Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... I
1.1
Awareness and Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies.............................. i
1.2
Satisfaction with Department of Human Services Agencies ...................................................... i
1.3
Improvement Suggestions ........................................................................................................ ii
1.4
Case Coordination Approach .................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.1
Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.2
Research Objectives .................................................................................................................. 2
2.3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection ........................................................................................ 2
2.3.2 Fieldwork ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Profile of Participants .................................................................................................... 4
2.4
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.4.1 Subgroup Selection ........................................................................................................ 4
2.5
3.0
4.0
Interpretation of Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) ................................................................. 5
AWARENESS AND INTERACTION ................................................................................... 6
3.1
Awareness of Department of Human Services Agencies .......................................................... 6
3.2
Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies ...................................................... 7
3.3
Regularity of Contact with Department of Human Services Agencies ...................................... 8
3.4
Level of Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies......................................... 9
3.5
Strengths of Relationships with Department of Human Services Agencies ............................ 10
3.6
Improvement Suggestions for Relationships with the Agencies ............................................. 11
3.7
Satisfaction with Department of Human Services Agencies ................................................... 13
REFERRALS PROCESS ................................................................................................... 14
4.1
Whether Receive Referrals from Agencies ............................................................................. 14
4.2
Satisfaction with Referrals ...................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Suggested Improvements to the Referrals Process ..................................................... 16
5.0
6.0
CASE COORDINATION APPROACH ............................................................................... 17
5.1
Openness to Greater Case Coordination ................................................................................ 17
5.2
Reasons for Not Seeking Greater Case Coordination.............................................................. 17
5.3
Vision for Case Coordination................................................................................................... 18
5.4
The Department’s Role in Greater Case Coordination ............................................................ 21
5.5
Organisations’ Role in Case Coordination ............................................................................... 24
COMMUNICATING WITH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ..................................... 25
6.1
Preferred Means of Contacting the Department .................................................................... 25
6.2
Preferred Means of Receiving Information from the Department ......................................... 26
Appendices:
Appendix 1: The questionnaire
Appendix 2: Detailed tables
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1: Final Call Result Codes (After All Attempts) ...................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Firmographics .................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Awareness of Department of Human Services Agencies .................................................. 6
Figure 4: Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies .............................................. 7
Figure 5: Contact with Department of Human Services Agencies ................................................... 8
Figure 6: Level of Contact ................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 7: Strengths of Relationships ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Improvement in Relationship Aspects............................................................................. 11
Figure 9: Improvement Suggestions for Relationships (Unprompted) .......................................... 11
Figure 10: Satisfaction with Agencies ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 11: Receipt of Referrals ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Receipt of Referrals by Agency ...................................................................................... 14
Figure 13: Satisfaction with Referrals............................................................................................. 15
Figure 14: Suggested Improvements with Referrals Process ......................................................... 16
Figure 15: Need for Greater Case Coordination ............................................................................. 17
Figure 16: Reasons for Not Seeking Greater Coordination ............................................................ 17
Figure 17: Vision for Case Coordination ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 18: The Department’s Role in Case Coordination - Unprompted ....................................... 21
Figure 19: The Department’s Role in Case Coordination - Prompted ............................................ 22
Figure 20: Preferred Training Type ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 21: Organisations’ Role in Case Coordination ..................................................................... 24
Figure 22: Preferred Means of Contact .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 23: Preferred Means of Receiving Information ................................................................... 26
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the Service Delivery Reform initiative, the Department of Human Services is trialling a
new service delivery model called Case Coordination. Under Case Coordination, when a
customer presents to the Department they will be routinely assessed for both payment eligibility
and for additional support. If identified for additional support, customers will be referred to
appropriate community organisations. The success of the new model will rely on strong
relationships between Department of Human Services and these local community organisations.
This report aims to identify the existing level of satisfaction and identify opportunities for
improvement in the way community organisations work with the Human Services portfolio.
A total of 305 representatives from advocacy and service delivery organisations within 19 trial
sites across Australia were interviewed early May 2011.
1.1
Awareness and Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
The majority were able to identify at least one agency as belonging to the Department of Human
Services portfolio although there were some (23%) who were unable to identify any of the
agencies as belonging to the Department of Human Services portfolio. Centrelink, Child Support
Agency and Medicare were the most likely to have been identified as belonging to the
Department of Human Services portfolio.
Interaction is most likely to be with Centrelink with 9 in 10 already having contact on a regular
basis. Other agencies were less likely to have interaction with community organisations and
interaction was less frequent when compared with Centrelink.
Around 3 in 4 respondents reported their organisation receives referrals from Department of
Human Services agencies. Similar to levels of interaction, community service organisations were
most likely to receive these referrals from Centrelink.
1.2
Satisfaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
Respondents representing organisations that interact with Department of Human Services
agencies reported moderate levels of satisfaction with both the referrals process and working
relationship in general. With regards to specific aspects of the referrals process, satisfaction was
lowest for the adequacy of information, follow up about the referred cases, and clients being
made aware of the services provided by the community service organisations.
Responsiveness was seen to be one of the main strengths of all agencies. Respondents were
able to record more strengths of their relationship with Centrelink than other agencies, perhaps
a reflection of the regular level of interaction allowing more strengths to be identified. Aspects
not so readily observed as strengths across all agencies included those relating to mutual
cooperation and awareness, the ability to access and share information, and regular one on one
contact.
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
1.3
ii
Improvement Suggestions
Respondents felt that there were aspects of the working relationship between their
organisations and all Department of Human Services agencies that required attention. This was
more likely to be regarding the relationship with Centrelink and Child Support Agency, but again,
this may have been due to the higher regularity of contact with these agencies.
Finding the right person to talk to was a commonly reported suggestion for improvement across
all agencies. Some respondents also felt that the agencies had a limited understanding of their
organisation. Other suggestions included improved timeliness of responses and increased
information sharing.
With regards to the referrals process, providing information with referrals was a commonly
reported suggestion for improvement. More accurate assessments was another common
suggestion made by respondents when asked what could be done to improve the referrals
process.
1.4
Case Coordination Approach
Around two thirds of respondents believed there was a need for greater coordination of services
between their organisation and Department of Human Services agencies. Respondents felt that
this case coordination approach could work through improved communication via regular
meetings and networking opportunities, mutual understanding of organisations and services,
and shared goals and objectives.
Most felt that both Department of Human Services and the community organisations had a role
to play in assisting with greater coordination of services. More information sharing and
improved communication through training opportunities and regular meetings were seen as the
most useful ways of coordinating the approach.
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1
Background
As part of the Service Delivery Reform initiative, the Department of Human Services is trialling a
new service delivery model called Case Coordination. Whilst the Department has a history of
referring customers to community organisations, this has been mostly the domain of specialists
within Centrelink such as social workers. Under Case Coordination, when a customer presents to
the Department they will be routinely assessed for both payment eligibility and for additional
support. Those identified for additional support will be identified for assisted, managed or
intensive services based on their individual needs.
Once identified for additional support, customers will be referred to appropriate community
organisations. The success of the new model will rely on strong relationships between the
Department of Human Services and local community organisations that deliver appropriate
services. For Case Coordination to be successfully implemented, any referral process issues
need to be identified and addressed in the service delivery model.
It is intended that Case Coordination will be trialled at 19 sites (likely to be a national coverage)
commencing from July 2011.
Hence, prior to this trial, the Department required input from community organisation
stakeholders to assess existing levels of satisfaction and identify opportunities for improvement
in the way community organisations work with the Human Services portfolio.
Market Solutions was commissioned to conduct research amongst 36 peak community
organisations as well as 300 local advocacy and service delivery organisations in proximity to the
19 trial sites. As the trial sites are yet to be finalised, a selection of trial sites were chosen for the
purposes of the research. These sites were selected as it was believed they will share similar
demographic characteristics to those of the final trial sites.
For the purpose of the research, trial sites included:










Ararat
Bankstown
Bowen
Bridgewater
Broadmeadows
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin
Elizabeth
Fairfield









Newcastle
Port Adelaide
Rockhampton
Rockingham
Shellharbour
Shepparton
Springvale
Woodridge
Wyong
This report presents the findings from the CATI survey of advocacy and service delivery
organisations. The results of the depth interviews amongst peak community organisations are
provided in a separate report.
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
2.2
2
Research Objectives
This research project had two key objectives:
 To identify the existing level of satisfaction with the way stakeholders work with the
Human Services portfolio
 To identify opportunities for improvement in the way survey participants work with the
Human Services portfolio
The aim of the research was to assist the Department to develop a stakeholder engagement
strategy and develop relationship benchmarks to be used to evaluate Case Coordination.
2.3
Methodology
Market Solutions developed the questionnaire in conjunction with the Department. The
questionnaire was designed after considering results of the qualitative research conducted with
peak community organisations. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1.
The majority were closed category questions where the interviewer was instructed not to read
the answer categories (unprompted) or they were asked to read the categories (prompted).
Where results from these types of questions are used in the report there is a label to define
whether the categories are prompted or unprompted. Open ended questions were also used to
gather responses in the respondent’s own words. After gathering these verbatim comments
they were coded into categories. Once again where these results are used there is a label to
define these as unprompted categories.
2.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection
The Department provided a list of relevant organisations in each of the 19 test sites. The data
was cleaned to remove any duplicate cases. Additional numbers were sought for some test sites
with smaller numbers in the sample. Following is the final number provided in the sample:
Test Site
Ararat
Bankstown
Bowen
Bridgewater
Broadmeadows
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin
Elizabeth
Fairfield
Newcastle
Port Adelaide
Rockhampton
Rockingham
Shellharbour
Shepparton
Springvale
Woodridge
Wyong
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Sample
98
81
41
102
72
92
59
77
56
91
74
54
60
62
60
112
53
51
45
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3
2.3.2 Fieldwork
Interviewing was conducted by telephone between 4th and 17th May 2011. A total of 305
representatives from advocacy and service delivery organisations within proximity to the 19 trial
sites were interviewed.
The average interview length was 17 minutes. Quotas were imposed on test sites to ensure 16
interviews were conducted with organisations in each of the sites. Figure 1 provides a summary
of call result codes. It shows a high response rate of 53% of contacts resulting in a completed
interview and a low refusal rate of 6% of contacts resulting in a decline to participate.
Figure 1: Final Call Result Codes (After All Attempts)
Count of
numbers
dialled
% of numbers
dialled
% of all
contacts
Completed Interviews
305
28.0%
52.8%
Surplus Callbacks
233
21.4%
40.3%
Declined to Participate
35
3.2%
6.1%
Terminated early
2
0.2%
0.4%
Final Call Result
IN SCOPE CONTACTS
Communication Difficulties
3
0.3%
0.5%
Total In-Scope Contacts
578
53.0%
100.0%
OTHER CONTACTS
Non Qualifying Organisations
76
7.0%
Government / Business Number
-
-
Duplicate/Over quota
16
1.5%
Incorrect Details
Total Other Contacts
7
99
0.6%
9.1%
No contact after all attempts
312
28.6%
Non working numbers
108
9.3%
Total Non - Contacts
413
1090
37.9%
100.0%
NON CONTACTS
TOTAL
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
4
2.3.3 Profile of Participants
Respondents from organisations representing a range of interests or services were interviewed
(refer to Figure 2). The majority were either a service organisation (52%) or both a service and
advocacy organisation (44%). Just over half (56%) of organisations were located in metropolitan
areas and the majority were not for profit (86%).
Figure 2: Firmographics
Total
(n=305)
Base: All respondents
Interests or Services Represented^
Health and wellbeing
Family and children's services
Education
Housing services
Employment
Correctional services
Financial support and services
Aged and disability
Other
%
54
49
33
31
27
11
2
2
5
Advocacy or Service Organisation
%
Service
52
Advocacy
Both advocacy and service
Profit or Not for Profit Organisation
Not for profit
Profit
Both profit and not for profit
4
44
%
86
9
3
Unsure/ refused
2.4
1
Location
%
Metropolitan area
Regional centre
Rural area
^Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
56
32
12
Data Analysis
2.4.1 Subgroup Selection
Throughout this report, sub analysis was conducted for broad areas. Only subgroups which
showed variations between categories were reported on (tabulated) as it was from these groups
which the most meaningful and relevant conclusions could be drawn. As a result the subgroups
included in reporting varies for each question.
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
2.5
5
Interpretation of Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
Survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their working relationship with
Department of Human Services agencies, as well as several aspects of the referrals process. To
gain insight into satisfaction levels, a Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) was calculated using the
following scoring system:
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
=
=
=
=
=
=
100
80
60
40
20
0
Every response to a satisfaction question received a score as shown above. So, if a person
provided a rating of “totally satisfied” their response received the highest score of 100, and if a
person provided a rating of “totally dissatisfied” their response received a score of 0.
The CSI represents an average of these scores. The index takes into account all responses to the
question (i.e. all levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction).
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.0
3.1
6
AWARENESS AND INTERACTION
Awareness of Department of Human Services Agencies
At the commencement of the survey, respondents were presented with agency names and
asked if they could nominate which of these is a part of the Department of Human Services
portfolio. Figure 3 shows that the majority (77%) were able to identify at least one agency as
belonging to the Department of Human Services portfolio and the remaining 23% were unable to
identify any of the agencies as belonging to the portfolio.
Centrelink (64%), Child Support Agency (55%) and Medicare (53%) were the most likely to have
been identified as belonging to the Department of Human Services portfolio, followed by CRS
Australia (41%) and Australian Hearing (22%).
Figure 3: Awareness of Department of Human Services Agencies
Q.4 Which of the following agencies are part of the Department of Human Services portfolio …? (PROMPTED)
Total (n=305)
Centrelink
64
Child Support Agency
55
Medicare
53
CRS Australia
41
Australian Hearing
22
Unsure/ don't know
23
Base: All respondents
0
20
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
40
60
80
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.2
7
Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
The majority (89%) of respondents reported their organisation has dealt with Centrelink (refer to
Figure 4). Interaction with the remaining Department of Human Services agencies was much
lower.
A small number (6%) of organisations reported having no contact with any of agencies.
Figure 4: Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
Q.5. The following agencies make up the Department of Human Services portfolio.
Which of the following have your organisation dealt with? (PROMPTED)
Total (n=305)
Centrelink
89
Child Support Agency
43
Medicare
34
CRS Australia
28
Australian Hearing
12
None of the above
Base: All respondents
6
0
20
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
40
60
80
100
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.3
8
Regularity of Contact with Department of Human Services Agencies
Contact with Centrelink was most frequent, with 50% of organisations who interact with them
doing so at least two or three times a week with a high proportion of these interacting daily. On
the other hand, contact with Australian Hearing was reported to be far less frequent with 86% of
those having interactions contacting the agency monthly or less often.
The regularity of contact generally reflected interaction with the agencies as reported
previously, with the exception of Child Support Agency. Although more organisations interacted
with Child Support Agency (43%) compared with Medicare (34%), regularity of contact was less
frequent with Child Support Agency (refer to Figure 5). This would suggest that although a
number of organisations have the need to contact Child Support Agency, this need arises less
frequently compared with Centrelink and Medicare.
Figure 5: Contact with Department of Human Services Agencies
Q.6. And can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with … ? (PROMPTED)
At least two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few months
Two or three times per year or less often
Centrelink
50
(n=272)
Medicare
22
(n=103)
Child Support Agency
14
(n=131)
CRS Australia
7
(n=86)
Australian Hearing
6
(n=35)
0
Base: Have contact with Agency
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
17
19
9
24
8
8
2
12
43
13
43
26
44
20
14
41
11
15
10
42
40
60
80
100
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.4
9
Level of Interaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
As shown in Figure 6 below, contact with all agencies was most likely to be at a local level
(between 70% and 90%). Contact at a state level was more common for Centrelink, Child
Support Agency and Australian Hearing, where around 1 in 3 respondents reported dealing with
the state agencies. Contact at a national level was less common, particularly for Australian
Hearing for which only 3% reported national dealings.
Figure 6: Level of Contact
Q.7. At what level do you deal with each Agency, is it…? (PROMPTED)
Local
National
90
Centrelink
29
(n=272)
20
85
CRS Australia
22
(n=86)
12
80
Medicare
19
(n=103)
19
71
Australian Hearing
(n=35)
State
29
3
70
Child Support Agency
(n=131)
0
Base: Have contact with Agency
31
17
20
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
40
60
80
100
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.5
10
Strengths of Relationships with Department of Human Services Agencies
Respondents from the surveyed organisations were asked what they believed to be the
strengths of their relationships with the agencies they have contact with. The strongest
performing aspects across all agencies were responsiveness, well established relationships, and
open communication (refer to Figure 7).
More respondents were able to identify strengths of their relationship with Centrelink than
other agencies with 93% identifying at least one strength compared with 79% for Medicare and
73% for Child Support Agency.
Centrelink relationships were most likely to be referred to as well established, responsive and
with open communication and compared with other agencies personal and regular contact were
seen to be key strengths. It should be noted however, that organisations generally have more
frequent contact with Centrelink than with other agencies, providing greater opportunity for
strengths to be observed.
Although Medicare was seen to be responsive, there were few other stand out attributes. In
contrast the strengths of the other agencies tended to be spread more widely, particularly for
Centrelink and Child Support Agency.
Responsiveness was seen to be one of the strengths of all agencies. Information sharing and the
ability to access other networks were reported by very few respondents to be strengths of any
of the agencies.
Figure 7: Strengths of Relationships
Q.8. What are the strengths of your relationship with … ? (UNPROMPTED)
Centrelink
(n=272)
Medicare
(n=103)
Child
Support
Agency
(n=131)
%
31
45
35
17
19
15
23
25
10
2
3
7
%
33
18
17
19
6
7
4
5
7
3
4
21
%
24
20
22
21
9
10
8
12
12
3
5
27
Base: Have contact with Agency
Responsive
Well established relationship
Open communication
Easy to access
Cooperation/shared goals
Cross organisational awareness
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Information sharing
Ability to access other networks
Other
None
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Australian
Hearing
(n=35)
CRS
Australia
(n=86)
%
31
26
29
17
14
11
11
3
6
0
11
14
%
27
24
23
17
22
16
7
7
6
2
2
14
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.6
11
Improvement Suggestions for Relationships with the Agencies
Respondents were asked if there were any aspects of their relationships with the agencies that
could be improved. Centrelink and Child Support Agency showed the greatest need for
improvement, with between 43% and 47% of respondents reporting aspects of their relationship
with these agencies that required attention. Again it is important to note that dealings with
Centrelink were more regular providing more opportunities to identify improvement
suggestions.
Figure 8: Improvement in Relationship Aspects
Q.9. Are there any aspects of your relationship with ... that could be improved? (UNPROMPTED)
Yes - aspects of relationship with Agency that could be improved
No - no aspects of relationship that could be improved
Centrelink
47
(n=272)
Child Support Agency
43
(n=131)
CRS Australia
Medicare
70
22
(n=103)
(n=35)
57
30
(n=86)
Australian Hearing
53
78
14
0
Base: Have contact with Agency
86
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 9 shows that finding the right person to talk to was a commonly reported suggestion for
improvement across all agencies. Some respondents also felt that the agencies had a limited
understanding of their organisation. Other suggestions included improved timeliness of
responses and increased information sharing.
Figure 9: Improvement Suggestions for Relationships (Unprompted)
Base: Have aspects of relationship that could be
improved
Finding the right person to talk to
Limited understanding of our organisation
Timeliness of responses
Privacy constraints prevent information sharing
Limited capacity/resources to engage
Unwilling to share information
Limited understanding of their organisation
Need early input in decision making
Lack of shared goals
Lack of involvement in policy decisions
Other
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
* Caution small sample size
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Centrelink
(n=127)
Medicare
(n=23)*
Child
Support
Agency
(n=56)
%
39
20
20
18
14
14
14
6
4
2
13
%
39
13
13
13
4
13
9
4
0
4
22
%
30
21
18
18
13
16
11
7
11
2
13
Australian
Hearing
(n=5)*
CRS
Australia
(n=26)*
%
20
0
40
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
%
15
31
8
4
31
15
12
4
4
8
23
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
12
Following are examples of comments that were coded under “other improvement suggestions”
for relationships with the agencies as reported by the representatives of the surveyed
organisations:

Centrelink
“Better communication.”
“More consistent dialogue would be good, around expectations and managing
their affairs and responsibilities.”
“Providing more information sessions.”
“To get follow through from the things that you discuss.”

Medicare
“Increased networking opportunities.”
“To build a relationship.”

Child Support Agency
“Make some contact by phone rather than letter. It comes across as kind of a cold
relationship. They are more demanding with their letters.”
“More regular contact with them relating to our clients.”

Australian Hearing
“Australian Hearing should be invited to the meetings held at Centrelink.”

CRS Australia
“Develop a formal relationship with them.”
“Have more network meetings.”
“More communication in job capacity assessment. DMI assessments.”
“Touch base with them again and get some feedback with the previous
interactions. Do some follow up.”
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
3.7
13
Satisfaction with Department of Human Services Agencies
Overall satisfaction with the working relationship with Department of Human Services agencies
was moderate, with no agency reaching a high level for CSI of 80. Australian Hearing recorded
the highest CSI of 79.4. However comparison with the other agencies should be made with
caution due to the relatively small sample size for Australian Hearing. Centrelink (76.6) and
Medicare (76.0) also recorded moderate CSI scores.
Satisfaction was lowest for the Child Support Agency which recorded a CSI of 69.1, and 9% of
organisation representatives reported being dissatisfied with this agency.
Figure 10: Satisfaction with Agencies
Q.10. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with … ?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Dissatisfied
CSI
Australian Hearing
15
(n=34)
Centrelink
71
17
(n=268)
Medicare
58
15
(n=101)
CRS Australia
Child Support Agency
0
38
40
60
3
76.0
4
74.1
9
80
79.4
76.6
7
31
47
20
3
29
57
6
(n=128)
18
54
8
(n=84)
12
69.1
100
Base: Have contact with Agency (excluding 'Don't know')
Sub analysis amongst the test sites showed some variation in CSI for Centrelink. Bowen (85.3),
Rockhampton (83.8), Ararat (83.3), Cowra (82.7) and Burnie (81.8) all recorded high CSI scores,
whilst respondents in Darwin (67.1), Port Adelaide (68.3) and Springvale (70.0) were the least
satisfied with their working relationship with Centrelink.
Sub analysis was not conducted on the remaining agencies due to the very small sample sizes
within each test site.
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
4.0
4.1
14
REFERRALS PROCESS
Whether Receive Referrals from Agencies
Respondents were asked whether their organisation receives referrals from Department of
Human Services agencies. Figure 11 shows that around 3 in 4 organisations (74%) receive
referrals.
Figure 11: Receipt of Referrals
Q.11. Does your organisation ever receive referrals from...?
Yes - receive
referrals
from
No - do not
Agencies
receive
74%
referrals
26%
Base: All respondents (n=305)
Referrals were most likely to come from Centrelink, with over 90% of organisations having
received referrals from Centrelink (refer to Figure 12). Just over 1 in 5 organisations that
received referrals reported receiving them from Child Support Agency or CRS Australia. Few
received referrals from Medicare or Australian Hearing.
Figure 12: Receipt of Referrals by Agency
Total (n=208)
Centrelink
92
Child Support Agency
24
CRS Australia
21
Medicare
7
Australian Hearing
3
0
20
Base: Receive referrals from Agencies
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
40
60
80
100
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
4.2
15
Satisfaction with Referrals
Respondents representing organisations that receive referrals from the agencies were asked for
their satisfaction with several aspects of the referrals process. Moderate levels of satisfaction
were recorded across the various aspects (refer to Figure 13). A moderate CSI score of 73.8 was
recorded for overall satisfaction with the referrals process. Respondents were most satisfied
with aspects relating to the eligibility of the people being referred, and that they were being
referred to the right part of the organisation. However there is room for improvement with
these levels of satisfaction, with one in four indicating they were only “somewhat satisfied” with
these aspects.
Respondents were least satisfied with the adequacy of information and follow up about the
referred case.
Figure 13: Satisfaction with Referrals
Q.12. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the following aspects of the referrals you receive from
Department of Human Services agencies?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Dissatisfied
CSI
c) The people referred were eligible to
receive your services
23
46
25
5
77.4
25
5
76.3
10
73.2
(n=205)
b) Clients were referred to the right part
of your organisation
19
51
(n=205)
f) The current referrals process
improves customer outcomes
18
41
31
(n=199)
a) Clients were made aware of the
services provided by your organisation
15
42
31
71.2
13
(n=207)
d) We were given enough information
about the referred case
16
35
33
15
70.0
28
17
69.4
(n=201)
e) Referrals are adequately followed up
17
(n=184)
38
g) OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE
QAULITY OF REFERRALS
16
47
30
7
(n=205)
0
20
40
Base: Receive referrals from Agencies (excluding 'Don't know')
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
60
80
100
73.8
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
16
Sub analysis revealed that organisations located in rural areas were most satisfied with the
overall quality of referrals (CSI 80.8). Further analysis amongst test sites showed Rockhampton
(82.9), Cowra (81.8) and Bowen (81.7) to have the highest levels of satisfaction, whilst
Shepparton (60.0), Darwin (61.5), Springvale (66.0) and Wyong (68.0) were the least satisfied
with the referrals process overall. However care must be taken when analysing these results
due to the small sample sizes.
4.2.1 Suggested Improvements to the Referrals Process
Aligning with the relatively low CSI (70.0) for the provision of adequate information about the
referred case, providing information with referrals was a commonly reported suggestion for
improvement amongst the 126 who were able to offer suggestions for improving the referrals
process (refer to Figure 14). More accurate assessments was another common suggestion made
by respondents when asked what could be done to improve the referrals process.
Figure 14: Suggested Improvements with Referrals Process
Q.13. What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process? (UNPROMPTED)
Base: Believe there is need for improvement in
referrals process
Total
(n=126)
Better/more accurate assessments
Provide information with referrals
Refer eligible people
Refer to the right service
Allow information sharing
Provide a contact who made the referral
Contact us before the client attends
Follow up on referrals made
Cross organisational awareness
Check availability for appointment
Have a standard referral form
Other
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
%
37
37
17
17
14
13
13
11
9
6
5
10
Following are examples of comments coded under “other suggested improvements” to the
referrals process. Having more staff at the agencies to liaise with and increasing the number of
referrals were common suggestions. Others included better education within the agencies
regarding what the community organisations have to offer:
“More people in the agency refer to us. There is only one worker there who is doing the
referrals.”
“The volume of referrals in virtually non-existent - we need more.”
“Being able to provide training to Centrelink about what we do. What we would like to do
is improve how they work directly with people with disabilities.”
“Clearer communication, better information. Better training with the Centrelink staff.”
“If Centrelink would accept referrals from us. For example, if there's problems with a job
seeker, Centrelink allow us to refer them back to sort out the problem.”
“If they can find out about community agencies and what they offer.”
“Working together on the plans or goals that are already in place rather than just starting
again.”
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
5.0
5.1
17
CASE COORDINATION APPROACH
Openness to Greater Case Coordination
As shown in Figure 15 below, around 2 in 3 (66%) respondents believed there was a need for
greater coordination of services between their organisation and Department of Human Services
agencies.
Figure 15: Need for Greater Case Coordination
Q.14. Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation and
Department of Human Services agencies?
No - no
need for
Yes - Need
for greater
greater
coordination
coordination
34%
of services
66%
Base: All respondents (n=305)
5.2
Reasons for Not Seeking Greater Case Coordination
Those who did not believe there was a need for greater case coordination felt that the
coordination of services was fine as it is or that a good relationship already existed between
their organisation and the agencies. Others reported that they did not have regular dealings
with the agencies and hence did not require greater case coordination.
Figure 16: Reasons for Not Seeking Greater Coordination
Q.15. Why do you say that? (UNPTOMPTED)
Base: Believe there is no need for greater coordination of services
Process is fine as is
Do not have much dealing/ not seeking closer relationship with DHS
Good relationship exists
Other
Don't know/ can't say
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Total
(n=105)
%
56
23
11
7
3
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
5.3
18
Vision for Case Coordination
Respondents who believed there was a need for greater coordination of services between their
organisation and Department of Human Services agencies were asked how they would see this
working. This question was open ended and sought unprompted opinions of how organisations
saw a case coordination approach with the agencies working. Improved communication
amongst Government and community stakeholders, with more regular meetings and networking
opportunities were commonly reported suggestions (refer to Figure 17).
Other common suggestions included a mutual awareness between the agencies and community
organisations of the services each has to offer, and a shared vision for prospective goals and
objectives.
Figure 17: Vision for Case Coordination
Q.16. How do you see this working? (UNPROMPTED)
Base: Believe there is a need for greater coordination of services
Improve communication amongst stakeholders (ie Govt & Community sector)
Mutual understanding of organisation and services
More regular meetings/ networking opportunities
Need shared goals/ objectives
Formalise the referrals process
Clearer point of contact
More shared service initiatives such as Local Connections to Work
Address high staff turnover
Hold stakeholder/ information sessions (attended by all agencies)
Provide training
Other
Don't know/ Can't say
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Total
(n=200)
%
27
26
21
16
4
4
2
2
2
1
7
3
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
19
Following are examples of verbatim suggestions of how organisations saw a case coordination
approach with the agencies working:

Improve communication amongst stakeholders
“All our clients are clients of Centrelink and there should be more information
sharing between organisations.”
“Better communication and better knowledge about what the agencies can
provide.”
“Bit more communication coming from that side. Sometimes we only get a very
small amount of information. It would be nice to be privy to a bit more
information that affects our clients.”
“It's better to work together than to be disjointed.
communication, I guess.”
It all comes down to
“It's about having conversations. Setting up clear protocols and making sure there
is regular feedback and evaluations put in place.”
“There should be improvements in communication and information sharing
between the different organisations.”

Mutual understanding of organisation and services
“Better understanding of what we all do working together for the better of our
clients.”
“Federal Department of Human Services agencies to be better informed about
local services. And maybe forums one or two times a year. On a state level e.g.
family violence.”
“I think there needs to be a better understanding of what we do rather than
having us as a last resort.”
“They need to get out a bit and get a better understanding of the NGO roles by
visiting us and learning which clients we cater for.”
“We can all share information, being aware of what our programmes have to
offer, more networking.”

More regular meetings/ networking opportunities
“Attending network meeting. Staff from both organisations and departments
meetings where issues can be raised and strategies put forward.”
“By getting together and discussing what support and services we provide and
what the services are that the agencies provide and offer.”
“Hold regular meetings to share information between the respective agencies.”
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
“I think it would be good to engage in a network where we can share information
and ways of better servicing the community.”

Need shared goals/ objectives
“For the better of the client. By working together the client is actually getting
services for the better.”
“In terms of coordination of services, if everyone was on the same page it would
make things much easier. There has to be greater coordination between agencies
if we want to provide a seamless service to clients.”
“It needs to be much more collaborative, we need to be able to share information
and Department of Human Services just dropping them off on our door step with
no follow up is not acceptable.”
“We can share resources, better client outcomes, provide a more holistic approach
to our client case management.”

Formalise the referrals process
“A greater coordination between those services would be improved by targets
within their organisation to provide referrals.”
“Greater referrals to us. They see a lot of people with disabilities. It would be
great if they were a more active source of referring people to us. We would like to
have some input as to how they deal with people with intellectual disabilities.”
“Referral pathways for the families, I think a lot of people can fall through the
gaps.”
“Someone may be referred to a branch of our organisation and they should be
referred to another branch e.g. people with mental health issues are referred to
another branch of the organisation e.g. to a rehab programme instead.”
“That Centrelink has better social worker resources and when Centrelink send
inappropriate referrals they send people who don't fit the criteria for our
accommodation services.”

More shared service initiatives such as Local Connections to Work
“As we are doing it now. Having Local Connections to Work. Having initiatives
linked up together so we can have more of a wrap around servicing.”
“Having visible links within the system for the families and for the different
departments.”
“The wrap around service in Bernie … has the potential to work well in other areas.
I would like to see this in all areas.”
“Wrap around services already in progress with Centrelink.”
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
20
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report

21
Other
“Client confidentiality, it can cause problems in getting the right information about
clients and this makes it difficult to help the client.”
“Having all the services accessible under the one banner would be beneficial for
the client.”
“Perhaps some kind of service agreement so everyone knows what is expected of
everyone.”
5.4
The Department’s Role in Greater Case Coordination
Respondents were then asked a more specific question exploring what role they felt the
Department should play in facilitating greater coordination of services. Figure 18 shows
unprompted responses to the question.
More information sharing and improved
communication across agencies were the most commonly reported suggestions.
Figure 18: The Department’s Role in Case Coordination - Unprompted
Q.17. What can Department of Human Services do to assist with greater coordination of services? (UNPROMPTED)
Base: Believe there is a need for greater coordination of
services
More information sharing
Improve communication across agencies
Department of Human Services staff to attend more
meetings/forums
Hold regular operational meetings
Hold regular strategic meetings
Clearer point of contact
Identify crossover in services
Wider consultation
Earlier consultation
Need shared goals/ objectives
More open/transparent
Formalise the referrals process
Provide training
Provide services out of your offices
Office sharing with your organisation
Other
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Total
(n=200)
%
45
45
20
19
16
14
14
11
9
8
7
6
6
2
1
13
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
22
When prompted with suggested approaches to improving communication with community
organisations, around 3 in 4 respondents shared a preference for regular operational and
strategic meetings (refer to Figure 19).
Figure 19: The Department’s Role in Case Coordination - Prompted
Q.18. Following are some of the things that Department of Human Services could do to improve communication
with your organisation. Which, if any, would be useful for your organisation…? (PROMPTED)
Total (n=200)
Hold regular operational meetings
74
Hold regular strategic meetings
73
Provide training
66
Provide services out of your offices
58
Office sharing with your organisation
None of the above
0
Base: Need for greater coordination of services
39
9
20
40
60
80
100
%
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Respondents who felt that the provision of training would be useful in improving communication
between the Department and their organisation were asked to specify their preferred training
type. Figure 20 shows that 28% wanted training that would assist them to gain a better
overview of the agencies and the respective services that are offered.
Figure 20: Preferred Training Type
Base: Training useful to improve communication
Overview of all DHS services & agencies
Programs that enhance mutual understanding
Training around specific needs groups (including relevant benefits)
Client eligibility requirements
Regular updates on any changes to policy or service delivery
Other professional development opportunities
Referrals process
Cultural diversity training
Domestic violence
Training around agencies' systems, policies & protocols
Overview of role and structure of non-DHS agencies
Other
Don't know/ can't say
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Total
(n=121)
%
28
17
16
12
12
7
5
2
2
2
2
3
6
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
23
Following are verbatim examples of the type of training respondents felt their organisations
could benefit from:

Overview of all Department of Human Services agencies and services
“An overview of the agency, its role and operating elements. I think probably a lot
of the information is web based. It's more about creating an opportunity for
workers to focus on it.”
“Being that we deal with people in crisis situations, what services they have
available and how we can best refer to them.”

Programs that enhance mutual understanding
“Training such as training of Centrelink staff and our staff so the we knew what
the other organisation is capable and required to do.”
“Training whereby we sort of mutually learn about their and our approach to
client needs.”

Training around specific needs groups
“Borderline personality disorder training. Training that could assist all of the care
givers, or support workers, in better managing people that have some sort of
disorder, that have needs that are delicate.”
“Child protection, disability service providers. Housing structures, legislation policy
and procedures.”

Client eligibility requirements
“Training in making us aware of what our clients are entitled to get from the
regular Department of Human Services agencies through engaging in the youth
worker training network and the interagency collaborative network.”
“Training of our workers on Centrelink and other agency services such as client
entitlements e.g. in health care cards.”

