TasCOS Sfrom page 5

cont: page 6

Tim Tabart

TasCOSS Sector Development Unit

TasCOS S

Newsletter August 2014

Tasmanian Council of Social Service

McClure Welfare Review Reading between the lines, p 7

Disability rights in Australia, p 4Transport solutions for Tasmania, p 11Engaging with client-directed care, p 15

TasC

OSS

New

s Aug

ust 2

014

2

Contents

3 From the CEO

4Disability in Australia: 2014 Dorothy Pearce Address

7The McClure Welfare Review

11TasCOSS transport project findings

14Full retail electricity competition

15 Engaging with client-directed care

17Recognition for Hobart Women’s Shelter

18DHHS outcomes reporting progress

Advertising and insert rates 2014

Advertising (exc GST) Members Non Members

Full $70 $110

Half $40 $70

Quarter $25 $40

Inserts (exc GST)

Members Non Members

$85 $130

Editor: Gabrielle Rish gabrielle@tascoss.org.auPhone: (03) 6231 0755

Vale Cecily Gilson

TasCOSS Life Member Cecily Gilson died on 24 July, aged 89. Cecily became involved with TasCOSS when, in 1973, TasCOSS supported her to set up a Citizens Advice Bureau in Clarence.

She went on to be a member of the TasCOSS executive for many years, as well as being involved in mothers’ clubs, par-ents and friends, Neighbour-hood Watch and various en-vironmental and overseas aid organisations in a full life of work (as a draftsperson), marriage, motherhood and community service.

In the TasCOSS 50th anniversary newsletter, in 2011, Cecily re-called:

“In its early days when I first ‘met’ TASCOSS, the organisa-tion had no permanent office, no money, no paid staff, and board meetings were held wherever they could be. As for accommodation, it consisted

of vacant space in unused build-ings we were allowed to use rent free, some needed much clean-ing before the move in.”

“It makes me very happy to see TasCOSS now, its professionalism, dedication, optimism, co-oper-ation and knowledge.”

Cecily was named Tasmanian Senior of the Year in 2001.

The 2014 TasCOSS Conference will be held on 13-14 November at the C3 Convention Centre, South Hobart.

We have chosen the theme “Navigating a changing envi-ronment” for the conference. One of the chief architects of the changed environment for community services organisa-tions and their clients is Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews,

TasCOSS Conference early bird

who will speak at the confer-ence.

The conference program will offer workshops on good prac-tice and advocacy, networking opportunities, information, inspi-ration and even a bit of relaxa-tion.

Early bird registration is available until 26 September. See the Tas-COSS website for details.

3

From the CEOThe State Budget indicators are that the community sector will have to do more with less in a changing service delivery environment

Tony Reidy

TasCOSS Chief Executive

The Hodgman Government’s first State Budget was handed down on 28 August, just one day before this newsletter went to press.

Our first impressions are that Pre-mier Will Hodgman has largely delivered on his election promis-es to the community sector, and the vulnerable and low-income people it supports.

TasCOSS has had an ongoing conversation with the Liberals, both when they were in oppo-sition and now in government, about the state’s level of disad-vantage and poor social indica-tors in areas such as health and education.

We are pleased that the Gov-ernment has recognised the importance of supporting those Tasmanians who are struggling by largely quarantining this area from spending cuts this year.

The State Budget has some good spending initiatives in the areas of health, education – in-cluding the $134 million of extra school funding for the Gonski reforms over six years, disability, mental health, housing and em-ployment.

The State Budget is also making up the $9 million-a-year shortfall caused by the Federal Govern-ment axing its partnership on concessions for pensioners and Seniors Card holders.

The support of people living with disadvantage in Tasmania is all the more crucial given the Fed-eral Government’s spending cuts and moves to reduce in-come support payments.

However, TasCOSS is concerned that the State Budget flags the requirement for significant sav-ings across community services over the full four years of for-ward projections.

And while Department of Health and Human Services funding for frontline work has been main-tained in 2014-15, the Budget papers say there will be a review this year of all non-direct servic-es within and funded by DHHS.

This puts a question mark over the fate of work focused on capacity building in the com-munity services sector, policy development, advocacy and community development.

In terms of DHHS grants to com-munity service organisations, the

Ms Petrusma told the briefing, which more than 80 people at-tended, that the $9 million a year would be distributed pro rata, based on current grants, and that there would be no fur-ther supplements to indexation once it had been expended.

The community sector is already struggling to meet demand and we know that demand for ser-vices will climb even higher if the Federal Budget welfare cuts pass the Senate.

TasCOSS will continue to work with the State Government for recognition of the need to fund community service organisa-tions at levels that recognise the true cost of providing services, including overheads and the cost of innovation to adapt suc-cessfully to a changing service delivery environment.

The TasCOSS 2014 Conference, to be held on 13-14 Novem-ber in Hobart, has the theme of “Navigating a Changing En-vironment” as the sector faces major service delivery and fund-ing changes.

These changes include the growth of consumer-directed care and funding attached to individuals, rather than pro-grams, the planned advent of “joined-up” human services in Tasmania and the philosophical change in approach to commu-nity services and charity at the federal level.

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews, who is overseeing that philosophical change, will be a speaker on the first morning of the TasCOSS Conference.

State Budget allocates an ad-ditional and very welcome $9 million over four years to help make up for the reduction in grant indexation since 2011, with indexation to remain at 2.25 per cent per annum.

Unfortunately, as Human Ser-vices Minister Jacquie Petrusma told the TasCOSS Budget Day briefing for the community sec-tor, the extra grants funding won’t assist organisations fund-ed by the Department of Pre-mier and Cabinet.

... Premier Will Hodgman has largely delivered on his election promises to the community sector, and the vulnerable and low-income people it supports.

4

Disability rights: a journeyThe NDIS has the potential to take Australia from keeping people with disability hidden away to true inclusion

For centuries people with dis-abilities were viewed as poor helpless cripples, blind beggars, dumb idiots.

For centuries they were outcasts, denied recognition as human beings. People with disabilities were cast out from families, or hidden behind closed doors and curtains for fear that they would bring shame and cause the family to be ostracised.

In the mid-20th century, in part in response to the worldwide polio epidemic, a solution was put in place to get the crippled beg-gars off the streets and into a safe, secure environment.

This solution was the develop-ment of charity/welfare institu-tions where children went early in life – to live, to go to school, to work and to die.

These institutions were often par-ent-driven with the best of inten-tions: parents wanted to keep their children safe from harm; they wanted their children to be looked after.

But because institutions in the 1950s provided a birth-to-death service, they became places that kept people with disabili-ties out of sight and out of mind, separate from the mainstream communities.

