discussion document of community s… · contractual mechanisms to achieve a more individualised...
TRANSCRIPT
- DISCUSSION DOCUMENT -
REVIEW OF COMMUNITY SECTOR
SERVICES EXPENDITURE
FOR
DEPARTMENT FOR CHILD PROTECTION AND FAMILY SUPPORT
Terry Simpson November 2015
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 1
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2
Collaborative Service Planning ............................................................................................................ 2
Outcomes for Aboriginal children and families .................................................................................. 4
Individualised services ........................................................................................................................ 4
Opportunities to Improve Contract Management Processes ............................................................. 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Policy Context ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of this report ....................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2. Overview of Current Community Services Expenditure ............................................................... 11
Core Departmental Functions and Priorities .................................................................................... 11
Funding Overview ............................................................................................................................. 11
Outcome - Families and individuals are assisted to overcome their risks and crises, are kept safe
and are diverted from the child protection system. ......................................................................... 19
Outcome - Children and young people needing protection are safe from abuse and harm. .......... 20
Outcome - Children and young people in the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO’s) care receive a high
quality of care and have much improved life chances ..................................................................... 20
3. Opportunities for More Effective Expenditure ............................................................................. 23
Collaborative Service Planning .......................................................................................................... 23
Service Standards .............................................................................................................................. 26
Outcomes for Aboriginal children and families ................................................................................ 26
Individualised services ...................................................................................................................... 27
4. Opportunities to Improve Contract Management Processes ....................................................... 29
5. Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................... 30
Key Implementation Tasks ................................................................................................................ 30
Five-Year Contracting Schedule ........................................................................................................ 31
Attachment A – Service Groups ............................................................................................................ 33
Attachment B – Aboriginal Service Usage............................................................................................. 35
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 2
Executive Summary This report outlines the results of this preliminary review of community sector services expenditure,
including:
An overview of the Department’s current community services expenditure against core child
protection functions and principles of service effectiveness, service efficiency, contemporary
service design and delivery and service target groups
Proposed opportunities for more effective expenditure on services consistent with the
Department’s primary priorities of promoting the safety and wellbeing of at risk children and
families with the aim of preventing them coming into care and supporting children and
young people in care
Proposed opportunities to improve contract management processes
A plan to implement the proposed changes.
The report will now form the basis of a full consultation with community sector organisations,
service user representatives and other key stakeholders, to inform future decisions regarding the
better alignment of community sector services expenditure with the core functions of the
Department and delivering against key priorities and community need.
Chapters 3 and 4 of the report identify several opportunities for more effective expenditure and to
improve contract management processes, and seek specific feedback on these proposals through 8
consultation questions. These are summarised below.
Collaborative Service Planning The Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy (DCSPP) requires the Department to enter
into a collaborative service planning process with communities, service providers and service users
(i.e. key stakeholders) comprising the following key steps as outlined in the policy:
Clearly define the community outcome (i.e. who are the population we are targeting and
what changes do we wish to see in their lives?)
Undertake a needs analysis in collaboration with key stakeholders
In partnership with key stakeholders, develop a strategic response strategy that incorporates
room for flexibility of service design and the ability to tailor service response to the unique
needs of individuals and families
Implement contracting arrangements that will give effect to the strategic response strategy.
It is proposed that this process should take place prior to the formation of new contracts and in the
lead up to renewal consideration of all existing contracts. In doing so, the Department will be better
able to ensure that the community sector investment is best directed at achieving priority outcomes
and that the service response strategies employed are responsive to community and service user
needs and reflect contemporary service approaches.
To effectively achieve the aims of the DCSPP, the current 46 narrowly defined service groups need to
be amalgamated to form a much smaller number of strategic service outcome clusters where the
focus is on achieving a similar broad outcome for a defined population group. Otherwise, continuing
to operate within the current narrow service silos will almost certainly result in maintenance of the
status quo of narrow, inflexible service responses.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 3
Consultation Question 1
What would be the set of strategic service outcome clusters that provide best fit for a focussed
approach to achieving desired outcomes for identified service populations and allowing for flexibility
of service responses?
Currently, with 46 service groups, contract renewal dates are distributed throughout the five-year
renewal cycle such as to produce as even a spread of contractual activity as possible. This is sensible
in terms of workload planning.
A problem is that however the new service outcome clusters are defined, it is likely that the service
contracts within those clusters will have varying renewal dates spread over a five year period. This
poses an inherent problem. In order to provide maximum flexibility in the use of resources to
achieve a strategic outcome, it is preferable that all of those resources are on the table for
consideration together. To achieve this will require the scheduling of contract end dates so that the
contracts in each service outcome cluster come up for consideration together.
Consultation Question 2
a) What are some of the challenges to the scheduling of contract renewals according to new service
outcome clusters and how can these best be addressed?
b) Which service outcome clusters should be given earliest attention in the context of the need for
better alignment with current strategic priorities?
The collaborative service planning process outlined above cannot be done effectively without being
properly resourced. Allocating responsibility for the process and clearly defining roles of relevant
directorates within the Department will also be important.
Consultation Question 3
What will be the appropriate roles and responsibilities within the Department for the collaborative
planning process and what are the resource implications and how might these be met?
There is an inconsistent approach to the issue of service standards between program areas. Quite
naturally, service standards and their oversight are most highly developed in the area of Out of
Home Care, given the CEO’s responsibility as legal guardian of the children involved. The reasons
why service standards exist in some other areas and not others is unclear, though some are clearly
tied to Commonwealth/State funding agreements. This poses the question of whether service
standards should be developed for each of the service outcome clusters, against which service
quality may be assessed.
Consultation Question 4
Should service standards be developed for each service outcome cluster in order to allow
assessment of service quality?
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 4
Outcomes for Aboriginal children and families Improving outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities is one of the key reform
strategies underway in the Department and it is expected that this project will produce the major
blueprint for achieving better outcomes in this area.
Considering that Aboriginal children represent 52% of all children in care, there is a strong case for
strengthening the contractual requirements for services to engage with and provide culturally
appropriate services to Aboriginal children, families and individuals, and to report accordingly.
As outlined in this report, there is a substantial gap between the percentage of children in care who
are Aboriginal and the proportion of services aimed to prevent children coming into care or to
support their reunification with their families, that are accessed by Aboriginal children and families.
With regard to these services, there may be value in setting contractual targets for the proportion of
services to be accessed by Aboriginal children and families, as well as inviting strategies to achieve
these targets in the qualitative criteria of request documents.
In addition, the challenge of building the capacity of Aboriginal controlled organisations to play a
role in the future delivery of child protection and family support services is one that will require
considerable support from both the Department and currently funded community sector
organisations. This is an important agenda and for that capacity to be realised in the foreseeable
future will require that priority be given to the development and implementation of a clear strategy
to achieve this.
Consultation Question 5
a) What strategies, including contractual provisions, are required to ensure that the investment in
community sector services is appropriately and effectively directed towards delivering better
outcomes for Aboriginal children and families?
b) How can the Department and community sector organisations best support the development of a
sustainable capacity to provide child protection and family support services by Aboriginal controlled
organisations in Western Australia?
Individualised services There was considerable feedback in the consultations leading to this report to the effect that the
narrow and inflexible service specifications of current contracted services result in a situation where
the needs of the individual or family have to fit the service, rather than the other way round.
Comment included a need to put the child/family “at the centre” and to allow service users more say
about the services they receive.
Contractual mechanisms to achieve a more individualised approach can range from broad outcome
based contracts that allow sufficient flexibility around service models to be responsive to individual
needs and wishes, through to individualised funding, as in the Disability Sector, where the funds
follow the client who has choice of service provider.
Another important issue is how to engage service users in the planning and design of services. The
Department currently gains input from service users through surveys and through funded advocacy
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 5
organisations. To effectively engage service users in the collaborative service planning proposed
earlier is likely to involve additional strategies, particularly at the local level.