Regular updates on any changes to policy or service delivery
“In terms of policy changes. There has been quite a lot of changes, for example
youth allowance. There should be a two way dialogue about changes.”
“Training for having our staff being updated in changes through one to one
meetings.”
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
5.5
24
Organisations’ Role in Case Coordination
The majority (96%) of respondents acknowledged that their organisation also had a role to play
to assist with greater coordination of services (see Figure 21). Commonly reported suggestions
included more information sharing, improved communication with agencies and attendance at
more meetings.
Figure 21: Organisations’ Role in Case Coordination
Q.19. What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services? (UNPROMPTED)
Base: Believe there is a need for greater coordination of
services
More information sharing
Improve communication with agencies
Attend more meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Clearer point of contact
Provide training
Need shared goals/ objectives
Office sharing with agencies
Provide services out of your offices
Formalise the referrals process
Other
Nothing
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Total
(n=200)
%
49
45
36
18
14
10
8
5
5
4
4
4
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
6.0
6.1
25
COMMUNICATING WITH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Preferred Means of Contacting the Department
Respondents were asked for their preferred methods of communicating with the Department.
The preferred means of contacting the Department were clear. These were by phone (with a
direct contact person) or email (refer to Figure 23). Other preferred methods included written
letters sent either in the mail or via fax.
Figure 22: Preferred Means of Contact
Q.20. What are your preferred means of contacting Department of Human Services? (UMPROMPTED)
Total (n=305)
By phone - direct contact person
70
By email
61
By phone - general contact number
22
In person - at meetings/forums
9
In person - at offices
6
Via their website
3
Other
3
0
Base: All respondents
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
20
40
60
80
100
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
6.2
26
Preferred Means of Receiving Information from the Department
With respect to receiving information from the Department about payments and services, the
majority (79%) of respondents wanted to receive the information via email. Other preferred
methods of receiving information included correspondence via fax.
Figure 23: Preferred Means of Receiving Information
Q.21. How would you prefer to receive information from Department of Human Services agencies about payments
and services? (UNPROMPTED)
Total (n=305)
By email
79
Printed material - brochures/ fact sheets
23
In person - at meetings/forums
12
Regular newsletter
11
By phone
9
At a Customer Service Centre
8
In person - at offices
8
Via agency websites
4
Other
3
Base: All respondents
0
Multiple response: Totals may add to more than 100%
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
20
40
60
80
100
%
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
Appendix 1
The Questionnaire
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Market & Social Research Consultants
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services
Case Coordination Research – Advocacy and Service Organisations
Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 (Final_Revised)
(Ref: 2544)
SAMPLE DETAILS: Name, organisation, address, state, postcode, telephone number
INTRODUCTION
My name is (…) calling on behalf of the commonwealth Department of Human Services from Market
Solutions, a social and market research company. Today we are conducting research amongst advocacy
and service organisations to gain an understanding of your interaction with DHS and its agencies. We
are interested to know how DHS and its agencies can work together with you with the aim of benefiting
the end users of your service. The interview will take about 15 minutes - can you please help us out
today?
Your responses are confidential and we will not be using identifiers back to the DHS portfolio. This call
may be monitored for quality and coaching purposes.
CONTINUE .................................
Schedule Callback......................
Refused .....................................
Non qualifying ...........................
Government/Business...............
Terminated early .......................
Non working number ................
Communication difficulty ..........
No contact on 5 attempts .........
Duplicate ...................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SECTION 1: ABOUT THE ORGANISATION
Q.1.
Firstly can you tell me which of the following interests or services you represent?
[READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Health and wellbeing ................
Education ..................................
Employment ..............................
Family and children’s services...
Housing services........................
Correctional services .................
Other (SPECIFY) .........................
Q.2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
And is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Advocacy ...................................
Service .......................................
Both ...........................................
Neither (specify) ........................
1
2
3
4
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
Q.3.
Is your organisation a profit or not for profit organisation?
Profit .........................................................
Not for profit ............................................
Both ..........................................................
Unsure/refused ........................................
1
2
3
4
SECTION 2: INTERACTION WITH THE AGENCIES
Q.4.
Which of the following agencies are part of the DHS portfolio…?
[READ OUT & CODE ONE AT A TIME] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Centrelink .................................................
Medicare ..................................................
Child Support Agency ...............................
Australian Hearing ....................................
CRS Australia ............................................
Unsure/ don’t know .................................
Q.5.
The following agencies make up the DHS portfolio. Which has your organisation dealt with?
[READ OUT & CODE ONE AT A TIME] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Centrelink .................................................
Medicare ..................................................
Child Support Agency ...............................
Australian Hearing ....................................
CRS Australia ............................................
None of the above....................................
Q.6.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ask for each agency used
And can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with… *insert previous
answer]?
Daily ..........................................................
Two or three times a week.......................
Weekly ......................................................
Fortnightly ................................................
Monthly or once every few months .........
Two or three times per year.....................
Annually or less often...............................
Q.7.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ask for each agency used
I would now like to ask you about your organisation’s relationship with each of the agencies
you deal with.
At what level do you deal with [INSERT NAME OF AGENCY USED], is it...?
[READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
National ....................................................
State .........................................................
Local .........................................................
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
1
2
3
2
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
SECTION 3: SATISFACTION
(Ask these questions for each agency used, then go to next section)
Q.8.
What are the strengths of your relationship with [INSERT NAME OF AGENCY]?
(DO NOT READ OUT) (ACCEPT MULTIPLES)
Responsive ...............................................
Open communication ...............................
Easy to access ...........................................
Well established relationship ...................
Cooperation/shared goals ........................
Regular contact ........................................
Personal/ one on one contact ..................
Cross organisational awareness ...............
Ability to access other networks ..............
Information sharing..................................
Other (specify) ..........................................
None .........................................................
Q.9.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Are there any aspects of your relationship with [INSERT NAME OF AGENCY] that could be
improved?
(DO NOT READ OUT) (ACCEPT MULTIPLES)
Finding the right person to talk to ...........................
Lack of shared goals .................................................
Unwilling to share information ................................
Privacy constraints prevent information sharing.....
Timeliness of responses ...........................................
Limited understanding of our organisation .............
Limited understanding of their organisation ...........
Lack of involvement in policy decisions ...................
Need early input in decision making........................
Limited capacity/resources to engage .....................
Other (specify) .........................................................
None .........................................................................
Q.10.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with [INSERT NAME OF
AGENCY]? Is that totally, very or somewhat?
Totally satisfied ........................................
Very satisfied ............................................
Somewhat satisfied ..................................
Somewhat dissatisfied .............................
Very dissatisfied .......................................
Totally dissatisfied ....................................
(Don’t know).............................................
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
SECTION 4: REFERRALS
Q.11.
Show only agencies dealt with
Does your organisation ever receive referrals from…?
[READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Centrelink .................................................
Medicare ..................................................
Child Support Agency ...............................
Australian Hearing ....................................
CRS Australia ............................................
None of the above....................................
Q.12.
Ask if receive referrals, else go to next section
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the following aspects of the referrals you receive
from DHS agencies? Is that totally, very or somewhat satisfied?
*ALLOW FOR UNSURE /DON’T KNOW RESPONSES+
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Q.13.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Clients were made aware of the services provided by your organisation ....... [
Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation ........................... [
The people referred were eligible to receive your services ............................. [
We were given enough information about the referred case.......................... [
Referrals are adequately followed up .............................................................. [
The current referrals process improves customer outcomes .......................... [
Overall satisfaction with the quality of referrals .............................................. [
What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process?
[DO NOT READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Nothing, no need for improvement ..............
Better/more accurate assessments ..............
Refer eligible people .....................................
Refer to the right service...............................
Provide information with referrals................
Provide a contact who made the referral .....
Have a standard referral form.......................
Allow information sharing .............................
Follow up on referrals made .........................
Check availability for appointment ...............
Contact us before the client attends.............
Other (specify) ...............................................
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
SECTION 5: IMPROVING COORDINATION OF SERVICES (all respondents)
Q.14.
Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation
and DHS agencies?
Yes ............................................................
No .............................................................
15.
1
2
Ask if no need for greater coordination, else skip to next question
Why do you say that?
[RECORD VERBATIM]
Q.16.
Ask if need for greater coordination, else skip to Q20
How do you see this working?
[RECORD VERBATIM]
Q.17.
What can DHS do to assist with greater coordination of services?
[DO NOT READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
More information sharing .............................
Early consultation ..........................................
Wider consultation ........................................
Formalise the referrals process .....................
Improve communication across agencies .....
Clearer point of contact ................................
More open/transparent ................................
DHS staff to attend more meetings/forums .
Identify crossover in services ........................
Need shared goals/ objectives ......................
Office sharing with your organisation ...........
Provide services out of your offices ..............
Provide training (specify) ..............................
Hold regular operational meetings ...............
Hold regular strategic meetings ....................
Other (specify) ...............................................
Q.18.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Ask only those not mentioned in previous question
Following are some of the things that DHS could do to improve communication with your
organisation. Which, if any, would be useful for your organisation…?
[READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
Office sharing with your organisation ...........
Provide services out of your offices ..............
Provide training (specify) ..............................
Hold regular operational meetings ...............
Hold regular strategic meetings ....................
None of the above.........................................
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
Q.19.
What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services?
[DO NOT READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
More information sharing .............................
Formalise the referrals process .....................
Improve communication with agencies ........
Clearer point of contact ................................
Attend more meetings/forums .....................
Identify crossover in services ........................
Need shared goals/ objectives ......................
Office sharing with agencies .........................
Provide services out of your offices ..............
Provide training (specify) ..............................
Other (specify) ...............................................
Q.20.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
What are your preferred means of contacting DHS?
[DO NOT READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
In person – at meetings/forums....................
In person – at offices .....................................
By phone – general contact number .............
By phone – direct contact person .................
By email .........................................................
Via their website ...........................................
Other (Specify) ..............................................
Q.21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
How would you prefer to receive information from DHS agencies about payments and services?
[DO NOT READ OUT] [ACCEPT MULTIPLES]
By email .........................................................
Via agency websites ......................................
Printed material – brochures/ fact sheets ....
Regular newsletter ........................................
In person – at meetings/forums....................
In person – at offices .....................................
At a Customer Service Centre .......................
Other (Specify) ..............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SECTION 6: FIRMOGRAPHICS
Q.22.
And just a couple of questions to help us analyse responses. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural area?
Metropolitan area ....................................
Regional centre ........................................
Rural area .................................................
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
1
2
3
6
Department of Human Service: Case Coordination Research (Revised: Monday, 2 May 2011 – Final Revised)
7
CLOSE
Q23.
As part of quality control procedures, someone from our project team may wish to re-contact
you to verify a couple of responses you provided today. For this reason, may I please have your
first name?
RECORD FIRST NAME
Q24.
As this is market research, it is carried out in compliance with the Privacy Act and the
information you provided will be used only for research purposes. Your answers will be
combined with those of other participants, no individual responses will be identified.
CLOSE: That’s the end of the interview. Thank you for your time and responses. My name is (…) from
Market Solutions, if you have any queries about this survey feel free to call this office during business
hours – would you like the number? (Provide number if required – 03 9372 8400 and ask to speak to
Anna Lethborg). If you have any general queries, you can call the Market Research Society’s Survey Line
on 1300 364 830.
RECORD INTERVIEWER'S ID
AUDITING (OFFICE ONLY)
Q25.
Q26.
Q27.
Q28.
Was the date and time of interview correct?
Yes .................................
No ..................................
1
2
Yes .................................
No ..................................
1
2
Yes .................................
No ..................................
1
2
Was the interview recorded correctly?
Was the interviewer courteous?
AUDITOR'S ID
ENTER ID........................ ______
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
Department of Human Services: Case Coordination Stakeholder Consultation – Final Report
Appendix 2
Detailed Tables (including
verbatim comments)
Investigate > Communicate > Integrate
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.1 Firstly can you tell me which of the following interests or services you represent?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Health and wellbeing
Education
Employment
Family and children's
services
Housing services
Correctional services
Other (SPECIFY)
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
164
92
52
20
49
21
20
19
35
20
53.8%
53.5%
54.2%
54.1%
51.0%
43.8%
62.5%
57.6%
53.8%
64.5%
31
102
57
29
16
32
13
9
15
23
10
33.4%
33.1%
30.2%
43.2%
33.3%
27.1%
28.1%
45.5%
35.4%
32.3%
83
48
25
10
21
13
10
7
20
12
27.2%
27.9%
26.0%
27.0%
21.9%
27.1%
31.3%
21.2%
30.8%
38.7%
148
88
44
16
59
16
16
13
31
13
48.5%
51.2%
45.8%
43.2%
61.5%
33.3%
50.0%
39.4%
47.7%
41.9%
93
52
32
9
34
17
8
4
19
11
30.5%
30.2%
33.3%
24.3%
35.4%
35.4%
25.0%
12.1%
29.2%
35.5%
32
20
9
3
9
8
4
0
8
3
10.5%
11.6%
9.4%
8.1%
9.4%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
12.3%
9.7%
16
10
3
3
5
4
0
2
4
1
5.2%
5.8%
3.1%
8.1%
5.2%
8.3%
.0%
6.1%
6.2%
3.2%
Aged and disability
6
3
1
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
2.0%
1.7%
1.0%
5.4%
2.1%
2.1%
.0%
.0%
3.1%
3.2%
Financial support and
services
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
7
5
2
0
1
4
0
0
1
1
2.3%
2.9%
2.1%
.0%
1.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
1.5%
3.2%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.1 Firstly can you tell me which of the following interests or services you represent?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Health and wellbeing
Education
Employment
Family and children's
services
Housing services
Correctional services
Other (SPECIFY)
Aged and disability
Financial support and
services
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
164
6
72
86
7
155
1
115
105
49
53.8%
46.2%
45.9%
63.7%
33.3%
57.2%
20.0%
57.5%
46.7%
102
3
52
47
5
93
2
68
34
33.4%
23.1%
33.1%
34.8%
23.8%
34.3%
40.0%
34.0%
32.4%
83
3
44
36
12
68
1
58
25
27.2%
23.1%
28.0%
26.7%
57.1%
25.1%
20.0%
29.0%
23.8%
148
7
62
79
5
138
2
97
51
48.5%
53.8%
39.5%
58.5%
23.8%
50.9%
40.0%
48.5%
48.6%
93
6
29
58
2
86
1
58
35
30.5%
46.2%
18.5%
43.0%
9.5%
31.7%
20.0%
29.0%
33.3%
32
3
13
16
0
28
0
21
11
10.5%
23.1%
8.3%
11.9%
.0%
10.3%
.0%
10.5%
10.5%
16
1
8
7
1
14
1
7
9
5.2%
7.7%
5.1%
5.2%
4.8%
5.2%
20.0%
3.5%
8.6%
6
1
3
2
1
5
0
3
3
2.0%
7.7%
1.9%
1.5%
4.8%
1.8%
.0%
1.5%
2.9%
7
1
3
3
1
5
0
4
3
2.3%
7.7%
1.9%
2.2%
4.8%
1.8%
.0%
2.0%
2.9%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
305
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 1
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.1 Firstly can you tell me which of the following interests or services you represent?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Health and wellbeing
Education
Burnie
Cowra
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
164
12
6
4
10
5
9
8
13
9
8
53.8%
75.0%
37.5%
25.0%
58.8%
31.3%
56.3%
50.0%
81.3%
56.3%
50.0%
16
102
6
4
4
9
6
6
7
6
6
9
37.5%
25.0%
25.0%
52.9%
37.5%
37.5%
43.8%
37.5%
37.5%
56.3%
83
6
8
6
3
5
4
6
8
7
3
27.2%
37.5%
50.0%
37.5%
17.6%
31.3%
25.0%
37.5%
50.0%
43.8%
18.8%
148
8
8
5
8
9
5
7
9
6
10
48.5%
50.0%
50.0%
31.3%
47.1%
56.3%
31.3%
43.8%
56.3%
37.5%
62.5%
Housing services
93
5
6
4
2
5
2
3
5
3
4
30.5%
31.3%
37.5%
25.0%
11.8%
31.3%
12.5%
18.8%
31.3%
18.8%
25.0%
Correctional services
32
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
3
10.5%
18.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
18.8%
12.5%
18.8%
Other (SPECIFY)
16
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
5.2%
6.3%
6.3%
18.8%
5.9%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
Aged and disability
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
Financial support and
services
TOTAL
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
33.4%
Employment
Family and children's
services
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.1 Firstly can you tell me which of the following interests or services you represent?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Health and wellbeing
Education
Employment
Family and children's
services
Housing services
Correctional services
Other (SPECIFY)
Aged and disability
Financial support and
services
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
164
10
11
8
8
8
8
9
9
16
9
53.8%
62.5%
68.8%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
56.3%
56.3%
56.3%
102
3
3
3
5
5
6
4
6
4
33.4%
18.8%
18.8%
18.8%
31.3%
31.3%
37.5%
25.0%
37.5%
25.0%
83
2
3
3
5
1
6
2
4
1
27.2%
12.5%
18.8%
18.8%
31.3%
6.3%
37.5%
12.5%
25.0%
6.3%
148
13
10
3
5
11
6
7
8
10
48.5%
81.3%
62.5%
18.8%
31.3%
68.8%
37.5%
43.8%
50.0%
62.5%
93
7
5
7
7
8
4
4
6
6
30.5%
43.8%
31.3%
43.8%
43.8%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
37.5%
37.5%
32
2
2
5
0
3
1
3
3
1
10.5%
12.5%
12.5%
31.3%
.0%
18.8%
6.3%
18.8%
18.8%
6.3%
16
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
5.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
6.3%
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
2.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 2
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.1
SPECIFY: Other interests or services you represent
Q.1. SPECIFY OTHER INTEREST OR SERVICE REPRESENTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SCHOOLS AND POLICE EDUCATION
FLOOD RECOVERY UNIT
DISABILITY SERVICES
WELFARE. FACE TO FACE CLIENT SUPPORT WORK
FINANCIAL COUNSELLORS
HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE AGED.
AGE AND DISABILITIES
SETTLEMENT SERVICES
TRAINING AND CONSULTANCY FOR A VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT GROUP.
TELEPHONE SERVICE THAT PROVIDES FREE LEGAL HELP FOR PEOPLE IN NSW
CENTRELINK AGENCY
DISABILITY SERVICES
MEDIATION FAMILY LAW
VOLUNTEERING SERVICES
SENIORS GROUP WITH DISABILITIES
DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION
FAMILY VOILENCE OUTREACH PROGRAM, ACCESS HEALTH, YOUTH REFUGE.
WE PROVIDE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE.
LEGAL SERVICES
EMERGENCY RELIEF
FINANCIAL COUNSELLING
LEGAL CENTRE
CRISIS ACCOMODATION
FEDERAL MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
PSYCHOSOCIAL REHABILITATION
FINANCIAL
PROVIDING EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR FOOD AND RENT ASSISTANCE
CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK CHASING PENSIONS FROM ANY COUNTRIES BUT MAINLY ITALY
TRAINING
AGED CARE FACILITY
WELFARE, EMERGENCY RELIEF
FINANCE SERVICE
EMERGENCY RELIEF, CRISIS INTERVENTION
COMMUNITY HUB
SUPPORT HORTICULTURE INDUSTRY RE WHEN GROWERS HAVE PROBLEMS
YOUTH SERVICES
FINANCIAL
PROVIDING MEALS
YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICES
Page 3
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.2 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
305
Q.2. And is your organisation Advocacy
an advocacy or service
organisation?
Service
Both
TOTAL
Regional
centre
172
STATE
Rural area
96
NSW
37
QLD
96
SA
48
TAS
32
VIC
33
WA/NT
65
31
13
8
5
0
5
3
1
0
4
0
4.3%
4.7%
5.2%
.0%
5.2%
6.3%
3.1%
.0%
6.2%
.0%
157
84
53
20
49
23
12
20
34
19
51.5%
48.8%
55.2%
54.1%
51.0%
47.9%
37.5%
60.6%
52.3%
61.3%
135
80
38
17
42
22
19
13
27
12
44.3%
46.5%
39.6%
45.9%
43.8%
45.8%
59.4%
39.4%
41.5%
38.7%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.2 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.2. And is your organisation Advocacy
an advocacy or service
organisation?
Service
Advocacy Service
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
13
13
0
0
0
13
0
9
4
4.3%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.8%
.0%
4.5%
3.8%
0
157
0
19
129
3
100
57
.0% 100.0%
.0%
90.5%
47.6%
60.0%
50.0%
54.3%
135
2
129
2
91
44
.0% 100.0%
9.5%
47.6%
40.0%
45.5%
41.9%
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
157
135
0
44.3%
.0%
305
13
TOTAL
Both
Want greater coordination
305
51.5%
Both
Profit or Non-profit
100.0%
0
157
135
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
105
Q.2 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.2. And is your organisation Advocacy
an advocacy or service
organisation?
Service
Both
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
16
16
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
4.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
16
157
10
9
8
9
7
11
10
10
7
10
51.5%
62.5%
56.3%
50.0%
52.9%
43.8%
68.8%
62.5%
62.5%
43.8%
62.5%
135
6
7
8
8
8
5
6
6
9
5
44.3%
37.5%
43.8%
50.0%
47.1%
50.0%
31.3%
37.5%
37.5%
56.3%
31.3%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 4
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.2 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.2. And is your organisation Advocacy
an advocacy or service
organisation?
Service
Both
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
0
1
3
0
4
1
2
0
16
0
4.3%
.0%
6.3%
18.8%
.0%
25.0%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
157
8
5
10
9
8
10
7
5
4
51.5%
50.0%
31.3%
62.5%
56.3%
50.0%
62.5%
43.8%
31.3%
25.0%
135
8
10
3
7
4
5
7
11
12
44.3%
50.0%
62.5%
18.8%
43.8%
25.0%
31.3%
43.8%
68.8%
75.0%
305
100.0%
16
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
100.0%
Q.3 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.3. Is your organisation a
profit or not for profit
organisation?
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
21
10
8
3
8
3
2
3
3
2
6.9%
5.8%
8.3%
8.1%
8.3%
6.3%
6.3%
9.1%
4.6%
6.5%
Profit
Not for profit
31
271
156
82
33
85
42
30
26
60
28
88.9%
90.7%
85.4%
89.2%
88.5%
87.5%
93.8%
78.8%
92.3%
90.3%
Unsure/refused
8
3
5
0
2
3
0
1
1
1
2.6%
1.7%
5.2%
.0%
2.1%
6.3%
.0%
3.0%
1.5%
3.2%
Both
5
3
1
1
1
0
0
3
1
0
1.6%
1.7%
1.0%
2.7%
1.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
1.5%
.0%
TOTAL
305
172
100.0%
100.0%
96
37
100.0%
100.0%
96
48
100.0%
100.0%
32
100.0%
33
65
100.0%
31
100.0%
100.0%
Q.3 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.3. Is your organisation a
profit or not for profit
organisation?
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Service
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
21
0
19
2
21
0
0
15
6
6.9%
.0%
12.1%
1.5%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
7.5%
5.7%
Both
105
271
13
129
129
0
271
0
180
91
88.9%
100.0%
82.2%
95.6%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
90.0%
86.7%
Unsure/refused
8
0
6
2
0
0
0
4
4
2.6%
.0%
3.8%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.0%
3.8%
Both
TOTAL
Both
Want greater coordination
Advocacy
Profit
Not for profit
Profit or Non-profit
5
0
3
2
0
0
1.6%
.0%
1.9%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
305
13
157
135
21
271
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
1
4
.5%
3.8%
200
105
100.0%
100.0%
Q.3 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.3. Is your organisation a
profit or not for profit
organisation?
Profit
Not for profit
Unsure/refused
Both
TOTAL
Ararat
Bankstown
Bowen
Broadmeado
Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin
Elizabeth Fairfield
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
21
2
1
1
1
0
2
2
1
2
3
6.9%
12.5%
6.3%
6.3%
5.9%
.0%
12.5%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
18.8%
271
13
15
14
15
88.9%
81.3%
93.8%
87.5%
88.2%
16
100.0%
16
11
14
15
14
12
68.8%
87.5%
93.8%
87.5%
75.0%
8
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.6%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1.6%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
305
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
17
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
16
100.0%
Page 5
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.3 Is your organisation an advocacy or service organisation?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.3. Is your organisation a
profit or not for profit
organisation?
Profit
Not for profit
Unsure/refused
Both
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
21
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
6.9%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
16
15
271
14
16
88.9%
87.5%
100.0%
8
1
0
2.6%
6.3%
.0%
12.5%
12
75.0%
2
12.5%
14
15
15
15
87.5%
93.8%
93.8%
93.8%
16
100.0% 93.8%
1
1
0
1
0
0
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Q.4 Which of the following agencies are part of the DHS portfolio…?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
Unsure/ don't know
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
194
101
68
25
63
36
24
16
36
31
19
63.6%
58.7%
70.8%
67.6%
65.6%
75.0%
75.0%
48.5%
55.4%
61.3%
161
89
49
23
52
22
23
18
28
18
52.8%
51.7%
51.0%
62.2%
54.2%
45.8%
71.9%
54.5%
43.1%
58.1%
169
100
49
20
53
23
18
18
41
16
55.4%
58.1%
51.0%
54.1%
55.2%
47.9%
56.3%
54.5%
63.1%
51.6%
68
36
22
10
19
13
4
9
13
10
22.3%
20.9%
22.9%
27.0%
19.8%
27.1%
12.5%
27.3%
20.0%
32.3%
126
72
35
19
42
21
14
14
22
13
41.3%
41.9%
36.5%
51.4%
43.8%
43.8%
43.8%
42.4%
33.8%
41.9%
69
38
22
9
25
10
5
8
14
7
22.6%
22.1%
22.9%
24.3%
26.0%
20.8%
15.6%
24.2%
21.5%
22.6%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Page 6
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.4 Which of the following agencies are part of the DHS portfolio…?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
194
11
100
83
14
174
3
126
68
63.6%
84.6%
63.7%
61.5%
66.7%
64.2%
60.0%
63.0%
64.8%
Centrelink
Medicare
105
161
5
84
72
9
145
4
109
52
52.8%
38.5%
53.5%
53.3%
42.9%
53.5%
80.0%
54.5%
49.5%
Child Support
Agency
169
12
80
77
8
155
2
107
62
55.4%
92.3%
51.0%
57.0%
38.1%
57.2%
40.0%
53.5%
59.0%
Australian Hearing
68
4
37
27
4
58
3
42
26
22.3%
30.8%
23.6%
20.0%
19.0%
21.4%
60.0%
21.0%
24.8%
CRS Australia
126
5
69
52
10
111
2
81
45
41.3%
38.5%
43.9%
38.5%
47.6%
41.0%
40.0%
40.5%
42.9%
Unsure/ don't know
69
1
35
33
5
60
0
47
22
22.6%
7.7%
22.3%
24.4%
23.8%
22.1%
.0%
23.5%
21.0%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
305
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.4 Which of the following agencies are part of the DHS portfolio…?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
Unsure/ don't know
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
16
16
194
8
7
12
6
11
10
10
10
15
13
63.6%
50.0%
43.8%
75.0%
35.3%
68.8%
62.5%
62.5%
62.5%
93.8%
81.3%
16
161
8
5
9
9
8
9
8
8
13
11
52.8%
50.0%
31.3%
56.3%
52.9%
50.0%
56.3%
50.0%
50.0%
81.3%
68.8%
169
9
8
8
10
12
8
8
7
11
13
55.4%
56.3%
50.0%
50.0%
58.8%
75.0%
50.0%
50.0%
43.8%
68.8%
81.3%
68
3
3
7
4
4
5
5
5
1
5
22.3%
18.8%
18.8%
43.8%
23.5%
25.0%
31.3%
31.3%
31.3%
6.3%
31.3%
126
5
6
10
7
6
7
9
6
9
11
41.3%
31.3%
37.5%
62.5%
41.2%
37.5%
43.8%
56.3%
37.5%
56.3%
68.8%
69
4
5
2
5
1
3
5
4
1
2
22.6%
25.0%
31.3%
12.5%
29.4%
6.3%
18.8%
31.3%
25.0%
6.3%
12.5%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 7
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.4 Which of the following agencies are part of the DHS portfolio…?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
Unsure/ don't know
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
194
11
9
13
9
9
8
9
11
16
13
63.6%
68.8%
56.3%
81.3%
56.3%
56.3%
50.0%
56.3%
68.8%
81.3%
161
10
10
5
10
8
7
5
8
10
52.8%
62.5%
62.5%
31.3%
62.5%
50.0%
43.8%
31.3%
50.0%
62.5%
169
6
7
8
9
10
9
11
7
8
55.4%
37.5%
43.8%
50.0%
56.3%
62.5%
56.3%
68.8%
43.8%
50.0%
68
3
3
2
5
2
5
1
4
1
22.3%
18.8%
18.8%
12.5%
31.3%
12.5%
31.3%
6.3%
25.0%
6.3%
126
6
5
6
8
5
6
4
5
5
41.3%
37.5%
31.3%
37.5%
50.0%
31.3%
37.5%
25.0%
31.3%
31.3%
69
5
4
3
3
5
6
3
5
3
22.6%
31.3%
25.0%
18.8%
18.8%
31.3%
37.5%
18.8%
31.3%
18.8%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.5 Which (of the following DHS portfolio agencies) has your organisation dealt with?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
31
28
89.2%
89.5%
88.5%
89.2%
92.7%
91.7%
87.5%
78.8%
87.7%
90.3%
103
59
30
14
30
14
8
15
25
11
33.8%
34.3%
31.3%
37.8%
31.3%
29.2%
25.0%
45.5%
38.5%
35.5%
131
72
45
14
45
22
11
8
34
11
43.0%
41.9%
46.9%
37.8%
46.9%
45.8%
34.4%
24.2%
52.3%
35.5%
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
3
11.5%
9.9%
13.5%
13.5%
14.6%
6.3%
3.1%
18.2%
12.3%
9.7%
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
28.2%
27.9%
28.1%
29.7%
24.0%
25.0%
34.4%
27.3%
35.4%
25.8%
19
11
7
1
4
2
3
4
4
2
6.2%
6.4%
7.3%
2.7%
4.2%
4.2%
9.4%
12.1%
6.2%
6.5%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 8
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.5 Which (of the following DHS portfolio agencies) has your organisation dealt with?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
272
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
105
89
89.2%
100.0%
86.0%
91.9%
95.2%
89.3%
40.0%
91.5%
84.8%
103
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
36
33.8%
46.2%
29.3%
37.8%
9.5%
35.8%
40.0%
33.5%
34.3%
131
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
48
43.0%
76.9%
35.0%
48.9%
23.8%
44.6%
20.0%
41.5%
45.7%
35
2
18
15
5
29
0
26
9
11.5%
15.4%
11.5%
11.1%
23.8%
10.7%
.0%
13.0%
8.6%
86
3
49
34
6
79
0
61
25
28.2%
23.1%
31.2%
25.2%
28.6%
29.2%
.0%
30.5%
23.8%
19
0
12
7
0
17
2
7
12
6.2%
.0%
7.6%
5.2%
.0%
6.3%
40.0%
3.5%
11.4%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
305
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.5 Which (of the following DHS portfolio agencies) has your organisation dealt with?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
16
89.2%
75.0%
100.0%
93.8%
82.4%
87.5%
75.0%
93.8%
87.5%
100.0% 100.0%
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
6
3
6
33.8%
37.5%
43.8%
25.0%
47.1%
31.3%
43.8%
12.5%
37.5%
18.8%
37.5%
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
7
43.0%
50.0%
50.0%
37.5%
23.5%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
31.3%
18.8%
43.8%
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
0
0
3
11.5%
12.5%
18.8%
6.3%
17.6%
18.8%
18.8%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
18.8%
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
28.2%
50.0%
25.0%
37.5%
35.3%
37.5%
18.8%
37.5%
25.0%
43.8%
18.8%
19
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
6.2%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
11.8%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 9
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.5 Which (of the following DHS portfolio agencies) has your organisation dealt with?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
16
14
89.2%
81.3%
75.0%
100.0%
93.8%
93.8%
87.5%
100.0%
81.3%
87.5%
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
5
33.8%
31.3%
31.3%
37.5%
31.3%
31.3%
37.5%
50.0%
25.0%
31.3%
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
5
43.0%
62.5%
50.0%
56.3%
37.5%
68.8%
37.5%
75.0%
43.8%
31.3%
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
0
1
2
11.5%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
18.8%
18.8%
18.8%
.0%
6.3%
12.5%
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
1
3
28.2%
31.3%
25.0%
31.3%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
31.3%
6.3%
18.8%
19
1
3
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
6.2%
6.3%
18.8%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
12.5%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.6a Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Centrelink?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...a)
Centrelink?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
93
59
24
10
33
11
14
2
18
28
15
34.2%
38.3%
28.2%
30.3%
37.1%
25.0%
50.0%
7.7%
31.6%
53.6%
43
24
13
6
15
7
4
1
13
3
15.8%
15.6%
15.3%
18.2%
16.9%
15.9%
14.3%
3.8%
22.8%
10.7%
65
29
27
9
16
16
4
13
11
5
23.9%
18.8%
31.8%
27.3%
18.0%
36.4%
14.3%
50.0%
19.3%
17.9%
26
17
7
2
9
2
2
5
5
3
9.6%
11.0%
8.2%
6.1%
10.1%
4.5%
7.1%
19.2%
8.8%
10.7%
38
22
12
4
14
7
4
4
8
1
14.0%
14.3%
14.1%
12.1%
15.7%
15.9%
14.3%
15.4%
14.0%
3.6%
6
3
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
2.2%
1.9%
1.2%
6.1%
2.2%
2.3%
.0%
3.8%
1.8%
3.6%
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.4%
.0%
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1.8%
.0%
33
89
44
28
26
57
28
272
154
85
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 10
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6a Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Centrelink?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...a)
Centrelink?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
272
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
93
4
48
41
8
79
2
74
19
34.2%
30.8%
35.6%
33.1%
40.0%
32.6% 100.0%
40.4%
21.3%
89
43
4
14
25
2
38
0
29
14
15.8%
30.8%
10.4%
20.2%
10.0%
15.7%
.0%
15.8%
15.7%
65
1
34
30
6
59
0
37
28
23.9%
7.7%
25.2%
24.2%
30.0%
24.4%
.0%
20.2%
31.5%
26
3
13
10
2
24
0
13
13
9.6%
23.1%
9.6%
8.1%
10.0%
9.9%
.0%
7.1%
14.6%
38
1
22
15
1
36
0
27
11
14.0%
7.7%
16.3%
12.1%
5.0%
14.9%
.0%
14.8%
12.4%
Two or three times per year
6
0
3
3
1
5
0
3
3
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
2.4%
5.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.6%
3.4%
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
.4%
.0%
.7%
.0%
.0%
.4%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
89
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
272
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.6a Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Centrelink?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...a)
Centrelink?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
14
16
93
1
8
5
1
5
1
7
8
8
5
34.2%
8.3%
50.0%
33.3%
7.1%
35.7%
8.3%
46.7%
57.1%
50.0%
31.3%
16
43
4
3
0
1
4
0
1
2
2
3
15.8%
33.3%
18.8%
.0%
7.1%
28.6%
.0%
6.7%
14.3%
12.5%
18.8%
65
4
2
5
6
2
7
1
1
2
2
23.9%
33.3%
12.5%
33.3%
42.9%
14.3%
58.3%
6.7%
7.1%
12.5%
12.5%
26
0
2
0
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
9.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
14.3%
7.1%
25.0%
13.3%
7.1%
12.5%
6.3%
38
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
2
4
14.0%
16.7%
6.3%
26.7%
21.4%
14.3%
8.3%
26.7%
7.1%
12.5%
25.0%
6
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2.2%
8.3%
.0%
6.7%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
6.3%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 11
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6a Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Centrelink?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...a)
Centrelink?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
93
3
6
4
7
6
6
6
2
14
4
34.2%
23.1%
50.0%
25.0%
46.7%
40.0%
42.9%
37.5%
15.4%
28.6%
43
4
2
4
1
3
2
3
3
1
15.8%
30.8%
16.7%
25.0%
6.7%
20.0%
14.3%
18.8%
23.1%
7.1%
65
3
2
5
4
3
3
2
6
5
23.9%
23.1%
16.7%
31.3%
26.7%
20.0%
21.4%
12.5%
46.2%
35.7%
26
1
0
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
9.6%
7.7%
.0%
12.5%
13.3%
6.7%
14.3%
12.5%
.0%
14.3%
38
1
2
1
1
2
0
3
2
2
14.0%
7.7%
16.7%
6.3%
6.7%
13.3%
.0%
18.8%
15.4%
14.3%
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
13
14
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.6b Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Medicare?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...b)
Medicare?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
111
66
31
14
33
15
9
16
27
17
12
5
0
5
1
1
1
5
11
4
15.3%
18.2%
16.1%
.0%
15.2%
6.7%
11.1%
6.3%
18.5%
36.4%
8
5
1
2
4
0
0
0
4
0
7.2%
7.6%
3.2%
14.3%
12.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.8%
.0%
19
11
2
6
0
4
3
8
3
1
17.1%
16.7%
6.5%
42.9%
.0%
26.7%
33.3%
50.0%
11.1%
9.1%
9
3
6
0
4
3
0
0
1
1
8.1%
4.5%
19.4%
.0%
12.1%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
3.7%
9.1%
45
26
13
6
16
5
3
6
10
5
40.5%
39.4%
41.9%
42.9%
48.5%
33.3%
33.3%
37.5%
37.0%
45.5%
12
8
4
0
4
2
2
1
3
0
10.8%
12.1%
12.9%
.0%
12.1%
13.3%
22.2%
6.3%
11.1%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.9%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3.7%
.0%
14
33
15
9
16
27
11
111
66
31
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 12
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6b Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Medicare?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...b)
Medicare?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Two or three times per year
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
8
47
56
2
104
2
72
17
0
9
8
1
15
0
13
4
15.3%
.0%
19.1%
14.3%
50.0%
14.4%
.0%
18.1%
10.3%
39
8
0
3
5
0
7
0
4
4
7.2%
.0%
6.4%
8.9%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
5.6%
10.3%
19
1
11
7
0
18
1
12
7
17.1%
12.5%
23.4%
12.5%
.0%
17.3%
50.0%
16.7%
17.9%
9
0
4
5
0
9
0
5
4
8.1%
.0%
8.5%
8.9%
.0%
8.7%
.0%
6.9%
10.3%
45
4
15
26
1
42
1
29
16
40.5%
50.0%
31.9%
46.4%
50.0%
40.4%
50.0%
40.3%
41.0%
12
2
5
5
0
12
0
9
3
10.8%
25.0%
10.6%
8.9%
.0%
11.5%
.0%
12.5%
7.7%
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Both
Want greater coordination
111
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
.9%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
.0%
2.6%
8
47
56
2
104
2
72
39
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
111
1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Q.6b Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Medicare?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...b)
Medicare?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
111
6
7
4
8
6
8
2
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
6
3
17
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
15.3%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
12.5%
16.7%
.0%
50.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
6
8
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
7.2%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
19
1
0
1
3
0
5
0
1
2
0
17.1%
16.7%
.0%
25.0%
37.5%
.0%
62.5%
.0%
16.7%
66.7%
.0%
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8.1%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
45
2
4
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
2
40.5%
33.3%
57.1%
75.0%
37.5%
50.0%
37.5%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
33.3%
12
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
10.8%
.0%
28.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
111
6
7
4
8
6
8
2
6
3
6
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
1.0E2% 1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Page 13
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6b Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Medicare?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...b)
Medicare?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
111
6
6
7
5
7
6
9
17
1
1
1
3
2
0
3
4
0
15.3%
16.7%
16.7%
14.3%
60.0%
28.6%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
19
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
17.1%
.0%
16.7%
28.6%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
11.1%
25.0%
9
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
8.1%
16.7%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
45
4
3
2
2
4
4
1
0
40.5%
66.7%
50.0%
28.6%
40.0%
57.1%
66.7%
11.1%
.0%
12
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
10.8%
.0%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
22.2%
25.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
111
6
6
7
5
7
6
9
4
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.6b Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Medicare?
Test Sites 2
Wyong
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
5
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...b)
Medicare?
Two or three times a week
0
.0%
1
20.0%
Weekly
0
.0%
Fortnightly
2
40.0%
Monthly or once every few
months
2
40.0%
Two or three times per year
0
.0%
Annually or less often
0
.0%
TOTAL
5
100.0%
Page 14
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6c Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Child Support Agency?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...c) Child
Support Agency?
Two or three times a week
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
132
73
45
14
45
22
11
8
35
7
4
3
0
2
1
1
0
2
11
1
5.3%
5.5%
6.7%
.0%
4.4%
4.5%
9.1%
.0%
5.7%
9.1%
12
7
3
2
4
2
0
0
6
0
9.1%
9.6%
6.7%
14.3%
8.9%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
17.1%
.0%
Weekly
25
15
9
1
7
3
0
3
8
4
18.9%
20.5%
20.0%
7.1%
15.6%
13.6%
.0%
37.5%
22.9%
36.4%
Fortnightly
14
5
7
2
6
5
1
0
2
0
10.6%
6.8%
15.6%
14.3%
13.3%
22.7%
9.1%
.0%
5.7%
.0%
Monthly or once every few
months
57
36
14
7
19
8
7
3
14
6
43.2%
49.3%
31.1%
50.0%
42.2%
36.4%
63.6%
37.5%
40.0%
54.5%
Two or three times per year
15
6
8
1
5
3
2
2
3
0
11.4%
8.2%
17.8%
7.1%
11.1%
13.6%
18.2%
25.0%
8.6%
.0%
Annually or less often
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1.5%
.0%
2.2%
7.1%
4.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
TOTAL
132
73
45
14
45
22
11
8
35
11
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.6c Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Child Support Agency?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...c) Child
Support Agency?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
132
10
55
67
5
122
1
84
7
1
2
4
1
5
0
4
48
3
5.3%
10.0%
3.6%
6.0%
20.0%
4.1%
.0%
4.8%
6.3%
12
2
4
6
0
11
0
8
4
9.1%
20.0%
7.3%
9.0%
.0%
9.0%
.0%
9.5%
8.3%
25
3
12
10
1
23
0
17
8
18.9%
30.0%
21.8%
14.9%
20.0%
18.9%
.0%
20.2%
16.7%
14
1
4
9
0
14
0
8
6
10.6%
10.0%
7.3%
13.4%
.0%
11.5%
.0%
9.5%
12.5%
57
1
23
33
2
53
1
37
20
43.2%
10.0%
41.8%
49.3%
40.0%
43.4%
100.0%
44.0%
41.7%
15
2
8
5
1
14
0
9
6
11.4%
20.0%
14.5%
7.5%
20.0%
11.5%
.0%
10.7%
12.5%
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
1.5%
.0%
3.6%
.0%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
1.2%
2.1%
132
10
55
67
5
122
1
84
48
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 15
