5. Service delivery

Information and engagement

5.1The Committee heard that there is a dearth of reliable, accurate information about ParentsNext, including on relevant websites and in promotional material. Moreover, parents and carers do not have access to a dedicated service which they can approach for advice about services and supports or about income support and other benefits (including how benefits interact with paid employment).

5.2While not dismissing the legitimate criticisms of ParentsNext, these issues may be contributing to misconceptions about ParentsNext and ultimately limiting participants’ capacity to benefit.

5.3The Committee also heard that there is no dedicated contact for providers within Services Australia. This limits providers’ capacity to operate efficiently and effectively, and to resolve issues associated with inappropriate referrals to ParentsNext.

5.4These issues are discussed below and should be resolved as a matter of urgency.

Public-facing information on ParentsNext

5.5As outlined in Chapter 3, many new and prospective participants in ParentsNext have little information on the program or have information that is incomplete or misleading. The Committee heard that this may be due to the quality of information on government websites, to the way in which Services Australia engages with parents who are eligible for the program, and to experiences of the program shared by current and former participants.[1]

5.6The Committee heard that information about ParentsNext available to prospective participants—as well as to the broader public—should be increased and should be better targeted to ensure that the program and its benefits are fully understood.

5.7The National Employment Services Association (NESA) noted that descriptions of ParentsNext on websites maintained by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and the Department of Social Services (DSS) are ‘quite clinical’ and fall short of communicating a full understanding of the program. NESA recommended that government review this information and ensure that referring agencies such as Services Australia have a sound understanding of ParentsNext and can inform participants of its objectives, supports, and benefits.[2]

5.8Jobs Australia recommended developing promotional material on ParentsNext for use by community agencies and Services Australia, stating that this should include:

• Videos to explain the program and its benefits, inclusive of people from non-English speaking and culturally diverse backgrounds;
• A summary document on ParentsNext for participants and their families at their first Services Australia interview, in their primary or dominant language;
• Directions to provider addresses, together with relevant transport information;
• Any other information needed to support the participant with their access to ParentsNext and their understanding of the program.[3]
  9. Some submitters also indicated that more could be done to ‘market’ ParentsNext, including to parents who might engage with the program on a voluntary basis. For example, atWork Australia expressed support for broadening the range of individuals who may participate in ParentsNext, stating that this may require strategic investment from government to support marketing and awareness-raising campaigns.[4]

Advice for parents and carers

5.10As discussed in Chapter 2, parents—particularly single mothers and parents at risk of long-term disconnection from the workforce—face a variety of barriers to social and economic participation. Moreover, parents are often obliged to navigate a complex and fragmented social support ecosystem to obtain the support they need.

5.11Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA) noted that a core function of programs such as ParentsNext is providing advice on available services, navigating the social support ecosystem, and how entering or re-entering paid work will interact with taxes, concessions, and other benefits.[5]

5.12NESA confirmed that this is a function of pre-employment services but noted that services under ParentsNext are restricted to participants. NESA suggested that current service offerings could be expanded to allow some parents to obtain support on a one-off basis, stating:

A one-off service could involve providing advice/support, making a connection to an appropriate third party, assistance with goods and services through the Participation Fund, or assistance with arranging a wage subsidy. In such a case the…provider could be paid a service fee rather than the full program fee.[6]

5.13Services Australia maintains a Grandparent, Foster and Kinship Adviser Service for grandparents and other non-parent carers who have an ongoing caring responsibility for children. Part of the service is a Grandparent Advisor Line which provides advice on payments and services available through government programs and community organisations. The Line can also be used to organise appointments with social workers and other specialists such as financial information services officers.[7]

5.14The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (NSCMC) observed that the Grandparent Adviser Line is a ‘fantastic’ support for grandparents, and strongly advocated for a similar advice line for parents and carers, stating:

Imagine if there were a service where you could phone in and they could go: 'You have phoned in from this particular area. Do you know that just down the road there's a brilliant service that could help you, and we can even give you the name of the person'? It's not like we don't have those systems, we just don't use them for single mothers.[8]

5.15The NCSMS indicated that there would be value in engaging single mothers who are former or even current ParentsNext participants to staff an advice service for parents, noting that those mothers could advise on the benefits and drawbacks of the program and help mitigate fear associated with issues such as compulsory participation.[9]

Interactions between providers and Services Australia

5.16As outlined in Chapter 3, the Committee heard that a significant number of participants have been incorrectly or inappropriately referred to ParentsNext due to the nature and application of eligibility criteria. Providers indicated that they often have difficulty contacting Services Australia to resolve this issue, and that this is part of a broader set of concerns relating to lack of communication with the agency.

5.17For example, Metro Assist stated that issues associated with referrals to their services often arise due to incorrect information in Services Australia’s systems. Moreover, each time Metro Assist contacts Services Australia to resolve an issue, they ‘waste a lot of time’ and receive inconsistent, incorrect information.[10]

5.18Other providers similarly observed that issues they experience are often the result of Services Australia failing to explain ParentsNext to participants or providing incorrect information about the program.[11] For example, OCTEC Ltd (OCTEC) stated:

One of the issues that we have had—and I'm sure the other providers would be the same—is the constant incorrect information that [participants] get from Services Australia staff when they're being referred to the program.[12]

5.19Providers also expressed concern that there is no longer a dedicated contact in Services Australia for providers to resolve issues or obtain advice.[13] For example, OCTEC stated:

It is difficult…to get in contact with Services Australia. I've worked in employment services for over 10 years, and that relationship has definitely evolved. We could just call the local office, and now you don't necessarily have a contact number for that person, and you have to stay on the phone like anybody else.[14]

5.20Women’s Health and Family Services (WHFS) expressed similar views and indicated that more must be done to build the relationship between Services Australia and providers—particularly around managing referrals. In this respect, WHFS stated:

It's quite hard to be flexible and accommodate what the participants need, because we don't see that kind of referral flow coming through…[S]ometimes I think it's down to [the individual staff member] as to whether or not they refer to us as a provider. Then we start reaching out to that location in Services Australia to try and build that relationship, even though the referrals are done in the back end. So, yes, there's definitely a disconnect there.[15]

5.21Mission Australia asserted that previous arrangements for managing the relationship between providers and local Services Australia centres should be reinstated, noting that this should include giving contact information for local centres to provider staff and holding regular interagency meetings led by Services Australia.[16]

5.22NESA noted that there was formerly a dedicated point of contact within Services Australia which has been lost over the multiple iterations of ParentsNext. NESA also indicated that there would be value in re-establishing regular meetings with Services Australia and DEWR to increase understanding of the program and resolve issues:

We had…a partnership program where we used to do two days: half a day in DEWR, half a day in a Centrelink office, half a day on the call centre headsets and half a day in the providers. It was a fantastic way to get that shared understanding, and then we would go back to Canberra and everyone would write up their recommendations, and those would be taken up by the heads of departments as ways to actually improve the system. We've lost a lot of that ground-upward feedback.[17]

5.23The lack of a dedicated point of contact within Services Australia was one of the key concerns raised by providers and their staff during the Committee’s site visits. Providers indicated that contacts within Services Australia often change while the provider is attempting to resolve an issue, and that providers and participants have been discouraged from directly contacting local Services Australia offices.

5.24During the site visits, providers also told the Committee that the lack of a dedicated contact point creates challenges in resolving incorrect referrals. This is because providers must commence at least 90 per cent of participants referred to their services within 14 days. If the provider cannot contact Services Australia to resolve an inappropriate referral, the provider will typically commence the participant—irrespective of whether they have capacity to benefit from the program—and may then exempt the participant as a ‘work around’ for the incorrect referral. This was not seen as a sustainable solution.

