Chapter 1 - Stakeholder Views

Job Capacity Assessment Guidelines, particularly as they relate to assessment and referral practices;
the appropriateness and range of the qualifications necessary for Job Capacity Assessors to undertake assessments of people with different disabilities, including those with a mental illness;
the quality of information recorded during the assessment process, including whether this is sufficient to assist agencies making decisions on income support and/or employment assistance;
the appropriateness of arrangements to ensure attendance at Job Capacity Assessments;
the role of the Job Capacity Account program, including the effectiveness of the current referral arrangements to the Job Capacity Account and the Job Network; and
key strengths of the current arrangements and any lessons for the future, from your knowledge of current and past arrangements in Australia and internationally.

A copy of this letter is provided at Attachment A, along with a list of stakeholder organisations which were sent the letter and stakeholder organisations which provided a response as at 28 March 2008. A list of stakeholder organisations which agreed to publish their responses on the DHS website is provided at Attachment B.

Return to Top

Sources of stakeholder views

Following Senator Ludwig’s letter to stakeholder organisations of 12 February 2008 seeking their views on how to improve JCA and Job Capacity Account services, over fifty responses were received. Fifty respondents agreed to their responses being published.

In addition to responses received for the JCA Review, a number of stakeholders raised issues relating to JCA and Job Capacity Account services in submissions and consultations on the Employment Services Review and the National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy.

DHS has met with many agencies and organisations to gain a better understanding of their views and discuss possible approaches, including:

the JCA Reference Group (representing peak stakeholder organisations);
the Mental Health Council of Australia;
the National Welfare Rights Network;
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
the Privacy Commission;
the National Employment Services Association (NESA - representing employment service providers and JCA providers) – NESA also facilitated two workshops with providers on 12 May and 16 June 2008;
Jobs Australia (representing not-for-profit employment service providers);
the Association of Competitive Employment (representing Disability Employment Network providers);
the Social Security Appeal Tribunal;
Uniting Care;
JCA service providers; and
Government agencies, including DEEWR, FaHCSIA and Centrelink.

DHS, DEEWR and FaHCSIA have also received substantial feedback from stakeholders during the life of the JCA Program, including through JCA Reference Group meetings and Centrelink Disability Customer Reference Group and Multi-cultural Reference Group meetings, in response to conference presentations and workshops, and in meetings with key stakeholder groups such as the National Welfare Rights Network.

Presentations at the JCA service provider conference in August 2007 by the National Welfare Rights Network, the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and the National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS, highlighted client perspectives on JCA arrangements. The National Welfare Rights Network also provided DHS with a paper on issues identified with the JCA in August 2007, several of which have now been rectified.

This chapter canvasses the feedback from all these sources and from several key reports which canvassed JCA and Welfare to Work issues, including:

the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2006-07;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report on Application of Penalties under Welfare to Work, December 2007;
the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report on Implementation of Job Capacity Assessments for the Purposes of Welfare to Work Initiatives, June 2008:
Mental Health Council of Australia, A National Mental Health Employment Strategy, December 2007;
Mental Health Council of Australia Reforming Welfare to Work Forum and papers, Parliament House 15 February 2008; and
NSW Nurses’ Association, Jumping through Hoops, November 2007 (a study of barriers to work for people with mental illness).

Return to Top

Positive aspects of the JCA Program identified by stakeholders

Stakeholders identified many positive features with current arrangements. A comprehensive analysis of the strengths of the current JCA arrangements was provided by the National Employment Services Association, which represents both employment service providers and JCA providers (see Box 2).

Generally, stakeholders agreed that the JCA arrangements enabled rapid connection to employment services and that they were considerably easier for people with barriers to work and employment service providers to negotiate than the previous arrangements:

Catholic Social Services Australia supports the Job Capacity Assessment model. … Job Capacity Assessments allow barriers to be identified and addressed more effectively than under past arrangements. The use of a range of professional assessors is a strength…good working relationships between assessors and service providers…assessments that usually match the client’s view of their situation… access to independent assessments (Catholic Social Services Australia, response to JCA Review)

The assessment process is far more streamlined, cost effective and less daunting for the client than the old Disability … Panels as introduced in the early 1990s (Personnel Placement Consultancies, response to JCA Review)

The overall system…allows for a better assessment process to occur before individuals are sent to employment services…we have seen a decrease in incorrect referrals, especially for Disability Support Pension, and…a distinct improvement in overall employment services. (AW Workwise, response to JCA Review)

Timely access to assessment by allied health professionals, including in regional and remote communities, was seen as a key positive feature.