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6c Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...c) Child
Support Agency?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Burnie
Cowra
132
8
8
6
4
9
4
4
5
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
7
12
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
9.1%
37.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
25
1
2
0
2
3
1
0
1
0
1
18.9%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
50.0%
33.3%
25.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
14.3%
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
10.6%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
28.6%
57
2
5
5
1
5
2
0
3
3
2
43.2%
25.0%
62.5%
83.3%
25.0%
55.6%
50.0%
.0%
60.0%
100.0%
28.6%
15
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
11.4%
.0%
12.5%
16.7%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
132
8
8
6
4
9
4
4
5
3
7
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.6c Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...c) Child
Support Agency?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
132
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
7
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
5
0
5.3%
10.0%
12.5%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
12
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
9.1%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
25
0
0
3
3
3
2
2
0
1
18.9%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
50.0%
27.3%
33.3%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
14
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
10.6%
20.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
71.4%
.0%
57
5
4
3
3
4
2
5
0
3
43.2%
50.0%
50.0%
33.3%
50.0%
36.4%
33.3%
41.7%
.0%
60.0%
15
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
11.4%
10.0%
25.0%
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
33.3%
8.3%
14.3%
20.0%
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
5
132
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 16
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6d Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Australian Hearing?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Weekly
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...d)
Australian Hearing?
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
36
18
13
5
14
4
1
6
8
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
5.6%
5.6%
7.7%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
3
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
8.3%
11.1%
7.7%
.0%
21.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16
7
6
3
7
2
0
4
3
0
44.4%
38.9%
46.2%
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
.0%
66.7%
37.5%
.0%
9
5
3
1
2
1
0
2
2
2
25.0%
27.8%
23.1%
20.0%
14.3%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
25.0%
66.7%
1
1
0
3
0
25.0% 100.0%
.0%
37.5%
.0%
6
8
3
6
3
2
1
1
16.7%
16.7%
15.4%
20.0%
7.1%
5
14
36
18
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
4
1
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.6d Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Australian Hearing?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Weekly
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...d)
Australian Hearing?
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
36
2
19
15
5
29
26
2
0
2
0
1
1
2
10
0
5.6%
.0%
10.5%
.0%
20.0%
3.4%
7.7%
.0%
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
8.3%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
10.3%
11.5%
.0%
16
1
9
6
1
14
10
6
44.4%
50.0%
47.4%
40.0%
20.0%
48.3%
38.5%
60.0%
9
0
5
4
3
5
8
1
25.0%
.0%
26.3%
26.7%
60.0%
17.2%
30.8%
10.0%
6
1
3
2
0
6
3
3
16.7%
50.0%
15.8%
13.3%
.0%
20.7%
11.5%
30.0%
2
19
15
5
29
26
10
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
36
100.0%
Page 17
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6d Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Australian Hearing?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Burnie
Cowra
Fairfield
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
8.3%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
33.3%
16
2
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
44.4% 100.0%
33.3%
.0%
66.7%
33.3%
66.7%
.0%
66.7%
Q.6. And can you tell me how Weekly
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...d)
Australian Hearing?
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
Broadmeado
ws
36
Sample Size
Ararat
9
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
50.0%
.0%
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
33.3% 100.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
3
2
3
Annually or less often
6
0
16.7%
.0%
36
2
TOTAL
100.0% 100.0%
1
3
100.0% 100.0%
3
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.6d Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...Australian Hearing?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Weekly
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...d)
Australian Hearing?
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Woodridge Wyong
36
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
5.6%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
44.4%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
50.0%
9
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
25.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
50.0%
6
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
16.7%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
66.7%
.0%
.0%
1
2
36
1
1
2
3
3
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 18
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6e Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...CRS Australia?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...e) CRS
Australia?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
88
49
28
11
24
12
11
9
24
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
8
0
3.4%
6.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
3.4%
4.1%
3.6%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
3
3
2
2
0
2
1
3
0
9.1%
6.1%
10.7%
18.2%
8.3%
.0%
18.2%
11.1%
12.5%
.0%
13
11
2
0
4
1
2
2
2
2
14.8%
22.4%
7.1%
.0%
16.7%
8.3%
18.2%
22.2%
8.3%
25.0%
38
18
13
7
10
8
2
4
10
4
43.2%
36.7%
46.4%
63.6%
41.7%
66.7%
18.2%
44.4%
41.7%
50.0%
17
10
6
1
5
2
2
2
4
2
19.3%
20.4%
21.4%
9.1%
20.8%
16.7%
18.2%
22.2%
16.7%
25.0%
6
2
3
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
6.8%
4.1%
10.7%
9.1%
4.2%
8.3%
9.1%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
11
24
12
11
9
24
8
88
49
28
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.6e Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...CRS Australia?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...e) CRS
Australia?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
88
3
50
35
6
80
62
3
0
2
1
1
2
3
26
0
3.4%
.0%
4.0%
2.9%
16.7%
2.5%
4.8%
.0%
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
3.4%
.0%
.0%
8.6%
.0%
3.8%
4.8%
.0%
8
0
5
3
1
7
8
0
9.1%
.0%
10.0%
8.6%
16.7%
8.8%
12.9%
.0%
13
0
9
4
0
13
12
1
14.8%
.0%
18.0%
11.4%
.0%
16.3%
19.4%
3.8%
38
2
22
14
3
34
22
16
43.2%
66.7%
44.0%
40.0%
50.0%
42.5%
35.5%
61.5%
17
0
10
7
1
15
11
6
19.3%
.0%
20.0%
20.0%
16.7%
18.8%
17.7%
23.1%
6
1
2
3
0
6
3
3
6.8%
33.3%
4.0%
8.6%
.0%
7.5%
4.8%
11.5%
3
50
35
6
80
62
26
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
88
100.0%
Page 19
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.6e Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...CRS Australia?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Burnie
Cowra
88
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
3.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...e) CRS
Australia?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
8
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
9.1%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
28.6%
.0%
Fortnightly
13
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
1
14.8%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
14.3%
33.3%
Monthly or once every few
months
38
5
2
4
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
43.2%
62.5%
50.0%
66.7%
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
75.0%
14.3%
33.3%
Two or three times per year
17
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
19.3%
12.5%
.0%
33.3%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
.0%
25.0%
14.3%
33.3%
Annually or less often
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
6.8%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
88
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.6e Can you tell me how regularly your organisation has contact with...CRS Australia?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.6. And can you tell me how Daily
regularly your organisation
has contact with ...e) CRS
Australia?
Two or three times a week
Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly or once every few
months
Two or three times per year
Annually or less often
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
88
5
4
5
4
3
4
6
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
9.1%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
13
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
14.8%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
38
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
0
43.2%
60.0%
25.0%
60.0%
25.0%
66.7%
25.0%
50.0%
100.0%
.0%
17
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
19.3%
20.0%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
33.3%
25.0%
16.7%
.0%
66.7%
6
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
6.8%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
3
88
5
4
5
4
3
4
6
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 20
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7a At what level do you deal with Centrelink, is it?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
53
34
13
6
16
10
7
3
11
6
19.5%
22.1%
15.3%
18.2%
18.0%
22.7%
25.0%
11.5%
19.3%
21.4%
State
TOTAL
Regional
centre
272
National
Local
Metropolitan
area
28
79
54
16
9
22
9
12
11
19
6
29.0%
35.1%
18.8%
27.3%
24.7%
20.5%
42.9%
42.3%
33.3%
21.4%
246
136
79
31
85
41
25
20
50
25
90.4%
88.3%
92.9%
93.9%
95.5%
93.2%
89.3%
76.9%
87.7%
89.3%
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
28
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.7a At what level do you deal with Centrelink, is it?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
272
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
53
6
20
27
5
44
1
35
89
18
19.5%
46.2%
14.8%
21.8%
25.0%
18.2%
50.0%
19.1%
20.2%
79
8
37
34
5
69
1
54
25
29.0%
61.5%
27.4%
27.4%
25.0%
28.5%
50.0%
29.5%
28.1%
222
2
166
80
91.7% 100.0%
90.7%
89.9%
246
11
122
113
16
90.4%
84.6%
90.4%
91.1%
80.0%
13
135
124
20
272
100.0%
242
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
183
89
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7a At what level do you deal with Centrelink, is it?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
14
16
53
3
5
4
2
3
1
1
5
4
3
19.5%
25.0%
31.3%
26.7%
14.3%
21.4%
8.3%
6.7%
35.7%
25.0%
18.8%
16
79
5
6
2
8
4
3
4
3
5
4
29.0%
41.7%
37.5%
13.3%
57.1%
28.6%
25.0%
26.7%
21.4%
31.3%
25.0%
16
16
246
9
15
13
9
14
11
14
13
90.4%
75.0%
93.8%
86.7%
64.3%
100.0%
91.7%
93.3%
92.9%
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
Page 21
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7a At what level do you deal with Centrelink, is it?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
53
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
19.5%
7.7%
25.0%
18.8%
6.7%
20.0%
21.4%
12.5%
23.1%
21.4%
National
State
14
79
3
7
4
3
3
3
7
3
2
29.0%
23.1%
58.3%
25.0%
20.0%
20.0%
21.4%
43.8%
23.1%
14.3%
Local
246
13
9
15
13
14
14
12
13
13
90.4%
100.0%
75.0%
93.8%
86.7%
93.3%
100.0%
75.0%
100.0%
92.9%
13
14
TOTAL
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.8a What are the strengths of your relationship with Centrelink?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
84
45
26
13
25
18
7
6
17
28
11
30.9%
29.2%
30.6%
39.4%
28.1%
40.9%
25.0%
23.1%
29.8%
39.3%
94
50
30
14
30
16
11
11
18
8
34.6%
32.5%
35.3%
42.4%
33.7%
36.4%
39.3%
42.3%
31.6%
28.6%
46
23
14
9
17
11
3
2
7
6
16.9%
14.9%
16.5%
27.3%
19.1%
25.0%
10.7%
7.7%
12.3%
21.4%
121
65
36
20
43
17
14
8
29
10
44.5%
42.2%
42.4%
60.6%
48.3%
38.6%
50.0%
30.8%
50.9%
35.7%
52
36
12
4
18
7
8
3
10
6
19.1%
23.4%
14.1%
12.1%
20.2%
15.9%
28.6%
11.5%
17.5%
21.4%
63
34
22
7
22
12
3
5
15
6
23.2%
22.1%
25.9%
21.2%
24.7%
27.3%
10.7%
19.2%
26.3%
21.4%
67
37
24
6
20
11
5
4
18
9
24.6%
24.0%
28.2%
18.2%
22.5%
25.0%
17.9%
15.4%
31.6%
32.1%
42
22
14
6
17
6
7
2
5
5
15.4%
14.3%
16.5%
18.2%
19.1%
13.6%
25.0%
7.7%
8.8%
17.9%
5
4
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
1.8%
2.6%
.0%
3.0%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3.6%
26
8
12
6
9
4
2
4
6
1
9.6%
5.2%
14.1%
18.2%
10.1%
9.1%
7.1%
15.4%
10.5%
3.6%
7
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
2.6%
2.6%
2.4%
3.0%
3.4%
2.3%
3.6%
3.8%
1.8%
.0%
19
13
5
1
6
4
3
1
4
1
7.0%
8.4%
5.9%
3.0%
6.7%
9.1%
10.7%
3.8%
7.0%
3.6%
33
89
44
28
26
57
28
272
154
85
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 22
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8a What are the strengths of your relationship with Centrelink?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
272
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
84
2
37
45
5
78
0
55
89
29
30.9%
15.4%
27.4%
36.3%
25.0%
32.2%
.0%
30.1%
32.6%
94
4
47
43
4
86
1
65
29
34.6%
30.8%
34.8%
34.7%
20.0%
35.5%
50.0%
35.5%
32.6%
46
1
18
27
3
38
0
27
19
16.9%
7.7%
13.3%
21.8%
15.0%
15.7%
.0%
14.8%
21.3%
121
4
63
54
14
103
0
85
36
44.5%
30.8%
46.7%
43.5%
70.0%
42.6%
.0%
46.4%
40.4%
52
3
26
23
2
49
0
35
17
19.1%
23.1%
19.3%
18.5%
10.0%
20.2%
.0%
19.1%
19.1%
63
4
33
26
5
55
1
48
15
23.2%
30.8%
24.4%
21.0%
25.0%
22.7%
50.0%
26.2%
16.9%
67
4
29
34
7
60
0
44
23
24.6%
30.8%
21.5%
27.4%
35.0%
24.8%
.0%
24.0%
25.8%
42
1
17
24
2
39
0
29
13
15.4%
7.7%
12.6%
19.4%
10.0%
16.1%
.0%
15.8%
14.6%
5
0
3
2
1
4
0
5
0
1.8%
.0%
2.2%
1.6%
5.0%
1.7%
.0%
2.7%
.0%
26
2
18
6
3
21
1
21
5
9.6%
15.4%
13.3%
4.8%
15.0%
8.7%
50.0%
11.5%
5.6%
7
4
3
0
0
6
1
4
3
2.6%
30.8%
2.2%
.0%
.0%
2.5%
50.0%
2.2%
3.4%
19
0
9
10
1
18
0
15
4
7.0%
.0%
6.7%
8.1%
5.0%
7.4%
.0%
8.2%
4.5%
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
89
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
272
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.8a What are the strengths of your relationship with Centrelink?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
14
16
84
4
4
7
4
6
2
5
7
3
1
30.9%
33.3%
25.0%
46.7%
28.6%
42.9%
16.7%
33.3%
50.0%
18.8%
6.3%
16
94
1
5
8
7
6
4
6
4
5
5
34.6%
8.3%
31.3%
53.3%
50.0%
42.9%
33.3%
40.0%
28.6%
31.3%
31.3%
46
2
2
3
1
4
1
3
2
1
2
16.9%
16.7%
12.5%
20.0%
7.1%
28.6%
8.3%
20.0%
14.3%
6.3%
12.5%
121
6
8
7
5
9
3
10
5
7
7
44.5%
50.0%
50.0%
46.7%
35.7%
64.3%
25.0%
66.7%
35.7%
43.8%
43.8%
52
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
5
5
19.1%
8.3%
6.3%
13.3%
14.3%
21.4%
8.3%
13.3%
28.6%
31.3%
31.3%
63
3
4
2
1
4
4
4
5
3
4
23.2%
25.0%
25.0%
13.3%
7.1%
28.6%
33.3%
26.7%
35.7%
18.8%
25.0%
67
5
4
1
2
5
2
2
5
3
5
24.6%
41.7%
25.0%
6.7%
14.3%
35.7%
16.7%
13.3%
35.7%
18.8%
31.3%
42
1
4
4
2
1
0
3
3
3
2
15.4%
8.3%
25.0%
26.7%
14.3%
7.1%
.0%
20.0%
21.4%
18.8%
12.5%
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1.8%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
7.1%
.0%
6.3%
26
1
2
3
0
0
4
1
0
2
1
9.6%
8.3%
12.5%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
6.7%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2.6%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
19
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
2
7.0%
8.3%
12.5%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
6.7%
.0%
18.8%
12.5%
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 23
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8a What are the strengths of your relationship with Centrelink?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
84
4
4
6
4
4
4
3
5
14
7
30.9%
30.8%
33.3%
37.5%
26.7%
26.7%
28.6%
18.8%
38.5%
50.0%
94
5
6
4
4
6
7
4
4
3
34.6%
38.5%
50.0%
25.0%
26.7%
40.0%
50.0%
25.0%
30.8%
21.4%
46
3
2
5
4
6
1
0
3
1
16.9%
23.1%
16.7%
31.3%
26.7%
40.0%
7.1%
.0%
23.1%
7.1%
121
5
7
6
5
4
7
7
4
9
44.5%
38.5%
58.3%
37.5%
33.3%
26.7%
50.0%
43.8%
30.8%
64.3%
52
2
3
3
3
4
1
4
2
4
19.1%
15.4%
25.0%
18.8%
20.0%
26.7%
7.1%
25.0%
15.4%
28.6%
63
4
0
5
2
2
4
3
5
4
23.2%
30.8%
.0%
31.3%
13.3%
13.3%
28.6%
18.8%
38.5%
28.6%
67
4
2
5
4
2
3
5
5
3
24.6%
30.8%
16.7%
31.3%
26.7%
13.3%
21.4%
31.3%
38.5%
21.4%
42
1
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
5
15.4%
7.7%
33.3%
6.3%
13.3%
13.3%
7.1%
12.5%
7.7%
35.7%
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
26
2
0
1
1
1
3
2
0
2
9.6%
15.4%
.0%
6.3%
6.7%
6.7%
21.4%
12.5%
.0%
14.3%
7
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
2.6%
.0%
8.3%
6.3%
.0%
13.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
19
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
7.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.7%
6.7%
7.1%
12.5%
15.4%
.0%
13
14
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 24
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8a
SPECIFY: Other strengths of your relationship with Centrelink
Q.8.a) SPECIFY OTHER STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CENTRELINK.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CLIENT CONTACT IS VERY STRONG
WE PROVIDE THEIR SERVICES ON THEIR BEHALF IN A REMOTE AREA.
THEY WILL REFER PEOPLE TO US
WE HAVE A MOBILE SERVICE COMING TO OUR OFFICE ONCE A WEEK
NETWORK MEETING ONCE A MONTH
THE ABILITY OF OUR CLIENTS TO BE ABLE TO ORGANISE DIRECT DEBITS SO THEIR RENTAL
PAYMENTS GO IN AUTOMATICALLY TO OUR ACCOUNT
MEETINGS WITH THEM ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS
TO ORGANISE CLIENTS ENTITLEMENTS
SOCIAL WORKERS ARE GREAT. IN THE STATE LEVEL I AM IN THE COMMITTEE.
THEY SET UP AN OFFICE HERE ONCE A FORTNIGHT'
THEY COME TO US AND TALK TO OUR CLIENTS.
HAVE CONTACT WITH THE SOCIAL WORKERS OR CASE MANAGERS.
OCCASIONALLY WE NEED TO HELP OUR CLIENTS DEAL WITH CENTRELINK.
WE HAVE AN INDIGENOUS LIASON OFFICER. AND GOOD RAPPORT WITH SOCIAL WORKER.
RESPECT AND TRUST
FACE TO FACE CONTACT AT CENTRELINK OFFICE IS GOOD BUT WHEN TELEPHONING DO NOT
HAVE A PERSONAL CONTACT AND ITS A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT PROCESS
STAFF EXCHANGES FOR PROFFESIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
CLIENTS GETTING THEIR ENTITLEMENTS IN THE RIGHT TIMEFRAME
WE'VE HAD ONGOING STAFF DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS THAT WE'VE DELIVERED TO THEIR STAFF
THEY TAKE TIME TO ATTEND OUR YOUTH NETWORK MEETINGS
Page 25
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9a Are there any aspects of your relationship with Centrelink that could be improved?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
50
33
12
5
26
3
4
0
11
28
6
18.4%
21.4%
14.1%
15.2%
29.2%
6.8%
14.3%
.0%
19.3%
21.4%
5
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1.8%
2.6%
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3.8%
3.5%
7.1%
18
13
5
0
8
2
0
1
3
4
6.6%
8.4%
5.9%
.0%
9.0%
4.5%
.0%
3.8%
5.3%
14.3%
23
14
9
0
9
1
5
1
4
3
8.5%
9.1%
10.6%
.0%
10.1%
2.3%
17.9%
3.8%
7.0%
10.7%
25
18
5
2
8
2
6
1
6
2
9.2%
11.7%
5.9%
6.1%
9.0%
4.5%
21.4%
3.8%
10.5%
7.1%
26
15
8
3
11
1
2
2
6
4
9.6%
9.7%
9.4%
9.1%
12.4%
2.3%
7.1%
7.7%
10.5%
14.3%
18
11
5
2
8
0
3
2
4
1
6.6%
7.1%
5.9%
6.1%
9.0%
.0%
10.7%
7.7%
7.0%
3.6%
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.7%
1.3%
.0%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
6
1
0
3
0
0
1
3
0
2.6%
3.9%
1.2%
.0%
3.4%
.0%
.0%
3.8%
5.3%
.0%
18
12
5
1
8
1
4
1
3
1
6.6%
7.8%
5.9%
3.0%
9.0%
2.3%
14.3%
3.8%
5.3%
3.6%
17
8
8
1
2
6
2
1
4
2
6.3%
5.2%
9.4%
3.0%
2.2%
13.6%
7.1%
3.8%
7.0%
7.1%
145
74
49
22
40
31
13
21
28
12
53.3%
48.1%
57.6%
66.7%
44.9%
70.5%
46.4%
80.8%
49.1%
42.9%
33
89
44
28
26
57
28
272
154
85
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 26
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9a Are there any aspects of your relationship with Centrelink that could be improved?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
None
TOTAL
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
1
25
24
6
43
1
43
7
18.4%
7.7%
18.5%
19.4%
30.0%
17.8%
50.0%
23.5%
7.9%
89
5
0
2
3
0
5
0
4
1
1.8%
.0%
1.5%
2.4%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
2.2%
1.1%
18
0
7
11
3
15
0
18
0
6.6%
.0%
5.2%
8.9%
15.0%
6.2%
.0%
9.8%
.0%
23
0
11
12
1
22
0
22
1
8.5%
.0%
8.1%
9.7%
5.0%
9.1%
.0%
12.0%
1.1%
25
1
9
15
1
24
0
21
4
9.2%
7.7%
6.7%
12.1%
5.0%
9.9%
.0%
11.5%
4.5%
26
0
11
15
0
26
0
23
3
9.6%
.0%
8.1%
12.1%
.0%
10.7%
.0%
12.6%
3.4%
18
0
9
9
1
17
0
15
3
6.6%
.0%
6.7%
7.3%
5.0%
7.0%
.0%
8.2%
3.4%
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
.7%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
5.0%
.4%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
Need early input in decision
making
Other (specify)
Profit
50
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Both
Want greater coordination
272
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
7
0
3
4
0
7
0
7
0
2.6%
.0%
2.2%
3.2%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
3.8%
.0%
18
1
6
11
3
15
0
15
3
6.6%
7.7%
4.4%
8.9%
15.0%
6.2%
.0%
8.2%
3.4%
17
1
5
11
0
16
0
14
3
6.3%
7.7%
3.7%
8.9%
.0%
6.6%
.0%
7.7%
3.4%
145
10
78
57
11
126
1
77
68
53.3%
76.9%
57.8%
46.0%
55.0%
52.1%
50.0%
42.1%
76.4%
13
135
124
20
242
2
183
89
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
272
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.9a Are there any aspects of your relationship with Centrelink that could be improved?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
14
16
50
2
5
3
0
3
0
4
1
3
7
18.4%
16.7%
31.3%
20.0%
.0%
21.4%
.0%
26.7%
7.1%
18.8%
43.8%
16
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
8.3%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
18
0
3
0
0
2
1
2
3
0
1
6.6%
.0%
18.8%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
8.3%
13.3%
21.4%
.0%
6.3%
23
1
3
1
1
1
0
1
2
4
1
8.5%
8.3%
18.8%
6.7%
7.1%
7.1%
.0%
6.7%
14.3%
25.0%
6.3%
25
1
2
1
1
3
0
2
1
4
1
9.2%
8.3%
12.5%
6.7%
7.1%
21.4%
.0%
13.3%
7.1%
25.0%
6.3%
26
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
9.6%
8.3%
6.3%
.0%
7.1%
7.1%
8.3%
20.0%
28.6%
6.3%
6.3%
18
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
6.6%
8.3%
12.5%
.0%
7.1%
7.1%
8.3%
6.7%
7.1%
12.5%
6.3%
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.7%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
7
0
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
2.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
7.1%
21.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
18
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
6.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
17
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
6.3%
8.3%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
145
7
5
9
11
7
10
6
5
7
8
53.3%
58.3%
31.3%
60.0%
78.6%
50.0%
83.3%
40.0%
35.7%
43.8%
50.0%
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 27
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9a Are there any aspects of your relationship with Centrelink that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
50
6
1
0
5
2
2
4
0
14
2
18.4%
46.2%
8.3%
.0%
33.3%
13.3%
14.3%
25.0%
.0%
14.3%
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
18
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
6.6%
7.7%
.0%
6.3%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
7.7%
7.1%
23
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
8.5%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
6.7%
6.7%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
14.3%
25
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
9.2%
7.7%
16.7%
.0%
6.7%
13.3%
7.1%
6.3%
7.7%
.0%
26
2
1
0
0
2
1
3
1
2
9.6%
15.4%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
13.3%
7.1%
18.8%
7.7%
14.3%
18
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
6.6%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
18
2
3
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
6.6%
15.4%
25.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
7.1%
12.5%
7.7%
14.3%
17
0
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
0
6.3%
.0%
16.7%
6.3%
6.7%
13.3%
7.1%
12.5%
15.4%
.0%
145
5
6
14
8
7
7
6
8
9
53.3%
38.5%
50.0%
87.5%
53.3%
46.7%
50.0%
37.5%
61.5%
64.3%
13
14
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 28
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9a
ed
SPECIFY: Other aspects of your relationship with Centrelink that could be improv
Q.9.a) SPECIFY OTHER ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CENTRELINK THAT COULD BE
IMPROVED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NEVER SEEM TO BE UPDATED ON CHANGES
BEING ABLE TO ACCESS STAFF WHEN REQUIRED
BETTER COMMUNICATION.
CENTRELINK HAS LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CLIENTS READING AND WRITING SKILLS
AND THE USE OF THEIR LANGUAGE
WE WOULD LIKE A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
MORE CONSISTENT DIALOGUE WOULD BE GOOD, AROUND EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS AND
MANAGING THEIR AFFAIRS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
STAFF TURNOVER ISSUES
WITH SERVICES DEALING WITH THE HOMELESS.
SOMEONE WE CAN ALWAYS CALL WHO WILL ANSWER THE PHONE. WE HAVE CLIENTS WE SEE
EVERY HOUR AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTACT A PARTICULAR CENTRELINK OFFICE. MAYBE
IF THEY HAD A HOTLINE THAT JOB SERVICE PROVIDERS COULD CONTACT.
TO HAVE A LIST OF SOCIAL WORKERS STATE WIDE FOR VICTORIA WOULD BE EXTRMELY
HELPFUL
CENTRELINK TO PROVIDE TRAINING SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND AND ASSIST JOB SEEKERS
REQUIREMENTS
IN THE BEURACRACY OF CENTRELINK. IT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR THE SOCIAL WORKER TO
BE ON AN OUTREACH PROGRAM LIKE THE MAN THAT COMES AROUND EACH WEEK SO THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE SUCH A FORMAL RELATIONSHIP.
TOO MAKE MATERIAL MORE UNDERSTANDABLE.
COMMUNICATION
TO GET FOLLOW THROUGH FROM THE THINGS THAT YOU DISCUSS.
SOME INFORMATION BEING PASSED TO CLIENTS IS OUT OF DATE AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE
ADVISE THEM OF THE UPDATES THESE UPDATES DONT SEEM TOI BE GETTING PROCESSED
HAVE A PARTNER AGREEMENT TO BE ABLE TO FAST TRACK OUR CLIENTS
THE CHANGE OF REGULATION COULD BE IMPROVED.
PROVIDING MORE INFORMATION SESSIONS
RELATIONSHIP BUILDING, COMMUNICATING WITH THE SAME PERSON.
IF WE HAD A SERVICE TO SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS WOULD BREAK DOWN THE BARRIER
BETWEEN THE CLIENT AND THE SERVICE.
DUE TO LIMITED RESOURCES THEY ARE ONLY HERE 3 OUT OF 5 DAYS.
IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH CASE MANAGERS.
IN TERMS OF MIGRANT CLIENTS, SOMETIMES IT'S TO DO WITH WAITING FOR AN
INTERPRETER TO BE ARRANGED BY CENTRELINK, AND THAT CAN SLOW DOWN THE APPLICATION
PROCESS.
WE COULD NOT TALK TO CENTRELINK DIRECTLY TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES.\
DON'T KNOW
Page 29
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REVIEW CENREPAY DEDUCTION FEE
GETTING THE RIGHT INFORMATION AND CONSISTENCY
OUTREACH SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED AGAIN WE USED TO HAVE AN OUTREACH SERVICE BUT
IT WAS TAKEN AWAY A FEW MONTHS AGO
I WORK WITH FAMILIES FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES AND THEY CAN'T READ IN ANY LANGUAGE
AND CENTRELINK SENDS THEM LOTS OF LETTERS. A LOT OF MY TIME IS TAKEN UP
EXPLAINING CENTRELINK LETTERS TO THEM OR RINGING UP ON THEIR BEHALF.
THEY COULD PROVIDE MORE SERVICES, MORE MONEY. A BETTER RANGE OF SERVICES
HAVING A ONE ON ONE RELATIONSHIP WITH SOCIAL WORKERS AT CENTRELINK
THAT LINK WITH SOCIAL WORKERS COULD BE IMPROVED
INCREASED NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES
HAVING A LOCAL CONTACT. IF WE PHONE CENTRELINK, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE
ENTIRE PHONE SERVICE. IF WE HAD A LOCAL CONTACT, WE COULD CALL WHEN THE CLIENTS
WERE SITTING HERE WITH US.
COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION CAN BE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT AGENCIES.
INCONSISTINCIES IN INFORMATION.
TO HAVE A NUMBER TO CONTACT ON A STATE LEVEL WHEN NEEDED
IF CENTRELINK HAD MORE CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING, THE PEOPLE WHO DEAL DIRECTLY
WITH THE CLIENTS, THE SERVICE PROVISION STAFF
TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGES THEY CONSTANTLY MAKE
PROPER INFORMATION SHARING AND MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BOTH OF US.
NEED TO MAKE THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE REFERRED TO US.
BETTER COMMUNICATION.
LACK OF COMMUNICATION. NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED
SEEMS TO BE STAFF SHORTAGES AS WE USED TO HAVE A CENTRAL CONTACT TO SPEAK TO
AND THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.
HAVE A SOCIAL WORKER BASED AT BOWEN
REFERRALS ARE SOMETIMES SENT TO US AND WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ASSIST THE CLIENTS
Page 30
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10a Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Centrelink?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
Q.10.a) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Centrelink?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
272
154
85
33
89
44
28
26
57
46
21
11
14
12
13
3
5
11
28
2
16.9%
13.6%
12.9%
42.4%
13.5%
29.5%
10.7%
19.2%
19.3%
7.1%
155
81
57
17
54
23
16
17
32
13
57.0%
52.6%
67.1%
51.5%
60.7%
52.3%
57.1%
65.4%
56.1%
46.4%
48
30
16
2
15
6
4
1
11
11
17.6%
19.5%
18.8%
6.1%
16.9%
13.6%
14.3%
3.8%
19.3%
39.3%
13
12
1
0
5
1
3
1
1
2
4.8%
7.8%
1.2%
.0%
5.6%
2.3%
10.7%
3.8%
1.8%
7.1%
6
6
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
2.2%
3.9%
.0%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
3.6%
3.8%
3.5%
.0%
4
4
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1.5%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
2.3%
3.6%
3.8%
.0%
.0%
33
89
44
28
26
57
28
272
154
85
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
201
102
68
31
66
36
19
22
43
15
75.0%
68.0%
80.0%
93.9%
75.0%
83.7%
70.4%
88.0%
75.4%
53.6%
48
30
16
2
15
6
4
1
11
11
17.9%
20.0%
18.8%
6.1%
17.0%
14.0%
14.8%
4.0%
19.3%
39.3%
13
12
1
0
5
1
3
1
1
2
4.9%
8.0%
1.2%
.0%
5.7%
2.3%
11.1%
4.0%
1.8%
7.1%
6
6
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
2.2%
4.0%
.0%
.0%
2.3%
.0%
3.7%
4.0%
3.5%
.0%
CSI
76.57
73.20
78.35
87.27
75.68
82.33
72.59
79.20
77.19
70.71
Std. Dev.
16.96
19.08
12.04
12.06
16.73
14.61
19.33
17.78
17.50
14.89
Page 31
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10a Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Centrelink?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total Advocacy Service
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
Q.10.a) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Centrelink?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Less than
once a week
135
124
20
242
2
183
89
201
22
18
3
40
1
21
25
33
13
16.9%
46.2%
16.3%
14.5%
15.0%
16.5%
50.0%
11.5%
28.1%
16.4%
18.3%
81
68
13
136
1
104
51
124
31
60.0% 54.8%
65.0%
56.2%
50.0%
56.8%
57.3%
61.7%
43.7%
155
6
57.0%
46.2%
48
0
71
22
26
3
44
0
38
10
27
21
.0% 16.3%
21.0%
15.0%
18.2%
.0%
20.8%
11.2%
13.4%
29.6%
13
0
7
6
1
12
0
11
2
10
3
4.8%
.0%
5.2%
4.8%
5.0%
5.0%
.0%
6.0%
2.2%
5.0%
4.2%
6
1
1
4
0
6
0
6
0
5
1
2.2%
7.7%
.7%
3.2%
.0%
2.5%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
2.5%
1.4%
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
3
1
2
2
1.5%
.0%
1.5%
1.6%
.0%
1.7%
.0%
1.6%
1.1%
1.0%
2.8%
13
135
124
20
242
2
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
183
100.0% 1.0E2%
176
89
100.0%
201
100.0%
100.0%
71
100.0%
201
12
103
86
16
75.0%
92.3%
77.4%
70.5%
80.0%
0
22
26
3
44
0
38
10
27
21
.0% 16.5%
21.3%
15.0%
18.5%
.0%
21.1%
11.4%
13.6%
30.4%
48
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Weekly or
more often
6
17.9%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Both
Centrelink regularity
13
272
% Somewhat Satisfied
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
46
1.0E2%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Profit
Want greater coordination
272
17.6%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Both
Profit or Non-profit
2
125
76
157
44
73.9% 1.0E2%
69.4%
86.4%
78.9%
63.8%
13
0
7
6
1
12
0
11
2
10
3
4.9%
.0%
5.3%
4.9%
5.0%
5.0%
.0%
6.1%
2.3%
5.0%
4.3%
6
1
1
4
0
6
0
6
0
5
1
2.2%
7.7%
.8%
3.3%
.0%
2.5%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
2.5%
1.4%
CSI
76.57
84.62
77.44
74.75
78.00
76.13
90.00
73.67
82.50
77.09
75.07
Std. Dev.
16.96
21.84
15.46
17.78
14.36
17.29
14.14
17.62
13.83
16.86
17.29
Q.10a Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Centrelink?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
Q.10.a) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Centrelink?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
46
3
2
6
3
4
2
4
0
3
3
16.9%
25.0%
12.5%
40.0%
21.4%
28.6%
16.7%
26.7%
.0%
18.8%
18.8%
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
16
155
8
8
7
9
6
8
9
7
8
8
57.0%
66.7%
50.0%
46.7%
64.3%
42.9%
66.7%
60.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
48
1
2
2
0
3
1
2
5
2
3
17.6%
8.3%
12.5%
13.3%
.0%
21.4%
8.3%
13.3%
35.7%
12.5%
18.8%
13
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
4.8%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
12.5%
6.3%
6
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
272
12
16
15
14
14
12
15
14
16
16
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
1.0E2% 1.0E2%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Cowra Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
272
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2%
201
11
10
13
12
10
10
13
7
11
11
75.0%
91.7%
62.5%
86.7%
85.7%
71.4%
90.9%
86.7%
50.0%
73.3%
73.3%
48
1
2
2
0
3
1
2
5
2
3
17.9%
8.3%
12.5%
13.3%
.0%
21.4%
9.1%
13.3%
35.7%
13.3%
20.0%
13
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
1
4.9%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
13.3%
6.7%
6
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
76.57
83.33
70.00
85.33
77.14
77.14
81.82
82.67
67.14
76.00
77.33
Std. Dev.
16.96
11.55
20.66
14.07
21.99
21.99
10.79
12.80
14.90
18.82
16.68
Page 32
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10a Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Centrelink?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CENTRELINK
Sample Size
Q.10.a) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Centrelink?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
13
46
2
0
7
2
1
3
1
0
0
16.9%
15.4%
.0%
43.8%
13.3%
6.7%
21.4%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
155
8
8
6
7
9
8
9
10
12
57.0%
61.5%
66.7%
37.5%
46.7%
60.0%
57.1%
56.3%
76.9%
85.7%
48
2
2
2
6
4
3
4
2
2
17.6%
15.4%
16.7%
12.5%
40.0%
26.7%
21.4%
25.0%
15.4%
14.3%
13
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4.8%
.0%
8.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2.2%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
13
14
272
13
12
16
15
15
14
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
14
100.0% 100.0%
201
10
8
13
9
10
11
10
10
12
75.0%
76.9%
66.7%
81.3%
60.0%
66.7%
78.6%
62.5%
83.3%
85.7%
48
2
2
2
6
4
3
4
2
2
17.9%
15.4%
16.7%
12.5%
40.0%
26.7%
21.4%
25.0%
16.7%
14.3%
13
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4.9%
.0%
8.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2.2%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
CSI
76.57
75.38
68.33
83.75
74.67
72.00
80.00
70.00
76.67
77.14
Std. Dev.
16.96
20.25
19.92
18.21
14.07
18.21
13.59
19.32
7.78
7.26
Q.7b At what level do you deal with Medicare, is it?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
106
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
61
Regional
centre
Rural area
31
14
STATE
NSW
31
QLD
SA
14
TAS
8
VIC
16
WA/NT
26
11
20
10
7
3
5
2
0
3
7
3
18.9%
16.4%
22.6%
21.4%
16.1%
14.3%
.0%
18.8%
26.9%
27.3%
26
16
4
6
8
3
2
6
6
1
24.5%
26.2%
12.9%
42.9%
25.8%
21.4%
25.0%
37.5%
23.1%
9.1%
85
50
26
9
28
11
6
11
21
8
80.2%
82.0%
83.9%
64.3%
90.3%
78.6%
75.0%
68.8%
80.8%
72.7%
14
31
14
8
16
26
11
106
61
31
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 33
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7b At what level do you deal with Medicare, is it?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Advocacy Service
106
National
State
Local
TOTAL
6
47
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
53
Not for profit
2
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
99
2
69
37
16
2
14
6
16.2% 100.0%
20.3%
16.2%
20
0
10
10
1
18.9%
.0%
21.3%
18.9%
50.0%
15
2
22
0
17
9
28.3% 100.0%
22.2%
.0%
24.6%
24.3%
26
0
11
24.5%
.0%
23.4%
85
6
34
45
1
83
0
55
30
80.2%
100.0%
72.3%
84.9%
50.0%
83.8%
.0%
79.7%
81.1%
106
6
47
53
2
99
2
69
37
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7b At what level do you deal with Medicare, is it?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Ararat
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
106
6
7
4
8
6
8
2
6
3
20
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
18.9%
50.0%
14.3%
.0%
12.5%
16.7%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
National
State
6
26
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
0
1
1
24.5%
16.7%
28.6%
50.0%
37.5%
16.7%
37.5%
50.0%
.0%
33.3%
16.7%
7
2
4
2
6
87.5% 100.0%
66.7%
66.7%
100.0%
Local
85
3
6
2
4
6
80.2%
50.0%
85.7%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
106
6
7
4
8
6
8
2
6
3
6
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7b At what level do you deal with Medicare, is it?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
106
6
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
20
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
18.9%
33.3%
.0%
16.7%
20.0%
20.0%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
26
2
1
0
1
2
1
3
1
0
24.5%
33.3%
20.0%
.0%
20.0%
40.0%
16.7%
37.5%
25.0%
.0%
85
5
4
5
4
4
4
8
4
5
80.2%
83.3%
80.0%
83.3%
80.0%
80.0%
66.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
106
6
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 34
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8b What are the strengths of your relationship with Medicare?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
103
59
30
14
30
14
8
15
25
34
21
8
5
5
5
3
5
8
11
8
33.0%
35.6%
26.7%
35.7%
16.7%
35.7%
37.5%
33.3%
32.0%
72.7%
17
8
6
3
8
2
2
3
0
2
16.5%
13.6%
20.0%
21.4%
26.7%
14.3%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
18.2%
20
9
6
5
6
7
1
3
2
1
19.4%
15.3%
20.0%
35.7%
20.0%
50.0%
12.5%
20.0%
8.0%
9.1%
18
8
6
4
7
1
1
3
4
2
17.5%
13.6%
20.0%
28.6%
23.3%
7.1%
12.5%
20.0%
16.0%
18.2%
6
5
1
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
5.8%
8.5%
3.3%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
12.5%
6.7%
.0%
9.1%
4
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
3.9%
1.7%
3.3%
14.3%
6.7%
7.1%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
5
1
1
3
2
0
0
1
2
0
4.9%
1.7%
3.3%
21.4%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
8.0%
.0%
7
3
4
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
6.8%
5.1%
13.3%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
2.9%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
4.0%
.0%
7
3
1
3
1
1
0
2
2
1
6.8%
5.1%
3.3%
21.4%
3.3%
7.1%
.0%
13.3%
8.0%
9.1%
4
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
3.9%
5.1%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
12.0%
.0%
22
15
6
1
6
3
1
1
9
2
21.4%
25.4%
20.0%
7.1%
20.0%
21.4%
12.5%
6.7%
36.0%
18.2%
14
30
14
8
15
25
11
103
59
30
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Page 35
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8b What are the strengths of your relationship with Medicare?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
103
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
34
1
16
17
0
34
0
21
36
13
33.0%
16.7%
34.8%
33.3%
.0%
35.1%
.0%
31.3%
36.1%
17
1
7
9
1
16
0
13
4
16.5%
16.7%
15.2%
17.6%
50.0%
16.5%
.0%
19.4%
11.1%
20
0
9
11
0
19
1
10
10
19.4%
.0%
19.6%
21.6%
.0%
19.6%
50.0%
14.9%
27.8%
18
1
9
8
1
16
0
12
6
17.5%
16.7%
19.6%
15.7%
50.0%
16.5%
.0%
17.9%
16.7%
6
0
2
4
0
6
0
4
2
5.8%
.0%
4.3%
7.8%
.0%
6.2%
.0%
6.0%
5.6%
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
2
2
3.9%
.0%
4.3%
3.9%
.0%
4.1%
.0%
3.0%
5.6%
5
0
2
3
0
5
0
4
1
4.9%
.0%
4.3%
5.9%
.0%
5.2%
.0%
6.0%
2.8%
7
0
3
4
1
6
0
3
4
6.8%
.0%
6.5%
7.8%
50.0%
6.2%
.0%
4.5%
11.1%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
2
1
2.9%
.0%
2.2%
3.9%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
3.0%
2.8%
7
1
3
3
0
7
0
4
3
6.8%
16.7%
6.5%
5.9%
.0%
7.2%
.0%
6.0%
8.3%
4
2
2
0
0
3
1
2
2
3.9%
33.3%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
3.1%
50.0%
3.0%
5.6%
22
2
10
10
0
21
0
16
6
21.4%
33.3%
21.7%
19.6%
.0%
21.6%
.0%
23.9%
16.7%
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
36
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
103
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.8b What are the strengths of your relationship with Medicare?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
6
3
34
1
2
2
2
2
3
0
4
0
2
33.0%
16.7%
28.6%
50.0%
25.0%
40.0%
42.9%
.0%
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
3
2
1
0
2
42.9% 100.0%
16.7%
.0%
33.3%
17
0
1
0
0
0
16.5%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
6
20
0
2
3
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
19.4%
.0%
28.6%
75.0%
12.5%
.0%
28.6%
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
1
2
2
0
0
14.3% 100.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
18
3
1
1
2
1
17.5%
50.0%
14.3%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
5.8%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
33.3%
.0%
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3.9%
.0%
14.3%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4.9%
33.3%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
6.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
6.8%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
40.0%
28.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3.9%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
22
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
21.4%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
6
3
6
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 36
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8b What are the strengths of your relationship with Medicare?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
34
0
3
1
4
0
3
2
2
5
1
33.0%
.0%
60.0%
16.7%
80.0%
.0%
50.0%
25.0%
50.0%
20.0%
17
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
16.5%
20.0%
40.0%
16.7%
20.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
20
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
3
0
19.4%
20.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
33.3%
.0%
75.0%
.0%
18
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
17.5%
20.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
60.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.8%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.9%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6.8%
.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
40.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
7
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.9%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
22
1
0
3
1
0
2
6
0
2
21.4%
20.0%
.0%
50.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
75.0%
.0%
40.0%
4
5
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
[DataSet2] M:\E\DATA\2544\fix2544a_1.SAV
Page 37
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8b
SPECIFY: Other strengths of your relationship with Medicare
Q.8.b) SPECIFY OTHER STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH MEDICARE.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ITS A FORMAL RELATIONSHIP
THEY RECOGNISE OUR STATUS AS AN ADVOCATE FOR MEDICARE CUSTOMERS.
WE PROVIDE A CONTACT POINT FOR CLIENTS IN REMOTE RURAL TOWNS
MOST ARE AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS
ONLY CONTACT THEM ON A NEEDS BASIS
SIGNING PEOPLE UP WITH ID NUMBERS
WHEN WE NEED A GUEST SPEAKER
A WARM REFERRAL SERVICE FOR CLIENTS
THEY TRY AND WORK AROUND WHAT WE NEED
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improved?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
103
59
30
14
30
14
8
15
25
9
5
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
11
1
8.7%
8.5%
6.7%
14.3%
3.3%
14.3%
25.0%
6.7%
8.0%
9.1%
3
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2.9%
1.7%
6.7%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.0%
.0%
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2.9%
1.7%
3.3%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
8.0%
.0%
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2.9%
3.4%
3.3%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.0%
.0%
5
3
1
1
2
0
0
0
3
0
4.9%
5.1%
3.3%
7.1%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.0%
.0%
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1.9%
1.7%
3.3%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.0%
1.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.0%
.0%
5
2
3
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
4.9%
3.4%
10.0%
.0%
10.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
4.0%
.0%
80
49
21
10
22
11
6
13
18
10
77.7%
83.1%
70.0%
71.4%
73.3%
78.6%
75.0%
86.7%
72.0%
90.9%
14
30
14
8
15
25
11
103
59
30
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 38
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improved?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
9
1
3
5
0
9
0
9
0
8.7%
16.7%
6.5%
9.8%
.0%
9.3%
.0%
13.4%
.0%
Unwilling to share information
36
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
2
1
2.9%
.0%
2.2%
3.9%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
3.0%
2.8%
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
2.9%
.0%
4.3%
2.0%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
4.5%
.0%
Timeliness of responses
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
2
1
2.9%
.0%
4.3%
2.0%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
3.0%
2.8%
Limited understanding of our
organisation
5
1
1
3
0
5
0
2
3
4.9%
16.7%
2.2%
5.9%
.0%
5.2%
.0%
3.0%
8.3%
Limited understanding of
their organisation
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
1.9%
.0%
.0%
3.9%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
3.0%
.0%
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1.0%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
Need early input in decision
making
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Both
Want greater coordination
103
Finding the right person to
talk to
None
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
5
0
1
4
0
5
0
4
1
4.9%
.0%
2.2%
7.8%
.0%
5.2%
.0%
6.0%
2.8%
39
2
74
2
49
31
76.3% 100.0%
73.1%
86.1%
80
4
37
77.7%
66.7%
80.4%
6
46
103
100.0%
76.5% 100.0%
51
2
97
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
67
36
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improved?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
6
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.9%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4.9%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.9%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
4
8
4
5
2
6
3
5
71.4% 100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
71.4% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
3
6
80
4
77.7%
66.7%
103
6
100.0% 100.0%
4
8
100.0% 100.0%
7
100.0%
5
7
2
6
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 39
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
9
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
4
0
8.7%
.0%
40.0%
33.3%
20.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
4.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
4.9%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
80
4
3
3
4
3
4
6
4
77.7%
80.0%
60.0%
50.0%
80.0%
60.0%
66.7%
75.0%
100.0%
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Wyong
5
Finding the right person to
talk to
1
20.0%
Unwilling to share information
1
20.0%
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
0
.0%
Timeliness of responses
0
.0%
Limited understanding of our
organisation
1
20.0%
Limited understanding of
their organisation
0
.0%
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
0
.0%
Need early input in decision
making
1
20.0%
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
