DISCUSSION DOCUMENT of Community S… · Contractual mechanisms to achieve a more individualised...

- 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



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.



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.


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.


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.


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.

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.


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



organisations. To effectively engage service users in the collaborative service planning proposed

earlier is likely to involve additional strategies, particularly at the local level.


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.


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.


What are the advantages and disadvantages and other practical considerations in relation to locating

contract management responsibility in metropolitan district offices?



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)



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



(iv) sustainable service delivery and recognition of the importance of ongoing

organisational viability.

c) using the open tender process.



4

4 DCSPP, pp. 3-4



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.



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



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



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



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


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



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



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.



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



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:


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



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

https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Aboriginal%20Youth%20Services%20Investment%20Reforms.pdf

https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Aboriginal%20Youth%20Services%20Investment%20Reforms.pdf



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



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



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.



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.



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.


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.



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.


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.


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?



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


What additional strategies are required to ascertain the views and wishes of service users and to

achieve a more individualised approach to service delivery?



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.


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.


What are the advantages and disadvantages and other practical considerations in relation to locating

contract management responsibility in metropolitan district offices?



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



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.



Year 1

Collaborative planning process - Service Cluster 1

Year 2

New contract arrangements – Service Cluster 1

Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 2

Year 3



Year 4



Year 5



Year 6


Collaborative planning process – Service Cluster 1 (cycle recommences)



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



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



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%


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%




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

Date post:	05-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times