Submitted by email : desreview@deewr.gov.au

29 January, 2009

Project ManagerDisability Employment Services ReviewDepartment of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations12M12GPO Box 9880CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601

Re: The Future of Disability Employment Services in Australia

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government’s proposals to reform disability employment services – the Disability Employment Network (DEN) and Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VRS).

About the Disability Council of NSW

The Disability Council of NSW was established under the terms of Section 16 of the Community Welfare Act 1987 to advise Government in NSW on issues affecting people with disability and their families. We also give advice to the Australian Government on the effect of policy on people with disability living in NSW.

Council members are appointed by the NSW Governor on the recommendation of the Minister for Disability Services. Members are selected on the basis of their experience of disability and their understanding of issues, their knowledge of service delivery and their ability to reflect and advise on government policy. The majority of Council members are people with disability.

General Observations

Council applauds and welcomes features of the proposed new system for disability employment services that seeks to:

Improve workforce participation and social inclusion for job seekers with disability;

Provide every job seeker with disability with their own Employment Pathway Plan with uncapped services, flexibility, training and work experience to help secure employment;

70% loading for job seekers in remote and regional services; and

Reduce red tape for employment service providers allowing them to spend more time with job seekers with disability.

The recent review identified a need for change with the current system forcing some job seekers with disability to wait for services, which are inflexible for both job seekers and employers and burdened with red tape. Council particularly welcomes the following reforms:

Early intervention;

Proposed Disability Employment Services model;

Incentives for providers to invest in skills development, education and training to encourage sustainable employment;

Employment Assistance Fund which provides flexibility for all;

Remote;

Ongoing support in the workplace; and

Assurance of Government financial outlay.

Council’s submission raises a number of issues for the implementation of these reforms as well as options and recommendations to ensure their success with particular emphasis on the following:

Ongoing Support in the Workplace;

Identification of Clients – transition to work;

Accessibility – information/physical;

Indigenous Australians/CALD/Women;

Domestic Violence for women with Disability;

Impacts of Mental Illness

IT Based Funding Level Assessment Tool;

Program Support;

Assessments;

Outcome Fees;

Transition Issues;

The Procurement Process; and

Other Issues.

The New Model for Disability Employment Services

Strategies Council Highly Commends

Early Intervention

The new model allows for the coordination of early intervention strategies and employment assistance when needed. Council is of the opinion that this is a positive approach for job seekers and minimises stress and potential negative impact upon disability.

The opportunity exists for disability employment providers to form partnerships with schools and health facilities. This allows for the planning for school to work transition of students with disability and people who acquire a disability. This approach avoids thousands of vulnerable people with disability being caught in the wrong program each year and this is applauded.

Proposed Disability Employment Services Model

The model is less complex and Council is pleased that this is to the benefit of job seekers who will have easier access to services and hence greater opportunity to be part of the workforce and socially included.

Eligibility criteria that are consistent with the Disability Services Act 1986 will immediately eliminate discrimination of the past and previous service delivery restrictions.

The future model of employment assistance and post-placement support for people with disabilities should be able to flexibly accommodate the needs of its diverse clients. Within the framework providers should be able to customise the service model and offer a range of employment assistance services and interventions alongside post-placement support where required1.

The way in which the model has been designed to respond to individual circumstances, the labour market and the employers, so that they work in synchronicity, will achieve improvements in disability employment services.

Disability is not homogenous and the availability of specialist services under the new model for particular types of disability will again add to the success of the change.

1 Jobs Australia submission to the National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy (p.5)

The change to uncapped services from 1 March 2010 and linkage to the Employment Pathway Plan and partnerships will contribute to the success of the model.

The elimination of the former discriminatory practice of capped and uncapped services compliment the Disability Discrimination Act and hence allows for equitable access to employment services based on individual need. A system based on the meeting of demand of services is highly commended as this will meet the need of all job seekers.

Council supports the provision of services under two programs based on the level of support needed. Whilst there is provision made for job seekers to move from Programs A and B the assessment must confirm that job seekers will not fall through the gaps.

It is critical that the independent worker have the approval of the job seeker and that a process be established in the event that this relationship does not work out. The independent worker would need to be skilled in the management of the specific disability and its unpredictable nature.

The new model allows service providers to allocate more time and resources to job seekers. The removal of much of the red tape allows this to occur. The result achieved being that job seekers will be employed and hence achieve an improved financial situation.

Incentives for Employers

A system of incentives based on outcomes in favour of the job seeker is positive. This system has the job seeker in mind and provides opportunities for further skills development and education and training particularly prior to placement.

It is important to target disadvantaged job seekers for training because the upgrading of their skills can make a major difference to their lives and future reliance on income support2.

The main outcome is for job seekers to be placed in jobs and that this is sustainable. Any incentive which encourages this in a positive way is supported by Council.

The only suggestion that Council would like to make is to ensure that the job seeker is supported if needed after bonus payments are made.

