E
Submission to the review of
Employment Services
(Job Services Australia)
from 1 July 2015
Queensland Council of Social Service
22 March 2013
1|Page
Executive Summary
The Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to the review of employment services undertaken by the Department of Education
Employment and Workplace relations.
While the current Job Services Australia (JSA) model is working reasonably well for the
majority of unemployed people, especially those who are ‘job ready’, the current approach is
not adequately meeting the needs of highly disadvantaged (Stream 4) job seekers.
There are significant opportunities to redesign current service provision practices to provide
improved outcomes for Stream 4 job seekers. While many job service providers do an
excellent job at providing opportunities for disadvantaged job seekers, they are significantly
constrained by the structure of the JSA system. We believe that it is vital to adopt a more
flexible and targeted model of service delivery for Stream 4 job seekers that empowers
service providers to assist them to overcome the complex array of barriers to employment.
QCOSS believes that the former Participate in Prosperity (PiP) program in Queensland
provides a useful example of a successful model for Stream 4 job seekers. The PiP program
was one of a number of programs under the Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative
funded by the Queensland Government between 2007 and 2012. The PiP program provided
highly disadvantaged job seekers in the Logan area with a range of flexible and targeted
supports to assist their participation in the workforce.
QCOSS believes that any redesign of the JSA system should consider implementing the
following recommendations to ensure targeted and responsive services are provided for the
most disadvantaged job seekers.
1.
Develop a specialised assistance program, which is targeted towards Stream 4 job
seekers. These services should:
be located in community-based organisations
provide intensive individual case management for clients.
2.
Implement contractual arrangements for employment services targeted at Stream 4 job
seekers, which:
focus on obtaining personal and social outcomes alongside employment
outcomes for clients
enable innovative and flexible funding approaches.
2|Page
Introduction
QCOSS is Queensland’s peak representative body for the community services sector.
QCOSS represents approximately 600 member organisations working across Queensland in
a broad range of portfolios. QCOSS provides support the work undertaken by member
organisations to address the causes of poverty and disadvantage. A key part of this role is
our engagement with the State and Federal Government’s to secure the better outcomes for
vulnerable Queenslanders.
Long-term unemployment is an ongoing challenge for the community. Australia’s long-term
unemployment grew to approximately 1.18 million people in July 2012. In response to the
growing number of long-term unemployed, the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations increased incentives for JSA providers to target more services at
Stream 4 job seekers. However, Stream 4 job seekers continue to experience an array of
barriers that prevent them from achieving positive long-term employment outcomes.
There are significant opportunities to redesign the current JSA system to better support
highly disadvantaged job seekers to engage with the workforce and provide improved
outcomes for these job seekers. Improving the way employment services are delivered to
disadvantaged job seekers will improve outcomes for individuals, families and communities,
as well as provide important economic returns for the Australian Government.
QCOSS believes that the former Participate in Prosperity (PiP) program in Queensland
provides a useful example of a successful employment service model for Stream 4 job
seekers. The PiP program was implemented between 2007 and 2012 in various locations
across Queensland as part of the Queensland Government-funded Skilling Queenslanders
for Work initiative. It was an effective labour market program generating a 39 per cent
employment rate for highly disadvantaged job seekers between 2011 and 2012 (Deloitte
Access Economics, 2012).
This submission makes a number of key recommendations based on the positive outcomes
obtained by the PiP program.
3|Page
Challenges experienced by disadvantaged job seekers
A growing proportion of the Australian population is experiencing long-term unemployment.
In July 2012, approximately one in five unemployed people (or 1.18 million)1 had been
unemployed for 12 months or more (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). This is a
significant increase from 2009 when only one in eight unemployed people were long-term
unemployed (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011).
People who are unemployed for long periods of time may experience economic hardship
and a myriad of personal and social consequences. Long-term unemployment is associated
with poor physical and mental health; it jeopardises family economic security; contributes to
the breakdown of marital and family relationships; and increases housing stress and
homelessness for affected families and individuals (Butterworth, 2009; Stevens, 1997;
Conger and Elder, 1994).
Unemployment falls disproportionately on people who are already experiencing some level
of exclusion or disadvantage (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 1998). People who are most
likely to be excluded from the labour market include women, especially lone parents, young
people, older male workers, people with long term sickness or disability, people from
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, people who are newly arrived such as
refugees and humanitarian entrants, and people with no work experience and low
qualification or skill levels (Mangan and Stephen, 2007).