NDIS facts and figuresAt end third quarter 2013-14:

6500 people deemed eligible

5400 tailored plans approved

Average package costs $32,000 (lower than recommended $35,000)

Trials in every state of Australia, except Queensland, which will start in 2016

These institutions looked after children right through to adult life and adults with a disability were seen as vulnerable, weak, unable to make decisions or take responsibility for themselves.

In the late 1960s the disability rights movement started in the USA, generated by the Vietnam veterans coming back from an unpopular war, many with mul-tiple and profound disabilities, both physical and mental.

The vets refused to be put away into the American equivalent of our institutions.

These were grown men who had tasted life before the war. They were very different from those who were institutionalised from a young age.

Independent living The Vietnam vets brought dis-ability out of the closet and into the streets. They began to demand rights that had never been thought about for disa-bled people before, much less acted on.

The context for the Vietnam vets and their struggle for disability rights in the USA also included western liberation movements such as women’s liberation, sexual revolution, gay liberation and youth liberation.

By the mid-1970s, Australia had connected to the US independ-ent living movement and our own disability rights movement took off, led by a small group of people with disabilities, sup-ported by a contingent of social workers.

Social work by then had moved from a charitable individualised approach to community de-

velopment, advocacy and a sophisticated understanding of the impact of external structures and systems and their need to include people.

I inadvertently joined the dis-ability rights movement when I began working at a council of social service, VCOSS, in 1979.

Nothing about us without usI was sitting at my desk prepar-ing a policy paper on housing for disadvantaged groups when the phone rang.

There was a slurred, angry voice on the phone. Sounding drunk, Hal Fitzpatrick presumed to challenge me.

“What do you think you’re doing, designing a housing policy for disabled people?” he demanded.

“What do you mean?” I snapped back. “This is my job, I’ve researched everything.”

Hal took a long breath: “Who do you think you are, deciding for us what we want for our housing policy?”

“Who is this ‘us’?” I asked. “What are you talking about?”

I soon found out that ‘Us’ was a group of disability rights activ-ists who wheeled, swayed, or felt their way into my office with white sticks, wheelchairs and guide dogs. They were a feisty lot, but most of all they were all disabled, like me.

The work of the Australian dis-ability rights movement in the early ‘80s was first and foremost to fight for deinstitutionalisation.

By providing everything people with disabilities needed in a

Rhonda Galbally

National Disability Insurance Agency Board member

and NDIS advisory group deputy chair

TasC

OSS N

ews A

ugust 2014

5

closed community, the out-side world did not have to think about disability.

So when people with disabilities were occasionally seen outside the institutional walls, they were seen as odd, strange, not quite human.

Institutions also meant that ex-ternal handicaps such as inac-cessible buildings, streets and transport could be ignored be-cause the whole of life was part of a specialised closed set of services.

Institutions were medically domi-nated, meaning the body came first – medical needs first, educa-tion second. Work and life came third.

The disability was seen as within the person, so that the goal became to attempt to change the body as much as possible, rather than putting effort into changing the external environ-ment so that different bodies and minds could be part of so-ciety.

Lack of participation in the mainstream, such as in educa-tion, meant that future employ-ers and fellow workers had no experience of anyone disabled, so automatically discriminated.

The medical model also carried with it an attempt at protection. Institutions kept people with dis-abilities with their own kind to protect them from life’s struggles and challenges.

Risk-free institutions led to the major risk of not being able to live a life.

The disability rights movement constructed a social model of disability, where participating in society was more important than medical approaches.

And there were many wins in the early 1980s, such as a successful challenge to the Miss Australia quest and telethons featuring crippled children.

Disability leaders went on ser-vice boards and the Hawke Federal Government adopted a policy of deinstitutionalisation.

The self-help movement chal-lenged the assumption of pro-fessionals knowing best.

Anti-discrimination legislation was enacted, the Human Rights Commission was established and there were landmark cases about transport and the built en-vironment.

Going backwardsBut then came a decline of the disability rights movement in the 1990s.

We allowed successive govern-ments and ministers to ignore disability.

We allowed what had been thought of as exciting new hous-ing models such as group homes to become mini institutions – too many beds, locked fridges, locked doors, no choice as to who you lived with.

We allowed ghettos of cluster housing.

We allowed growth in some states of special schools despite research into mainstream being best for educational outcomes.

We allowed a discourse of anti-leadership, formulated as “Oh, they can speak out because they’re not severely disabled”.

And, most of all, we allowed a completely inaccessible main-stream environment to continue – housing, schools transport etc.

A carers’ rights movement grew, separate from the disability rights movement, with a negative dis-course of burden and parents’ lives ruined by the need to look after their disabled children.

NDIS promiseIn 2008 the National Disability and Carers Council was formed, representing every part of the sector, plus business, and pro-duced the Shut Out report (2009). The report, based on as an Australia-wide consultation, found that every part of the dis-ability service and mainstream systems was failing people with disabilities and their families.

For example, there was a failure to get enough early intervention at the right time.

In education, the mainstream schools were rejecting children with disabilities.

I met adults with disabilities who wept with frustration and shame because they could not read or write. They had the ability to learn to read but school had not taught them because of low ex-pectations.

There was a lack of support for transition from education to work and discrimination by em-ployers, resulting in the current high unemployment rate for people with disabilities.

There were lifetime waiting lists for support services, or inade-quate support that kept people on a drip feed of a lifetime of misery.

Disability advocate Rhonda Galbally delivering the

2014 Dorothy Pearce Address on 17 July.

cont: page 6

TasC

OSS

New

s Aug

ust 2

014

6

Projections showed that over the next 70 years the growth in the group of people with a severe disability would be between two and three times population growth as a whole.

At the same time the number of unpaid carers was declining markedly.

Then, in 2007, came the idea for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

For the first time in this country, Carers Australia, the Australian Federation of Disability Organi-sations and National Disability Services formed an alliance to campaign for such a scheme.

A Productivity Commission report in 2010-2011 recom-mended a national disability in-surance scheme.

The NDIS concept generated enormous public support and so managed to mobilise the com-munity’s support for one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia.

ImplementationNow the focus is on implementa-tion. Critical to this will be a new culture of learning within a sus-tainable insurance framework. There will be lessons to be learnt at every step of the process, as

data is collected and analysed.

The NDIS puts people with dis-ability and families at the centre. It allows individuals to exercise choice and control in pursuing goals, planning and delivery of supports.

Individuals, not service providers, receive funding.

Each person can determine how much control they want over the management of their funding, supports and providers.

The NDIS Act’s principles are in-dependence and community inclusion.

Critical to choice and control becoming a reality are issues of supply and demand.