Employment Assistant Fund

The Employment Assistant Fund replaces a scheme that was not well promoted and when applied involved much red tape and months would pass before workplace modifications were established for example. This meant a

2 ACOSS 2008, Submission to the Dept of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on the Productivity Places Program (p.3).

delay in settling in of new employees into the workplace resulting in low morale and inability to achieve work demands in some cases.

Council commends any system which replaces this and achieves the prompt provision of workplace modifications. For example the new approach will ensure that a job seeker, when placed after completing 18 months of individually tailored assistance, will settle into his/her job placement without delay and avoiding undue and unnecessary stress which may have the potential to exacerbate a medical condition.

Council applauds the lifting of the $5,000 cap on Auslan services. The provision of Auslan services which meets the needs of job seekers will ensure fairer access to employment.

The new model which accommodates employers, employees, job seekers and employment service providers is viewed as a move in the right direction.

Remote

Too often in the past our remote counterparts have been severely disadvantaged. The increase to 70 per cent loading for job seekers in remote areas is commended. However, given that previously this group of job seekers has been severely disadvantaged Council suggests that an assessment is undertaken to ensure that there are sufficient services in place to support the numbers of remote job seekers who have been left out in the past.

A thorough consultation process is needed to identify exactly the resources which are needed bring the skill level of job seekers in remote areas to the equivalent of their metropolitan counterparts.

Ongoing support in the workplace

This provision of flexible ongoing support in the workplace supports the goals of the new model. It demonstrates a clear commitment by government to achieve employment for people with disability which leads to total social inclusion in the workplace with opportunities for skill development and enhancement and career opportunity.

Council appreciates that the needs of some jobs seekers are not predictable. The factoring in of flexible support for these job seekers in the model is fully supported. This ensures that the job seeker will receive the support he/she needs to recover and return to the employment services program as quickly as possible.

The assistance being offered to employers is commendable. Not only does it minimise the impact upon the employers business to deliver services but ensures the retention of a valued employee. The provision for movement between programs A and B and the option for ongoing support after 26 weeks will be attractive for employers. However, there must be no delay in the provision of this support to ensure ongoing continuity in the workplace.

The acknowledgment that some employees may require intensive ongoing support is critical. Whilst there may be few which require high level support in the workplace the establishment of systems which ensure their success is a credit to the new model.

In addition Council supports the new referral and assessment process as it now accommodates the needs of people presenting with mental health issues and at times unpredictable needs. This is a much fairer and equitable system allowing for all job seekers access to a referral and assessment process.

Assurance of Government outlays

Council appreciates that the changes to disability employment services brings with it an enormous government financial commitment. However, the benefits which will be gained for job seekers with a disability will demonstrate its merit.

Council’s Concerns and Recommendations

Ongoing support in the workplace

The new model has provision for 10 hours on going support per month in the form of face to face or weekly on the job contact for job seekers receiving high level on going support. Council believes 2.5 hours per week is inadequate.

Identification of Clients – transition to work

The paper did not articulate how the Employment Services Providers will be seeking out school leavers who will be potential service users who have a high level of support needs. It needs to be more explicit as to how they will identify these service users but also how they will support them through sustaining and maintaining a job.

Accessibility – information/physical

There were too many abbreviations used in the document. Provision of accessible information will ensure it is more easily understood by all people. Some abbreviations are long and hard to recall what they mean.

The document was written in an inaccessible way. The focus issues did not flow or make sense. Additionally, the assumed knowledge pertaining to the Star System should have been referenced in the document as it was difficult to follow otherwise.

Council has concerns with regard to the 18 – 24 month support period with an independent auditor assessing whether or not a service user is eligible for additional services. Our Council would like to ensure that the assessing process involves reviewing of case notes as well as interview/s with the job seeker as well as the service provider. We believe that the auditor should have as much information possible in order to make an informed decision.

Council suggests that guidelines be developed and training provided on how to determine when a service user is or is not eligible for an additional 6 months of services. This should also include information in relation to the appeal process for job seekers who have been denied an additional 6 months job seeking assistance. The Disability Council of NSW is aware of accessibility issues pertaining to the E5400 (a database that is used by Employment Service Providers to enter in service user details). The E5400 is not accessible for synthetic speech screen readers and has subsequently led to a number of jobs losses for the unfortunate and avoidable.

Indigenous Australians/CALD/Women

Council suggests that the Indigenous Australians and remote servicing component contains minimal detail and does not include strategies to deal with this difficult issue. Council would also suggest that the needs of the CALD communities and women should be clearly identified and addressed.

Domestic violence for women with disability

Social barriers which impact upon the workplace such as domestic violence and mental illness are among those least likely to be disclosed. These barriers must be taken into consideration due to their well known corrosive effects on self confidence and health, along with the added pressures of legal action, changing residential address and the heightened needs of children for care and support.

Impacts of Mental Illness

The new model must also include in its planning process that an estimated 35% of unemployed people on income support and 45% of sole parents on income support suffer from anxiety or depression3.

IT Based Funding Level Assessment Tool

To determine DPI/DMI the assessor may need;

The JCA needs all the information about the persons support needs; Access to Centrelink files and relevant reports; View person’s resume; and Assess previous schooling/education/work history.

