National Report - Australian Council of Social Service
Transcript of National Report - Australian Council of Social Service
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 1
Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
National Report
ACOSS Paper 202
Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
National Report
ACOSS Paper 202
First published in 2013 by the Australian Council of Social ServiceLocked Bag 4777Strawberry Hills NSW 2012, Australia
e | [email protected] | www.acoss.org.au
ISSN: 1326 7124ISBN: 978 0 85871 046 7
© Australian Council of Social Service 2013
Publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission Enquiries should be addressed to the Publications Officer, Australian Council of Social Service, email: [email protected] phone (02) 9310 6200.
Front cover image © Tagxedo.com
The Australian Council of Social Service is the peak body of the community services and welfare sector and the national voice for the needs of people affected by poverty and inequality.
ACOSS’ vision is for a fair, inclusive and sustainable Australia where all individuals and communities can par-ticipate in and benefit from social and economic life.
Established in 1956, ACOSS aims to reduce poverty and inequality by:
• Developing and promoting socially, economically and environmentally responsible public policy and action by government, community and private sectors; and
• Supporting the role of non-government organisations in providing assistance to vulnerable Australians and contributing to national policy making.
ACOSS members comprise community service providers, professional associations, advocacy organisations and individual supporters. ACOSS provides independent and informed policy development, advice, advocacy and representation about issues facing people in Australia affected by poverty and inequality and the com-munity services sector. We also provide a key coordinating and leadership role for non-profit social services across the country. We work with our members, clients and service users, the non-profit sector, governments, departments and other relevant agencies on current, emerging and ongoing social, systemic and operational issues.
ACOSS acknowledges our supporters: Ashurst, Community Sector Banking, Hesta, Jobs Australia, Maxxia, Matrix on Board and Telstra.
ACOSS receives funding from the Federal Government’s National Secretariat Program via the Department of Families and Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 7
ContentsTable of Abbreviations 81. Executive summary 9 1.1 Key findings 9 1.2 Summary of key findings 102. About this survey 12 2.1 Some changes this year 12 2.2 Acknowledgements 133. Context 2010/11 144. Who answered the survey? 165. Unmet needs 19 5.1. What services do the sector’s clients need most? 19 5.2. Priority policy issues for clients 206. Demand for services 21 6.1 Turn-away rates 21 6.2 Underfunding of services 23 6.3. How are services responding to increased demand? 23 6.3.1 Reallocating resources to meet demand 24 6.3.2. Requiring staff and volunteers to work more hours 25 6.3.3. Targeting services more tightly or limiting service levels 26 6.3.4. Increased waiting times 277. Service profiles 28 7.1 Housing/homelessness services 28 7.1.2 Summary 28 7.1.3 Analysis 28 7.2 Emergency relief 31 7.2.1 Summary 31 7.2.2 Analysis 31 7.3 Legal services 34 7.3.1 Summary 34 7.3.2 Analysis 34 7.4 Youth and youth welfare services 36 7.4.1 Summary 36 7.4.2 Analysis 36 7.5 Mental health services 38 7.5.1 Summary 38 7.5.2 Analysis 388. Issues facing the sector 40 8.1 Future pressures on the sector 41 8.2 Opinions about sector-wide reforms 42 8.3 Understanding the ACNC 43 8.3.1 Does size influence understanding of the ACNC’s role amongst services? 43 8.4 What aspect of the ACNC’s role is most important to organisations? 44 8.4.1 Does size influence services’ priorities for regulatory reform? 45 8.5 Areas in which services most need external support 45 8.6 Services’ use of social media 46Appendix 1: Methodology 47 Classification of community service organisations 47 Sampling and sample limits 48 Responses 49 Turn-away rates 50
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 8
Table of Abbreviations
ABS AustralianBureauofStatistics
ACNC AustralianCharitiesandNot-for-ProfitCommission
ACOSS AustralianCouncilofSocialService
ACSS AustralianCommunitySectorSurvey
AIHW AustralianInstituteofHealthandWelfare
ANZSIC AustraliaandNewZealandStandardIndustryClassification
AYAC AustralianYouthAffairsCoalition
CLA CommunityLawAustralia
COAG CouncilofAustralianGovernments
COSS CouncilofSocialService
EPPIC EarlyPsychosisPreventionandInterventionCentres
ER Emergencyrelief
ERO EqualRemunerationOrder
FWA FairWorkAustralia
GDP GrossDomesticProduct
HASI HousingAccommodationSupportInitiative
ICNPO InternationalClassificationofNon-ProfitOrganisations
NCCS NationalClassificationofCommunityServices
NDIS NationalDisabilityInsuranceScheme
NFP Notforprofitorganisation
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 9
1. Executive summary
TheAustralianCommunitySectorSurvey2013(ACSS)presentsthefindingsfromtheACOSSannual survey of community services acrossAustralia. The surveywas con-ductedbetweenMarchandJune2013andcoverstheperiodfrom1July2011to30June2012.Atotalof532organisationsrespondedtothesurvey,reportingonserviceprovi-sion,demandforservicesandunmetneed,clientdemographics,andoperational,policyandregulatoryissuesandchallengesfacingthecommunityservicessector.
TheACSSistheonlyannualnationalsurveycollectingdataaboutthenon-government,not-for-profitcommunityservicesandwelfaresector.Thissectorisamajorproviderofthesocialservicesthatmostpeopleinthecommunitywillrelyonatsomepointintheirlives,butwhichareparticularlyimportanttopeopleexperiencingpoverty,inequalityandsocialdisadvantage.
Since1998thesurveyhasprovidedtheonlyreliablebarometergeneratedbythesectoritselfofhowthesectoristravellingandidentifyingwherethecurrentpressuresareforfrontlineagenciesandtheirpeakbodies.Throughitsuseofauniqueserviceclassifica-tionschemeanditsabilitytoreachsignificantnumbersofsmaller,locallybasedorganisa-tionsacrossAustralia,theACSSaccuratelyreflectthebreadthofviews,challengesandpressuresexperiencedacrossthesector.
1.1 Key findings
ForpeopleexperiencingpovertyanddisadvantageinAustralia,housingavailabilityandaffordability,community-basedcare treatment formental illness,andemergency reliefwerereportedasthegreatestareasofneed.Thiswasidentifiedbyallservicesacrossthesector,whoalso reported improving theaffordabilityandavailabilityofhousingasthetoppolicypriorityforthesector’sclients.Othertopprioritiesincludedreversingstategovernmentcutstosocialandwelfareservices,andincreasingmentalhealthservicesandsocialsupportpayments.