0
.0%
Other (specify)
1
20.0%
None
3
60.0%
TOTAL
5
100.0%
Page 40
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9b
SPECIFY: Other aspects of your relationship with Medicare that could be improve
d
Q.9.b) SPECIFY OTHER ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH MEDICARE THAT COULD BE
IMPROVED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THE PROCESS OF CLAIMING REBATES CAN SOMETIMES BE LENGTHY PERIOD EG: IF THERE ONE
MISTAKE IN A BUNDLE THEY SEND THE WHOLE LOT BACK
FOR THE PARTICULAR TARGET GROUP WE WORK WITH, MORE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR TARGET
GROUP HAPPEN TO BE PERMANENT RESIDENTS, SO THEY ARE THE CLIENTS OF MEDICARE JUST
AS MUCH AS THEY ARE OF OTHER AGENCIES.
ONCE IT'S INSIDE CENTRELINK. IF THEIR OUTREACH WORKERS CAN BECOME PART OF THE
MEDICARE ACTION, IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS OR CONDUCT MEDICARE
TRANSACTIONS, GETTING BACK MEDICARE CARDS, THROUGH THE CNTRELINK NETWORK
HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE IN OUR AREA
TO BUILD A RELATIONSHIP
HAVING THE RIGHT PERSON TO TALK TO OVER THERE.
DOCTOR BILLS ARE PAID FOR BY US SOMETIMES AND GETTING REIMBURSED BY MEDICARE CAN
BE A PROBLEM.
THEIR COMMUNICATION. I NEED TO RING THEM UP AND GET SOME ONE ON ONE HELP WITH
THEIR WEBSITE
INCREASED NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES
MEDICARE STAFF COULD BE MORE BILINGUAL, SAY VIETNAMESE OR ARABIC SPEAKERS. LOTS
OF NEW ARRIVALS HAVE TROUBLE DOING FORMS.
Page 41
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10b Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Medicare?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
Q.10.b) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Medicare?Is that totally, very
Very satisfied
or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Regional
centre
Rural area
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
30
14
30
14
8
15
25
15
7
4
4
6
1
0
4
4
0
14.6%
11.9%
13.3%
28.6%
20.0%
7.1%
.0%
26.7%
16.0%
.0%
8
8
7
8
7
57.1% 100.0%
46.7%
32.0%
63.6%
54
32
18
4
16
52.4%
54.2%
60.0%
28.6%
53.3%
11
29
17
6
6
7
5
0
4
9
4
28.2%
28.8%
20.0%
42.9%
23.3%
35.7%
.0%
26.7%
36.0%
36.4%
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2.9%
3.4%
3.3%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.0%
.0%
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1.9%
1.7%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.0%
.0%
14
30
14
8
15
25
11
59
30
100.0%
100.0%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
QLD
59
103
% Somewhat Satisfied
NSW
103
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
STATE
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
69
39
22
8
22
68.3%
67.2%
75.9%
57.1%
73.3%
8
11
12
7
64.3% 100.0%
9
73.3%
52.2%
63.6%
29
17
6
6
7
5
0
4
9
4
28.7%
29.3%
20.7%
42.9%
23.3%
35.7%
.0%
26.7%
39.1%
36.4%
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3.0%
3.4%
3.4%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.7%
.0%
CSI
76.04
75.17
77.24
77.14
78.00
74.29
80.00
80.00
72.17
72.73
Std. Dev.
14.43
14.17
13.86
17.29
15.18
12.22
.00
15.12
17.83
10.09
Q.10b Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Medicare?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
Q.10.b) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Medicare?Is that totally, very
Very satisfied
or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
Medicare regularity
Weekly or
more often
Less than
once a week
103
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
36
41
15
2
7
6
0
13
2
8
7
6
9
14.6%
33.3%
15.2%
11.8%
.0%
13.4% 100.0%
11.9%
19.4%
14.6%
14.5%
28
2
51
0
35
19
20
34
54.9% 100.0%
52.6%
.0%
52.2%
52.8%
48.8%
54.8%
54
2
24
52.4%
33.3%
52.2%
62
29
1
13
15
0
28
0
21
8
15
14
28.2%
16.7%
28.3%
29.4%
.0%
28.9%
.0%
31.3%
22.2%
36.6%
22.6%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
2
1
0
3
2.9%
.0%
2.2%
3.9%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
3.0%
2.8%
.0%
4.8%
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
2
1.9%
16.7%
2.2%
.0%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.5%
2.8%
.0%
3.2%
6
46
51
2
97
2
67
36
41
62
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
103
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
69
4
31
68.3%
80.0%
68.9%
34
2
66.7% 100.0%
2
43
26
26
43
67.4% 100.0%
64
65.2%
74.3%
63.4%
71.7%
29
1
13
15
0
28
0
21
8
15
14
28.7%
20.0%
28.9%
29.4%
.0%
29.5%
.0%
31.8%
22.9%
36.6%
23.3%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
2
1
0
3
3.0%
.0%
2.2%
3.9%
.0%
3.2%
.0%
3.0%
2.9%
.0%
5.0%
CSI
76.04
84.00
76.44
74.90
80.00
75.58
100.00
74.85
78.29
75.61
76.33
Std. Dev.
14.43
16.73
14.33
14.33
.00
14.34
.00
14.17
14.85
13.79
14.95
Page 42
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10b Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Medicare?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
Q.10.b) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Medicare?Is that totally, very
Very satisfied
or somewhat?
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
6
3
15
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
0
0
1
14.6%
33.3%
14.3%
25.0%
37.5%
40.0%
14.3% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
6
54
2
3
2
4
2
3
0
3
3
4
52.4%
33.3%
42.9%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
42.9%
.0%
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
Somewhat satisfied
29
2
3
1
1
1
3
0
3
0
1
28.2%
33.3%
42.9%
25.0%
12.5%
20.0%
42.9%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
16.7%
Somewhat dissatisfied
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
103
6
7
4
8
5
7
2
6
3
6
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
69
4
4
3
7
4
68.3%
66.7%
57.1%
75.0%
87.5%
80.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
4
100.0% 100.0%
2
3
3
5
57.1% 100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
83.3%
29
2
3
1
1
1
3
0
3
0
1
28.7%
33.3%
42.9%
25.0%
12.5%
20.0%
42.9%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
16.7%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
76.04
80.00
74.29
80.00
85.00
84.00
74.29
100.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
Std. Dev.
14.43
17.89
15.12
16.33
14.14
16.73
15.12
.00
10.95
.00
12.65
Q.10b Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Medicare?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH MEDICARE
Sample Size
Q.10.b) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Medicare?Is that totally, very
Very satisfied
or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
4
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
14.6%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
54
2
5
2
4
5
3
1
4
2
52.4%
40.0%
100.0%
33.3%
80.0%
100.0%
50.0%
12.5%
100.0%
40.0%
29
2
0
4
1
0
2
4
0
1
28.2%
40.0%
.0%
66.7%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
50.0%
.0%
20.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
20.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
4
5
103
5
5
6
5
5
6
8
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
69
3
5
2
4
5
3
1
4
3
68.3%
60.0%
100.0%
33.3%
80.0%
100.0%
50.0%
16.7%
100.0%
60.0%
29
2
0
4
1
0
2
4
0
1
28.7%
40.0%
.0%
66.7%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
.0%
20.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
CSI
76.04
76.00
80.00
66.67
76.00
80.00
66.67
60.00
80.00
72.00
Std. Dev.
14.43
16.73
.00
10.33
8.94
.00
16.33
12.65
.00
22.80
Page 43
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7c At what level do you deal with the Child Support Agency, is it?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Metropolitan
area
131
National
Regional
centre
72
STATE
Rural area
45
NSW
14
QLD
45
SA
22
TAS
11
VIC
8
WA/NT
34
11
22
13
8
1
11
5
1
1
2
2
16.8%
18.1%
17.8%
7.1%
24.4%
22.7%
9.1%
12.5%
5.9%
18.2%
State
41
27
10
4
11
9
3
2
9
7
31.3%
37.5%
22.2%
28.6%
24.4%
40.9%
27.3%
25.0%
26.5%
63.6%
Local
92
51
31
10
32
15
9
5
27
4
70.2%
70.8%
68.9%
71.4%
71.1%
68.2%
81.8%
62.5%
79.4%
36.4%
TOTAL
131
72
45
14
45
22
11
8
34
11
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7c At what level do you deal with the Child Support Agency, is it?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
131
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
22
3
7
12
0
21
0
11
11
16.8%
30.0%
12.7%
18.2%
.0%
17.4%
.0%
13.3%
22.9%
National
State
48
41
6
14
21
1
37
1
26
15
31.3%
60.0%
25.5%
31.8%
20.0%
30.6%
100.0%
31.3%
31.3%
Local
92
6
36
50
5
84
0
60
32
70.2%
60.0%
65.5%
75.8%
100.0%
69.4%
.0%
72.3%
66.7%
TOTAL
131
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
48
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7c At what level do you deal with the Child Support Agency, is it?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
22
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
7
1
16.8%
.0%
12.5%
16.7%
25.0%
12.5%
.0%
50.0%
40.0%
.0%
14.3%
41
2
2
3
2
2
0
0
3
1
3
31.3%
25.0%
25.0%
50.0%
50.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
60.0%
33.3%
42.9%
7
4
2
1
2
4
87.5% 100.0%
50.0%
20.0%
66.7%
57.1%
92
6
6
4
1
70.2%
75.0%
75.0%
66.7%
25.0%
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
7
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 44
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7c At what level do you deal with the Child Support Agency, is it?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
22
3
1
1
0
4
1
0
3
0
16.8%
30.0%
12.5%
11.1%
.0%
36.4%
16.7%
.0%
42.9%
.0%
National
State
5
41
3
2
3
4
3
1
4
3
0
31.3%
30.0%
25.0%
33.3%
66.7%
27.3%
16.7%
33.3%
42.9%
.0%
5
5
Local
92
6
7
6
3
9
4
10
70.2%
60.0%
87.5%
66.7%
50.0%
81.8%
66.7%
83.3%
TOTAL
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
71.4% 1.0E2%
7
5
100.0% 1.0E2%
Q.8c What are the strengths of your relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH the CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
131
72
45
14
45
22
11
8
34
32
18
9
5
12
6
3
2
6
11
3
24.4%
25.0%
20.0%
35.7%
26.7%
27.3%
27.3%
25.0%
17.6%
27.3%
29
12
13
4
12
6
2
3
4
2
22.1%
16.7%
28.9%
28.6%
26.7%
27.3%
18.2%
37.5%
11.8%
18.2%
27
16
8
3
12
5
2
1
6
1
20.6%
22.2%
17.8%
21.4%
26.7%
22.7%
18.2%
12.5%
17.6%
9.1%
26
15
7
4
11
3
1
3
4
4
19.8%
20.8%
15.6%
28.6%
24.4%
13.6%
9.1%
37.5%
11.8%
36.4%
12
9
2
1
5
0
0
1
5
1
9.2%
12.5%
4.4%
7.1%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
14.7%
9.1%
10
1
7
2
3
1
0
1
5
0
7.6%
1.4%
15.6%
14.3%
6.7%
4.5%
.0%
12.5%
14.7%
.0%
15
5
6
4
4
4
1
1
5
0
11.5%
6.9%
13.3%
28.6%
8.9%
18.2%
9.1%
12.5%
14.7%
.0%
13
8
5
0
4
2
4
0
3
0
9.9%
11.1%
11.1%
.0%
8.9%
9.1%
36.4%
.0%
8.8%
.0%
4
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
3.1%
2.8%
.0%
14.3%
2.2%
4.5%
9.1%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
15
5
8
2
6
4
1
2
1
1
11.5%
6.9%
17.8%
14.3%
13.3%
18.2%
9.1%
25.0%
2.9%
9.1%
6
2
3
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
4.6%
2.8%
6.7%
7.1%
4.4%
4.5%
.0%
12.5%
5.9%
.0%
35
22
10
3
8
5
3
0
13
6
26.7%
30.6%
22.2%
21.4%
17.8%
22.7%
27.3%
.0%
38.2%
54.5%
14
45
22
11
8
34
11
131
72
45
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Page 45
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8c What are the strengths of your relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH the CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
131
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
32
2
14
16
1
31
0
19
48
13
24.4%
20.0%
25.5%
24.2%
20.0%
25.6%
.0%
22.9%
27.1%
29
0
14
15
1
26
0
18
11
22.1%
.0%
25.5%
22.7%
20.0%
21.5%
.0%
21.7%
22.9%
27
2
12
13
1
25
0
16
11
20.6%
20.0%
21.8%
19.7%
20.0%
20.7%
.0%
19.3%
22.9%
26
2
13
11
1
24
0
16
10
19.8%
20.0%
23.6%
16.7%
20.0%
19.8%
.0%
19.3%
20.8%
12
1
5
6
0
12
0
8
4
9.2%
10.0%
9.1%
9.1%
.0%
9.9%
.0%
9.6%
8.3%
10
1
7
2
0
10
0
6
4
7.6%
10.0%
12.7%
3.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
7.2%
8.3%
15
2
8
5
1
13
0
6
9
11.5%
20.0%
14.5%
7.6%
20.0%
10.7%
.0%
7.2%
18.8%
13
1
6
6
1
12
0
7
6
9.9%
10.0%
10.9%
9.1%
20.0%
9.9%
.0%
8.4%
12.5%
4
0
4
0
0
4
0
3
1
3.1%
.0%
7.3%
.0%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
3.6%
2.1%
15
0
7
8
0
13
0
8
7
11.5%
.0%
12.7%
12.1%
.0%
10.7%
.0%
9.6%
14.6%
3
1
4
2
2.5% 100.0%
4.8%
4.2%
6
3
3
0
2
4.6%
30.0%
5.5%
.0%
40.0%
35
1
13
21
0
34
0
25
10
26.7%
10.0%
23.6%
31.8%
.0%
28.1%
.0%
30.1%
20.8%
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
48
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
131
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 46
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8c What are the strengths of your relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH the CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Burnie
Cowra
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
32
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
0
3
24.4%
25.0%
25.0%
33.3%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
50.0%
60.0%
.0%
42.9%
Responsive
Open communication
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
7
29
1
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
22.1%
12.5%
25.0%
16.7%
25.0%
.0%
50.0%
25.0%
20.0%
33.3%
14.3%
Easy to access
27
2
4
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
20.6%
25.0%
50.0%
.0%
25.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
28.6%
Well established relationship
26
1
2
0
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
19.8%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
12.5%
50.0%
75.0%
80.0%
33.3%
28.6%
Cooperation/shared goals
12
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
9.2%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
12.5%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
14.3%
Regular contact
10
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
7.6%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Personal/ one on one contact
15
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
11.5%
25.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
Cross organisational
awareness
13
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
9.9%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
14.3%
Ability to access other
networks
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3.1%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
Information sharing
15
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
11.5%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Other (specify)
6
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4.6%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
None
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
35
3
2
1
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
26.7%
37.5%
25.0%
16.7%
.0%
37.5%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
33.3%
.0%
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
7
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.8c What are the strengths of your relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH the CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
32
0
3
1
0
5
2
1
3
5
0
24.4%
.0%
37.5%
11.1%
.0%
45.5%
33.3%
8.3%
42.9%
.0%
29
5
1
3
1
3
0
3
2
0
22.1%
50.0%
12.5%
33.3%
16.7%
27.3%
.0%
25.0%
28.6%
.0%
27
3
2
3
0
3
1
1
2
0
20.6%
30.0%
25.0%
33.3%
.0%
27.3%
16.7%
8.3%
28.6%
.0%
26
1
0
2
0
3
0
2
1
0
19.8%
10.0%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
27.3%
.0%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
12
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
9.2%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
16.7%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
10
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
7.6%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
8.3%
.0%
20.0%
15
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
11.5%
10.0%
12.5%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
8.3%
14.3%
20.0%
13
1
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
9.9%
10.0%
37.5%
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3.1%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
15
4
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
11.5%
40.0%
12.5%
22.2%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
6
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4.6%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
35
1
2
2
5
2
1
6
2
2
26.7%
10.0%
25.0%
22.2%
83.3%
18.2%
16.7%
50.0%
28.6%
40.0%
7
5
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 47
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8c
SPECIFY: Other strengths of your relationship with the Child Support Agency
Q.8.c) SPECIFY OTHER STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
VERY FORMAL RELATIONSHIP
ITS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP BUT NOT WELL ESTABLISHED
BEING ABLE TO GET INFORMATION FROM THEM ABOUT THEIR SERVICES
WE PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ENABLE CLIENTS TO LIASE WITH THE AGENCY.
TIMELY AND OFFER GOOD SUPPORT
REGULAR NEWSLETTER RECEIVED.
WE RUN A DIVERSION RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM THROUGH THE COURTS.
CHILDREN NEEDING LAWYERS.
USUALLY GET OUR REQUESTS ANSWERED
WE ONLY RING FOR ASSISTANCE AND CAN BE ANYBODY WE SPEAK TO FOR ASSISTANCE
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with the Child Support Agency that could be improved?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
131
72
45
14
45
22
11
8
34
17
13
3
1
5
1
3
1
5
11
2
13.0%
18.1%
6.7%
7.1%
11.1%
4.5%
27.3%
12.5%
14.7%
18.2%
6
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
4.6%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
27.3%
9
4
3
2
3
2
0
0
2
2
6.9%
5.6%
6.7%
14.3%
6.7%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
18.2%
10
4
5
1
3
2
0
2
2
1
7.6%
5.6%
11.1%
7.1%
6.7%
9.1%
.0%
25.0%
5.9%
9.1%
10
5
4
1
2
1
1
0
3
3
7.6%
6.9%
8.9%
7.1%
4.4%
4.5%
9.1%
.0%
8.8%
27.3%
12
7
3
2
4
2
2
0
2
2
9.2%
9.7%
6.7%
14.3%
8.9%
9.1%
18.2%
.0%
5.9%
18.2%
6
4
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
4.6%
5.6%
.0%
14.3%
4.4%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
5.9%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
.8%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
4
1
3
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
3.1%
1.4%
6.7%
.0%
4.4%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
7
6
0
1
4
1
1
0
0
1
5.3%
8.3%
.0%
7.1%
8.9%
4.5%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
7
2
5
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
5.3%
2.8%
11.1%
.0%
6.7%
9.1%
9.1%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
75
39
28
8
25
13
5
6
22
4
57.3%
54.2%
62.2%
57.1%
55.6%
59.1%
45.5%
75.0%
64.7%
36.4%
14
45
22
11
8
34
11
131
72
45
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 48
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with the Child Support Agency that could be improved?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
131
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
17
0
4
13
2
14
0
16
48
1
13.0%
.0%
7.3%
19.7%
40.0%
11.6%
.0%
19.3%
2.1%
6
0
2
4
0
6
0
6
0
4.6%
.0%
3.6%
6.1%
.0%
5.0%
.0%
7.2%
.0%
9
1
5
3
0
9
0
8
1
6.9%
10.0%
9.1%
4.5%
.0%
7.4%
.0%
9.6%
2.1%
10
2
4
4
1
9
0
9
1
7.6%
20.0%
7.3%
6.1%
20.0%
7.4%
.0%
10.8%
2.1%
10
0
4
6
0
10
0
8
2
7.6%
.0%
7.3%
9.1%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
9.6%
4.2%
12
0
4
8
1
11
0
10
2
9.2%
.0%
7.3%
12.1%
20.0%
9.1%
.0%
12.0%
4.2%
6
0
3
3
0
6
0
5
1
4.6%
.0%
5.5%
4.5%
.0%
5.0%
.0%
6.0%
2.1%
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
.8%
.0%
1.8%
.0%
.0%
.8%
.0%
1.2%
.0%
4
0
2
2
1
3
0
4
0
3.1%
.0%
3.6%
3.0%
20.0%
2.5%
.0%
4.8%
.0%
7
0
3
4
0
7
0
7
0
5.3%
.0%
5.5%
6.1%
.0%
5.8%
.0%
8.4%
.0%
7
1
3
3
0
6
0
5
2
5.3%
10.0%
5.5%
4.5%
.0%
5.0%
.0%
6.0%
4.2%
69
1
36
39
57.0% 100.0%
43.4%
81.3%
75
7
34
34
3
57.3%
70.0%
61.8%
51.5%
60.0%
10
55
66
5
131
100.0%
121
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1
83
48
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with the Child Support Agency that could be improved?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
5
3
17
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
13.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
14.3%
7
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
4.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
60.0%
.0%
.0%
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
6.9%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
10
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
7.6%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
7.6%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
12
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9.2%
12.5%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4.6%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
14.3%
75
7
7
2
3
7
3
1
1
2
4
57.3%
87.5%
87.5%
33.3%
75.0%
87.5%
75.0%
25.0%
20.0%
66.7%
57.1%
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
7
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 49
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9b Are there any aspects of your relationship with the Child Support Agency that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
17
2
3
0
1
0
1
3
1
5
1
13.0%
20.0%
37.5%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
16.7%
25.0%
14.3%
20.0%
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
9
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
6.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
9.1%
16.7%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
10
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
1
7.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
18.2%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
10
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
7.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
16.7%
9.1%
16.7%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
12
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
2
2
9.2%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
16.7%
9.1%
16.7%
.0%
28.6%
40.0%
6
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4.6%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3.1%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
14.3%
20.0%
7
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5.3%
10.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
5.3%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
8.3%
14.3%
.0%
75
6
3
8
3
4
3
5
3
3
57.3%
60.0%
37.5%
88.9%
50.0%
36.4%
50.0%
41.7%
42.9%
60.0%
7
5
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.9c SPECIFY: Other aspects of your relationship with the Child Support Agency that could be
improved
Q.9.c) SPECIFY OTHER ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY THAT COULD
BE IMPROVED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
COMMUNICATION
THEIR FLEXIBILITY TO ASSESS OUR CLIENTS ABILITY TO PAY THE AMOUNT REQUIRED
CASE WORKERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH MOBILE PHONES FOR GREATER ACCESSABILITY.
STAFF RENTENTION AND CONTINUITY OF STAFF WOULD BE A HELP
THE NEW LEGISLATION THEY DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IT
NEGOTIATING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SYSTEM WHICH INVOLVES EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHY
PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND A LOT OF PATIENCE IS A TERRIFIC TEST AND TRIAL OF ALL MY
EXPERIENCE AND SKILL.
EASE OF ACCESS COULD BE BETTER. INFORMATION FROM THEM CAN ALSO BE CONVULATED.
FLEXIBILITY IN BEING UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION
FLOW OF COMMUNICATION
TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY ON A WIDER AREA SCALE PRESENTLY
WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THEM IN OUR LOCAL AREA
WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE ENTITLED TOO.
CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AS MUMS WITH CHILDREN AND HUSBANDS
WHO HAVE MONEY DO NOT PAY. THEY HIDE THEIR MONEY. NEED MORE HELP. TOO MANY
LOOPHOLES.
BEEN QUITE HELPFUL TO ME.
MAKE SOME CONTACT BY PHONE RATHER THAN LETTER. IT COMES ACROSS AS KIND OF A COLD
RELATIONSHIP. THEY ARE MORE DEMANDING WITH THEIR LETTERS.
THEY ARE FAR MORE FORMAL TO DEAL WITH AND MORE DIFFICULT TO GET INFORMATION OUT
Page 50
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OF. MORE FORMAL IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH YOU AND THE CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE.
HAVING A LOCALLY BASED OFFICE OF THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY WILL BENEFIT OUR
CLIENTS
MAKING SURE THAT WHEN THEY REFER PEOPLE FOR MEDIATION, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WE
MEDIATE AROUND TIME. UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTEXT OF MEDIATION.
NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES
THE RESPONSE WE GET IS VERY INFLEXIBLE. I'M NOT SURE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT
HAVING A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. A PERSONAL CONTACT PERSON.
MORE REGULAR CONTACT WITH THEM RELATING TO OUR CLIENTS
THEY OFTEN DEMAND THINGS OF US AND WE HAVE TO DROP EVERY THING TO DO WHAT THEY
WANT. IF THEY COULD GIVE US MORE WARNING OR TIME IT WOULD HELP.
THEY SHOULD BE MORE ENGAGING HAVE NEVER MET ANYONE FROM THERE
Q.10c Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
Q.10.c) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
the Child Support Agency?Is
Very satisfied
that totally, very or
somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
131
72
45
14
45
22
11
8
34
8
6
0
2
4
1
0
0
3
11
0
6.1%
8.3%
.0%
14.3%
8.9%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
8.8%
.0%
60
29
25
6
22
11
6
5
14
2
45.8%
40.3%
55.6%
42.9%
48.9%
50.0%
54.5%
62.5%
41.2%
18.2%
48
27
16
5
17
6
3
2
13
7
36.6%
37.5%
35.6%
35.7%
37.8%
27.3%
27.3%
25.0%
38.2%
63.6%
7
3
3
1
1
3
0
0
2
1
5.3%
4.2%
6.7%
7.1%
2.2%
13.6%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
9.1%
4
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
3.1%
4.2%
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
4.5%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.8%
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2.3%
4.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
5.9%
.0%
14
45
22
11
8
34
11
131
72
45
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
68
35
25
8
26
12
6
5
17
2
53.1%
50.7%
55.6%
57.1%
57.8%
54.5%
54.5%
71.4%
53.1%
18.2%
48
27
16
5
17
6
3
2
13
7
37.5%
39.1%
35.6%
35.7%
37.8%
27.3%
27.3%
28.6%
40.6%
63.6%
7
3
3
1
1
3
0
0
2
1
5.5%
4.3%
6.7%
7.1%
2.2%
13.6%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
9.1%
5
4
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
3.9%
5.8%
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
4.5%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
CSI
69.06
68.41
68.89
72.86
72.00
67.27
63.64
74.29
71.25
56.36
Std. Dev.
17.54
19.53
14.49
16.84
15.61
19.07
23.35
9.76
15.19
21.57
Page 51
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10c Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
Q.10.c) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
the Child Support Agency?Is
Very satisfied
that totally, very or
somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
Child Support Agency
regularity
Weekly or
more often
Less than
once a week
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
48
44
8
2
5
1
1
6
1
3
5
3
5
6.1%
20.0%
9.1%
1.5%
20.0%
5.0% 100.0%
3.6%
10.4%
6.8%
5.7%
87
60
4
27
29
1
58
0
33
27
19
41
45.8%
40.0%
49.1%
43.9%
20.0%
47.9%
.0%
39.8%
56.3%
43.2%
47.1%
48
3
20
25
3
43
0
34
14
14
34
36.6%
30.0%
36.4%
37.9%
60.0%
35.5%
.0%
41.0%
29.2%
31.8%
39.1%
7
0
2
5
0
6
0
7
0
2
5
5.3%
.0%
3.6%
7.6%
.0%
5.0%
.0%
8.4%
.0%
4.5%
5.7%
4
0
1
3
0
4
0
4
0
2
2
3.1%
.0%
1.8%
4.5%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
4.8%
.0%
4.5%
2.3%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.8%
.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.8%
.0%
1.2%
.0%
2.3%
.0%
3
1
0
2
0
3
0
1
2
3
0
2.3%
10.0%
.0%
3.0%
.0%
2.5%
.0%
1.2%
4.2%
6.8%
.0%
10
55
66
5
121
1
83
48
44
87
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
131
% Somewhat Satisfied
Both
Want greater coordination
131
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
68
6
32
30
2
53.1%
66.7%
58.2%
46.9%
40.0%
1
36
32
22
46
54.2% 100.0%
64
43.9%
69.6%
53.7%
52.9%
48
3
20
25
3
43
0
34
14
14
34
37.5%
33.3%
36.4%
39.1%
60.0%
36.4%
.0%
41.5%
30.4%
34.1%
39.1%
7
0
2
5
0
6
0
7
0
2
5
5.5%
.0%
3.6%
7.8%
.0%
5.1%
.0%
8.5%
.0%
4.9%
5.7%
5
0
1
4
0
5
0
5
0
3
2
3.9%
.0%
1.8%
6.3%
.0%
4.2%
.0%
6.1%
.0%
7.3%
2.3%
CSI
69.06
77.78
72.00
65.31
72.00
68.98
100.00
65.12
76.09
67.80
69.66
Std. Dev.
17.54
15.63
15.68
18.60
17.89
17.46 .
18.81
12.38
20.92
15.81
Q.10c Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
Q.10.c) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
the Child Support Agency?Is
Very satisfied
that totally, very or
somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
8
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
6.1%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
28.6%
7
60
4
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
1
1
45.8%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
75.0%
50.0%
20.0%
33.3%
14.3%
48
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
36.6%
25.0%
50.0%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
50.0%
60.0%
66.7%
57.1%
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
131
8
8
6
4
8
4
4
5
3
7
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
68
6
4
3
2
5
3
2
1
1
3
53.1%
75.0%
50.0%
50.0%
66.7%
71.4%
75.0%
50.0%
20.0%
33.3%
42.9%
48
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
37.5%
25.0%
50.0%
16.7%
33.3%
28.6%
25.0%
50.0%
60.0%
66.7%
57.1%
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5.5%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
69.06
80.00
70.00
63.33
73.33
77.14
75.00
70.00
60.00
66.67
74.29
Std. Dev.
17.54
15.12
10.69
19.66
11.55
13.80
10.00
11.55
14.14
11.55
19.02
Page 52
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10c Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with the Child Support Agency?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
Sample Size
Q.10.c) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
the Child Support Agency?Is
Very satisfied
that totally, very or
somewhat?
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
8
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
6.1%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
60
6
5
6
1
6
2
4
2
3
45.8%
60.0%
62.5%
66.7%
16.7%
54.5%
33.3%
33.3%
28.6%
60.0%
Somewhat satisfied
48
2
1
2
4
3
4
5
3
2
36.6%
20.0%
12.5%
22.2%
66.7%
27.3%
66.7%
41.7%
42.9%
40.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
5.3%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
4
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3.1%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
131
10
8
9
6
11
6
12
7
5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
68
7
5
7
1
7
2
4
2
3
53.1%
70.0%
62.5%
77.8%
16.7%
63.6%
33.3%
36.4%
28.6%
60.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
48
2
1
2
4
3
4
5
3
2
37.5%
20.0%
12.5%
22.2%
66.7%
27.3%
66.7%
45.5%
42.9%
40.0%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
5.5%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
18.2%
14.3%
.0%
5
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
3.9%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
16.7%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
CSI
69.06
74.00
62.50
77.78
53.33
70.91
66.67
63.64
57.14
72.00
Std. Dev.
17.54
16.47
27.12
12.02
27.33
20.71
10.33
15.02
21.38
10.95
Q.7d At what level do you deal with Australian Hearing, is it?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
3
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10
4
5
1
3
0
0
4
2
1
28.6%
23.5%
38.5%
20.0%
21.4%
.0%
.0%
66.7%
25.0%
33.3%
25
13
8
4
11
2
1
3
6
2
71.4%
76.5%
61.5%
80.0%
78.6%
66.7%
100.0%
50.0%
75.0%
66.7%
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 53
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7d At what level do you deal with Australian Hearing, is it?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
Profit
35
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
3.4%
3.8%
.0%
10
1
6
3
1
8
7
3
28.6%
50.0%
33.3%
20.0%
20.0%
27.6%
26.9%
33.3%
National
State
Local
25
1
13
11
4
21
19
6
71.4%
50.0%
72.2%
73.3%
80.0%
72.4%
73.1%
66.7%
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
35
100.0%
Q.7d At what level do you deal with Australian Hearing, is it?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Ararat
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
Broadmeado
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Fairfield
3
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
3
0
0
33.3% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
2
3
10
0
1
0
1
28.6%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
25
2
2
0
2
2
71.4% 100.0%
66.7%
.0%
66.7%
66.7%
3
1
3
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
35
2
100.0% 100.0%
3
1
33.3% 100.0% 100.0%
3
2
3
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.7d At what level do you deal with Australian Hearing, is it?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Woodridge
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
28.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
25
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
71.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
66.7%
66.7%
100.0%
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7d At what level do you deal with Australian Hearing, is it?
Test Sites 2
Wyong
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
2
National
0
.0%
State
1
50.0%
Local
1
50.0%
TOTAL
2
100.0%
Page 54
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8d What are the strengths of your relationship with Australian Hearing?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Metropolitan
area
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
11
6
4
1
5
0
1
2
3
3
0
31.4%
35.3%
30.8%
20.0%
35.7%
.0% 100.0%
33.3%
37.5%
.0%
10
6
3
1
3
0
0
3
3
1
28.6%
35.3%
23.1%
20.0%
21.4%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
37.5%
33.3%
6
2
3
1
2
0
0
0
3
1
17.1%
11.8%
23.1%
20.0%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
37.5%
33.3%
9
8
0
1
3
1
0
2
2
1
25.7%
47.1%
.0%
20.0%
21.4%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
25.0%
33.3%
5
5
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
14.3%
29.4%
.0%
.0%
21.4%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
4
2
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
11.4%
11.8%
15.4%
.0%
21.4%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
2
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
11.4%
11.8%
15.4%
.0%
14.3%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5.7%
11.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
12.5%
.0%
0
1
1
0
0
.0% 100.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
4
1
3
0
2
11.4%
5.9%
23.1%
.0%
14.3%
5
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
3
1
14.3%
11.8%
7.7%
40.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
37.5%
33.3%
5
14
3
1
6
8
3
35
17
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.8d What are the strengths of your relationship with Australian Hearing?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
35
2
18
15
5
29
26
11
1
4
6
1
10
9
9
2
31.4%
50.0%
22.2%
40.0%
20.0%
34.5%
34.6%
22.2%
10
0
6
4
0
9
7
3
28.6%
.0%
33.3%
26.7%
.0%
31.0%
26.9%
33.3%
6
1
3
2
1
5
2
4
17.1%
50.0%
16.7%
13.3%
20.0%
17.2%
7.7%
44.4%
9
0
6
3
1
8
8
1
25.7%
.0%
33.3%
20.0%
20.0%
27.6%
30.8%
11.1%
5
0
3
2
1
4
5
0
14.3%
.0%
16.7%
13.3%
20.0%
13.8%
19.2%
.0%
4
0
1
3
0
4
3
1
11.4%
.0%
5.6%
20.0%
.0%
13.8%
11.5%
11.1%
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2.9%
.0%
5.6%
.0%
.0%
3.4%
.0%
11.1%
4
0
1
3
1
3
3
1
11.4%
.0%
5.6%
20.0%
20.0%
10.3%
11.5%
11.1%
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
13.3%
.0%
6.9%
7.7%
.0%
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
0
11.4%
50.0%
11.1%
6.7%
40.0%
6.9%
15.4%
.0%
5
0
2
3
0
5
3
2
14.3%
.0%
11.1%
20.0%
.0%
17.2%
11.5%
22.2%
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35
100.0%
Page 55
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8d What are the strengths of your relationship with Medicare?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
Broadmeado
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Fairfield
3
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
11
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
31.4%
50.0%
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
10
1
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
28.6%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
66.7%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
17.1%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
25.7%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
5
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
14.3%
.0%
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
11.4%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
11.4%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
11.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
50.0%
33.3%
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
.0% 100.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
3
2
3
5
0
14.3%
.0%
35
2
100.0% 100.0%
1
3
100.0% 100.0%
3
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 56
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8d What are the strengths of your relationship with Australian Hearing?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Woodridge Wyong
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
11
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
31.4%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0% 100.0%
10
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
28.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
17.1%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
50.0%
9
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
25.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
11.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
50.0%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
11.4%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.4%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
66.7%
.0%
.0%
1
2
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 57
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8d
SPECIFY: Other strengths of your relationship with Australian Hearing
Q.8.d) SPECIFY OTHER STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
RESPECTFUL AND A REFLECTION OF A GOOD HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE.
INVITING GUEST SPEAKERS
OUR RELATIONSHIP IS BASED ON PHONING THEM FOR ASSISTANCE.
WHEN WE REQUIRE THEIR SERVICE THEY DELIVER.
Q.9d Are there any aspects of your relationship with Australian Hearing that could be improved?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Total
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
33.3% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
1
0
1
0
5.7%
5.9%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
7.1%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
0
6
8
3
30
16
10
4
12
1
85.7%
94.1%
76.9%
80.0%
85.7%
33.3%
5
14
3
35
17
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
1
6
8
3
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.9d Are there any aspects of your relationship with Australian Hearing that could be improved?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
35
2
18
15
5
29
26
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
9
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
3.4%
3.8%
.0%
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
20.0%
.0%
3.8%
.0%
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
13.3%
.0%
6.9%
7.7%
.0%
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
5.7%
.0%
5.6%
6.7%
.0%
6.9%
.0%
22.2%
30
2
17
11
4
25
23
7
85.7%
100.0%
94.4%
73.3%
80.0%
86.2%
88.5%
77.8%
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35
100.0%
Page 58
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9d Are there any aspects of your relationship with Australian Hearing that could be improved?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Other (specify)
None
Ararat
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
Broadmeado
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Fairfield
3
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
30
2
3
0
3
3
3
2
3
85.7%
100.0%
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.9d Are there any aspects of your relationship with Australian Hearing that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Q.9d
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Woodridge Wyong
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5.7%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
30
1
0
0
3
2
3
1
1
85.7%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
SPECIFY: Other aspects of your relationship with Australian Hearing that could be improved
Q.9.d) SPECIFY OTHER ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING THAT COULD
BE IMPROVED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
AUSTRALIAN HEARING SHOULD BE INVITED TO THE MEETINGS HELD AT CENTRELINK
NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES
Page 59
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10d Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Australian Hearing?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
Q.10.d) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Australian Hearing?Is that
Very satisfied
totally, very or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Total
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
35
17
13
5
14
3
1
6
8
5
4
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
14.3%
23.5%
7.7%
.0%
7.1%
33.3%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
2
5
3
33.3% 100.0%
33.3%
24
11
11
2
12
68.6%
64.7%
84.6%
40.0%
85.7%
3
62.5% 100.0%
4
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
11.4%
5.9%
7.7%
40.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
25.0%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.9%
5.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
5
14
3
1
6
8
3
35
17
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
29
15
12
2
13
85.3%
93.8%
92.3%
40.0%
92.9%
1
5
66.7% 100.0%
2
83.3%
5
3
71.4% 100.0%
4
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
11.8%
6.3%
7.7%
40.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
28.6%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
79.41
83.75
80.00
64.00
80.00
73.33
80.00
86.67
74.29
80.00
Std. Dev.
12.54
10.88
8.16
16.73
7.84
16.33
9.76
.00
30.55 .
Q.10d Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Australian Hearing?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
Q.10.d) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Australian Hearing?Is that
Very satisfied
totally, very or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
Australian Hearing regularity
Weekly or
more often
Less than
once a week
35
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
2
5
0
3
2
0
5
5
0
0
5
14.3%
.0%
16.7%
13.3%
.0%
17.2%
19.2%
.0%
.0%
15.2%
33
24
2
11
11
4
19
16
8
2
22
68.6%
100.0%
61.1%
73.3%
80.0%
65.5%
61.5%
88.9%
100.0%
66.7%
4
0
4
0
1
3
4
0
0
4
11.4%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
20.0%
10.3%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
12.1%
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
3.4%
3.8%
.0%
.0%
3.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
3.4%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
3.0%
2
18
15
5
29
26
9
2
33
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
29
2
14
13
4
24
21
8
2
27
85.3%
100.0%
77.8%
92.9%
80.0%
85.7%
80.8%
100.0%
100.0%
84.4%
4
0
4
0
1
3
4
0
0
4
11.8%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
20.0%
10.7%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2.9%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
3.6%
3.8%
.0%
.0%
3.1%
CSI
79.41
80.00
78.89
80.00
76.00
80.00
79.23
80.00
80.00
79.38
Std. Dev.
12.54
.00
12.78
13.59
8.94
13.33
14.40
.00
.00
12.94
Page 60
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10d Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Australian Hearing?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
Q.10.d) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Australian Hearing?Is that
Very satisfied
totally, very or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Burnie
Cowra
Fairfield
3
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
1
3
24
1
2
0
0
2
2
68.6%
50.0%
66.7%
.0%
.0%
66.7%
66.7%
50.0% 100.0%
4
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
11.4%
50.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.0% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
2.9%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
35
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
29
1
2
0
3
2
85.3%
50.0%
66.7%
.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2
2
3
66.7% 100.0% 100.0%
4
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
11.8%
50.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.0% 100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.00
80.00
73.33
90.00
80.00
.00
.00
11.55
14.14
.00
1
0
2.9%
.0%
CSI
79.41
70.00
73.33
Std. Dev.
12.54
14.14
11.55 .
40.00
Q.10d Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with Australian Hearing?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH AUSTRALIAN HEARING
Sample Size
Q.10.d) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
Australian Hearing?Is that
Very satisfied
totally, very or somewhat?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Woodridge Wyong
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
0
2
24
1
1
1
3
3
2
68.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
2
.0% 100.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
11.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
2
35
1
1
1
3
3
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
29
1
1
1
3
3
2
85.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0% 100.0%
1
2
100.0% 100.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
11.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
79.41
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
73.33
100.00
80.00
Std. Dev.
12.54 .
.00
.00
80.00
.
.
11.55 .
.00
Page 61
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7e At what level do you deal with CRS Australia, is it?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
10
5
5
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
11.6%
10.4%
18.5%
.0%
8.7%
16.7%
9.1%
22.2%
8.7%
12.5%
19
11
6
2
3
1
3
5
6
1
22.1%
22.9%
22.2%
18.2%
13.0%
8.3%
27.3%
55.6%
26.1%
12.5%
18
8
National
State
Local
73
43
21
9
22
11
9
5
84.9%
89.6%
77.8%
81.8%
95.7%
91.7%
81.8%
55.6%
TOTAL
78.3% 100.0%
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.7e At what level do you deal with CRS Australia, is it?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
86
3
49
34
6
79
61
10
1
7
2
1
9
6
4
11.6%
33.3%
14.3%
5.9%
16.7%
11.4%
9.8%
16.0%
National
State
25
19
0
13
6
3
16
17
2
22.1%
.0%
26.5%
17.6%
50.0%
20.3%
27.9%
8.0%
73
3
40
30
4
68
50
23
84.9%
100.0%
81.6%
88.2%
66.7%
86.1%
82.0%
92.0%
86
3
49
34
6
79
61
25
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Local
TOTAL
Q.7e At what level do you deal with CRS Australia, is it?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
National
State
Local
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
4
7
10
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
11.6%
.0%
25.0%
16.7%
16.7%
.0%
33.3%
16.7%
25.0%
14.3%
.0%
3
19
3
1
0
2
0
3
2
0
3
0
22.1%
37.5%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
.0%
42.9%
.0%
5
4
5
3
73
5
4
6
5
6
0
84.9%
62.5%
100.0%
100.0%
83.3%
100.0%
.0%
83.3% 100.0%
71.4% 100.0%
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 62
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.7e At what level do you deal with CRS Australia, is it?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
1
10
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
11.6%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
National
State
3
19
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
22.1%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
1
3
Local
73
5
4
4
4
2
3
4
84.9%
100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
100.0%
100.0%
75.0%
80.0%
TOTAL
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
1
3
100.0% 100.0%