5.25Services Australia confirmed that there is not a dedicated provider number for ParentsNext, and that providers typically contact Services Australia using the same number as members of the public. Services Australia indicated that this is part of the existing policy settings for ParentsNext.[18]

5.26DEWR explained that a dedicated provider line is not a funded element of the delivery model for ParentsNext. In addition, DEWR noted that relationships between providers and local Services Australia offices vary between locations, with no settled communication protocols in place, stating:

In some locations and between some providers, there is actually a really close and open exchange of information. In other cases, it reflects the point that you've made—that it's actually more formal and it is either through calling the line or it is through relying on the provider lead, which is [DEWR’s] contract management arm, to help resolve issues.[19]

5.27DEWR also noted that in previous iterations of ParentsNext there have been funded consultative forums at the local level. However, these have ceased.[20]

Commissioning and service delivery

5.28As outlined in Chapter 1, ParentsNext providers are selected via an open tender process. There are currently 53 providers delivering the program at multiple sites. The majority (79 per cent) are non-profit organisations.[21]

5.29In 12 of the Employment Regions where ParentsNext is delivered, there is only one provider. That provider typically uses a mix of fixed sites and outreach services. There are two or more providers in each of the other 39 Employment Regions.[22]

5.30DEWR indicated that ParentsNext is intended as a less competitive program than mainstream employment services such as Workforce Australia. DEWR also stated that it encourages collaboration between providers, particularly in relation to matters which will benefit participants, and noted that there is a ‘really strong sense of community of practice’ in the sector, driven by providers and peak bodies.[23]

5.31NESA and Jobs Australia both noted they had established communities of practice among their member organisations, which meet regularly to share examples of best practice and provide feedback to government on policy and program delivery.[24]

5.32However, some evidence before the Committee indicated that the commissioning process for ParentsNext may result in competition between providers. For example, the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) stated that the commissioning process must support collaboration rather than competition and recommended that government fund one provider per region to maximise collaboration and sharing of expertise.[25]

5.33The Committee also heard that there are programs in other jurisdictions which deliver similar services to ParentsNext, and which focus on collaboration between service delivery organisations. For example, Dr Katherine Curchin stated:

[The Making it Work program in Scotland] was designed to facilitate cooperation and collaboration between different local organisations so that, when parents were referred to someone, they were referred to the right people who were actually going to be able to help them. The design of the program was to promote collaboration rather than competition between those third-sector organisations. There was also input from local parents into the operation of the program, so that helped to maintain the relevance of the program to the service users.[26]

5.34The Committee also heard that in Employment Regions with fewer participants, competition between providers limits service quality—for example because a provider can only afford to remain open one or two days per week. Evidence indicated that DEWR’s administrative processes limit providers’ ability to change their commercial arrangements to respond to fluctuating caseloads. For example, WHFS stated:

[I]f we decide or realise there's a need for us to change our office hours or move where we are operating from, the process to do that—even to move from three days to four days—is an administrative process [via] the department. That flies in the face of us being able to provide responsive, flexible, place-based care.[27]

5.35DEWR told the Committee that the number of providers in a region is a key part of the commissioning process for ParentsNext, and that in some cases it is preferable to have more than one provider in a region so participants can change providers if dissatisfied with the services they receive. DEWR also acknowledged that there may be room to adjust the commissioning model to better respond to thin markets.[28]

5.36Some submitters told the Committee that ParentsNext should be delivered only by non-profit providers, noting that those organisations are better placed than their for-profit counterparts to provide a supportive environment, and have an ethos that better aligns with respectful, client-focused service delivery.[29]

5.37Submitters also highlighted the importance of providers being able to deliver wrap-around services and having strong connections to local networks and services.[30] For example, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) stated:

Future service providers should have demonstrated local footprints, expertise in place‑based planning, and a service model that builds on people’s strengths and aspirations rather than pressuring them to take up the first available job.[31]

5.38Evidence before the Committee also indicated that delivery of ParentsNext should be separated from delivery of mainstream employment services such as Workforce Australia, as participants in ParentsNext are often vulnerable or isolated and require targeted support to address non-vocational barriers.[32] However, currently ParentsNext is often delivered by the same providers who deliver mainstream programs.[33] For example, YFS Limited (YFS) stated:

ParentsNext is overseen by the same contract managers as Workforce Australia, included in the same compliance framework as Workforce Australia, using the same systems as Workforce Australia and in many cases delivered by the same organisations delivering other employment services programs.[34]

5.39Evidence before the Committee also indicated that some former programs designed to support parents and delivered by government entities were successful in enabling parents to achieve education and employment outcomes and improving their social and economic participation.

5.40For example, submitters and witnesses highlighted the Jobs, Education and Training (JET) scheme, delivered through local DSS offices. JET Advisors were primarily tasked with assessing the parent’s employment aspirations, needs and readiness to enter or re-enter the labour market, and with referring them to relevant services.[35] An evaluation showed that JET participants were 1.34 times more likely to earn income and twice as likely to be studying compared to their non-JET counterparts.[36]

5.41The Helping Young Parents (HYP) and Supporting Jobless Families (SJP) trials conducted from 2012 to 2016 similarly had the Department of Human Services—now Services Australia—supporting parents to develop a participation plan that detailed the assistance that they would receive to progress towards educational and family goals. Analysis of the programs found that HYP trial participants were 14 per cent more likely to attain a Year 12 or equivalent qualification compared to the comparison group, while JSP trial participants were three per cent more likely to engage with work, study, or child care compared to the comparison group.[37]

Supporting specific cohorts

5.42The Committee heard that the experiences and support needs of First Nations peoples, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, and people who have experienced family violence, necessitate services which are adapted to those cohorts.[38]

5.43This does not necessarily mean that specialist services are required. However, service providers and their staff must be empathetic, culturally competent, and responsive to trauma. Providers must also have connections to local services to which they are able to refer participants as necessary.

First Nations peoples

5.44The Committee heard that pre-employment and pre-vocational services must be adapted to the circumstances and needs of First Nations peoples. This was of particular concern for the current ParentNext program, where First Nations peoples make up 20 per cent of participants.[39]

5.45Submitters highlighted the importance of delivering culturally safe and appropriate services and of working in partnership with First Nations-controlled organisations in key sectors such as health and family violence.[40] For example, ACOSS stated:

Any replacement program [for ParentsNext] should be designed to be culturally safe for culturally and linguistically diverse communities and, in the case of First Nations communities, should be consistent with the Closing the Gap commitment to genuine partnerships. This includes partnerships with First Nations controlled organisations…to ensure that programs targeted at culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations communities are informed by organisations with appropriate cultural expertise.[41]

5.46The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (CECFW) expressed concern at a reported lack of culturally appropriate service providers in ParentsNext, and at the lack of consultation with First Nations communities in program design. The CECFW emphasised that First Nations communities and representative bodies must be consulted as part of the design of any pre-employment program, and that the design and delivery of the program must involve genuine partnership between government and First Nations peoples.[42]

5.47The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) raised concern about the disproportionate negative impact of ParentsNext on First Nations peoples and noted that First Nations women are calling for government to commit to re-designing the welfare system in partnership with First Nations communities.[43]

5.48The ARHC highlighted the Wiyi Yani U Thangani (Women’s Voices) Report, which was developed and written in partnership between the AHRC and the National Indigenous Australians Agency. The Report lays out the views of First Nations women and girls as to the strengths of and challenges facing First Nations women, as well as principles that should be enshrined in the design of policies, programs, and services. Among other matters, the report outlines measures for increasing economic and social participation for First Nations women, and suggestions for the design and delivery of employment services.[44]

5.49Change the Record similarly noted the Wiyi Yani U Thangani Report and drew attention to a variety of concerns raised by First Nations women about ParentsNext and the welfare system more generally. Change the Record stated:

