Mid-Term Review, Younger People in Residential Aged Care (YPIRAC) Program 

• 2.1  Content of Bilateral Agreements
• 2.2  Flexibility of Program across jurisdictions
• 2.3  Assumptions of Bilateral Agreements

The Australian Government negotiated independent Bilateral Agreements with all Australian States and Territories to support the funding, implementation and progress monitoring of the YPIRAC Program in each location in relation to the YPIRAC Program.

The Bilateral Agreements were signed by the respective parties over the period August 2006 to January 2007.

While at a Program level, all Bilateral Agreements reflect the three POs, the targets and funding levels were individually negotiated and aim to reflect the various needs and demographic characteristics of each location.

2.1 Content of Bilateral Agreements

The Bilateral Agreements include several components:

• A letter of introduction from each jurisdiction.
• Information in the Bilateral Agreement that pertained to all jurisdictions.
• Schedule 1 of the Bilateral Agreement, which contained the evaluation and performance reporting framework.
• Schedule 2 of the Agreement, which contained financial arrangements.
• Schedule 3 of the Agreement, which contained the program of implementation for each jurisdiction.

Schedule 3 of the Bilateral Agreement contained the most useful information in relation to progress monitoring. This information includes performance targets, projected expenditure and detailed project plans for each jurisdiction. The project plans outline key activity areas, timelines, strategies, milestones and targets over the five-year Program timeline.

While the structure and content of all project plans are very similar:

• The Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia have all used the same template in the development of their project plan. A sample of the year one template is presented in Table 1.
• The structure used in the New South Wales and Tasmanian project plans differs only slightly from the template used by the above mentioned jurisdictions, specifically in their inclusion of some additional activities.
• The Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and South Australian project plans are based on the same template but outlined different activities to those of the other jurisdictions.

There was some commonality in the areas of activity to be undertaken during the initial implementation of the Program as outlined in the Bilateral Agreements, these included:

• Development of Program framework, guidelines, tools and data.
• Contact with YPIRAC and client group via the development of a communication strategy or activities.
• Establishment of governance arrangements such as working groups.
• Development of protocols with Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACATs).
• Assessment of the YPIRAC Program client group and their levels of needs.
• Provision of advocacy and support to the YPIRAC Program client group.

As will be discussed in the following chapter, the main difference in the initial two years of Program implementation across jurisdictions was the different emphasis on each of the POs.

2.1.1 Funding

The Australian Government will provide $122 million for the implementation of the YPIRAC Program over five years. The State and Territory Governments will match funding provided by the Australian Government, creating a total Program funding pool of $244 million over five-years.

Each individual Bilateral Agreement outlines a commitment to Program funding based on the number of YPIRAC clients in each jurisdiction and the activities that will be undertaken. Table 2 provides a summary of the Australian Government funding commitment to each jurisdiction.

2.1.2 National Evaluation and Performance Framework

The Bilateral Agreements outline a commitment to develop a National Evaluation and Performance Framework to support the monitoring of the Program at a national level.

As will be discussed in the following chapter, the AIHW was engaged to develop the YPIRAC National Minimum Data Set (NMDS) which has become an integral part of the ongoing monitoring of the Program nationally.

Other reporting activities required of jurisdictions as part of the evaluation framework include:

• Jurisdictional bi-monthly reporting
• Jurisdictional implementation plan progress reports
• Financial Acquittals.

[ top ]

2.2 Flexibility of Program across jurisdictions

As will be discussed in forthcoming chapters of this report, the flexibility afforded to each jurisdiction in developing and implementing the Program has been a positive factor in contextualising the Program to local requirements.

The review of all individual Bilateral Agreements however has highlighted a number of challenges for the Mid-Term Review and for articulating Program level achievements that can be attributed to the flexibility afforded to each jurisdiction, namely:

• An initial lack of commonality in defining the target group ‘at risk’ of admission to RAC.
• Program commencement at different times across different jurisdictions, with some jurisdictions commencing six months after others.
• Variation in the emphasis/focus on the three objectives based on jurisdiction-specific policy priorities and local circumstances.
• Delays in establishing a national data collection processes through the NMDS, resulted in inconsistent data collected for the 2006/07 period across individual jurisdictions.
• The Mid-Term Review has focused on the first two years of implementation.

2.3 Assumptions of Bilateral Agreements

The Bilateral Agreements have been an important tool to secure a joint funding commitment between the Australian Government and each State and Territory Government to achieve the YPIRAC Program objectives.

The agreements form the basis to the YPIRAC Program, both within individual jurisdictions, and nationally through the National Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework

The analysis presented in this report has therefore considered not only the content of the Bilateral Agreements, but the complex environment in which they were developed. Given the limited information available to the Australian Government, and State and Territory Governments regarding the YPIRAC target group, a number of assumptions were made at the Programs inception.

These assumptions were:

• The overall net reduction in the number of YPIRAC that will be achieved and at what stages this will occur in the five year Program cycle.
• The capacity of jurisdictions to influence the net number of YPIRAC through this Program.
• The levels of funding that will be required to achieve targets under each of the POs.
• The number of clients who will choose to participate in the Program and their perception of how well the Program meets their needs.
• The capacity of the community-sector to deliver services to younger people, often with high levels of disability.

Not withstanding the important role of the Bilateral Agreements in reaching national consensus and prioritising a response to YPIRAC, these early assumptions have shaped and impacted on the implementation of the Program across all jurisdictions. Subsequent chapters in this report will give detailed consideration to the impact of these assumptions on Program implementation to date, and in this context, one of the key evaluation questions for this review – were the Bilateral Agreements underpinning the Program designed to allow the objectives for the Program set out by COAG to be met?