Developing supply options that support independence and genuine community inclusion requires a supply of new models of:

Housing • Where people can choose

who they live with and how to live.

• With reasonable risk, com-mensurate with an expecta-tion of adult life.

Supply of work • Where people no longer work

in closed sheltered employ-ment systems.

• All Australian Disability En-terprises to transition to new models.

• Integrated workforce.

• Transition to open employ-ment.

Supply of recreation • In community settings.

• In the arts.

• In sports.

Unless supply can be trans-formed people will continue to live, work and take recreation in closed system services.

This will mean that mainstream systems continue to exclude people with disabilities from buildings, transport systems, schools, sports and arts, jobs, health and housing.

On the demand side, people with disabilities need to be sup-ported, mentored and inspired to demand options that opti-mise independence, self-man-agement and integration with the mainstream community.

If this demand isn’t supported, the NDIS will not have the trans-formational effects reflected in the Act.

People’s potential will remain unfulfilled.

Specialist services will expand, allowing the mainstream to con-tinue to exclude people with dis-abilities.

For choice and control to become a reality we must see support for people with disabili-ties to choose mainstream ser-vices.

And there must be support for people with disabilities and fam-ilies to try new options, to take reasonable risks and choose to live lives that encourage more independence in the commu-nity.

This article is based on the speech notes for the 2014 Dorothy Pearce Address, Disability rights in Australia: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going?, delivered in Hobart on 17 July 2014.

Welfare under interrogation The McClure Review of Australia’s Welfare System evokes concepts of bludgers and the deserving poor

This year has seen the Federal Government establish a Com-mission of Audit and deliver a Budget with a firm focus on cut-ting funding from welfare and introducing harsher conditions associated with income support.

Following, rather than preced-ing and informing these moves, has been a review of the wel-fare system, commissioned by Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews and led by Patrick Mc-Clure.

The McClure review is examining all payments and services avail-able to people of working age, the purpose being to propose reforms to the social support system designed to maximise employment outcomes.

An interim report was released in late June 2014 followed by a brief period of consultation.

This isn’t the first and probably won’t be the last time that there has been a review of the wel-fare system, or elements of that system. Handily, McClure him-self was commissioned by a pre-vious Coalition federal govern-ment in 2000 to review the same topic, resulting in the report Par-ticipation Support for a More Eq-uitable Society.

The Henry Tax Review can-vassed a number of areas relat-ing to the welfare system, the Harmer Review of pensions in 2009/10 and numerous Senate reviews and Productivity Com-mission reports have also con-tributed recommendations and policy solutions to the challeng-es of maintaining a robust social safety net within budgetary constraints.

A strength of the McClure In-terim Report is that it draws on these previous endeavours and references their work.

However, questions remain on the extent to which this review is another element of an ideo-logically driven cost-cutting agenda.

Conducted in the context of the Federal Budget ‘lifters and lean-ers’ rhetoric, this review makes use of language to both shape perceptions and confirm preju-dices.

removal of barriers and ensuring opportunities for financial ben-efit.

Without detail or greater expla-nation no one would disagree with this kind of language; all political ideologies can nod their heads in agreement while over-laying their own vision of what ‘encouragement’ might entail.

Why review?It is important to note that com-pared to other OECD nations, Australia’s welfare system is economical and closely tar-geted in its support. We invest a smaller proportion of our na-tional budget in the provision of welfare.

That being said, the welfare system does represent a sig-nificant aspect of our tax and

“The current system has not kept pace with changing social values and expectations” –

McClure Interim Report

Meg Webb

TasCOSS Deputy Chief Executive

McClure Review guiding principlesPatrick McClure and the Reference Group was asked to advise on how Australia’s welfare system could:

Provide incentives to work for those who are able to work.

Adequately support those who are genu-inely not able to work.

Support social and economic participation through measures that build individual and family capability.

Be affordable and sustainable both now and in the future across economic cycles.

Be easy to access and understand, and able to be delivered efficiently and effec-tively.

Consider the statement that ap-pears more than once in the interim report that “the current system has not kept pace with changing social values and ex-pectations”.

Apparently now, more than in the past, we have an expecta-tion that all people who have the capacity to work should do so. By implication, presumably they aren’t doing so because the current welfare system is overly generous and allows bludging.

Ambiguous language is also de-ployed in the report.

Consider numerous references to “providing incentives” or “encouraging” people to work. These phrases could refer to pu-nitive measures to push people in particular directions or, alter-natively, they could refer to the 7

8

transfer system, is a large area of responsibility for the Federal Government and is a key arena in which political ideologies find expression.

In short, the welfare system warrants review and reform because it affects many Aus-tralians, it represents a sizeable investment of our taxes, it is very complex and that complexity generally only increases when things are tinkered with around the edges.

However, just because it is war-ranted, doesn’t mean all will agree with the process or on the outcomes of a review.

Indeed, one great pity of the McClure review has been the lost opportunity to genuinely tackle a sweeping reform pro-cess in an open and inclusive way; a reform that would garner the maximum support through the broadest possible engage-ment with all stakeholders.

The greatest shame has been the absence of genuine consul-tation with those Australians who

are recipients and participants in our welfare system.

The Interim Report of the Mc-Clure Review presents mate-rial to make the case for reform, proposes a detailed four-pillared model for the reform and poses consultation questions through-out.

The four pillars of reform in the In-terim Report are:

1. Simpler and sustainable income support system

2. Strengthening individual and family capacity

3. Engaging with employers

4. Building community capacity

The report frequently utilises case studies as illustration of ideas and refers to past and cur-rent programs and policies as examples.

Some key messages to note from the review:

Simplification of systemThe report points out that there is confusion and inequities in the

many different income support payments in our current welfare system. People with similar basic living costs receive different levels of financial support, with different expectations of work. This can lead to individuals who might qualify for more than one payment having to decide which one to claim.

While the report has a focus on simplifying the current com-plicated payment system, it doesn’t go as far as McClure’s previous report in 2000.

At that time McClure proposed a single payment benchmarked to basic cost-of-living standards, with supplements to meet addi-tional costs. This is the preferred model for many in the welfare sector as it is regarded as the fairest and is able to be appro-priately benchmarked to genu-ine cost of living.

This time around, McClure pro-poses a four-tiered system which still seems to risk an unnecessary level of complexity and poten-tial for unfairness.

Like the current system, people would still be moved from higher to lower payments as part of the ‘welfare to work’ approach.

The Interim Report proposes the following four tiers of income support payments:

1. A disability support pension for people with a permanent im-pairment and no capacity to work.

2. A tiered working age pay-ment for people with some capacity to work now or in the future, including independent young people.

