The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) would like to thank all applicants for being part of the selection process for the delivery of the Personal Helpers and Mentors (PHaMS) Round Two Sites. From the information provided in the applications it is obvious that many community organisations provide a broad range of valuable, flexible and effective services to people with a mental illness.
FaHCSIA had a strong response to its call for applications, and applications were received in 48 of the advertised 49 sites nominated by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) State and Territory Mental Health Groups. A number of organisations submitted applications for more than one site. All 48 sites in which applications were received have been funded from this selection process.
This debrief summary is to provide general feedback to applicants regarding the characteristics of strong and weak applications.
Application Process
The application period was from 5 May 2007 to 1 June 2007. Assessments were conducted over a four week period from Monday 18 June 2007 to Friday 13 July 2007.
The Assessment Centre consisted of 50 staff whose tasks included:
- Eligibility and Compliance checks,
- Assessment teams- two people in each who assessed selection criteria 1-14,
- Quality Assurance where checks were completed on 68 per cent of the total number of applications, including all multiple applications from the same organisation,
- Data Entry, and
- Financial Viability. The process was overseen by an independent probity adviser.
A total of 320 applications were received covering 48 of the 49 COAG nominated sites. Two applications were duplicates and were withdrawn. All remaining 318 applications were deemed eligible and were assessed against the selection criteria identified in the Application Form.
Structure of this Debrief Summary
Feedback in this debrief summary is structured around the Personal Helpers and Mentors selection criteria which were identified in Part 2-Addressing Selection Criteria 1-14 and Part 3-Addressing Selection Criterion 15 of the Application Form.
This debrief summary is provided as generalised feedback against the selection criteria and is not a definitive statement about individual applications or the whole assessment process.
Assessment Observation
The majority of applications received ranged from satisfactory to very good. A few applications were excellent and another few provided a lower level of detail and demonstrated experience.
The applications that rated very well were those that supported their claims with strong evidence and detail that demonstrated the capacity of the organisation to deliver PHaMs. These organisations demonstrated existing service delivery skills in a variety of areas and demonstrated a strengths-based, recovery approach to supporting people aged 16 and over who have a severe functional limitation resulting from a severe mental illness. These organisations also demonstrated the capacity to deliver PHaMs efficiently and effectively with minimal risk.
Selection Criteria
About your Organisation
- Describe how your experience in delivering programs and services to people with mental illness will benefit Personal Helpers and Mentors.(maximum of 2 pages)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information on programs and services they deliver that support people with mental illness and were able to demonstrate an outreach service delivery approach,
- quantifiable outcomes that they have achieved for people with mental illness, and
- information and examples that linked their experience, and outcomes they have achieved, to the stated objectives and outcomes of PHaMs.
Lower rating applicants provided limited information on, or demonstrated little or no experience in delivering, programs and services that support people with mental illness and overall, did not demonstrate the capacity to be able to deliver PHaMs.
- How does your organisation demonstrate its application of Personal Helpers and Mentors values in its delivery of services (please use examples or case studies)?(maximum of 2 pages)
The Personal Helpers and Mentors values are: respect and compassion; empowerment; strong relationships and trust; commitment; flexibility; collaboration; and involvement.
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information and examples that demonstrated that PHaMs values are already fully integrated and/or fully consistent with their identified organisational values, policies and/or procedures,
- detailed information on how they would deliver PHaMs according to the program and their organisational values and the broader objectives and outcomes for the program, and
- information on how their operations support the broader PHaMs policy and service framework. Organisations that were able to demonstrate a recovery focused, strengths-based, community-based service delivery approach with examples and case studies scored high in this criterion.
Lower rating applicants provided limited information and examples on how they would be able to apply PHaMs values in their service delivery approach. This may have been the result of a limited understanding of PHaMs values and how they may be integrated into their service delivery. For example, some service delivery Mission Statements did not show a focus on mental health issues nor did they correlate with PHaMs. Applicants would often state their understanding and commitment to PHaMs but then did not provide supporting evidence to substantiate their claims.