Women raised concerns about unliveable rates of payment; systems not taking into account cultural needs and obligations; the punitive, discriminatory and onerous nature of ‘mutual obligations’ and compliance frameworks, particularly ParentsNext [and] the high proportion of First Nations social security recipients being breached and losing their payments compared to other population groups; and the racial discrimination at the heart of schemes like the Community Development Program and compulsory income management.[45]

5.50Stakeholders also indicated that First Nations peoples see value in a program like ParentsNext helping them connect with their culture and engage with local services with a First Nations focus. For example, Metro Assist stated:

Recently I had a lady in Marrickville who said to me that she wants to learn more about her own culture. She wants her daughter to be able to understand where they come from and everything like that. So from our end, we pretty much try to reach out to services that provide training and help with employment and everything like that.[46]

5.51The Kullarri Regional Communities Indigenous Corporation (KRCIC) also highlighted the importance of supporting First Nations peoples to connect with culturally relevant local services and supports, noting that this can be particularly effective if the person delivering supports is also from a First Nations background. The KRCIC drew attention to the role of its Client Advocates in this regard:

[Our Client Advocate] was a local Aboriginal woman with experience and knowledge in these areas and within the local community. She was able to advocate and build vital supports and relationships. This position also supported our [ParentNext] case managers to work on other areas including work readiness, and program deliverables, easing the intensity of the more complex issues. The position was successful and welcomed by participants who knew they could find safety, discretion, and advocacy to move them forward.[47]

5.52During its program of site visits, the Committee intentionally visited multiple providers which were either led by First Nations peoples or had a high number of First Nations participants on their caseload. Participants and frontline staff highlighted several barriers to engagement with pre-employment and employment services, including cultural responsibilities; distrust and fear of government services; and a failure by providers to genuinely engage with local communities.

5.53The Committee heard that while many of these barriers can be addressed simply by better tailoring services to the individual, there would be value in providers taking additional steps to support First Nations peoples as a cohort. This might include enabling participants to include family and community-related activities in their Participation Plan, and by organising events to demonstrate the value of pre-employment services to members of local First Nations communities. Stakeholders also spoke to the importance of increasing the number of First Nations people employed as frontline staff, particularly in coaching and mentoring roles, and to the importance of engaging directly with First Nations Elders on country to seek advice on the most culturally appropriate means of delivering services in the relevant area.

5.54DEWR noted that the most recent evaluation of ParentsNext (for 2018–21) identified that First Nations participants receive higher levels of support than other cohorts and found that the program has been successful in terms of enabling First Nations participants to achieve education and employment outcomes.[48]

5.55The evaluation also found that providers with higher numbers of First Nations participants on their caseloads were cognisant of the challenges facing First Nations peoples and the barriers to participating in ParentsNext and were fully aware of the important of cultural safety. Providers had also made efforts to encourage inclusiveness, such as by displaying First Nations artwork, employing First Nations caseworkers, having a presence in local communities, and referring participants to First Nations-controlled organisations.[49]

People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds

5.56As of 30 September 2022, 19.4 per cent of all ParentsNext participants were from CALD backgrounds.[50] The number of CALD participants on each provider’s caseload varies substantially depending on the provider, the Employment Region, and the site where services are delivered.

5.57Submitters and witnesses observed that parents from CALD backgrounds, and particularly new migrants and refugees, face several (and sometimes overlapping) barriers to social and economic participation. These included lower levels of English, isolation and disconnection from community, gender-based and cultural norms, and challenges using technology. Submitters and witnesses highlighted the importance of empathetic, culturally competent service delivery to meeting the needs of this cohort.[51]

5.58Providers highlighted the benefits of ParentsNext to participants from CALD backgrounds, including helping to build social connections and facilitating access to services designed to improve English literacy.[52] For example, SYC stated:

Our experience has been that the program benefits CALD and refugee parents (mostly women) who may not have considered or planned to enter the workforce when their children started school, for cultural reasons or because they were unsure who to approach for help.[53]

5.59However, other submitters indicated that employment and pre-employment services are not appropriately adapted to the needs of people from CALD backgrounds and may in fact be entrenching poverty and disadvantage. For example, People Power Services (PPS) stated:

[Refugees and migrants from African backgrounds] …express the willingness to work in order to get out of the poverty cycle. However, they find it difficult to break down intergenerational conflict, poverty and post-traumatic stress issues they experience. The argue that the systems in Australia lead them to dependency and difficulty to navigate.[54]

5.60The Committee also heard that compulsory participation and the application of the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF) creates challenges for parents from CALD backgrounds. For example, Settlement Services International (SSI) stated:

[P]arents whose first language is not English are particularly at risk of being noncompliant and having payments suspended, particularly when employment services providers lack skills or capacities to work with people from CALD backgrounds…Trust and rapport is critical to programs of this nature, so that participants are open to expressing their aspirations and challenges and get the support they need.[55]

5.61During the Committee’s site visits, participants and frontline staff spoke about the challenges facing this cohort. These included lower levels of English proficiency, social isolation, and challenges navigating both ParentsNext and the broader social services ecosystem. It was also observed that participants from CALD backgrounds have challenges using technology, and often seek to attend meetings in person rather than telephoning or using an application. These challenges can mean that this cohort will experience heightened levels of stress when they (inadvertently) fail to comply with a participation requirement, as notices regarding reconnection and the suspension of payments are typically automated and sent via text.

5.62Several participants and frontline staff indicated that a ‘soft touch’, more person-centred approach to service delivery and compliance may be needed for participants from CALD backgrounds. Culturally competent staff—and particularly staff from similar backgrounds who speak the participant’s language and understand their culture—are also essential.

Parents who have experienced family violence

5.63The Committee heard that a high proportion of women—particularly single mothers—experience family violence. For example, Domestic Violence NSW (DVNSW) noted that an estimated 60 per cent of the 311,000 single mothers living in Australia in 2016 had experienced physical or sexual violence by a previous partner.[56]

5.64According to DEWR, around five per cent of participants self-report experiences of family violence during the process of referral to ParentsNext.[57] However, the actual number of participants who have experienced family violence may be substantially higher, noting that many participants are uncomfortable disclosing family violence to government agencies.[58] This issue was reinforced during the Committee’s site visits, with many staff noting that participants are unwilling to disclose family violence until they trust their case manager. This can often take several months. Moreover, building a trusting relationship can be impeded by the involvement of the provider and their frontline staff in applying the TCF.

5.65The Committee heard that pre-employment or pre-vocational services can help address the impacts of family violence, including by increasing participants’ financial independence and confidence and by building connections with local services and supports.[59] Notwithstanding participants’ initial unwillingness to disclose experiences of family violence, pre-employment services—including ParentsNext—can also enable parents to discuss experiences of family violence in a trusting environment and be connected to specialist services if necessary.[60]

5.66DEWR explained that during the initial appointment with a ParentsNext provider, an employment consultant (or case manager) is required to explain the elements of the program. At this stage, the consultant begins to build a rapport with the participant. If during that discussion or a subsequent meeting an experience of family violence is identified, the consultant must offer the participant an exemption from the program.[61]

5.67DEWR also observed that many victim-survivors of family violence do not take up exemptions when offered, due to perceived increases to their safety where they stay connected to the program. DEWR stated:

When we've gone out and undertaken…qualitative research…[we have found that participants] like to stay connected with their consultant because the consultant and the program actually help them to navigate the complexities of a [family] violence situation. We also know that some of the facilities that they go to in some of the states also have safe places for women and their children if they're actually undergoing an event at the time.[62]

5.68Services Australia told the Committee that its staff are trained to look for risk factors such as family violence while referring participants to ParentsNext. Exemptions for family violence can be granted during this process. Services Australia also stated that it provides ‘extensive support’ to individuals, including referrals to social workers and crisis payments for people experiencing family violence.[63]

5.69Evidence relating to referrals to ParentsNext, and to exemptions from the program, is discussed in Chapter 3. This includes evidence that Services Australia’s method of engaging with participants during the referral process, and the framework for granting exemptions, may require substantial improvement.

