YP4 – Joining up services for Homeless jobseekers

Planning and Implementation

This section addresses the governance model of YP⁴ and communication practices of YP⁴, and specifically explains how potential barriers to YP⁴'s implementation have been identified and resolved.

Governance

Trial development working group

In early 2003, a trial development working group was convened comprised of representatives from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), the Department of Family and Community Services, the Victorian Department of Human Services, the Department of Victorian Communities, Centrelink, Hanover Welfare Services, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne Citymission and Loddon Mallee Housing Services. This group met regularly through 2003 and the first half of 2004. The group oversaw the development of the trial proposal and worked through some of the logistical issues expected to confront the trial, including the conflict of business rules which required relaxing, approval to reallocate funds, etc. As agreements for trial funding neared conclusion, the trial development working group supported the employment of a trial manager.

Inter agency coordinating committee

The Inter Agency Coordinating Committee was convened in late 2004 once trial implementation was confirmed and a trial manager was employed. The Inter Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) provides direction to and oversight of YP⁴. Membership of the IACC is similar to that of the trial development working group, but with the addition of three peak bodies - the National Employment Services Association, Jobs Australia and the Council to Homeless Persons. Terms of reference of the IACC can be summarised as follows:

[ top ]

The IACC is responsible for

Ensuring all trial activities are well-coordinated and consistent with the intent and objectives of the trial as set out in the Foundation Paper and Trial Proposal documents
Reviewing progress of the trial, approving amendments, variations and new initiatives within the trial and in turn making appropriate recommendations to the relevant funding bodies
Recommending overall allocation of funds within the trial consistent with agreed protocols and program accountabilities
Reporting on the progress of the trial and trial findings to the funding bodies and publishing findings and recommendations, as appropriate
Providing direction to the Trial Manager
Establishing and receiving reports from subcommittees and advisory groups which may be required from time to time, including the Ethics and Evaluation Advisory Group
Overseeing the evaluation of the trial, with advice from the Ethics and Evaluation Advisory Group
Monitoring the activities of the trial to ensure compliance with privacy legislation and ethical standards
Inviting or coopting additional individuals or representatives to the IACC, as required

Local reference groups

In discussions with community agencies within some of trial sites, it has been suggested that local reference groups be created to support local implementation of the trial. Reference groups already exist for pilot projects funded under the Victorian Homelessness Strategy in two of the sites, both of which appear keen to continue through supporting the trial. Ultimately, the formation and resourcing of such reference groups is at the discretion of, and a responsibility of, the partner agencies, each of which already has strong local networks and connections. Partner agencies are expected to take responsibility for passing on any advice that such groups may wish to provide to the IACC.

[ top ]

Communication

A communication strategy for YP⁴ has been developed with input from each of the partner agencies. A copy of the strategy is attached in Appendix 3. Key components of the communication strategy are:

Brochures, employer prospectuses and a website
Fortnightly updates sent electronically to all stakeholders
A quarterly policy newsletter, the first issue of which is scheduled for release in Winter 2005
Conference presentations, which are expected to occur quarterly.

YP⁴ has a strong and increasing profile among the target audience of policy makers, social policy analysts, government officials, and service sector workers.

Barriers to implementation

A range of barriers to joined up service provision have been identified through YP⁴. At its second meeting, the IACC proposed that a workshop be held to sort through in closer detail some of the logistical problems that could beset YP⁴. In response, a 'mechanics workshop' was held on Friday 24 September 2004 to explore how various government-sponsored housing and employment systems could provide integrated responses for the benefit of YP⁴ participants. The workshop was primarily intended to collect information about current practices. Specifically, the aim was to:

share knowledge about existing processes and systems through which potential YP⁴ participants currently navigate
understand the range of logistical problems that may arise for YP⁴ participants when seeking access to YP⁴ and negotiating relevant government supports
check the flexibility of responses available to YP⁴ participants
identify both temporary and sustainable solutions to any system problems that may be identified

[ top ]

The workshop was successful in achieving the first three of its objectives. In particular, the workshop was instrumental in clarifying and scoping the issues facing YP⁴ participants. The fourth objective of identifying solutions was largely not achieved. A subsequent meeting, dubbed the post-mechanics workshop, was held on Friday 5 November 2004 and had more success in identifying solutions to the issues. Some amendments to or clarification of the trial model were required in light of proposed solutions, and these were the subject of deliberations by the IACC Executive and YP⁴ team in November 2004.