Q.8e What are the strengths of your relationship with CRS Australia?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
23
15
6
2
7
3
3
2
7
8
1
26.7%
31.3%
22.2%
18.2%
30.4%
25.0%
27.3%
22.2%
30.4%
12.5%
20
9
6
5
6
2
4
0
5
3
23.3%
18.8%
22.2%
45.5%
26.1%
16.7%
36.4%
.0%
21.7%
37.5%
15
7
6
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
17.4%
14.6%
22.2%
18.2%
34.8%
16.7%
9.1%
.0%
8.7%
25.0%
21
12
6
3
5
4
4
2
4
2
24.4%
25.0%
22.2%
27.3%
21.7%
33.3%
36.4%
22.2%
17.4%
25.0%
19
12
6
1
4
2
0
4
7
2
22.1%
25.0%
22.2%
9.1%
17.4%
16.7%
.0%
44.4%
30.4%
25.0%
6
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
7.0%
6.3%
11.1%
.0%
13.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
13.0%
.0%
6
3
3
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
7.0%
6.3%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
18.2%
11.1%
4.3%
12.5%
14
8
5
1
4
2
2
1
4
1
16.3%
16.7%
18.5%
9.1%
17.4%
16.7%
18.2%
11.1%
17.4%
12.5%
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2.3%
2.1%
.0%
9.1%
4.3%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
3
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
5.8%
6.3%
7.4%
.0%
4.3%
16.7%
.0%
11.1%
4.3%
.0%
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2.3%
2.1%
3.7%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
12
7
3
2
4
1
2
2
3
0
14.0%
14.6%
11.1%
18.2%
17.4%
8.3%
18.2%
22.2%
13.0%
.0%
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
86
48
27
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 63
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8e What are the strengths of your relationship with CRS Australia?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
86
3
49
34
6
79
61
23
0
12
11
1
21
17
25
6
26.7%
.0%
24.5%
32.4%
16.7%
26.6%
27.9%
24.0%
20
0
12
8
1
19
17
3
23.3%
.0%
24.5%
23.5%
16.7%
24.1%
27.9%
12.0%
15
1
4
10
1
13
10
5
17.4%
33.3%
8.2%
29.4%
16.7%
16.5%
16.4%
20.0%
21
1
15
5
3
18
16
5
24.4%
33.3%
30.6%
14.7%
50.0%
22.8%
26.2%
20.0%
19
1
11
7
0
19
16
3
22.1%
33.3%
22.4%
20.6%
.0%
24.1%
26.2%
12.0%
6
0
4
2
0
6
6
0
7.0%
.0%
8.2%
5.9%
.0%
7.6%
9.8%
.0%
6
1
4
1
2
4
4
2
7.0%
33.3%
8.2%
2.9%
33.3%
5.1%
6.6%
8.0%
14
0
9
5
0
14
12
2
16.3%
.0%
18.4%
14.7%
.0%
17.7%
19.7%
8.0%
2
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
2.3%
.0%
4.1%
.0%
.0%
2.5%
1.6%
4.0%
5
1
4
0
0
5
3
2
5.8%
33.3%
8.2%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
4.9%
8.0%
2
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
2.3%
.0%
2.0%
2.9%
.0%
1.3%
3.3%
.0%
12
0
5
7
1
11
8
4
14.0%
.0%
10.2%
20.6%
16.7%
13.9%
13.1%
16.0%
3
49
34
6
79
61
25
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86
100.0%
Page 64
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8e What are the strengths of your relationship with CRS Australia?
Test Sites 1
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Total
Burnie
Cowra
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
23
3
1
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
2
26.7%
37.5%
25.0%
16.7%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
16.7%
25.0%
28.6%
66.7%
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
3
20
3
0
2
0
0
0
4
1
4
0
23.3%
37.5%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
66.7%
25.0%
57.1%
.0%
Easy to access
15
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
17.4%
12.5%
50.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
14.3%
33.3%
Well established relationship
21
1
0
4
2
1
0
3
1
4
1
24.4%
12.5%
.0%
66.7%
33.3%
16.7%
.0%
50.0%
25.0%
57.1%
33.3%
Cooperation/shared goals
19
1
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
1
22.1%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
50.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
Regular contact
6
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
7.0%
12.5%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Personal/ one on one contact
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
7.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
25.0%
28.6%
.0%
Cross organisational
awareness
14
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
16.3%
12.5%
50.0%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Ability to access other
networks
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Information sharing
5
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5.8%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
16.7%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Other (specify)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
None
12
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
14.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.8e What are the strengths of your relationship with CRS Australia?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Responsive
Open communication
Easy to access
Well established relationship
Cooperation/shared goals
Regular contact
Personal/ one on one contact
Cross organisational
awareness
Ability to access other
networks
Information sharing
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
1
23
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
1
26.7%
20.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
50.0%
50.0%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
20
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
23.3%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
15
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
17.4%
40.0%
.0%
20.0%
25.0%
100.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
21
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
24.4%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
19
0
0
2
1
0
1
3
0
2
22.1%
.0%
.0%
40.0%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
60.0%
.0%
66.7%
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
6
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
16.3%
.0%
50.0%
20.0%
25.0%
50.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
33.3%
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.8%
.0%
.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
14.0%
40.0%
50.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
1
3
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 65
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.8e
SPECIFY: Other strengths of your relationship with CRS Australia
Q.8.e) SPECIFY OTHER STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CRS AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
GOOD FOLLOWUP
A GREAT PARTNERSHIP.
Q.9e Are there any aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be improved?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
4
3
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
8
1
4.7%
6.3%
.0%
9.1%
4.3%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
12.5%
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
4
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
4.7%
6.3%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
13.0%
12.5%
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1.2%
2.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2.3%
2.1%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.7%
.0%
8
3
2
3
3
0
1
1
3
0
9.3%
6.3%
7.4%
27.3%
13.0%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
13.0%
.0%
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
3.5%
4.2%
3.7%
.0%
8.7%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2.3%
4.2%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.2%
2.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
8
4
1
3
1
1
1
0
4
1
9.3%
8.3%
3.7%
27.3%
4.3%
8.3%
9.1%
.0%
17.4%
12.5%
6
4
1
1
4
0
1
0
1
0
7.0%
8.3%
3.7%
9.1%
17.4%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
60
32
23
5
14
11
7
7
15
6
69.8%
66.7%
85.2%
45.5%
60.9%
91.7%
63.6%
77.8%
65.2%
75.0%
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
86
48
27
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 66
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9e Are there any aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be improved?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
86
3
49
34
6
79
61
4
0
3
1
1
3
4
25
0
4.7%
.0%
6.1%
2.9%
16.7%
3.8%
6.6%
.0%
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1.2%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
.0%
1.3%
1.6%
.0%
4
0
3
1
0
4
3
1
4.7%
.0%
6.1%
2.9%
.0%
5.1%
4.9%
4.0%
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1.2%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
.0%
1.3%
1.6%
.0%
2
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
2.3%
.0%
2.0%
2.9%
.0%
2.5%
3.3%
.0%
8
0
2
6
0
8
6
2
9.3%
.0%
4.1%
17.6%
.0%
10.1%
9.8%
8.0%
3
0
1
2
0
3
3
0
3.5%
.0%
2.0%
5.9%
.0%
3.8%
4.9%
.0%
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2.3%
.0%
4.1%
.0%
.0%
2.5%
3.3%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
1.3%
1.6%
.0%
8
0
4
4
0
8
8
0
9.3%
.0%
8.2%
11.8%
.0%
10.1%
13.1%
.0%
6
0
4
2
1
5
3
3
7.0%
.0%
8.2%
5.9%
16.7%
6.3%
4.9%
12.0%
60
3
35
22
4
55
41
19
69.8%
100.0%
71.4%
64.7%
66.7%
69.6%
67.2%
76.0%
3
49
34
6
79
61
25
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86
100.0%
Page 67
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9e Are there any aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be improved?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Burnie
Cowra
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
4.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Unwilling to share information
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4.7%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
Timeliness of responses
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Limited understanding of our
organisation
8
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.3%
25.0%
25.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Limited understanding of
their organisation
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2.3%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
Need early input in decision
making
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
8
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
9.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
Other (specify)
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
7.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
33.3%
2
6
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
50.0% 100.0%
66.7%
66.7% 100.0%
66.7%
75.0%
57.1%
66.7%
6
4
7
3
None
60
5
69.8%
62.5%
86
8
TOTAL
100.0% 100.0%
6
6
100.0% 100.0%
4
100.0%
6
3
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.9e Are there any aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Finding the right person to
talk to
Lack of shared goals
Unwilling to share information
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
Timeliness of responses
Limited understanding of our
organisation
Limited understanding of
their organisation
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
Need early input in decision
making
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
Other (specify)
None
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
4.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
9.3%
20.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
9.3%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
25.0%
.0%
25.0%
20.0%
.0%
6
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
7.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
60
4
3
4
3
0
3
3
1
69.8%
80.0%
75.0%
80.0%
75.0%
.0%
75.0%
60.0%
100.0%
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
1
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 68
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.9e Are there any aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be
improved?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Wyong
3
Finding the right person to
talk to
0
.0%
Lack of shared goals
0
.0%
Unwilling to share information
0
.0%
Privacy constraints prevent
information sharing
0
.0%
Timeliness of responses
0
.0%
Limited understanding of our
organisation
1
33.3%
Limited understanding of
their organisation
1
33.3%
Lack of involvement in policy
decisions
0
.0%
Need early input in decision
making
0
.0%
Limited capacity/resources to
engage
0
.0%
Other (specify)
0
.0%
None
2
66.7%
TOTAL
3
100.0%
Q.9e
SPECIFY: Other aspects of your relationship with CRS Australia that could be improved
Q.9.e) SPECIFY OTHER ASPECT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CRS AUSTRALIA THAT COULD BE
IMPROVED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
MORE COMMUNICATION IN JOB CAPACITY ASSESSMENT. DMI ASSESSMENTS
HAVE MORE NETWORK MEETINGS
DEVELOP A FORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
TOUCH BASE WITH THEM AGAIN AND GET SOME FEEDBACK WITH THE PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS.
DO SOME FOLLOW UP
NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES
CONSIDERATION FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. THEY MIGHT DO A SKILLS
ANALYSIS, BUT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE QUITE HIGH. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE HAS
DEPRESSION, THEY CAN'T START WORK AT 9AM BECAUSE THEY FIND IT HARD TO GET OUT OF
BED.
Page 69
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10e Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with CRS Australia?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan
area
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
Q.10.e) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
CRS Australia?
Very satisfied
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
86
48
27
11
23
12
11
9
23
7
2
3
2
3
1
0
1
2
8
0
8.1%
4.2%
11.1%
18.2%
13.0%
8.3%
.0%
11.1%
8.7%
.0%
48
26
19
3
9
8
7
6
12
6
55.8%
54.2%
70.4%
27.3%
39.1%
66.7%
63.6%
66.7%
52.2%
75.0%
Somewhat satisfied
26
16
4
6
10
2
4
2
6
2
30.2%
33.3%
14.8%
54.5%
43.5%
16.7%
36.4%
22.2%
26.1%
25.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3.5%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.7%
.0%
(Don't know)
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2.3%
2.1%
3.7%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
11
23
12
11
9
23
8
TOTAL
86
48
27
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
55
28
22
5
12
9
7
7
14
6
65.5%
59.6%
84.6%
45.5%
52.2%
81.8%
63.6%
77.8%
63.6%
75.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
26
16
4
6
10
2
4
2
6
2
31.0%
34.0%
15.4%
54.5%
43.5%
18.2%
36.4%
22.2%
27.3%
25.0%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3.6%
6.4%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
CSI
74.05
71.49
79.23
72.73
72.17
78.18
72.73
77.78
72.73
75.00
Std. Dev.
13.45
13.67
10.55
16.18
15.65
10.79
10.09
12.02
15.79
9.26
Q.10e Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with CRS Australia?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
Q.10.e) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
CRS Australia?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Total
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
Not for profit coordination coordination
CRS Australian regularity
Weekly or
more often
Less than
once a week
86
3
49
34
6
79
61
25
14
7
1
4
2
1
6
5
2
1
6
8.1%
33.3%
8.2%
5.9%
16.7%
7.6%
8.2%
8.0%
7.1%
8.3%
72
48
2
29
17
3
44
34
14
5
43
55.8%
66.7%
59.2%
50.0%
50.0%
55.7%
55.7%
56.0%
35.7%
59.7%
26
0
15
11
2
24
18
8
6
20
30.2%
.0%
30.6%
32.4%
33.3%
30.4%
29.5%
32.0%
42.9%
27.8%
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
2
1
3.5%
.0%
.0%
8.8%
.0%
3.8%
4.9%
.0%
14.3%
1.4%
2
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
2.3%
.0%
2.0%
2.9%
.0%
2.5%
1.6%
4.0%
.0%
2.8%
3
49
34
6
79
61
25
14
72
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
55
3
33
19
4
50
39
16
6
49
65.5%
100.0%
68.8%
57.6%
66.7%
64.9%
65.0%
66.7%
42.9%
70.0%
26
0
15
11
2
24
18
8
6
20
31.0%
.0%
31.3%
33.3%
33.3%
31.2%
30.0%
33.3%
42.9%
28.6%
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
2
1
3.6%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
3.9%
5.0%
.0%
14.3%
1.4%
CSI
74.05
86.67
75.42
70.91
76.67
73.77
73.67
75.00
67.14
75.43
Std. Dev.
13.45
11.55
11.84
15.08
15.06
13.48
14.02
12.16
16.84
12.36
Page 70
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.10e Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with CRS Australia?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
Q.10.e) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
CRS Australia?
Very satisfied
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
7
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
8.1%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
6
3
2
3
2
3
4
1
50.0% 100.0%
50.0%
33.3% 100.0%
33.3%
75.0%
57.1%
33.3%
48
3
55.8%
37.5%
3
26
3
1
0
2
2
0
3
1
3
2
30.2%
37.5%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
33.3%
.0%
50.0%
25.0%
42.9%
66.7%
Somewhat dissatisfied
3
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3.5%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
(Don't know)
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
86
8
4
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
3
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Burnie
86
Somewhat satisfied
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
55
5
65.5%
62.5%
% Somewhat Satisfied
6
4
50.0% 100.0%
2
66.7%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2
100.0% 100.0%
3
3
3
4
1
40.0% 100.0%
50.0%
75.0%
57.1%
33.3%
26
3
1
0
2
2
0
3
1
3
2
31.0%
37.5%
25.0%
.0%
33.3%
40.0%
.0%
50.0%
25.0%
42.9%
66.7%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3.6%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
74.05
77.50
65.00
80.00
76.67
64.00
80.00
73.33
75.00
71.43
66.67
Std. Dev.
13.45
16.69
19.15
.00
15.06
16.73
.00
16.33
10.00
10.69
11.55
Q.10e Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your working relationship with CRS Australia?
Test Sites 2
BASE: HAVE CONTACT WITH CRS AUSTRALIA
Sample Size
Q.10.e) Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied with
your working relationship with
CRS Australia?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
1
7
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
8.1%
20.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
48
2
3
2
3
1
3
4
0
1
55.8%
40.0%
75.0%
40.0%
75.0%
50.0%
75.0%
80.0%
.0%
33.3%
26
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
30.2%
40.0%
25.0%
20.0%
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
3
86
5
4
5
4
2
4
5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
55
3
3
3
3
1
3
4
0
2
65.5%
60.0%
75.0%
75.0%
75.0%
50.0%
75.0%
80.0%
.0%
66.7%
26
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
31.0%
40.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
.0%
100.0%
33.3%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
74.05
76.00
75.00
80.00
75.00
70.00
75.00
72.00
60.00
80.00
Std. Dev.
13.45
16.73
10.00
16.33
10.00
14.14
10.00
17.89 .
20.00
Page 71
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.11 Does your organisation ever receive referrals from...?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Metropolitan
area
Centrelink
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
286
161
89
36
92
46
29
29
61
192
106
66
20
66
36
21
15
36
18
67.1%
65.8%
74.2%
55.6%
71.7%
78.3%
72.4%
51.7%
59.0%
62.1%
Medicare
29
14
7
5
2
6
2
1
3
2
0
4.9%
4.3%
5.6%
5.6%
6.5%
4.3%
3.4%
10.3%
3.3%
.0%
Child Support
Agency
49
26
15
8
14
14
4
4
12
1
17.1%
16.1%
16.9%
22.2%
15.2%
30.4%
13.8%
13.8%
19.7%
3.4%
Australian Hearing
6
2
3
1
3
2
0
0
1
0
2.1%
1.2%
3.4%
2.8%
3.3%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
CRS Australia
44
26
10
8
14
5
4
4
13
4
15.4%
16.1%
11.2%
22.2%
15.2%
10.9%
13.8%
13.8%
21.3%
13.8%
None of the above
TOTAL
Regional
centre
78
45
21
12
24
7
5
13
19
10
27.3%
28.0%
23.6%
33.3%
26.1%
15.2%
17.2%
44.8%
31.1%
34.5%
36
92
46
29
29
61
29
286
161
89
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.11 Does your organisation ever receive referrals from...?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
286
13
145
128
21
254
3
193
192
13
88
91
14
173
2
140
93
52
67.1%
100.0%
60.7%
71.1%
66.7%
68.1%
66.7%
72.5%
55.9%
14
0
5
9
0
14
0
11
3
4.9%
.0%
3.4%
7.0%
.0%
5.5%
.0%
5.7%
3.2%
49
6
16
27
1
47
0
34
15
17.1%
46.2%
11.0%
21.1%
4.8%
18.5%
.0%
17.6%
16.1%
6
0
2
4
0
6
0
3
3
2.1%
.0%
1.4%
3.1%
.0%
2.4%
.0%
1.6%
3.2%
44
2
25
17
4
40
0
31
13
15.4%
15.4%
17.2%
13.3%
19.0%
15.7%
.0%
16.1%
14.0%
78
0
45
33
6
66
1
41
37
27.3%
.0%
31.0%
25.8%
28.6%
26.0%
33.3%
21.2%
39.8%
13
145
128
21
254
3
193
93
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
286
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 72
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.11 Does your organisation ever receive referrals from...?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
286
15
16
16
15
15
14
16
15
16
192
6
13
10
7
10
8
11
12
11
8
67.1%
40.0%
81.3%
62.5%
46.7%
66.7% 57.1%
68.8%
80.0%
68.8%
50.0%
None of the above
TOTAL
16
14
0
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
4.9%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
6.7%
13.3%
14.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
49
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
17.1%
13.3%
12.5%
25.0%
13.3%
20.0%
14.3%
12.5%
6.7%
6.3%
6.3%
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
Cowra Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2.1%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
44
4
3
3
3
5
1
5
1
4
2
15.4% 26.7%
18.8%
18.8%
20.0%
33.3%
7.1%
31.3%
6.7%
25.0%
12.5%
2
6
5
2
3
8
13.3% 42.9%
31.3%
13.3%
18.8%
50.0%
16
15
16
16
8
3
4
7
27.3% 53.3%
78
18.8%
25.0%
46.7%
16
16
15
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
286
15
1.0E2% 1.0E2%
15
14
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Q.11 Does your organisation ever receive referrals from...?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Centrelink
Medicare
Child Support
Agency
Australian Hearing
CRS Australia
None of the above
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
286
15
13
16
15
15
14
16
14
192
10
10
13
6
14
10
10
13
14
10
67.1%
66.7%
76.9%
81.3%
40.0%
93.3%
71.4%
62.5%
92.9%
71.4%
14
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
4.9%
.0%
7.7%
6.3%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
49
3
3
5
0
6
3
4
5
0
17.1%
20.0%
23.1%
31.3%
.0%
40.0%
21.4%
25.0%
35.7%
.0%
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2.1%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
44
1
0
2
3
2
2
2
0
1
15.4%
6.7%
.0%
12.5%
20.0%
13.3%
14.3%
12.5%
.0%
7.1%
78
3
2
2
9
1
4
4
1
4
27.3%
20.0%
15.4%
12.5%
60.0%
6.7%
28.6%
25.0%
7.1%
28.6%
14
14
286
15
13
16
15
15
14
16
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Page 73
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12a. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were made aware of the services provided by your organisation?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12a. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were made aware of
the services provided by your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
30
18
9
3
14
5
4
1
3
19
3
14.4%
15.5%
13.2%
12.5%
20.6%
12.8%
16.7%
6.3%
7.1%
15.8%
86
41
30
15
27
22
8
7
17
5
41.3%
35.3%
44.1%
62.5%
39.7%
56.4%
33.3%
43.8%
40.5%
26.3%
64
39
21
4
18
9
10
5
17
5
30.8%
33.6%
30.9%
16.7%
26.5%
23.1%
41.7%
31.3%
40.5%
26.3%
23
16
6
1
6
3
2
3
4
5
11.1%
13.8%
8.8%
4.2%
8.8%
7.7%
8.3%
18.8%
9.5%
26.3%
4
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
4.2%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
5.3%
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
117
59
40
18
42
27
12
8
20
8
56.3%
50.9%
58.8%
75.0%
61.8%
69.2%
50.0%
50.0%
47.6%
42.1%
64
39
21
4
18
9
10
5
17
5
30.8%
33.6%
30.9%
16.7%
26.5%
23.1%
41.7%
31.3%
40.5%
26.3%
23
16
6
1
6
3
2
3
4
5
11.1%
13.8%
8.8%
4.2%
8.8%
7.7%
8.3%
18.8%
9.5%
26.3%
4
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
4.2%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
5.3%
CSI
71.15
69.83
72.06
75.00
73.53
74.87
71.67
67.50
68.10
64.21
Std. Dev.
18.72
19.47
17.67
17.94
19.98
15.71
17.61
17.70
17.14
23.64
Page 74
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12a. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were made aware of the services provided by your organisation?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12a. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were made aware of
the services provided by your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
30
3
9
18
2
28
0
22
8
14.4%
23.1%
9.0%
18.9%
13.3%
14.9%
.0%
14.5%
14.3%
76
2
52
34
40.4% 100.0%
34.2%
60.7%
86
8
47
31
6
41.3%
61.5%
47.0%
32.6%
40.0%
56
64
2
28
34
4
59
0
52
12
30.8%
15.4%
28.0%
35.8%
26.7%
31.4%
.0%
34.2%
21.4%
Somewhat dissatisfied
23
0
14
9
3
20
0
21
2
11.1%
.0%
14.0%
9.5%
20.0%
10.6%
.0%
13.8%
3.6%
Very dissatisfied
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
4
0
1.9%
.0%
2.0%
2.1%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
2.6%
.0%
(Don't know)
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.5%
.0%
.7%
.0%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Both
Want greater coordination
208
Somewhat satisfied
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
117
11
56
50
8
56.3%
84.6%
56.0%
52.6%
53.3%
% Somewhat Satisfied
2
74
43
55.9% 100.0%
105
49.0%
75.4%
64
2
28
34
4
59
0
52
12
30.8%
15.4%
28.0%
35.8%
26.7%
31.4%
.0%
34.4%
21.1%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
23
0
14
9
3
20
0
21
2
11.1%
.0%
14.0%
9.5%
20.0%
10.6%
.0%
13.9%
3.5%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
4
0
1.9%
.0%
2.0%
2.1%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
2.6%
.0%
CSI
71.15
81.54
69.40
71.58
69.33
71.17
80.00
68.87
77.19
Std. Dev.
18.72
12.81
18.30
19.48
19.81
18.86
.00
19.82
13.86
Q.12a. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were made aware of the services provided by your organisation?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12a. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were made aware of
the services provided by your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
Burnie
Cowra
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
30
0
4
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
14.4%
.0%
30.8%
16.7%
.0%
15.4%
12.5%
18.2%
15.4%
15.4%
12.5%
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
8
86
5
1
6
3
5
4
7
2
4
5
41.3%
71.4%
7.7%
50.0%
37.5%
38.5%
50.0%
63.6%
15.4%
30.8%
62.5%
64
2
4
3
4
6
1
1
4
6
2
30.8%
28.6%
30.8%
25.0%
50.0%
46.2%
12.5%
9.1%
30.8%
46.2%
25.0%
23
0
4
1
1
0
2
1
4
1
0
11.1%
.0%
30.8%
8.3%
12.5%
.0%
25.0%
9.1%
30.8%
7.7%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
117
5
5
8
3
7
5
9
4
6
6
56.3%
71.4%
38.5%
66.7%
37.5%
53.8%
62.5%
81.8%
30.8%
46.2%
75.0%
64
2
4
3
4
6
1
1
4
6
2
30.8%
28.6%
30.8%
25.0%
50.0%
46.2%
12.5%
9.1%
30.8%
46.2%
25.0%
23
0
4
1
1
0
2
1
4
1
0
11.1%
.0%
30.8%
8.3%
12.5%
.0%
25.0%
9.1%
30.8%
7.7%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
CSI
71.15
74.29
67.69
75.00
65.00
73.85
70.00
78.18
60.00
70.77
77.50
Std. Dev.
18.72
9.76
25.22
17.32
14.14
15.02
21.38
16.62
24.49
17.54
12.82
Page 75
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12a. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were made aware of the services provided by your organisation?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12a. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were made aware of
the services provided by your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
30
4
2
3
1
1
0
1
13
0
14.4%
33.3%
18.2%
21.4%
16.7%
7.1%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
86
4
4
7
3
6
2
5
9
41.3%
33.3%
36.4%
50.0%
50.0%
42.9%
20.0%
41.7%
69.2%
64
2
4
3
1
7
6
3
3
30.8%
16.7%
36.4%
21.4%
16.7%
50.0%
60.0%
25.0%
23.1%
23
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
7.1%
16.7%
.0%
10.0%
25.0%
7.7%
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.9%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
117
8
6
10
4
7
2
6
9
56.3%
72.7%
54.5%
71.4%
66.7%
50.0%
20.0%
50.0%
69.2%
64
2
4
3
1
7
6
3
3
30.8%
18.2%
36.4%
21.4%
16.7%
50.0%
60.0%
25.0%
23.1%
23
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
11.1%
.0%
9.1%
7.1%
16.7%
.0%
10.0%
25.0%
7.7%
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.9%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
71.15
78.18
72.73
77.14
73.33
71.43
58.00
66.67
72.31
Std. Dev.
18.72
24.42
18.49
17.29
20.66
12.92
17.51
19.69
13.01
Q.12a. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were made aware
of the services provided by your organisation?
Test Sites 2
Wyong
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
10
Q.12a. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were made aware of
the services provided by your
Very satisfied
organisation?
2
20.0%
4
40.0%
Somewhat satisfied
2
20.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied
1
10.0%
Very dissatisfied
1
10.0%
(Don't know)
0
.0%
TOTAL
10
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
7
63.6%
% Somewhat Satisfied
2
18.2%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
1
9.1%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
1
9.1%
CSI
70.91
Std. Dev.
24.27
Page 76
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12b. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12b. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were referred to the
right part of your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
38
21
12
5
17
7
6
1
3
4
17.6%
20.8%
25.0%
17.9% 25.0%
6.3%
7.1%
21.1%
21
6
18.3%
18.1%
105
49
41
15
33
23
50.5%
42.2%
60.3%
62.5%
48.5%
59.0%
12
10
50.0% 62.5%
19
50.0% 31.6%
51
36
13
2
16
8
5
3
15
4
24.5%
31.0%
19.1%
8.3%
23.5%
20.5%
20.8%
18.8%
35.7%
21.1%
8
6
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
3.8%
5.2%
1.5%
4.2%
1.5%
.0%
4.2%
6.3%
2.4%
21.1%
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1.4%
1.7%
.0%
4.2%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
5.3%
3
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1.4%
1.7%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
2.6%
.0%
6.3%
2.4%
.0%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
1.0E2%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Metropolitan
area
116
100.0%
68
100.0%
100.0%1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
143
70
53
20
50
30
18
11
24
10
69.8%
61.4%
79.1%
83.3%
73.5%
78.9%
75.0%
73.3%
58.5%
52.6%
3
15
4
20.0% 36.6%
21.1%
51
36
13
2
16
8
5
24.9%
31.6%
19.4%
8.3%
23.5%
21.1%
20.8%
8
6
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
4
3.9%
5.3%
1.5%
4.2%
1.5%
.0%
4.2%
6.7%
2.4%
21.1%
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1.5%
1.8%
.0%
4.2%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
5.3%
CSI
76.29
74.21
79.10
78.33
78.82
79.47
79.17
74.67
71.71
68.42
Std. Dev.
16.62
17.79
13.23
18.57
16.53
12.72
16.13
14.07
15.48
24.33
Page 77
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12b. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12b. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were referred to the
right part of your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Profit
Not for profit
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
38
3
16
19
4
34
0
27
11
18.3%
23.1%
16.0%
20.0%
26.7%
18.1%
.0%
17.8%
19.6%
56
105
8
56
41
9
92
1
72
33
50.5%
61.5%
56.0%
43.2%
60.0%
48.9%
50.0%
47.4%
58.9%
51
2
20
29
2
48
1
41
10
24.5%
15.4%
20.0%
30.5%
13.3%
25.5%
50.0%
27.0%
17.9%
Somewhat dissatisfied
8
0
3
5
0
8
0
7
1
3.8%
.0%
3.0%
5.3%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
4.6%
1.8%
Very dissatisfied
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
1.4%
.0%
2.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
(Don't know)
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
2
1
1.4%
.0%
3.0%
.0%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
1.3%
1.8%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Both
Want greater coordination
208
Somewhat satisfied
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
143
11
72
60
13
126
1
99
44
69.8%
84.6%
74.2%
63.2%
86.7%
68.1%
50.0%
66.0%
80.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
51
2
20
29
2
48
1
41
10
24.9%
15.4%
20.6%
30.5%
13.3%
25.9%
50.0%
27.3%
18.2%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
8
0
3
5
0
8
0
7
1
3.9%
.0%
3.1%
5.3%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
4.7%
1.8%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
1.5%
.0%
2.1%
1.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
CSI
76.29
81.54
76.70
75.16
82.67
75.78
70.00
75.07
79.64
Std. Dev.
16.62
12.81
16.25
17.43
12.80
16.99
14.14
17.48
13.60
Q.12b. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12b. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were referred to the
right part of your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
Burnie
Cowra
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
38
1
4
3
0
1
1
5
3
3
1
18.3%
14.3%
30.8%
25.0%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
45.5%
23.1%
23.1%
12.5%
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
8
105
4
3
7
4
5
6
5
3
6
5
50.5%
57.1%
23.1%
58.3%
50.0%
38.5%
75.0%
45.5%
23.1%
46.2%
62.5%
51
2
6
1
3
6
0
1
3
3
2
24.5%
28.6%
46.2%
8.3%
37.5%
46.2%
.0%
9.1%
23.1%
23.1%
25.0%
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
3.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
23.1%
7.7%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
143
5
7
10
4
69.8%
71.4%
53.8%
90.9%
50.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
6
100.0% 100.0%
7
10
6
9
6
50.0% 100.0%
90.9%
46.2%
69.2%
75.0%
51
2
6
1
3
6
0
1
3
3
2
24.9%
28.6%
46.2%
9.1%
37.5%
50.0%
.0%
9.1%
23.1%
23.1%
25.0%
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
3.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
23.1%
7.7%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
CSI
76.29
77.14
76.92
83.64
67.50
71.67
82.86
87.27
66.15
76.92
77.50
Std. Dev.
16.62
13.80
17.97
12.06
14.88
13.37
7.56
13.48
26.31
17.97
12.82
Page 78
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12b. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12b. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were referred to the
right part of your
Very satisfied
organisation?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
38
3
3
3
1
1
0
1
13
1
18.3%
25.0%
27.3%
21.4%
16.7%
7.1%
.0%
8.3%
7.7%
105
7
6
8
3
8
6
6
8
50.5%
58.3%
54.5%
57.1%
50.0%
57.1%
60.0%
50.0%
61.5%
51
1
2
3
1
4
2
5
4
24.5%
8.3%
18.2%
21.4%
16.7%
28.6%
20.0%
41.7%
30.8%
8
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3.8%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
7.1%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.4%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
143
10
9
11
4
9
6
7
9
69.8%
83.3%
81.8%
78.6%
66.7%
64.3%
60.0%
58.3%
69.2%
51
1
2
3
1
4
2
5
4
24.9%
8.3%
18.2%
21.4%
16.7%
28.6%
20.0%
41.7%
30.8%
8
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
7.1%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.5%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
76.29
78.33
81.82
80.00
73.33
72.86
66.00
73.33
75.38
Std. Dev.
16.62
21.67
14.01
13.59
20.66
14.90
21.19
13.03
11.98
Q.12b. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Clients were referred to the right part of your organisation?
Test Sites 2
Wyong
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
10
Q.12b. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Clients were referred to the
right part of your
Very satisfied
organisation?
3
30.0%
5
50.0%
Somewhat satisfied
2
20.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied
0
.0%
Very dissatisfied
0
.0%
(Don't know)
0
.0%
TOTAL
10
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
8
80.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
2
20.0%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
0
.0%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
0
.0%
CSI
82.00
Std. Dev.
14.76
Page 79
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12c. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The people referred were eligible to receive your services?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12c. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The people referred were
eligible to receive your
Very satisfied
services?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
48
27
13
8
25
8
8
2
2
19
3
23.1%
23.3%
19.1%
33.3%
36.8%
20.5%
33.3%
12.5%
4.8%
15.8%
94
47
38
9
25
22
7
7
24
9
45.2%
40.5%
55.9%
37.5%
36.8%
56.4%
29.2%
43.8%
57.1%
47.4%
52
32
13
7
17
6
8
5
13
3
25.0%
27.6%
19.1%
29.2%
25.0%
15.4%
33.3%
31.3%
31.0%
15.8%
10
6
4
0
1
2
1
1
3
2
4.8%
5.2%
5.9%
.0%
1.5%
5.1%
4.2%
6.3%
7.1%
10.5%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.5%
.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1.4%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.6%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
5.3%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
142
74
51
17
50
30
15
9
26
12
69.3%
65.5%
75.0%
70.8%
73.5%
78.9%
62.5%
60.0%
61.9%
66.7%
52
32
13
7
17
6
8
5
13
3
25.4%
28.3%
19.1%
29.2%
25.0%
15.8%
33.3%
33.3%
31.0%
16.7%
10
6
4
0
1
2
1
1
3
2
4.9%
5.3%
5.9%
.0%
1.5%
5.3%
4.2%
6.7%
7.1%
11.1%
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.5%
.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.6%
CSI
77.37
76.46
77.65
80.83
81.76
78.95
78.33
73.33
71.90
72.22
Std. Dev.
16.89
17.77
15.66
16.13
16.48
15.39
18.57
16.33
14.01
21.84
Page 80
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12c. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The people referred were eligible to receive your services?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12c. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The people referred were
eligible to receive your
Very satisfied
services?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
100
95
15
188
2
152
2
19
27
4
42
1
34
14
23.1%
15.4%
19.0%
28.4%
26.7%
22.3%
50.0%
22.4%
25.0%
56
94
8
54
32
9
83
0
65
29
45.2%
61.5%
54.0%
33.7%
60.0%
44.1%
.0%
42.8%
51.8%
52
3
20
29
2
49
1
40
12
25.0%
23.1%
20.0%
30.5%
13.3%
26.1%
50.0%
26.3%
21.4%
10
0
5
5
0
10
0
10
0
4.8%
.0%
5.0%
5.3%
.0%
5.3%
.0%
6.6%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.8%
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
1.4%
.0%
2.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Not for profit
13
100.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
Profit
48
(Don't know)
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Both
Want greater coordination
208
Very dissatisfied
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
142
10
73
59
13
125
1
99
43
69.3%
76.9%
74.5%
62.8%
86.7%
67.6%
50.0%
66.4%
76.8%
52
3
20
29
2
49
1
40
12
25.4%
23.1%
20.4%
30.9%
13.3%
26.5%
50.0%
26.8%
21.4%
10
0
5
5
0
10
0
10
0
4.9%
.0%
5.1%
5.3%
.0%
5.4%
.0%
6.7%
.0%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.8%
CSI
77.37
78.46
77.76
76.81
82.67
76.76
80.00
76.51
79.64
Std. Dev.
16.89
12.81
15.43
18.85
12.80
17.14
28.28
17.20
15.95
Q.12c. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The people referred were eligible to receive your services?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12c. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The people referred were
eligible to receive your
Very satisfied
services?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
Burnie
Cowra
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
48
1
5
3
1
0
1
6
2
6
4
23.1%
14.3%
38.5%
25.0%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
54.5%
15.4%
46.2%
50.0%
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
8
94
3
1
5
2
8
5
4
6
4
3
45.2%
42.9%
7.7%
41.7%
25.0%
61.5%
62.5%
36.4%
46.2%
30.8%
37.5%
52
3
6
3
4
4
1
1
3
3
1
25.0%
42.9%
46.2%
25.0%
50.0%
30.8%
12.5%
9.1%
23.1%
23.1%
12.5%
10
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
4.8%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
12.5%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
142
4
6
8
3
8
6
10
8
10
7
69.3%
57.1%
46.2%
66.7%
37.5%
61.5%
85.7%
90.9%
61.5%
76.9%
87.5%
52
3
6
3
4
4
1
1
3
3
1
25.4%
42.9%
46.2%
25.0%
50.0%
30.8%
14.3%
9.1%
23.1%
23.1%
12.5%
10
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
4.9%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
12.5%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
77.37
74.29
75.38
76.67
67.50
70.77
80.00
89.09
72.31
84.62
87.50
Std. Dev.
16.89
15.12
21.84
18.75
18.32
13.20
11.55
13.75
19.22
16.64
14.88
Page 81
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12c. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The people referred were eligible to receive your services?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12c. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The people referred were
eligible to receive your
Very satisfied
services?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
48
5
2
4
1
3
0
1
1
10
2
23.1%
41.7%
18.2%
28.6%
16.7%
21.4%
.0%
8.3%
7.7%
20.0%
94
6
3
9
3
8
7
6
8
3
45.2%
50.0%
27.3%
64.3%
50.0%
57.1%
70.0%
50.0%
61.5%
30.0%
52
1
5
1
0
3
3
3
2
5
25.0%
8.3%
45.5%
7.1%
.0%
21.4%
30.0%
25.0%
15.4%
50.0%
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4.8%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
7.7%
.0%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
142
11
5
13
4
11
7
7
9
5
69.3%
91.7%
45.5%
92.9%
80.0%
78.6%
70.0%
58.3%
75.0%
50.0%
52
1
5
1
0
3
3
3
2
5
25.4%
8.3%
45.5%
7.1%
.0%
21.4%
30.0%
25.0%
16.7%
50.0%
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4.9%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
8.3%
.0%
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
77.37
86.67
70.91
84.29
72.00
80.00
74.00
70.00
75.00
74.00
Std. Dev.
16.89
13.03
18.68
11.58
30.33
13.59
9.66
18.09
15.08
16.47
Q.12d. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...We were given enough information about the referred case?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12d. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
We were given enough
information about the
Very satisfied
referred case?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
33
18
7
8
12
9
4
1
6
19
1
15.9%
15.5%
10.3%
33.3%
17.6%
23.1%
16.7%
6.3%
14.3%
5.3%
71
36
29
6
23
16
7
4
16
5
34.1%
31.0%
42.6%
25.0%
33.8%
41.0%
29.2%
25.0%
38.1%
26.3%
66
35
23
8
22
10
6
10
11
7
31.7%
30.2%
33.8%
33.3%
32.4%
25.6%
25.0%
62.5%
26.2%
36.8%
27
20
5
2
7
2
7
0
7
4
13.0%
17.2%
7.4%
8.3%
10.3%
5.1%
29.2%
.0%
16.7%
21.1%
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1.0%
1.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.9%
1.5%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
4
3
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
3.4%
3.4%
4.4%
.0%
2.9%
2.6%
.0%
6.3%
4.8%
5.3%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
104
54
36
14
35
25
11
5
22
6
51.7%
48.2%
55.4%
58.3%
53.0%
65.8%
45.8%
33.3%
55.0%
33.3%
66
35
23
8
22
10
6
10
11
7
32.8%
31.3%
35.4%
33.3%
33.3%
26.3%
25.0%
66.7%
27.5%
38.9%
27
20
5
2
7
2
7
0
7
4
13.4%
17.9%
7.7%
8.3%
10.6%
5.3%
29.2%
.0%
17.5%
22.2%
4
3
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
2.0%
2.7%
1.5%
.0%
3.0%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.6%
CSI
69.95
68.04
70.77
76.67
70.30
75.79
66.67
68.00
70.50
61.11
Std. Dev.
20.31
21.39
18.05
20.14
21.98
19.26
21.80
12.65
19.21
19.97
Page 82
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12d. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...We were given enough information about the referred case?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12d. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
We were given enough
information about the
Very satisfied
referred case?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
208
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
33
2
15
16
4
29
0
22
11
15.9%
15.4%
15.0%
16.8%
26.7%
15.4%
.0%
14.5%
19.6%
56
71
5
38
28
5
63
1
45
26
34.1%
38.5%
38.0%
29.5%
33.3%
33.5%
50.0%
29.6%
46.4%
66
3
32
31
4
60
1
55
11
31.7%
23.1%
32.0%
32.6%
26.7%
31.9%
50.0%
36.2%
19.6%
27
1
12
14
2
25
0
24
3
13.0%
7.7%
12.0%
14.7%
13.3%
13.3%
.0%
15.8%
5.4%
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
1.0%
.0%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.0%
3.6%
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1.0%
.0%
1.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.3%
.0%
7
2
2
3
0
7
0
4
3
3.4%
15.4%
2.0%
3.2%
.0%
3.7%
.0%
2.6%
5.4%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
104
7
53
44
9
92
1
67
37
51.7%
63.6%
54.1%
47.8%
60.0%
50.8%
50.0%
45.3%
69.8%
66
3
32
31
4
60
1
55
11
32.8%
27.3%
32.7%
33.7%
26.7%
33.1%
50.0%
37.2%
20.8%
27
1
12
14
2
25
0
24
3
13.4%
9.1%
12.2%
15.2%
13.3%
13.8%
.0%
16.2%
5.7%
4
0
1
3
0
4
0
2
2
2.0%
.0%
1.0%
3.3%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
1.4%
3.8%
CSI
69.95
74.55
70.82
68.48
74.67
69.50
70.00
67.97
75.47
Std. Dev.
20.31
18.09
19.30
21.63
20.66
20.50
14.14
20.30
19.47
Page 83
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12d. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...We were given enough information about the referred case?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12d. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
We were given enough
information about the
Very satisfied
referred case?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
33
2
4
5
0
3
1
4
0
2
0
15.9%
28.6%
30.8%
41.7%
.0%
23.1%
12.5%
36.4%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
8
71
3
2
3
2
6
2
2
3
3
5
34.1%
42.9%
15.4%
25.0%
25.0%
46.2%
25.0%
18.2%
23.1%
23.1%
62.5%
66
2
3
3
6
2
4
5
5
4
2
31.7%
28.6%
23.1%
25.0%
75.0%
15.4%
50.0%
45.5%
38.5%
30.8%
25.0%
27
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
4
4
0
13.0%
.0%
30.8%
8.3%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
30.8%
30.8%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
3.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
12.5%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Burnie
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
104
5
6
8
2
9
3
6
3
5
5
51.7%
71.4%
46.2%
66.7%
25.0%
69.2%
42.9%
54.5%
25.0%
38.5%
71.4%
66
2
3
3
6
2
4
5
5
4
2
32.8%
28.6%
23.1%
25.0%
75.0%
15.4%
57.1%
45.5%
41.7%
30.8%
28.6%
27
0
4
1
0
2
0
0
4
4
0
13.4%
.0%
30.8%
8.3%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
30.8%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
69.95
80.00
69.23
80.00
65.00
75.38
71.43
78.18
58.33
64.62
74.29
Std. Dev.
20.31
16.33
25.32
20.89
9.26
20.25
15.74
18.88
15.86
21.84
9.76
Page 84
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12d. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...We were given enough information about the referred case?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12d. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
We were given enough
information about the
Very satisfied
referred case?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
33
3
2
3
1
0
0
1
1
10
1
15.9%
25.0%
18.2%
21.4%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
7.7%
10.0%
71
3
4
6
2
7
4
3
7
4
34.1%
25.0%
36.4%
42.9%
33.3%
50.0%
40.0%
25.0%
53.8%
40.0%
66
4
2
3
2
5
3
4
4
3
31.7%
33.3%
18.2%
21.4%
33.3%
35.7%
30.0%
33.3%
30.8%
30.0%
27
0
3
1
0
2
3
2
0
1
13.0%
.0%
27.3%
7.1%
.0%
14.3%
30.0%
16.7%
.0%
10.0%
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
7
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
3.4%
8.3%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
104
6
6
9
3
7
4
4
8
5
51.7%
54.5%
54.5%
69.2%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
40.0%
61.5%
50.0%
66
4
2
3
2
5
3
4
4
3
32.8%
36.4%
18.2%
23.1%
33.3%
35.7%
30.0%
40.0%
30.8%
30.0%
27
0
3
1
0
2
3
2
0
1
13.4%
.0%
27.3%
7.7%
.0%
14.3%
30.0%
20.0%
.0%
10.0%
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
10.0%
CSI
69.95
70.91
69.09
76.92
66.67
67.14
62.00
66.00
70.77
64.00
Std. Dev.
20.31
28.79
22.56
17.97
27.33
14.90
17.51
18.97
19.35
27.97
Q.12e. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Referrals are adequately followed up?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12e. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Referrals are adequately
followed up?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
31
17
8
6
8
10
5
1
5
19
2
14.9%
14.7%
11.8%
25.0%
11.8%
25.6%
20.8%
6.3%
11.9%
10.5%
69
29
32
8
28
18
3
6
12
2
33.2%
25.0%
47.1%
33.3%
41.2%
46.2%
12.5%
37.5%
28.6%
10.5%
52
30
15
7
13
6
6
6
13
8
25.0%
25.9%
22.1%
29.2%
19.1%
15.4%
25.0%
37.5%
31.0%
42.1%
24
16
8
0
6
1
7
0
7
3
11.5%
13.8%
11.8%
.0%
8.8%
2.6%
29.2%
.0%
16.7%
15.8%
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1.4%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
5.3%
5
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
2.4%
4.3%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