Consultation Question 6
What additional strategies are required to ascertain the views and wishes of service users and to
achieve a more individualised approach to service delivery?
Opportunities to Improve Contract Management Processes This review suggests a range of initiatives that will impact on contract formation and management
and hopefully result in increased service effectiveness. They include:
A collaborative service planning front end to contract formation which will give much fuller
effect to the philosophy underpinning the Government’s Delivering Community Services in
Partnership Policy
A significant reduction in the number of service groups that should translate into a similar
reduction in the number of contracts each organisation has with the Department
An outcomes based approach to contract development that allows greater flexibility in
relation to service models and approaches
Consideration of the development of specific service standards for each service outcome
cluster
Consideration of provisions to strengthen the contractual requirements for services to
engage with and provide culturally appropriate services to Aboriginal children, families and
individuals, and to report accordingly
Contractual models that result in a more individualised approach to service design and
delivery and take greater account of service user views.
Consultation Question 7
Are there additional improvements that can and should be made to Departmental contract
management processes?
In addition to these specific proposals, metropolitan District Directors report a reduced ability to
engage with service contracting issues since management of service contracts in the metropolitan
area was centralised in head office. They would prefer a return to the location of contract
management in metropolitan districts.
This would certainly fit with a philosophy of more localised planning and decision making, however
the implications of such a move have not been fully canvassed by this review to date.
Consultation Question 8
What are the advantages and disadvantages and other practical considerations in relation to locating
contract management responsibility in metropolitan district offices?
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 6
1. Introduction
Background The Department for Child Protection and Family Support (the Department) is in a phase where it is
realigning priorities to meet both a changing financial landscape and service needs. To effectively
deliver in this changed environment the Department is undertaking a structural review and
realignment that will position the Department to achieve its priorities.
A further critical component of realigning priorities and services is reviewing the Department’s
expenditure in the community services sector to establish:
Service effectiveness –the money invested in the various services is providing the desired
outcomes in alignment with organisational priorities and need;
Service efficiency –the services are provided in the most efficient way providing the
organisation with value for money;
Contemporary service design and delivery – the services being purchased are delivered in
accordance with contemporary research, methods of best practice and programmatic
design.
Service target groups – services being purchased should first and foremost support the core
business of child protection; which includes meeting the need for out of home care,
addressing family and domestic violence and addressing the complex needs of at risk
Aboriginal Families and children.
The brief for this project required that the consultant:
Review existing contracts and services to provide an overview of the Department’s current
community services expenditure against core child protection functions;
Review a cross section of contracts currently purchased by the Department through the
community services sector to assess how these meet the principles of service effectiveness,
service efficiency, contemporary service design and delivery and service target groups;
Identify opportunities to deliver more effective expenditure on services purchased from the
community sector so that they are aligned with the Department’s primary priorities of
promoting the safety and wellbeing of at risk children and families with the aim of
preventing them coming into care and supporting children and young people in care.
Provide advice on how the current contract management processes can be strengthened to
be more effective in supporting the strategic directions of the Department;
Undertake consultation with internal stakeholders to inform the review;
Identify opportunities for consultation with key external stakeholders, and undertake
consultation as agreed with the Department, including Community Sector Roundtable (CSR),
Children Youth and Families Agencies Association (CYFAA), The Alliance for Children At Risk
(Alliance)
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 7
The project commenced on 3 August 2015. It was preceded and informed by the work of the
Community Sector Investment working Group that reported in July 2015.1
Policy Context The overriding policy context for the contracting of services with the community sector by Western
Australian Government agencies is the Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy2
(DCSPP). The Overview of the DSCPP document contains the following policy statement:
To improve outcomes for all Western Australians through a genuine partnership between
Public Authorities and the not‐for‐profit community sector in the funding and contracting of
sustainable Community Services in Western Australia.
The Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy (the Policy) will facilitate this by:
promoting flexibility, innovation and community responsiveness in the funding or
contracting of services by Public Authorities, to better meet community needs;
encouraging a more productive working relationship between Public Authorities
and the not-for profit community sector based on trust, collaboration,
accountability and effective and sustainable service delivery;
clarifying when services are to be put out to open tender and when a more targeted
non‐market based approach is more appropriate;
reducing “red tape”, complexities and inconsistencies, and standardising
terminology to clarify the dialogue between the parties; and
requiring that Public Authorities remain aware of Government’s core desire to
contract with the not‐for‐profit community sector in a manner that supports
sustainable service delivery and recognises the importance of ongoing
organisational viability. 3
A flow‐chart illustrating the range of funding and contracting options available under
the Policy is contained on the following page. The Policy provides for:
a) clear processes for the provision of funding that maintain transparency and
accountability, but do not necessarily involve open market tendering;
b) contracting arrangements that are set within a framework that is consistent across
Public Authorities and provide for:
(i) greater community sector involvement in the planning and evaluation of services;
(ii) standardised access for new providers and the potential for Preferred Service
Provider recognition of existing providers in certain circumstances;
(iii) standardised contract templates and conditions to be used by all Public
Authorities; and
1 Community Sector Investment (Community Sector Investment Priorities and Investment Principles),
Department for Child Protection and Family Support, 21 July 2015. 2 Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy, Government of Western Australia, July 2011.
3 DCSPP, p.2
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 8
(iv) sustainable service delivery and recognition of the importance of ongoing
organisational viability.
c) using the open tender process.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 9
4
4 DCSPP, pp. 3-4
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 10
This flow chart describes the policy endorsed process for engaging with the community sector and
other stakeholders, including service users, in the planning of and contracting for community
services.
Purpose of this report This report outlines the results of this preliminary review of community sector services expenditure,
including:
An overview of the Department’s current community services expenditure against core child
protection functions and principles of service effectiveness, service efficiency, contemporary
service design and delivery and service target groups
Proposed opportunities for more effective expenditure on services consistent with the
Department’s primary priorities of promoting the safety and wellbeing of at risk children and
families with the aim of preventing them coming into care and supporting children and
young people in care
Proposed opportunities to improve contract management processes
A plan to implement the proposed changes.
The report will now form the basis of a full consultation with community sector organisations,
service user representatives and other key stakeholders, to inform future decisions regarding the
better alignment of community sector services expenditure with the core functions of the
Department and delivering against key priorities and community need.
As outlined further in the report, this next stage of consultation is intended as a first step in a
collaborative approach to identifying agreed strategic responses to identified community needs,
which will form the basis of future service contracting consistent with the requirements of the
Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy.
Methodology The methodology employed in the development of this report included the following:
A desktop overview of expenditure focussed on alignment with agency level outcomes and current strategic priorities – comprised review of relevant documents and interviews with staff from Service Standards and Contracting
Consultation with key internal and external stakeholders including both head office Departmental staff and District Directors, members of the Community Sector Round Table, Children Youth and Families Agencies Association, The Alliance for Children At Risk and the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
A detailed review of a cross section of 14 contracts distributed over the Department’s three agency level outcome areas.
Analysis and report development.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 11
2. Overview of Current Community Services Expenditure
Core Departmental Functions and Priorities The Department’s legislative mandate derives from three Acts of Parliament which it administers,
the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the Adoption Act 1994, and the Working with
Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. The bulk of the Department’s core activities relate to
the first of these, the Children and Community Services Act.
Funds are appropriated to the Department through the State Budget to achieve the following
outcomes:
1. Families and individuals are assisted to overcome their risks and crises, are kept safe and are
diverted from the child protection system.
2. Children and young people needing protection are safe from abuse and harm.
3. Children and young people in the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO’s) care receive a high quality
of care and have much improved life chances.
Consequentially, all service contracts with the community sector are grouped under one of these
three outcome statements, and hence the funds appropriated are intended to be directed towards
the achievement of the relevant outcome. The same applies to all expenditure incurred within the
Department itself.