A person who has been unemployed for 12 months or more has a 50 per cent chance of
being unemployed for another year (ACOSS, 2012). The longer a person remains
unemployed, the less they are likely to be able to access the labour market due to gradual
loss of social or workplace networks, loss of currency of skills, confidence, motivation and
because of employers' negative perceptions of their 'employability' (Australian Social
Inclusion Board, 2011; Chapman and Kapuscinski, 2000).
Long-term unemployment contributes significantly to intergenerational disadvantage with
devastating outcomes for families. These include intergenerational transmission of welfare
dependence, social exclusion, poor educational and health outcomes and overall diminished
life outcomes (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2011). Australia has the fourth highest
proportion of jobless families in the OECD. In June 2010 there were 310,000 jobless families
with children under 15 years, and 580,000 children under 15 living in jobless families in
Australia. 51 per cent of all persistently jobless families had a child under 6 years old, and
the vast majority of jobless families are headed by single mothers (Australian Social
Inclusion Board, 2011).
Although there is widespread perception that unemployed people do not want to work, there
is evidence to suggest otherwise. Research commissioned by DEEWR found that only 16
per cent of unemployed people were comfortable with being unemployed. Although a
proportion of unemployed considered themselves to be discouraged, disheartened and
struggling job seekers, they all wanted work (DEEWR 2002).
It is therefore crucial that employment programs to assist the highly disadvantaged job
seekers adopt more flexible and targeted approaches to address the array of complex issues
they face.
4|Page
Skilling Queenslanders for Work and the Participate in Prosperity
Program
Skilling Queenslanders for Work was implemented by the Queensland Government between
2007 and 2012 to enhance the state’s labour supply by reducing unemployment and underemployment and increasing workforce participation among disadvantaged groups. SQW was
a highly effective labour market strategy comprising a suite of targeted grants-based
programs (Deloitte Access Economics, 2012).
SWQ is recognised for being at the forefront in the design and the delivery of labour market
programs towards disadvantaged job seekers (Deloitte Access Economics, 2012). SQW
generated significant outcomes for disadvantaged job seekers. A 3-year evaluation found of
the 57,000 who gained employment through SQW, one in seven (or 8,500) would not
otherwise have gained employment had it not been for SQW. Moreover, it was estimated
that approximately $375 million in earnings (real wages) would be generated by the 8,500
persons in 2012-13. This increase in earnings translates (in present value terms) $1.1 billion
over 5 years (Deloitte Access Economics, 2012).
SQW comprised a range of programs with varying objectives and focus2. Each program
delivered some or all of the five main types of assistance to job seekers: job preparation
assistance, work placements, traineeships and apprenticeships, accredited training, and
mentoring and post-placement support.
One of the key programs delivered through SQW was the Participate in Prosperity (PiP)
program, which targeted highly disadvantaged job seekers. Organisations that delivered the
PiP program were funded to provide intensive individual case management to highly
disadvantaged job seekers to more easily navigate and access services they may need to
overcome personal and social barriers, assisting them to ultimately enter the workforce
(Deloitte Access Economics, 2012).
The first PiP program was successfully piloted at Youth and Family Service (Logan City) Inc.
(YFS) in 2007 before being rolled out to a number of other locations across Queensland3.
YFS is a not-for-profit organisation based in Logan, which is an area characterised as being
highly disadvantaged. Over the past 25 years, YFS has developed a wide range of services
and programs, linking people with the supports they need to overcome challenges and
achieve their goals. YFS plays a lead role in the Logan area to actively urge governments,
businesses and community organisations to respond effectively to people’s needs and
ensure everyone has access to the opportunities they need for a full life.
Over the five years that the PiP program was delivered at YFS, it generated significant
employment outcomes for highly disadvantaged job seekers. The majority of job seekers
that accessed the PiP program at YFS were existing JSA Stream 4 clients. While some job
seekers were referred by their JSA provider to the PiP program, most self-referred.
The PiP program provides an excellent model for the delivery of assistance to highly
disadvantaged job seekers. Reform and redesign of JSA should consider the successful
elements of the PiP program when redesigning job services for highly disadvantaged job
seekers. A number of case studies drawn from the PiP program at YFS have been included
in Appendix A to demonstrate the positive employment outcomes for highly disadvantaged
job seekers achieved through the PiP program.