Your Proposed Delivery Model
- What is the proposed team structure that you will use to deliver Personal Helpers and Mentors? Describe the roles of different workers within this structure and how the team would fit within the overall organisation. (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed, relevant and substantiated information on their proposed team structure that is flexible, individually tailored to participants and outcomes focused, to reflect the PHaMs service delivery approach,
- strategies for establishing and supporting the team including, recruitment approaches, and governance and human resources arrangements, and
- strong links to how the team will deliver outcomes for PHaMs participants in line with PHaMs objectives.
Lower rating applicants provided limited information on proposed team structure, or a structure that would not reflect PHaMs objectives and outcomes.
All applications could have been enhanced with more specific detail about how the team fits within the organisation and the frameworks in place to support their staff.
- What organisational supports will be available to the team? (eg. volunteer policies, Human Resource policies)
(NOTE: do not submit supporting information) (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants were convincing about how they would manage, support and develop staff and had the policies, structures and procedures in place to do so effectively. They provided:
- detailed information on a wide range of organisational supports that could support the PHaMs team, including information on their governance arrangements, financial, human resources, quality and risk management frameworks, supervisory procedures, training and development approaches, support for volunteers and peer support workers, and their reporting processes,
- links as to how the organisational supports will specifically support the delivery of PHaMs such as debriefing and counselling support to support PHaMs staff well-being, and
- evidence and examples that demonstrated that they are well placed to fully deliver PHaMs according to PHaMs values and achieve outcomes for participants.
Lower rating applicants either provided very limited information on organisational supports, or the information included in the application suggested that the organisational supports were minimal and would not support the PHaMs.
All applications could have enhanced links between the delivery of PHaMs with evidence of an integrated approach to service delivery that recognises the relationship between appropriate internal processes and supports in their organisation, and achieving outcomes for PHaMs participants. For example, how investment in the personal development of their staff would ensure high levels of morale that may result in motivated PHaMs team members that have a positive affect on participants.
- Describe how you currently deliver services to the site and any changes you will need to make to deliver Personal Helpers and Mentors. If you do not currently deliver services to the nominated site, describe how you will establish yourself and deliver Personal Helpers and Mentors services to the site. (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants who already deliver services to the site provided:
- detailed information and examples on services they currently deliver in the site and on their service delivery approach. They also made strong links between their current experience in the site and the proposed delivery of PHaMs,
- a proposed approach for delivering PHaMs that demonstrated a strong understanding of PHaMs values, objectives and outcomes,
- details about any changes required to support the delivery of PHaMs and how these changes would be absorbed by the organisation, and
- details of a service delivery approach that reflects PHaMs values, objectives and outcomes.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information about the services they currently deliver in the site or information to suggest that extensive changes to service delivery would be required that could compromise PHaMs delivery.
All applications could have been enhanced with more specific detail about site demographics, and discussion, with some detail, about outcomes already achieved in the site and how these outcomes would support PHaMs.
The top rating applicants that do not currently deliver service to the site provided:
- well-detailed and timely strategies to establish in the site, including risks and controls, that demonstrate strong understanding of PHaMs objectives and outcomes,
- information that demonstrated their recognition of the impact of being a new provider in the site and the impact of this on PHaMs service delivery,
- appropriate interim strategies for how service delivery will be managed in the establishment phase,
- details of the proposed service delivery approach that reflects PHaMs values, objectives and outcomes, and
- detail that the organisation has capacity and strategies in place to facilitate smooth and timely establishment in the site with evidence of a well thought through integrated delivery model.
The lower rating applicants that did not deliver services in the site provided limited information on strategies to establish in the site or proposed an approach that would not support the PHaMs.