Council is of the opinion that it is essential the proposed assessment tool recognises and acknowledges needs/requirements explicit to the type of disability. This is not to assume that a disability type is homogenous and that each and every service user seeking employment is experiencing the exact same requirements/needs.

3 ACOSS 2005, Facts About Single Parents and Welfare; Butterworth 2007, op cit.

Our Council is of the view that the existing tools (DPI/DMI) are very much superficial, scratching only the surface of specific service user needs. For example, the existing tools focus on how to become work ready, searching for work, finding a job placement and finally sustaining employment. However, the tools do not address that some service users seeking employment may have dual/multiple disabilities, requiring assistance on how to:

Advocate for reasonable modifications and adjustments in the workplace;

Training in assistive technology skills; Orientation and mobility skills; Assistance in understanding the Disability Discrimination Act; and Assistance on how to disclose disability.

Council is seeking further clarification in relation to what constitutes ‘most disadvantaged’. We are intrigued on how an employment services provider will determine who and why a service user is more disadvantaged than the other. Our Council is concerned that without clarification and a clear, transparent policy, this practice could potentially be discriminating against certain disability types.

Program Support

Council believes that jobseekers should be in contact about once every ten days with the option of either phoning in or emailing their employment consultant.

Council strongly recommends that the current significance on face to face contact be assessed and determined on a case by case basis. For example people who are blind or have low vision as well as people with some forms of mental illness prefer phone and email rather than face to face meetings.

In addition, the issue of the exiting of independent workers after 26 weeks requires clear documentation regarding what an “achievement is” prior to exiting. Whilst flexible ongoing support can occur between Programs A and B the job seeker must have the information explained clearly. The job seeker must be advised how to obtain ongoing support if this needed and understand that movement can occur between programs A and B after assessment.

Assessments

Assessments should be on a two tiered system and include a face to face assessment and written form to be posted in within two weeks – this approach will avoid a “good day” assessment.

Council also believes that the development of an assessment tool must be done in consultation with all stakeholders.

Council has some reservations to an assessment being conducted by an unknown individual to the service user. Our opinion is that it is difficult to ascertain in a single meeting the needs and requirements specific to the

service user and their disability type. We therefore strongly propose that if such an assessment were to be introduced and implemented, it should be undertaken over a period of time with a skilled and experienced assessor with qualifications relevant to the specific disability type.

Introduction of independent assessment at 52 weeks from job placement should also be made clear during a discussion with the job seeker to determine continued need for services.

Outcome Fees

Job placement fees should be paid as long as the various protocols which complement this new model have been applied correctly. It is necessary that corruption prevention strategies are established within the accountability framework to avoid corruption e.g. the deliberate over claiming of job placement fees.

Transition Issues

Council believes that service users should not have to change employment service providers as a consequence of the new funding model. Council therefore would like to propose that where transition is necessary, service users should have the option regarding which provider they transition to. A sufficient handover period should be introduced and practiced between providers so to ensure that job seekers do not have to start from the very beginning.

We advise that the service user be assisted and supported in learning orientation and mobility to and from their new employment provider. This is particularly important for people with an intellectual disability and people who are blind or have low vision.

The Procurement Process

The tender process must call for organisations that are able to demonstrate they can deliver services in terms of the new model. This includes the capacity to adequately resource all support that a job seeker may require with qualified staff. Potential service providers must demonstrate the capacity to develop staff and keep abreast of changes in the disability sector which may impact upon the way they deliver services.

In terms of ensuring success of the new contract, clear performance criteria needs to be established which confirm success of delivery of the services under the new model. Contracts should be reviewed annually and meetings held to review performance criteria. Corrective strategies should be put in place in consultation with the contractor.

Data collected from transparent decision making processes should also inform the contract review process.

In relation to service providers who do not tender or win a new contract confirmation must be made that the provider has the capacity to provide services under the new model.

Other Issues

Council would also like to recommend the following;

Job seeker with disability should have access to an independent feedback and review of their service provider. To be posted/filled out online/handed in at an independent area – not the service provider;

Council is of the view that Employment Services Providers need to be trained frequently with regard to workplace trends as well as assistive technology;

Council commends the quality assurance framework informed by the Disability Service Standards. The ongoing commitment to DEN’s Quality assurance System to audit and independently assess service organisations in line with the new Model is supported. However, service organisations should be well supported to ensure that audit trails are established which are in line with new service provisions. This will avoid any inadvertent accidental failure; and

Lastly, Council would like to ensure clear performance indicators are established to measure there performance as per contract arrangements.

Conclusion

The new Disability Employment Services model is distinctly more sensitive, flexible and collaborative than the current system. It seeks to better integrate the interests of employers and job seekers with a greater emphasis on training and reduced administrative inconvenience. Overall Council applauds the responsiveness and fresh approach of the new Disability Employment Services model.

Should you require any further information please contact Ms Angela Hardman, Senior Policy Officer on 9211 2264.

Yours sincerely

Andrew BuchananChairDisability Council of NSW