The Department’s Corporate Executive has defined the Department’s current strategic priorities as:
To focus our work on children and families most at risk
Providing an out of home care system that is responsive, nurturing and provides permanent
homes that effectively meet the needs of children requiring out of home care
Reduce demand for child protection services by providing targeted support services
designed to divert appropriate cases from entering the child protection system.
These strategic priorities are to be achieved through a focus on:
Reforming the way the Department provides and invests in out of home care services
Addressing the complex needs of Aboriginal families, children and communities to improve
their life outcomes
Aligning community sector services to meet the strategic priorities and ensuring they are
efficient and effective
Ensuring sustainable resource management into the future.
This project relates to the third dot point above, and each of the other three is the subject of
separate concurrent projects. In particular, the first two have considerable relevance to this work
and there has been close collaboration between this project and those two.
Funding Overview The Department’s total investment in services contracted to the community sector is $167,554,087.5
This figure does not include expenditure on fee for service out of home care placements which was
5 As at 1 July 2015, Departmental figures
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 12
estimated as $34.94m for 2014/15.6 The expenditure is based on 399 contracts with a total of 165
community sector organisations. Included in this figure are 10 State-wide and 68 metropolitan-wide
contracts. The remainder are all associated with a particular District.
The contracts all fall within one of 46 programs, called service groups, which in turn are grouped
under each of the Department’s three outcome areas referred to above7. The number of contracts
under each service group ranges from as few as 1 to 47. Of the 46 service groups, 15 relate to
Commonwealth-State funding programs under the National Partnership Agreement on
Homelessness (NPAH) and the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
Of interest is that most of these 46 service groups are based around specifically defined service
types. This applies equally to those service groups that are entirely State funded and those that are
subject to Commonwealth-State agreements. This apparent siloed approach does seem at odds with
the intent of the Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy (DCSPP) to encourage flexibility
and innovation through a range and mix of possible service responses to deliver the desired
community outcome.8 This will be discussed further below.
The following sections include a detailed examination of contracting under each of the three agency
level outcome areas. Some general observations with regard to the current community sector
services expenditure are outlined below.
Contracting process
Departmental contracts are developed and managed in accordance with the DCSPP templates and
processes and is widely regarded as having a high standard of contracting practice.
The contract comprises three separate documents, the Department’s tender request, the
organisation’s response to the request and the Department’s advice of acceptance of offer. In the
majority of contracts reviewed the tender request took the form of a preferred service provider
request, in most cases constituting contract renewal for a pre-existing funded service. It has been
pointed out that the use of a preferred service provider methodology was an endorsed process to
achieve the transition from the previous Funding and Purchasing Community Services Policy to the
newly implemented DCSPP.
Contracted services are required to provide 6 monthly progress reports, including specified
performance data. In addition services are required to facilitate participation by their service users in
annual customer surveys.
Service reviews are undertaken as part of the contact management process. During the life of a
contract three service reviews would normally occur:
Service Review 1 – at contract commencement to ensure that the organisation’s service plans and
Departmental expectations are aligned.
6 Community Sector Investment (Community Sector Investment Priorities and Investment Principles), DCPFS,
July 2015, p.5 7 See Attachment A
8 DCSPP, p 6
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 13
Service Review 2 – midway through the contract, to monitor contract information, identify relevant
issues, in particular those that may impact on contract extension, and agree on issues to be
addressed and strategies.
Service Review 3 – leading into a new contract, to identify the issues and trends relevant to planning
the next contract and to inform a decision on whether to go to open tender or a preferred service
provider arrangement.
In the metropolitan area, contract managers are centralised in Service Standards and Contracting,
while in regional areas they are located in District Offices. This is an issue of contention for
Metropolitan Directors who believe that the situation several years ago when contract managers
were located in metropolitan districts worked far better and produced a more integrated approach
to service planning and development in districts. It is advised that the change to the centralisation of
contract management FTE followed as a result of structural reviews to address the rationalisation of
resources. This was undertaken as part of the Department’s response in the implementation of the
Ford Review recommendations.9 Recommendation 1210 of that review related to resource allocation
across the Department.
Needs analysis and planning
The DCSPP, under the heading “Nature of the Relationship”, outlines a three stage process to be
undertaken by agencies prior to contract formation:
Clearly identifying the impact or change they are seeking to achieve within the community,
i.e. community outcome
Undertake a transparent and consultative needs analysis, consistent with the Partnership
Principles11
Develop a strategic response strategy, incorporating flexibility and the range and mix of
possible service responses, and “adhering to the principle that an innovative, responsive
approach to the needs of individuals, families and communities…..is best served by funding
and contracting arrangements that incorporate flexibility.”12
From the information gathered during this review, it appears that this process has been largely
missing in the lead up to contract formation and/or renewal in the Department. In the words of one
community sector leader “the Department starts the process half-way down the (DCSPP) diagram”.
In making this observation it is recognised that substantial effort has been directed at reforming the
contracting process itself in line with the requirements of the DCSPP including some program review
activity, notably in the areas of family and domestic violence and leaving care services.
9 Ford, Prudence, “Review of the Department for Community Development”, January 2007.
10Recommendation 12 - “The Department of Child Safety and Wellbeing develop a resource allocation model
to ensure that the resources are allocated transparently across districts and between service providers (both
Department of Child Safety and Wellbeing and non-government) and that allocation to service providers can
be varied in response to changing needs.”
11 Partnership Principles are outlined on p. 5 of the DCSPP
12 DCSPP p. 6
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 14
The result appears to be the continuation of a range of legacy programs but with the
superimposition of DCSPP contracting processes which have vastly improved the contact
development and management practices, including a strengthened focus on contract performance.
While this in itself is a good thing, it has failed to address the central question of “whether we are
providing the right services to the right target groups in order to achieve the Department’s highest
priority community outcomes”.
This is not to say that the current contracted services are not good quality, well managed services
that are making a difference in the community. It is whether they are making a difference where it is
most needed in line with the Department’s mandate and strategic priorities.
Importantly, what is being missed here is the opportunity to tap the collective experience and
wisdom of service providers, service users and local communities to inform the development of
service and contracting strategies that will make the greatest difference in the lives of the key target
populations of the Department’s services.
Alignment with strategic priorities
The Department has identified its strategic priorities over the next 12-18 months as:
To focus our work on children and families most at risk
Providing an out of home care system that is responsive, nurturing and provides permanent
homes that effectively meets the needs of children requiring out of home care
Reduce demand for child protection services by providing targeted support services
designed to divert appropriate cases from entering the child protection system
All contracts reviewed were for services that relate to at least one of the above priorities, in
particular those funded under Outcome Areas 2 and 3 which, on the whole, were closely aligned
with these priorities. With regard to many of those funded under Outcome Area 1 (Families and
individuals are assisted to overcome their risks and crises, are kept safe and are diverted from the
child protection system) the link was often more tenuous, particularly with regard to diversion from
the child protection system. This will be discussed further under that outcome area.
Whether the service strategies are those likely to be most effective in delivering the outcomes is
another question however and this is discussed below.
Service standards
The development of service standards against which the performance of services is assessed is a
common mechanism of quality assurance, both for in house and contracted services.
The Department has a comprehensive set of standards for out of home care services (Better Care
Better Services) and also adheres to the national standards for out of home care. Work is underway
to reconcile the two. These standards apply to both Departmental and contracted out of home care
services and are monitored through a combination of self-assessment reports and standards
monitoring. The focus of standards monitoring is primarily on quality improvement, though it also
informs service reviews. Independent assessors appointed under Section 125A of the Children and
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 15
Community Services Act 2004 also examine the quality of services provided to children in secure care
and residential services. The functions of Assessors are prescribed in the CCSA.
Given the Director General’s statutory responsibilities as legal guardian of children in out of home
care, it is not surprising that a comprehensive system of quality standards has been developed for
these services.