5|Page
Job Services Australia and Stream 4 clients
There are significant barriers within the JSA system that can prohibit Stream 4 job seekers
from achieving positive and long-term employment outcomes. Even though the JSA system
is intended to be flexible to address needs of disadvantaged job seekers, it is structured and
resourced in a way that typically drives one-size-fits-all operations. This results in highly
disadvantaged job seekers often being placed in the ‘too hard basket’ instead of being
provided the kinds of services and support they need to achieve meaningful outcomes
(Fowkes, 2011; Refugee Council of Australia, 2012).
Research conducted by Nous Group found JSA providers generally spent 50 per cent of
their process time4 on administration and compliance with JSA system requirements. 30 per
cent of this time is spent on unnecessary administration and duplicated effort with
Department of Human Services (Centrelink). Nous Group suggested that while this may
reduce government risk, it is an under-investment of over $130 million annually into actual
employment services. With a reorientation of the system, this efficiency could translate to an
estimated 46,700 additional jobs for job seekers through the employment service system
(Nous Group 2012).
The excessive, burdensome and distracting level of red tape in the JSA system is counterproductive to the flexible services it intends to provide. According to Jobs Australia,
“Much of this red tape is an artefact of the transactional basis of contracting, in
the highly risk averse approach to governance and compliance taken by the
Department and in the providers own highly risk averse, micro-complianceoriented approach to their own governance and management of contracts –
which they have been conditioned and encouraged to adopt through their own
experience of earlier approaches to contract and system management” (Jobs
Australia, 2011)
We are concerned that the way JSA is structured and resourced discourages collaboration
and information sharing. Collaboration is essential to fostering effective wrap-around
services for Stream 4 job seekers. JSA providers are awarded contracts based on the
services they provide along with their star rating. The star rating is determined by a number
of factors, including the amount of successful employment outcomes attained for job seekers
at the JSA office. The importance of the star rating for maintaining funding and being
awarded future contracts may drive JSA providers to focus on their ‘bottom line’ and quick
employment outcomes for job seekers. This system inevitably favours job seekers who have
relatively few employment barriers (e.g. Stream 1) who can more quickly secure successful
outcomes, and causes ‘shelving’ of Stream 4 job seekers who often have an array of
complex barriers (Refugee Council of Australia 2012).
Barriers for Stream 4 job seekers in the JSA system have previously been raised in other
submissions and reports. Some of these barriers are explored below. Feedback from
stakeholders engaged in our consultation has been included to illustrate these barriers.
1. Stream 4 job seekers generally require a higher level of individual case
management support to address barriers to employment. However, it is the
experience of some Stream 4 job seekers that they receive little or no intensive case
management support from their JSA employment consultants. Appointments with
employment consultants are usually brief and involve the development of an
6|Page
Employment Pathway Plan (EPP) for the job seeker. Job seekers are expected to follow
through on the EPP with little recognition of the unique challenges they may be faced
with, such as transport barriers, personal crisis, underlying mental health or intellectual
disability.
“JSA case managers are not hands on. They just wait for the client to turn up
for their appointment, and when they don’t turn up they punish them by having
their payments cut.”
“For these highly disadvantaged people, a lot of things are going on in their
lives. It’s not just them, it’s their families too. Their life can be so full of drama –
it is one thing after another! It’s no wonder they can’t just make an appointment
to go and see a doctor like they are told do by their JSA provider!”
“Some job seekers get the sense that some JSA providers do not think that
non-vocational barriers are important to address. Sometimes when we (support
workers) go to appointments with the job seeker, we also get the sense that
their JSA employment consultants can’t see how the person’s mental health is a
barrier to employment”
2. Stream 4 clients would benefit from a more streamlined system when seeking
employment services. Some evidence shows there is duplication of processes between
by Department of Human Services (Centrelink) and the JSA provider is inefficient and is
confusing for Stream 4 job seekers. The need for a job seeker to maintain a dual
relationship with both agencies is plagued with a range of issues, including story
repetition, lack of role clarity between the agencies and inconsistent terminology used
(Nous Group, 2012). Job seekers report they are often confused by letters and text
messages from both agencies that seem to have contradictory meanings. These mixed
messages have led to misunderstanding of requirements from either DHS (Centrelink) or
the JSA provider, and have at times led to payment cuts.