Theservicesthatwereleastabletomeetdemandamongsttheirownclientgroupswerehousingandhomelessnessservices(66%),followedbylegalservices(63%),youthserv-ices (52%)andemergencyrelief (47%)providers. Mentalhealth (47%)anddomesticviolenceandsexualassaultservices(46%)alsoreportedbeinguabletomeetdemandforservices.
Anexaminationofturn-awayratesacrossservicesrevealsthatlegal(20%),youthwelfare(17%),housingandhomelessness(16%)anddomesticviolenceservices(13%)continuetoturnawayclientsatthehighestrates.
Acrossallservicesmostindemand,aswellasamongspecificservicesleastabletomeetdemand,peopleexperiencingunemploymentandlivingininsecurehousingorexperienc-inghomelessnessfeaturedstronglyineachclientgroup.Surveyrespondentsreportedahighproportionofpeopleseekinghelparepeoplewhollyreliantonincomesupportpay-ments,especiallyamongclientspresentingathousingandhomelessness(77%),mentalhealthservices(61%)andEmergencyReliefproviders(75%).
Mostservicesreportedhavingtargetedtheirservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelev-elstomeetdemand.Thiswasespeciallysoforlegalservices(85%),emergencyreliefproviders(82%)andmentalhealthservices(70%).
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 10
IntermsoftheeffectivenessandsustainabilityofcommunityservicesinAustralia,underfund-inganduncertaintyaboutthefundingofservicesstoodoutstronglyasthegreatestareasoffuturepressureonthesector.Challengesfacedbysmallerorganisationstoremainviableandongoingunmetclientdemandfollowedcloselyontheseconcerns.
1.2 Summary of key findings
Housing still the highest priority for clients and policy makers
• 66%ofhousingandhomelessservicesreportstrugglingtomeetdemand.
• Over60%ofoverallrespondentslistedhousingandhomelessnessservicesamongstthoseforwhichtheirclientshadthehighestneed.
• 61%ofallrespondentssaidimprovinghousingavailabilityandaffordabilityisthetoppolicypriority.
• 62%saidwaitingtimesforserviceshadincreasedsincetheprevious12months.
• Servicesreporteda16%turn-awayrate,up5%from2010/11.
Legal services turn away one-fifth of all clients in need
• 63%oflegalserviceprovidersreportednotbeingabletomeetdemandforservices,andlegalservicesrankedsecondhighestoninabilitytomeetdemand.
• 20% of all clients in need of assistance from surveyed community legal serviceswereturnedawayin2011/12,thehighestturn-awayrateacrossallservicetypes.
• 85%oflegalservicesreportedhavingtargetedtheirservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevelstomeetdemand.
• 67%reportedbeingunderfundedand59%saidtheyhadincreasedwaitingtimesforserv-ices.
• 76%ofservicesaskedstaffandvolunteers toworkadditionalhours inattempt tomeetdemand.
Youth services also report extremely high turn-away rates
• Youthservicesreportedthesecondhighestclientturn-awayrateof17%-almost8%uponthepreviousyear.
• 52%couldnotmeetdemand.
• 65%requiredstafforvolunteerstoworklongerhoursandtargetedservicesmoretightlyorlimitedservicelevelstomeetdemand.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 11
Mental health services, emergency relief in high need, yet struggle to meet demand
• 57%identifiedmentalhealthservicesas‘highneed’,while40%identifiedemergencyrelief
• Increasingtheavailabilityofmentalhealthserviceswasthethirdhighestpolicypriorityforthesector’sclients.
• Over80%ofemergencyreliefprovidersagreedthatthecostofservicedeliveryex-ceededrevenueandreportedtargetingservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevelstomeetdemand.
• 70%ofmentalhealthservicesalsoreportedtargetingservicesmoretightlytomeetdemand.
Key challenges facing the sector and opinions about sector-wide reforms
• Thethreemostsignificantissuesfacingthesectoridentifiedwere:
o Underfundingofservicesbygovernment(58%);
o Fundinguncertainty(51%);and
o Challengesforsmallorganisationstoremainviable(36%).
• Closelyfollowedbyunmetclientdemandforservices(32%).
• 90%ofrespondentswelcomedequalpayforthesector’sworkersfollowingthesuc-cessfulcasebeforeFairWorkAustralia,with73%agreeingitsimplementationover8yearsastooslow.
• RespondentsreportedhighlevelsofsupportfortheideathatNFPsshouldprovetheyaremakingapositiveimpact(71%).
• 63%supportedtheimplementationofanationalregulatorfortheNFPsector.
• Servicesremainambivalentaboutdirectclientfundingmodelsandabouttheimpactofincreasedcompetitiononservicedelivery.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 12
2. About this survey
Forover15years,ACOSShasconductedtheannualACSS1.Thesurveyistheonlyannualsurveyrunnationallyandcollectingdataaboutthenon-government,not-for-profitcommunityservicesandwelfaresector.Throughitsuseofauniqueserviceclassificationschemeanditsabilitytoreachsignificantnumbersofsmall,locallybasedorganisationsacrossAustralia,theACSSreflectsabreadthofviews,challengesandpressuresexperiencedacrossthesector.
TheACSSinvolvesanevidence-basedapproachtomeasuringandmonitoringcontinuityandchangeinthesectoroveratwo-yearperiod.It isdesignedtoproviderobustdataaboutthescopeandcontributionofthesector.ThedataanalysedareusedwidelybyACOSSanditsnetworksandformediaandotherpublicfunctions.Duetosamplingtechniquesemployed(seeAppendix1),thefindingsareindicativeofthesector,notnecessarilyrepresentative.
ThesurveywasinthefieldbetweenMarchandJune2013.Respondentswereaskedtopro-videinformationrelatingtotheperiod1July2011to30June2012–and,toalesserextent–theprevious(financial)year(2010/11).ResultswereanalysedusingSPSSsurveysoftware.
Thesurveyreporthighlightsmajortrendsinserviceprovisionanddemandandareasofunmetneeds;providesinformationonoperational,sectorpolicyandsectorreformissues;andprofilesfiveserviceareasthatfacedparticularchallengeswithinthesectorin2011/12.APDFversionofthesurveyisavailableontheACOSSwebsiteatwww.acoss.org.au.
