1 / 42

The Australian Funding System. A model for the UK.

The Australian Funding System. A model for the UK. Presented by: Donna Shaw [Castle Personnel, Australia]. Changing Government Requirements. Accreditation (organisation/individuals) Regulations / standards of conformance Funding (bulk grants v’s results base funding)

kagami
Download Presentation

The Australian Funding System. A model for the UK.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Australian Funding System. A model for the UK. Presented by: Donna Shaw [Castle Personnel, Australia]

  2. Changing Government Requirements • Accreditation (organisation/individuals) • Regulations / standards of conformance • Funding (bulk grants v’s results base funding) • Concentrated Structure of industry & funding • Accountability • Performance reporting [KPI’s , progression, etc.] • Benchmarking

  3. FLOOR PLAN NEW HEAD OFFICE

  4. Australia/UK Comparisons Australia U.K. 21 million people Workforce 10.7mil People on DSP 714,000 Expenditure $8.6bil $12,117 per person 61 million people Workforce 30.4mil PWD looking for work 1.2mil Expenditure £3.6bil £5,048 per person

  5. Australia/UK Comparisons Australia U.K. Aust Federal Gov’t 8 States/Territories 676 Councils 0 Councils providing disability Employment services 47% tax rate UK Central Gov’t 3 “Devolved” Regions 500 Councils Numerous Councils providing disability employment services 40% tax rate

  6. Legislation Australia U.K. Disability Discrimination Act Disability Services Act Disability Services Standards Disability Discrimination Act Disability Discrimination Code of Practice

  7. Disability Services Standards Established 12 mandatory Disability Services Standards and Key Performance Indicators. Std 1. Service access Std 7. Complaints and disputes Std 2. Individual needs Std 8. Service management Std 3. Decision making & choice Std 9. Employment conditions Std 4. Privacy, dignity & Std 10. Service recipient confidentiality training & support Std 5. Participation & integrationStd 11. Staff recruitment, employment & training Std 6. Valued status Std 12. Protection of human rights & freedom from abuse

  8. Welfare to Work Reform • Reduction in Unemployment 4.3% • Experiencing a strong economy • Welfare to Work Reforms • Mutual Obligation • Participation Requirements • New DSP Eligibility

  9. Government Funded Employment Agencies[DEEWR & DFACSIA] Centrelink (Jobcentre Plus) Job Network (Mainstream employment service) Vocational Rehabilitation Services (CRS & NGO) Disability Employment Network( Award wage open employment) Business Services (Employ people with disabilities who are deemed unable to enter open employment)

  10. Australia/UK Comparisons Australia U.K. DEN provide a “One Stop Shop” for jobseekers with a disability VRS provide a more clinical approach for injured workers returning to the workforce. Job Introduction Scheme Work Preparation Workstep Access to Work New Deal Pathways to Work

  11. “DEN” EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN PAST 4 YEARS • MOVE to CASE BASED FUNDING • NEW UNCAPPED STREAM • INTRODUNCTION of EA3000 • NATIONAL CONTRACT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK • INTRODUCTION OF STAR RATINGS

  12. Move to Cased Based Funding: • 2 years of trailing and evaluation (2003 – 2004) • 1st July 2005 move to a Case Based Funding model (Capped service stream). • Coincided with the move from one Government portfolio DFACS to another DEEWR.

  13. New Uncapped Funding Stream • 105 Organisations successfully tendered to deliver the new “Uncapped Stream”. • 19 organisations were new entrants to the Disability Employment sector. • Contracts commenced 1st July 2006 for a 3 year period • Existing “Capped” stream contracts were rolled over for the same period. • DEN contracts in line with the Job Network (mainstream employment services) contracts.

  14. Introduction of EA3000 • EA3000 (DEEWR) IT system • DEN providers now required to enter data on a national database • Entry of employment details, activity agreements, appointments and participation requirements • Most DEN’s are now operating two databases • Administrative burden is an issue for discussion during the forthcoming consultative process.

  15. National Contract Management Framework The key business framework that provides a common approach to the day to day management of all employment contracts. • There are five principles that underpin the NCMF: • Increasing performance • Improving quality • Integrity and compliance • Relationships and openness • Consistency • Practical strategies used include reviewing administrative data (‘desk-top’ monitoring), undertaking site visits and conducting risk assessments. • DEEWR employs three strategies to enhance compliance: Prevention and Deterrence, Detection and Correction.

  16. Star Rating System • Organisations rated from 1 to 5 stars • The first star ratings where released July 07, only capped services where rated and results where not publicly available. • The second ratings where released April 08 both capped and uncapped service streams rated, results publicly available.

  17. Client Assessment Process Centrelink (JSCI) Job Network Job Capacity Assessor CappedUncapped DEN Agency [DPI - Assessment/Funding Level]

  18. Capped V’s Uncapped Capped Clients- People with eight or more hours work capacity who require long term support in the workplace or people unable to work at award wages. Uncapped Clients- People with a work capacity of 15 to 29 hours per week and an ability to become independent in the workplace within two years.