“The forms they have to fill out and the letters they get from Centrelink and
JSAs are often difficult to understand. Some letters have no meaning at all –
they are confirming something that’s already happened. Then they get another
letter that looks very similar, but it is actually saying ‘if you don’t turn up, your
payment will be cut’.”
“JSA and Centrelink computers don’t seem to talk to each other. As soon as
someone breaches at Centrelink, JSA don’t get told anything about it. There
can be quite a bit of blame shifting between JSA and Centrelink, and the one
who really suffers is the job seeker.”
3. For Stream 4 job seekers adequate assistance to address non-vocational barriers
is critical to achieving employment outcomes. Current experiences of some Stream 4
clients are they are not receiving adequate assistance from some JSA providers to
address non-vocational barriers. They experience stringent limitations in their entitlement
to access the brokerage money through the Employment Pathway Fund (EPF) to
address the non-vocational barriers they are experiencing.
7|Page
“The EPF is meant to assist the job seeker financially in a flexible way but the
guidelines for expenditure are narrow and highly restrictive, and often cannot
address non-vocational barriers.”
“If a person needs to get a birth certificate, a phone, or have their teeth fixed,
they are expected to pay for these first and the JSA provider will put the money
in their bank account afterwards. But the reason the person doesn’t have these
things in the first place is because they just don’t have the money to start with.
This is why someone could be going to a JSA for 18 months and still not have
any of these things sorted.”
“If someone has bad teeth – and some people have really, really bad teeth –
getting them fixed is a very important part of getting a job. But JSAs do not
necessarily see this as a priority to getting employment.”
4. Stream 4 job seekers would benefit from greater support to achieve their
vocational goals. However, in addition to not receiving support to address nonvocational barriers, in some cases Stream 4 clients are inadequately supported to follow
through on their vocational goals. While EPP are, in theory, individually tailored to
identify job seekers’ vocational goals, in practice, resource constraints and stringent
protocols mean job seekers commonly experience limited opportunities to direct the way
in which assistance is provided (Fowkes 2011). Job seekers are commonly coerced into
attending training courses they are not necessarily interested in.
“A JSA typically says to a job seeker ‘we have this course available, you have
some vague skills in that area and you need to be doing something, so please
sign up for this one. The goal of JSA is to get someone into a job regardless of
what it is, but the problem is that they don’t stay in the job because they don’t
like it or aren’t good at it. It is not a long term solution.”
“One JSA provider seems to treat job seekers from refugee backgrounds as
though they should just be grateful for any help they get because they have
come to a nice country. They don’t necessarily take into consideration what the
client really wants to do.”
5. Building in a degree of voluntary participation in employment programs may go
some way in generating more positive and long-term outcomes for Stream 4 job
seekers. Our consultation revealed concerns that the current JSA system is punitive and
paternalistic, which is counterproductive for Stream 4 job seekers. For these job seekers,
the already damaging effects of unemployment may be compounded by the experience
of participating in such a punitive employment service system (Fowkes 2011). The
punitive approach of JSA reinforces the reluctance of Stream 4 job seekers to willingly
participate in employment services. These job seekers commonly experience a lack of
respect from JSA providers for their dignity, time and money. Underpinning the punitive
approach of JSA is the implicit association of unemployment with indolence and lack of
self discipline (Fowkes 2011).
“For many clients, one of their main barriers to employment was the JSA itself.
They have had bad experience. They hated going there. They don’t talk when
they go there. They just go and sit there, and get told what they have to do next,
and they leave again”.
8|Page
“Even if a JSA is trying to do more inclusive practices or become more userfriendly, if it continues working out of that office, and it is still associated with
JSA, Centrelink and the Government, this will continue to be a barrier for
vulnerable clients.”
“There is a sense from JSA and Centrelink that job seekers are not doing
anything and are sitting at home all day. Many clients report feeling like ‘no
hopers’ and judged by staff at these services.”
6. Correct ‘streaming’ of highly disadvantaged job seekers is essential. There is
evidence that some disadvantaged job seekers are incorrectly streamed when they
undergo their Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) at DHS (Centrelink) or with their JSA
provider. Inaccurate ‘streaming’ occurs because the JCA relies on self-disclosure by the
job seeker. Without providing a safe environment or adequate support, highly
disadvantaged job seekers experiencing complex life situations commonly find it very
overwhelming and challenging to disclose personal information to the Department.