24
16
5
3
8
4
3
3
4
2
11.5%
13.8%
7.4%
12.5%
11.8%
10.3%
12.5%
18.8%
9.5%
10.5%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100
46
40
14
36
28
8
7
17
4
54.3%
46.0%
63.5%
66.7%
60.0%
80.0%
38.1%
53.8%
44.7%
23.5%
52
30
15
7
13
6
6
6
13
8
28.3%
30.0%
23.8%
33.3%
21.7%
17.1%
28.6%
46.2%
34.2%
47.1%
24
16
8
0
6
1
7
0
7
3
13.0%
16.0%
12.7%
.0%
10.0%
2.9%
33.3%
.0%
18.4%
17.6%
8
8
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
2
4.3%
8.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
2.6%
11.8%
CSI
69.35
65.20
72.70
79.05
68.00
81.14
65.71
72.31
66.84
57.65
Std. Dev.
22.61
25.68
17.34
16.09
25.56
15.30
23.78
13.01
20.42
25.38
Page 85
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12e. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Referrals are adequately followed up?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12e. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Referrals are adequately
followed up?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
208
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
31
4
15
12
5
26
0
21
10
14.9%
30.8%
15.0%
12.6%
33.3%
13.8%
.0%
13.8%
17.9%
56
69
5
37
27
6
59
1
47
22
33.2%
38.5%
37.0%
28.4%
40.0%
31.4%
50.0%
30.9%
39.3%
52
3
25
24
4
48
0
42
10
25.0%
23.1%
25.0%
25.3%
26.7%
25.5%
.0%
27.6%
17.9%
24
0
10
14
0
24
0
22
2
11.5%
.0%
10.0%
14.7%
.0%
12.8%
.0%
14.5%
3.6%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
3
0
1.4%
.0%
1.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
5
0
2
3
0
5
0
3
2
2.4%
.0%
2.0%
3.2%
.0%
2.7%
.0%
2.0%
3.6%
24
1
10
13
0
23
1
14
10
11.5%
7.7%
10.0%
13.7%
.0%
12.2%
50.0%
9.2%
17.9%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100
9
52
39
11
54.3%
75.0%
57.8%
47.6%
73.3%
1
68
32
51.5% 100.0%
85
49.3%
69.6%
52
3
25
24
4
48
0
42
10
28.3%
25.0%
27.8%
29.3%
26.7%
29.1%
.0%
30.4%
21.7%
24
0
10
14
0
24
0
22
2
13.0%
.0%
11.1%
17.1%
.0%
14.5%
.0%
15.9%
4.3%
8
0
3
5
0
8
0
6
2
4.3%
.0%
3.3%
6.1%
.0%
4.8%
.0%
4.3%
4.3%
CSI
69.35
81.67
70.89
65.85
81.33
68.00
80.00
67.54
74.78
Std. Dev.
22.61
15.86
21.44
24.03
15.98
23.04 .
22.44
22.48
Page 86
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12e. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Referrals are adequately followed up?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12e. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Referrals are adequately
followed up?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
31
1
2
3
0
2
1
4
1
4
0
14.9%
14.3%
15.4%
25.0%
.0%
15.4%
12.5%
36.4%
7.7%
30.8%
.0%
8
69
2
2
5
2
6
4
5
2
1
6
33.2%
28.6%
15.4%
41.7%
25.0%
46.2%
50.0%
45.5%
15.4%
7.7%
75.0%
52
3
2
2
5
3
1
1
5
3
1
25.0%
42.9%
15.4%
16.7%
62.5%
23.1%
12.5%
9.1%
38.5%
23.1%
12.5%
24
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
11.5%
.0%
23.1%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
23.1%
30.8%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.4%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
24
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
11.5%
14.3%
15.4%
8.3%
12.5%
7.7%
25.0%
9.1%
7.7%
7.7%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100
3
4
8
2
8
5
9
3
5
6
54.3%
50.0%
36.4%
72.7%
28.6%
66.7%
83.3%
90.0%
25.0%
41.7%
75.0%
52
3
2
2
5
3
1
1
5
3
1
28.3%
50.0%
18.2%
18.2%
71.4%
25.0%
16.7%
10.0%
41.7%
25.0%
12.5%
24
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
13.0%
.0%
27.3%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
33.3%
.0%
8
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
4.3%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
12.5%
CSI
69.35
73.33
54.55
78.18
65.71
73.33
80.00
86.00
58.33
68.33
67.50
Std. Dev.
22.61
16.33
34.75
18.88
9.76
21.46
12.65
13.50
21.67
26.23
28.16
Page 87
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12e. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...Referrals are adequately followed up?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12e. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
Referrals are adequately
followed up?
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
31
2
1
5
1
0
1
1
2
10
0
14.9%
16.7%
9.1%
35.7%
16.7%
.0%
10.0%
8.3%
15.4%
.0%
69
4
2
8
0
5
4
0
5
6
33.2%
33.3%
18.2%
57.1%
.0%
35.7%
40.0%
.0%
38.5%
60.0%
52
4
3
1
3
4
5
2
3
1
25.0%
33.3%
27.3%
7.1%
50.0%
28.6%
50.0%
16.7%
23.1%
10.0%
24
0
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
11.5%
.0%
27.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
58.3%
.0%
30.0%
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.4%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
24
1
2
0
1
4
0
2
3
0
11.5%
8.3%
18.2%
.0%
16.7%
28.6%
.0%
16.7%
23.1%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100
6
3
13
1
5
5
1
7
6
54.3%
54.5%
33.3%
92.9%
20.0%
50.0%
50.0%
10.0%
70.0%
60.0%
52
4
3
1
3
4
5
2
3
1
28.3%
36.4%
33.3%
7.1%
60.0%
40.0%
50.0%
20.0%
30.0%
10.0%
24
0
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
13.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
70.0%
.0%
30.0%
8
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4.3%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
69.35
69.09
62.22
85.71
56.00
66.00
72.00
50.00
78.00
66.00
Std. Dev.
22.61
27.37
21.08
12.22
35.78
18.97
13.98
19.44
14.76
18.97
Q.12f. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The current referrals process improves customer outcomes?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12f. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The current referrals process
improves customer
Very satisfied
outcomes?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
36
18
11
7
10
11
4
1
42
9
17.3%
15.5%
16.2%
29.2%
14.7%
28.2%
16.7%
6.3%
21.4%
82
40
30
12
26
19
8
9
13
39.4%
34.5%
44.1%
50.0%
38.2%
48.7%
33.3%
56.3%
31.0%
62
40
19
3
25
6
8
3
13
29.8%
34.5%
27.9%
12.5%
36.8%
15.4%
33.3%
18.8%
31.0%
16
11
4
1
3
3
4
1
2
7.7%
9.5%
5.9%
4.2%
4.4%
7.7%
16.7%
6.3%
4.8%
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1.0%
1.7%
.0%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9
5
3
1
1
0
0
2
5
4.3%
4.3%
4.4%
4.2%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
11.9%
24
68
39
24
16
42
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
118
58
41
19
36
30
12
10
22
59.3%
52.3%
63.1%
82.6%
53.7%
76.9%
50.0%
71.4%
59.5%
62
40
19
3
25
6
8
3
13
31.2%
36.0%
29.2%
13.0%
37.3%
15.4%
33.3%
21.4%
35.1%
16
11
4
1
3
3
4
1
2
8.0%
9.9%
6.2%
4.3%
4.5%
7.7%
16.7%
7.1%
5.4%
3
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1.5%
1.8%
1.5%
.0%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
73.17
70.99
73.85
81.74
70.75
79.49
70.00
74.29
75.68
Std. Dev.
18.68
18.83
18.68
15.86
20.10
17.46
19.56
14.53
17.72
Page 88
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12f. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The current referrals
process improves customer outcomes?
STATE
WA/NT
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
19
Q.12f. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The current referrals process
improves customer
Very satisfied
outcomes?
1
5.3%
7
36.8%
Somewhat satisfied
7
36.8%
Somewhat dissatisfied
3
15.8%
Very dissatisfied
0
.0%
Totally dissatisfied
0
.0%
(Don't know)
1
5.3%
TOTAL
19
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
8
44.4%
% Somewhat Satisfied
7
38.9%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
16.7%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
0
.0%
CSI
66.67
Std. Dev.
16.80
Q.12f. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The current referrals process improves customer outcomes?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12f. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The current referrals process
improves customer
Very satisfied
outcomes?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
208
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
36
3
17
16
3
32
0
24
12
17.3%
23.1%
17.0%
16.8%
20.0%
17.0%
.0%
15.8%
21.4%
56
82
8
41
33
5
75
1
53
29
39.4%
61.5%
41.0%
34.7%
33.3%
39.9%
50.0%
34.9%
51.8%
62
2
26
34
5
57
0
51
11
29.8%
15.4%
26.0%
35.8%
33.3%
30.3%
.0%
33.6%
19.6%
16
0
9
7
1
14
0
15
1
7.7%
.0%
9.0%
7.4%
6.7%
7.4%
.0%
9.9%
1.8%
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
1.0%
.0%
1.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.3%
.0%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.5%
.0%
.7%
.0%
9
0
6
3
1
7
1
6
3
4.3%
.0%
6.0%
3.2%
6.7%
3.7%
50.0%
3.9%
5.4%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
118
11
58
49
8
59.3%
84.6%
61.7%
53.3%
57.1%
1
77
41
59.1% 100.0%
107
52.7%
77.4%
62
2
26
34
5
57
0
51
11
31.2%
15.4%
27.7%
37.0%
35.7%
31.5%
.0%
34.9%
20.8%
16
0
9
7
1
14
0
15
1
8.0%
.0%
9.6%
7.6%
7.1%
7.7%
.0%
10.3%
1.9%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
3
0
1.5%
.0%
1.1%
2.2%
.0%
1.7%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
CSI
73.17
81.54
73.62
71.52
74.29
73.04
80.00
70.82
79.62
Std. Dev.
18.68
12.81
18.37
19.50
18.28
18.68 .
19.53
14.41
Page 89
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12f. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The current referrals process improves customer outcomes?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12f. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The current referrals process
improves customer
Very satisfied
outcomes?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
Ararat
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
36
2
1
4
0
3
1
3
0
2
1
17.3%
28.6%
7.7%
33.3%
.0%
23.1%
12.5%
27.3%
.0%
15.4%
12.5%
8
82
2
2
6
5
6
4
6
4
4
6
39.4%
28.6%
15.4%
50.0%
62.5%
46.2%
50.0%
54.5%
30.8%
30.8%
75.0%
62
2
7
1
2
2
1
2
6
5
1
29.8%
28.6%
53.8%
8.3%
25.0%
15.4%
12.5%
18.2%
46.2%
38.5%
12.5%
16
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
7.7%
.0%
15.4%
8.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
15.4%
.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
4.3%
14.3%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
25.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
118
4
3
10
5
9
5
9
4
6
7
59.3%
66.7%
25.0%
83.3%
62.5%
81.8%
83.3%
81.8%
33.3%
46.2%
87.5%
62
2
7
1
2
2
1
2
6
5
1
31.2%
33.3%
58.3%
8.3%
25.0%
18.2%
16.7%
18.2%
50.0%
38.5%
12.5%
16
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
8.0%
.0%
16.7%
8.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
15.4%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
CSI
73.17
80.00
63.33
81.67
70.00
81.82
80.00
81.82
63.33
69.23
80.00
Std. Dev.
18.68
17.89
16.70
18.01
15.12
14.01
12.65
14.01
14.35
19.35
10.69
Page 90
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12f. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied that...The current referrals process improves customer outcomes?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12f. Overall, are you
Totally satisfied
satisfied or dissatisfied that...
The current referrals process
improves customer
Very satisfied
outcomes?
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
36
4
2
5
1
0
2
2
2
10
1
17.3%
33.3%
18.2%
35.7%
16.7%
.0%
20.0%
16.7%
15.4%
10.0%
82
3
4
7
3
6
1
4
6
3
39.4%
25.0%
36.4%
50.0%
50.0%
42.9%
10.0%
33.3%
46.2%
30.0%
62
3
3
1
1
7
5
4
4
5
29.8%
25.0%
27.3%
7.1%
16.7%
50.0%
50.0%
33.3%
30.8%
50.0%
16
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
7.7%
8.3%
18.2%
7.1%
16.7%
.0%
10.0%
8.3%
7.7%
.0%
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
118
7
6
12
4
6
3
6
8
4
59.3%
58.3%
54.5%
85.7%
66.7%
42.9%
33.3%
54.5%
61.5%
40.0%
62
3
3
1
1
7
5
4
4
5
31.2%
25.0%
27.3%
7.1%
16.7%
50.0%
55.6%
36.4%
30.8%
50.0%
16
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
8.0%
8.3%
18.2%
7.1%
16.7%
.0%
11.1%
9.1%
7.7%
.0%
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1.5%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
CSI
73.17
73.33
70.91
82.86
73.33
65.71
68.89
72.73
73.85
64.00
Std. Dev.
18.68
26.05
20.71
17.29
20.66
16.51
20.28
18.49
17.10
26.33
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction with the quality of referrals?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction
with the quality of referrals?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
32
17
8
7
12
10
4
2
3
19
1
15.4%
14.7%
11.8%
29.2%
17.6%
25.6%
16.7%
12.5%
7.1%
5.3%
97
49
35
13
33
22
9
6
18
9
46.6%
42.2%
51.5%
54.2%
48.5%
56.4%
37.5%
37.5%
42.9%
47.4%
61
39
20
2
21
4
9
6
16
5
29.3%
33.6%
29.4%
8.3%
30.9%
10.3%
37.5%
37.5%
38.1%
26.3%
11
6
3
2
0
3
2
1
3
2
5.3%
5.2%
4.4%
8.3%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
6.3%
7.1%
10.5%
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1.4%
2.6%
.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.5%
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1.4%
1.7%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
4.8%
.0%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
129
66
43
20
45
32
13
8
21
10
62.9%
57.9%
64.2%
83.3%
66.2%
82.1%
54.2%
53.3%
52.5%
52.6%
61
39
20
2
21
4
9
6
16
5
29.8%
34.2%
29.9%
8.3%
30.9%
10.3%
37.5%
40.0%
40.0%
26.3%
11
6
3
2
0
3
2
1
3
2
5.4%
5.3%
4.5%
8.3%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
6.7%
7.5%
10.5%
4
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2.0%
2.6%
1.5%
.0%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.5%
CSI
73.76
72.46
73.43
80.83
75.29
80.00
72.50
72.00
70.50
65.26
Std. Dev.
17.71
17.93
17.19
17.17
17.99
16.54
17.51
16.56
15.01
21.95
Page 91
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction with the quality of referrals?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction
with the quality of referrals?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
208
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
32
2
16
14
4
27
0
22
10
15.4%
15.4%
16.0%
14.7%
26.7%
14.4%
.0%
14.5%
17.9%
89
2
65
32
47.3% 100.0%
42.8%
57.1%
97
6
47
44
5
46.6%
46.2%
47.0%
46.3%
33.3%
56
61
5
28
28
5
55
0
48
13
29.3%
38.5%
28.0%
29.5%
33.3%
29.3%
.0%
31.6%
23.2%
11
0
6
5
1
10
0
11
0
5.3%
.0%
6.0%
5.3%
6.7%
5.3%
.0%
7.2%
.0%
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
2
1
1.4%
.0%
2.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
1.3%
1.8%
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
.5%
.0%
.7%
.0%
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
3
0
1.4%
.0%
1.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.6%
.0%
2.0%
.0%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
129
8
63
58
9
62.9%
61.5%
63.6%
62.4%
60.0%
2
87
42
62.7% 100.0%
116
58.4%
75.0%
61
5
28
28
5
55
0
48
13
29.8%
38.5%
28.3%
30.1%
33.3%
29.7%
.0%
32.2%
23.2%
11
0
6
5
1
10
0
11
0
5.4%
.0%
6.1%
5.4%
6.7%
5.4%
.0%
7.4%
.0%
4
0
2
2
0
4
0
3
1
2.0%
.0%
2.0%
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
2.0%
1.8%
CSI
73.76
75.38
73.94
73.33
76.00
73.41
80.00
72.21
77.86
Std. Dev.
17.71
14.50
17.72
18.26
18.82
17.75
.00
18.41
15.10
Page 92
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction with the quality of referrals?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction
with the quality of referrals?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
1
3
4
1
2
1
3
0
2
3
15.4%
14.3%
23.1%
33.3%
12.5%
15.4%
12.5%
27.3%
.0%
15.4%
37.5%
8
97
4
3
6
3
8
3
6
5
5
4
46.6%
57.1%
23.1%
50.0%
37.5%
61.5%
37.5%
54.5%
38.5%
38.5%
50.0%
61
2
7
1
3
3
3
2
5
5
1
29.3%
28.6%
53.8%
8.3%
37.5%
23.1%
37.5%
18.2%
38.5%
38.5%
12.5%
11
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
15.4%
7.7%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
7
(Don't know)
% Somewhat Satisfied
Cowra
32
Totally dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Satisfied
Burnie
208
Very dissatisfied
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
129
5
6
10
4
10
4
9
5
7
7
62.9%
71.4%
46.2%
83.3%
57.1%
76.9%
50.0%
81.8%
38.5%
53.8%
87.5%
61
2
7
1
3
3
3
2
5
5
1
29.8%
28.6%
53.8%
8.3%
42.9%
23.1%
37.5%
18.2%
38.5%
38.5%
12.5%
11
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
5.4%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
15.4%
7.7%
.0%
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
CSI
73.76
77.14
73.85
81.67
74.29
78.46
70.00
81.82
61.54
72.31
85.00
Std. Dev.
17.71
13.80
17.10
18.01
15.12
12.81
18.52
14.01
19.08
17.39
14.14
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction with the quality of referrals?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.12g. Overall satisfaction
with the quality of referrals?
Totally satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Totally dissatisfied
(Don't know)
TOTAL
% Totally/Very Satisfied
% Somewhat Satisfied
% Somewhat Dissatisfied
% Totally/Very Dissatisfied
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
32
3
2
4
1
0
0
0
2
10
0
15.4%
25.0%
18.2%
28.6%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
97
6
4
9
4
7
2
4
7
7
46.6%
50.0%
36.4%
64.3%
66.7%
50.0%
20.0%
33.3%
53.8%
70.0%
61
2
4
0
0
7
6
5
3
2
29.3%
16.7%
36.4%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
60.0%
41.7%
23.1%
20.0%
11
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
5.3%
.0%
9.1%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
8.3%
7.7%
.0%
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1.4%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
129
9
6
13
5
7
2
4
9
7
62.9%
75.0%
54.5%
92.9%
83.3%
50.0%
20.0%
40.0%
69.2%
70.0%
61
2
4
0
0
7
6
5
3
2
29.8%
16.7%
36.4%
.0%
.0%
50.0%
60.0%
50.0%
23.1%
20.0%
11
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
5.4%
.0%
9.1%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
10.0%
7.7%
.0%
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
CSI
73.76
76.67
72.73
82.86
73.33
70.00
60.00
66.00
75.38
68.00
Std. Dev.
17.71
22.29
18.49
15.41
27.33
10.38
13.33
13.50
16.64
25.30
Page 93
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.13 What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Nothing, no need for
improvement
Better/more accurate
assessments
Refer eligible people
Refer to the right service
Provide information with
referrals
Provide a contact who made
the referral
Have a standard referral form
Allow information sharing
Follow up on referrals made
Check availability for
appointment
Contact us before the client
attends
Other (specify)
Cross organisational
awareness
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
208
116
68
24
68
39
24
16
42
82
44
25
13
31
21
8
6
12
19
4
39.4%
37.9%
36.8%
54.2%
45.6%
53.8%
33.3%
37.5%
28.6%
21.1%
47
27
16
4
12
4
8
4
10
9
22.6%
23.3%
23.5%
16.7%
17.6%
10.3%
33.3%
25.0%
23.8%
47.4%
22
17
4
1
5
2
7
0
3
5
10.6%
14.7%
5.9%
4.2%
7.4%
5.1%
29.2%
.0%
7.1%
26.3%
22
15
5
2
7
1
3
0
5
6
10.6%
12.9%
7.4%
8.3%
10.3%
2.6%
12.5%
.0%
11.9%
31.6%
47
29
16
2
16
7
6
4
9
5
22.6%
25.0%
23.5%
8.3%
23.5%
17.9%
25.0%
25.0%
21.4%
26.3%
17
12
4
1
5
3
4
1
3
1
8.2%
10.3%
5.9%
4.2%
7.4%
7.7%
16.7%
6.3%
7.1%
5.3%
6
3
2
1
3
2
0
0
1
0
2.9%
2.6%
2.9%
4.2%
4.4%
5.1%
.0%
.0%
2.4%
.0%
18
13
3
2
5
3
3
2
4
1
8.7%
11.2%
4.4%
8.3%
7.4%
7.7%
12.5%
12.5%
9.5%
5.3%
14
9
4
1
6
1
1
0
3
3
6.7%
7.8%
5.9%
4.2%
8.8%
2.6%
4.2%
.0%
7.1%
15.8%
8
6
2
0
2
2
1
0
2
1
3.8%
5.2%
2.9%
.0%
2.9%
5.1%
4.2%
.0%
4.8%
5.3%
17
13
4
0
6
3
3
1
2
2
8.2%
11.2%
5.9%
.0%
8.8%
7.7%
12.5%
6.3%
4.8%
10.5%
13
7
3
3
3
1
0
2
6
1
6.3%
6.0%
4.4%
12.5%
4.4%
2.6%
.0%
12.5%
14.3%
5.3%
11
2
7
2
5
2
0
0
4
0
5.3%
1.7%
10.3%
8.3%
7.4%
5.1%
.0%
.0%
9.5%
.0%
24
68
39
24
16
42
19
208
116
68
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 94
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.13 What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Nothing, no need for
improvement
Better/more accurate
assessments
Refer eligible people
Refer to the right service
Provide information with
referrals
Provide a contact who made
the referral
Have a standard referral form
Allow information sharing
Follow up on referrals made
Check availability for
appointment
Contact us before the client
attends
Other (specify)
Cross organisational
awareness
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
208
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
82
8
38
36
8
71
1
48
56
34
39.4%
61.5%
38.0%
37.9%
53.3%
37.8%
50.0%
31.6%
60.7%
47
0
26
21
2
44
0
40
7
22.6%
.0%
26.0%
22.1%
13.3%
23.4%
.0%
26.3%
12.5%
22
0
12
10
1
21
0
21
1
10.6%
.0%
12.0%
10.5%
6.7%
11.2%
.0%
13.8%
1.8%
22
0
7
15
0
22
0
19
3
10.6%
.0%
7.0%
15.8%
.0%
11.7%
.0%
12.5%
5.4%
47
1
22
24
1
46
0
41
6
22.6%
7.7%
22.0%
25.3%
6.7%
24.5%
.0%
27.0%
10.7%
17
0
8
9
1
16
0
15
2
8.2%
.0%
8.0%
9.5%
6.7%
8.5%
.0%
9.9%
3.6%
6
0
1
5
0
6
0
5
1
2.9%
.0%
1.0%
5.3%
.0%
3.2%
.0%
3.3%
1.8%
18
1
7
10
1
17
0
17
1
8.7%
7.7%
7.0%
10.5%
6.7%
9.0%
.0%
11.2%
1.8%
14
0
6
8
0
14
0
14
0
6.7%
.0%
6.0%
8.4%
.0%
7.4%
.0%
9.2%
.0%
8
0
3
5
0
8
0
6
2
3.8%
.0%
3.0%
5.3%
.0%
4.3%
.0%
3.9%
3.6%
17
0
11
6
0
16
1
15
2
8.2%
.0%
11.0%
6.3%
.0%
8.5%
50.0%
9.9%
3.6%
13
1
7
5
1
12
0
12
1
6.3%
7.7%
7.0%
5.3%
6.7%
6.4%
.0%
7.9%
1.8%
11
2
5
4
1
10
0
5
6
5.3%
15.4%
5.0%
4.2%
6.7%
5.3%
.0%
3.3%
10.7%
13
100
95
15
188
2
152
56
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
208
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 95
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.13 What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Nothing, no need for
improvement
Better/more accurate
assessments
Refer eligible people
Refer to the right service
Provide information with
referrals
Provide a contact who made
the referral
Have a standard referral form
Allow information sharing
Follow up on referrals made
Check availability for
appointment
Contact us before the client
attends
Other (specify)
Cross organisational
awareness
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
13
13
82
3
4
5
3
6
3
5
2
4
5
39.4%
42.9%
30.8%
41.7%
37.5%
46.2%
37.5%
45.5%
15.4%
30.8%
62.5%
8
47
1
3
3
3
4
1
2
8
6
0
22.6%
14.3%
23.1%
25.0%
37.5%
30.8%
12.5%
18.2%
61.5%
46.2%
.0%
22
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
4
5
0
10.6%
.0%
23.1%
8.3%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
30.8%
38.5%
.0%
22
0
1
1
0
3
0
2
5
2
0
10.6%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
23.1%
.0%
18.2%
38.5%
15.4%
.0%
47
1
6
2
3
2
1
0
5
3
2
22.6%
14.3%
46.2%
16.7%
37.5%
15.4%
12.5%
.0%
38.5%
23.1%
25.0%
17
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
8.2%
.0%
15.4%
8.3%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
7.7%
23.1%
.0%
6
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.9%
.0%
7.7%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
18
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
8.7%
.0%
15.4%
16.7%
12.5%
7.7%
12.5%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
14
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
6.7%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
23.1%
.0%
.0%
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3.8%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
12.5%
17
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
8.2%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
7.7%
7.7%
25.0%
13
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.3%
28.6%
7.7%
8.3%
12.5%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
208
7
13
12
8
13
8
11
13
13
8
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 96
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.13 What, if anything, could be done to improve the referrals process?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Nothing, no need for
improvement
Better/more accurate
assessments
Refer eligible people
Refer to the right service
Provide information with
referrals
Provide a contact who made
the referral
Have a standard referral form
Allow information sharing
Follow up on referrals made
Check availability for
appointment
Contact us before the client
attends
Other (specify)
Cross organisational
awareness
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
13
82
5
4
8
2
6
2
1
8
10
6
39.4%
41.7%
36.4%
57.1%
33.3%
42.9%
20.0%
8.3%
61.5%
60.0%
47
2
2
0
1
3
2
3
1
2
22.6%
16.7%
18.2%
.0%
16.7%
21.4%
20.0%
25.0%
7.7%
20.0%
22
0
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
10.6%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
16.7%
14.3%
.0%
16.7%
7.7%
.0%
22
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
10.6%
8.3%
9.1%
.0%
16.7%
7.1%
10.0%
8.3%
.0%
20.0%
47
5
3
2
0
1
2
4
3
2
22.6%
41.7%
27.3%
14.3%
.0%
7.1%
20.0%
33.3%
23.1%
20.0%
17
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
8.2%
16.7%
9.1%
7.1%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
16.7%
7.7%
.0%
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
10.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
18
1
3
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
8.7%
8.3%
27.3%
7.1%
16.7%
.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
14
3
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
6.7%
25.0%
9.1%
7.1%
.0%
7.1%
20.0%
8.3%
.0%
.0%
8
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
3.8%
.0%
9.1%
7.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
7.7%
.0%
17
2
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
0
8.2%
16.7%
18.2%
14.3%
16.7%
7.1%
.0%
16.7%
7.7%
.0%
13
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
7.1%
20.0%
8.3%
.0%
10.0%
11
0
0
1
0
3
3
1
1
0
5.3%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
21.4%
30.0%
8.3%
7.7%
.0%
13
10
208
12
11
14
6
14
10
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 97
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.13
SPECIFY: Other things that could be done to improve the referrals process
Q.13. SPECIFY WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE REFERRALS PROCESS.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BETTER TRAINING FOR THE AGENCIES
TO MAKE CLIENT AWARE WHEN THE REFERRAL IS MADE LIKE MAKING REFERRAL WHEN CLIENT
IS PRESENT
TRAINING IN REGIONAL AREAS IN PARTICULAR WITH WORKING WITH MIGRANTS
MORE PEOPLE IN THE AGENCY REFER TO US. THERE IS ONLY ONE WORKER THERE WHO IS
DOING THE REFERRALS. IF THEY CAN FIND OUT ABOUT COMMUNITY AGENCIES AND WHAT
THEY OFFER.
SOCIAL WORKERS AVAILABLE FOR OUTREACH FOLLOW UP. SOME OF OUR CLIENTS HAVE SEVERE
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. WHEN THEY ARE REFERRED TO US, THEY HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEIR
STORY ONCE, THEY COME HERE AND TELL THEIR STORY AGAIN.
MORE CONTACT WITH THE REFERRERS.
BACK UP WITH PERSONAL CONTACT.
IF THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE THERE THAT WE CAN LIAISE WITH IT WOULD MAKE THINGS
EASIER.
WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT FORMALISING A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP WITH CENTRELINK
BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED UP
MORE INFORMATION FOR THE ACTUAL CLIENT AS TO WHAT WE DO.
I'D REALLY LIKE FREE BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR THE KIDS. THAT'S MY BIGGEST PROBLEM,
GETTING BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND PAYING FOR THEM.
BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO CENTRELINK ABOUT WHAT WE DO. WHAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO DO IS IMPROVE HOW THEY WORK DIRECTLY WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
IT'S ONLY THE SOCIAL WORKERS THAT ALREADY KNOW ABOUT US. NETWORKING WITH THE
STAFF AND THE SOCIAL WORKERS AT CENTRELINK.
BE MORE COMMUNITY EDUCATED.
FOR THE AGENCY TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR SERVICES
A BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLIENTS ON THE REFERALLS.
ONGOING EDUCATION ABOUT OUR SERVICE
IF CENTRELINK COULD CONTACT KEY PERSONAL FOR THEIR REFERRALS.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE IN SERVICES WHERE WE GET TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT WE HAVEE
TO OFFER.
CLIENTS THAT ARE REFERRED TO US SHOULD HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
SERVICES WE OFFER.
PROGRAM AWARENESS AGENCIES NEED TO KNOW WHAT SERVICES WE PROVIDE
WORKING TOGETHER ON THE PLANS OR GOALS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE RATHER THAN
JUST STARTING AGAIN
IF CENTRELINK WOULD ACCEPT REFERRALS FROM US. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S PROBLEMS
WITH A JOB SEEKER, CENTRELINK ALLOW US TO REFER THEM BACK TO SORT OUT THE
PROBLEM.
CLIENTS SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR SERVICE.
BETTER TO HAVE WORKERS STATIONED LONG TERM FOR BETTER OUTCOMES. ESTABLISH A
Page 98
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RELATIONSHIP WITH SOCIAL WORKERS IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT PERSON IN PLACE
FOR LONGER
MORE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US. MORE TRAINING FOR THEIR STAFF RELATING TO OUR
SERVICES.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTRE. KNOWING WHAT'S AVAILABLE
CLEARER COMMUNICATION, BETTER INFORMATION. BETTER TRAINING WITH THE CENTRELINK
STAFF.
THE SOCIAL WORKER NEEDS TO WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE LOCAL CENTRELINK AGENCY.
THE LOCAL PEOPE HAVE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE. YOU CAN EXPECT ALL YOU LIKE FROM 3000KM
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY EASIER.
THE VOLUME OF REFERRALS IN VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT - WE NEED MORE.
BETTER COMMUNICATION
ONGOING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SERVICE PROVIDERS
Q.14. Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation and DHS agencies?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
Sample Size
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
Q.14. Do you believe there is Yes
a need for greater
coordination of services
between your organisation
No
and DHS agencies?
200
121
61
18
66
27
25
19
40
23
65.6%
70.3%
63.5%
48.6%
68.8%
56.3%
78.1%
57.6%
61.5%
74.2%
TOTAL
31
105
51
35
19
30
21
7
14
25
8
34.4%
29.7%
36.5%
51.4%
31.3%
43.8%
21.9%
42.4%
38.5%
25.8%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.14. Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation and DHS agencies?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Advocacy Service
Both
Profit or Non-profit
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
Sample Size
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
Q.14. Do you believe there is Yes
a need for greater
coordination of services
between your organisation
No
and DHS agencies?
200
9
100
91
15
180
1
200
0
65.6%
69.2%
63.7%
67.4%
71.4%
66.4%
20.0%
100.0%
.0%
TOTAL
105
105
4
57
44
6
91
4
0
105
34.4%
30.8%
36.3%
32.6%
28.6%
33.6%
80.0%
.0%
100.0%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
305
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.14. Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation and DHS agencies?
Test Sites 1
Burnie
Cowra
Sample Size
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
Q.14. Do you believe there is Yes
a need for greater
coordination of services
between your organisation
No
and DHS agencies?
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
12
65.6%
62.5%
81.3%
50.0%
58.8%
56.3%
56.3%
68.8%
81.3%
87.5%
75.0%
105
6
3
8
7
7
7
5
3
2
4
34.4%
37.5%
18.8%
50.0%
41.2%
43.8%
43.8%
31.3%
18.8%
12.5%
25.0%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
TOTAL
Total
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
100.0% 100.0%
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 99
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.14. Do you believe there is a need for greater coordination of services between your organisation and DHS agencies?
Test Sites 2
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
Sample Size
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Q.14. Do you believe there is Yes
a need for greater
coordination of services
between your organisation
No
and DHS agencies?
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
10
10
65.6%
68.8%
68.8%
56.3%
68.8%
56.3%
43.8%
81.3%
62.5%
62.5%
TOTAL
16
105
5
5
7
5
7
9
3
6
6
34.4%
31.3%
31.3%
43.8%
31.3%
43.8%
56.3%
18.8%
37.5%
37.5%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.15. Why do you say that?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: NO NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
Process is fine as is
Good relationship exists
Do not have much dealing/
not seeking closer
relationship with DHS
Total
105
Regional
centre
51
Rural area
35
NSW
19
QLD
30
SA
21
TAS
7
VIC
14
WA/NT
25
8
59
26
20
13
22
15
2
4
12
4
56.2%
51.0%
57.1%
68.4%
73.3%
71.4%
28.6%
28.6%
48.0%
50.0%
12
7
4
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
11.4%
13.7%
11.4%
5.3%
3.3%
14.3%
14.3%
7.1%
20.0%
12.5%
24
12
8
4
4
3
3
8
5
1
22.9%
23.5%
22.9%
21.1%
13.3%
14.3%
42.9%
57.1%
20.0%
12.5%
Other
7
4
2
1
3
0
0
1
2
1
6.7%
7.8%
5.7%
5.3%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
8.0%
12.5%
3
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2.9%
3.9%
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
4.0%
12.5%
105
51
35
19
30
21
7
14
25
8
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Don't know/ can't say
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
STATE
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.15. Why do you say that?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: NO NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
Process is fine as is
Good relationship exists
Do not have much dealing/
not seeking closer
relationship with DHS
Other
Don't know/ can't say
TOTAL
Total
105
Advocacy Service
4
57
Want greater
coordination
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
44
6
Not for profit
91
No need for
greater
coordination
Both
4
105
59
3
33
23
3
52
0
59
56.2%
75.0%
57.9%
52.3%
50.0%
57.1%
.0%
56.2%
12
1
5
6
0
12
0
12
11.4%
25.0%
8.8%
13.6%
.0%
13.2%
.0%
11.4%
24
0
12
12
2
18
4
24
22.9%
.0%
21.1%
27.3%
33.3%
19.8% 100.0%
22.9%
7
0
5
2
1
6
0
7
6.7%
.0%
8.8%
4.5%
16.7%
6.6%
.0%
6.7%
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
2.9%
.0%
3.5%
2.3%
.0%
3.3%
.0%
2.9%
105
4
57
44
6
91
4
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 100
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.15. Why do you say that?
Test Sites 1
BASE: NO NEED FOR GREATER
COORDINATION
Sample Size
Process is fine as is
Good relationship exists
Do not have much dealing/
not seeking closer
relationship with DHS
Other
Don't know/ can't say
TOTAL
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Total
Burnie
Cowra
105
6
3
8
7
7
7
5
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
3
2
4
59
3
2
6
2
3
2
4
2
0
4
56.2%
50.0%
66.7%
75.0%
28.6%
42.9%
28.6%
80.0%
66.7%
.0% 100.0%
12
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
11.4%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
28.6%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
.0%
.0%
24
3
1
2
4
1
4
0
0
2
0
22.9%
50.0%
33.3%
25.0%
57.1%
14.3%
57.1%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
7
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
14.3%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
105
6
3
8
7
7
7
5
3
2
4
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.15. Why do you say that?
Test Sites 2
BASE: NO NEED FOR GREATER
COORDINATION
Sample Size
Process is fine as is
Good relationship exists
Do not have much dealing/
not seeking closer
relationship with DHS
Other
Don't know/ can't say
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
105
5
5
7
5
7
9
3
6
59
5
2
6
2
5
5
1
3
6
2
56.2%
100.0%
40.0%
85.7%
40.0%
71.4%
55.6%
33.3%
50.0%
33.3%
12
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
11.4%
.0%
20.0%
14.3%
.0%
14.3%
11.1%
66.7%
33.3%
.0%
24
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
22.9%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
16.7%
50.0%
7
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
14.3%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
16.7%
3
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2.9%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6
6
105
5
5
7
5
7
9
3
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 101
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.15
SPECIFY: Why do you say that?
Q.15. Why do you say that?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I GUES WE CAN RING WHEN WE WANT TO AND WE CAN ALWAYS GET THE INFORMATION WE NEED
I THINK WE HAVE A VERY GOOD PROCESS GOING AT THE MOMENT
BECAUSE ITS WORKING WELL NOW
I THINK EVERYTHING IS FINE AND THATS FROM THE EXPERIENCES I HAVE ALREADY HAD
BECAUSE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE AGENCIES IS VERY SIMPLE AND IT WORKS
BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ISSUES OR PROBLEMS
I THINK ITS ALREADY AT A SATISFATORY ;LEVEL
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS SMOOTH SAILING AS MY CLIENTALE IS SATISFIED WITH
CENTRELINK AS WE CAN DO ALL THE CENTRELINK REQUIREMENTS FROM HERE AND IT SAVES
MY CLIENTS GOING TO CENTRELINK
BECAUSE THE SERVICES ARE SATISFACTORY AND WE GET WHAT WE WANT AS THEY ONE ON ONE
SERVICE
WE DON'T DIRECTLY DEAL WITH DHS UNLESS THERE ARE HOUSING ISSUES OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED. WE DON'T REGULARLY HAVE DEALINGS
WITH DHS ALL THE TIME. I CAN'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT FROM OUR ASPECT, WHERE WE
ARE.
I NEED TO CONTACT MY CO ORDINATOR
IT SEEMS TO WORK WELL THE WAY THAT IT IS NOW. WE ARE IN A REGIONAL TOWN, SO IT'S
PROBABLY A BIT DIFFERENT HERE THAN IN A CITY, MAYBE. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S A
BURNING ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE MORE CONTACT WITH COMMUNITY SERVICES THAN ANY DHS AGENCIES
WE ARE FUNDED BY STATE AND FEDERAL. THERE IS A LOT A COORDINATION .
IT WORKS QUITE WELL ON A LOCAL LEVEL AS OUR SERVICES ARE VERY FLEXIBLE AND SO WE
ARE NOT CUT AND DRIED AND SO WE REALTE TO THE LOCAL CENTRELINK STAFF WHO PROVIDE
THE RIGHT CLIENTS FOR OUR REFERRELS
WE HAVE DON'T HAVE ANY NEED AS WE ARE A SCHOOL AND THIS IS MORE FOR THE PARENTS
AND STUDENTS TO DEAL WITH
I THINK WE HAVE A VERY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
I BELIEVE THAT AT PRESENT THINGS ARE WORKING WELL AS THEY ARE
WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SO FAR, IT'S WORKING WELL ON BOTH SIDES, THEIRS AND OURS.
WE ARE DOING GOOD WITH OTHER COLLABORATION WORK. I DON'T NEED ANY MORE
COORDINATION WITH THAT.
LOCAL LEVEL SOLUTION IS WORKING FINE
IT'S WORKING WELL AT THE MOMENT. I UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE IS CHANGING IN JULY,
SO WE WILL BE REVISITING OUR APPROACH WITH CENTRELINK THEN.
THE OCCASION HAS NEVER ARISIN YET.
COMMUNICATION IS REALLY GOOD.
WE HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DHS AGENCIES AS WEHAVE REGULAT MEETINGS AND
PHONE CATCHUPS AS WE EXPLAIN THE SERVICES WE NEED OR HOW TO APPLY FOR MORE
FUNDING
Page 102
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE ARE GENERALLY MORE TO DO WITH STATE BASED ORGANISATIONS
RATHER THAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS WITH HUMAN SERVICES. CENTRELINK
WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE I COULD PULL OUT OF THERE BUT THE REST ARE QUITE WELL
CATERED FOR WITH THE STATE STUFF.
WE FOUND WHAT WE USE IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE I HAVE NOT HAD ANY BLOCKS FROM
ANYTHING.
THE CLIENTS WE'VE BEEN GETTING WERE APPROPRIATE AND WE KNOW ABOUT THE CENTRELINK
SERVICES. IT PROBABLY IS JUST RAISING AWARENESS OF US WITH THEM. WHEN IT
HAPPENS, IT HAPPENS WELL ENOUGH. WE DO GET MAIL OUTS FROM CENTRELINK FOR NEW
PROGRAMS OR INTITIATIVES THEY MAY HAVE.
BECAUSE WHENEVER WE MAKE CONTACT IT IS ON A CASE BY CASE REFERREL AND THEY ARE
RESPONSIVE TO THE SERVICES THST WE PROVIDE
THE SERVICE MANAGEWRS HAVE NOT BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION
WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE WAY WE MAKE CONTACT ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS AND THAT
THEY ARE NEVER LEFT WAITING FOR OUR SERVICES
BECAUSE I AM NOT AWARE OF THE OTHER AGENCIES BUT WITH CENTRELINK IT IS A STRONG
RELATIONSHIP AS WE APPRECIATE EACH OTHER'S NEEDS
I THINK EVERYTHING IS RUNNING FINE.
WE HAVE ASKED FOR HELP BEFORE AND HAVE GIVEN UP.
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE OTHER ORGANISATIONS RATHER ONLY
WITH OTHER COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE WITH OUR CENTRELINK OFFICE.
EVERYTHING IS GOING ALONG OK AS IT IS
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO US AS WE DON'T HAVE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE DHS
OUR PROCESS IS ALREADY FINE
WE DON'T DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THESE AGENCIES
BECAUSE I THINK ITS ALREADY HAPPENING AS OUR SYSTEMS ARE CONNECTED TO THEIRS.
BECAUSE WE ARE SATISFIED THAT EVERYTHING WORKS WELL AS WHEN WE NEED TO CONTACT
THEM REGARDING OUR CLIENTS WE CAN GET STRAIGHT THROUGH TO A COMPETANT AND
EXPERIENCED STAFF MEMBER
HOW WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER NOW WORKS GREAT FOR US.
WE HAVE A GOOD BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP AND SO WE GET POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR CLIENTS
I THINK EVERYTHING IS WORKING FINE AS IT IS
WE HAVE A CASE WORKING MODEL HERE AND IT'S ON AN AS REQUIRED BASIS. I DON'T
THINK WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES AND IT'S VERY RARE THAT WE HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH ANY
OF THOSE AGENCIES.
I BELIEVE EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL FOR US I REALLY HAVE NO COMMENTS
WE HAVE REGULAR FORMAL MEETINGS AND HAVE REALLY GOOD ONE ON ONE COMMUNCATION
WITH THESE SERVICES.
WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS CENTRELINK HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WILLING TO HELP US AT
ANY STAGE.
NOT TO SURE. MAYBE OUR HEAD OFFICE WOULD HAVE MORE DEALINGS WITH THEM.
WE'VE GOT CONTACT WITH THEM. I'M VERY SATISFIED WITH THAT AT THE MOMENT.
Page 103
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.15
SPECIFY: Why do you say that?
Q.15. Why do you say that?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP BY HAVING ACCESS ON A DIRECT LINE TO THE SOCIAL
WORKERS
OUR PROCESS IS WORKING WELL AND WE ARE HAPPY WITH OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE
AGENCIES WE DEAL WITH
IT'S PROBABLY SUFFICIENT BECAUSE WE ALL MAKE IT SUFFICIENT BECAUSE YOU ARE DOING
IT ON A ONE TO ONE BASIS. WE ARE USE TO GETTING INFORMATION AND LIASING, THAT'S
WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
WE HAVE A VERY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH CENTRELINK.
I THINK USUALLY IT'S JUST CHECKING INFORMATION BETWEEN US, NOT SO MUCH WORKING
IN GROUPS, SO I THINK IT'S FINE HOW IT IS AT THE MOMENT.
WE ARE ALREADY WORKING WELL WITH CENTRELINK WE HAVE TWO OF THERE STAFF MEMBERS
ON OUR PREMISES.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY GOOD. THE SERVICES ACTUALLY COME HERE AND ARE AVAILABLE TO
THE CLIENT FROM OUR SERVICE, CENTRELINK IS THE MAIN ONE, SO IT'S PRETTY GOOD
BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER FELT ANY NEED TO CONTACT THEM AND NO PARTICULAR REASON
OUR ORGANISATION WORKS WELL WITH THE AGENCIES
NOT APPLICABLE AS WE REFER ANY INQUIRIES TO OUR STATE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
BECAUSE OUR INTERACTION IS ALREADY WHAT IS REQUIRED.
IT'S PRETTY OK AT THE MOMENT. WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE
AGENCIES, BUT THINGS CAN OBVIOUSLY ALWAYS BE IMPROVED WHEN ISSUES COME UP.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT JOBS TO DO TO US AND WE JUST HGET ON AND DO THESE
JOBS
WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER WELL AND KEPT THE NETWORKS OPEN. MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT
TO KEEP IT GOOD.
BECAUSE ALREADY HAVE A GOOD PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THWE AGENCIES3
EVERYTHING SEEMS PRETTY GOOD.
WE HAVE THE PATHWAYS NETWORK THAT WE ARE INVOLVED IN THAT'S ADEQUATE AND IT
LOOKS LIKE CENTRELINK IS STARTING TO LINK THE KEY ORGANISATIONS TOGETHER, SO
THAT'S ADEQUATE.
EVERYTHING WE HAVE WORKS WELL
WE WORK ON A LEVEL THAT WORKS WELL AS WE CAN MAKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH PEOPLE WE
NEED TO WORK WITH
IT'S QUITE GOOD AT THE MOMENT. OVER THE LAST YEAR IT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED.
A YEAR AGO WE HAD NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH MEDICARE AND THROUGH CENTRELINK'S
WORK WITH US WE'VE MANAGED TO GET A REALLY GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH
MEDICARE AND THAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST YEAR
THE REFERRALS THAT COME FROM CENTRELINK COME WITH ADEQUATE INFORMATION
IN A SMALLER COMMUNITY A LOT OF AGENCIES SHARE INFORMATION
CENTRELINK LET US KNOW WHEN THEY HAVE COMMUNITY FORUMS AND WE CAN ATTEND THAT SO
IT'S GOOD.
Page 104
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BECAUSE I THINK EVERYTHING IS WORKING OUT WELL
NOT SURE
BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH WOMENS ISSUES ALL OUR PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE AND WORK WELL
IT IS WORKING FINE WE ARE A VERY SMALL ORGANISATION IT WORKS WELL FOR THIS LOCAL
AREA.
ON A LOCAL LEVEL, I THINK WE ARE DOING ALRIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE
THE DIFFERENCE. I THINK IT'S CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING WITHIN THOSE AGENCIES THAT
WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.
BECAUSE THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THEIR SERVICES AND OURS WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH
TO DO WITH THESE ORGANISATIONS
IT WORKS QUITE WELL AND WE ARE AWARE OF THE EXISTANCE OF THESE AGENCIES AND CAN
DIRECT OUR CLIENTS TO DHS WITHOUT FORMAL REFERRALS
I DON'T KNOW
BECAUSE WE HAVE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE AND ACCESS BY GETTING ADVICE FROM CENTRELINK
RE PAYMENTS AND JOBSEEKER REQUIREMENTS
THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE GREATER COORDINATION BECAUSE THE GUYS AT THE LCOAL
LEVEL, WE'VE WORKED OUT HOW TO WORK IT.
CO-ORDINATION OF SERVICES ONLY INVOLVES ANOTHER LAYER OF ADMINISTRATION DOING
NON PRODUCTIVE WORK
WE DO NOT DEAL WITH ANY OF THE AGENCIES IT IS NOT IN OUR AREA OF OPERATION.
WE OFTEN GET THINGS SENT THROUGH BY EMAIL, THAT WAY WE CAN INFORM OUR FAMILIES,
OUR CLIENTS.
I DONT SEE THAT THE OTHER AGENCIES HAVE CLIENTS THAT WOULD BE NEEDING TO SEE US.
WE DON'T HAVE HAVE ANY NEED TO CONTACT THESE AGENCIES
BECAUSE WE DON'T WORK CLOSELY WITH THOSE PARTICULAR AGENCIES
NOT AT MY LEVEL, PERHAPS AT A DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL.
WE RUN ALMOST LIKE A PRIVATE ORGANISATION. THERE IS NO REAL NEED FOR
CO-ORDINATION OF SERVICES. OUR CLIENTS ARE GIVEN A BUDGET TO MANAGE THERE
HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD NEEDS.
OUR POSITION IS MAINLY WITH STATE DEPT. OF EDUCATION WE HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH
DHS OR THERE AGENCIES.
WE DO QUITE WELL AS WE CAN GIVE THEM A RING AND TALK ABOUT CLIENTS AND WE CAN
GET DIRECTLY THROUGH
IT WOULD NOT RELATE TO OUR ORGANISATION WE HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC MANDATE.
WE ARE A VERY SMALL SERVICE WE DONT HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THEM, AND WHAT WE USE
THEM FOR THEY ARE VERY HELPFUL.
WE DON'T ENUGH CONTACT WITH DHS TO HAVE ANY ISSUES RE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM
NOT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AS WE HAVE A COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS ISSUES THAT BUSINESSES
MAY RE EMPLOYEES AND RETERENCHMENTS
EVERYTHING RUNS SMOOTHLY
WE ARE A PROFIT ORGANISATION AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY THAT
DHS SHOULD BE SEEN TO BE PROMOTING OTHER COMPANIES.
BECAUSE EVERYTHING WORKS ALRIGHT AS THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS BUT NOT SURE AS WE
PLOD ALONG OK
Page 105
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.15
SPECIFY: Why do you say that?
Q.15. Why do you say that?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
NOT SURE, OUR ONLY CONTACT REALLY IS TO CLAIM PAYMENTS FOR OUR CLIENTS WHEN THEY
CANT PAY FOR THERE STAY. WE ARE A NURSING HOME.
NO WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH CENTRELINK
IT SEEMS TO BE THE THEY DO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO THEIR REFERRALS OVERALL ARE
GOOD
BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT AS WE WORK MORE WITH JOB SERVICE AGENCIES
WE ARE WORKING AT A GOOD LEVEL AS CENTRELINK ATTEND INTERAGENCY MEETINGS AND
MAKE STAFF AVAILABLE TO TALK TO US
Q.16. How do you see this working?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
BASE: NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS
WORKING
More shared service
initiatives such as Local
Connections to Work
Need shared goals/
objectives
Mutual understanding of
organisation and services
Provide training
Address high staff turnover