  19. Capped Program Stream Fees

  20. Uncapped Program Stream Fees

  21. THE RESULTS ACHIEVED WHERE TO FROM HERE

  22. DEN Services as at 30 June 08 • 49,000 Current DEN participants • 36,000 capped stream • 13,000 uncapped stream • Over 30,000 commencements 2007-08 • 20,500 capped stream • 12,400 uncapped stream

  23. DECLINE IN SERVICE PROVIDERSAs a result of the new initiatives consortiums where established and mergers occurred. • 2004 -05 228 organisations delivered DEN from 322 outlets. • 2005 -06 227 organisations delivered DEN from 322 outlets • 2006 -07 208 organisations delivered capped services from 325 sites, 106 delivered uncapped services from 529 sites. A total of 227 organisations including the 19 new entrants, across 726 sites. • June 2008 total 224 organisations across 700 sites. • These figures show a 10% decline in service providers since June 2005. The largest decline occurred 2006 when contracts where reissued and performance monitoring commenced.

  24. CBF EVALUATION REPORT The Governments “Case Based Funding ModelEvaluation Report” indicates significant benefit for jobseekers under the CBF model. • An increase in outcomes achieved for job seekers with a disability. • A rise in the number of clients becoming independent (progressing to unsupported employment) and moving off Income support. http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Publications/ProgrammeEvaluation/DisabilityEmploymentNetworkCaseBasedFundingModelEvaluationReport.htm

  25. Block Grant v’s Cased Based • Outcome indicator for the BGF model is the % of clients who achieved 13 weeks of employment for at least 8 hours per week within 2 years of commencing. 25% outcome rate was achieved. • The 13 week outcome rate for the CBF model over 18 months was 43.2% substantially higher then the BGF 2 year outcome rate. Source: Disability Employment Network Case Based Funding Model Evaluation Report

  26. Source: DEEWR Presentation NDS Employment Forum 2008

  27. CBF OUTCOMES • Outcome rate declined as DPI level increased • Level 1 – 45.4% outcome rate • Level 2 – 32.6% outcome rate (highest number of clients at this funding level) • Level 3 – 25.5% outcome rate • Level 4 increased to 27.8% outcome rate, this may be attributed to the small number of clients within this cohort • 35% moved off income support • 76% continued in employment maintenance • 13% exited as independent workers Source: Disability Employment Network Case Based Funding Model Evaluation Report

  28. Client / Provider Characteristics • Clients with a psychiatric disability had the lowest outcome rate of 29.2%. There was very little variation in the outcome rates for other disability types. • The outcome rate was higher for teenagers, lower for clients over 60 and also well below average for the 25-29 year olds. • The outcome rate was lower for clients from Non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous origin. • On average the lower the client-to-staff ratio the higher the outcome rate Source: Disability Employment Network Case Based Funding Model Evaluation Report

  29. Employer Incentive Subsidy Source: Disability Employment Network Case Based Funding Model Evaluation Report

  30. Costs Associated with Outcome Overall average Govt expenditure per outcome = $21,381 (£10,140) • Level 1 = $10,372 (£4,920) • Level 2 = $19,773 (£9.380) • Level 3 = $33,948 (£16,097) • Level 4 = $46,350 (£21,978) Most of the losses in efficiency can be attributed to clients who did not achieve an employment milestone or an outcome. Source: Disability Employment Network Case Based Funding Model Evaluation Report

  31.  STAR RATINGS  Each DEN Member is given a star rating based on their performance relative to that of other DEN providers. • Highrating 4 to 5 stars - provider performing at a level that is better than the majority of others. • Good rating 3 stars - provider that is performing around the average • Low rating 1 or 2 - stars provider that is performing at a level that is substantially below average

  32. DEN HEALTH CHECKS

  33. How the Star Ratings Work • Performance ratings are nationally comparable • The rating model employs logistic regression to quantify and control the impact of client characteristics and local economic conditions • Three main KPI’s - Efficiency, Effectiveness and Quality • Each KPI is weighted to reflect the relative importance of each to overall performance

  34. Star Rating KPI’s and Weighting

  35.  STAR RATING RESULTS DEC 2007  Source: DEEWR Presentation NDS Employment Forum 2008 publicly available www.workplace.gov.au

  36. Organisational Mergers/ ExpansionStar Ratings Achieved • Organisation A: 7 Sites • 2 high, 1 good and 4 low • Organisation B: 6 Sites • 2 good and 4 low • Organisation C: 10 Sites • 1 high, 3 good, 6 low

  37. Questions to be Answered • Is bigger better? • Does rapid expansion lead to a decrease in service quality? • Does sound knowledge of a geographical area and its labour market play a large part in success? • Are mergers, takeovers, joint adventures and consortiums a viable option?

  38. Issues to be Considered • What type of partnership are you entering into • Service delivery and performance history • Staff profile, experience and competency • Premises, resources and infrastructure • Local knowledge and established working relations • Management and continuous improvement structure • Ethos, vision and mission • Financially stable • Is the payment scale acceptable

  39. THE FUTURE • Significant change for Mainstream Employment Services • DEN Contracts extended to Feb 2010 • National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy • CBF report findings and recommendations • Government review of disability employment services

  40. Review of DEN Services • “DEN services will remain separate” • Building on the strengths of existing approaches • Creating a less complex system • Simplify the fee structure and number of assessments required • A stronger focus on education and training • Promoting available resources to employers • Reduce contract management and other quality assurance programs • Simplify performance management

More Related