3. A child payment for de-pendent children and young people.

4. An age pension for people above the age at which they are generally expected to work.

The report also suggests reduc-ing the number of supplements so that they are provided for more clearly defined purposes and for specific additional costs.

Members of the panel at a 30 July community forum on the proposed

welfare reforms in Hobart.

TasC

OSS N

ews A

ugust 2014

9

Newstart inadequacyThe Interim Report acknowl-edges that there has been a growing gap between pension and allowance rates and that action must be taken to address the inadequate single rate of Newstart. The current gap be-tween Newstart and the Pension is unfair and counterproductive as it provides perverse incen-tives for people to claim one form of payment over another.

Unemployment payments are currently $166 a week less than the already modest pensions for people with disabilities or carers, and student payments (includ-ing for adults) are $48 a week less again than unemployment payments. These gaps have grown since pensions became indexed to wage movements and allowances indexed to the CPI.

In 1997, the Newstart Allowance was 91% of the pension rate and student payments were 75%. In 2013, those proportions were 62% and 50%.

The report concludes that income support has to be suffi-cient to deliver a basic accept-able standard of living for those who rely on it and have no other means of support. It also ac-knowledges that payments must be at a level that effectively supports people to seek work and meet their participation ob-ligations.

Levels of indexation on pay-ments and the issues of different levels of indexation for different payments is mentioned in the report but rather than go so far as to suggest that indexation must reflect rises in the cost of living, it is simply acknowledged that the Federal Government has decided to phase in CPI indexation for all payments – dooming all payments, includ-ing pensions, to fall further and further behind the actual cost of living.

ACOSS asserts that instead of paying people according to what we think their job pros-pects might be in future, we should pay according to their financial needs here and now.

This would require increases in income support for those on the lowest payments, including un-employed people and students, and higher rent assistance for those with the greatest housing costs.

The inadequacy of rent assis-tance is also discussed in the report, particularly in reference to the high housing costs for low-income renters.

Mutual obligation and income managementSome concerning ideas are explored in the report regard-ing the application of mutual obligation requirements to pay-ments and the broadening of income management.

In order to recognise the diver-sity of people receiving income support, the report suggests that tailored employment obli-gations – “individually tailored requirements” rather than the current categories – may be a more effective approach.

Income support in Australia 2012/13

5 million Australians receive income support

3 million children benefit from Family Tax Benefit

$110 billion in cash transfer payments to Australians

$100 billion is the responsibility of the Department of Social Services

Transfer payments include:

• income support payments:

pensions (generally paid to people with no requirement to work)

allowances (generally have an expectation of work)

• other payments and supplements to help meet specific costs (eg family payments to assist with costs associated with children)

Pensions and allowances = $75 billion a year

$36 billion of this is on the Age Pension

$25 billion assists with direct costs of children and other supplementary payments

Expenditure on employment services = $2.2 billion

Estimated cost of administering payments = $3 billion

The income support system includes 20 income support payments and 55 supplementary payments.

Such individually tailored re-quirements would be backed up with “appropriate and timely” sanctions.

This raises the question of where responsibility would lie to deter-mine these individually tailored requirements, not to mention the appropriate and timely sanctions.

The possibility of broadening mutual obligation to include building life skills, promoting parental responsibility and im-proving outcomes for children, and broadening income man-agement is also mooted in the report.

It is stated that as well as pro-viding a financial safety net, the income support system is a mechanism to pursue broader policy goals. Examples of such goals include the strengthening of individual and family capa-bility and encouraging greater social and economic participa-tion.

cont: page 10

TasC

OSS

New

s Aug

ust 2

014

10

It is noted that already there are requirements such as immunisa-tions and health checks to be met before receiving particular payments relating to children, school attendance goals for some indigenous families and communities, and income man-agement programs in place in some communities.

However, claims that mutual obligations “promote norms and behaviours that benefit individu-als, families and communities”, and that such obligations in-crease “knowledge about the importance of particular behav-iours or activities” appear to be unsupported by evidence.

What some of these measures do, in reality, is unnecessarily stig-matise and discriminate against people simply because they re-ceive a particular income sup-

port payment. They are based on the assumption that receipt of a payment is evidence of bad behaviour.

Additionally, income manage-ment policies and other similar measure are incredibly expen-sive and doubtful in their effec-tiveness.

Importance of engagement with employment creation and supportNoting that the Federal Gov-ernment has committed to creating one million new jobs within five years and two mil-lion new jobs over the next decade, the Interim Report in-cludes engagement with em-ployers as a key element in the way forward.

The cooperation of employers is identified as central, with the

assertion that businesses must have a social responsibility to play a role in improving the eco-nomic participation of disad-vantaged job-seekers.

The Report suggests that more should be done to assist busi-nesses that are currently not providing employment opportu-nities to disadvantaged groups.

This might include measures such as business-led covenants and diversity programs (especially important in small to medium businesses, and in the public sector), and social enterprises.

Other measures the Interim Report recommends to facilitate employment creation include:

• Increasing labour mobility through financial support for people to relocate for em-ployment.

• Wage subsidies for employ-ers; job commitment bonuses to job-seekers.

• Reducing the administrative burdens on employers and job service providers.

• Making the job service system easier to navigate for every-one.

Promisingly, reform of the em-ployment services system in order to be more responsive to the needs of job-seekers and employers is suggested as an important action, including the expansion of approaches such as Individual Placement and Support.

Foundational to benefiting from employment opportunities is success in the education and training domains.

The report notes the challenges of literacy and numeracy levels and lack of foundational skills. It also identifies the need to im-prove transitions from education to work, and the fact that voca-tional education and training should be better linked to avail-able jobs.

ACOSS has made a submission on the Interim Report on behalf of the COSS network. The ACOSS Submission to Welfare Review is available on www.acoss.org.au

Key statistics on working age paymentsIn Australia, reliance on income support by people of working age has been below the OECD average for some time.

The proportion of people of working age on income support decreased from 25% in 1997 to 17% in 2013.

Disability Support Pension recipients as a proportion of the working age population remained relatively stable over the past decade.

Newstart recipients as a proportion of the working age population decreased from 4.2% to 3.6% in the past decade.

Expenditure on income support for people of working age (Newstart, DSP, Youth Allowance, Carer Payment) is less than 40% of all spending on cash social security payments, most of which goes to Age Pension and Family Tax Benefits.

TasCOSS welcomes new members

TasCOSS recently welcomed three new organisational mem-bers. They are Support, Help & Empowerment (SHE), Common Ground and Migrant Resource Centre Northern Tasmania.

TasCOSS members, both organi-sational and individual, share and support our vision of a fair, just and inclusive Tasmania.