2.1 Some changes this year
In2013theAustralianCharitiesandNot-for-ProfitCommission(ACNC)commissionedaseriesofquestionstoascertainwhetherorganisationsunderstoodhowtheACNCwouldaffectthem,andtoprovidefeedbackaboutwheretheACNCshoulddirectitseffortstoreduceunneces-saryregulatoryburden.Inturn, theinclusionof thesequestionsresulted inachangetothequestionsaboutorganisationalsizeinordertoaligntheACSSmeasurewiththatusedbytheACNC.Assuch,inthisyear’ssurvey,organisationalsizeismeasuredbytotalannualrevenue2.
Inaddition,severalnewquestionswereincludedinthe2013surveytomeasure:
• Theimpactofrisingelectricitypricesonemergencyreliefprovidersandfinancialsupportservices;and
• Thesector’suseofsocialmedia.
Finally,newmeasureswereincludedinthesurveytoimprovethereliabilityofreporteddataonserviceusageandturn-awayrates.A‘control’questionaskedrespondentstoindicatewhetherthe data reported for service usage and turn-awaywas ‘very accurate’, ‘fairly accurate’ or‘mostly guesswork’. Another questionmeasured respondents’ perceptions ofwhether turn-awayrateshadincreased,decreasedorstayedaboutthesamefromthepreviousyear.Duringdataanalysis,responsesdescribedas‘mostlyguesswork’wereremovedfromthesampletocontrolfortheirimpactontheoverallresults.Thedifferencebetweenstatisticalturn-awayratesandrespondents’perceptionsofchangeovertimeisdiscussedinsection6.1.
1ThefirstnationalACOSSsurveyofthecommunityserviceandwelfaresector,Australians Living on the Edge,wasconductedin1998.Ithasbeenconductedannuallysincethatdate,renamedthe Australian Community Sector Survey in20052WhiletheACNCemploysthreeannualrevenuecategoriestodetermineorganisationalsize,the2013ACSSusesfivecat-egoriestoenableamorenuancedexplorationof the impactofsizeonorganisations’understandingofregulatoryreformsaffectingthesector
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 13
2.2 Acknowledgements
ThissurveygreatlybenefittedfromtheworkofadedicatedresearchteamincludingDrShaunWilsonandSasinduGamage(UniversityofNewSouthWalesSchoolofSocialSciences), Chantel Cotterell and Lisa Fowkes. ACOSS gratefully acknowledges theircontribution.ParticularthanksgotoSasinduGamagewhoundertookalltheSPSSwork(datafilemanagement,datacleaningandanalysis)forthisreport.
OurthanksalsogotoCouncilsofSocialService(COSS)membersandallthoseorgani-sationsthatcontinuetosupporttheACSSthroughtheireffortstoreview,pilot,distribute,promoteandparticipateinthesurvey.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 14
3. Context 2011/12
Inthesummerof2010/11Australia’seasternstatesweredevastatedbyseverefloods,withQueensland–alsohitbycyclonesYasi,TashaandAnthonyinthesameperiod–sufferingtheworstimpacts.Thefloodscauseddamageestimatedatover$2billiondollarsanddirectlyaffected200,000people inQueenslandalone.Acrossallaffectedstates,approximately3.1millionpeoplelivedinflood-affectedareasandtheestimatedlosstotheAustralianeconomywashalfapercentagepointofGrossDomesticProduct(GDP).Intheaftermathofthefloods,thefederalgovernmentannounceda$5.6billionfloodreconstructionprogram,whichincludeda$2billioninitialpaymenttoQueensland.
Inthe2011/12FederalBudget,thegovernmentforecastthattheeconomicchallengesposedbythefloodsnotwithstanding,thegovernmentwouldrealiseitscommitmenttoreturnthebudg-ettosurplusin2012/13.Theprojectedreturntosurpluswasachievedthroughanumberofmeasures,includingtheintroductionofaone-offfloodandcyclonereconstructionlevyandthedelayof$1billionworthofinfrastructureprojectsandotherspendingcuts.
Despiteannouncingsavingsmeasuresamountingto$22billion,thegovernmentalsousedthe2011/12FederalBudgettoannouncesignificantfundingtoimprovethequantity,qualityandcoordinationofmentalhealthservicesaswellasmajorreformstotheregulationofthenot-for-profitsector.TheNationalMentalHealthReformPackagecomprised$2.2billionoverfiveyears(including$1.5billioninnewfunds)allocatedoverfiveareasofreform:
1. Bettercareforpeoplewithsevereanddebilitatingmentalillness;
2. Strengtheningprimarymentalhealthcareservices;
3. Preventionandearlyinterventionservicesforchildrenandyoungpeople;
4. Encouragingeconomicandsocialparticipation,includingpaidemployment,forpeoplewithmentalIllness;and
5. Improvingquality,accountabilityandinnovationinmentalhealthservices,includingthroughtheestablishmentofanewindependentNationalMentalHealthCommission.
Not-for-profitsectorreformwasalsoaddressedwithinthe2011/12budget,whenthegovern-mentcommittedtotheestablishmentofanationalregulator for thenot-for-profitsector(theACNC); the reformationof taxarrangements includingaccess to tax concessions for com-mercialactivitiesforthesector;andtheintroductionofastatutorydefinitionofcharity.ACOSSstronglyadvocatedforseveralofthesereformsandwasactivelyengagedintheconsultativeprocesses that informeddevelopments ineacharea.Throughout2011/12ACOSSand thesectorcontinuedtoadvocateforthecharitydefinitiontobethefirstareaofreform,thusena-blingtheregulatoryandtaxationarrangementstoflowfromit.Insteadoverthecourseoftheyear,theACNCandtaxreformprocessesunfoldedfirst,withthedefinitionbeingheldovertoformthefinalpieceofthereformpuzzle.Thismadeitextremelydifficultforthesectortofullyunderstandtheimplicationsoftheregulatoryandtaxreformsastheywereconsideredand,insomecases,implemented.
Perhapsthemostsignificantsocialreformannouncedin2011/12wastheNationalDisabilityInsuranceScheme(NDIS).InAugust2011,theGillardgovernmentacceptedtheProductivityCommission’sfinalreportonDisabilityCareandSupportandannouncedthatitwouldimmedi-atelybeginworkingwiththestatesandterritoriestoimplementthereport’skeyrecommenda-tiontoestablishaNationalDisabilityInsuranceScheme(NDIS),providingtailoredcareand
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 15
supporttopeoplewithasignificantdisability.Themainfeaturesoftheschemerecom-mendedbytheProductivityCommissionincluded:
• Entitlementstoindividuallytailoredsupportsbasedonthesameassessmentprocess;
• Certaintyoffundingbasedonneed;
• Genuinechoiceoverhowneedsaremet(includingchoiceofprovider);
• Localareacoordinatorsanddisabilitysupportorganisations toprovidegrass rootssupport;and
• Along-termapproachtocarewithastrongincentivetofundcost-effectiveearlyinter-ventions.