Working with Participants
- Describe how you will involve participants, families, carers and friends in the design and delivery of Personal Helpers and Mentors. Please use examples or case studies. (maximum of 2 pages)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information and examples that demonstrated their capacity to involve participants, families, carers and friends in the design and delivery of PHaMs, including:
- identifying existing organisational policies and procedures that reflect this approach,
- the development of Individual Recovery Plans,
- feedback opportunities, and
- evaluation reports.
- a demonstrated understanding of the significance of engaging program participants and families and carers, that could be adapted to PHaMs to ensure improved well-being and positive outcomes for PHaMs participants.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information and examples on how participants, families, carers and friends would be involved in the design and delivery of PHaMs and/or provided an approach that would not support the PHaMs such as limited consultation and no existing organisational policies.
- How will you deliver the Personal Helpers and Mentors in a culturally appropriate way to Indigenous Australians?(maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information and experience in culturally appropriate service delivery for Indigenous Australians, and
- detailed information, and therefore had knowledge, on Indigenous mental health and service delivery issues in the site.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information on, and demonstrated limited experience in, culturally appropriate service delivery approaches for Indigenous Australians. Approaches including the use of cultural consultants, communication techniques and the use of Indigenous workers would have enhanced the weaker applications.
All applications could have been enhanced with the provision of quantifiable outcomes achieved for Indigenous people with mental illness and information on cultural perceptions of mental illness including:
- grief and trauma (related to loss of land, culture etc),
- traditional treatment combined with mainstream, and
- holistic support that considers social, emotional and spiritual well-being.
This additional information would have supported all applicants’ claims that they have the capacity to achieve outcomes for Indigenous people through the PHaMs.
- How will you deliver Personal Helpers and Mentors in a culturally appropriate way to participants from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds? (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants clearly described their experience in providing outreach service delivery with culturally competent approaches for clients from diverse cultural and linguistic (CALD) backgrounds, including in rural and remote areas (where applicants applied for funding for non-metropolitan sites). They also demonstrated good experience in implementing culturally specific policies, procedures and partnerships to improve outcomes for CALD people with a mental illness.
Overall, the top rating applicants provided:
- detailed information and evident experience in culturally appropriate service delivery for people from CALD backgrounds,
- information on CALD mental health issues in the site, and
- some information on stressors that can affect CALD mental health, including:
- flight, trauma, racism, discrimination, and
- isolation / communication difficulties.
Lower rating applications generally provided a generic response that did not demonstrate their experience in providing culturally competent community-based services to people with a mental illness or the information provided did not support the PHaMs.
All applications could have been enhanced with the provision of quantifiable outcomes achieved for people from CALD backgrounds with mental illness and more information on stressors that can affect CALD mental health, including for example, loss of status and self-esteem.
- How will you help participants to access other services that they need and continue to support them while they access those services?(maximum of 2 pages)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed information with examples of how their organisation links to other services through referral processes as well as provides on-going support to participants who may be accessing other services, and
- strong links to PHaMs with an:
- understanding of the need for flexible, tailored approaches for PHaMs participants,
- understanding of the need to create opportunities for recovery through broader community-based support, and
- understanding of the role of PHaMs as a long-term commitment using local support and service networks.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information on, and may have demonstrated limited experience in, linking participants to other services through referral processes and providing on-going support and so would not be able to support PHaMs.
Local Knowledge and Linkages
- Identify any local issues you are aware of in the nominated site and describe how you will address these in delivering Personal Helpers and Mentors? (maximum of 2 pages)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information on local issues in the site and identified strategies to address the impact of the issues identified on PHaMs service delivery,
- information on the size and coverage of the site and the issues this presents for PHaMs service delivery, with strategies to address these issues, and
- information about how the PHaMs service delivery approach would be tailored to, and responsive to, local community needs rather than a generic service approach that is put into the community.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information on local issues in the site and impact on PHaMs service delivery with little consideration for local community needs.
All applications could have been enhanced with the proposal of a service delivery approach for PHaMs that fully reflects and supports local community needs.