With respect to other contracted services however, the situation is quite variable. Some are subject
to services standards, e.g. the WA Family & Domestic Violence Common Risk Assessment &
Framework, WA SAAP Service Standards, and the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Services Service
Standards. These are all reported on through self-assessment and are not independently monitored.
With respect to all other (the majority of) contracted services, no service standards apply apart from
those generic standards contained in Schedule B1 – Quality Standards in the Request document. This
schedule contains a combination of information and process requirements and does not satisfy any
reasonable definition of service quality standards.
Service effectiveness
In response to the DCSPP a lot of effort has gone into both aligning contracted services with the
most relevant Departmental Outcome Area and in developing comprehensive service outcomes and
outcome measures for all contracted services. This work is all laudable and has certainly tightened
the Department’s focus on measuring service effectiveness. However this is only the first step in
properly addressing the issue of service effectiveness.
In the absence of the processes outlined under “Needs analysis and planning” in the DCSPP, the
Department has retrofitted existing services to an outcomes framework, rather than beginning with
the desired community outcomes and, through a collaborative needs analysis, determine flexible
service responses to achieve those outcomes in relation to the relevant service populations.
There is a strong appetite for such a collaborative approach by community sector leaders, service
user advocates and Departmental district directors. All report an absence of this approach in the
past, though district directors do recall a time when planning of contracted services occurred within
a framework of district planning and involved a degree of community engagement. The current
arrangements do not reflect the type of collaborative relationship envisaged by the Partnership
Principles and associated Behaviours or in particular “a commitment to empowerment of service
users in the planning, design and delivery of Community Services.”13
The current service groups are based on tightly defined service types, a number comprising only one
contracted service. The historical background to these programs varies and they include a mixture of
Commonwealth/State agreements, Government commitments and Departmental funding initiatives.
These inflexible service silos have been roundly criticised by community sector organisations, service
user advocates and district directors as being ineffective in responding to the real needs of service
target populations. Those consulted talked of having to try to make the needs of the family fit the
requirements of the program, of families’ changing circumstances meaning that the service they had
13
DCSPP, Partnership Principle 6, p.5
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 16
been referred to was no longer appropriate and of having on occasion to bend program
requirements to meet the needs of a family or individual.
There was strong support for the notion of putting the service user/child/family at the centre and
having a flexible range of services able to respond effectively to their unique needs and
circumstances. The issue of how to give service users greater say over the services they receive was
also raised, particularly by user advocates.
In summary, although contracted services currently operate under an outcomes framework, this has
been applied in retrospect to existing services which, by virtue of their narrow prescriptive focus, are
often not fully effective in responding to the service needs of individuals or families or in addressing
those community outcomes of highest priority in terms of the Department’s core functions.
Service efficiency
Service efficiency and effectiveness are inextricably linked. Value for money is not achieved if service
outcomes are not delivered, regardless of how low the cost. The majority of service contracts either
specify a numerical level of service requirement or have reporting requirements that include service
volume. This is appropriate and allows for some benchmarking with like services in terms of
reasonableness of cost.
Linked to the issue of service efficiency, the DCSPP recognises the importance of sustainable service
delivery and as a consequence the Government increased funding for eligible sector contracts to
reflect the full cost of services in association with the Policy’s introduction in 2011. The Government
also committed to reducing the administrative burden on contracted organisations to allow more
efficient use of funds on service delivery rather than administrative overhead.
The administrative burden associated with administering and reporting upon multiple contracts for
services aimed at delivering similar outcomes continues to be a factor in relation to current
contracted services. In this respect the narrow program silos negatively impact service efficiency as
well as effectiveness.
An area where this is cited as a particular problem by sector organisations is fee for service out of
home care placements, which involve a separate contract for each child placed, all having to be
acquitted separately. This must also constitute an administrative burden on the Department itself.
This is an issue which is under review as part of the current Out of Home Care Reform process and
will therefore be addressed within that context.
A related service efficiency issue is a perceived lack of coordinated planning with other funding
organisations that can result in a degree of overlap and duplication and overall inefficient use of
Government funds. The State Government is currently examining this issue on a number of fronts
including the Aboriginal Youth Services Investment Reforms and Regional and Remote Services
Reform. With respect to the former, an important consideration will be the Treasury Sunset Clause
on particular Youth Services. These initiatives will hopefully result in some better coordination
between agencies and it has also been suggested that Human Services Regional Managers’ Forums
could be used as a vehicle for better overall coordination in future.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 17
The notion of individualised contracting has been raised on a number of occasions, particularly with
regard to increasing service user control over the services they receive, but also as a means of
achieving greater service efficiency. The Disability Sector is cited as an example of the success of this
model and rightly so, as Western Australia has led the nation in this regard, and the National
Disability Insurance Scheme is modelled on this approach.
Firstly, it must be said that individualised funding is very well suited to the nature of disability
services – that is lifelong care and support for conditions with fairly predictable service requirements
over a long period of time. It is more problematic for services that are crisis driven or episodic in
nature. Many service providers see individualised funding as a threat to organisational sustainability.
This in turn can impact on service sustainability and quality, e.g. where uncertainty of tenure can
reduce the capacity to attract and retain high quality staff. That has not been the case in the
disability sector, except where services are failing to deliver and users have exercised their choice to
go elsewhere. This has occurred very much on the margins and most disability sector organisations
have been able to plan with the high degree of certainty that is needed to deliver quality services.
As stated earlier, however, what is right for one sector may well not fit with another very different
service sector. There is no doubt that individualised funding can greatly empower service users if
exercised in a way that increases their choice and control and can potentially increase service
efficiency. However this needs to be considered in the context of the type of service being delivered,
the service user population and the likelihood of substantial fluctuations in business which can
impact negatively on service sustainability and quality.
One issue of service efficiency that has arisen is that of unutilised capacity, particularly in the out of
home care sector. This issue is also under consideration as part of the Out of Home Care Reform.
One cautionary note here is the danger of poor placement decisions that may be inimical to the
welfare and safety of the particular child or other children in the proposed placement, if too much
focus is placed on maximising placement usage. This is also an issue in the disability sector and has
required some funding of vacant capacity to be available to ensure ongoing service sustainability.
Cleary the funding arrangements should be such as to provide no financial incentive to carry
unutilised capacity but equally to provide no incentive to inappropriate placement decisions in order
to fill capacity.
Contemporary service design and delivery
It was not within the capacity of this review to assess the design and delivery of individual services.
What is clear though is that, for a large number of services groups contracted by the Department,
the service design has been predetermined by the contract specifications and that historically many
contracts have been renewed under preferred service provider arrangements with little or no
change to service design.
These processes certainly open up the possibility of services losing their contemporary relevance
and therefore failing to deliver effectively on outcomes, as discussed earlier in this report.
The processes outlined in the DCSPP under the heading “Nature of the Relationship” are designed to
ensure that service responses remain contemporary and effective in achieving the desired
community outcomes. Of importance in this regard is that there is no single source of wisdom and
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 18
knowledge with regard to contemporary service design. Engaging widely in the canvassing and
analysis of potential services responses is more likely to bring new and innovative ideas to the table.
Service target groups
As stated above a key strategic priority for the Department is to:
Reduce demand for child protection services by providing targeted support services
designed to divert appropriate cases from entering the child protection system
As will be discussed more fully in the next section, very little of the $68.8M14 investment under
Agency Level Outcome 1 is specifically targeted to achieve this result, although many of the services
will have contributed indirectly to diversion from the child protection system, e.g. homelessness
services. This does not automatically mean then that those services that are not specifically targeted
to reducing entry to the child protection system should no longer be funded. In some cases they
represent a response to social issues that are rightly the province of Government so the issue is
really which agency of Government is the most appropriate to manage this investment.
