2015
Creating a Quality
Outcome Training
Model to Achieve Better
Results for Apprentices
in Australia
A WHITE PAPER
DAVE CLARE & PETER ADAMS
ATC MIDWEST | 235 Flores Rd., Webberton WA 6530
Copyright 2015, Midwest Training Group Inc.
No part of this document may be distributed, reproduced or posted
without the express written permission of Midwest Training Group Inc.
Midwest Training Group Inc. t/as ATC Midwest
235 Flores Rd.,
Webberton WA 6530
Creating a Quality Outcome Training Model to
Achieve Better Results for Apprentices in Australia
Written by Gemma Moore for ATC Midwest and ATC Work Smart Albany
SITUATION:
Australia is seeing a decline in the Traditional Trade Skills base through a reduction
in apprentice training rates and a larger percentage of apprenticeship non
completions. The current system is not working.
This has a number of repercussions including:
1.
2.
3.
A looming skilled labour shortage
Government resources not being utilised to their full capacity
Employers who have become disillusioned by the system and unlikely to hire
apprentices now and in the future
Currently there are two ways of hiring apprentices and trainees in Australia:
1.
2.
Direct indenture (employed directly by the employer)
Group Training Organisations (employed and then hired to employers)
Current figures show around 80% of apprentices are directly indentured whilst a
smaller percentage of 20% are employed by group training organisations 1.
Our goal is to create a quality outcome model which can be used by both State and
National governments to ensure group training organisations and direct indenture
employers are obtaining the best results for our future workforce.
All traineeships and apprenticeships are guided by The National Code of Good
Practice for Australian Apprenticeships 2. This provides an overview of
requirements for both parties entering into a training contract. However few people
are aware of the code and there is no one holding direct indenture employers
accountable.
Group Training organisations follow the National Code but are also guided by the
National Standards for Group Training Organisations (under review) 3
1.
Stats provided by ATC Midwest & ATC Work Smart
National Code of Good Practice for Australian Apprenticeships,
http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/publications/national-code-good-practice-australian-apprenticeships
3.
National Standards for Group Training Organisations
http://www.grouptraining.ntis.gov.au/(S(abuceijxpigms1m4xxd42a55))/national_launch.aspx
2.
These standards have the objective of ensuring nationally consistent, high quality
group training services for clients which includes apprentices/trainees and host
employers.
This means currently only 20% of apprentices benefit from their employers being
audited and checked for standards as these fall under the Group Training umbrella.
Government wants quality outcomes for the money it invests into apprenticeships.
But first they need to be absolutely clear on what their quality outcomes are and how
they can be measured. How can we aim to achieve something if it hasn’t been
crystallised?
We know the federal government wants quality outcomes (completions) but currently
it provides funding to groups and employers who have little or no systems and
processes in place to achieve these.
Many employers and some group training organisations don’t currently have a clear
model for how they achieve the best quality outcome, not only for apprentices but
also for the business and industry sectors.
Whilst completion rates are a useful measure we would argue they are just one part
of a quality outcome.
However as completion rates are low and falling in some areas it is vital to
understand further where the system is failing.
Why are completion rates low? Information from the National Centre for Vocational
Education Research 4 states the apprentice didn’t finish because:




Did not get on with boss or other people at work
Did not like the type of work
Other or personal reasons
Was not happy with the on the job training
Western Australia ranks second in completion rates for those apprentices who
started in 2007 at a rate of 62.2%. The Australian average is approx. 45%.
Knight found that differences in the level of support provided to apprentices in
each state appeared to be the key. For example, the number of field officers
who conduct site visits and provide support to apprentices varies
substantially among states. Tasmania in particular was found to have a strong
culture of support for traditional apprenticeships 5.
Understanding the non-completion of apprentices, Alice Bednarz
National Centre for Vocational Education Research
4.
5.
Bednarz, A 2014, Understanding the non-completion of apprentices, NCVER, Adelaide. http://bit.ly/1GKp8Ua
Bednarz, A 2014, Understanding the non-completion of apprentices, NCVER, Adelaide. http://bit.ly/1GKp8Ua
SOLUTION:
Two regional Group Training Organisations have created a model that aligns with the
government desire to increase completion rates and to provide better outcomes for
those in training
We are proposing a quality outcome model which has been influenced and informed
by 25 years of knowledge and experience. We are strong believers of this model
because this is how we currently operate and we have some of the highest success
rates in the group training industry. Our apprentices, trainees and host employers
are satisfied because they know all of the factors that contribute to a successful
outcome are being taken care of.
Our quality outcome model provides clarity over the systems and processes which
need to be in place to provide the best opportunity for success.
(See Appendix A for larger model)
In order to achieve a quality outcome three key principles need to be incorporated Engage, Inspire and Develop. Further to this there needs to be an amalgamation of a
quality employer, a quality candidate and quality training to guarantee a quality
outcome.