- Are there any special needs groups that you are aware of in the nominated site? If so, please describe how you will tailor services to meet the needs of participants from these groups. (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- some information on special needs groups with mental illness in the site,
- information and examples that linked the applicant's experience, and outcomes the applicant has achieved, to the stated objectives and outcomes of PHaMs, and
- evidence to demonstrate that a PHaMs service delivery approach would support any special needs groups and would achieve outcomes for these groups.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information on special needs groups with mental illness in the site and how services would be tailored to support these groups.
All applications would have been enhanced with details of quantifiable outcomes achieved for special needs groups with mental illness, as well as information on appropriate strategies to support the special needs groups identified in the site through PHaMs.
-
What clinical mental health services are available in the nominated site? How have you established, or will you establish collaborative working relationships with these services? (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- evidence of links within the site with clinical health services that will support PHaMs, such as, as part of the Individual Recovery Plan, including examples of partnerships with other services with which they have a cross referral relationships as well as illustrating how they actively engage in these partnerships,
- evidence of well-developed referral procedures, with a strong focus on consumer participation and timeframes, and details on how these processes and strategies would be used in the PHaMs, and
- detailed information on the significance of a collaborative approach for PHaMs and demonstrated experience in working collaboratively with other providers.
To indicate a service delivery approach that is holistic and integrated to achieve outcomes for PHaMs participants, applicants could have enhanced their applications with information that:
- identified any gaps in clinical service delivery in the site and the impact of this on PHaMs service delivery, and
- demonstrated the recognition of the importance of clinical support in combination with non-clinical community support for PHaMs participants.
Lower rating applicants did not demonstrate strong links or connections to clinical health services. Some applicants did not address or identify how they would work cooperatively and collaboratively with these services and limited information was provided on the applicant's referral processes. In some cases, referral procedures had not yet been developed. Further, although some applications listed other services in the site, they did not explain how they would work with these other services.
- What other non-clinical community services are available in the nominated site (that may support Personal Helpers and Mentors participants) and how have you established, or will you establish, collaborative working relationships with these services? (maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- detailed and substantiated information on non-clinical community services in the site and made links with PHaMs including how access for their clients to other non-clinical community services could form part of Individual Recovery Plan and how other community services could refer a person to PHaMs for support, and
- information on the significance of a collaborative approach for the PHaMs that demonstrated experience in working collaboratively with other providers.
To indicate a service delivery approach that is holistic and integrated to achieve outcomes for PHaMs participants, applicants could have enhanced their applications with information that:
- identified any gaps in non-clinical community service delivery in the site and the impact of this on PHaMs service delivery, and
- demonstrated the recognition of the importance of clinical support in combination with non-clinical community support for PHaMs participants.
The lower rating applicants provided limited information on other non-clinical community services in the site and did not demonstrate collaborative approaches with these services.
- How do you plan to make other relevant service providers aware that you are providing Personal Helpers and Mentors services?
(maximum of 1 page)
The top rating applicants provided:
- information on communication strategies for PHaMs that included promoting what the service is expected to achieve as well as promoting the organisation delivering PHaMs,
- some information on the target groups and methods of communication and why particular communication strategies will be used, and
- some understanding of FaHCSIA communication requirements including badging and distribution of the promotional material.
The lower rating applicants could have enhanced their application with a demonstrated understanding of the importance of balancing publicity about PHaMs with creating expectations in the community about what and how PHaMs will deliver services to the community.
- Financial Viability
This criterion sought to determine whether applicants had the necessary financial capacity to deliver the PHaMs.
Financial viability assessments were conducted by an independent auditor. Applications were to be assessed as posing a low risk to the Australian Government before they advanced in the selection process. Risk levels ranged from low, to medium, to high.
Organisations that rated a low financial risk provided information that demonstrated they had a sound net asset position, adequate liquidity, limited debt and strong financial management.
Organisations that rated a medium to high financial risk where those with significant debt, increasing levels of debt or for whom PHaMs funding would constitute the majority of their funding.