In some other cases however there will be real opportunity to examine whether better targeting of
services will contribute more strongly to the achievement of this key priority outcome.
One target group of particular significance to the Department is Aboriginal children and families.
Aboriginal children now comprise 52% of children in the CEO’s care. Reflecting this, “Improving
outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities” is currently one of the Department’s
major reform strategies. In this context, it would be reasonable to expect a substantial targeted
focus on achieving outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Department’s contracted services to the
community sector. This was one of the dimensions examined in the detailed analysis of a small
sample of 14 contracts, which revealed as follows:
One service only (a Placement Service) had clearly articulated service specifications and
outcome measures with regard to Aboriginal children and families
One service had a target population percentage of Aboriginal service users, with
commensurate reporting requirements and one other (an Intensive Family Support Service
specifically targeted at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) also required reporting on
percentage of Aboriginal children.
Two contracts were with Aboriginal controlled organisations
Most contracts had no more than a general requirement of accessibility by a range of
diversity groups including Aboriginal people.
Given the fact that Aboriginal children comprise 52% of all children in care, an important question is
whether 52% of effort to prevent children from entering care or to be reunified with their families
once in care is being directed to Aboriginal children and families. Figures provided by the
Department for the 2014/15 financial year with regard to prevention and reunification services
contracted through the community sector15 provide the following picture:
14
Departmental figures as at 1 July 2015 15
See Attachment B for details
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 19
Secondary Family Support - % of Aboriginal clients = 22.8%
Tertiary Family Preservation - % of Aboriginal clients = 28.8%
Reunification Services - % of Aboriginal clients = 21.8%
This suggests a substantial gap between the percentage of Aboriginal children in care and the
percentage of effort devoted to preventing them from entering care and to reunification once they
are in care. Whether this is balanced in any way through the level of effort directed towards
Aboriginal children and families by directly provided Departmental services would require some
further examination, however on the surface, there does appear to be some ground for redirection
of effort in this regard.
Outcome - Families and individuals are assisted to overcome their risks and
crises, are kept safe and are diverted from the child protection system.
The greater bulk of services (approx. $44.7M or 65%) funded under this outcome area relate to
homelessness and are linked to Commonwealth/State agreements (NAHA & NPAH). Another $8.6M
(12.5%) relates to Financial Counselling, which is about to be transferred from the Department.
The remainder is largely directed towards services to young people (four service groups) and
secondary family support (two service groups).
The largest component of services to young people ($9.6M in all) is Services to Young People At Risk
($6.8M). Many of these services (40 in all, with at least one service in each district) appear to be
largely recreation based and are directed at broad at risk populations, though in July 2014 a
requirement for service providers to report case management outcomes was introduced. This did
not apply to local government authorities contracted to deliver services under this program. The
remainder is allocated to Youth Counselling ($1.6M) and two specific services, Kununurra Night
Patrol and Youth Beat.
Funding for the Services for Young People at Risk program is currently subject to a sunset clause.
Under the current evaluation plan for this sunset clause, funding for this program will cease 30
September 2018.
Consideration of future funding of these services will undoubtedly be considered in the context of
the Aboriginal Youth Services Investment Priorities and Principles16. These investment principles are
generally consistent with the DCSPP. Investment Principles 1 and 2 articulate requirements for local
collaboration and clear targeting of services as part of the development and design of future service
contracts. Of note, though, Investment Principle 5 relating to Scale specifies a minimum contract
value of $300,000. Of the 49 services currently funded, only 9 would meet this criterion, though a
number are also supported by funding from other sources.
Funding for Secondary Family Support (SFS) is in two parts: $1.5M to fund Family Support Networks,
that are now being trialled in four locations and $3.7M for SFS to Prevent Children in Need of Care &
Protection. The $3.7M service funding is for 13 services, 10 of which are counselling services in
16
Aboriginal Youth Services Investment Reforms, 2015 https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Aboriginal%20Youth%20Services%20Investment%20Reforms.pdf
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 20
regional areas, the others being a regional in home support service, a metro wide overnight stay
service and a metro early years’ service. It appears that these were all existing funded services that
were placed within the SFS funding category when it was formed. Since the commencement of the
Secondary Family Support Strategy, additional funding has not been available to support the
development of specific service strategies to achieve the outcome of diverting children and families
from the child protection system. This constitutes a major deficit in Departmental funding. There
seems little point in having a comprehensive secondary family support strategy designed to prevent
children and families from entering the child protection net, if the resources allocated to secondary
family support services are almost negligible, as is currently the case.
In summary, of the investment of $14.8M in services to young people and families, very little
appears to be specifically directed towards the objective of diverting children and young people
from the child protection system. There is scope to examine at a local level whether these
investments are the most appropriate to achieve the Department’s priority outcomes and, if not, the
scope for redirection of these funds. If services are regarded as valuable to local communities but
not of high priority to the Department, alternative funding sources might also be canvassed, e.g.
Royalties for Regions.
Outcome - Children and young people needing protection are safe from abuse
and harm.
The bulk of the $45.2M investment in this outcome area is on family and domestic violence services ($33.4M or 74%), both Commonwealth/State and State only funded. Because of the strong correlation between family violence and risk to children this is an appropriate investment. In early 2011 the Department for Child Protection (DCP) engaged the WCDFVS to undertake a project, mapping the domestic and family violence service sector in Western Australia17. The project was instrumental in shaping the reform of the FDV metropolitan service model. This is an example of the collaborative approach to needs assessment and service strategy development envisaged by the DCSPP. The child protection specific services under this outcome area comprise four service groups, Child
Sexual Abuse Therapeutic Services, Indigenous Family Program, Indigenous Healing Services and
Intensive Family Support – Tertiary Family Preservation, comprising a total investment of
approximately $11.8M, which is directed at recovery from the effects of abuse and preventing
children from being in need of care.
There are no service categories that stand out as in need of particular attention with regard to this
outcome area, however engagement of the processes envisaged by the DCSPP as contracts come up
for review will ensure the best ongoing return on this investment.
Outcome - Children and young people in the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO’s) care
receive a high quality of care and have much improved life chances
This $53.5M investment comprises Adoption Services, a range of accommodation/placement
services, family reunification services, leaving care services and funding to three advocacy groups,
CREATE Foundation, Foster Care Association and Family Inclusion Network.
17 Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WA), Domestic Violence Sector Scoping Report
– July 2012
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 21
This investment is subject to detailed review as part of the Out of Home Care Reform underway,
which is planned to result in a further transfer of services from the Department to the community
sector. That review process is being conducted collaboratively with service providers and service
user representatives, and will traverse the issues in far more depth that this review. Observations in
this report will hopefully further inform that review.
As highlighted earlier in this report, accommodation and placement services to children in the care
of the CEO are subject to a far higher level of standards monitoring that other funded services. This
is appropriate, given the status and responsibilities of the CEO as legal guardian of these children. It
is in this respect that an important distinction should be made in terms of the nature of the
contractual relationship for these services.
With regard to the majority of the services procured by the Department through the community
sector, the Department is contracting out its responsibility to serve the needs of a particular
population and has no direct relationship with service users. In fact the Department is generally
unaware of the identity of those users, as privacy dictates should be the case.
In relation to out of home cares services, however, the role of the CEO is akin to that of a
responsible parent who is purchasing a service on behalf of their child. This does not involve
contracting out responsibility, as the end of line guardianship responsibility continues to rest with
the CEO. This means an ongoing engagement and accountability regarding the details of the service
being purchased for each child. However, as in the case of a responsible parent, it also implies a
respect for the professionalism and expertise of the service provider (as parents we don’t tell the
professionals we engage how to do their job, but agree with them on the service to be provided and
trust in their skills to deliver it, subject to monitoring that the service has been delivered and to an
acceptable standard). A responsible parent also takes care to ascertain and have regard to the
wishes of their child. A key to a mature out of home care service will be finding that right balance
between necessary accountability to the CEO as the child’s guardian, respect for the professionalism,
expertise and skills of service providers and keeping a strong focus on the child including the child’s
own wishes.