InApril2012, thegovernmentstated that itwouldsetasidemoney for thecreationoftheNDISinthecomingbudget.Boththecommission’sreportandthegovernment’san-nouncementaboutfundingfortheschememetwithbi-partisanpoliticalsupport,enablingworktowardstheimplementationofthissocialreformtobegin.
Finally, inFebruary2012,FairWorkAustralia (FWA)handeddown itsdecision in theEqualRemunerationCase forcommunitysectorworkers,whichawardedpay risesof19-41% toworkers across the sector. FWA found that the implementation should bephasedover8yearsstartinginDecember2012,withafurther4%increasetobespreadoutover8years.ACOSShadlongcalledforpayequityacrossthesocialservicesec-tor(andspecificallyformarket-basedwagesforcommunityserviceworkers)basedonconsecutivefindingsfrompreviousAustralianCommunitySectorSurveys(ACSS),whichshowedthatattractionandretentionofstaffwasthesinglebiggestoperationalchallengefacingnot-for-profitcommunityservices.Assuch,ACOSSwelcomedtheFWAdecisionasasignificantmilestonetowardsensuringviable,effectivesocialservicesbyrequiringappropriatelevelsofpayforthestaffdependedupontodeliverthoseservices.However,initsaftermath,wecontinuedtohighlightthattheresponsibilitytofundappropriatewagesisasmuchanissueforfundersasforservicesthemselves,largelybecausetheprovi-sionofsocialserviceshasincreasinglybeenoutsourcedbygovernmentstocommunityorganisations.Assuch,thesector’sadvocacyeffortssinceFebruary2012focussedonensuringthatgovernmentandnon-governmentfunderscommittedtoworkingwithcom-munityservicestodevelopfundingmodelsthatensureworkersarepaidadequately.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 16
4. Who answered the survey?
Atotalof532validsurveyresponseswereobtained3. ResponsesmainlycamefromChiefExecutiveOfficers,ExecutiveOfficersandmanagers(withvariousresponsibilities)withinthesector (61%).Thehigh rateofparticipationofexecutivesandmanagersenhances the reli-abilityofthedatapresentedbecausetheyaremorelikelytoknoworhaveaccesstoaccurateinformationaboutorganisations’servicedeliveryandoperations,includingservicecontracts,humanresources,clientdemographicsandtheimpactsofpolicyandregulatorychangesonservicedelivery.Otherpositionsheldbyrespondentsincluded:directserviceworkers,policy,researchandhumanresourcesofficersandothers.
Asexpected,mostresponsescamefromthesector’ssmallerorganisations,with53%ofre-spondentsreportingonorganisationswithanannualturnoveroflessthan$1million(Figure1).
Figure 1: Organisation size, based on total annual revenue for 2010/11 financial year
Question: Thinking about your organisation as a whole, please estimate the total annual revenue over the2011/2012financialyear.Rowssumto<100%duetoexclusionof‘don’tknow’responses.
Theoverwhelmingmajorityof respondentorganisationswere involved indirectservicepro-vision (84%).Peakbodiescomprised9%4 ,andorganisationsdealingwithsub-contractorsmadeuponly1%ofthesample.
AsshowninFigure2, information,adviceandreferralserviceswasthemostcommonlyre-portedon service type, followedbyhousing/homelessness, disability, andyouthandyouthwelfareservices.Overthepastseveralyears,information,adviceandreferralserviceshavefeaturedconsistentlyasthemostcommonlyprovidedservicetypereportedoninthesurvey.Thereareseveralpossiblereasonsforthis,keyamongstwhichisthatthemajorityoforgani-sationsproviding information,adviceandreferralservicesdoso in thecontextofspecialist3AdetaileddescriptionofthemeasuresundertakentoensurethequalityofthesampleisincludedinAppendix14Thisfigureincludespeakbodieswhereitsmembersareprimarilyorganisationsinvolvedinservicedeliveryaswellasthosewherethemajorityofitsmembersareindividuals(e.g.consumers,practitioners)
7%
10%
30%
32%
21%
0 10 20 30
> $20 million
> $5 million, but < $20 million
> $1 million, but < $5 million
> $250,000, but < $1 million
< than $250,000
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 17
servicedeliveryinatleastoneotherservicearea.Forexample,referralisemergingasacriticalcomponentofemergencyreliefworkasclientneedsbecomeincreasinglycomplexandsomeservicesmovetowardscasemanagementmodelsofservicedeliverytoensureclientsareconnectedtothefullrangeofservicestheyneed.Indeed,99%ofrespondentswhoreportedprovidinginformation,adviceandreferralalsoreportedprovidingatleastoneothertypeofservice.
Assuch,thedataaboutinformation,adviceandreferralservicesshouldbetreatedcau-tiously.Ontheonehand,itisanimportantpartoftheworkthatcommunityservicesdotoensurethatpeopleareconnectedwiththeservicesthatbestmeettheirneeds.Thisworkislargelyun-recognisedandunfunded.Ontheotherhand,thehighreportedlevelsofprovisionofinformation,adviceandreferralsmayalsohidethetrueextentofunmetneedforservicesandturn-awayrateswithinthecommunityandparticularserviceareas,anissuethatisdiscussedfurtherlaterinthisreport.
Figure 2: Main areas of service provision
Question:Pleaseindicatewhichofthefollowingaccountforthemainareasofserviceprovisionoftheor-ganisationyouarereportingfor(respondentscouldtickuptofourmainserviceareas).Inthisgraph,figuresaretotalmentionsofeachservicetypebyallrespondentsinthesample.
7
15
38
48
53
61
62
64
64
74
84
89
91
92
97
100
108
111
123
142
181
0 50 100 150 200
Preparing/responding to extreme weather events
Residential aged care and nursing homes
Other health services
Social enterprise employment/volunteering
Migrant, refugee and asylum seeker
Alcohol and other drugs support
Financial support
Legal
Employment/training
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support
Child welfare, child services and daycare
Mental health
Emergency relief
Welfare advocacy (other than legal)
Services for the aged and elderly (not residential)
Domestic violence and sexual assault
Family and relationship
Youth and youth welfare
Disability (other than employment/mental health)
Housing/homelessness
Information, advice and referral
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 18
Respondentswerealsoaskedtoprovideinformationabouttheirorganisations’charitableandtaxstatus.Inthissample,55%ofrespondentswereincometaxexemptcharities,52%weredeductiblegiftrecipientsand44%werepublicbenevolentinstitutions.10.3%ofrespondentsindicatedtheyfellwithinnoneofthesecategories.
