible or ongoing support as appropriate. Where a job does not continue there is no additional administration as service fees will continue until the 26 week outcome is achieved or program concludes – reducing administrative burden and red-tape.
• Job Placement fees be abolished and simply continue with the service fees – if sustainable job outcomes are preferred why incentivise Job Placement? There is minimal change in total payments received, but improved continuity of payments and further simplifying the funding model in terms of monitoring, compliance and administration.

Arrears and cash-flow

ACE WA has concerns over the Ongoing Support payments being paid three months in arrears creating cash-flow issues for providers. DEEWR has said in the Q&A to this “Payments for participants receiving ongoing support in the existing Disability Employment Network (maintenance fees), are paid monthly in arrears. The new Ongoing Support payments will also be paid in arrears. While the new Ongoing Support payments for individual participants will be paid quarterly, payment of all eligible fees across a provider’s caseload will be made fortnightly, ensuring cash flow.”  

Recommendation:

• ACE WA did not arrive at a position on this matter but would welcome further discussion on how to resolve.

Consecutive weeks in one job

Minister O’Connor made an announcement on the 7 April 2009 stating that “Following the release of a discussion paper in December, the Government has made three key changes to the new services to include:...Changing the definition of employment outcomes to include employment with multiple employers over a 26 week period.” The Exposure Draft is not clear on this and the Exposure Draft Q & A is yet to clarify.

Recommendation:

• That the current outcome definition (cumulative job placements over the program period) be retained in the new service model.

Outcome bonus and Pathway Outcomes

Qualifying Training Course is defined at p 368 of the ED – a query to the Q & A is yet to explain if that means a person doing e.g. an School based traineeship with a Cert III qualification can attain a pathway outcome for the educational component and achievement against the training KPI as well as a full outcome for achieving employment i.e. will DES providers be able to simultaneously claim pathway and full outcomes for traineeships and apprenticeships and then if in a skills shortage claim the 20% bonus – and if not it should as the current system provides the 4, 13 and 52 wk outcome payments for New Apprentice Fees, whilst the proposed system appears to only reward apprentice outcomes in skills shortage areas, which would be a big step backwards for the education revolution the Rudd government has promised us.

Recommendation:

• That people with disability undertaking an Australian Apprenticeship be eligible for payment of both a pathway and full outcome and 20% bonus on completion.
• That the skill shortage reference be removed and the focus be on a completion bonus and employment outcome.
• That should the reference to skills shortage remain that it be related to the Priority Occupations Productivity Places Program List and not the State and Territory Skills shortage lists which are too narrow.
• That should the reference to skills shortage remain that it is based on the qualification being on the list at commencement, i.e. should it subsequently be removed from the list during the participants Australian Apprenticeship that the provider is not penalised.

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD)

Whilst ACE WA commends the Employment Assistance Fund, which includes fees for Auslan Interpreting, we are concerned that there is no provision within the Exposure Draft to assist providers with the cost of interpreters for people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse background.

Recommendation:

• That the Employment Assistance Fund include interpreters for participants from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds.

 

4. Compliance

Currently for participants in employment maintenance, providers have six months in which to assist the participant to secure a new job. Additionally, under the Disability Services Standards a high value is placed on increasing wages, improving conditions, achieving training outcomes and career development. Often a person in maintenance will career develop to a better position which may include Australian Apprenticeships. In the Exposure Draft model such participants would be required to Exit, this is Administration and Red Tape.

The Exposure Draft fails to recognise that a job for life is impractical and the statement at p 9 of the Exposure Draft that “Most participants will be able to Exit the program as independent workers once a 26-week Outcome has been achieved” is perplexing and concerning and further illustrates that DEEWR do not recognise the differences between Job Services Australia and Disability Employment Services. Question 161 states that “If a participant loses their job while they are receiving Ongoing Support, the participant must be exited. However any job seeker who loses their job will be able to recommence in Disability Employment Services subject to a current and valid JCA.”

Where a job is separated for reasons other than career development, the emotional distress caused by a job loss has a far reaching impact on the participant’s well being and adding to this the provider exiting them will cause further detrimental distress, and is a clear case of unnecessary administration, red tape, cost to government and yet another assessment for people with disability to bear.

Centrelink has policies enabling it to apply discretionary decisions regarding acceptance of medical certificates but continue to enforce participation by referring to Disability Employment. ACE WA has concerns that where a participant who presents with a medical certificate, which is not accepted by Centrelink, providers do not have the authority to suspend services and must build capacity and / or job search. Importantly the provider nor an employer is legally covered in relation to the insurance of the participant. This places providers in a precarious circumstance, the Deed is very explicit on matters regarding insurance and we have a range of duty of care concerns regarding being compelled to work with participants with a medical certificate. This is an issue that has been raised at Centrelink and DEEWR consultations over the past three years of the current program without resolve.

Whilst ACE WA agrees to mandatory reporting of changes to employment and income whilst this is achieved through DEEWR’s IT, we do not agree it is necessarily valid to report to Centrelink on other changes in life circumstances. DES providers should not be legally obligated to ensure the participant’s Centrelink compliance as this onus is already on the participant. Providers can assist with Centrelink compliance requests but they should not be the focus of our operations, as again this is more red tape and administration.

Recommendations:

• Exiting participants in ongoing support who career develop – the requirement to exit should be removed and left up to the provider to decide if a new JCA will benefit the participant. Requiring a new and valid JCA simply because a participant has secured a new job during ongoing support is unnecessary red tape and administration for all stakeholders.
• Exiting participants, who lose job during Ongoing Support (not career development) – as per the current employment maintenance arrangement, enable the participant to continue in Ongoing Support for 6 months to secure new employment – reduce red tape and the need for yet another assessment.
• That DEN providers be enabled to suspend participants with medical certificates.

5. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)

ACE WA concurs with ACE National, that the current KPI’s for the disability employment sector were created after much consultation with the industry, and as a working collaboration with the department. 

Members expressed concerns regarding the KPI’s as follows:

1.1 & 1.2 Efficiency measures around referrals – which are out of our control

1.3 Commencement to employment disadvantages services to client to prepare them for suitable employment (including complimentary services) and suspensions.

KPIs should be aimed at employment outcomes not timeline to employment.

1.4 Again time-lined, focus on outcomes - Time is a poor indicator of quality of service.

2.4 Job In Jeopardy, such a small component of any service, query the value of such a measure and the results can largely be out of our control.

2.5 Effective use of training. Broaden scope of what qualifying training can include e.g. the proportion of participants who have enrolled who achieve outcomes... etc.

3.1 Quality of service, this is measured against Disability Support Certification so “DEEWR satisfaction” is viewed as superfluous to this requirement.

3.2 Disability Support Certification undertakes client and employer satisfaction as part of its audit, this mechanism and existing process ought have great bearing – it is already at cost to government and services and has its administrative requirements without adding more.

Recommendation:

• Review the current DEN KPI’s and refine them for the proposed model with the sector
• Utilise the existing Disability Support Certification process that has been implemented under the legislated Quality Strategy to better effect – thereby reducing administration and red tape – currently providers feel that DEEWR underutilises the information and auditing processes that this system already has in place to assess service quality and compliance.

6. Regional and Remote

In this part of our response we have included very specific examples generously provided by country managers to demonstrate our concerns. The issues for regional and remote providers are complex due not only to the location but resource availability, and the participants often multiple barriers to employment.

ACE WA strongly supports the increased loading for remote fees proposed in the Exposure Draft. Due to the nature of the state’s geography, loadings for rural and remote service providers in recognition of the cost implications of delivering services in these areas has long been of particular importance for DEN providers in Western Australia. 

This state’s specific interest in this matter was reflected in a specific meeting on this very issue between the Western Australian Country Managers group and Marie Newey in 2007.  The proposed approach to link the 70% loading to where the job seeker lives does not recognise that service providers operating out of rural and remote locations have higher operating costs, i.e. that it is the location in which the service operates that has the on-costs, including supporting outlying job seekers. 

These additional costs impact not only on the cost of delivering actual services, but also on the relative value of wages and conditions for regional providers seeking to attract and retain a skilled workforce to deliver services.  The Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development maintains a Regional Prices Index which compares the costs of goods and services between regional Western Australia and Perth.  The Regional Prices Index 2007 shows that the costs of goods and services in Broome, for example, are 17.1% higher than for Perth. 

Our West Australian rural and remote providers have advised that only one provider will have access to the 70% loading in its entirety, as we understand from the DEEWR Q & A that at Question 134 “the remote loading is based on the job seekers residential address.” Members have advised that some participants use a PO Box which does not reflect the true location or their residential address.

The current model provides greater benefit, although still inadequate, as detailed in the example provided by Employment Esperance. Providers remain confused as to the meaning of “excised” e.g Does this mean that anything outside of the town boundaries of an excised area in the proposed ESA will attract a 70% loading?  Will this be based on postcodes?

It is apparent that the new model is designed around urban areas with its associated infrastructure, public transport and complimentary programs e.g. Literacy and Numeracy Programs, Productivity Placement Program options, STEP’ers programs, Voluntary Resource Centres; Work experience placement options, Telecentres; or IT skills and training programs, with reference to the Employment Pathway Plan capacity building activities and arranging suitable compliance activities. Furthermore, rural and remote services have to contend with the limited services available locally, and where there are local providers the quality of service delivery may be questionable due to the size of the population and ability to engage qualified and experienced staff.

Access to many areas within regional and rural ESA’s can require two staff members to travel (OH&S/risk mitigation), the hire of a 4WD and satellite phone for the journey.  Which is not covered under the current system nor the proposed system. Reiterating our understanding that the majority of WA providers will not be eligible for any of the 70% loading. 

ACE WA is appalled at the political gain of announcing the 70% loading being applied to Rural and Remote services but then applying rules that do not enable access to this, meaning providers will be worse off under the new arrangement.  Providers themselves had neglected Rural and Remotes issues on the basis that they believed they would be eligible for the 70% loading.  Metropolitan participants at our recent consultation were staggered at the dedication and service provision that services provided well beyond the fees offered by DEEWR – they are devoted to the Disability Services Standards which provides the overarching ethical context under which they provide services – but this may be finally at breaking point. DEEWR must recognise the unique nature of providers in West Australia, the most remote and inaccessible places with vast distances and challenging terrain and conditions that must be negotiated to assist people with disability to secure or maintain quality employment. We must also stress the point that people with disability within regional and remote areas can be transient by nature, therefore complying to face-to-face visits is onerous and often fruitless.

Rural and Remote Experience and Case Studies from Country Managers:

• Esperance is situated 750kms from Perth.
• Current fuel cost is today $1.28 per litre unleaded, Perth fuel cost today is $1.16 per litre and fluctuating.
• Currently have fourteen clients eligible for loading payments - there is one person living in Hopetoun (ARIA 7.6084) for which we receive 20% loading on each payment), one client living in Ravensthorpe (ARIA 7.5884 ) for which we also receive 20% loading, and twelve living in Norseman for which we currently receive a 20% loading.
• We travel to Raventhorpe and Hopetoun once per month. The cost to the agency is 16 hours of wages equals $304.00 plus fuel cost calculated at $345.00 (500km @ .69c / km). Total cost to the agency is therefore $649.00. Current loadings equal a monthly amount of $382.00 per month.
• We are currently travelling to Norseman once per fortnight and costs to the agen

---

› View all news headlines