Decisions/changes/solutions made at the post-mechanics workshop or shortly thereafter were:

Small change to formula for participant intake: 25% of YP⁴ participants will be eligible for the Personal Support Program or JPET, not 35% as advised in the Trial Proposal. 75% of YP⁴ participants will be eligible for Intensive Support - Customised Assistance.
Agreement that automatic 'Intensive Support - Customised Assistance' status would be secured for job-ready YP⁴ participants (as a safety net)
Commitment to create a safety net to ensure that YP⁴ participants do not become obligated to complete Work for the Dole or other mandatory mutual obligation activities
Protocol to ensure that participation reports specific to YP⁴ participants are not acted upon without reference to a YP⁴ case manager
Fast tracking of Jobseeker Supplementary Assessments for YP⁴ participants (by Centrelink)
'0' job search requirement for job-ready YP⁴ participants on a temporary basis (for six months) - to minimise the possibility of non-compliance with mutual obligation during the initial phase of participant engagement with YP⁴

Some of the opportunities for streamlining processes for YP⁴ participants, discussed at the 'post-mechanics workshop' held on 5 November, have proved difficult and time-consuming to secure in practice. For example,

Automatic 'Intensive Support - Customised Assistance' status for job-ready YP⁴ participants (as a safety net) has not been able to be delivered as hoped, as it is inconsistent with other DEWR policy.
Formal advice about whether the job search requirement for job-ready YP⁴ participants can be set to '0' is conflicting. DEWR indicate that it can be done, however, Centrelink advise that they are unable to implement this. This issue is yet to be resolved.
Also, formal advice is expected to be issued by DEWR to both Centrelink and to Job Network members regarding their obligations vis a vis YP⁴ participants, however, this is yet to occur.

[ top ]

Additional barriers to joined up practice identified since the mechanics and post mechanics workshops include:

Difficulty in accessing identifiable information about participants from the National Data Collection Agency, which maintains information about the use of crisis accommodation services on a nation wide basis.
Failure to secure National Data Collection Agency codes specific to YP⁴, despite earlier assurances that new codes could be allocated.
Difficulty in extracting information from the Centrelink database (mainframe) that facilitates the systematic identification of disadvantaged, homeless jobseekers, largely due to the poor interface between the Centrelink mainframe and DEWR information (Job Seeker Classification Instrument scores). It is also acknowledged, however, that Centrelink information systems were not designed with identification of homeless people in mind and as such, it is not a surprise that these systems have performed poorly when applied to the task.
Continuing examples of business rules which increase the disadvantage of those that they are intended to assist, and which cannot be applied with flexibility. For example, YP⁴ team members requested that participants be allowed to present the usual income declaration forms to Centrelink on a four weekly cycle, rather than on a two-weekly or 12 weekly cycle, as this would make it easier for case managers to support participants in meeting their mutual obligation to government. (Currently, Centrelink customers are required to submit forms on a two weekly cycle to a 16 weekly cycle or anywhere in between, depending on their circumstances and the nature of the program in which they are participating.) Four weekly lodgements are possible for YP⁴ participants, but this requires a Centrelink staff member to manually override the automatic (system-determined) form lodgement cycle. Manual system entries must be manually removed, and cannot be automatically reversed when, for example, a participant secures employment. The risk to YP⁴ participants in this instance is that they have a higher likelihood of incurring a Centrelink debt in the event that they secure employment, if there is a manual entry on their file requiring four weekly form lodgement.
Maintenance of discreet key performance indicators for YP⁴ by each of the funding bodies contributing to it, and the purchase of nominated, distinct components of YP⁴ by each funding body. Such non-integrated accountability measures, in effect, require YP⁴ management to artificially separate the integrated work of YP⁴ for reporting purposes and potentially expose YP⁴ to claims of 'double dipping'.

The barriers to joined up practice are multidimensional, significant and difficult to overcome. Whilst YP⁴ has been successful in overcoming some of these barriers, others have proved more rigid and intransigent, despite the best efforts of individuals employed within the various service systems to cooperate in the identification of potential solutions. The process of identifying and overcoming barriers to integrated planning, service delivery and management is an ongoing challenge. The full documentation of barriers, how they have been challenged and how they have been overcome (or not) will be a key feature of the evaluation of YP⁴ and is further explained in the next section of this report.

[ top ]