As shown in Figure 3, responseswere received from organisations operating in all statesandterritorieswithNSWaccountingforthehighestproportionofrespondentsasinpreviousyears(32%).Comparingthebreakdownoforganisations’locationbystateandterritorywithAustralianBureauofStatistics (ABS)populationestimates fromJune2012reveals that thepercentageofrespondentsfromNSW,WA,SAandTasmaniaincludedinthesamplewaspro-portionatetothosestates’shareoftheoverallpopulation(32%,11%,7%and2%ofthetotalpopulationrespectively),whileorganisationsfromVictoriaandQueenslandweresignificantlyunder-represented(25%and21%ofthetotalpopulationrespectively)andorganisationsfromtheACTandtheNTwereheavilyover-representedinthesample(1.5%and1%ofthetotalpopulationrespectively)5.
Figure 3: Percentage of respondent organisations located in each state and territory
Finally, 33% of respondents operated solely in major cities, while 17% delivered servicesacrossurban,regional,ruralandremotelocations.
5ABS(2012)AustralianDemographicStatistics–June2012,http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0/
2
7
1
1.5
11
21
25
32
4
5
6
10
12
13
15
32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
TAS
SA
NT
ACT
WA
QLD
VIC
NSW
Organisations in each state/territory Percentage Share of Population
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 19
5. Unmet needs
Sections5and6presentdifferentwaysofcomparingthefinancial,organisationalandservicedeliverychallengesfacedbyorganisations.Takentogether,theyprovideade-tailedpictureofpressuresacrossthesectorandforspecificservicetypes.
5.1. What services do the sector’s clients need most?
Respondentsfromacrossallservicesub-sectorsconsistently identifiedhousing/home-lessnessandmentalhealthservicesandemergencyreliefastheassistancemostneed-edbytheirclients.
Figure 4: Services clients need most
Question:Pleasetellusthelevelofneedthatpeopleaccessingyourservicehaveforeachofthefollow-ing.Responsecategories:Highneed,mediumneed;lowneed.Only‘highneed’responsesarereported.
4%
9%
19%
22%
24%
24%
26%
27%
28%
29%
30%
32%
33%
34%
36%
37%
38%
40%
57%
61%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Preparing for, and responding to, extreme weather events
Residential aged care and nursing homes
Migrant, refugee and asylum seeker services
Services for the aged and elderly
Literacy/numeracy or basic education
Child welfare, child and daycare service
Legal services
Youth and youth welfare services
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support services
Employment and training services
Family and relationship services
Disability services
Other health services
Financial support services
Domestic violence and sexual assault
Information, advice and referral services
Alcohol and other drugs support services
Emergency relief for financial crisis
Mental health services
Housing/homelessness services
Housing was the highest need for clients across all service types.
61% of respondents across all service types reported their clients had a high need for housing/homelessness servicesMental health services and emergency relief were also in high need.
57% reported their clients were in high need of mental health services and 40% reported high levels of need for emergency relief
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 20
5.2. Priority policy issues for clients
Improvinghousingaffordabilityandavailability,reversingstategovernmentcutstohealthandcommunityservices,andincreasingtheavailabilityofmentalhealthservicesstandoutasthetoppolicyprioritiesforclientsofthesector.
Figure 5: Top policy priorities for the sector’s clients
Question: Here isa listofpolicy issues thataffect theclientsofcommunitysectororganisations.Please telluswhichofthefollowingshouldbethetoppriorityforgovernmentaction.Andthesecond?Andthethird?(Re-sponsesaretotalmentionsexpressedaspercentageofrespondents).Note:‘Increasingsocialsupportpayments’combinestwocategories:increasingincomesupportpaymentsandincreasingNewstartandYouthAllowance.
1%
7%
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
11%
12%
13%
25%
34%
34%
47%
61%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Improving capacity to cope with extreme weather events
Reversing the trend towards income management
Increasing job security
Improving effectiveness of employment services
More equitable and generous funding for schools
Developing a sustainable tax base
Implementing universal dental care
Improving energy affordablity
Better arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees
Increasing availability of legal assistance
Reducing unemployment
Fully implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Increasing income support payments
Increasing mental health service availability
Reversing State government cuts
Improving housing affordability and availability
61% of respondents ranked improving housing affordability as the highest priority for clients.
Reversing state government funding cuts to community services ranked second, at 47%
At 34% each, increasing income support payments for unemployed people and increasing the availability of mental health services ranked equal third.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 21
6. Demand for services
Each year, theACSSmeasures the capacity of specific serviceswithin the sector tomanagedemandforservices6.In2011/12,over50%oforganisationsprovidinghous-ingandhomelessness(66%),legal(63%)andyouthandyouthwelfareservices(52%)reported being unable tomeet demand for their services. A high proportion of emer-gencyreliefproviders(47%),mentalhealth(47%)anddomesticviolenceandsexualas-saultservices(46%)alsoreportedbeingunabletomeetdemandforservices(Figure6).
Figure 6: Services unable to meet demand by main area of service provision
Question: 5-pointscalemeasuring‘agree-disagree’responsestothestatement‘ourorganisationisabletomeetdemandforthisservice’.Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespondentswhodisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofdemandpressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20arereported.
6.1 Turn-away rates
Anotherwaytoexaminedemandpressuresfacedbyspecificservicesistomeasureturn-awayrates,thatis,theproportionofpeopleinneedofaservicewhoareunabletoaccessthatservice(seeAppendix1foradescriptionofthemethodologyemployed).Turn-awayiscloselyrelatedtounmetneedandisparticularlyimportantbecauseitenablestheiden-tificationofspecificserviceareaswithsevereunmetdemandandtotracktheseovertime.
Figure7showsthatlegalservices(20%),youthandyouthwelfareservices(17%),hous-ingandhomelessnessservices(16%)anddomesticviolenceservices(13%)reportedthehighestturn-awayratesfor2011/12.