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
amongst stakeholders (ie
Govt & Community sector)
More regular meetings/
networking opportunities
Hold stakeholder/ information
sessions (attended by all
agencies)
Clearer point of contact
Other
Don't know/ Can't say
TOTAL
Total
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
200
121
61
18
66
27
25
19
40
4
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
1
23
0
2.0%
1.7%
3.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.0%
10.5%
2.5%
.0%
31
18
12
1
5
4
4
3
12
3
15.5%
14.9%
19.7%
5.6%
7.6%
14.8%
16.0%
15.8%
30.0%
13.0%
51
29
17
5
19
7
8
4
8
5
25.5%
24.0%
27.9%
27.8%
28.8%
25.9%
32.0%
21.1%
20.0%
21.7%
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1.0%
1.7%
.0%
.0%
1.5%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
.0%
.0%
4
3
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
2.0%
2.5%
.0%
5.6%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
.0%
.0%
8
5
3
0
3
0
1
1
1
2
4.0%
4.1%
4.9%
.0%
4.5%
.0%
4.0%
5.3%
2.5%
8.7%
53
31
16
6
14
9
10
5
12
3
26.5%
25.6%
26.2%
33.3%
21.2%
33.3%
40.0%
26.3%
30.0%
13.0%
41
26
11
4
16
7
4
1
6
7
20.5%
21.5%
18.0%
22.2%
24.2%
25.9%
16.0%
5.3%
15.0%
30.4%
4
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
2.0%
2.5%
1.6%
.0%
4.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4.3%
8
6
2
0
1
1
3
2
1
0
4.0%
5.0%
3.3%
.0%
1.5%
3.7%
12.0%
10.5%
2.5%
.0%
14
8
4
2
5
2
1
1
3
2
7.0%
6.6%
6.6%
11.1%
7.6%
7.4%
4.0%
5.3%
7.5%
8.7%
5
4
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
2.5%
3.3%
1.6%
.0%
3.0%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
2.5%
4.3%
18
66
27
25
19
40
23
200
121
61
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 106
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16. How do you see this working?
Advocacy or Service Org
BASE: NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS
WORKING
More shared service
initiatives such as Local
Connections to Work
Need shared goals/
objectives
Mutual understanding of
organisation and services
Provide training
Address high staff turnover
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
amongst stakeholders (ie
Govt & Community sector)
More regular meetings/
networking opportunities
Hold stakeholder/ information
sessions (attended by all
agencies)
Clearer point of contact
Other
Don't know/ Can't say
TOTAL
Total
Advocacy Service
Want greater
coordination
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Need greater
coordination
Both
200
9
100
91
15
180
1
4
0
2
2
1
3
0
200
4
2.0%
.0%
2.0%
2.2%
6.7%
1.7%
.0%
2.0%
31
0
16
15
2
29
0
31
15.5%
.0%
16.0%
16.5%
13.3%
16.1%
.0%
15.5%
47
1
51
26.1% 100.0%
25.5%
51
3
23
25
3
25.5%
33.3%
23.0%
27.5%
20.0%
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
1.0%
.0%
1.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.0%
4
0
2
2
1
3
0
4
2.0%
.0%
2.0%
2.2%
6.7%
1.7%
.0%
2.0%
8
1
3
4
0
8
0
8
4.0%
11.1%
3.0%
4.4%
.0%
4.4%
.0%
4.0%
53
3
28
22
3
49
0
53
26.5%
33.3%
28.0%
24.2%
20.0%
27.2%
.0%
26.5%
41
2
21
18
3
37
0
41
20.5%
22.2%
21.0%
19.8%
20.0%
20.6%
.0%
20.5%
4
0
1
3
0
3
0
4
2.0%
.0%
1.0%
3.3%
.0%
1.7%
.0%
2.0%
8
0
3
5
2
6
0
8
4.0%
.0%
3.0%
5.5%
13.3%
3.3%
.0%
4.0%
14
1
8
5
2
12
0
14
7.0%
11.1%
8.0%
5.5%
13.3%
6.7%
.0%
7.0%
5
1
2
2
0
4
0
5
2.5%
11.1%
2.0%
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
2.5%
9
100
91
15
180
1
200
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
200
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 107
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16. How do you see this working?
Test Sites 1
BASE: NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS
WORKING
More shared service
initiatives such as Local
Connections to Work
Need shared goals/
objectives
Mutual understanding of
organisation and services
Total
Burnie
Cowra
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
4
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
22.2%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
2
1
2
2
3
1
0
2
4
0
20.0%
7.7%
25.0%
20.0%
33.3%
11.1%
.0%
15.4%
28.6%
.0%
51
3
1
0
4
1
0
5
3
3
3
25.5%
30.0%
7.7%
.0%
40.0%
11.1%
.0%
45.5%
23.1%
21.4%
25.0%
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
Formalise the referrals
process
Hold stakeholder/ information
sessions (attended by all
agencies)
8
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
4.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
15.4%
7.1%
8.3%
53
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
5
2
26.5%
40.0%
23.1%
50.0%
30.0%
22.2%
22.2%
18.2%
7.7%
35.7%
16.7%
41
0
5
1
0
2
1
4
4
3
2
20.5%
.0%
38.5%
12.5%
.0%
22.2%
11.1%
36.4%
30.8%
21.4%
16.7%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
Clearer point of contact
Other
8
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
4.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
.0%
14
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
2
7.0%
10.0%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
11.1%
11.1%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
16.7%
Don't know/ Can't say
TOTAL
12
31
Address high staff turnover
More regular meetings/
networking opportunities
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
15.5%
Provide training
Improve communication
amongst stakeholders (ie
Govt & Community sector)
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
12
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.16. How do you see this working?
Test Sites 2
BASE: NEED FOR GREATER COORDINATION
Sample Size
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS
WORKING
More shared service
initiatives such as Local
Connections to Work
Need shared goals/
objectives
Mutual understanding of
organisation and services
Provide training
Address high staff turnover
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
amongst stakeholders (ie
Govt & Community sector)
More regular meetings/
networking opportunities
Hold stakeholder/ information
sessions (attended by all
agencies)
Clearer point of contact
Other
Don't know/ Can't say
TOTAL
Total
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
31
1
0
2
2
1
3
3
0
2
15.5%
9.1%
.0%
22.2%
18.2%
11.1%
42.9%
23.1%
.0%
20.0%
51
2
5
2
2
3
3
1
5
5
25.5%
18.2%
45.5%
22.2%
18.2%
33.3%
42.9%
7.7%
50.0%
50.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
53
4
5
3
2
2
2
4
2
1
26.5%
36.4%
45.5%
33.3%
18.2%
22.2%
28.6%
30.8%
20.0%
10.0%
41
2
1
3
3
0
0
4
3
3
20.5%
18.2%
9.1%
33.3%
27.3%
.0%
.0%
30.8%
30.0%
30.0%
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
8
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4.0%
9.1%
18.2%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
14
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
7.0%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
5
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2.5%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
10
10
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 108
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16
SPECIFY: How do you see this working?
Q.16. How do you see this working?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A BETTER FLOW OF INFORMATION.
FURTHER INTER- AGENCY MEETINGS AND NETWORK MEETINGS . CONSULTATION WITH SERVICE
PROVIDERS ABOUT POLICY PROCEDURES ABOUT WHAT IS WORKING AND WHAT IS NOT. EG:
SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY
A PART OF WOULD BE HAVING A CENTRAL CONTACT PERSON, SOMEONE WHO IS KNOWLEDABLE
ABOUT THE SYSTEM AND ABOUT THE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCAL BASED ISSUES OF OUR CLIENTS
BETTER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US AND THEM
SEND STAFF FROM AGENCIES TO OUR OFFICE TO THE NETWORK QUARTERLY MEETINGS TO GET
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE OPERATE
NETWORKING MEETINGS, FOCUS GROUPS, DISCUSSIONS, SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
I DONT SEE IT WOULD WORK BECAUSE WHEN WE APPROACH THESE AGENCIES FOR ANY
ASSISTANCE WE ARE TOLD IT HAS TO BE THE PARENTS WHO APPROACH THE AGENCIES.
COULD HAVE STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SEESION FROM AGENCIES TO HAVE
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF EACH AGENCY
MORE PROACTIVE. USUALLY WHEN WE CONTACT THEM THERE'S AN ISSUE WE NEED TO SORT
OUT. IF WE HAD A MORE STREAMLINED FORM OF CONTACT THAT WAS MORE ABOUT MANAGING
THE RELATIONSHIP, THAT WOULD BE USEFUL, RATHER THAN THAN JUST HAVING TO SORT OUT
A PROBLEM. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ENROLLED IN OUR PROGRAM ARE ON CENTRELINK,
IT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT ORGANISATION IN THEIR LIVES.
THROUGH WE WORK WITH DHS AND THERE IS NOT A WHOLISTIC APPROACH AND THERE NEEDS
TO BE GREATER COORDINATION BY TALKING TO US BEFORE REFERRELS
IT NEEDS ALL STAKE HOLDERS TO SUPPORT OUR RESPECTIVE SERVICES.
SOMEONE MAY BE REFERREDC TO A BRANCH OF OUR ORGANISATION AND THEY SHOULD BE
REFERRED TO ANOTHER BRANCH EG PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ARE REFERRED TO
ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE ORGANISATION EG TO A REHSAB PROGRAMME INSTEAD
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PERSON BASED IN OUR LOCAL AREA WHO WE CAN TALK TO WHEN
NEEDED
BY PERSONAL NETWORKING AND THE TIME ALLOWED TO DHS STAFF TO ENABLE THAT TO
HAPPEN.
PERHAPS BY MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR TWO ORGANISATIONS, I THINK MORE
UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY DO.
IF WE COULD ESTABLISH A BETTER WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VARIOUS AGENCIES
THERE COULD BE A ONE ON ONE MEETING WHERE WE CAN TAKE A CLIENT TO CENTRELINK TO
GET A PROVISION OF RESOLUTION OF AN ISSUE BY BYPASSING THE COUNTER AND SEE AN
OFFICER OR SEND CENTRELINK STAFF TO OUR OFFICES
WHEN WE HAVE ISSUES OF CHILD PROTECTION WE NEED MORE INFORMATION FROM DHS ON
CASES THAT INVOLVE CHILD PROTECTION
BY HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DHS SERVICES AND HOW TO LINK IN WITH THESE SERVICES
THROUGH FORUMS OR A FORMALISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN HARD COPY
Page 109
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MORE COMMUNICATION TO HAVE ONE ON ONE MEETINGS WITH THE AGENCIES BY WAY OF THEM
CONTACTING OUR ORGANISATION
I THINK MORE INVOLVEMENT IN THOSE KIND OF MEETING STRUCTURES WHEREBY INFORMATION
IS SHARED AND YOU CAN IDENTIFY CHANGES WE ARE SEEING WITH OUR CLIENT GROUP.
IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE CAN SUPPORT THE CLIENT GROUP WITH BETTER
THAN WE DO.
BETTER COMMUNICATION
IT NEEDS TO BE MUCH MORE COLABORATIVE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SHARE INFORMATION
AND DHS JUST DROPPING THEM OFF ON OUR DOOR STEP WITH NO FOLLOW UP IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE
BETTER INFORMATION SHARING. INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROCESSED LOCALLY.
WE CAN ALL SHARE INFORMATION, BEING AWARE OF WHAT OUR PROGRAMMES HAVE TO OFFER,
MORE NETWORKING.
JUST MORE INFORMATION SHARING, MORE COMMUNITY EDUCATION, POSSIBLY JOINT PANELS.
COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE IMPROVED THROUGH MORE CONTACT OVER THE COUNTER OR BY
PHONE OR AT MEETINGS
THROUGH BEING AWARE OF WHAT SERVICES THEY COULD SUPPLY SUCH AS WELL BEING AND
FINANCIAL SUPPORT SUCH AS ONE ON ONE OR PERSONAL COUNSELLING
BY MEETING TOGETHER TO BE MORE AWARE OF OUR AIMS AND HAVE QUARTERLY MEETINGS IN
PERSON SUCH AS CHANGES IN LEGISLATION AND POLICY THAT AFFECXT OUR CLIENTS SUCH
AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES
A LOT OF THE POPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH CENTRELINK WHO ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK FOR
WORK OR TO STUDY ARE POSSIBLY NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED. OUR ORGANISATION CAN DO A LOT TO SUPPORT WOMEN TO GET TO THAT STEP.
SO THERE BEING MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE AT AND THEN BEING
MORE AWARE OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE PEOPLE MEET THEIR
CENTRELINK REQUIREMENTS.
BY DEALING WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE BY GREATER COORDINATION WITH US TO UNDERSTAND
THE NEEDS OF THE CENTRELINK CLIENTS AND BEING ABLE TO TREACK THEIR WANDERINGS
SETTING UP OF ADEQUATE POLICIES AND PARTNER ARRANGEMENTS
I THINK THE DIFFICULTY WE HAVE, THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES DON'T ACT LIKE THEY ARE
HELPING US WE ARE HELPING THEM.
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT DHS IS AND WHAT THE VISION OF
THOSE AGENCIES ARE FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES.
MORE EMPHASIS ON THE PERSON RATHER THAN THE NUMBER.
WE NEED TO IMPROVE BY STRONGER INERAGENCY WORK AND IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS OF
STAKEHOLDERS BY LOOKING AT WHAT AGENCY BEST DELIVERS SERVICES ON A LOCAL RATHER
THAN A NATIONAL LEVEL
A DIRECT DATA BASE OR DIRECTORY WITH UPDATED INFORMATION ON INTERAGENCY MEETINGS
AND UPGATED ON POLICY AND TRAINING ON BEST METHODS ON WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR
CLIENTS RE NEW HOUSING SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION ON EMERGENCY SERVICES
HAVING ALL THE SERVICES ACCESSIBLE UNDER THE ONE BANNER WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR
THE CLIENT.
Page 110
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16
SPECIFY: How do you see this working?
Q.16. How do you see this working?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WE HAVE BUILT A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JOB CAPACILITY ASSESSORS. THE STAFF AT
CENTRELINK (BANKSTOWN) MAKE JUDGEMENTS WITH NO EVIDENTS. SHOULD BE BETTER STAFF
TRAINING AND TO USE NON JUDGEMENTAL PRACTICES.
TO HAVE ACCESS TO CENTRELINK SERVICES BY MAKING US AWARE OF WHAT SERVICES THEY
OFFER PERHAOS THROUGH THE WEBSITE OR MAILING MATERIAL TO US
BEING ABLE TO TALK TO SOMEONE. HAVING A PERSON THAT IS THE CO-ORDINATOR OF THESE
PROGRAMS SO IF WE HAVE SOMEONE IN HERE THAT HAS SPECIAL NEEDS, BEING ABLE TO
HAVE SOMEONE TO TALK TO THAT CAN PULL TOGETHER ALL THE RESOURCES TO HELP THAT
PERSON
WRAP AROUND SERVICES ALREADY IN PROGRESS WITH CENTRELINK
IT HAS TO BE BETTER ORGANISATION WITH THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE TO THE COMMUNITY.
THERE SHOULD BE OPEN COMMUNICATION. WE HAVE TO IMPROVE THAT FOR US TO KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH INTERNAL GOVERNMENT POLICY, GOVERNMENT CHANGES
AND THE WAY THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED.
MORE ONE ON ONE CONTACT WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS. MEETING AND GREETING, TAKING
PAMPHLETS DOWN ETC. MORE INTERACTION.
SOME SORT OF FORUMS TO FACILITATE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. PEOPLE WORKING
TOGETHER. AN INFORMATION FLOW EACH WAY - OFTEN THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BUT
WITHOUT DISCUSSION AROUND IT.
WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE IT BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF CORE SERVICES THAT BOTH OUR
ORGANISATION AND THE DHS AGENCIES PROVIDE
IN TERMS OF COOORDIANTION OF SERVICES, IF EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE IT WOULD
MAKE THINGS MUCH EASIER. THERE HAS TO BE GREATER COORDINATION BETWEEN AGENCIES
IF WE WANT TO TO PROVIDE A SEAMLESS SERVICE TO CLIENTS.
A MORE OPEN COMMUNICATION LINE BETWEEN SERVICES.
THEY COULD ATTEND INTERAGENCY MEETINGS, WORK WITH LOCAL SERVICES ABOUT
RESPONDING TO NEEDS IN THE COMMUNITY AND WORK TOWARDS MEETING THOSE NEEDS.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE DO RATHER THAN
HAVING US AS A LAST RESORT.
BY HAVING MORE INTERAGENCY MEETINGS AT LEAST QUARTERLY AT TE AGENCY OFFICES
I THINK JUST THROUGH COMMUNICATION
BY HAVING A BETTER COORDINATED APPROACH BY TALKING MORE IN SHORT ONE ON ONE
MEETINGS WITH THE KEY CENTRELINK PLAYERS ON A LOCAL LEVEL
THROUGH HAVING THE SAME COMPUTER SYSTEM SO WE CAN SEE IF CLIENTS ARE STREAMED
CORRECTLY SO THAT THEY SEND US CLIENTS THAT ARE CORRECTLY STREAMED SO THEY ARE
JOB READY OR AVAILABLE TO BE DEALT WITH SO THEY CAN BE RETRAINED
MORE INFORMATION SHARING.
IT'S ABOUT HAVING CONVERSATIONS. SETTING UP CLEAR PROTOCOLS AND MAKING SURE
THERE IS REGULAR FEEDBACK AND EVALUATIONS PUT IN PLACE
MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TO ORGANISATIONS AND MORE JOB SHARING REGARDING
Page 111
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OUR CLIENTS.
GREATER REFERALS TO US. THEY SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. IT WOULD BE
GREAT IF THEY WERE A MORE ACTIVE SOURCE OF REFERRING PEOPLE TO US. WE WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE SOME INPUT AS TO HOW THEY DEAL WITH PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITIES.
CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY IT CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IN GETTING THE RIGHT INFORMATION
ABOUT CLIENTS AND THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO HELP THE CLIENT.
BETTER COMMUNICATION, MORE LIAISON BETWEEN PERSON TO PERSON.
WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT OUR ORGANISATIONS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT
EACH ONES ULTIMATELY ABOUT THE CLIENT
FORMING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT FROM CENTRELINK AND OUR
ORGANISATION IN RELATION INDIGENOUS PROVISIONS
COMMUNICATION, MORE OF.
WE ARE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, WE CANNOT ACCESS MEDICAL BENEFIT ITEM, SO ACCESS
TO FUNDING.
CENTRELINK STAFF COMING ALONG TO INTER AGENCY MEETINGS ALSO BEING INVOLVED IN
GENERAL MEETINGS. ALSO ATTENDING OUR OPEN DAY SESSIONS TO PROMOTE THEIR
SERVICES TO OUR CLIENTS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY FOR THE CLIENTS TO GO INTO
CENTRELINK OFFICES
A GREATER COMMUNICATION OF WHEN THINGS CHANGE.
NO ODEAS
TO GIVE US A CLEAR INFORMATION ON WHAT THEIR ROLE SUCH AS FORUMS AND
INTERSERVICE MEETINGS SUCH AS HAVING MMETINGS ON A MONTHLY BASIS
JUST WITH THE OTHER DHS SERVICES BY ADVISING WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABVLE WITH
OTHER DHS AGENCIES AND THIS COULD BE PROVIDED AT FACE TO FACE MEETINGS OR
THROUGH EMAIL
SEND CLIENTS TO THE JOB CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS FOR MORE INDEPTH ASSESSMENT OF THE
CLIENT.
THEY COULD ALWAYS BE IMPROVED IN A GENERAL WAY. EXAMPLE WITH STAFF TURNOVER.
REFERRAL PATHWAYS FOR THE FAMILIES I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN FALL THROUGH THE
GAPS.
BY HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WORKING TOGETHER SERVES OUR CLIENTS BY HAVING A
STRATEGY OR COMMITTEE TO MEET 2 OR 3 TIMES A YEAR TO RECRUIT CLIENTS INTO
VOLUNTEERING
YES IT WOULD BE GOOD TO BUILD BETTER RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE OTHER SERVICES.
THROUGH BETTER COMMUNICATION BY HAVING STAFF FROM CENTRELINK BUILD PARTNERSHIPS
IN PROVIDING MORE INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE SERVICES
PERHAPS SOME KIND OF SERVICE AGREEMENT SO EVERYONE KNIOWS WHAT IS EXPECTED OF
EVERYONE
MAYBE CENTRELINK, WE COULD BE MORE LINKED TOGETHER.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA CHANGES MORE AWARENESS OF WHAT WE BOTH DO, AND IS AVAILABLE
TO THE CLIENT.
I BELEIVE IT \\
Page 112
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16
SPECIFY: How do you see this working?
Q.16. How do you see this working?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BECAUSE I FEEL THERE ARE TOO MANY GAPS AND WE IDENTIFIED WE WORK WITH HOMELESS
YOUTH AND AS THEY DON'T MEET CENTRELINK REQUIREMENTS THEY ARE BACK IN THE
STREETS SUCH AS NOT OUT OF THE FAMILY HOME LONG ENOUGH
WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE THIS SUCH AS AT A MANAGEMENT LEVELS SO WE COULD DO WHAT WE
AND THE AGENCIES KNOEW WHAT WE DSO FOR THE CLIENTS
WE ARE RELIANT ON FUNDING TO EXIST IF THIS WAS CUT WE WOULD BE NON EXISTENT AS
A SERVICE. WE ARE BASICALLY A GROUP WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP AS A PILOT PROGRAMME,
REVIEWED EVERY 6 MONTHS.
I THINK ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY GET NEW STAFF, NEW STAFF NEED TO BE MADE AWARE OF
WHAT SERVICES ARE OUT THERE
NEEDS TO BE A PARTNERSHIP.
BASICALLY WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT ISSUES SUCH AS THE CENTRELINK STAFF
LEAVING THE AREA AND THEY SHOULD INTRODUCE US TO THE REPLACEMENT STAFF
NOT SURE
INFORMATION SHARING GUIDELINES SHOULD COME INTO PLACE.
THEY COULD HAVE WEEKLY MEETINGS WITH CENTRELINK BY HAVING STAFF RESOLVING
CENTRELIK ISSUES AND ANSWERING CLIENT QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
FOR THE BETTER OF THE CLIENT. BY WORKING TOGETHER THE CLIENT IS ACTUALLY GETTING
SERVICES FOR THE BETTER.
THEY SHOULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE.
TO HAVE JOINT MEETINGS HERE AT OUR PREMISES SUCH AS QUARTERLY MEETINGS
MORE COOPERATION LIKE PARTIES GETTING TOGETHER AND TO UNDERSTAND EACH
ORGANISATION BETTER
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF PROCESS ESTABLISHED, SOME UNDERSTANDING OF
PROTOCOL. THE FIRST STARTING POINT WOULD BE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO
THE AWARENESS OF NGOS AND OTHER SMALL AGENCIES THAT WOULD PLAY A VERY CRUCIAL
ROLE.
TO HAVE GREATER COMMUNICATION ON UPDATES ON CHANGES OF REFERREL REQUIREMENTS AND
THIS BE DONE THROUGH QUARTERLY GROUP MEETINGS INCLUDING OTHER COMMUNITY AGENCIES
BY THE NEED TO MAINTAIN BETTER CONTACT THROUGH THE ODD MEETING TO DISCUSS
APPROACHES TO CLIENT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS
CLEARER COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING, WE WOULD GAIN BETTER RESULTS.
DEEWR
COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY, BEING ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE RIGHT PERSON AT THE RIGHT
TIME.
WE DO THE WRAP AROUND SERVICE IN BERNIE AND THIS SERVICE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
WORK WELL IN OTHER AREAS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS IN ALL AREAS.
ATTENDING NETWORK MEETING. STAFF FROM BOTH ORGANISATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS
MEETINGS WHERE ISSUES CAN BE RAISED AND STRATEGIES PUT FORWARD
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ENGAGE IN A NETWORK WHERE WE CAN SHARE INFORMATION
Page 113
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
AND WAYS OF BETTER SERVICING THE COMMUNITY.
HAVING VISIBLE LINKS WITHIN THE SYSTEM FOR THE FAMILIES AND FOR THE DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR ORGANISATION SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF WITH ALL THE
ORGANISATIONS.
BY HAVING SOMEONE ACCESSIBLE ON A ONE TO ONE CONTACT BASIS WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE IN
OUR AREA BECAUSE CENTRELINK DOESNT APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF WHAT OUR ORGANISATION
DOES
THROUGH A CASE MANAGEMENT TYPE MODEL THAT WOULD BE MULTI DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
NOTHING REALLY, WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE OUR SERVICES.
IF THERE WAS A LIAISON PERSON BETWEEN OUR TWO ORGANISATIONS THIS WOULD BE USEFUL
FOR THEM TO SEE WHAT WE DO AND VIS VERSA.
I THINK THE LEGISLATION NEEDS CHANGING. MORE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE HANDED OVER
TO HELP WITH THE CLIENTS..
THE SERVICES MORE KNOWN AND EASIER ACCESS TO THEM.
IT WOULD ALWAYS BE GOOD TO HAVE MORE COORDINATION.
NEEDS TO BE MORE AWARENESS OF THE SERVICES AVAILABLE.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE BETTER OUTCOME FOR THE CAREER
THAT CENRELINK HAS BETTER SOCIAL WORKER RESOURCES AND WHEN CENTRELINK SEND
INAPPROPRIATE REFERRALS THEY SEND PEOPLE WHO DON'T FIT THE CRITERIA FOR OUR
ACCOMODATION SERVICES
IN FOLLOWING UP PROPER REFERRALS. GIVING PROPER REFERRALS.
I THINK WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE.
IT'S BETTER TO WORK TOGETHER THAN TO BE DISJOINTED. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO
COMMUNICATION, I GUESS.
IMPROVE COMMUNICATION AT A LOCAL LEVEL.
IMPROVE COMMUNICATION. IF WE HAD AN OUTREACH SERVICE THAT WOULD HELP
I BIT MORE EFFORT TO NETWORK. COME TO MORE NETWORK MEETINGS TO SEE WHAT WE ARE
ALL ABOUT.
BUILDING INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH KEY PERSONNEL RELEVANT TO MY WORK.
HOLD REGULAR MEETINGS TO SHARE INFORMATION BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE AGENCIES
JUST TO HAVE MORE DETAILED LIAISON REGARDING OUR CLIENTS IN A WRITTEN FORM BY
EMAIL
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ALL DO WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE BETTER OF OUR
CLIENTS.
BY IN OUR AREA BY NETWORKING AND PROVIDING DATA ON TENANTING AND RENTING ISSUES
AND HOW WE CAN EDUCATE OUR CLIENTS RIGHTA SND CONSUMER RIGHTS
CHANGES FOR FAMILY TAX BENEFITS. MORE INVOLVEMENT IN CONSULTATION PROCESSES.
WE CAN SHARE RESOURCES, BETTER CLIENT OUTCOMES, PROVIDE A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH
TO OUR CLIENT CASE MANAGEMENT.
BY HAVING MORE AWARENESS OF NGOS THROUGHOUT DHS AND THAT WE EXIST BY INTERNAL
TRAINING OF THEIR STAFF, BROCHURES AND VISITAS BY THEIR STAFF TO NGO AGENCIES
HAVING MEETINGS BETWEEN ORGANISATIONS DISCUSSING ASPECTS OF EACH ORGANISATION
DOES
Page 114
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16
SPECIFY: How do you see this working?
Q.16. How do you see this working?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BY HAVING MORE OF AN IT CONNECTION WITH CENTRELINK WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE PRIVACY ACT QUICKER AND MORE THOROUGH INFORMATION AND THIS COULD BE DONE BY
SEEING WHAT WE DO AND SO SEND THE CLIENTS WITH THE RIGHT INFORMATION
MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE THROUGH D.H.S.
BETTER COMMUNICATION AND BETTER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT THE AGENCIES CAN PROVIDE
BETTER CO-ORDINATION SO PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE RIGHT HELP.
UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS RESOURCES
ALL OUR CLIENTS ARE CLIENTS OF CENTRELINK AND THERE SHOULD BE MORE INFORMATION
SHARING BETWEEN ORGANISATIONS
BY WORKING FOR THE BETTERMENT OF CLIENT FAMILIES WHO HAVE A DYNAMIC AND SO WE
COULD HAVE FORMAL CASEWORK MEETINGS TO DEAL WITH CLIENT ISSUES AND ANXIETIES BY
HASVING SOME SORT OF PROTOCAOL BETWEEN US AND THE GOVERNMENTAGENCIES
BY WORKING MORE IN COLLABORATION BY HAVING MEETINGS WITH THE AGENCIES EVERY
QUARTER
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EACH ORGANISATION DOES
SO WE CAN WORK BETTER TOGETHER.
IF THEY CAN GIVE US MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CLIENT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AS WE ARE DOING IT NOW. HAVING LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO WORK. HAVING INIATIVES
LINKED UP TOGETHER SO WE CAN MORE OF A WRAP AROUND SERVICING.
WE'VE GOT A LOT IN PLACE ON LOCAL LEVELS. WE HAVE ALLIANCE GROUPS THAT WILL
MEET. WE HAVE THE PRIMARY CARE PARTNERSHIPS, BUT QUITE OFTEN, YOU ARE WORKING ON
PROJECTS OR STRATEGIC DIRECTION AND THERE IS OFTEN NOT A LOT OF TIME TO EXPLAIN
WHAT YOUR AGENCY DOES OR CHANGES TO YOUR AGENCY. EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT EVERYONE
DOES BUT IT'S ONLY BASIC KNOWLEDGE. EVERYONE GETS SO MANY EMAILS THESE DAYS, SO
YOU JUST OFTEN FLICK THROUGH THEM SO YOU DON'T TAKE ALL THE INFORMATION IN.
RESOURCES ARE SCARES WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT EACH OF OUR ROLE IS.
TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS BY BEING ABLE TO RING THE CLIENT AND INTRODUCE THEM
BUT APART FROM THAT IT IS WORKING AS WELL AS IT CAN BE
I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO IMPROVED SHARED CLIENT FOCUS AND PROBABLY IMPROVED
INFORMATION SHARING.
AS WE ARE ON A TIME RESTRAINT THAT WHEN WE NEED TO RING CENTRELINK WE ARE PUT
ON HOLD AND WE NEED TO WAIT FOR A LONG TIME BY HAVING STAFF MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO
ANSWER THE PHONE PROMPTLY AND ALSO CHANGE THE SUPERIOR STAFF ATTITUDES WHO SEE
PEOPLE AS NUMBERS
NOT SURE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON A CORPORATE LEVEL.
OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED. FOR THE CLIENTS
INTEREST TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF ANY COMMUNICATION.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INFORMATION BETWEEN SERVICES. ESPECIALLY FOR
CENTRELINK STAFF, SO WE CAN WORK TOGETHER BETTER.
BY GETTING TOGETHER AND DISCUSSING WHAT SUPPORT AND SERVICES WE PROVIDE AND WHAT
Page 115
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THE SERVICES ARE THAT THE AGENCIES PROVIDE AND OFFER.
I THINK SPECIFCALLY BECAUSE WE ARE A YOUTH AGENCY, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO RECEIVE
MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT IS BEING PROVIDED AND WHAT AVENUES WE CAN LOOK AT FOR
WORKING TOGETHER. WE ARE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE BUILDING A NEW YOUTH
CENTRE, SO IF THERE IS WAYS OF SETTING UP PARTNERSHIPS OR SETTING UP OUTREACH IN
TERMS OF A ONE STOP SHOP, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
IN RELATION TO OTHER DHS AGENCIES A NEED FOR A BETTER PERCEPTION OF OTHER
ORGANISATIONS AND WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER. MORE ADEQUATE
INFORMATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS SHARED AND RESPECTED.
WITH REGARDS TO PROMOTION OF THEIR SERVICES AND NETWORKING
IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT NEEDS TO BER COMMUNICATED TO OUR AGENCY VIA EMAIL
OR NEWSLETTER OR MEDIA RELEASE
FEDERAL DHS AGENCIES TO BE BETTER INFORMED ABOUT LOCAL SERVICES. AND MAYBE
FORUMS ONE OR TWO TIMES A YEAR. ON A STATE LEVEL. E.G. FAMILY VIOLENCE.
IF WE COULD HAVE DIRECT MEETINGS AND PERSONALLY MEET WITH THE STAFF AND DISCUSS
UPDATES AND THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY US AND THEM
DOING COMMUNITY AWARENESS MEETINGS. FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THERE IS A MEETING AT
CENTRELINK THAT THE OTHER AGENCIES COME ALONG, ESPECIALLY THE CHILD SUPPORT
AGENCY. THAT IS THE MOST APPALLING AGENCY FOR WOMEN TO HAVE TO WORK WITH .
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE CENTRELINK AT COMMUNITY EVENTS TO BUILD A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP WE TEND TO ONLY DEAL WITH THE SOCIAL WORKERS.
MORE REGULAR GET TOGETHER MEETINGS.
THE CLIENTS CAN GET CONFLICTING INFORMATION. WE NEED MORE INFORMATION SHARING.
JOINT MEETINGS MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
THE AGENCIES NEED TO BECOME AWARE THAT WE EXIST THEY NEED TO STREAMLINE THEIR
SERVICES TO US AND GAIN MORE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SERVICES WE OFFER
I THINK THAT MY JOB IS TO SET UP MORE STRATEGIC WORKING GROUPS IN THIS AREA WITH
PARTICULAR SORTS OF AGENCIES.
THERE COULD BE MORE AVAILABILITY ON A LOCAL LEVEL THROUGH LOCAL MEETINGS EVERY 6
MONTHS IN ORDER TO REFERE BETTER PEOPLE
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW NETWORKING STRATEGIES.
PERHAPS A QUARTERLY INTERAGENCY MEETINGS TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
WE DO AND WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE BETTER OF OUR CLIENTS.
THE DEPARTMENTS SEEM TO BECOME SO BIG AND THE NATURE OF CHANGING THE STRUCTURE
OF DEPARTMENTS, THERE SHOULD BE MORE CROSS MEETINGS BETWEEN DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS TO SHARE INFORMATION AND FORM PARTNERSHIPS, FORMAL AND INFORMAL
STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE. CENTRELINK HAS QUITE A FEW INITITIATIVES
WITHIN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO, BOTH FORMAL AND INFORMAL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT
HAPPEN IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS UNDER THE WOMEN SERVICES. I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE
INFORMATION TO BE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
IN THAT EITHER WE ARE PROVIDING THEM WITH INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN THEN PROVIDE
TO PEOPLE OR THEY ARE REFERRING PEOPLE TO US THAT WE CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION TO,
MORE SPECIALISED ADVICE.
Page 116
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.16
SPECIFY: How do you see this working?
Q.16. How do you see this working?
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
LETTING THE FAMILIES KNOW ABOUT SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM SO THEY HAVE
ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM.
THERE SHOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS IN COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN
THE DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS.
THROUGH MORE INFORMATION FROM CENTRELINK ON SENIOR SERVICES AND WHAT SERVICES
THEY OFFER EITHER ELECTRONICALLY OR ON HARD COPY
BIT MORE COMMUNICATION COMING FROM THAT SIDE. SOMETIMES WE ONLY GET A VERY SMALL
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE PRIVY TO A BIT MORE INFORMATION
THAT AFFECTS OUR CLIENTS.
BECAUSE WE ARE RURAL, SO MORE ACCESS IN THE RURAL AREAS
MORE RELATIONSHIP BUILDING BETWEEN BOTH OF US WOULD HELP THE COMMUNITY IN A
BETTER WAY.
BY HAVING REGULAR FORMAL CONTACT THROUGH MEETINGS ON AT LEAST A QUARTERLY BASIS
I THINK EVEN IF WE MEET ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS THAT WOULD HELP.
THERE SHOULD BE A LIASON BETWEEN OUR GROUP AND CENTRELINK. THERE IS NO FORMAL
LIASON, ALL DONE ON AN ADHOK BASIS.
THROUGH TRAINING WOKSHOPS OR SEMINARS IN ORDER TO GET BETTER UNDERSTANDING ON
WHAT THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND ONCE A YEAR IS SUFFICIENT
BY ATTENDING OR GOING TO EACH OTHERS MEETINGS PERHAPS BYANNUALLY IN ORDER TO
UPDATE CHANGES IN POLICIES OR INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES
A GREATER COORDINATION BETWEEN THOSE SERVICES WOULD BE IMPROVED BY TARGETS
WITHIN THEIR ORGANISATION TO PROVIDE REFERRALS.
THROUGH HAVING LIAISON THROUGH MEETINGS WITH CENTRELINK SUCH AS PAYMENT ISSUES
HAVING THAT ONE CONTACT PERSON, ONE CONTACT NUMBER. SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHO WE ARE
WORKING WITH. SO WE CAN NEGOTIATE THE SYSTEM WITHOUT FRUSTRATION, HAVE THAT ONE
PERSON WHO WE CAN CALL UP A LOT OF TIMES.
CAN'T SAY AT THE MOMENT
THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR IT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW. WITH CENTRELINK, THEY
HAVE A HIGH TURNOVER OF STAFF. YOU ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSON AND
YOU GO AND CONTACT THEM A MONTH OR TWO LATER AND THEY HAVE LEFT.
STRONGER PARTNERSHIP, COMMUNITY BASED AGENCIES ARE MORE IN TOUCH WITH ISSUES
AFFECTING CLIENTS.
IT'S MORE IN TERMS OF LESS RED TAPE AND BEING ABLE TO, NOT SO MUCH ONE STOP
SHOP, BUT MINIMISE THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU HAVE TO SPEND ON HOLD WAITING TO GET
TO THE RIGHT PERSON.
PERHAPS IF OTHER ORGANISATIONS LEARNT MORE OF WHAT WE DO WE WOULD HAVE BETTER
COMMUNICATION.
IT COMES DOWN TO COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS ROLES
THROUGH BEING MORE AWARE OF THE WAY TO APPROACH OUR ORGANISATION AND NOT JUST
DUMP THEIR CLIENTS ONTO OUR ORGANISATION
Page 117
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
COLLABORATION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN DOUBT.
MAYBE MORE REGULAR MEETINGS TO GET A LEVEL SERVICE AGREEMENT IN PLACE
BETTER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR AGENCY AND CENTRELINK. EASIER CONTACT.
MAYBE MEETINGS, OR A BOOKLET TO TELL US WHAT THEY ALL DO AND PROVIDES US WITH
CONTACT DETAILS.
HAVE NO DEAS AT THIS STAGE
REGULAR COMMUNICATION WOULD BE A GOOD ONE, THAT GOES BOTH WAYS. OFTEN IT'S ON AN
AS NEEDS BASIS, SO MAYBE SOMETHING MORE REGULAR. I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE
INFORMAL. SOME OF THESE SERVICES SHOULD CHECK WITH THESE PROVIDERS TO SEE HOW
THE CLIENTS ARE GOING. MAKE THAT AWARENESS AND SYSTEM WORK A BIT BETTER
THROUGH MULTIAGENCY TEAMS TO WORK TOGETHER IN TARGETTED AREAS
THROUGH MORE LOCAL CONTACTS AND INFORMATION SHARING AND ALLOW OUR STAFF TO
ACCESS THEIR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES
THEY COULD BE BETTER AT A REGIONAL LEVEL MORE ENGAGED WITH LOCAL AGENCIES NOT
JUST OUR AGENCIES.
BETTER INFORMATION SHARING PROCESSORS OR MARKETING.,
HAVE SOME MORE NETWORKING WITH OTHER DHS AGENCIES PERHAPS BY WAY OF NEWSLETTER
OR IF THESE AGENCIES HAVE A PERSON IN THE AREA TO POP IN ANYTIME OR MAKE AN
APPOINTMENT TO COME AND SEE US AS THESE AGENCIES NEED TO HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE.
IT IS THE PROBLEMS OF STAFF TURNOVER, POLICY CHANGES AND TRAINING IN THE AGENCY
DATABASES
THEY NEED TO GET OUT A BIT AND GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NGO ROLES BY
VISITING US AND LEARNING WHICH CLIENTS WE CATER FOR
Page 118
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17. What can DHS do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Early consultation
Wider consultation
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
across agencies
Clearer point of contact
More open/transparent
DHS staff to attend more
meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
200
121
61
18
66
27
25
19
40
90
58
23
9
34
9
13
9
17
23
8
45.0%
47.9%
37.7%
50.0%
51.5%
33.3%
52.0%
47.4%
42.5%
34.8%
17
14
2
1
3
1
3
1
4
5
8.5%
11.6%
3.3%
5.6%
4.5%
3.7%
12.0%
5.3%
10.0%
21.7%
21
12
7
2
9
1
2
0
6
3
10.5%
9.9%
11.5%
11.1%
13.6%
3.7%
8.0%
.0%
15.0%
13.0%
11
8
3
0
4
0
0
3
1
3
5.5%
6.6%
4.9%
.0%
6.1%
.0%
.0%
15.8%
2.5%
13.0%
89
52
24
13
30
13
11
6
17
12
44.5%
43.0%
39.3%
72.2%
45.5%
48.1%
44.0%
31.6%
42.5%
52.2%
28
18
6
4
6
3
4
3
8
4
14.0%
14.9%
9.8%
22.2%
9.1%
11.1%
16.0%
15.8%
20.0%
17.4%
14
7
4
3
4
1
3
2
2
2
7.0%
5.8%
6.6%
16.7%
6.1%
3.7%
12.0%
10.5%
5.0%
8.7%
39
26
11
2
13
8
1
2
7
8
19.5%
21.5%
18.0%
11.1%
19.7%
29.6%
4.0%
10.5%
17.5%
34.8%
28
11
15
2
8
8
5
1
4
2
14.0%
9.1%
24.6%
11.1%
12.1%
29.6%
20.0%
5.3%
10.0%
8.7%
16
11
4
1
8
2
1
0
3
2
8.0%
9.1%
6.6%
5.6%
12.1%
7.4%
4.0%
.0%
7.5%
8.7%
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1.0%
.8%
.0%
5.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.3%
2.5%
.0%
3
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1.5%
1.7%
.0%
5.6%
.0%
3.7%
4.0%
.0%
2.5%
.0%
11
7
4
0
5
3
0
2
1
0
5.5%
5.8%
6.6%
.0%
7.6%
11.1%
.0%
10.5%
2.5%
.0%
37
21
12
4
15
6
2
1
7
6
18.5%
17.4%
19.7%
22.2%
22.7%
22.2%
8.0%
5.3%
17.5%
26.1%
32
21
6
5
14
4
3
2
7
2
16.0%
17.4%
9.8%
27.8%
21.2%
14.8%
12.0%
10.5%
17.5%
8.7%
26
17
8
1
8
3
4
1
10
0
13.0%
14.0%
13.1%
5.6%
12.1%
11.1%
16.0%
5.3%
25.0%
.0%
18
66
27
25
19
40
23
200
121
61
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 119
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17. What can DHS do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Early consultation
Wider consultation
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
across agencies
Clearer point of contact
More open/transparent
DHS staff to attend more
meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Want greater
coordination
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Need greater
coordination
Both
200
9
100
91
15
180
1
90
2
45
43
11
78
1
200
90
45.0%
22.2%
45.0%
47.3%
73.3%
43.3% 100.0%
45.0%
17
0
8
9
1
15
0
17
8.5%
.0%
8.0%
9.9%
6.7%
8.3%
.0%
8.5%
21
0
12
9
0
21
0
21
10.5%
.0%
12.0%
9.9%
.0%
11.7%
.0%
10.5%
11
0
7
4
0
11
0
11
5.5%
.0%
7.0%
4.4%
.0%
6.1%
.0%
5.5%
89
1
42
46
5
82
0
89
44.5%
11.1%
42.0%
50.5%
33.3%
45.6%
.0%
44.5%
28
1
14
13
2
26
0
28
14.0%
11.1%
14.0%
14.3%
13.3%
14.4%
.0%
14.0%
14
0
9
5
2
12
0
14
7.0%
.0%
9.0%
5.5%
13.3%
6.7%
.0%
7.0%
35
1
39
19.4% 100.0%
19.5%
39
2
19
18
0
19.5%
22.2%
19.0%
19.8%
.0%
28
0
13
15
2
25
0
28
14.0%
.0%
13.0%
16.5%
13.3%
13.9%
.0%
14.0%
13
1
16
7.2% 100.0%
8.0%
16
0
8
8
2
8.0%
.0%
8.0%
8.8%
13.3%
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
1.0%
.0%
.0%
2.2%
.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.0%
3
0
2
1
0
3
0
3
1.5%
.0%
2.0%
1.1%
.0%
1.7%
.0%
1.5%
11
1
5
5
0
11
0
11
5.5%
11.1%
5.0%
5.5%
.0%
6.1%
.0%
5.5%
35
1
37
19.4% 100.0%
18.5%
37
0
16
21
0
18.5%
.0%
16.0%
23.1%
.0%
32
0
16
16
0
16.0%
.0%
16.0%
17.6%
.0%
1
32
16.7% 100.0%
30
16.0%
26
3
10
13
0
26
0
26
13.0%
33.3%
10.0%
14.3%
.0%
14.4%
.0%
13.0%
9
100
91
15
180
1
200
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
200
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 120
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17. What can DHS do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Early consultation
Wider consultation
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
across agencies
Clearer point of contact
More open/transparent
DHS staff to attend more
meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
13
14
90
3
10
4
4
5
5
4
7
6
7
45.0%
30.0%
76.9%
50.0%
40.0%
55.6%
55.6%
36.4%
53.8%
42.9%
58.3%
12
17
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
8.5%
10.0%
7.7%
.0%
10.0%
22.2%
.0%
9.1%
15.4%
21.4%
.0%
21
3
3
0
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
10.5%
30.0%
23.1%
.0%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
9.1%
15.4%
7.1%
.0%
11
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
3
0
0
5.5%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
20.0%
11.1%
11.1%
.0%
23.1%
.0%
.0%
89
3
6
7
4
3
2
7
6
6
4
44.5%
30.0%
46.2%
87.5%
40.0%
33.3%
22.2%
63.6%
46.2%
42.9%
33.3%
28
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
14.0%
20.0%
15.4%
12.5%
20.0%
11.1%
11.1%
9.1%
15.4%
21.4%
8.3%
14
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
7.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
10.0%
11.1%
11.1%
18.2%
15.4%
7.1%
.0%
39
1
5
3
1
0
1
2
3
0
4
19.5%
10.0%
38.5%
37.5%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
18.2%
23.1%
.0%
33.3%
28
1
3
5
0
0
1
0
2
4
0
14.0%
10.0%
23.1%
62.5%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
15.4%
28.6%
.0%
16
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
8.0%
10.0%
15.4%
12.5%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
7.1%
16.7%
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11
0
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
5.5%
.0%
15.4%
12.5%
20.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8.3%
37
1
4
1
0
1
1
3
3
2
4
18.5%
10.0%
30.8%
12.5%
.0%
11.1%
11.1%
27.3%
23.1%
14.3%
33.3%
32
1
5
1
0
1
2
3
1
1
4
16.0%
10.0%
38.5%
12.5%
.0%
11.1%
22.2%
27.3%
7.7%
7.1%
33.3%
26
4
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
2
1
13.0%
40.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
33.3%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
14.3%
8.3%
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
12
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 121
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17. What can DHS do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Early consultation
Wider consultation
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication
across agencies
Clearer point of contact
More open/transparent
DHS staff to attend more
meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
Other (specify)
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
10
90
6
7
3
2
3
2
6
2
10
4
45.0%
54.5%
63.6%
33.3%
18.2%
33.3%
28.6%
46.2%
20.0%
40.0%
17
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
8.5%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
27.3%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
10.0%
.0%
21
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
10.5%
18.2%
9.1%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
7.7%
10.0%
20.0%
11
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
5.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
20.0%
89
5
5
2
7
5
5
5
4
3
44.5%
45.5%
45.5%
22.2%
63.6%
55.6%
71.4%
38.5%
40.0%
30.0%
28
1
1
1
2
1
0
5
1
0
14.0%
9.1%
9.1%
11.1%
18.2%
11.1%
.0%
38.5%
10.0%
.0%
14
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
7.0%
.0%
18.2%
11.1%
.0%
11.1%
14.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
39
2
1
2
5
0
1
5
3
0
19.5%
18.2%
9.1%
22.2%
45.5%
.0%
14.3%
38.5%
30.0%
.0%
28
2
1
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
14.0%
18.2%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
11.1%
28.6%
7.7%
20.0%
20.0%
16
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
8.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
14.3%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1.5%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
5.5%
.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
20.0%
37
3
0
2
3
0
0
5
3
1
18.5%
27.3%
.0%
22.2%
27.3%
.0%
.0%
38.5%
30.0%
10.0%
32
2
2
1
1
0
0
5
2
0
16.0%
18.2%
18.2%
11.1%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
38.5%
20.0%
.0%
26
2
2
2
0
2
0
3
1
2
13.0%
18.2%
18.2%
22.2%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
23.1%
10.0%
20.0%
10
10
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 122
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17
SPECIFY: Types of training suggested
Q.17. SPECIFY TYPE OF TRAINING SUGGESTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRAINING FOR THE STAFF TO GAIN AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR CLIENTS FACE WHEN
THEY MAY HAVE PROBLEMS AND THE STAFF NEED TO FACER CLIENT PROBLEM REALITIES
TRAINING IN BETTER REFERRAL AND CORORDINATION SO WE CAN REDUCE DUPLICATION
THROUGH A FORMALISED TRAINING
MORE TRAINING OF CENTRELINK STAFF TO BE MORE AWARE OF OUR CLIENTS BARRIERS
TRAINING IN WHAT TYPE OF SERVICES THEY CAN PROVIDE US AND ASSIST US WITH BY
NETWORKING AND FORMAL TRAINING SESSIONS
HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS OF EACH OTHER.
TO TRAIN CENTRELINK STAFF ON WHAT WE DO AND TO EDUCATE CENTRELINK STAFF IN
CLIENT CONSUMER RIGHTS
ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHER SERVICES, TO PROMOTE BETTER RELATIONSHIPS.
TO TRAIN THEIR STAFF ON NGOS TO LIFT THE PROFILE OF NGO SERVICES
TRAINING WHERE WE CAN FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CENTRELINK. HOW TO DEAL
WITH DIFFICULT CLIENTS.
THROUGH TRAINING SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS TO GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING SERVICE
INC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE TOPICS
MORE TRAINING OF THE DHS STAFF TO DEAL WITH CLIENTS OF NES BACKGROUND
Page 123
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.17
SPECIFY: Other ways DHS can assist with greater coordination of services
Q.17. SPECIFY OTHER WAY DHS CAN ASSIST WITH GREATER COORDINATION OF SERVICES.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CUT OUT THE RED TAPE
IMPROVE COMMUNICATION.
HAVING AN OUTREACH TEAM BASED LOCALLY OUT OF DARWIN
THEY NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE NETWORKS AVAILABLE
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE TO THEIR CLIENT AND HAVING A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH THE AGENCIES AND THIS IS PURELY BECAUSE OF THE
PRIVACY ISSUES
SEEK OPPORTUNITIES TO IDENTIFY AND WORK WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS, GROUPS WHO USE
THIER SERVICES A LOT. ENCOURAGING PROACTIVITY
TP PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT RESOURCES AND MORE FUNDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO
SUBSIDISE PROGRAMME COSTS FOR THE CLIENT AND MORE LIAISON WITH THE DHS AGENCIES
RE LATEST POLICY CHANGES
TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN STAFF; CENTRELINK STAFF, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS.
THEY LIAISE WITH US AND OTHER AGENCIES. CENTRELINK SHOULD CAPITALISE ON THEIR
STRENGTH TO ALLOW THEM MORE SUPPORT FOR THEIR OWN INITIATIVES.
DONT KNOW
NO COMMENT
NEIGHBOURHOOD PRESENTATIONS, ATTENDING MEETINGS, MORE FLYERS AND BROCHURES WITH
INFORMATION
NOTHING
NOTHING
THE REFERRALS PROCESS COULD BE IMPROVED.
PROVIDE THE FUNDING. PROVIDE MOBILE STAFF RATHER THAN HAVE STAFF STUCK IN AN
OFFICE.
THEY SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE. IF WE USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO CREATE A SYSTEM TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO SERVICE PROVIDERS. THEY SHOULD HAVE FUNDING FOR THAT. IF
THEY HAVE A DATABASE FOR INFORMATION.
ATTEND MORE OF OUR MEETINGS.
HAVING US INVOLVED AT AN EARLIER STAGE RATHER THAN A LAST RESORT SO WE HAVE SOME
INPUT
NOT SURE
DEVELOP CREATIVE PRACTICES TOGETHER
BEING ABLE TO FIND OUT WHO IS THE PERSON YOU NEED TO TALK TO MORE READILY, NOT
BEING PASSED AROUND.
SEND OFFICERS TO OUR LOCAL MEETINGS SO WE CAN SHARE INFORMATION
NOTHING I AM AWARE OF
NOT SURE
HOLDING FORUMS.
SPECIAL EVENTS?
I BELEIVE THEY NEED TO MAKE MORE CONTACT WITH US, FACE TO FACE.
Page 124
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NOT SURE