Membership starts from $50 a year for organisations (depend-ing on operating income) and is $57 a year for waged individuals ($15 concession or unwaged). Members receive:

• Discounts on all TasCOSS training and events, including TasCOSS state conferences.

• Eligibility to attend and vote at TasCOSS meetings.

• Eligibility to vote in elections for the TasCOSS Board.

• Eligibility to stand for election to the TasCOSS Board.

• Eligibility for appointment to TasCOSS regional councils.

To find out more about TasCOSS membership visit www.tascoss.org.au or call (03) 6231 0755.

11

Addressing our transport blues Participants in a TasCOSS facilitation project have some innovative solutions to Tasmania’s transport problems

Wynne Russell

TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit

The ability to get where you need to go consistently emerg-es in TasCOSS consultations as a key issue for transport-disad-vantaged Tasmanians – people who cannot own or operate a vehicle due to age, disability, ill health or financial constraints.

As of 2010, 25.9% of Tasmanians in the lowest quintile of income struggled to get to the places they needed to go.

For adults describing themselves as unemployed, this figure rose to 33.5%.

For people with self-described health status of ‘poor,’ the figure was 39.6%.

For Housing Tasmania renters, the figure was a staggering 41.6%, with 46.2% lacking access to a vehicle.1

Despite the many improve-ments initiated in recent years by the State Government and by private transport operators, the challenges facing transport-disadvantaged Tasmanians are clear.

At the moment, transport servic-es in the state are largely char-acterised by limited hours and frequency of operations, lim-ited geographic scope; limited integration between the differ-ent forms of transport, including routes, timetables and ticketing; limited affordability; and limited eligibility for transport conces-sions and use of not-for-profit transport options.

Tasmanians most vulnerable to transport disadvantage are younger people who are not yet eligible to drive or can’t afford a car, who don’t live near sched-uled route services and can’t afford taxi fares.

For example, one of the stories that TasCOSS has heard in its

transport consultations came from a young girl living in a rural community who wanted to attend an academic enrich-ment program on Saturdays at the regional LINC. She was unable to attend, however, be-cause there was no bus service and her parents had prioritised driving her brother to sporting events.

No one service can be expect-ed to solve these problems. However, better coordination and integration between exist-ing services, as well as innova-tion in service types and fund-ing, has the potential to begin to address these problems at relatively low cost.

Transport projectTasCOSS received Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Re-sources funding in mid-2013 for a facilitation project, Transport in the Community: Integration and Innovation for Social Inclusion.

The project involved TasCOSS running four regional meetings and three sectoral meetings in-volving Tasmanian transport pro-viders and key user stakeholders to consider the possibilities.

Most participants felt that op-portunities existed for better integration of existing service modes and services, as well as for new types of services.

Key barriers identified in consul-tations were lack of public in-formation on transport options; lack of coordination between funders and between trip gen-erators and transport providers; funding levels; and a need for better information on real, as opposed to perceived transport

needs in the community.

The lack of a whole-of-govern-ment approach to transport issues was considered a major barrier to communities develop-ing transport plans.

The single greatest barrier to for-profit services (Metro, private bus companies, taxi services) working together in creative ways appears to be simple fi-nancial risk. In the absence of extra funding, many services do not feel that they are operating at a sufficient profit to be able to absorb losses if innovative ar-rangements do not deliver im-mediate results.

The greatest barrier to crea-tive collaboration between for-profit and not-for-profit ser-vices appears to be the Com-monwealth-State funding mix around HACC-funded transport, and the eligibility requirements that these funding arrange-ments impose.

The implications of new re-strictions on the use of Com-monwealth-funded vehicles for HACC-eligible groups who come under State funding (dis-abled under 65) also requires clarification, particularly as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) comes on line.

Encouraging signsThe TasCOSS consultations re-vealed some interesting exam-ples of existing and emerging collaboration and coordination between transport providers, both within the same sector and between sectors.

For example, several regional not-for-profit operators said that they referred callers on to other

cont: page 12

12 12 12

not-for-profits if they lacked ca-pacity to meet a specific re-quest.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, Tassielink and Community Trans-port Services Tasmania (CTST) have put in place an innova-tive concept, putting CTST cli-ents on Tassielink buses on the East Coast run from Swansea to Hobart in place of a CTST car making the drive.

While Tassielink’s percentage is usually less than the normal fare, the arrangement gives Tassielink extra business that would other-wise have gone to CTST.

And CTST volunteers are spared long and tiring drives and a wait in Hobart, making it possible for

them to volunteer for shorter periods of time in the day and thereby keeping CTST’s volun-teer base sustainable.

There also appear to be many opportunities, and few legisla-tive or regulatory barriers, for taxi operators to enter into contracts with bus companies to act as feeder services, or with service providers to act as a pick-up ser-vice.

TasCOSS used the key barriers and opportunities identified in meetings as the basis for a work-shop on 23 May 2014, bringing together key Tasmanian stake-holders and leading innovators in the transport field.

The following insights arose from

the three presentations, by Pro-fessor Corinne Mulley, Chair in Public Transport at the University of Sydney; Jen Newman of Re-gional Development Australia Tasmania and Patrick Bruce, Digital Marketing Advisor for Pas-senger Transport Victoria; and John Pauley, a project manager with Phoenix Coaches.

Flexible transportGiven the almost infinite diver-sity of potential flexible transport models, it seems highly likely that some form of open-access flex-ible transport model could be developed for Tasmanian appli-cations using existing transport providers.

Of particular note, rural taxi services are frequently under-used, in part due to the conflict between higher-than-average per-trip costs, due to greater distance, and the often lower-than-average incomes of po-tential users.

Contracting taxi services to pro-vide flexible transport options would increase the viability of existing services and potentially lead to an expansion of servic-es, not only benefiting those in need of transport but also po-tentially leading to greater rural employment.

New TasCOSS website

TasCOSS has a new website, launched in July, at www.tas-coss.org.au

As well as looking smart, the new website offers quick links to popular TasCOSS services and events, and an effective search engine to help you find what you’re looking for.

You can download publications, check our policy positions, find out what’s happening on the sector development front, find the right staff member to con-tact, subscribe to our e-news and connect with us via social media.

Your feedback on the new web-site is most welcome; please email to gabrielle@tascoss.org.au

13 13

TasCOSS transport recommendations

1ABS (2010), General Social Survey: Tasmania, 4159.0.55.003; Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006 (cat. No. 4159.6.55.001).

ImmediateFor the State Government 1 Finalise the creation of a

centralised passenger transport website.

2 Fund and implement an integrated transport pilot project.

3 Advocate with the Commonwealth for a not-for-profit transport system accessible to all.

4 Create a state-wide Mobility Manager.

5 Develop transport access plans.

6 Adopt a whole-of-government, evidence-based Transport Access Strategy.

7 Create incentives to increase passenger transport uptake.

For local governments8 Improve access for mobility-

limited and disabled passengers.