6Onlyservicetypeswithasamplen>20arereportedinthissection
20%
20%
23%
30%
31%
31%
46%
47%
47%
52%
63%
66%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Employment and Training Services
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Disability Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
Family and Relationship Services
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Mental Health Services
Emergency Relief Services for Financial Crisis
Youth Services and Youth Welfare Services
Legal Services
Housing and Homlessness Services
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 22
Figure 7: Turn-away rates for 2011/12 by service type
Question: Fortheserviceareaidentified,pleaseestimatethenumberofpeopletowhomyourorganisationpro-videdservicesin2011/12andQuestion: Forthisservice,pleaseestimatethenumberoftimespeoplewhowereeligibleforthisservicewereturnedawayfromyourservice.Note:Turn-awayratesarecalculatedasfollows:totalannualturn-awaysdividedbytotalannualpeopleserved(expressedasapercentageoftotalpeopleserved).
Toimprovethereliabilityofthedataobtained,thesurveyalsoaskedrespondentsabouttheirperceptionofwhetherturn-awayrateshadchangedfromthepreviousyear,specificallywheth-ertheyhadrisenalot,risenslightly,stayedaboutthesameordecreasedeitherslightlyoralot.Responsesrevealedthatamajorityofrespondentsfrommostservicesub-sectorsreportedthatturn-awayrateshadremainedaboutthesameasthepreviousyear.Notableexceptionstothisfindingwereemergencyreliefproviders,financialsupportandhousing/homelessnessservices,amajorityofwhichreportedthatturn-awayrateshadincreasedeitherslightlyoralotfromthepreviousyear.
Acomparisonbetweentheactualchangeinturn-awayrates(%)andrespondents’perceptionsofchangerevealsthatthemajorityaccuratelyperceivedthatturn-awayrateshadremainedstablerelativetothepreviousyearorhadincreasedalittle.Respondentsfromhousing/home-lessnessservicesalsocorrectlyperceivedthatturn-awayrateshadincreasedfrom2010/11,withthedatarevealinga5%increaseinturn-awayratesfrom2010/11to2011/12.Interest-ingly, respondents fromyouthservicesmisperceivedchanges in turn-awayrates.While thedatarevealedyouthservicesexperiencedthehighestincreaseinturn-awayratesacrossallservicetypes(7.6%),50%ofrespondentsperceivedtheyhadremainedaboutthesamefromthepreviousyearandonly15%reportedtheyhadincreasedalot.Conversely,whileover36%ofemergencyreliefprovidersperceivedthatturn-awayrateshadincreasedalot;thedatare-vealsarelativelysmallincreaseof2.6%.
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
3%
13%
16%
17%
20%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Employment/training services
Disability services
Information, advice and referral services
Family and relationship services
Mental health services
Child welfare, child and daycare services
Emergency relief services
Services for the aged and elderly
Domestic violence and sexual assault
Housing/homelessness services
Youth and youth welfare services
Legal services
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 23
6.2 Underfunding of services
Amajorityofallservicesreportedthatthecostofdeliveringservicesexceededrevenue,withemergencyreliefproviders(82%),disabilityservices(74%)andfamilyandrelation-shipservices(71%)mostlikelytodisagreewiththestatement‘revenueforthisservicemorethancovereditscosts’(Figure8).Overthepastthreeyears,theACSShasconsist-entlyidentifiedunderfundingofservicesbygovernmentandfundinguncertaintyasthemostsignificantchallengefacingthesectorintothefuture(seepg.39ofthisreport)7.
Figure 8: Services for which the cost of service delivery exceeds revenue
Question: 5-pointscalemeasuring‘agree-disagree’responsestothestatement‘Revenueforthisservicemorethancovereditscosts’Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespondentswhodisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofincomepressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20(formainservice)arereported.
6.3. How are services responding to increased demand?
Organisationsrespondtothechronicunderfundingofservicesinarangeofwaystomax-imisetheirabilitytomeetclients’needs,includingbyreallocatingresourcesfromotherareas,requiringstaffandvolunteerstoworkadditionalhoursandtargetingservicesmoretightlyorlimitingaccesstoservices.However,notallserviceshaveotherareasoftheiractivities fromwhich resourcescanbe reallocatedandso,despiteveryhighdemand,havenotbeenabletorespondthisway.Thegapbetweenrevenueforservicedeliveryanddemandforservicescanalsoresultinincreasedwaitingtimesforclients.Thissec-tionexaminestheextent towhichrespondentorganisationsengaged ineachof these7SeealsotheACSSreportsfor2011and2012,whichcanbeaccessedviatheACOSSwebsite:www.acoss.org.au
55%
62%
62%
62%
62%
63%
67%
67%
69%
71%
74%
82%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Youth and Welfare Services
Mental Health Services
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Housing and Homlessness Services
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
Legal Services
Employment and Training Services
Family and Relationship Services
Disability Services
Emergency Relief for Financial Crisis
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 24
activitiesinanattempttomanagethedemandpressuresfacedbytheirservices.Whererel-evant,itconsiderstheimpactofeachoftheseactivitiesonturn-awaysandratesofunmetneedwithinthesector.
6.3.1 Reallocating resources to meet demand
Financialsupportservicesandemergencyreliefprovidersweremostlikelytoreportreallocat-ingresourcestomanagedemandpressures.
Figure 9: Services reallocating resources to meet demand
Question: 5-pointscalemeasuring‘agree-disagree’responsestothestatement‘Inordertomeetdemand,ourorganisationreallocatedresourcestothisarea’.Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespondentswhodisagreedorstronglydisagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofdemandpressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20arereported.
Emergency relief providers were most likely to agree that they had reallocated re-sources from other areas to meet demand for services (58%).
Closely followed by services for the aged and elderly (56%), disability services and family and relationship services (54% each)
42%
43%
43%
46%
48%
50%
50%
52%
54%
54%
56%
58%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Housing and Homelessness Services
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Mental Health Services
Employment and Training Services
Legal Services
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Youth and Youth Welfare Services
Disability Services
Family and Relationship Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
Emergency Relief for Financial Crisis
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 25
6.3.2. Requiring staff and volunteers to work more hours
Amajorityofserviceprovidersinmostsub-sectorsmanageddemandpressuresbyre-questingstafforvolunteerstoworklongerhours.Childwelfare,childservicesanddaycare(47%)anddomesticviolenceandsexualassault(43%)servicesweretheonlyex-ceptions(Figure10).
Figure 10: Services requiring staff/volunteers to work extra hours to meet demand
Question: 5-point scalemeasuring ‘agree-disagree’ responses to thestatement ‘Tomeetdemand,werequirestaffand/orvolunteerstoworkmorehours’Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespond-entswhoagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofdemandpressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20arereported.