“Clients who experience disadvantage have a lot of complexity in their lives, so
they find it hard to turn up to a Centrelink appointment (for their Job Capacity
Assessment) and share their circumstances. Often they are reluctant to
disclose sensitive information, such as substance abuse or child safety matters,
for fear of reprimand by the Government.”
“Sometimes clients don’t think to talk about housing or situations at home
because they don’t think it is relevant to employment, when it is absolutely
relevant. So they come to us and they are in Stream 1 when they really should
be in Stream 4.”
“Clients get emotional and start crying when they do their Job Capacity
Assessments because it gets too overwhelming to talk about their personal
matters with the Department. Mostly it is because they don’t know what to
expect.”
9|Page
Effective employment services for Stream 4 job seekers
The following section outlines in more detail recommendations for reform of the JSA system.
QCOSS believes that these reforms will bring about better outcomes for disadvantaged
Stream 4 job seekers because they will enable service providers to address the complex
needs of Stream 4 job seekers.
1. Develop a specialised assistance program, which is targeted towards Stream 4 job
seekers. These services should:
be located in community-based organisations
provide intensive individual case management for clients.
Located in community-based organisations
Community-based organisations are well placed to be effective employment service
providers for a range of reasons. Firstly, community-based organisations tend to have more
extensive experience in, and understanding of, issues faced by highly disadvantaged people
(Deloitte Access Economics, 2012). Employment services located in community-based
organisations are more likely to be delivered in a manner consistent with the ethos of the
organisation, which is often underpinned by social justice and compassion.
Secondly, community-based organisations are commonly multi-faceted in the range of
services they provide; therefore they tend to provide a more holistic approach to service
provision (Deloitte Access Economics 2012). The case study concerning Mathias in
Appendix A (Case Study 1) provides one example of how an employment service located in
a community-based organisation worked effectively with other services to meet the needs of
a highly disadvantaged job seeker.
Thirdly, community-based organisations are often well established in the community and
have extensive local networks within their own sector and with government and private
sectors. Employment services that are located in community-based organisations are
therefore well-placed to undertake more localised wrap-around approach to address the
range of needs of job seekers. Local referral pathways, joint support and care plans, and
sharing of resources are some of the myriad of benefits of a localised approach.
A further benefit of being located in a community-based organisation is the independence
from the traditional government employment services which can be perceived by highly
disadvantaged job seekers as punitive and paternalistic. A community-based employment
service provides a ‘safer’ program in which Stream 4 job seekers can freely participate
without fear of stigma or judgement.
Feedback to staff from clients enrolled in the PiP program at YFS, reinforces the importance
of providing a responsive and positive experience for clients. As the case study of Gloria in
Appendix A (Case Study 2) demonstrates, the positive experience and outcomes of the
program encourage job seekers to self-refer and to refer friends and family members to the
program.
10 | P a g e
Flexible and intensive individual case management
The provision of intensive individual case management is critical to the success of
employment programs for Stream 4 job seekers. Given the complex barriers faced by highly
disadvantaged job seekers, a great deal of individual case management and hands-on
support is required. This is particularly important for some groups of job seekers, such as
those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and those of refugee or
humanitarian entrant background. For instance, when supporting a job seeker of refugee
background, special consideration of the culture, unique prior work experience in the home
country and experiences of torture and trauma need to be taken into consideration.
Evaluation of the SQW strategy found intensive case management was paramount to
securing employment outcomes for disadvantaged job seekers (Deloitte Access Economics,
2012). An important component of intensive individual case management is the capacity for
case managers to provide outreach support for highly disadvantaged job seekers. Outreach
services provided by case workers include driving clients to medical appointments, attending
mental health assessment sessions with clients, helping clients to purchase job interview
clothes, assisting clients to secure accommodation, attending DHS (Centrelink) interviews
with clients, and even turning up to the job seeker’s house when they miss an appointment
with the case manager. Each of the four case studies in Appendix A provide examples of the
effectiveness of intensive case management support for highly disadvantaged job seekers.