5.70Consistent with this evidence, the Committee heard that the design of ParentsNext—and particularly the compulsory nature of the program and penalties for noncompliance—are not appropriately adapted to the needs of victim-survivors of family violence, with some participants viewing the program as another form of abuse.[64] Submitters argued that ParentsNext must be redesigned as a trauma-informed service.[65] For example, Dr Katherine Curchin stated:

It is now recognised that well-intentioned but poorly designed services can trigger trauma-related responses in clients with trauma histories. Recovering from domestic violence and trauma involves regaining a sense of safety, rebuilding self-esteem and self-efficacy and the capacity to trust other people…In order to be consistent with trauma-informed principles any pre-employment program needs to be made voluntary.[66]

5.71To illustrate where ParentsNext is not effectively supporting victim-survivors of family violence, and to suggest an alternative model, DVNSW highlighted the experiences of two participants who had escaped family violence. The first reported that her case manager did not trust her account of relevant events, and that she was required to provide a significant amount of evidence to qualify for an exemption. Ultimately, this led to the participant becoming further disconnected from the workforce. By contrast, the other participant achieved a positive education outcome due in large part to a supportive case manager who was able to advocate on her behalf and connect her to local services.[67]

5.72The Committee also heard that while many providers require their staff to have some form of training related to family violence,[68] there is little consistency as to the quality of that training. Accordingly, staff are often unable to respond effectively to family violence where it is identified.[69]

5.73DVNSW asserted that there should be a minimum level of training for all provider staff in relation to family violence, and that this training should be consistent across all providers. DVNSW recommended the DV-Alert (a nationally available program) in this regard, stating that the DV-Alert:

…provides two-hour, one-day or two-day training. I think the two-hour training would be sufficient at a minimum. However, the one-day training would be preferred, particularly due to the higher prevalence within this cohort…

[I]t is integral for the success of the program that the providers do have that understanding of how trauma impacts people, what the ongoing impacts of domestic violence and financial abuse can be, and some of the safety risks that they should be alert to in the clients who are coming through.[70]

5.74Some submitters and witnesses also emphasised that while provider staff must have the tools to identify and respond to experiences of family violence, ParentsNext (or a replacement service) is not and should not be a specialist family violence service. The Committee heard that rather than attempting to give a pre-employment or pre-vocational program this function, there must be greater investment in existing family violence services. A targeted service for parents must also be integrated with and have strong links to such services so that participants can be referred as necessary.[71]

5.75Frontline staff with whom the Committee spoke during site visits also emphasised that ParentsNext should not be a family violence service. Those staff told the Committee that it is vital that case managers and other staff can identify and respond appropriately to family violence (for example, by referring participants to specialist services), and can provide a safe environment for self-reporting. However, provider staff are not required to have the training necessary to provide the intensive, trauma-informed support which victim-survivors of domestic violence often require.

Frontline staff: training, qualifications, and experience

5.76Frontline provider staff perform a diverse range of functions in assisting participants achieve their goals. These include helping participants to identify and develop a plan to achieve their goals, coaching and mentoring participants, connecting participants to local services and supports. As outlined above, staff can also be obliged to provide support outside of the usual service offering for a pre-employment or pre-vocational program, such as identifying and responding to family violence.[72]

5.77Several submitters highlighted the importance of staff having a diverse range of qualifications and training commensurate to and matched with their important roles. Evidence also indicated that ‘soft’ skills, such as empathy and communication, as well as lived experience of pre-employment services, can be crucial to delivering effective support.[73] For example, WHFS stated:

Lived experience is great, but the way that we work with our clients is that they come on the journey with us ...[I]t's really about engaging with them and listening to them and working with them. ..I guess it's about having a caseworker where the way they run the program is with the client. It's not trying to get them to employment as the outcome against anything else.[74]

…

It's a mixed background for a really good case worker. If you could download a lived experience brain with all the social work, training, and psychology training—our advocates come from many different backgrounds. If we were looking to skill up a workforce, I'd probably be arguing that some qualification in case management for advocates would be a core competency for that workforce. But they are pulled from lots of different disciplines.[75]

5.78DEWR stated that there are no minimum qualification requirements for provider staff. However, the tender process for ParentsNext requires all providers to outline their service model and to demonstrate the experience and qualifications of their staff—including qualifications and experience relevant to supporting First Nations peoples and parents with experience of family violence. Providers must also meet service requirements set out in the ParentsNext Deed and Guidelines, including training on operational aspects of ParentsNext, and are required to deliver the specific services they committed to deliver as part of the tender process.[76]

5.79DEWR told the Committee that it undertook a survey of ParentsNext providers, which gives insight into staff qualifications and experience. According to the survey, half of all staff have specialist qualifications, covering disciplines like youth work, disability support, mental health, allied health, and psychology. Staff also have experience working with disengaged youth and as mentors for First Nations peoples.[77]

5.80In addition, DEWR told the Committee that providers deliver on-the-job training to their staff, stating that this training covers matters such as supporting families in conflict and mental health awareness.[78] Providers confirmed that they require or at least encourage their staff to complete this type of training as part of their ongoing professional development, and as part of onboarding processes.[79]

5.81During the Committee’s site visits, providers gave the Committee comprehensive information on the qualifications of their staff. This indicated that a majority of staff have post-school qualifications covering a range of disciplines including employment services, education, youth work, early childhood education, community services, and allied health. This reflected evidence provided by NESA regarding qualifications in the broader employment services sector.[80]

5.82Several providers also noted that they do not require qualifications of a specific type or level for most roles. This was partially due to the difficulty of recruiting staff with such qualifications in a competitive labour market, and partially because providers do not wish to exclude applicants with lived experience who may not have formal training. Providers told the Committee that they also encourage or require their staff to undertake relevant training as part of their ongoing professional development, and support staff to obtain formal qualifications after they have been hired.

5.83Notwithstanding the evidence above regarding the qualifications and experience of frontline staff, the Committee heard that training available to frontline staff can be limited and that there are skills gaps that must be addressed. In particular, the Committee heard that staff may lack cultural competency, the ability to respond effectively to family violence, and an understanding of financial hardship.[81]

5.84The Committee also heard that skills gaps and poor staff training are linked to the overall design and delivery of ParentsNext. For example, Ms Ella Buckland stated:

Why does the Government think it’s acceptable to expose…vulnerable women to untrained and uneducated providers? Why are there KPIs set for vulnerable women and children? Why do…providers force women who have found their own work to provide payslips? Why [do] providers use in house ‘training’ (e.g., watch a YouTube video on Microsoft Word)? Because we all know the ParentsNext ‘providers’ get a cash bonus for these things. So in a shining moment of altruistic intelligence the Government incentivises the ParentsNext workers while penalising the mothers who are caring for children.[82]

5.85The BSL similarly noted that there has been a gradual de-professionalising across the pre-employment and employment services sector, including in ParentsNext, and that there appears to be a focus on compliance monitoring and enforcement rather than on genuine support for participants. The BSL noted that this has resulted in:

…a change in the type of worker that is taken on and the capability that is grown, whether that's a public or a community provider. So there are implications right across the workforce, depending on the sort of investment that is intended through a program, whether it's ParentsNext or something else.[83]

5.86The Committee heard that there may be value in setting mandatory standards for the skills and competencies of frontline staff in a pre-employment or pre-vocational program. Evidence indicated that this may help to re-professionalise the sector and ensure that participants receive high quality support.[84]