78% of aged care services required staff and volunteers to work more hours in order to meet demand.
Most mental health services (77%) and legal services (76%) also responded to increases in demand by asking staff and volunteers to work longer.
43%
47%
54%
55%
57%
59%
62%
63%
65%
76%
77%
78%
0 20 40 60 80
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Family and Relationship Services
Housing and Homlessness Services
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Employment and Training Services
Disability Services
Emergency Relief Services
Youth and Youth Welfare Services
Legal Services
Mental Health Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 26
6.3.3. Targeting services more tightly or limiting service levels
Ahighpercentageoforganisationsacrossthesectorreportedtargetingservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevelstoreducedemandpressures,withlegalservicesandemergencyreliefprovidersmostlikelytolimitorfurthertargetservices(Figure11).
Figure 11: Services targeting assistance or limiting service levels to manage demand
Question: 5-pointscalemeasuring‘agree-disagree’responsestothestatement‘Becauseofdemand,wetarget-edourservicesmoretightlyorlimitedservicelevels.’Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespondentswhoagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofincomepressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20arereported.
39%
40%
48%
50%
57%
59%
61%
63%
65%
70%
82%
85%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Employment and Training Services
Disability Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Family and Relationship Services
Housing and Homelessness Services
Youth and Youth Welfare Services
Mental Health Services
Emergency Relief for Financial Crisis
Legal Services
Legal services (85%) were most likely to report targeting services more tightly or lim-iting services levels to meet demand.
A large majority of emergency relief providers (82%) and mental health serv-ices (70%) also reported targeting services more tightly or limiting service levels to meet demand.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 27
6.3.4. Increased waiting times
Overhalfofrespondentsfromfamilyandrelationship,housing/homelessness,legal,do-mesticviolenceandsexualassaultandmentalhealthservicesreportedthatclientsfaceincreasedwaitingtimestoaccessservicestheyneed.Alargenumberofyouthandyouthwelfare(47%)andagedcareservices(42%)alsoreportedincreasedwaitingtimesforclients(Figure12).
Figure 12: Services reporting increased waiting times for clients
Question:5-pointscalemeasuring‘agree-disagree’responsestothestatement‘Waitingtimesincreaseforthisservice.’Thisgraphshowsthecombinedpercentageofrespondentswhoagreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatementtoprovideameasureofincomepressuresacrossthesector.Onlyservicecategorieswithn>20(formainservice)arereported.
21%
28%
30%
32%
35%
42%
47%
50%
51%
59%
62%
74%
0 20 40 60 80
Employment and Training Services
Information, Advice and Referral Services
Child Welfare, Child and Daycare Services
Emergency Relief for Financial Crisis
Disability Services
Services for the Aged and Elderly
Youth and Youth Welfare Services
Mental Health Services
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Legal Services
Housing and Homelessness Services
Family and Relationship Services
74% of family and relationship services reported increased waiting times for services.
Housing and homelessness service clients also faced higher waiting times (62%).
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 28
7. Service profiles
Thedatapresentedinsectionsfive,sixandsevenofthisreportrevealhighlevelsofpressurewithinspecificsub-sectorsof thecommunityservicessector. Inparticular,emergencyreliefproviders,housingandhomelessnessservices,youthandyouthwelfareservices,legalserv-icesandmentalhealthservicesfeaturedprominentlyamongstservicesleastabletomeetde-mandandwerealsoamongstthosemostlikelytobeidentifiedbyallrespondentsasservicestheirclientsmostneededbutwereunabletoaccess.Inthissection,eachofthesefiveserviceareasareprofiledtoexplorethefactorscontributingtotheextremelevelsofpressuretheyarefacing8.
7.1 Housing/homelessness services
7.1.2 Summary
MEASURE % RANK
Unable to meet demand (n=76) 66% 1stTurn-away rate from services (n>58) 16% 3rdCost of delivering services exceeded revenue (n=77) 62% Equal 8thReallocated resources to meet demand pressures (n=77)
42% 12th
Targeted services more tightly or limited service levels to manage demand pressures (n=76)
63% 5th
Increased waiting times (n=76) 62% 2ndStaff and volunteers worked additional hours (n=76) 55% 9thServices most needed by the sector’s clients 61%(of all respondents) 1stTop policy priorities for the sector’s clients 61% (of all respondents) 1st
7.1.3 Analysis
Australiaisinthemidstofahousingcrisis:
• Housingcosts(forrentandpurchase)areamongstthehighestintheworld9;
• Onein10householdsareinhousingstress10;
• Thereisachronichousingsupplyshortage,includingaffordablehousing11;and
• Overallhomelessnessincreasedby17%between2006and2011andAustraliaisunlikelytomeetitstargetofhalvinghomelessnessby202012.
8Thesamplesizes(n=X)reportedintheseprofilesreflectsthenumbersofpeoplethatrespondedtospecificquestionsde-signedtogatherdataaboutspecificservicesub-sectors.Assuch,theyaresmallerthanthetotalnumberofservicesineachsub-sectorthatcompletedthesurvey.9ACOSS(2012)ACOSS Budget Priority Statement: recommendations for the 2012-13 Federal Budget,http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/2012-13_ACOSS_Budget_Priority_Statement_Final.pdf10AustraliansforAffordableHousing(2011)Housing costs through the roof,http://housingstressed.org.au/wp-content/up-loads/2011/10/Housing-costs-through-the-roof-Final-Report.pdf11NationalHousingSupplyCouncil(2013)Housing Affordability and Supply Issues 2012-13,http://nhsc.org.au/publications/housing-supply-and-affordability-issues-2012-13/executive-summary/12CouncilofAustralianGovernments(2013)Homelessness 2011-12: Key Findings,http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/Homelessness%202011-12%20-%20Key%20findings.pdf.Thisreportfoundthatwhilethenumbersofpeoplesleepingrougheachnightfellby6%between2006and2011,asignificantincreaseinthenumbersofpeoplelivinginovercrowded,temporaryandinsecurehousing,ledtotheoverallincreaseinhomelessness.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 29
Peoplelivinginpoverty,onlowincomesandexperiencingotherformsofdisadvantagearemostaffectedbyAustralia’shousingcrisisandaremostatriskoflivingininsecurehousingor falling intohomelessness.Forexample, thissurvey found that77%of theclients accessing housing/homelessness serviceswerewholly reliant on income sup-port.AsshowninFigure13,69%wereunemployed,37%weresingleparentsand19%wereAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander.ThesefindingssupportthoseoftheAustral-ianInstituteofHealthandWelfare’s(AIHW)NationalHousingSurvey2013,whichfoundthatthree-quartersofallsocialandcommunityhousingtenantsdidnotparticipateinthelabourmarket13.Newgroupsofpeoplesuchasrecentlyarrivedmigrantsandrefugeesarealsoathighriskoflivinginover-crowded,insecurehousingandinfluencedemandforhousing/homelessnessservices.