Another important aspect of intensive individual case management is the capacity for case
managers to take the time to listen to and understand job seekers’ employment aspirations,
goals and their skills and strengths. Critical in this is having the flexibility to ‘do what it takes’
to develop a relationship with clients, to find out what motivates them individually and to work
out what needed to be achieved to overcome their particular barrier to employment.
2. Implement contractual arrangements for employment services targeted at Stream
4 job seekers, which:
focus on obtaining personal and social outcomes alongside employment
outcomes for clients
enable innovative and flexible funding approaches.
Obtaining personal and social outcomes alongside employment outcomes
A new approach that values and measures personal and social outcomes (as steps along
the way to achieving employment outcomes) needs to be implemented alongside a
monitoring systems that are appropriate for highly disadvantaged communities. The
monitoring system must take into consideration the vast array of complex challenges faced
by job seekers from these communities.
Effective employment services require higher levels of early and ongoing engagement with
job seekers based on their unique circumstances and set of challenges. This would be more
easily achieved if opportunities to reduce unnecessary administration and duplication in the
current JSA system were implemented.
A key focus of the SQW strategy was on developing human and social capital to achieve
employment outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Importantly, these personal and
11 | P a g e
social outcomes were considered integral to positive employment outcomes (Deloitte Access
Economics, 2012). The case study concerning Doug in Appendix A (Case Study 3) provides
one example of how achieving social and personal outcomes enables highly disadvantaged
job seekers to secure employment.
Innovative and flexible funding approaches
Prescriptive contractual arrangements and competitive funding arrangements may foster a
great deal of mistrust between service providers and encourage withholding of information
amongst JSA providers. Greater levels of trust and information sharing are required to
encourage collaboration amongst JSA providers and other service providers. Greater
collaboration would, in turn, result in more holistic ‘wrap-around’ support for job seekers and
ultimately lead to better employment outcomes. Better sharing of information could also
facilitate more appropriate ‘streaming’ of job seekers particularly those that are highly
disadvantaged.
In their review of SQW Deloitte Access Economics identified the following elements of
funding innovation:
the devolvement of decision-making on funding allocations to locally based
committees;
the provision of funding to community based organisations that already had extensive
understanding of highly disadvantaged clients (and programs to support them);
the use of front-loaded funding5 to providers; and the expectation that providers
leverage funding allocations from other sources6.
In particular, front-loaded funding is considered necessary to effectively deliver programs for
disadvantaged groups (Deloitte Access Economics 2012). This is because it enables service
providers a greater level of autonomy to deliver programs in a more flexible and responsive
manner without ‘jumping through hoops’ to have funds approved as can be the case in the
JSA system.
An innovative funding approach would also make greater use of tools, such as brokerage, to
help job seekers overcome non-vocational barriers which undermine positive employment
outcomes. The case study concerning Rod in Appendix A (Case Study 4) provides one
example of how flexible brokerage can be used to support a range of needs of highly
disadvantaged job seekers.
12 | P a g e
Appendix A: Case examples from the Participate in Prosperity Program,
located at Youth and Family Services, Logan
Case Study 1 – Mathias
Mathias migrated to Australia from East Africa and became an Australian Citizen in 2006.
After losing his job, where he had been employed for five years, Mathias found it difficult to
get another job. He was also experiencing relationship issues and was struggling to maintain
his tenancy due to his financial situation.
Mathias approached YFS seeking employment assistance. He was assigned a PiP case
manager who assisted him to seek other support, such as legal advice regarding his family
situation. As a result, he decided to start attending counselling sessions with his wife through
Relationship Australia.
Mathias’ PiP case manager referred him to the Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Service
(TAAS) to seek assistance for his tenancy issues. This resulted in an early termination of his
lease with no repercussions. He then went to stay with relatives while he looked for more
affordable accommodation.
Mathias was finding it difficult to gain employment because his former employer – his only
Australian employer – was giving him poor verbal references, which meant he was being
rejected for jobs after reference checks. His PiP case manager organised a conference call
between the Human Resource (HR) manager from his former employer and Mathias to
discuss the issues of the bad reference and its impact on Mathias’ future employability.
The HR manager agreed to provide a written reference letter for Mathias, showing his length
of employment, the skills he had gained and stating he was a reliable employee. The letter
was attached to his resume. The PiP case manager supported Mathias to apply for jobs,
purchase job interview clothes, and provide fuel to get to interviews.