Out of home care services were the subject of considerable comment from sector and consumer
representatives. Some of these comments are detailed below:
There is strong sector support for out of home care reform provided it occurs collaboratively
and there is opportunity for co-design.
The relationship with the Department should be respectful not about control.
Some Departmental staff do not show sufficient respect for the expertise of community
sector staff and their and day to day knowledge of the child.
There is a need for flexible, innovative strategies, e.g. diverting placement funding to
reunification support.
There was a view about reunification funding being too prescriptive, e.g. re number of
weeks of service, however Departmental feedback indicates that his has been relaxed by
the Department.
As mentioned earlier, fee for service placements is an issue of concern to the sector from a
number of perspectives including the administrative burden of individual contracts, lack of
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 22
understanding by some organisations of the contracting process, and concerns about service
sustainability.
There was widespread agreement that the child should be at the centre of all considerations
and support for increased effort to ascertain the views and wishes of children both at an
individual level and to inform service design.
Concern was expressed about the vulnerability of many young people leaving care and the
need for an expanded focus on supporting them during the critical years after leaving care.
Some concern was expressed that recommendations of the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse may be such that, if adopted by governments,
may substantially increase the risks to service providers of continuing in this field.
These observations are recorded for consideration as part of the out of home care reform process.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 23
3. Opportunities for More Effective Expenditure
Collaborative Service Planning The most significant step required by the Department to achieve more effective results from its
community sector expenditure is to fully embrace the philosophy and practices outlined in the
Delivering Community Services in Partnership Policy (DCSPP).
Essentially this requires the Department to enter into a collaborative service planning process with
communities, service providers and service users (i.e. key stakeholders) comprising the following key
steps as outlined in the policy:
Clearly define the community outcome (i.e. who are the population we are targeting and
what changes do we wish to see in their lives?)
Undertake a needs analysis in collaboration with key stakeholders
In partnership with key stakeholders, develop a strategic response strategy that incorporates
room for flexibility of service design and the ability to tailor service response to the unique
needs of individuals and families
Implement contracting arrangements that will give effect to the strategic response strategy.
It is proposed that this process should take place prior to the formation of new contracts and in the
lead up to renewal consideration of all existing contracts. In doing so, the Department will be better
able to ensure that the community sector investment is best directed at achieving priority outcomes
and that the service response strategies employed are responsive to community and service user
needs and reflect contemporary service approaches.
This process should also include an examination of what other services are being provided and/or
funded through other agencies, and collaboration with relevant funding agencies to avoid overlap
and seek to ensure the best result from the combined investment across government agencies.
As with the current Out of Home Care Reform initiative, there would be advantage in also reviewing
direct Departmental service provision directed at the relevant outcome(s) at the same time, to
ensure a comprehensive approach to planning the effective usage of Departmental resources.
In some cases this process will identify that the current service responses remain valid and are being
effectively delivered by a current service provider, so contract renewal (perhaps with modifications
to achieve greater service flexibility and/or currency) on a preferred service provider basis will be
appropriate. In other cases substantively different service responses may be required, which may
result in going back to the market or the need to support the development of new service capacity in
a region.
Several steps will be needed to prepare the ground for this approach:
1) Strategic alignment of service groups
The 46 service silos need to be amalgamated to form a much smaller number of strategic service
outcome clusters where the focus is on achieving a similar broad outcome for a defined population
group. Otherwise, continuing to operate within the current narrow service silos will almost certainly
result in maintenance of the status quo of narrow, inflexible service responses.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 24
The following is an example of what some of those strategic service outcome clusters might be:
Services to prevent children and young people from needing care and protection
Services to prevent and alleviate homelessness
Services to support recovery from the impacts of child abuse
Services to prevent and alleviate the impacts of family and domestic violence
Services to provide long term stable care options and positive life outcomes for children in
care
The above service outcome clusters are illustrative only and it is not suggested that these be the
final outcome clusters. An important consultation question will be to define those outcome clusters
that best define a common strategic outcome to be achieved for a defined population. Importantly
the key preliminary task will be defining clearly the major community outcomes that the
Department is seeking to achieve. The clusters will then be defined by identifying those groups of
services that are primarily directed at achieving the particular community outcome.
Consultation Question 1
What would be the set of strategic service outcome clusters that provide best fit for a focussed
approach to achieving desired outcomes for identified service populations and allowing for flexibility
of service responses?
2) Contract scheduling
Most service contracts are for 3 years with options for two 1 year extensions, i.e. a five year contract
renewal cycle. Currently, with 46 service groups, contract renewal dates are distributed throughout
the five-year renewal cycle such as to produce as even a spread of contractual activity as possible.
This is sensible in terms of workload planning.
A problem is that however the new service outcome clusters are defined, it is likely that the service
contracts within those clusters will have varying renewal dates spread over a five year period. This
poses an inherent problem. In order to provide maximum flexibility in the use of resources to
achieve a strategic outcome, it is preferable that all of those resources are on the table for
consideration together. Otherwise a more piecemeal approach will most likely result in a reversion
to the narrow service silos.
To achieve this will require the scheduling of contract end dates so that the contracts in each service
outcome cluster come up for consideration together. This will be quite a complex undertaking and
most likely require extensions of some expiring contracts and with others not exercising the option
of one or both one year extensions.
A danger of this realignment will be the potential for an uneven spread of contract renewals over
the five year period, resulting in some unmanageable peaks in contractual activity for both the
Department and service providers. Depending on the number and composition of service outcome
clusters this will present varying levels of difficulty. If it is, solutions might include some geographic
segmentation which would at least ensure that all the resources directed at a particular outcome
within each district or region come up for consideration together.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 25
It is estimated that the collaborative service planning process would need to commence at least a
year to 18 months prior to the expiry of contracts in order to allow adequate time for genuine
collaboration and analysis, as well as to plan and implement the appropriate contractual response.
This will have implications for scheduling initially. The current reform process in Out of Home Care is
effectively implementing this process so it will make sense if that service outcome cluster proceeds
early.
A further consideration during this time will be the management and integration of the
Department’s procurement processes impacted by the Aboriginal Youth Services Investment Reform
and the Regional and Remote Reforms.
Consultation Question 2
a) What are some of the challenges to the scheduling of contract renewals according to new service
outcome clusters and how can these best be addressed?
b) Which service outcome clusters should be given earliest attention in the context of the need for
better alignment with current strategic priorities?
3) Resourcing and Role Clarity
The collaborative service planning process outlined above cannot be done effectively without being
properly resourced. Allocating responsibility for the process and clearly defining roles of relevant
directorates within the Department will also be important.
Although the end point of the process is the development of service contracts and the service
contracting area will be participants in and contributors to the process, it is questionable that the
service contracting area is the one most suited to directing the service planning process. Other key
players are Policy & Learning, which has responsibility for overall service policy and design within the
Department, and the Districts that have the local knowledge and connections to help facilitate local
collaboration.
As mentioned earlier, the current Out of Home Care Reform is in effect undertaking an equivalent
process with respect to both Departmentally provided and contracted services in this outcome area.
This process is being coordinated through Policy and Learning and this could well provide a model
for future collaborative service planning. The respective roles might be:
Policy & Learning to coordinate and direct the service planning process
District Directors to facilitate local consultation, collaboration and information gathering
Service Standards & Contracting to implement contracting arrangements to reflect the
agreed strategic service responses.
Consultation Question 3
What will be the appropriate roles and responsibilities within the Department for the collaborative
planning process and what are the resource implications and how might these be met?