Longer-term 13 Develop transport infrastructure

and hubs.

14 Create a statutory authority for managing and coordinating passenger transport.

For transport operators 15 Develop user advisory councils.

16 Improve Metro’s communication and consultation.

17 Support the development of a centralised transport website.

18 Develop better communication between bus companies and between bus and taxis.

19 Promote collaboration among not-for-profit transport operators.

Medium-term9 Increase funding for passenger

transport in the 2014-17 Budgets by 10% per annum.

10 Change bus funding/contracting models and conditions.

11 Support the development of technical mechanisms for better integration and coordination.

12 Help the taxi sector face the app-driven future.

In areas where taxi services do not exist or where existing oper-ators do not wish to take up flexi-ble service contracts, the poten-tial exists for the introduction of new operators, including social enterprises or even ride-sharing apps such as Uber or Lyft.

Flexible services have a poten-tial immediate urban applica-bility, given Metro’s recent de-cision to prune back services in Hobart’s northern suburbs to focus more on high-frequency trunk routes.

At the same time, an investment in the development of flexible transport systems in peri-urban and rural areas would provide a degree of equity in the public funding of passenger transport in the state.

Currently, government funding for urban area bus services and general access services and for transport concessions, including concessional bus fares and taxi concessions, disproportionately benefit urban residents.

WebsiteTasmania is the only Australian state to lack a website provid-ing transport information for residents and tourists alike. A centralised passenger transport information website should be easily achievable, given the plethora of existing examples—with Public Transport Victoria’s website a clear standout for its ease of use, level of detail, and inclusion of multiple modes of transport, including walking and cycling.

Wheels for Work and TrainingPhoenix Coaches’ Wheels for Work and Training project under way on the North West Coast will be a perfect opportunity to test out the potential for innovations such as flexible transport options.

The project, with its broad-rang-ing, inclusive vision for transport services, is precisely the kind of initiative that is needed in trans-port-disadvantaged regions of the state.

The Transport in the Community project report is available on the TasCOSS website, www.tascoss.org.au

Above: Corinne Mulley, Chair in Public

Transport at the University of Sydney, talks

at the Transport Innovations workshop.

Negotiating power Consumers have protections but should read the fine print once competitors enter Tasmania’s residential electricity market

From 1 July 2014 the Tasma-nian retail electricity market was opened to full competition. This means that other electricity retail-ers, in addition to Aurora Energy, may now enter the market and make contract offers to Tasma-nian residential / household and business customers.

Currently, Aurora remains the sole operator selling to residen-tial customers in Tasmania and the choice of contract remains between a standard retail con-tract (‘standard offer’ at regu-lated prices) or a pre-payment market contract, Aurora Pay As You Go.

However, there is the opportu-nity for other retailers to enter the market, as well as for Aurora to offer additional market retail contracts.

If you work in a community or-

ganisation, you may be asked for information or advice about how to choose an appropriate electricity contract or, in the fu-ture you may receive complaints about electricity marketing prac-tices (such as door-to-door sell-ing or telemarketing).

Consumer protections in national frameworkElectricity consumers in Tasmania have protections under the Na-tional Energy Customer Frame-work, which recognises that en-ergy is an essential service.

This is in addition to general con-sumer protections offered under the Australian Consumer Law.

Some of the consumer rights and protections in the National Ener-gy Customer Framework include:• All contracts must offer certain

basic terms and conditions.• Bills must be clear and show

how much energy has been used and how much money is owed.

• Consumers must be offered access to hardship programs including flexible payment op-tions.

• Consumers must receive no-tice before their electricity is disconnected for non-pay-ment, and disconnection is only allowed to occur within specified times.

• Consumers must be notified if the price of energy under their contract changes.

Full retail market competition opens the possibility of consum-ers eventually being offered con-tracts from retailers other than Aurora. In that situation, consum-ers who currently receive con-cessions will continue to receive

them regardless of the retailer they choose.

The National Energy Customer Framework includes some mar-keting protections for consumers and consumers may also:• Sign up to the Do Not Call Reg-

ister by phoning 1300 792 958 or by registering online at www.donotcall.gov.au

• Ask to be put on electricity re-tailers’ ‘do not call’ lists.

• Put a Do Not Knock sticker on your front door – when this is displayed a salesperson must not knock.

Why would people want to change their electricity contract?Under retail competition, retail-ers may offer contracts that suit a household’s needs better than the ‘standard retail contract’. In some cases, households may be able to find a contract that saves them money.

It’s important to remember, how-ever, that only the ‘standard re-tail contract’ (also sometimes called ‘standing offer contract’) will have prices that are regulat-ed by the Tasmanian Economic Regulator.

Where can I find more information about full retail competition?The Tasmanian Economic Regu-lator’s Power to Choose website has a series of fact sheets about the changes. See www.power.tas.gov.au

Further informationAustralian Energy Regulator www.aer.gov.au or ring the AER Infoline: 1300 585 165 www.energymadeeasy.gov.au

• Always read the fine print and know what the full conditions of the contract are including any additional fees and charges such as late payment or debit default fees or exit fees if you leave your contract early.

• Check the special offers such as dis-counts or other incentives for paying on time or useful extras such as energy audits.

• Check your current bill to see how the new offer compares to what you are currently paying.

• Use the Australian Energy Regulator’s Energy Made Easy website (www.energymadeeasy.gov.au) to compare electricity offers in Tasmania and to learn about energy usage, energy ef-ficiency, understanding your energy bill and information about consumer rights and responsibilities.

Tips for shopping around for electricity contracts

Kath McLean

TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit

14

15 15

Delighting the customer Client-directed care has huge potential for mutual reward for both consumers and providers

Klaus Baur

TasCOSS HACC Consumer Engagement ProgramConsumer or client-directed care is one of the most signifi-cant changes to health and community service delivery, with up to 50 per cent of Tasmanian community sector and health services funding changing over to the CDC model.

Client-directed care is an ap-proach to service delivery in which the consumer, including involved carers, can take direct control over service plans and subsequent service arrange-ments, including over their allo-cated funds.

Key in CDC program roll-out is that consumers will have control over their funds together with a high degree of service choice and, ultimately, which provider to choose.

CDC will open opportunities for providers to look outside the existing spectrum of service or provider options and to really in-novate.

In Home and Community Care (HACC) in Tasmania, there used to be a belief that ‘service deliv-ery is about what is needed, not wanted’.

Now pro-active, CDC-embrac-ing providers talk about ‘delight-ing the customer’.