5.87Jobs Australia noted that the types of qualifications or competencies that might be included in a mandatory standard should cover the following disciplines:

• Community services or community sector management
• Addressing drug and alcohol dependence
• Child and family health
• Counselling
• Employment services
• Career development.[85]
  88. Jobs Australia also stated that lived experience of parenting, and lived experience of pre-employment or employment programs, would be desirable for frontline staff.[86]
  89. However, there are risks in requiring frontline staff to hold qualifications of a specific type or level. Imposing such requirements may exclude people with relevant experience who may not hold a formal qualification, as well as those with critical ‘soft’ skills such as empathy and communication. For example, atWork Australia stated:

If you have someone with a certain level of qualification, that doesn't mean that they can communicate and build rapport with someone. Being able to communicate with someone and work with them and identify their barriers and build their confidence is a better outcome for that participant, rather than that person having a cert-level qualification or higher. Essentially, that's why, when we do bring people into our workforce, it is very much around meeting our values and putting the client first. If we took that approach of looking at a qualification above that, I don't know if we would be as successful in ensuring that the participant client is put first.[87]

5.90atWork Australia suggested that rather than requiring potential staff to hold specific qualifications, providers should be enabled to recruit as they see fit and to deliver professional or accredited qualifications to their staff post-commencement.[88]

5.91The Committee also heard that mandatory standards must not result in people with lived experience being excluded, as staff with lived experience are often best placed to build the trusting relationships with participants which are critical to effective support. For example, Dr Ann Nevile stated:

[T]here could be someone who has lived experience plus practical experience who might be very good, particularly in certain cultural areas, but who maybe hasn't had a tick-off of a TAFE certificate, and they should not be prevented from working in this area. So, again, it's flexibility. But I think [there should also be] some way of recognising the level of skills and the importance of the work.[89]

5.92‘Lived experience’ does not only refer to experience as a participant in ParentsNext (or a similar service), but also to lived experience of key vulnerabilities such as family violence. For example, one frontline staff member explained that her experiences as both a participant and as a victim-survivor of family violence allowed her to connect with participants on a deeper level, leading to their engaging more effectively with the program and ultimately to achieving education and employment outcomes and personal goals. The staff member’s personal experiences were also instrumental to enabling participants to disclose their own experiences of family violence, and to helping participants connect with services and supports in the community.

5.93In addition, the Committee heard that introducing mandatory standards will have significant cost implications and may not be possible under current funding arrangements for ParentsNext. For example, Campbell Page stated:

[W]e see the value in having a skilled, experienced and better trained workforce – particularly given the vulnerability and complexity of the participant group. However, under the current funding paradigm, it is not practical to mandate more than a basic skillset e.g., training in dealing with domestic violence. Providing high quality fundamentals is already a part of [our] model for ParentsNext.[90]

5.94Campbell Page also indicated that one of the key barriers to recruiting qualified staff is that providers may not be able to offer competitive salaries, stating that with more funding, providers would be able to offer higher wages.[91]

5.95The BSL similarly observed that providers must offer competitive salaries to attract staff with specific experience or qualifications, noting that this would require additional investment by government. Additional investment is also required to ensure that staff have access to ongoing, evidence-informed professional development.[92]

Supporting innovation and experimentation

5.96Building on the importance of innovation in service delivery, there were several ideas the Committee observed that it is keen to see form part of the consideration and possible trialling through the co‑design process.

5.97Further, several stakeholders suggested that a pre-vocational program could continue to offer assistance once work‑ready, such that participants would remain in the service and not move into mainstream employment assistance despite starting to look for work.[93]

Hub-based service delivery models

5.98One of the functions of ParentsNext is to connect participants with services and supports which can help them to build their confidence, address barriers to social and economic participation, and achieve their education and employment goals. Those services and supports are typically located within the local community. By contrast, under a hub-based model participants would access a variety of different services through the same provider or site.

5.99Some submitters and witnesses indicated that a hub-based model may be an effective alternative to the models currently in place in ParentsNext and in the mainstream employment services system.[94]

5.100For example, DVNSW drew attention to the Financial Independence Hub (FIH) operated by Good Shepherd Australia and New Zealand and co-designed with people with lived experience of family violence and financial abuse.[95] The FIH provides one-on-one financial coaching to build financial independence, manage everyday finances, and work towards future goals.[96]

5.101The NCSMC outlined their model for a voluntary community hub. This would co-locate services which support participants with education and employment goals with services to increase their confidence and build social connections. The service would be trauma-informed and would not include financial incentives for support workers.[97]

5.102The NCSMC also recommended that government implement a safety hub (or series of hubs) to work with and across government agencies. The NCSMC stated that these hubs would be a place of trust and cultural safety for parents, including by providing a single point of contact to disclose experiences of trauma. Other functions of the hubs would include:

• granting exemptions from ParentsNext and Workforce Australia;
• supporting women who wish to attend services on a voluntary basis;
• protecting women from the prospect of payment suspension;
• supporting Services Australia to screen for risk indicators, at least where staff undertaking the screening have completed quality trauma safety training;
• supporting employment services to exit women if they have been incorrectly referred or have experienced family and domestic violence since referral;
• assisting women to access information and family violence crisis payments;
• oversight of trauma awareness training for providers.[98]
  103. The BSL drew attention to their Sustaining Economic Empowerment and Dignity (SEED) project, delivered through the Women’s Financial Wellbeing Hub in Seymour, Victoria. The BSL emphasised that the SEED project supports women’s financial capacity and social and economic participation through a range of services collocated at the site, including:
• financial capability coaching; and
• exploring opportunities for education, training, and employment; and
• referral pathways to relevant services and support.[99]
  104. One provider with which the Committee engaged during its program of site visits used a similar service model, and co-located ParentsNext with other social and community-based programs which aimed to increase participants’ social and economic participation. That provider also made efforts to deliver services in community centres wherever possible, to ensure that participant engagement occurred in welcoming and inclusive settings and to ensure participants have access to amenities such as childcare facilities and computers. Other community services were also delivered at these centres, enabling greater integration between pre-vocational programs such as ParentsNext and the broader social support ecosystem.

Providing continuity of assistance

5.105Eligibility for ParentsNext currently ceases when the participant’s youngest child reaches six years of age. At that point, the participant will typically transition into Workforce Australia, and will have specific mutual obligations related to preparing for and finding work.[100]

5.106Submitters noted that the transition to Workforce Australia can place significant pressure on parents, many of whom may not be fully prepared to move into a service focused entirely on employment. Those submitters proposed allowing ParentsNext participants to continue in the program (on a voluntary basis) until their youngest child reaches eight years of age.[101]

5.107The Committee heard that implementing this proposal would have several benefits, including reducing stress during the transition between ParentsNext and mainstream employment services, enabling uninterrupted service delivery and reduced duplication of services, and strengthen participants’ ability to balance their home and working lives with an established support network in place.[102]

5.108Evidence indicated that, from when a participant’s youngest child turns six to when the child turns eight, ParentsNext (or another pre-employment or pre-vocational program) would have a stronger—though not sole—focus on employment, with providers encouraged to directly support participants into paid work.[103]

Committee view

5.109Many new and prospective participants in ParentsNext do not have access to reliable, accurate information on the program or its benefits. This appears to be due (at least in part) to insufficient information on government websites and to the way Services Australia engages with participants during the process of referring them to ParentsNext (discussed in Chapter 3).

5.110There is a clear opportunity for DEWR, DSS, and Services Australia to improve the quality of information available on their websites and in any promotional material about ParentsNext which is distributed to parents and members of the public. DEWR and Services Australia should also ensure that reliable information is provided in relation to any pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext.