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 26
Service Standards As indicated earlier in this report, there is an inconsistent approach to the issue of service standards
between program areas. Quite naturally, service standards and their oversight are most highly
developed in the area of Out of Home Care, given the CEO’s responsibility as legal guardian of the
children involved. The reasons why service standards exist in some other areas and not others is
unclear, though some are clearly tied to Commonwealth/State funding agreements.
The Results Based Accountability model18 poses three questions as key to measuring performance:
How much did we do?
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
The service data and outcomes reporting requirements of Departmental contracts answer the first
and third of these questions. Without clear definition of service standards, it might be said that it is
not possible to answer the second. As remarked earlier in this report, generic standards contained in
Schedule B1 – Quality Standards in the Request document do not satisfy any reasonable definition of
service quality standards. This poses the question of whether service standards should be developed
for each of the service outcome clusters, against which service quality may be assessed.
Consultation Question 4
Should service standards be developed for each service outcome cluster in order to allow
assessment of service quality?
Outcomes for Aboriginal children and families Improving outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities is one of the key reform
strategies underway in the Department and it is expected that this project will produce the major
blueprint for achieving better outcomes in this area. The comments in this report are intended to be
complementary to that process.
One key initiative under consideration in that process is consideration of strategies to build capacity
in Aboriginal controlled organisations to deliver child protection and family support funded services.
Because a significant proportion of Aboriginal people are more comfortable receiving services from
an Aboriginal controlled organisation than a mainstream service, this is an important initiative in
seeking to make that choice available to Aboriginal service recipients. That step, if successful is likely
to increase service effectiveness in contributing to better outcomes for Aboriginal people. It is
pleasing to note the interest by a number of mainstream service organisations in partnering with
Aboriginal controlled organisations to support them in building capacity to deliver these services.
What is clear from the experience of other agencies and jurisdictions however is that the
18
Mark Friedman, “Trying hard is Not Good Enough”, Trafford Publishing, 2005. p.68.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 27
development of sustainable service capacity will require a long term commitment and resourcing if it
is to succeed.
Given this initiative, it is still expected that mainstream service organisations will continue to be
significant providers of services to Aboriginal people and indeed many Aboriginal people will
exercise their choice to receive services from mainstream providers. In this context and, with
particular regard to the fact that Aboriginal children represent 52% of all children in care, there is a
strong case for strengthening the contractual requirements for services to engage with and provide
culturally appropriate services to Aboriginal children, families and individuals, and to report
accordingly.
As noted earlier, there is a substantial gap between the percentage of children in care who are
Aboriginal and the proportion of services aimed to prevent children coming into care or to support
their reunification with their families, that are accessed by Aboriginal children and families. With
regard to these services, there may be value in setting contractual targets for the proportion of
services to be accessed by Aboriginal children and families, as well as inviting strategies to achieve
these targets in the qualitative criteria of request documents.
In addition, the challenge of building the capacity of Aboriginal controlled organisations to play a
role in the future delivery of child protection and family support services is one that will require
considerable support from both the Department and currently funded community sector
organisations. This is an important agenda and for that capacity to be realised in the foreseeable
future will require that priority be given to the development and implementation of a clear strategy
to achieve this.
Consultation Question 5
a) What strategies, including contractual provisions, are required to ensure that the investment in
community sector services is appropriately and effectively directed towards delivering better
outcomes for Aboriginal children and families?
b) How can the Department and community sector organisations best support the development of a
sustainable capacity to provide child protection and family support services by Aboriginal controlled
organisations in Western Australia?
Individualised services The term “individualised services” is taken broadly to mean an approach to service delivery that
tailors service responses to the unique needs and wishes of the individual, rather than a
standardised “one size fits all” approach.
There was considerable feedback in the consultations leading to this report to the effect that the
narrow and inflexible service specifications of current contracted services result in a situation where
the needs of the individual or family have to fit the service, rather than the other way round.
Comment included a need to put the child/family “at the centre” and to allow service users more say
about the services they receive.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 28
Contractual mechanisms to achieve a more individualised approach can range from broad outcome
based contracts that allow sufficient flexibility around service models to be responsive to individual
needs and wishes, through to individualised funding, as in the Disability Sector, where the funds
follow the client who has choice of service provider.
Another important issue is how to engage service users in the planning and design of services. The
Department currently gains input from service users through surveys and through funded advocacy
organisations. To effectively engage service users in the collaborative service planning proposed
earlier is likely to involve additional strategies, particularly at the local level.
Consultation Question 6
What additional strategies are required to ascertain the views and wishes of service users and to
achieve a more individualised approach to service delivery?
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 29
4. Opportunities to Improve Contract Management Processes
As stated earlier, the Department’s contract management processes are generally regarded highly
and this review has seen no evidence to contradict that.
This review suggests a range of initiatives that will impact on contract formation and management
and hopefully result in increased service effectiveness. They include:
A collaborative service planning front end to contract formation which will give much fuller
effect to the philosophy underpinning the Government’s Delivering Community Services in
Partnership Policy
A significant reduction in the number of service groups that should translate into a similar
reduction in the number of contracts each organisation has with the Department
An outcomes based approach to contract development that allows greater flexibility in
relation to service models and approaches
Consideration of the development of specific service standards for each service outcome
cluster
Consideration of provisions to strengthen the contractual requirements for services to
engage with and provide culturally appropriate services to Aboriginal children, families and
individuals, and to report accordingly
Contractual models that result in a more individualised approach to service design and
delivery and take greater account of service user views.
Consultation Question 7
Are there additional improvements that can and should be made to Departmental contract
management processes?
In addition to these specific proposals, metropolitan District Directors report a reduced ability to
engage with service contracting issues since management of service contracts in the metropolitan
area was centralised in head office. They would prefer a return to the location of contract
management in metropolitan districts.
This would certainly fit with a philosophy of more localised planning and decision making, however
the implications of such a move have not been fully canvassed by this review to date.
Consultation Question 8
What are the advantages and disadvantages and other practical considerations in relation to locating
contract management responsibility in metropolitan district offices?
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 30
5. Implementation Plan
Key Implementation Tasks The following tasks are recommended to implement the reforms to community sector service
contracting outlined in this report:
Consultation & decision making
This report has been prepared on the basis of limited consultation. The next step is broader
consultation with key stakeholders including community sector organisations, service users and their
advocates, other relevant funding agencies, Departmental staff and others. Once this consultation is
completed decisions are required on the way forward.
Realignment of service groups
Subject to the outcomes of consultation and subsequent decision making the current 46 service
groups are to be realigned into a much smaller number of service outcome clusters, based around
the achievement of common broadly defined outcomes to identified populations. This will require as
a first step the articulation of clear population based outcomes which will form the basis of each
service outcome cluster.
Develop five-year contracting schedule
In order to allow consideration of the full range of service strategies directed towards a common
outcome to occur at the same time, it is suggested that contract commencement dates be aligned
for all contracts within each service outcome cluster. If this does not occur, then a piecemeal
approach to community outcomes planning is likely to result in a continuation of the current service
silos. While it is suggested below that there be a more compressed timetable for the initial
implementation of these reforms, in the longer term a five-year contracting schedule is proposed
with all of the contracts within a particular outcome cluster coming up for renewal in the same year
of the contracting schedule. This will also involve decisions regarding the order in which clusters are
to be subject to the service planning process and realigning contact commencement dates
accordingly.
Develop collaborative service planning process and roles
It will be necessary to develop a clear and transparent process for service planning to enable the
appropriate allocation of Departmental resources as well as to provide sufficient advance
information for service providers, user representatives and other key stakeholders to prepare
adequately to participate in the process. Genuine collaboration is only possible if adequate time and
advance knowledge is provided to all parties to prepare and contribute.