They have had success in mar-keting, exploring new ways of communication and of innova-tively displaying service delivery programs.

Two relationships determine long-term successful service pro-vider operation: funding bodies and consumers.

What is also highlighted with CDC is the partnership relation-ship and overall care experi-ence for consumers.

Overseas experiences show

that clients who embrace CDC enjoy a new level of autonomy, choice, innovation and control over planning and arranging their services.

Pilot program reviews have found that an issue for a small amount of consumers, particu-larly in aged care, is that not everyone wants to be in charge of their care decisions and their allocated funds.

In early Australian findings, a 2012 KPMG evaluation was done of 500 aged care packages involv-ing consumers and 200 focusing on carer support and respite. The evaluation found that pro-viders operated two models of CDC:

• Where participants / consum-ers where offered enhanced choices of supports, with the provider maintaining respon-sibility for coordination and management of the pack-ages.

• Where consumers predomi-nantly and to varying levels had control and self-man-aged their packages.

The evaluation showed younger consumers or carers with prior community care experience had clear ideas what they want-ed, coupled with a degree of dissatisfaction with service deliv-ery to date.

Other participants used their new-found control to innovative-ly fund supports and utilised pro-viders who were open, interested and prepare to offer services beyond and outside the service ‘usual menu’.

The increased satisfaction of

consumers during these pilots was surpassed by the satisfaction of carers in the carers respite pro-gram. Carers felt recognised and valued, often for the first time, in the CDC program, in addition to having enhanced choice and control, leading to more appro-priate services.

Cultural changeMaking the transition to CDC requires a degree of change management and pro-activity to avoid pitfalls in the roll-out of service delivery and also the greater pitfalls that may come with reactive responses.

It is helpful to warm to CDC, what it represents and what it offers.

There is a need to be flexible, in-novative and to be aware of the new force of “experience”. This aligns community sector and health services in some ways with commercial customer-focused businesses.

“If you do not innovate you don’t only stagnate: in a con-stantly moving environment you go backwards,” one provider told the June 2014 Consumer-Di-rected Aged Care Conference in Sydney.

For providers who have worked with CDC, ‘delighting the con-sumer’ is not solely a phrase but a vision and indicator for a new culture of working with consum-ers in partnership.

These providers have asked new questions:

• What will our own staff say at a family or neighbourhood get-together about the provider’s service?

cont: page 16

TasC

OSS

New

s Aug

ust 2

014

16

An informal training session

for participants in Tasmania’s

first Graduate Certificate in

Consumer Engagement.

ResourcesKPMG Evaluation of the Consumer Directed Care Initiative final report (2012), Department of Health and Ageing

Increasing consumer choice in aged care services: a position paper (February 2009), Carmel Laragy and Gerry Naughtin, Brotherhood of St Laurence

TasCOSS Consumer Engagement Literature Review: Good Practice Approaches and Pilot Projects in HACC in Tasmania (2012), Tasmanian Council of Social Service

TasCOSS 2014 HACC Consumer Engagement Report: Program Participant Experiences and Stories (2014), Tasmanian Council of Social Service

• What will consumers say about us?

• Who is the Gateway’s pre-ferred provider?

• Can family members or carers access all information about what our service does in a transparent and highly user-friendly way online, prior to making a phone call to us?

“It is critical that consumers, family members can access all information on the web,” one Australian provider said. “Is our website, all IT and call-in process-es reflective of positive engage-ment, choice, and a new focus on consumer delight?”

Person-centred care can sup-port transitioning to CDC. Per-son-centred care approaches recognise and focus on under-standing and respecting con-sumers' values, preferences and their expressed needs.

Essential to person-centred care is the recognition of the client as an individual, with the capacity for and interest in self-actualisa-tion and self-reliance.

The role of person-centred care was recognised in the KPMG evaluation. Providers who had experience with this were able to accommodate CDC changes and were more responsive to new or innovative requests.

A Victorian provider who pre-sented at the CDC Aged Care Conference illustrated how cul-tural change was supported by

the delivery of PCC training to support workers and case co-ordinators.

Case managementThe role of direct care or support workers is significantly important to working in an empowering, enabling way with consumers in CDC.

Case co-ordinators in progressive organisations are given new titles reflective of a change in culture and service approach: they are called ‘facilitators’.

The practice of case manage-ment is being replaced, along the lines of consumer engage-ment goals, with partnership plans.

Providers’ understanding and practice of consumer engage-ment can play a significant part in assisting management and staff teams to gradually shift to-wards equal partnerships.

The TasCOSS HACC Consum-

er engagement program has worked over the past five years to increase consumer input into planning, service delivery and evaluation.

This year the program facilitated the delivery of nationally ac-credited consumer engagement training for the first time in Tasma-nia.

One innovative aspect of the program has been the utilisation of an enhanced narrative inquiry approach: the careful facilita-tion of all participants’ experi-ences and stories in the form of short video clips.

In both change management and service/program delivery narrative inquiry has been shown to be an effective support, eval-uation and communication tool.

Good consumer engagement also acknowledges that it is ul-timately not what you do but the quality of relationships you create with consumers and the experience you deliver that de-lights both consumers and staff involved.

More involved, happier custom-ers and staff also often experi-ence new levels of social interac-tivity and social health benefits. Everyone wins.

17

Extending shelterThe Hobart Women’s Shelter has been named Australian community sector organisation of the year for its holistic and innovative approach

Resources

In June this year came the great news that the Hobart Women’s Shelter had won the 2014 HESTA Community Sector organisation of the year award.

The shelter was recognised for its holistic and innovative approach as it moved from a largely crisis model of service delivery to one that aimed to enable women and children to lead independ-ent, fulfilling lives after escaping domestic violence.

HWS supported 340 women and children in 377 support periods in 2012/13. Of these, 89 per cent did not need to return after their initial support period ended.

HWS first opened its doors in 1974 with a single property. It now operates 10 safe houses and a community centre in Hobart’s northern suburbs.

Sabine Wagner, HWS execu-tive officer from July 2010 to July 2014, told the 2012 TasCOSS con-ference that service provision at HWS and other shelters had previously focused on the two bottom levels of Abraham Ma-slow’s famous hierarchy of hu-man needs – the basic physical needs of food and shelter and the need for safety.

In August 2010, HWS held staff planning days and brainstormed what their dream service would look like. “We came up with all these ideas regarding educa-tion, emotional support, creating a community of all women that support each other, have hap-py children running around the Centre,” Sabine said.