Through the support of his case worker, Mathias was successful in gaining full time
employment and finding a new private rental house.
Case Study 2 – Gloria
Gloria, a young single female, self-referred to PiP after she had seen the successful
outcomes that her brother and his girlfriend had achieved through their participation in the
PiP program. A family breakdown resulted in Gloria having to leave home and stay with a
family friend. Gloria had been suffering from anxiety and depression for a number of years.
Her PiP case manager supported her to see a doctor and request a mental health care plan.
Gloria’s long term goal is to become a full time psychologist. Gloria was studying psychology
part-time at university but had no income or financial support from her parents. This
compromised her ability to continue studying and complete her degree. Gloria’s PiP case
manager supported her in a number of ways to overcome this barrier. To assist with her
financial situation the case worker supported Gloria to apply for and secure Youth Allowance
through Centrelink Gloria’s case manager also assisted her to secure part time employment
in hospitality so that she could work in the evenings and study during the daytime. To assist
in this, her case manager referred her to do her Responsible Service in Alcohol, Responsible
Service in Gaming and Barista training, which was paid for through the PiP program. Her
13 | P a g e
case manager also assisted her to develop her resume, and went with her to ‘cold canvass’
at the local shopping centre where she successfully secured a part-time job at a café.
Gloria’s case manager also assisted her to find her own accommodation so that she could
live closer to university. Her case manager helped to secure an appropriate unit and helped
her to complete a ‘Transition to Independent Living’ allowance application.
As a result of this support, Gloria is enjoying her life and on her way to realising her dream of
becoming a psychologist.
Case Study 3 – Doug
Doug is a young man with a mild learning disability who was forced to drop out of school due
to a violent home invasion incident at his home when he was in school. Doug was referred
by his JSA provider to the PiP program. His JSA employment consultant was concerned that
as an early school leaver he had not fulfilled his ‘Earn or Learn’ obligation and needed to
work or complete a Cert II course. PiP found a Cert II in Retail for Doug but after a few days
it became apparent that he had an unusual learning disability. He could read and write well
but struggled with comprehending even relatively simple written information.
Doug lived at in an area with limited public transport and had to pay $3.85 one way to get to
the nearest Business Centre. PiP supported him to enrol in a Get Set for Work program at
the local PCYC. PiP was able to assist with his transport costs which amounted to $77.00
per fortnight or $335.00 for the 10 week course.
Doug’s PiP case manager also supported him to get his Learners licence. Through
participating in the Get Set for Work program he was able to develop his confidence and
acquired his Applied First Aid Certificate and a Construction Industry White Card.
With his newfound confidence Doug was able to approach a major retailer to seek work
experience by himself. He completed two weeks of work experience there while on the Get
Set for Work program and has since secured a permanent position with the retailer.
Case Study 4 – Rod
Rod is a New Zealand Citizen who arrived in Australia after 2003. As a result, he is not
entitled to any Centrelink support. He had been getting irregular employment through labour
hire companies but his hours were reduced even more and he was only getting 4-6 hours
per week. PiP initially made a part payment for his car registration so he could maintain his
employment.
Rod had been driving fork lifts for a long time and that he had a New Zealand fork lift licence.
Previously he had not had any problems in working in Australia driving fork lifts; however
due to recent changes, employers will not employ operators without an Australian forklift
licence. The PiP case manager arranged for Rod to undergo an RPL assessment for his
forklift license. This resulted in him obtaining his Australian Fork Lift Licence.
Rod informed his PiP case manager that he had friends in the Security Industry and had
contacts who could find him work if he was able to get his Cert II in Security. The case
manager found a free Cert II Security course on the Gold Coast for Rod to attend.
14 | P a g e
Rod’s work boots and clothing were very old but he could not afford to replace them. The
PiP case manager took him to purchase new boots and work clothes and he continued with
the few hours’ work he was being given, until his security course started.
The PiP program assisted Rod with the fuel costs to the Gold Coast to attend his security
course and some living expenses during this period, as he had no income at all coming in.
He completed his security course and was just waiting for the Police Checks and
fingerprinting processes to be finalised, when he was informed that he had secured full time
employment as a baggage handler at the Brisbane Airport.