5.111Noting that it is envisaged that providers will promote the new pre-vocational service to encourage voluntary participation, the Committee considers that DEWR and Services Australia should work with providers to ensure that information about the ParentsNext and about the new service is clear, consistent, and accurate, and covers operational matters as well as potential benefits to participants.

5.112The Committee recommends that—in relation to both ParentsNext and any replacement service—the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Social Services, and Services Australia review the information on their websites and in any promotional material, to ensure that:

• the information is comprehensive and accurate, and is consistent across all government agencies; and
• the information fully explains the role and operation of the program and its potential benefits.
  113. Noting the fragmentation of services available to parents and carers and the overall complexity of the social support ecosystem, the Committee is also concerned that there appears to be no dedicated service for parents to seek advice and assistance.
  114. The Committee acknowledges that programs such as ParentsNext have a role in this area and are intended to connect parents with and help parents navigate the services which are available. However, many vulnerable and especially single parents who need advice and support are not ParentsNext participants, and accordingly cannot access its services.
  115. The Grandparent, Foster, and Kinship Adviser Service is highly valued as a source of information and advice and a similar service should be established for parents and other carers. The service should enable parents and carers to connect with local and State and Territory services and provide advice on—among other matters—income support payments, supplementary benefits, and childcare subsidies.
  116. The Committee considers there would be merit in examining the development of a dedicated advice and information service for parents, especially designed to help single parents. The Committee acknowledges there may be budgetary and operational implications associated with this proposal, and accordingly it may not be a short-term priority given fiscal realities.

5.117The Committee recommends that Services Australia consider the establishment of a dedicated advice and information service for parents.

5.118The Committee is also concerned that providers often have difficulty contacting Services Australia to resolve issues associated with service delivery, including where a parent is incorrectly or inappropriately referred to ParentsNext. This leads to people being required to participate in ParentsNext despite having no capacity to benefit from the program, and it is ridiculously inefficient for providers to have to wait on hold for excessive times on the public line as currently occurs.

5.119In previous iterations of ParentsNext, and in other programs, providers had clear contact points in Services Australia (or its predecessor). Further, regular meetings were convened between government agencies and providers. These were highly valued by attendees.

5.120Services Australia should re-establish a dedicated point of contact including a telephone support line for providers, to enable them to quickly and efficiently resolve issues and seek advice. Arrangements for a dedicated point of contact should be implemented as a matter of urgency (during the current ParentsNext contract) and should continue in any new pre-employment or pre-vocational service.

5.121The Committee also encourages government to re-establish regular meetings between policy and operational agencies and service providers, to share lessons and examples of best practice, identify issues, and input to policy and program design.

5.122The Committee recommends that Services Australia establish a dedicated point of contact for providers, including a dedicated phone contact service, as a matter of urgency.

5.123While ParentsNext is intended as a collaborative, non-competitive program, the commissioning process for the program has resulted in at least some competitive behaviour between providers.

5.124This issue should be addressed as part of the design of any pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext. The Committee is attracted to the idea of commissioning one provider per region as the default, to ensure only providers with appropriately trained staff and embedded local connections deliver services. This is broadly consistent with arrangements for Transition to Work. Notwithstanding that some participants do change providers, the Committee expects that with significant changes in a replacement service, a focus on collaboration and quality service delivery rather than competition would deliver better outcomes overall for participants.

5.125To this end, the Committee was pleased to hear that some providers have established communities of practice to share learnings and examples of best practice, identify issues and provide feedback to government on policy and program design. However, the Committee considers that providers should be required to meaningfully participate in formal Communities of Practice convened by the department responsible for employment services, so that providers can share learnings across regions and providers and improve the department’s feedback loop relating to program evaluation and policy development. The lack of a formal and mandated process of learning and innovation sharing is perplexing to the Committee and seems driven by competition rather than a common determination to ensure that services and supports are of the highest quality possible.

5.126The Committee acknowledges that additional providers may be desirable in regions where the number of participants is too high for a single provider to manage, where smaller local services may be better able to service sub-regions or towns (as per Transition to Work) or where a higher number of participants from specific cohorts—such as First Nations peoples or people from CALD backgrounds—warrants a specialist provider.

5.127The service which replaces ParentsNext should at least consider and preferably trial different commissioning and contracting models in regions with significant First Nations communities including utilising local community organisations and Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations skilled at working with First Nations people in a family-centric environment.

5.128The Committee has insufficient evidence to support a recommendation that only non-profit organisations should be permitted to deliver the service which replaces ParentsNext (notwithstanding some suggestions received). The Committee considers that commissioning arrangements for the service must ensure that providers are able to demonstrate their capacity to deliver high-quality services and supports which are appropriately adapted to the needs of participants. Ideally, providers should also have strong local connections (which may favour local non-profit organisations with established links and social capital). The mix of for-profit and non-profit providers can be considered as part of the co-design process for the new service.

5.129The Committee acknowledges reported difficulties for small providers to operate effectively in ParentsNext reflect broader issues with the current (and indeed any) major Commonwealth employment services system, and are driven by:

• automation, which pushes inexorably to a purchaser and provider model rather than enabling partnerships and more regional or local responses, and
• the shift to larger contracts and Commonwealth administrative systems and automation. This creates significant threshold administrative burdens associated with reporting, compliance, service quality and cyber security—among others—which small providers struggle to or simply cannot meet.
  130. The Committee is concerned to hear multiple reports from providers that at least some providers are experiencing unreasonable delays in seeking approvals changing their operational arrangements to respond to fluctuations in the number of participants on their caseloads. Evidence that providers are waiting many months to receive approval to not have staff at small sites with no participants is concerning as it is a waste of program resources.
  131. Accordingly, DEWR must be more responsive to the operational needs of providers, including enabling providers to quickly change their delivery practices if necessary. The Committee also considers that KPIs should be developed and published for the approval by DEWR of routine decisions in managing contracts, which some may liken to DEWR imposing a form of mutual obligation on itself. The impact of operating in regions with smaller or ‘thin’ markets or fluctuating numbers of participants should be considered as part of the (co-)design process for a pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext.

5.132The Committee recommends that the co-design process for a pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext expressly consider the commissioning model for providers, with the aim of minimising competition and promoting greater collaboration between providers.

5.133The Committee recommends that, as part of the pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext, government actively support communities of practice, and mandate participation by service providers to enable information-sharing between stakeholders and to ensure that providers input into policy and program evaluation and design.

5.134The Committee has also observed that with an entirely outsourced program, there is an almost total lack of experience in the Commonwealth public service in direct delivery of employment or pre-employment services. The Department literally has no view whatsoever on what makes a good, high quality, efficient and effective service. This hampers the ability for policy makers to fully understand the issues in service delivery and retards the feedback loop into program design and policy development.

5.135The Committee considers there should be greater experimentation in the system and that the Commonwealth needs to regain experience in directly delivering some of employment, pre-employment and pre-vocational services and programs to improve its stewardship and policy development capabilities.

5.136The Committee further notes that predecessor programs were delivered in part by Services Australia, and recommends the government seriously consider engaging a public sector agency deliver the service which replaces ParentsNext in at least a few Employment Regions. The Committee anticipates that frontline staff would be employed by Services Australia and would potentially co-located in community sector agencies as an alternative to Commonwealth offices. This approach would allow relevant agencies to better understand the ‘on the ground’ issues associated with the delivery of pre-vocational services, including problems with the interactions with other systems and services.

5.137The Committee acknowledges that the cost of having public sector agencies deliver the service which replaces ParentsNext may be slightly higher than outsourced arrangements. The Committee’s proposal is explicitly not made on a competitive neutrality basis. Rather, the Committee is concerned to see the public sector re-develop at least some direct experience of service delivery to inform its core policy development, evaluation, and system stewardship responsibilities in the interests of higher quality public services.