If one area falls down or doesn't meet standards it can lead to the apprentice not
completing their training or the employer not taking on apprentices in the future.
The influence of the employer cannot be overstated. Employers with the
highest completion rates are generally larger, experienced employers with
well-organised systems for managing and recruiting apprentices. Employers
with lower completion rates tend to be smaller and have less experience 6.
Whilst millions of dollars are being spent by governments on support networks
(including AASN) and other programs - the jury is still out on what impact they are
having.
Apprentices generally leave their apprenticeship contract early on: 60% of
those who leave do so within the first year 7.
It makes more sense to have a program or model where the focus is on the
candidate, employer and training to make sure everyone is supported from the very
beginning.
We believe the quality outcomes we achieve are not just about how many
apprentices complete their training and remain working in the industry in which they
are skilled. A quality outcome in our view also provides apprentices with transferable
skills and workplace experiences that they can apply in different occupations or
industries.
Employment data shows how Australians work patterns have changed over the
years and it is now common for people to have a number of jobs and occupations
within their lifetime.
The calibre of our training and development ensures that whether or not they are
working in the field they trained in, our apprentices and trainees are still highly
talented and excellently trained/skilled employees.
6
. Bednarz, A 2014, Understanding the non-completion of apprentices, NCVER, Adelaide. http://bit.ly/1GKp8Ua
. Bednarz, A 2014, Understanding the non-completion of apprentices, NCVER, Adelaide. http://bit.ly/1GKp8Ua
7
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS:
A significant number of employers and particularly Small to Medium Enterprises
(SME’s) don’t have the expertise, HR skills or manpower to achieve the ultimate
outcome of completing an apprentice.
Most Group Training Organisations have these skills in abundance but are finding it
more and more difficult to engage with SME’s. The Commonwealth Government has
placed an emphasis on achieving higher completion rates and has directed funds to
AASN providers in such a way that they believe will improve completions.
There does seem to be a disconnect between the desire of government to achieve
higher apprenticeship completions and the level of importance and/or desire of
SME’s for the same outcome. Employer incentives are paid irrespective of the
infrastructure in place within a business to support an apprentice and in the majority
of directly indentured apprenticeships the employer doesn’t use the incentives in a
way that assists to achieve a quality training outcome.
Only 20% of apprentices and employers currently benefit from the experience,
knowledge and systems of a group training organisation and we believe this has an
impact on the number of apprentices completing their training.
The introduction of the quality outcome model as demonstrated in this paper will go a
long way towards combating the reasons apprentices have for leaving their training.
The government would achieve their desired outcomes by providing funding to those
who have the correct systems in place for success. This means a higher success
rate and a more efficient and effective investment for government and business.
We believe everyone should have the same chance to achieve and be given the
same support in their training journey.
Millions of dollars in employer incentives are being spent on apprentices and
trainees - what outcomes are we getting?
For a business to be eligible to receive these incentives and perhaps even for them
to be permitted to take on an apprentice, they should have to have in place a
comprehensive management plan for their apprentice that outlines the methodology
they will use that is designed to assist in achieving a successful completion.
Larger businesses are likely to have the resources and processes in place to meet
the above criteria however SME’s may find it harder to comply and would need to
address the issue internally or engage outsourced support.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
A quality outcome model (as pictured above or a similar version) is
implemented as the best practice when employing an apprentice or trainee.
2.
Suitable agencies be appointed to oversee a certification and compliance
framework in each state. Another alternative would be to engage the
respective State Consumer Protection agencies to administer the framework.
3.
Every apprentice must be hired either by a Group Training organisation or
through an employer who has been approved by an appropriate body as
having an appropriate quality outcome model in place. Where an employer
doesn’t have the necessary in house skills to develop or execute a quality
system (as per our example) then they would need to outsource assistance
before they could engage an apprentice (in effect paid for by the
Commonwealth incentives they would receive). Outsourced service could
come from a range of suppliers including: group training and industry bodies.
4.
Funding for future schemes and employer incentives be provided to those
who can demonstrate the implementation of a quality outcome model.
The extension to this approach could result in there being no need for the additional
AASN services now being offered to employers and paid for by the Federal
Government. The only Government Funded service required would be the sign up
paperwork and distribution of incentives. Clearly the current incentive regimen
doesn’t appear to have a positive effect on commencements or completions and this
new approach is likely to have far greater success.
Produced by:
Dave Clare, General Manager
ATC Midwest, 235 Flores Rd, Webberton WA 6530
Peter Adams, General Manager
ATC Work Smart Albany, 5 Barker Road, Albany WA 6331
All media or other enquiries to:
Dave Clare
EM: [email protected]
PH: (08) 9923 1400
QUALITY OUTCOME MODEL©
APPENDIX A