Rod was very pleased with the support he had received from the PiP Program. Rod stated
that he felt the new clothes purchased with PiP brokerage funds had really helped with his
confidence in his interview and because he was able to get some support when he needed
it, gave him a better attitude at the interview. Rod also said that having the security
qualification gave him options he did not have before. If he should be in a position where he
has to look for employment again, he now has more confidence and his chances will be
much improved.
15 | P a g e
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011. Australian Social Trends – Long Term
Unemployment Catalogue No. 4102.0. September 2011. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/
Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/AAAABC9F3971E125CA25791100161CE4/$File/41020_longtermunemploy
ment_sep2011.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013. Job Search Experience, Australia, July 2012.
Catalogue No. 6222.0. January 2013. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/media
releasesbyCatalogue/43C399360F2FE8C6CA2573A9001EDB80?Opendocument
Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) 2011. Help to get a job – what makes a
difference – Discussion paper. http://acoss.org.au/uploads/ACOSS%20Participation
%20factsheet%20 April%202012.pdf
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2008. Making Progress - the health,
development and wellbeing of Australia’s children and young people.
Australian Social Inclusion Board 2011. Addressing barriers for jobless families.
http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.au/files/publications/pdf/addr
essing-barriers-for-jobless-families.pdf
Brotherhood of St Laurence 1998 .The Social Consequences of unemployment
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/social.pdf#page=1
Butterworth, P. 2009. Estimating the prevalence of mental disorders among income support
recipients. FaHCSIA, Commonwealth Government, Canberra.
Chapman, B. and Kapuscinski, C. 2000. Avoiding Recessions and Australian Long Term
Unemployment – Discussion Paper. The Australia Institute.
Conger, R. and Elder, G. 1994. Families in troubled times. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Deloitte Access Economics 2012. Evaluation of Skilling Queenslanders for Work. Report for
the Department of Education, Training and Employment. July 2012.
http://deta.qld.gov.au/publications/strategic/evaluation/pdf/evaluation-skilling-queenslanderswork.pdf
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations 2002. Job Seeker
Attitudinal Segmentation – An Australian Model.
Fowkes, L. 2011. Rethinking Australia’s Employment Services. http://www.uws.edu.au/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0004/181183/Rethinking_Australias_Employment_Services.pdf
Jackson, S. and Crooks, M. 1993. Existing but not living: a research project canvassing the
aspirations and views of long-term unemployed Australians, Brotherhood of St Laurence,
Melbourne.
Jobs Australia 2011. Jobs Australia’s submission on ways to improve employment services
within Jobs Services Australia (JSA) and Disability Employment Services (DES) from 2012.
January 2011.
Mangan, J. and Stephen, K. 2007. Social Exclusion in Queensland: Measurement, Cost and
Policy Options. http://www.employment.qld.gov.au/pdf/eii/mangan_report_eii_final.pdf
16 | P a g e
Nous Group, 2010. The evolution of Job Services Australia system – commissioned by Jobs
Australia. http://ja.com.au/sites/default/files/[user]/files/articles/FinalSubmissionJobs%20
Australia.pdf
Refugee council of Australia 2012. Job Services Australia: Refugee community and
service provider views. March 2012. http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/amulticultural-australia/government-approach/government-services/pdf/inquirysubmission/37rcoa.pdf
Stevens, A. 1997. Persistent effects of job displacement: The importance of multiple job
losses. Journal of Labor Economics, v15, p165-188.
17 | P a g e
1
Author’s own calculations based on 5.9 million people unemployed in July 2012. From Australian
Bureau of Statistics Job Search Experience, Australia, 6222.0, July 2012.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/6222.0July%202012?OpenDocument
2
For a more comprehensive summary of the full range of Skilling Queenslanders for Work programs
see Evaluation of Skilling Queenslanders for Work report, Section 2.3.2, by Deloitte Access
Economics.
3
The Queensland Government ceased funding to employment services in late 2012, resulting in the
closure of all SQW programs across the state.
4
The process time is defined as time spent with any one job seeker
5
Front loaded funding is where the majority of the grant is allocated to service providers at project
commencement. In Skilling Queenslanders for Work, it was generally 70 per cent of the grant.
6
More details about Skilling Queenslanders for Work’s innovative funding approach can be found in
Evaluation of Skilling Queenslanders for Work report, Section 6.1.3, by Deloitte Access Economics.
18 | P a g e