5.138The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as part of the design process for a new pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext, seriously consider having a public sector agency deliver the service in at least a few Employment Regions.

5.139The Committee is concerned that there has been a de-professionalisation of the pre-employment and employment services sector over many years. The sector is dominated by female, low paid workers and is one of the few in human services that does not mandate qualifications or specific competencies for frontline staff. This contrasts with measures to professionalise other human services such as early childhood education, aged care, and disability support.

5.140Many providers have implemented recruitment and training practices to ensure their staff are equipped to deliver high quality services to participants, and staff often hold post-secondary qualifications—some in highly relevant areas. However, the Committee is concerned that the lack of mandatory minimum qualifications, training or competency standards has led to inconsistencies in service quality and to critical skills gaps and limits the career development prospects of workers.

5.141Accordingly, the Committee proposes that desired minimum required workforce skills and qualifications for frontline staff be specified in the design of a future service. The precise nature of desired qualification standards should be a key part of the co-design process for the new service.

5.142In developing a typology of desirable and suitable qualifications:

• Significant regard should be had to lived experience and foundational qualities. However, there should also be:

• general minimum requirements setting out a suite of appropriate qualifications;
• a specification of aggregate requirements, for example a typology of acceptable skills mixes in an office or a provider in a region; and
• provision to hire for lived experience, capability, and potential without formal qualifications subject to skilling and gaining qualification post-commencement in a reasonable timeframe.

• any such standards should, at a minimum, include First Nations cultural competency and the ability to respond appropriately to experiences of family violence. The Committee is attracted to the idea of mandating nationally recognised training in relation to these matters, such as the DV-Alert.
  143. The Committee will consider training and qualifications for staff in the employment services system generally as part of its broader inquiry into Workforce Australia Employment Services but observes that preliminary evidence suggests there are very similar issues in the broader system.
  144. The Committee also considers that there would be value in implementing measures in the short term to ensure the cultural competency of frontline staff in relation to First Nations issues. This may include basic nationally recognised First Nations cultural awareness training, as well as requirements that providers dealing with significant First National cohorts connect locally with Elders or communities, noting that each community is different and there would be considerable value in providers understanding the unique circumstances, needs, and cultural norms of First Nations peoples in the areas where the provider is delivering services.
  145. The Committee acknowledges that requiring providers to implement specific training programs in these areas will have operational and budgetary implications. Nevertheless, the Committee strongly encourages government to work with providers to implement nationally recognised training on cultural safety and family violence. In particular, the Committee would strongly support all providers implementing mandatory basic domestic violence training (such as the ‘DV-alert’) as a matter of urgency.

5.146The Committee recommends that the co‑design process for any pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext include development of minimum competency standards for frontline staff and a typology of staff capabilities for providers. The standards must require frontline staff to be culturally competent and able to respond to experiences of family violence, and should capture the following matters:

• Specific skills, qualifications, and competencies frontline staff are expected to hold.
• A typology of a broad ideal skills mix in a high-quality service region.
• The extent to which providers may recruit staff who do not possess formal qualifications, including measures to enable providers to:

• recruit staff with lived experience in or experience delivering pre-employment or employment services; and
• support staff to gain formal qualifications post-commencement.
  147. Australia’s employment services system, including pre-vocational programs for parents, should have in-built flexibility to support testing and evaluation of innovative ideas. This is critical to responding to changes in the labour market and to supporting a culture of continuous improvement.
  148. The Committee is attracted to the ideas set out above as examples of where services could be improved and encourages government to consider these and other ideas as part of the co-design process for the service which replaces ParentsNext.
  149. The Committee is also strongly of the view that government should continue to trial different service delivery models—including incentives for participation (outlined in Chapter 3)—on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, any new pre-vocational service to replace ParentsNext must have the built-in capacity for experimentation through trials and transparent evaluation.
  150. The Committee will also consider innovation and experimentation in the employment services system more generally a part of its broader inquiry into Workforce Australia Employment Services.

5.151The Committee recommends that the pre-vocational service which replaces ParentsNext has the built-in capacity to trial, experiment with and evaluate alternative service delivery arrangements. All such arrangements should be subject to rigorous co‑design with key stakeholders including participants, providers, peak bodies, and academic and policy experts, and should be subject to robust monitoring and evaluation.

Footnotes

[1]See, for example, SYC, Submission 44, p. 9; National Employment Services Association (NESA), Submission 83, p. 6; CVGT Employment (CVGT), Submission 22, p. 4.

[2]NESA, Submission 83, p. 6. See also Ms Sally Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer, NESA, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, pages 12–13.

[3]Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 10. See also, Ms Felicite Black, Chief Executive Officer, Women’s Health and Family Services (WHFS), Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 9.

[4]atWork Australia (atWork), Submission 34, p. 2.

[5]Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA), Submission 23, p.5.

[6]NESA, Submission 83, p. 7. NESA observed that such an approach already exists in the Workforce Australia Self-Employment Assistance Program.

[7]See Services Australia, Grandparents, Foster and Kinship Carer Advisers, www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/grandparent-foster-and-kinship-carer-advisers, viewed 14 February 2023. Seealso Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, Interim Report, p.63.

[8]Ms Terese Edwards, Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC), Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 7.

[9]Ms Edwards, NCSMC, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 7.

[10]Ms Quynh Pham, Employment Services Team Leader, Metro Assist, Committee Hansard, 7December 2022, p.29.

[11]See, for example, Ms Julia North, Program Manager—ParentsNext, Campbell Page, Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 27.

[12]Ms Charissa Mossop, Program Manager—ParentsNext, OCTEC Ltd (OCTEC), Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.27.

[13]See, for example, Mr Hugh Reilly, Executive General Manager, atWork, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 18.

[14]Ms Mossop, OCTEC, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.29.

[15]Ms Emma Morris, Executive Manager—Client Support Services, WHFS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1February 2023, pp. 8–9.

[16]Mission Australia, Submission 76, p.3. During the Committee’s program of site visits, providers told the Committee that it was significantly easier to contact Services Australia to resolve issues during the ParentsNext pilot program.

[17]See, for example, Ms Sinclair, NESA, Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 15.

[18]Mr Eric Harper, General Manager (A/g)—Working Age Programs, Services Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 21.

[19]Ms Robyn Shannon, First Assistant Secretary—Workforce Australia Provider Support, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 21

[20]Ms Shannon, DEWR, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 21

[21]DEWR, Submission 77, p. 17.

[22]Ms Samantha Robertson, Assistant Secretary, Employment Programs Branch, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p. 37.

[23]Ms Robertson, Assistant Secretary, Employment Programs Branch, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p. 37; Ms Shannon, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 37.

[24]NESA, Submission 83, p. 4; Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 16.

[25]Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL), Submission 59, p.14. The BSL observed that this would be similar to the commissioning model used for the Transition to Work program.

[26]Dr Katherine Curchin, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University (ANU), Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p. 4.

[27]Ms Black, WHFS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 8.

[28]Ms Shannon, DEWR, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 37

[29]See, for example, YFS Limited (YFS), Submission 31, p. 1; Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA), Submission 60, p.10. FRSA also provided a list of attributes that a ‘good’ provider should possess, including a holistic, client-focused service delivery model; skilled, empathetic staff; and strong relationships with other services which enable collaborative approaches to providing support.

[30]See, for example, Uniting SA, Submission 32, p. 6; Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), Submission 62, p.13; CORE Community Services (CORE), Submission 33, p. [3]; Mission Australia, Submission 76, p.3.

[31]ACOSS, Submission 62, p.13.

[32]See, for example, YFS, Submission 31, p.8; ACOSS, Submission 63, p.13; Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p.4.

[33]See, for example, ACOSS, Submission 63, p.13; Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p.4.

[34]YFS, Submission 31, p. 8.