A particular challenge will be to engage service users in this process, in particular children. The user
surveys, including the Viewpoint survey of children in care, are positive initiatives that provide useful
information, however face to face consultation is also important in eliciting more nuanced
information to guide service planning. In this respect the engagement of advocacy groups to consult
with users, such as the direct consultation with children in care by CREATE Foundation that has
occurred in conjunction with the Out of Home Care Reform process, is a useful model to follow. The
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 31
views of children and young people are relevant across the full range of Departmental funded
programs (e.g. family and domestic violence) and consultation with them should not just be limited
to out of home care.
The process will also need to link with related across Government processes so that Departmental
planning does not occur in isolation from that of other related funding agencies. The outcomes of
the current Government initiatives in relation to Aboriginal Youth Services Investment Reforms and
Regional Services Reform will be of particular relevance in this regard.
This process should also incorporate relevant research knowledge and evaluation of other service
models and programs from our own and other national and international jurisdictions.
Implement contract management changes
The key consultation questions above have posed a range of alternative changes to the contract
management process including issues relating to service standards, achieving outcomes for
Aboriginal people, individualised services and contract management in metropolitan districts.
Depending on the final decisions of these and other contract management issues that may be raised
in consultations, the implementation of the required changes will be required.
Implement collaborative planning process
Over the longer term, a five-year contracting cycle is proposed whereby service clusters will be
subject to the collaborative planning process in the year preceding contract renewal consideration.
Because of the imperative to advance necessary reform across all outcome areas, it is proposed to
develop a timetable to undertake the collaborative planning process across all contracted services
initially within a time frame of approximately 2 years. This will provide a blueprint for the
refocussing of contracted services as they are due for reconsideration.
New contract arrangements
The contract formation process to reflect the new contract arrangements will take place following
the collaborative planning process for each service cluster. This will require some complex planning
to ensure as far as possible that the contracting process for services in the same cluster occur
together. Because of existing contractual arrangements and expiry dates this may not be possible in
all cases for this initial process; however future contract renewal dates should be set in accordance
with the five-year contracting schedule.
All contracts formed under the new contracting arrangements should reflect flexible service
strategies designed to achieve the required community outcomes for each service cluster.
Five-Year Contracting Schedule Below is a plan for full implementation of a five-year planning and contracting cycle. This full five-
year cycle would be established and implemented following the initial implementation of the
reforms according to the process outlined above.
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 32
Year 1
Collaborative planning process - Service Cluster 1
Year 2
New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 1
Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 2
Year 3
New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 2
Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 3
Year 4
New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 3
Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 4
Year 5
New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 4
Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 5
Year 6
New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 5
Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 1 (cycle recommences)
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 33
Attachment A – Service Groups
Agency Level Outcome Service Group
Families and individuals overcome their risks or crises and keep
themselves and family members safe and are diverted from the child
protection system
Child Migrant Trust
Financial Counselling
No Interest Loans Scheme
Secondary Family Support
SFS to Prevent Children Needing Care & Protection
Services for Young People - Kununurra Night Patrol
Services for Young People - Youth Beat
Services for Young People At Risk
Youth Counselling
NAHA Youth Accommodation and Support Services
NPAH A Place To Call Home
Homeless Accommodation and Support Services
Acute Homelessness Night Shelter
Homeless Assessment and Referral
Aboriginal Short Stay Accommodation
NPAH Homelessness Accommodation Support Workers
NPAH Housing Supp Workers Young Women Leaving Care
NPAH Housing Support Workers - Corrective Services
NPAH Housing Support Workers - Drug and Alcohol
NPAH Housing Support Workers - Mental Health
NPAH Private Tenancies
NPAH Public Tenancies
NPAH Remote Rough Sleepers
NPAH Street To Home - Assertive Outreach Services
NPAH Street To Home - Supportive Housing Services
NPAH Support for Children in Family Homeless Accom
Children and young people needing protection are safe from abuse and
harm
Child Sexual Abuse Therapeutic Services
Indigenous Family Program
Indigenous Healing Services
Intensive Family Support - Tertiary Family Preservation
Family and Domestic Violence Coordinated Response
Family & Domestic Violence Counselling
Family and DV Accommodation (NAHA)
Family and DV Accommodation (State)
FDV Industry Development - Statewide
NPAH Domestic Violence Outreach
NPAH Safe At Home
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 34
Children and young people in the Chief Executive Officer’s care receive a high quality of care and have much improved life chances.
Adoption Services
Youth Accommodation Services - State Funded
Tier One Family Group Homes
Placement Service
Placement Services Respite Camps
Family Reunification Services
Leaving Care Service
CREATE Foundation
Foster Care Association
Family Inclusion Network
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 35
Attachment B – Aboriginal Service Usage Total number of clients provided a service in Jul - Dec 2014
Intensive Family Support Tertiary Family
Preservation Reunification Total
# % # % # % Number of adults - indigenous 91 8% 21 7% 112 8% Number of children - indigenous 242 22% 48 16% 290 21% Number of adults - non indigenous 280 26% 93 31% 373 27% Number of children - non indigenous 438 41% 128 43% 566 41% Number of adults - ethnicity unknown 14 1% 4 1% 18 1% Number of children - ethnicity unknown 14 1% 3 1% 17 1% Total 1079 100% 297 100% 1376 100%
Secondary Family Support
Family Enhancement
Indigenous Family
Program
Secondary Family
Support Services *
Total
# % # % # % # %
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander - adult 30 6% 70 33% 285 11% 385 11%
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander - child 67 13% 137 65% 139 5% 343 10%
Not identified as either ATSI or CaLD - adult 161 30% 2 1% 1190 44% 1353 39%
Not identified as either ATSI or CaLD - child 220 42% 0 0% 807 30% 1027 30%
Culturally & Linguistically Diverse - adult 18 3% 1 0% 130 5% 149 4%
Culturally & Linguistically Diverse - child 31 6% 0 0% 70 3% 101 3%
Unknown - adult 1 0% 0 0% 71 3% 72 2%
Unknown - child 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%
Total 529 100% 210 100% 2692 100% 3431 100%
Total number of clients provided a service in Jan - Jun 2015
Intensive Family Support Tertiary Family
Preservation Reunification Total
# % # % # % Number of adults - indigenous 70 7% 21 6% 91 7% Number of children - indigenous 179 19% 48 14% 227 18% Number of adults - non indigenous 256 27% 105 31% 361 28% Number of children - non indigenous 425 45% 153 46% 578 45% Number of adults - ethnicity unknown 6 1% 4 1% 10 1% Number of children - ethnicity unknown 4 0% 4 1% 8 1% Total 940 100% 335 100% 1275 100%
Review of Community Sector Services Expenditure
Terry Simpson Page 36
Secondary Family Support
Family Enhancement
Indigenous Family
Program
Secondary Family
Support Services *
Total
# % # % # % # %
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander - adult 24 4% 101 36% 298 12% 423 12%
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander - child 58 9% 175 63% 185 7% 418 12%
Not identified as either ATSI or CaLD - adult 194 30% 2 1% 1215 49% 1411 41%
Not identified as either ATSI or CaLD - child 321 49% 0 0% 611 24% 932 27%
Culturally & Linguistically Diverse - adult 22 3% 1 0% 169 7% 192 6%
Culturally & Linguistically Diverse - child 27 4% 0 0% 21 1% 48 1%
Unknown - adult 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% 2 0%
Unknown - child 3 0% 0 0% 1 0% 4 0%
Total 650 100% 279 100% 2501 100% 3430 100%
* Secondary Family Support Services include the following services:
Kinway Family Counselling Service - Wyndham/Kununurra
Mungullah Practical In Home Support Service
Central Agcare Family Counselling Service
Bunbury Counselling and Family Support
Geraldton Family Counselling Service
Kwinana Early Years Services
Ngala Overnight Stay Service
Morawa Family Counselling Service
South West Counselling Service
South West Emergency Care for Children
Southern Agcare Mobile Family Counselling Service
Exmouth Family Counselling Service
Wheatbelt Agcare Family Counselling Service