In October 2010 HWS organised a client focus day where current and past residents reviewed the service and shared their dreams and hopes for the future. These were some of the things they wanted to achieve:

• To have paid work and financial independence

• Vocational education

• Drivers licence

• A good future for their children

• Permanent housing

• Being centred, feet on the ground

Both these discussions fed into major changes at HWS, towards a service delivery model that provided a holistic range of pro-grams, incorporating all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

In 2011 the shelter secured a Tas-mania Community Fund Grant to run FLAVERS, a three-year program that aimed to support women to rebuild their lives after experiencing homelessness and/or domestic violence.

The program objective was to find opportunities for women to re-engage with the community, education and employment, to develop new skills for learning and to plan pathways into fur-ther study or employment.

“The program provided informa-tion and support to women on several levels – through pathway planning, brief one-on-one litera-cy support, through embedding literacy outcomes in general activities and through providing information about educational opportunities with the LINC, Tas-TAFE etc,” program coordinator Iona Johnson said.

“I also set up several accredited training courses with RTOs to de-liver foundation skills training for women.”

An external evaluation of FLAV-ERS found that more than half the women who had under-taken the program had gone on to further study, while others had found jobs or become vol-unteers.

Peter Stone of ME Bank and Joanne Fenton of

HESTA (far right) presents the winner’s cheque to

Hobart Women’s Shelter Board chair Mary Anne

Ryan and acting Executive Officer Kristie Trambas.

Also launched by the shelter in 2011 were a new women’s choir, the KYSS (Keeping Yourself Safe and Sane) group and the crea-tive leadership project, all aimed at creating communities of wom-en and peer support relation-ships, and overcoming isolation.

FLAVERS ended in February 2014, when funding ran out. But HWS continues to provide services be-yond the shelter model.

A Mentors in Violence Preven-tion Train the Trainer Program was delivered recently to a range of organisations with the aim of es-tablishing the MVP bystander program in Tasmania.

And HWS continues to run crea-tive community activities.

“Planning is under way to de-velop further early intervention and community development programs and we are seeking ongoing funding opportunities to deliver these,” Iona said.

The $10,000 development grant HWS received for winning the HESTA award will help in these as-pirations.

Progress on outcomes reporting DHHS is already working with some service providers to develop Commissioning for Outcomes Statements

The Department of Health and Human Services provided more than $235 million in funding in 2013-14 to approximately 250 community sector organisations, delivering over 660 services to Tasmanians in need.

DHHS has systems in place to monitor the financial manage-ment and quality and safety of the services it funds but, until now, the Department has not had a structured way to describe and monitor the outcomes that those services are aiming to achieve for clients.

Recognising this gap, the De-partment has worked with the community sector to develop the DHHS Outcomes Purchasing Framework.

The Outcomes Purchasing Framework describes how the Department will work with the community sector to agree what outcomes they want to achieve for clients and the broader Tas-manian community with gov-ernment funding, and deter-mine how they will make sure that those outcomes are being achieved.

The same approach to client outcomes will be used for all of the funding that DHHS provides to the community sector, in-cluding for housing and home-lessness services, mental health services, drug and alcohol ser-vices, home and community care services, population health

services, neighbourhood houses, gambling and community sup-port services, disability services, and children and youth services.

The framework will help DHHS work with the community sector to:• Think about the outcomes they

want to achieve for clients.• Think about the indicators that

will show whether those out-comes are being progressed or achieved.

• Document agreed outcomes and indicators in a Commis-sioning for Outcomes State-ment - to help tell the ‘story’ of what is sought to be achieved for clients with a particular pro-gram.

• Use a Commissioning for Out-comes Statement to monitor and improve outcomes for cli-ents.

• Use the same approach and language as each other when thinking about client out-comes.

The Department recognises that it will be hard for the community sector to measure outcomes if DHHS, as a funder, is not on the same page and outcomes measurement is not adequately reflected in the Department’s purchasing and accountability frameworks.

This is why it is so important for DHHS to do its own piece of work in this space – to ensure that the DHHS ‘house is in order’, that funding agreement manag-ers are speaking the same lan-guage as their community sector partners, and that purchasing and accountability structures align with the broader outcomes measurement improvement agenda.

Although this is an internal piece of work, DHHS will work in partner-ship with the community sector

Joined-up human services

The DHHS Joined Up Human Services project is being led by Disability, Housing and Community Services, in collaboration with the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It will deliver on Minister Jacquie Petrusma’s election commitment for a more joined-up human services system in Tas-mania. Find out more on the DHHS Community Sector Relations Unit webpage, under JUSTT.

at all levels in order to success-fully develop and implement the Outcomes Framework.

This will include development and application of the actual outcomes measures for specific individuals, programs and com-munities being done as a col-laborative effort with our com-munity sector partners, through facilitated planning sessions.

ImplementationThe Department has already started working with service pro-viders to develop Commission-ing for Outcomes Statements for some of its programs. Workshops were held in August to start this process.

DHHS staff and service providers will also be supported by a set of guidelines to assist with practical application of the Framework.

The Framework will be trialled with a sample of DHHS-funded programs across different pro-gram areas over the next 12 months.

This will involve embedding the Framework at all levels, including in strategic planning, program-level outcomes statements and individual funding agreements.

The Framework will start to be rolled into some funding agree-ments from 2015-16.

It will gradually be rolled into other funding agreements as they are due for renegotiation over a three-year period.

For more information on the DHHS Outcomes Framework, please contact the DHHS Com-munity Sector Relations Unit on (03) 6233 4917 or email jo.white@dhhs.tas.gov.au

See the TasCOSS website, www.tascoss.org.au, for a Plain Eng-lish guide to the DHHS Outcomes Purchasing Framework. 18

The Tasmanian Council of Social Service, TasCOSS, was established in 1961. TasCOSS is the peak body

for the Tasmanian community services sector.

Our mission To advocate for the interests of low-income and

otherwise disadvantaged Tasmanians, and to serve as the peak council for the state’s community

services industry.

Our visionA fair, just and inclusive Tasmania.

Gabrielle Rish

Communications Officer

Jill Pope

Finance Officer

Tony Reidy

Chief Executive

Tim Tabart

Development Officer

Sector Development Unit

Klaus Baur

HACC Project Officer/Consumer Engagement

Sector Development Unit

Beng Poh

Executive Assistant

Dale Rahmanovic

Development Officer

Sector Development Unit

Meg Webb

Deputy Chief Executive

TasCOSS is supported by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Sponsored by Hesta.

Printed by Monotone Art Printers. Design by Charlie Bravo Design.

Printed on 100% recycled paper.

Wynne Russell

Policy and Research Officer

Social Policy and Research Unit

Kath McLean

Senior Policy and Research Officer

Social Policy and Research Unit

TasCOSS

Jo Flanagan

Policy and Research Officer

Social Policy and Research Unit