[35]See, for example, Dr Janet Ramsey PSM, Submission 17, p. 1; Ms Forbes, EJA, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p. 25.

[36]See BSL, Submission 59, p. 17.

[37]See DEWR, Submission 77 (Attachment 1), pages 6–10.

[38]See, for example, Ms Jenny Davidson, Chief Executive Officer, Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC), Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p. 8; Ms Renata Field, Team Manager—Policy, Advocacy and Research, Domestic Violence New South Wales (DVNSW), Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p. 20.

[39]DEWR, Submission 77, p. 2.

[40]See, for example, CSMC, Submission 25, p. 8, YFS, Submission 31, p. 4; Kullarri Regional Communities Indigenous Corporation (KRCIC), Submission 95, p. 2.

[41]ACOSS, Submission 62, p. 1.

[42]Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (CECFW), Submission 74, p. 6.

[43]Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Submission 24, pages 3–4.

[44]See ARHC (2020), Wiyi Yani U Thangani (Women’s Voices): Securing Our Rights, Securing Our Future Report, pages 501–561. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/wiyi-yani-u-thangani, viewed 14 February 2023.

[45]Change the Record, Submission 103, p. 3.

[46]Ms Pham, Metro Assist, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.30.

[47]KRCIC, Submission 95, p. 5. The KRCIC explained that it received external funding to support a 12-month Client Advocate role, which worked alongside and complemented ParentsNext. The KRCIC stated that ongoing financial support for the role would be beneficial, noting that funding for the role has ceased.

[48]DEWR, Submission 77.1, pages [7–8].

[49]DEWR, Submission 77.1, pages [9–10].

[50]DEWR, Submission 77, p.2.

[51]See, for example, Settlement Services International (SSI), Submission 16, pages[2‑3]; Metro Assist, Submission73, p. [5];Settlement Council of Australia (SCA), Submission 85, pages [2–3]; Dr Ann Nevile, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, ANU, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p. 3, MsEdwards, NCSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p. 6.

[52]See, for example, SSI, Submission 16, pages [2–3], CORE, Submission 33, p.[2], Metro Assist, Submission 73, p.4, SCA, Submission 85, p. [2], People Power Services, Submission 89, p. 2, Ms April Pan, Manager—Settlement and Employment Programs, Metro Assist, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.22,

[53]SYC, Submission 44, p. 5.

[54]People Power Services Ltd, Submission 89, p, 1.

[55]SSI, Submission 16.1, p. [4].

[56]DVNSW, Submission 46, p. 3

[57]DEWR, Submission 77, p.15.

[58]See, for example, Workskil, Submission 21, p.3, Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p.3.

[59]See, for example, Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA), Submission 3, p. [1]; SCA, Submission 85, p. [3]; Accoras, Submission 52, p. [5].

[60]See, for example, My Pathway, Submission 35, p. 8, MAX Solutions, Submission 40, p.[2], Salvation Army Employment Plus (SAEP), Submission 48, p.8.

[61]Ms Robertson, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.38.

[62]Ms Robertson, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.38.

[63]Ms Cathy Toze, General Manager, Income Management and Targeted Services and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (A/g)—Customer Service Design, Services Australia, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 38.

[64]See, for example, Angela (private capacity), Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 2; Ms Ella Buckland (private capacity), Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, pages 7–8; Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6, p. 3; Change the Record, Submission 103, p. 5.

[65]See, for example, DVNSW, Submission 46, p. 5; Full Stop Australia, Submission 12, pages 2–3.

[66]Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p. 4.

[67]DVNSW, Submission 46, pages 5–6.

[68]See, for example, YFS, Submission 31, p. 3; Accoras, Submission 52, p. [1].

[69]See, for example, ACOSS, Submission 62, p. 10;Economic Justice Australia (EJA), Submission 11, p. [10].

[70]Ms Field, DVNSW, Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 20. Additional information about DV-Alert is available via www.dvalert.org.au, viewed 14 February 2023.

[71]See, for example, SCA, Submission 85, p.[2]; Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.10; Dr Simone Casey, Senior Advisor—Employment, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, pages13–14.

[72]NESA, Submission 83, p. 14.

[73]See, for example, CORE, Submission 44, p. [3]; Name Withheld, Submission 29, p. [2]; Name Withheld, Submission 66, p. [1]; Ms Madeleine Sturgeon-Eustace, Engagement Officer—ParentsNext, Training Alliance Group (TAG), Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, pages 12–13. Ms Sturgeon-Eustace outlined her experience moving from being a participant in ParentsNext to a frontline staff member with the Training Alliance Group, and how she has been able to translate her lived experience into effective participant support.

[74]Ms Morris, WHFS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 7.

[75]Ms Black, WHFS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 7.

[76]DEWR, Submission 77, p. 18.

[77]Ms Shannon, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 36.

[78]Ms Shannon, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 36.

[79]See, for example, MAX Solutions, Submission 40, p. [4]; YFS, Submission 31, p. 3; CatholicCare Wollongong, Submission 65, p. 5; Mission Australia, Submission 78, p. 8. Training covers matters such as trauma-informed practice, responding to family violence, mental health first aid, and child protection.

[80]See NESA, Submission 83, pages 16–17.

[81]See, for example, Ms Davidson, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, pages 5, 8; Ms Field, DVNSW, Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 20; EJA, Submission 11, p. [10]; Ms Pan, Metro Assist, Proof Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 23.

[82]Ms Ella Buckland, Submission 13, p. [2].

[83]Dr Travers McLeod, Executive Director, BSL, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.28.

[84]See, for example, OCTEC, Submission 53.1, pages [1–2]; Metro Assist, Submission 73.1, pages [1 –2]. Submitters to the Committee’s broader inquiry into Workforce Australia Employment Services also expressed support for mandatory qualifications for frontline staff. See, for example, Career Development Association Australia, Submission 101, p. [1].

[85]Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 9.

[86]Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 9.

[87]Mrs Natalie Fitzgerald, General Manager—Business Excellence, atWork, Proof Committee Hansard, 1February 2023, p. 19.

[88]Mr Reilly, atWork, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 19.

[89]Dr Nevile, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 5.

[90]Campbell Page, Submission 57.1, p. [2].

[91]Campbell Page, Submission 57.1, p. [2]

[92]BSL, Submission 59, p. 14. See also Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 9.

[93]See, for example, CVGT, Submission 22, p. 3; Uniting SA, Submission 32, p. 4; APM, Submission 42, p. 5; Mission Australia, Submission 76, p. 8; Name Withheld, Submission 66, p. [1].

[94]See, for example, Ms Terese Edwards, NCSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p. 7, Ms Renata Field, DVNSW, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.7; BSL, Submission 59, p.9; Per Capita, Submission 78, p. 23.

[95]DVNSW, Submission 46, p. 4.

[96]Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand, Financial Independence Hub, https://goodshep.org.au/services/fih/, viewed 14 February 2023.

[97]Ms Edwards, NCSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p. 7; NCSMC, Submission 5.1, p. [1].

[98]NCSMC, Submission 5, pages 3–4.

[99]BSL, Submission 59, p.9. See also, BSL, The SEED Project, www.bsl.org.au/services/saving‑and‑managing‑money/the‑seed‑project, viewed 14 February 2023. The SEED project is also discussed in Chapter 2.

[100]Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary—Social Security, Department of Social Services (DSS), Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 40.

[101]See, for example, atWork, Submission 34, pages 2–3, APM, Submission 42, p. 5; SAEP, Submission 48, p. 9; Uniting Care Australia, Submission 49, p. 4.

[102]See, for example, Uniting SA, Submission 32, p. 4; Jobfind Centres Australia Pty Ltd, Submission 50, p. [3]; CVGT, Submission 22, p. 3.

[103]See, for example, Djerriwarrh Community & Education Services, Submission 28, p. 6.