Key strengths include…comprehensive national coverage by a range of government and non-government JCA providers who bring considerable knowledge and learning from previous assessment regimes and employment service environments to the JCA program…utilisation of a range of allied health professionals with expertise in the identification of barriers to participation and assessment of work capacity…combining the roles of assessor and referrer…(Centrelink, response to JCA Review)

Employment service providers particularly welcomed being able to refer clients directly to JCAs, and having access to JCA reports (without impairment information) to assist them in providing appropriate support and services:

…key strengths: a higher quality and consistency of information provided to Providers of Australian Government Employment Services (PAGES) allowing enhanced service delivery…significantly improved access to capacity assessments for jobseekers, especially for those whose circumstances have changed, as a result of the direct referral from PAGES… improved ability for PAGES to provide information to further inform the assessment or challenge the assessment… (Mission Australia, response to JCA Review)

Box 2: The National Employment Services Association on the positive aspects of the JCA Program (NESA response to JCA Review)

The introduction of the Job Capacity Assessments has contributed to strengthening the employment services framework. The Job Capacity Assessment model has a number of strengths and its introduction has resulted in the following improvements to assessment processes:

Greater consistency in the assessment process.
Greater consistency in the process of referral to assessments.
High quality and consistent format of information to support Centrelink income support determinations.
Improved access to assessment appointments both for new clients and those with changed circumstances with the introduction of direct referral from providers of employment services.
Greater responsiveness in assessment services with improved timeliness experienced between referral, appointment and report.
Improved efficiency of assessments with an integrated model which streamlines referral to Specialist Assessment where required.
Improved access to information to support service provision with assessment reports now consistently available to all employment service providers.
Significantly better quality of assessment information being available to employment service providers.
Improved access to assessment services with waiting lists in non-metropolitan areas being reduced significantly.
Improved opportunities for communication between assessors and providers of employment services to clarify issues identified in the assessment and better support interventions.
Improved client referral to, and connections with, providers of employment services.
Greater opportunity to challenge outcomes of the JCA or provide additional evidence to inform a review of the decision without necessarily having to restart the process.
Job Capacity Assessments becoming a compulsory activity has supported improvements to service provision to those clients who have low awareness or insight into conditions such as mental health.
Introduction of the Job Capacity Account has enabled better early engagements of clients who are experiencing short term but significant barriers to participation in mainstream services.
Greater integrity of process and broad overview alignment with other income support and service frameworks is achieved with responsibility for JCA implementation being with the Department of Human Services rather than being restricted within employment.

Advocacy groups generally supported the concept of independent assessment by allied health professionals, although in many cases consider that clinicians should be more closely involved.

One of the potential strengths of the system is that many of the assessors are well qualified and seek to deliver a high quality assessment and assistance to their clients…many of the JCAs have been done fairly and have suited the needs of particular clients…Job Capacity Assessors can play a very important part in a person’s life…adjustments to the system need to be made to ensure that role is as positive as it can be. (National Welfare Rights Network, response to the JCA Review)

A number of stakeholder organisations considered that the skills and expertise of allied health professional Job Capacity Assessors had the potential to be better and more widely used to help people with barriers to work. One approach to address this, advocated by the National Employment Services Association and supported by all JCA providers, was to expand the Job Capacity Account program and lift limits to self-referral.

The notion of Job Capacity Assessment is worth pursuing. The Job Capacity Assessment system provides a mechanism for further assessment and referral of clients which can be used by employment consultants as a case management tool. (Uniting Care Australia, response to the JCA Review)

Several stakeholder organisations commented that a key strength of the current arrangements was the positive and constructive approach taken by the Department of Human Services, and its willingness to listen and take action in response to stakeholder concerns. Stakeholders commended:

the client focused outlook of the Department of Human Services and their willingness to engage constructively with stakeholder groups and to seek feedback on a regular basis, and to work towards solutions…(National Welfare Rights Network, response to JCA Review)

a very consultative and responsive approach to implementing the program …(which) has resulted in improved policy and IT systems that have resulted in better outcomes for clients (Mission Australia, response to JCA Review)

HSA acknowledges the tireless efforts of the departments involved in co-ordinating the Job Capacity Assessment program…we cannot fault their dedication, hard work or patience with the process (HSA Group, response to JCA Review)

provision of extensive training manuals, procedures, support and liaison by the Department of Human Services (Australian Rehabilitation Providers Association, response to JCA Review)

Return to Top

Key themes and issues identified by stakeholders

Responses from stakeholder organisations across all sectors, including advocacy groups, employment service providers, JCA providers, review and complaints bodies and government agencies show considerable common ground.