MAKE SURE THEY INFORM NEW STAFF OF WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY,
AND HOW CLIENTS ACCESS THEM
NOTHING
NOT SURE
TAKE A LEADING ROLE. IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND STAFFING RECOURCES.
MOST OF THE NGOS THAT ARE TARGETING MIGRANT AND REFUGEE POPULATIONS, THEY TEND
TO BE OF A VERY SMALL SIZE, UNDER RESOURCED, STRETCHED TO ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM.
NO NEED AS OUR CONTACT PERSON IS QUITE GOOD
CAN'T COMMENT ON ANYTHING
RECEIVE INVITATIONS FROM ORGANISATIONS TO TELL ABOUT MY ORGANISATION.
SIMPLE AWARENESS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT SERVICES
TO HAVE ABORIGINAL LIAISON OFFICER IN ALL AGENCIES
STAFF CAN AQUIRE GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OUR CENTRE PROVIDES. THERE IS
VARIABLE KNOWLEDGE ACROSS DHS AGENCIES. GIVEN WE ARE AN ADVOCACY ORGANISATION,
PERHAPS THEY CAN OVERCOME ANY HESITATION TO REFER TO ADVOCACY ORGANISATIONS.
I THINK THEY ARE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN
MORE OPPORTUNITY TO NETWORK
NOT TOO SURE
MORE INFORMATION FROM THE CLIENT
NOTHING
MORE CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT
NOT SURE
HAVE OPEN DAYS AND INVITE ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS ALONG TO PROVIDE THEM WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AGENCIES WHAT THEY OFFER.
BASICALLY LIAISING AND NETWORKING
PUT FORWARD THINGS FOR DISCUSSION OR TO BE ON THE AGENDA PRIOR TO ATTENDING
MEETINGS
HAVING A VIRTUAL LINK THAT EVERYBODY GETS TO HAVE AN INVOLVEMENT WITH AND BE
ABLE TO FEED INTO THE INFORMATION, WHAT'S AVAILABLE, WHAT'S COMING UP.
EXPECTATIONS OF THE AGENCIES. SHARED INFORMATION PROBABLY MORE USEFUL.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF FROM THE AGENCIES WE DEAL WITH IN PARTICULAR
CENTRELINK DROP IN EVERY 3 TO 6 MONTHS TO KEEP US UPDATED ON ANY CHANGES
NOTHING
MORE LIASON BETWEEN BOTH ORGANISATIONS.
TO INSIST ON ACCOUNTABILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND REFERRAL RESPONSES
CLEARER PARAMETERS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY DO WOULD HELP US
ENCOURGAING A REGULAR BUT INFORMAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.
NOT SURE
NOT ENOUGH WORK SO WE DO THE BEST WE CAN
Page 125
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.18. Which (of the following things DHS could do to improve communication), if any, would be useful for your organisation…?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Metropolitan
area
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
(None of the above)
TOTAL
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
200
121
61
18
66
27
25
19
40
78
51
21
6
20
9
14
7
18
23
10
39.0%
42.1%
34.4%
33.3%
30.3%
33.3%
56.0%
36.8%
45.0%
43.5%
116
73
34
9
37
14
19
7
27
12
58.0%
60.3%
55.7%
50.0%
56.1%
51.9%
76.0%
36.8%
67.5%
52.2%
132
83
40
9
43
18
15
13
29
14
66.0%
68.6%
65.6%
50.0%
65.2%
66.7%
60.0%
68.4%
72.5%
60.9%
148
93
43
12
49
21
17
13
32
16
74.0%
76.9%
70.5%
66.7%
74.2%
77.8%
68.0%
68.4%
80.0%
69.6%
146
94
42
10
50
18
18
11
31
18
73.0%
77.7%
68.9%
55.6%
75.8%
66.7%
72.0%
57.9%
77.5%
78.3%
17
8
5
4
7
2
2
2
1
3
8.5%
6.6%
8.2%
22.2%
10.6%
7.4%
8.0%
10.5%
2.5%
13.0%
18
66
27
25
19
40
23
200
121
61
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.18. Which (of the following things DHS could do to improve communication), if any, would be useful for your organisation…?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
(None of the above)
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Want greater
coordination
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Need greater
coordination
Both
200
9
100
91
15
180
1
78
3
29
46
6
71
0
200
78
39.0%
33.3%
29.0%
50.5%
40.0%
39.4%
.0%
39.0%
116
6
49
61
4
111
0
116
58.0%
66.7%
49.0%
67.0%
26.7%
61.7%
.0%
58.0%
120
1
132
66.7% 100.0%
66.0%
132
8
59
65
9
66.0%
88.9%
59.0%
71.4%
60.0%
148
8
72
68
11
74.0%
88.9%
72.0%
74.7%
73.3%
146
7
66
73
10
73.0%
77.8%
66.0%
80.2%
66.7%
1
148
74.4% 100.0%
134
74.0%
1
146
73.9% 100.0%
133
73.0%
17
0
11
6
1
15
0
17
8.5%
.0%
11.0%
6.6%
6.7%
8.3%
.0%
8.5%
9
100
91
15
180
1
200
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
200
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 126
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.18. Which (of the following things DHS could do to improve communication), if any, would be useful for your organisation…?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
(None of the above)
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
13
14
78
0
4
3
5
8
2
4
3
8
5
39.0%
.0%
30.8%
37.5%
50.0%
88.9%
22.2%
36.4%
23.1%
57.1%
41.7%
12
116
4
8
5
5
8
2
4
6
10
7
58.0%
40.0%
61.5%
62.5%
50.0%
88.9%
22.2%
36.4%
46.2%
71.4%
58.3%
132
7
7
5
8
8
5
5
7
8
10
66.0%
70.0%
53.8%
62.5%
80.0%
88.9%
55.6%
45.5%
53.8%
57.1%
83.3%
148
6
11
6
7
7
6
8
8
10
10
74.0%
60.0%
84.6%
75.0%
70.0%
77.8%
66.7%
72.7%
61.5%
71.4%
83.3%
146
7
10
5
6
7
5
7
10
10
11
73.0%
70.0%
76.9%
62.5%
60.0%
77.8%
55.6%
63.6%
76.9%
71.4%
91.7%
17
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
2
1
1
8.5%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
22.2%
27.3%
15.4%
7.1%
8.3%
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
12
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.18. Which (of the following things DHS could do to improve communication), if any, would be useful for your organisation…?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Office sharing with your
organisation
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training
Hold regular operational
meetings
Hold regular strategic
meetings
(None of the above)
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
10
78
4
6
4
8
1
3
6
2
10
2
39.0%
36.4%
54.5%
44.4%
72.7%
11.1%
42.9%
46.2%
20.0%
20.0%
116
6
9
5
7
5
5
9
4
7
58.0%
54.5%
81.8%
55.6%
63.6%
55.6%
71.4%
69.2%
40.0%
70.0%
132
7
7
7
8
7
5
8
6
7
66.0%
63.6%
63.6%
77.8%
72.7%
77.8%
71.4%
61.5%
60.0%
70.0%
148
9
7
8
8
5
6
13
7
6
74.0%
81.8%
63.6%
88.9%
72.7%
55.6%
85.7%
100.0%
70.0%
60.0%
146
10
8
6
9
5
5
11
7
7
73.0%
90.9%
72.7%
66.7%
81.8%
55.6%
71.4%
84.6%
70.0%
70.0%
17
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
8.5%
9.1%
9.1%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
7.7%
10.0%
.0%
10
10
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 127
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.18
SPECIFY: Types of training suggested
Q.18. SPECIFY TYPE OF TRAINING SUGGESTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BOTH AGENCIES UNDERSTANDING WHAT EACH OTHER DOES AND WHAT EACH AREA DOES AND
THEIR CONTRACTURAL RESPONSIBILTIES
UNDERSTANDING THE TRAINING PROCESS FROM DHS END EG: UNDERSTANDING REFERRAL
MOTIVATION
TRAINING TO FOR STAFF TO HELP IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE AGENCIES WORK
NOT SURE, TOO COMPLICATED WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH PART OF THE ORGANISATION WAS
DOING THE TRAINING
PROVID TRAINING ABOUT THEIR SERVICES AND THE ROLES THEY ALL PLAY
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CENTRELINK SYSTEM, THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US. HOW IT
WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK. HOW IT AFFECTS OUR CLIENTS
TRAINING IN WORKING WITH SPECIAL NEEDS SUCH AS APPLYING FOR RESOURCES AND GOOD
CONTACTS WITH DHS PEOPLE
TRAINING SUCH AS ON OUR DATA REPORTING PROGRAMMES
TO TRAIN OUR STAFF IN WHAT THE AGENCIES OFFER SO WE CAN REDIRECT OUR PATIENTS TO
THEIR SERVICES
IT WOULD ALLOW US AND THEM MORE INFORMATION DISSIMINATION A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT WE AND THEM ARE TELLING CLIENTS.
IN RELATION TO CHILD SUPPORT AND CENTRELINK POLICIES AND PROCEDURE PROTOCOL
TO TRAIN US IN BRIEF WRITTEN INFORMATION ON WHAT THEY DO AND WHO THEY THINK ARE
ASPPROPRIATE REFERRELS
JOB SEEKERS TRAINING UNDERSTANDING THE BEST WAY WE CAN HELP THESE PEOPLE AND
WHAT IS REQUIRED
IN TERMS OF HUMAN SERVICES ITSELF, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GAIN A GOOD
UNDERSTADING OF THE ACTUAL AREAS THAT EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES PROVIDE
AND WHERE WE CAN BEST LINK INTO THOSE. UNDERSTANND HOW TO ACCESS SERVICES.
CHILD PROTECTION, DISABILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS. HOUSING STRUCTURES,
LEGISLATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES.
TRAINING IN AN IDEA ON HOW WE CAN HELP OUR CLIENTS THROUGH ONE ON ONE MEETINGS
TRAINING ABOUT HOW THE COURT SYSTEM OPERATES FOR OUR PARALEGAL SUPPORT STAFF
SUCH AS IN SEMINARS AND FORMAL COURSES
TRAINING SUCH AS HOW TO ACCESS SUPPORT FOR CLIENTS BY HAVING THE CSA AND
CENTRELINK SUPPORT THE WOMEN SUBJECT TO VIOLENCE
I THINK A LOT OF STAFF ARE NOT AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CENTRELINK AND DON'T
KNOW HOW TO ADVISE CLIENTS WHEN THERE IS PROBLEMS, SO TRAINING AROUND THAT WOULD
BE GOOD. IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR STAFF TO BE UPDATED WITH ANY CHANGES.
TRAINING IN BOTH UNDERATANDING OF HOW CENTREELINK WORK EG CRITERIA ELIGIBILTY OF
CLIENTS AND TO ADVISE AND TRAIN CENTRELINK STAFFF ON WHAT HOMELESSNESS INVOLVES
AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR THESE PEOPLE.
?
TRAINING IN MAKING US AWARE OF WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE ENTITLED TO GET FROM THE
Page 128
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REGULAR DHS AGENCIES THROUGH ENGAGING IN THE YOUTH WORKER TRAINING NETWORK AND
THE INTERAGENCY COLLABORATIVE NETWORK
TRAINING IN HOW THE RESTRAR OF HOUSING SYSTEM WORKS
TRAINING ON AWARENESS OF CENTRELINK PROGRAMMES AND HOW WE CAN ACCESS THESE
PROGRAMMES THROUGH DAY SESSIONS FROM CENTRELINK
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAINING. TRAINING THAT COULD ASSIST ALL OF THE
CARE GIVERS, OR SUPPORT WORKERS, IN BETTER MANAGING PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME SORT
OF DISORDER, THAT HAVE NEEDS THAT ARE DELICATE.
AN AWARENESS OF WHO DOES WHAT IN THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND A POINT OF CONTACT
WITHIN THE AGENCIES
IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMUNITY WORKERS OR MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE, HOW TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY BETTER, HOW TO RUN COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS.
SOME TRAINING THAT PROVIDES US WITH A BIT OF BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT SOME OF THE
BENEFITS THAT OUR CLIENTS MIGHT BE RECEIVING.
TRAINING AROUND THE SERVICE AVAILABILITY, SERVICE PATHWAYS AND CORE SERVICES
PROVIDED
WE COULD PROVIDE TRAINING ON HOW TO ENGAGE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE AND ASSESSMENT
PROCESSES WITH YOUNG PEOPLE.
MORE ABOUT EDUCATION ABOUT WHAT EACH SERVICE CAN PROVIDE FOR EACH OTHER AND HOW
DO THINGS ACTUALLY WORK.
TRAINING ON INFORMATION ON THE CRITERIA FOR THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE SUCH AS
TRAINING TO OUR STAFF
TRAIN CENTRELINK AND OUR STAFF ON WHAT EACH AGENCY PROVIDES TO CLIENTS THROUGH
FORMAL SESSIONS
NO IDEA AT THE MOMENT. I AM STILL NEW TO THIS JOB.
WHAT SERVICES ARE OFFERRED. CLARITY ABOUT PROCESSES TO ACCESS.
TRAINING AND AWARENESS OF WHAT EACH OTHER USE ON SYSTEMS.
WHAT MATTERS IS COMMUNCIATION WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE TRAINING WITH HOW THEY CAN BETTER COMMUNICATE AND RELATE TO
PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES.
EMPOWERING PEOPLE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SERVICES THEY PROVIDE.
TRAINING AROUND HOW TO DEAL WITH AGGRESSIVE CLIENTS
AWARENESS OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS , RENTAL ASSISTANCE
TRAINING ON PERHAPS MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.
TRAINING ON ISSUES OF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS WE COULD GIVE THEM AN UNDERSTANDNG
OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR ORGANISATION ACTUALLY DOES.
TRAINING ON HOW TO WORK WITH OTHER AGENCIES INCLUDING HOW TO DEAL WITH PRIVACY
ISSUES
INDUCTION TRAINING IS ALREADY GOING CONCERNING CHILD PROTECTION. IN TERMS OF
CENTRELINK, HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
PROGRAM SPECI FIC TRAINING EG: WHAT TOOLS THEY HAVE AVAILABLE THAT WE CAN
UTILISE TO DO WHAT WE DO
Page 129
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.18
SPECIFY: Types of training suggested
Q.18. SPECIFY TYPE OF TRAINING SUGGESTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRAINING AROUND "AOD" ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS GIVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AS TO
WHERE THE CLIENT IS AT
UNDERSTANDING ON HOW THEIR DEPARTMENTS WORK, BETTER RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM,
IMPROVE ON OUR NETWORK CAPACITY, ETC.
TRAINING TO HELP MY STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS TO UNDERSTAND HOW SERVICES ARE PROVIDED
AND THE PROCESSES IN WHICH THEY OPERATE THROUGH MEETINGS SUCH AS A FEW TIMES A
YEAR EG EVERY QUARTER
TRAINING SUCH AS TRAINING OF CENTRELINK STAFF AND OUR STAFF SO THE WE KNEW WHAT
THE OTHER ORGANISATION IS CAPABLE AND REQUIRED TO DO
TRAINING FOR HAVING OUR STAFF BEING UPDATED IN CHANGES THROUGH ONE TO ONE
MEETINGS
TRAINING BUT NOT SURE
TRAINING ON HOW CENTRELINK PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED AND WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF
OUR CLIENTS BASICALLY BY INFORMAL MEETINGS
WHAT KIND OF BENEFITS OUR CLIENTS ARE ENTITLED TOO, WORK RELATED SUBJECTS.
TRAINING AROUND GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
THERE SHOULD BE REGULAR REFRESHER AND UPDATES THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
ORIENTATION WHEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIN STAFF TURNOVER, IN TERMS OF MIGRANT
AND REFUGEE POPULATION, CROSS CULTURAL AWARENESS. THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH
INTERPRETERS EFFECTIVELY.
TRAINING FOR MANAGERS AND GENERAL STAFF ON THE DISABILITY ACT, REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND HANDS ON ACTIVITIES FOR CLIENT SUCH AS ON DEALING WITH PEOPLE
WITH AUTISM AND CLASSROOM STRATEGIES FOR THEM AND MORE DEDICATED TRAINING FOR
SMALLER GROUPS.
TRAINING WHEREBY WE SORT OF MUTUALLY LEARN ABOUT THEIR AND OUR APPROACH TO
CLIENT NEEDS
INFORMATION SHARING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STAFF ARE THERE FOR.
ALONG THE LINES OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SERVICES.
TRAINING IN CASE MANAGEMENT AND CHILD PROTECTION
HOW TO DEAL WITH DIFFICULT PEOPLE. ACCESSING INFORMATION WITHIN DHS.
EXAMPLE, RECENTLY CHANGED POLICY FOR CRR, WOULD OF BEEN GOOD TO HAVE A WORKSHOP
ON HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT ON FAMILIES.
UPGRADE ON POLICYS, ON HOW TO ADVISE CLIENTS WITH INFORMATION.
MORE TRAINING AND AWARENESS ON WHAT BOTH ORGANISATIONS CAN DO FOR EACH OTHER
FREE TRAINING IN THE AREA OF CENTRELINK LEGISLATION AND THEIR ELIGIBILITY
THRESHOLD AND CRITERIA
JOINT DISCUSSION PROGRAMES OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
PROCESS STUFF BETWEEN BOTH ORGANISATIONS.
A SHARING IN PROCEDURES ACROSS ALL AGENCIES. TO HELP WITH CONSISTINCY WITHIN
ORGANISATIONS.
Page 130
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRAINING IN EVERYTHING SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR.
MORE TRAINING IN CHILD WELFARE AND CENTRELINK INFORMATION.
INFORMATION TYPE SESSIONS. TRAINING OF WHAT IS AROUND IS REALLY IMPORTANT
ANY COMMUNITY SERVICES, BEING MORE OPENED ABOUT WHAT THEY DO FOR THE COMMUNITY
ABOUT BEING AWARE OF SERVICES AND HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER.
WITH OUR CO-ORDINATORS, IN PARTICULAR WITH SERVICE DELIVERY.
TRAINING SO WE KNOW WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO US
PROCEDURALS. PROCESS PROCEDURES AND POLICIES AS WELL AS SOME INPUT ON POLICY
DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGES.
TRAINING IN DEALING WITH THE SUPPORT OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE GRIEF AND LOSS ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES. CASE MANAGEMENT STUFF.
TRAINING IN POLICIES OF THE OTHER AGENCIES
TRAINING IN PARTICIPATION REPORTS THAT WE PREPARE FOR CLIENTS AND ALSO TRAINING
IN COMPLIANCE PROCESSES AND ALSO TRAINING ON THE REVIEW APPOINTMENTS THAT THEY
HAVE WITH OUR JOBSEEKERS
KNOWLEDGE AND POLICYS THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR THE CLIENTS. WHAT IS EXPECTED?
HOW THEY CAN ACCESS THE SERVICES.
WORKING WITH CULTURAL DIVERSE POPULATIONS AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
FROM CENTRELINK AND OTHER AGENCIES ABOUT THE SERVICES THEY CAN PROVIDE TO OUR
ORGANISATION TOGETHER ITH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR POROCESSES
TRAINING BUT NOT TOO SURE
TRAINING IN WORKING WITH CLIENTS WITH MULTIPLE BARRIERS. CLIENTS WITH LITERACY
ISSUES, TRAINING ON HOW TO WORK WITH THEM. COMMONWEALTH PROCEDURES, HOW THEY
WORK?
I DON'T KNOW
AN OVERVIEW OF THE AGENCY, ITS ROLE AND OPERATING ELEMENTS. I THINK PROBABLY A
LOT OF THE INFORMATION IS WEB BASED. IT'S MORE ABOUT CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
WORKERS TO FOCUS ON IT.
TRAINING OF CENTRELINK STAFF TO BE MORE AWARE OF OUR CLIET NEEDS AND TRAIN UP A
STAFF MEMBER WHO CAN BE RUNG ON A DIRECT LINE BY US
TRAINING ABOUT REFERRALS PROCESS. TRAINING ABOUT THEIR ACTUAL SERVICES AND HOW
IT CAN BENEFIT OUR CLIENTS
TO FIND OUT WHAT SERVICES THEY OFFICE AND MAKING OUR ORGANISATION AWARE OF THEIR
POLICIES.
CHANGES IN YOUTH ALLOWANCE OR DISABILITY SERVICES. FOR INSTANCE WITH THE NEW
BUDGET, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES IN REGARDS TO SERVICES FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE, LIKE WORKING FOR THE DOLE?
BEING THAT WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN CRISIS SITUATIONS, WHAT SERVICES THEY HAVE
AVAILABLE AND HOW WE CAN BEST REFER TO THEM
NOT SURE AWARENESS OF ISSUES AT STATE AND LOCAL AREA
SOME KIND OF TRAINING TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THEIR SERVICES
Page 131
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.18
SPECIFY: Types of training suggested
Q.18. SPECIFY TYPE OF TRAINING SUGGESTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE DYNAMICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE IMPACT IT
HAS ON THE FAMILY. OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO OUR CLIENTS. FEELING LIKE THEY CAN BE
PART OF THE CASE MANAGEMENT OF THOSE CLIENTS, ESPECIALLY AROUND INCOME
MANAGEMENT.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DO
TRAINING IN BEING MADE AWARE OF THE SERVICES THAT THE DHS AGENCIES PROVIDE AND
THIS TRAINING COULD BE THROUGH JOINT MEETINGS
IN TERMS OF POLICY CHANGES. THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A LOT OF CHANGES, FOR EXAMPLE
YOUTH ALLOWANCE. THERE SHOUD BE A TWO WAY DIALOGUE ABOUT CHANGES
CULTURAL TRAINING.
FOR WHAT SERVICES ARE ELIGIBLE THAT WE CAN ACCESS OUT HERE
TRAINING ON AWARENESS OF THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS FROM WITHIN DHS FOR OUR
STAFF
TRAINING FOR THEIR STAFF AND OUR STAFF IN THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS THAT
CENTRELINK PROVIDE.
TRAINING BASICALLY TO HAVE OUR STAFF TRAINIED IN WHAT CENTRELINK ENITLEMENTS ARE
RELEVANT TO OUR CLIENTS
TRAINING ON TOPICS HOW TO DEAL WITH CONFRONTATIONAL PROBLEMS OR SITUATIONS
FOR MY WORKERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CENTRELINK, MEDICARE AND THE CHILD SUPPORT
AGENCY COULD PROVIDE FOR OUR CLIENTS, THEIR GENERAL ELIGIBILITY AND THAT SORT OF
THING.
ARARENESS OF THR SERVICES OF SERVICES FROM DHS AGENCIES INC CLIENT ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS THROUGH GROUP FOCUS SESSIONS
SUPPORTING CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN THE SECTOR. UPGRADING THE WORKERS
LEVELS TO REACH THE NEW SYSTEM OF WORKING
KNOWING WHICH TYPE OF SERVICE GOES TO WHICH DIVISION AND IS THERE SOMEONE TO
TALK TO WHO CAN FIND ME THE ANSWER WITHOUT ME TO HAVING TO RELAY THE INFORMATION
TO 6 DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
BEING BETTER EQUIPPED TO TEACH THE CHILDREN ABOUT BETTER PATHWAYS FOR THEIR
FUTURE
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THEIR SERVICES AND
ALSO EVALUATION OF THE SERVICES AND THE CUSTOMER OUTCOMES. ITS ALL ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY
TRAINING IN RAISING AWARENESS OF EACH OTHER'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES EG PRIVACY
ISSUES WHERE TENANBTS NEEDS ARE IMPORTANT
THAT THEY WOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT WE DO AND WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEY DO
JUST INFORMATION ON HOW THEY WORK
TRAINING IN HOW CENTRELINK ASESS PAYMENT AND ALSO ON THE CENTRTELINK ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA AND ALSO IN POLICIES ANDF PROCEDURES OF CENTRELINK
TRAINING OF OUR WORKERS ON CENTRELINK AND OTHER AGENCY SERVICES SUCH AS CLIENT
Page 132
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
ENTITLEMENTS EG IN HEALTH CARE CARDS
ALLOW OUR STAFF TO ACCESS THEIR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES AND ALSO
TRAINING IN CHANGES IN SERVICES AND OR POLICIES
INFORMATION ON SERVICES PROVIDED FROM DHS AGENCIES
MORE TRAINING AROUND THEIR SERVICES
TRAINING ON CRITERIA OF THEIR SERVICES AND WHATSERVICES THEY PROVIDE TO THE
COMMUNITY
TRAINING IN HOW THE AGENCY PROCESSES WORK AND HOW THIS IS RELEVANT TO OUR
PROGRAMMES AND HOW THEY ASSESS REFERRELS TO OUR ORGANISATION
Q.19. What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication with
agencies
Clearer point of contact
Attend more meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with agencies
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Other (specify)
Nothing
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
200
121
61
18
66
27
25
19
40
98
61
26
11
32
15
17
7
17
23
10
49.0%
50.4%
42.6%
61.1%
48.5%
55.6%
68.0%
36.8%
42.5%
43.5%
8
4
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
4
4.0%
3.3%
4.9%
5.6%
6.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
17.4%
89
51
26
12
31
8
16
5
21
8
44.5%
42.1%
42.6%
66.7%
47.0%
29.6%
64.0%
26.3%
52.5%
34.8%
28
21
6
1
12
2
5
3
4
2
14.0%
17.4%
9.8%
5.6%
18.2%
7.4%
20.0%
15.8%
10.0%
8.7%
71
42
22
7
28
11
9
5
12
6
35.5%
34.7%
36.1%
38.9%
42.4%
40.7%
36.0%
26.3%
30.0%
26.1%
36
24
11
1
12
5
4
4
6
5
18.0%
19.8%
18.0%
5.6%
18.2%
18.5%
16.0%
21.1%
15.0%
21.7%
15
9
6
0
9
1
1
0
2
2
7.5%
7.4%
9.8%
.0%
13.6%
3.7%
4.0%
.0%
5.0%
8.7%
10
7
3
0
3
2
1
0
4
0
5.0%
5.8%
4.9%
.0%
4.5%
7.4%
4.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
10
7
1
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
5.0%
5.8%
1.6%
11.1%
.0%
7.4%
8.0%
.0%
10.0%
8.7%
20
10
10
0
5
5
2
1
3
4
10.0%
8.3%
16.4%
.0%
7.6%
18.5%
8.0%
5.3%
7.5%
17.4%
7
5
1
1
2
0
0
3
1
1
3.5%
4.1%
1.6%
5.6%
3.0%
.0%
.0%
15.8%
2.5%
4.3%
8
4
3
1
1
2
0
2
3
0
4.0%
3.3%
4.9%
5.6%
1.5%
7.4%
.0%
10.5%
7.5%
.0%
18
66
27
25
19
40
23
200
121
61
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 133
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.19. What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication with
agencies
Clearer point of contact
Attend more meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with agencies
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Other (specify)
Nothing
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Want greater
coordination
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Need greater
coordination
Both
200
9
100
91
15
180
1
98
4
50
44
8
88
1
200
98
49.0%
44.4%
50.0%
48.4%
53.3%
48.9% 100.0%
49.0%
8
0
5
3
1
7
0
8
4.0%
.0%
5.0%
3.3%
6.7%
3.9%
.0%
4.0%
89
4
40
45
9
78
0
89
44.5%
44.4%
40.0%
49.5%
60.0%
43.3%
.0%
44.5%
28
2
12
14
3
25
0
28
14.0%
22.2%
12.0%
15.4%
20.0%
13.9%
.0%
14.0%
64
1
71
35.6% 100.0%
35.5%
71
3
29
39
4
35.5%
33.3%
29.0%
42.9%
26.7%
36
1
16
19
1
35
0
36
18.0%
11.1%
16.0%
20.9%
6.7%
19.4%
.0%
18.0%
15
0
9
6
2
13
0
15
7.5%
.0%
9.0%
6.6%
13.3%
7.2%
.0%
7.5%
10
0
2
8
0
9
0
10
5.0%
.0%
2.0%
8.8%
.0%
5.0%
.0%
5.0%
10
0
4
6
0
10
0
10
5.0%
.0%
4.0%
6.6%
.0%
5.6%
.0%
5.0%
20
0
8
12
0
19
0
20
10.0%
.0%
8.0%
13.2%
.0%
10.6%
.0%
10.0%
7
2
4
1
0
7
0
7
3.5%
22.2%
4.0%
1.1%
.0%
3.9%
.0%
3.5%
8
0
3
5
0
8
0
8
4.0%
.0%
3.0%
5.5%
.0%
4.4%
.0%
4.0%
9
100
91
15
180
1
200
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
200
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 134
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.19. What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Burnie
Cowra
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
98
5
6
4
4
4
3
9
6
8
5
49.0%
50.0%
46.2%
50.0%
40.0%
44.4%
33.3%
81.8%
46.2%
57.1%
41.7%
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication with
agencies
Clearer point of contact
Attend more meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with agencies
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
12
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
4.0%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
27.3%
30.8%
.0%
.0%
89
6
3
4
5
3
0
8
7
10
4
44.5%
60.0%
23.1%
50.0%
50.0%
33.3%
.0%
72.7%
53.8%
71.4%
33.3%
28
0
3
0
3
2
0
2
2
4
0
14.0%
.0%
23.1%
.0%
30.0%
22.2%
.0%
18.2%
15.4%
28.6%
.0%
71
3
7
4
1
3
4
2
1
4
6
35.5%
30.0%
53.8%
50.0%
10.0%
33.3%
44.4%
18.2%
7.7%
28.6%
50.0%
36
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
4
4
3
18.0%
10.0%
15.4%
25.0%
30.0%
44.4%
11.1%
18.2%
30.8%
28.6%
25.0%
15
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
5
7.5%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
7.1%
41.7%
10
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
5.0%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.1%
8.3%
10
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
5.0%
.0%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
.0%
.0%
20
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
10.0%
.0%
7.7%
12.5%
10.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
7.1%
.0%
Other (specify)
7
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
3.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
11.1%
22.2%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Nothing
TOTAL
Ararat
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
8
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4.0%
20.0%
.0%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
200
10
13
8
10
9
9
11
13
14
12
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.19. What could your organisation do to assist with greater coordination of services?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
More information sharing
Formalise the referrals
process
Improve communication with
agencies
Clearer point of contact
Attend more meetings/forums
Identify crossover in services
Need shared goals/
objectives
Office sharing with agencies
Provide services out of your
offices
Provide training (specify)
Other (specify)
Nothing
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
10
98
6
9
5
4
2
3
5
6
10
4
49.0%
54.5%
81.8%
55.6%
36.4%
22.2%
42.9%
38.5%
60.0%
40.0%
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
89
7
6
2
1
4
4
8
2
5
44.5%
63.6%
54.5%
22.2%
9.1%
44.4%
57.1%
61.5%
20.0%
50.0%
28
4
1
1
0
2
0
2
1
1
14.0%
36.4%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
22.2%
.0%
15.4%
10.0%
10.0%
71
6
5
3
6
4
2
3
4
3
35.5%
54.5%
45.5%
33.3%
54.5%
44.4%
28.6%
23.1%
40.0%
30.0%
36
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
3
18.0%
9.1%
.0%
11.1%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
7.7%
20.0%
30.0%
15
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
7.5%
18.2%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
7.7%
.0%
10.0%
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
5.0%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
15.4%
10.0%
.0%
10
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
5.0%
.0%
18.2%
.0%
9.1%
.0%
14.3%
.0%
10.0%
.0%
20
0
1
2
3
0
2
1
2
4
10.0%
.0%
9.1%
22.2%
27.3%
.0%
28.6%
7.7%
20.0%
40.0%
7
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3.5%
9.1%
.0%
.0%
9.1%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
4.0%
9.1%
.0%
11.1%
.0%
.0%
.0%
7.7%
10.0%
.0%
10
10
200
11
11
9
11
9
7
13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 135
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.19
SPECIFY: Types of training suggested
Q.19. SPECIFY TYPE OF TRAINING SUGGESTED.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRAINING STAFF AROUND ISSUES WITH OUR TARGET GROUP.
TRAING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO TAKE PATHWAYS TO AGENCY ASSISTANCE
TRAINING ON OUR CRITERIA AROUND OUR PROGRAMS EG: NO INTEREST LOANS SCHEME,
STEPUP, ADDSUP
PROVIDE TRAINING AROUND THE SERVICES WE DELIVER TO OUR CLIENTS
WITH CENTRELINK, INFORMING STAFF OF WHAT WE DO
OFFER CULTURAL AWARENESS TO OTHER ORGANISATIONS
MORE ONE ON ONE TRAINING TO LEARN ABOUT OUR ORGANISATION AND TO FIND OUT WHAT
SERVICES WE OFFER
IN WORKING WITH PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY IN PARTICULAR PEOPLE WITH AN ACQUIRED
BRAIN INJURY , MENTAL HEALTH, AUTISIM AND CARERS
OFFER CULTURAL AWARENESS TO OTHER ORGANISATIONS
WE COULD TRAIN THESE AGENCIES IN WHAT WE DO AND HOW OUR REFERREL PROCESSES
OPERATE IN FORMAL MEETINGS
PROVIDE TRAINING TO DHS WORKERS SO THEY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE
DO.
CULTURAL AWARENESS TRAINING
JUST EDUCATE ON WHAT WE DO
TO TEACH WHAT WE PROVIDE AS A SERVICE.
TRAINING AROUND THE WORK WE DO.
IT CAN BE VERY CLINICAL HERE. WE HAVE MEDICAL STUDENTS, NURSES HERE FOR
TRAINING ETC. IF DHS AGENCIES CAME AND SAW HOW WE WORK IT WOULD HELP THEM TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO
TO TRAIN CENTRELINK STAFF IN OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
OVERVIEW OF DHS SERVICES SO WE CAN ADVISE REFERREL PATHWAYS FOR CLIENTS TO THESE
AGENCIES
WHAT SERVICES WE HAVE TO OFFER TO THE LOCAL BRANCHES OF DHS AGENCIES
Page 136
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.19
erv
SPECIFY: Other ways your organisation could assist with greater coordination of s
Q.19. SPECIFY OTHER WAY YOUR ORGANISATION COULD ASSIST WITH GREATER COORDINATION
OF SERVICES.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEET STRATEGICALLY WITH CENTRELINK.
WE SHOULD EMBRACE ANY TRAINING CENTRELINK COULD PROVIDE.
WE USED TO BE ASKED OUR OPINION AND ADVICE ON POLICY AND DECISION MAKING. IN
RECENT YEARS WE HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENED TO. DESPITE REGULAR CONSULTATION, WE ARE
AWARE THAT OUR OPINIONS AREN'T RESPECTED AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO BE.
WE NEED TO PROMOTE OUR SERVICES TO THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES TO GIVE THEM A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE ARE ABOUT. ALSO ESTABLISHING A CLOSER WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE AGENCIES
PARTICIPATION IN STRATEGIC PLANNING, OPERATIONAL PLANNING.
NOTHING
CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING
CONTINUE TO INVITE REPRESENTATIVES TO VISIT GROUPS THAT WE RUN AND COME TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION. WHAT WE DO IS PROMOTE OUR SERVICES AND HOW THEY MIGHT BE
ABLE TO LINK IN WITH CENTRLEINK DIRECTIONS.
MAKE THE TIME AVAILABLE TO THE STAFF TO MEET AND DISCUSS CASES, CONSUMER ISSUES.
HAVING A CONTACT POINT WITHIN THE AGENCIES
PROVIDE RESOURCES. THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, WE
COULD PROVIDE THAT.
NOTHING ELSE - WE HAVE THINGS IN PLACE ALREADY
PROVIDE EXPERTISE IN WORKING WITH FAMILIES. WORKING TOGETHER TO BETTER IMPROVE
SERVICES
TO BE INVITED OR BE GIVEN UPDATES OF WHAT IS HAPPENING, JUST A QUICK EMAIL.,
MAYE THAT WOULD HELP
MORE FUNDING AND MORE STAFF TO HELP.
PROVIDING FEEDBACK AND BEING INVOLVED IN TRAINING AND EDUCATION ABOUT WHAT WE
DO.
WE COULD TRY CROSS SERVICE EDUCATION BY WORKING AT EACH OTHERS SITE.
SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE DO
NOTHING
WE COULD HOLD OPERATIONAL MEETINGS
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
NOT SURE
OFFER PRESENTATIONS OF WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER.
OFFER CULTURAL AWARENESS TO OTHER ORGANISATIONS
NONE
LINKS WITH EXISITING FAMILIES.
FORUMS
WORK IN PARTNERSHIP MORE WITH EACH OTHER, WITH REFERRALS
Page 137
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TO GET INVOLVED IN TRAINING AND MEET AND GREETS. BE PRESENTERS, SO THEY KNOW
WHAT WE DO. MAKE INTERNAL STAFF AWARE OF WHAT OUR ORGANISATION DOES AS WELL AS
THEM OFUS BECAUSE WE HAVE SHARED CLIENTS.
PARTICIPATE IN NETWORK MEETINGS
NOTHING THAT COMES TO MIND
BEING MORE AVAILABLE WITH OUR TIME FOR MEETINGS
TAKING PART IN LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO WORK.
PROVIDING INFORMATION TO LOCAL STAFF ON OUR ROLE AND FUNCTIONS. ANOTHER THING
THAT WE ARE DOING IS PARTICIPATING IN INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.
PROVIDING VENUES FOR SERVICES TO MEET. PROMOTION TO YOUNG PEOPLE OF THOSE
EXISTING SERVICES.
WE COULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT WITH NETWORKING WITH SUPPORT SERVICES AND THE PUBLIC
WE COULD PROVIDE TRAINING ADVISING OF THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE
HOST THE MEETINGS ABOUT AREA COORDINATION, KNOWING ABOUT LOCAL SERVICES.
PUT IN SOME GUIDELINES ABOUT INFORMATION. DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WE AIM TO
ACHEIVE FOR OUR CLIENTS.
IF THINGS WERE FACILITATED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES AT, THEN WE WOULD
DO THAT. AT THE MOMENT THERE IS NO CONSISTENT MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.
NOTHING
AGAIN A LIASON OFFICER. MORE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TWO OF US.
NOT SURE
BE PART OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE TO GET IT ALL OFF THE GROUND.
MAKE OUR SERVICES MORE WELL KNNOWN
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THEIR SERVICES AND
ALSO EVALUATION OF THE SERVICES AND THE CUSTOMER OUTCOMES. ITS ALL ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY
INFORMATION ON THE SPECIFIC DISABILITITES WE ENCOMPASS. BETTER DISTRIBUTION
STATEWIDE OF FUNDING FOR OUR CLIENTS
JOB SHADOWING.
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH SERVICES
NOTHING
>Warning # 14835
>At least one title or footnote string was too long to fit in the display
>width. This string was truncated to fit.
Page 138
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.20. What are your preferred means of contacting DHS?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
By phone - general contact
number
By phone - direct contact
person
By email
Via their website
Regional
centre
STATE
Rural area
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
26
20
4
2
10
3
3
1
5
4
8.5%
11.6%
4.2%
5.4%
10.4%
6.3%
9.4%
3.0%
7.7% 12.9%
18
8
8
2
6
2
1
2
4
3
5.9%
4.7%
8.3%
5.4%
6.3%
4.2%
3.1%
6.1%
6.2%
9.7%
13
9
68
40
22
6
17
13
7
9
22.3%
23.3%
22.9%
16.2%
17.7%
27.1%
21.9%
27.3%
20.0% 29.0%
214
120
64
30
68
31
22
24
47
22
70.2%
69.8%
66.7%
81.1%
70.8%
64.6%
68.8%
72.7%
72.3%
71.0%
59
30
16
17
43
20
61.5% 62.5%
50.0%
51.5%
66.2%
64.5%
185
102
58
25
60.7%
59.3%
60.4%
67.6%
10
6
3
1
3
1
0
2
2
2
3.3%
3.5%
3.1%
2.7%
3.1%
2.1%
.0%
6.1%
3.1%
6.5%
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
8
6
1
1
2
1
4
1
0
0
2.6%
3.5%
1.0%
2.7%
2.1%
2.1%
12.5%
3.0%
.0%
.0%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
1.0E2%
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Q.20. What are your preferred means of contacting DHS?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
By phone - general contact
number
By phone - direct contact
person
By email
Via their website
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Advocacy Service
Both
Profit or Non-profit
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
Both
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
26
1
9
16
0
25
0
22
105
4
8.5%
7.7%
5.7%
11.9%
.0%
9.2%
.0%
11.0%
3.8%
18
0
7
11
0
18
0
15
3
5.9%
.0%
4.5%
8.1%
.0%
6.6%
.0%
7.5%
2.9%
68
4
34
30
2
60
1
40
28
22.3%
30.8%
21.7%
22.2%
9.5%
22.1%
20.0%
20.0%
26.7%
214
9
102
103
15
191
3
143
71
70.2%
69.2%
65.0%
76.3%
71.4%
70.5%
60.0%
71.5%
67.6%
185
8
87
90
14
167
2
131
54
60.7%
61.5%
55.4%
66.7%
66.7%
61.6%
40.0%
65.5%
51.4%
10
0
4
6
0
10
0
5
5
3.3%
.0%
2.5%
4.4%
.0%
3.7%
.0%
2.5%
4.8%
8
0
5
3
0
6
1
1
7
2.6%
.0%
3.2%
2.2%
.0%
2.2%
20.0%
.5%
6.7%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
305
1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
Page 139
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.20. What are your preferred means of contacting DHS?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
26
1
2
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
8.5%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
16
18
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
5.9%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
68
4
4
2
6
4
3
3
5
4
2
22.3% 25.0%
25.0%
12.5%
35.3%
25.0%
18.8%
18.8%
31.3%
25.0%
12.5%
By phone - general contact
number
By phone - direct contact
person
11
9
11
11
13
13
10
12
10
14
70.2% 68.8%
214
56.3%
68.8%
64.7%
81.3%
81.3%
62.5%
75.0%
62.5%
87.5%
By email
11
10
11
8
12
9
13
11
8
12
60.7% 68.8%
185
62.5%
68.8%
47.1%
75.0%
56.3%
81.3%
68.8%
50.0%
75.0%
Via their website
10
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
3.3%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
5.9%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
Other (Specify)
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
2.6%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
TOTAL
1.0E2% 1.0E2%
17
100.0% 1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2% 1.0E2% 1.0E2%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Q.20. What are your preferred means of contacting DHS?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
By phone - general contact
number
By phone - direct contact
person
By email
Via their website
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
26
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
16
0
8.5%
12.5%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
.0%
18
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
2
5.9%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
68
0
3
8
4
5
1
4
3
3
22.3%
.0%
18.8%
50.0%
25.0%
31.3%
6.3%
25.0%
18.8%
18.8%
214
12
12
9
10
9
11
12
11
14
70.2%
75.0%
75.0%
56.3%
62.5%
56.3%
68.8%
75.0%
68.8%
87.5%
185
10
8
11
10
5
11
8
8
9
60.7%
62.5%
50.0%
68.8%
62.5%
31.3%
68.8%
50.0%
50.0%
56.3%
10
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
8
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2.6%
.0%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1.0E2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 1.0E2%
Page 140
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.20
SPECIFY: Other preferred means of contacting DHS
Q.20. SPECIFY OTHER PREFERRED MEANS OF CONTACTING DHS.
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REGULAR MAIL
BY WRITTEN LETTER
THROUGH SNAILMAIL
WE HAVE NO CONTACT WITH DHS.
NO CONTACT
WE HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH DHS OR THERE AGENCIES.
HAVE NO NEED FOR ANY CONTACT.
FAX
Q.21. How would you prefer to receive information from DHS agencies about payments and services?
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a
metropolitan area, regional centre or rural
area?
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
By email
Via agency websites
Printed material - brochures/
fact sheets
Regular newsletter
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
At a Customer Service
Centre
Other (Specify)
By phone
TOTAL
Metropolitan
area
Regional
centre
Rural area
STATE
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
172
96
37
96
48
32
33
65
242
132
80
30
76
41
24
26
53
31
22
79.3%
76.7%
83.3%
81.1%
79.2%
85.4%
75.0%
78.8%
81.5%
71.0%
12
5
5
2
6
3
1
0
2
0
3.9%
2.9%
5.2%
5.4%
6.3%
6.3%
3.1%
.0%
3.1%
.0%
71
41
21
9
28
6
5
7
19
6
23.3%
23.8%
21.9%
24.3%
29.2%
12.5%
15.6%
21.2%
29.2%
19.4%
34
19
10
5
12
5
1
4
9
3
11.1%
11.0%
10.4%
13.5%
12.5%
10.4%
3.1%
12.1%
13.8%
9.7%
35
21
11
3
10
5
3
2
9
6
11.5%
12.2%
11.5%
8.1%
10.4%
10.4%
9.4%
6.1%
13.8%
19.4%
24
15
7
2
6
1
2
2
7
6
7.9%
8.7%
7.3%
5.4%
6.3%
2.1%
6.3%
6.1%
10.8%
19.4%
24
13
10
1
8
4
1
3
4
4
7.9%
7.6%
10.4%
2.7%
8.3%
8.3%
3.1%
9.1%
6.2%
12.9%
9
6
2
1
3
2
3
1
0
0
3.0%
3.5%
2.1%
2.7%
3.1%
4.2%
9.4%
3.0%
.0%
.0%
26
12
9
5
9
6
4
1
5
1
8.5%
7.0%
9.4%
13.5%
9.4%
12.5%
12.5%
3.0%
7.7%
3.2%
37
96
48
32
33
65
31
305
172
96
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Page 141
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.21. How would you prefer to receive information from DHS agencies about payments and services?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
By email
Via agency websites
Printed material - brochures/
fact sheets
Regular newsletter
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
At a Customer Service
Centre
TOTAL
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
242
10
127
105
19
215
3
165
77
79.3%
76.9%
80.9%
77.8%
90.5%
79.3%
60.0%
82.5%
73.3%
105
12
0
4
8
0
12
0
11
1
3.9%
.0%
2.5%
5.9%
.0%
4.4%
.0%
5.5%
1.0%
71
5
31
35
1
65
1
47
24
23.3%
38.5%
19.7%
25.9%
4.8%
24.0%
20.0%
23.5%
22.9%
34
1
18
15
1
33
0
23
11
11.1%
7.7%
11.5%
11.1%
4.8%
12.2%
.0%
11.5%
10.5%
35
1
14
20
4
29
0
26
9
11.5%
7.7%
8.9%
14.8%
19.0%
10.7%
.0%
13.0%
8.6%
24
0
12
12
2
22
0
18
6
7.9%
.0%
7.6%
8.9%
9.5%
8.1%
.0%
9.0%
5.7%
24
0
11
13
0
24
0
16
8
7.9%
.0%
7.0%
9.6%
.0%
8.9%
.0%
8.0%
7.6%
Other (Specify)
By phone
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
9
0
3
6
1
7
1
3
6
3.0%
.0%
1.9%
4.4%
4.8%
2.6%
20.0%
1.5%
5.7%
26
1
14
11
3
21
0
19
7
8.5%
7.7%
8.9%
8.1%
14.3%
7.7%
.0%
9.5%
6.7%
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
305
100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Q.21. How would you prefer to receive information from DHS agencies about payments and services?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
By email
Via agency websites
Printed material - brochures/
fact sheets
Regular newsletter
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
At a Customer Service
Centre
Other (Specify)
By phone
TOTAL
Broadmeado
Ararat Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
16
16
242
12
11
12
14
14
12
14
13
13
11
79.3%
75.0%
68.8%
75.0%
82.4%
87.5%
75.0%
87.5%
81.3%
81.3%
68.8%
16
12
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
3.9%
.0%
.0%
18.8%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
71
3
5
2
2
3
5
3
2
3
6
23.3%
18.8%
31.3%
12.5%
11.8%
18.8%
31.3%
18.8%
12.5%
18.8%
37.5%
34
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
1
3
11.1%
18.8%
18.8%
12.5%
5.9%
18.8%
18.8%
18.8%
12.5%
6.3%
18.8%
35
2
2
2
0
5
2
1
4
1
3
11.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
.0%
31.3%
12.5%
6.3%
25.0%
6.3%
18.8%
24
1
1
0
0
3
2
0
4
0
0
7.9%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
18.8%
12.5%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
24
0
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
7.9%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
11.8%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
3.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
5.9%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
26
2
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
2
1
8.5%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Page 142
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.21. How would you prefer to receive information from DHS agencies about payments and services?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
NORMALLY RETURN
FORMS
By email
Via agency websites
Printed material - brochures/
fact sheets
Regular newsletter
In person - at
meetings/forums
In person - at offices
At a Customer Service
Centre
Other (Specify)
By phone
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
242
13
11
15
10
13
13
13
14
16
14
79.3%
81.3%
68.8%
93.8%
62.5%
81.3%
81.3%
81.3%
87.5%
87.5%
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
3.9%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
25.0%
71
4
2
1
4
6
5
8
3
4
23.3%
25.0%
12.5%
6.3%
25.0%
37.5%
31.3%
50.0%
18.8%
25.0%
34
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
1
11.1%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
12.5%
18.8%
6.3%
35
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
11.5%
18.8%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
.0%
24
3
2
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
7.9%
18.8%
12.5%
.0%
12.5%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
24
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
5
7.9%
.0%
6.3%
6.3%
18.8%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
12.5%
31.3%
9
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
3.0%
6.3%
12.5%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
26
3
2
4
1
2
2
1
0
0
8.5%
18.8%
12.5%
25.0%
6.3%
12.5%
12.5%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
16
16
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Q.21 SPECIFY: Other preferred means of receiving information from DHS agencies about payments and
services
Q.21. SPECIFY OTHER PREFERRED METHOD OR RECEIVING INFORMATION. (NEW)
________________________________________________________________________________
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
FAX
DIRECT REFERRAL
WE HAVE NO CONTACT WITH DHS
FAXES
DON'T GETY INFORMATION
BY LETTER
NO CONTACT
WE HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH DHS OR THERE AGENCIES
NA
Page 143
DHS Case Coordination - Advocacy and Service Organisations Results
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a metropolitan area, regional centre or rural area?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.22. Is your organisation
located in a metropolitan
area, regional centre or rural
area?
Advocacy Service
STATE
Both
NSW
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA/NT
305
13
157
135
96
48
32
33
65
172
8
84
80
48
16
31
17
33
27
56.4%
61.5%
53.5%
59.3%
50.0%
33.3%
96.9%
51.5%
50.8%
87.1%
Metropolitan area
Regional centre
31
96
5
53
38
38
24
1
11
18
4
31.5%
38.5%
33.8%
28.1%
39.6%
50.0%
3.1%
33.3%
27.7%
12.9%
Rural area
37
0
20
17
10
8
0
5
14
0
12.1%
.0%
12.7%
12.6%
10.4%
16.7%
.0%
15.2%
21.5%
.0%
TOTAL
305
13
157
135
96
48
32
33
65
31
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a metropolitan area, regional centre or rural area?
Advocacy or Service Org
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.22. Is your organisation
located in a metropolitan
area, regional centre or rural
area?
Advocacy Service
Profit or Non-profit
Both
Profit
Not for profit
Want greater coordination
No need for
Need greater
greater
coordination coordination
Both
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
172
8
84
80
10
156
3
121
51
56.4%
61.5%
53.5%
59.3%
47.6%
57.6%
60.0%
60.5%
48.6%
Metropolitan area
Regional centre
105
96
5
53
38
8
82
1
61
35
31.5%
38.5%
33.8%
28.1%
38.1%
30.3%
20.0%
30.5%
33.3%
Rural area
37
0
20
17
3
33
1
18
19
12.1%
.0%
12.7%
12.6%
14.3%
12.2%
20.0%
9.0%
18.1%
TOTAL
305
13
157
135
21
271
5
200
105
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a metropolitan area, regional centre or rural area?
Test Sites 1
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.22. Is your organisation
located in a metropolitan
area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan area
Regional centre
Rural area
TOTAL
Broadmeado
Bankstown Bowen Bridgewater
ws
Burnie
Cowra
305
Ararat
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
Darwin Elizabeth Fairfield
16
16
172
3
16
1
14
16
3
1
13
15
15
56.4%
18.8%
100.0%
6.3%
82.4%
100.0%
18.8%
6.3%
81.3%
93.8%
93.8%
16
96
4
0
8
2
0
9
5
3
1
1
31.5%
25.0%
.0%
50.0%
11.8%
.0%
56.3%
31.3%
18.8%
6.3%
6.3%
37
9
0
7
1
0
4
10
0
0
0
12.1%
56.3%
.0%
43.8%
5.9%
.0%
25.0%
62.5%
.0%
.0%
.0%
305
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q.22. Is your organisation located in a metropolitan area, regional centre or rural area?
Test Sites 2
Total
BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS
Sample Size
Q.22. Is your organisation
located in a metropolitan
area, regional centre or rural
area?
Metropolitan area
Regional centre
Rural area
TOTAL
Newcastle Port Adelaide Rockhampton Rockingham Shell harbour Shepparton Springvale Woodridge Wyong
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
172
6
16
3
15
8
0
13
12
16
2
56.4%
37.5%
100.0%
18.8%
93.8%
50.0%
.0%
81.3%
75.0%
12.5%
96
10
0
12
1
8
11
3
4
14
31.5%
62.5%
.0%
75.0%
6.3%
50.0%
68.8%
18.8%
25.0%
87.5%
37
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
12.1%
.0%
.0%
6.3%
.0%
.0%
31.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
305
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 144