The main issues raised by all stakeholders relate to the inflexibility and complexity of current program and policy settings, in particular claims that there is too much focus on rules, barriers, program boundaries and contract requirements (see Box 3).

Stakeholders consider that this can produce referral and income support outcomes which are counter-intuitive and frustrating for clients, their families and advocates, leading to claims that the Job Capacity Assessor was unqualified or that the assessment was poor quality or incorrect. This complexity and inflexibility can also lead to frustration, staff retention problems and viability issues for JCA providers and employment service providers.

Stakeholders have raised a number of issues with JCA program arrangements, systems and processes, generally relating to their complexity, inflexibility and unintended consequences. They have made a number of practical suggestions for change. Work on some of these changes has already started, whereas others may require negotiations, contract variations and possibly additional funding.

A recurring theme in stakeholder responses and discussions is the need for changes to employment services and participation arrangements, to enable Job Capacity Assessors to refer people to the right services with appropriate participation requirements. Caps on services and current participation requirements were particularly criticised.

A number of weaknesses in policy settings for income support and employment assistance place additional pressure on the assessment process. (Australian Council of Social Service, response to JCA Review)

Some of these issues are expected to be addressed by the Employment Services Review being conducted by the Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon Brendon O’Connor MP, and by the National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy jointly led by Mr O’Connor and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, the Hon Bill Shorten MP.

However, it is important to examine whether JCA and Job Capacity Account program arrangements and processes can be changed to address the practical impact of these issues wherever possible.

Return to Top

Feedback on the Job Capacity Account

Stakeholders, particularly employment service providers and JCA providers, were generally very positive about the Job Capacity Account, which reimburses Job Capacity Assessors for purchasing short-term interventions such as counselling and pain management for people referred to Job Network. A typical comment was:

The role of the Job Capacity Account is great. The only issue is that at times the individual may not be suitable for Job Network, yet this is the only way the Job Capacity Account can be accessed. We have found that the Job Capacity Account program seems to be working very well as quite a few times, in particular with individuals who receive counselling through the Job Capacity Account, they have started to really focus on finding employment. Feedback from some individuals suggests that they would not have had the confidence to do so if they hadn’t received psychological assistance through counselling first. (AW Workwise, response to JCA Review)

Box 3: Stakeholder views on main issues with current JCA arrangements

The JCA model’s effectiveness has been limited by a number of factors including:

Interdependency of work capacity assessment and service recommendations;
Rigid and complex policy guidelines providing too little flexibility for professional judgements of assessor in recommending service of best fit;
Over automated decision making structure driven by Information Technology and providing too little flexibility for professional judgements of assessor;
Inadequate resourcing to realistically deliver quality assessments and to deliver all specified service requirements;
Inadequate resourcing of non metropolitan JCA services with loadings applied to only very narrowly defined remote and very remote locations;
Inadequate provision of resources to case manage clients undertaking Job Capacity Account interventions; and
A performance assessment framework which is not adequately aligned to objectives. (NESA, Response to JCA Review)

Interact Injury Management acknowledges the positive role the Department of Human Services has committed to this change process and appreciates the broader context in which JCAs operate. However, the rigidity of the current process and guidelines forces the JCA assessor to place clients in program they are eligible for, rather than the program that best suits their needs. (Interact Injury Management, response to JCA Review)

The Job Capacity Assessment instrument is a good screening tool but the rigid application of that tool to the screening procedure and the rule bound manner in which it is required to be followed render it less than optimally valuable and limiting in scope. (Australian Psychological Society, response to JCA Review)

Many of the system’s problems lie outside the control of Job Capacity Assessors. For example:

The volume of assessments demanded is high. Quantity may take priority over quality.
While barriers are identified, caps on the Personal Support Program and the Disability Employment Network mean that they may not be addressed in a timely way.
The combined requirements of income support, Job Capacity Assessments, and employment assistance can be demanding for vulnerable income support recipients. There is a risk that the assessment process will increase the risk of vulnerable clients being breached unfairly. (Catholic Social Services, response to JCA Review)

A number of employment service providers wanted the program extended to people referred to Disability Employment Network and other employment services, while JCA providers wanted the program extended from 13 weeks to 6 months maximum duration.

JCA providers were, however, critical of the lack of remuneration for administering and monitoring services and of increased accountability requirements implemented following an independent audit in 2007. Currently, JCA providers are only reimbursed for the cost of the services themselves. Issues with the Job Capacity Account are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Return to Top

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Chapter 1 - Stakeholder Views