Figure 13: Client demographics for housing/homelessness services
Housingaffordabilityandachronichousingshortage(bothaffordableandotherwise)inAustraliaisacriticalfactordrivingboththeincreaseinhomelessnessandtheincreaseddemandforhousing/homelessnessservices,withexitpointsoutofhomelessnessserv-iceseffectivelyclogged.Forexample,AnglicareAustralia’sRentalAffordabilitySnapshot2013clearlydemonstratesthatincomesupportpayments(takingintoaccountCommon-wealthRentAssistance)and theminimumwageare insufficient to cover costs in theAustralianrentalmarketwithonly1%ofthe56,414propertiessurveyedacrossthecoun-tryfoundtobeaffordableforpeopleonlowincomes14.SimilarlytheNationalHousingSupplyCouncil(2013)foundthatwhilehousingstockincreasedin2012-13,theongoinghousingshortage‘islikelytocontinuetobefeltbythemorevulnerableinourpopulation,suchaswould-bebuyerswithlowandinsecureincomes,thoseatthelowerendofthe
13AIHW(2013)National Social Housing Survey: A summary of national results 2012,http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkA-rea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6012954338214AnglicareAustralia(2013)Rental Affordability Snapshot 2013,http://www.anglicare.asn.au/site/rental_affordabil-ity_snapshot.php
19%
12%
20%
70%
4%
37%
69%
57%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Culturally and linguistically diverse
People with a disability
Living in insecure housing or homeless
Refugees
Single parent
Unemployed
Women
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 30
rentalmarketandthosedependentongovernmentincomesupportpayments15.’Whilecom-munity-basedsocialhousingprovidersassistpeopleon low incomes tosecureandsustainaffordablehousingoverthelong-term,homelessnessservicesprovidearangeofinterventionstopeopleexperiencing–oratimminentriskof–homelessness:earlyintervention,brokerage,casemanagementandcrisisandshorttomediumtermaccommodation.Abreakdownofsur-vey respondentsprovidinghousing/homelessnessservicesbyspecificservice type,aswellasanexaminationofclientageprofiles(29%aged15-24years;48%aged25-64years)andthepercentageofclientsaccessingserviceswholiveininsecurehousing(70%),suggeststhemajorityprovidedhomelessnessservicesratherthansocialorcommunityhousing16.
Thisover-representationofhomelessnessservicesmayexplainthehighproportionofserv-icesthatreportedtargetingservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevelstomeetdemandashomelessservicesarerarelyabletorespondtoanunderlyingneedforsecurehousingandareoftenforcedtotargetotherinterventionstothoseatthemostextremerisk.However,theextremelyhighturn-awayratereported is likely tobecommontobothtypesofservice.Forexample,since2011dailyclientturn-awayratesinexcessof50%havebeenreportedthroughtheAIHW’sSpecialistHomelessnessServicescollection17,whichlendsfurthersupporttothepictureofservicesstrugglingtomeetclientdemand,rationingofservicesanduseofvolunteersandothersincoreserviceprovision.
Similarly,long-termhousingproviderscangenerallyonlyofferaplaceonextremelylongwait-inglistsand,accordingtotheAIHW,83%ofthe136,818unmetrequestsforassistancemadetohomelessnessservicesin2012wereforaccommodationsupport.Whilelargerservicepro-vidersmay be able to reallocate resources fromother services areas tomeet demand forhousing,smallerorganisationsareunlikelytobeabletodoso,whichmayexplaintherelativelylownumberofrespondents(42%)thatreporteddoingso,andtheextremelyhighnumberofrespondentsthatreportedbeingunabletomeetdemand(66%)andthatthecostofservicedeliveryexceededrevenue(62%).
In its2011-12BudgetPriorityStatementACOSScalled for theestablishmentofaNationalAffordableHousingGrowthFundtosupportAffordableHousingProgramsprovidingarangeofdifferentlevelsofsubsidytomeettheneedsofhouseholdswithdifferentincomelevels18.ItisalsocriticalthattheCouncilofAustralianGovernments(COAG)ensuresthatalong-termNationalPartnershipAgreementonHomelessnessisnegotiatedtoreplacethecurrenttransi-tionalagreementfor2013-14ifweareseriousaboutreducinghomelessnessinAustralia.
15NationalHousingSupplyCouncil(2013)Housing Affordability and Supply Issues 2012-13,http://nhsc.org.au/publications/housing-supply-and-affordability-issues-2012-13/executive-summary/16Althoughatleastaquarterofrespondentswerelong-termproviders17Seeforexample:AIHW(2012)Government-funded specialist homelessness services 2011-12,pg.86,http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6012954252918ACOSS(2011)ACOSS Budget Priority Statement: recommendations for the Federal Budget 2011-12,http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACOSS_-_Budget_Submission_2011-_12_FINAL.pdf
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 31
7.2 Emergency relief
7.2.1 Summary
MEASURE % RANK
Unable to meet demand (n=35) 47% 4thTurn-away rate from services (n=35 3% 6thCost of delivering services exceeded revenue (n=38) 82% 1stReallocated resources to meet demand pressures (n=38)
58% 1st
Targeted services more tightly or limited service lev-els to manage demand pressures (n=38)
82% 2nd
Increased waiting times (n=38) 32% 9thStaff and volunteers to work additional hours (n=38) 63% 5thServices most needed by the sector’s clients 43% (of all respondents) 3rd
7.2.2 Analysis
Emergencyrelief(ER)servicesprovidefinancialormaterialassistancetopeople infi-nancial crisis.ERwasdesigned tohelppeople through ‘one-off’ episodesof financialhardship,suchaslosingtheirjob.Howeverincreasinglyitisbeingusedbypeoplewitharangeofcomplexneedstosupplementinadequateincomeandasaregularresponsetoongoingfinancialdisadvantageandpoverty.Anexaminationoftheclientdemographicsreportedbysurveyrespondentssupportsthisthesis.In2011/1275%werewhollyreliantonincomesupport.AsshowninFigure14,63%ofERclientswereunemployed,42%weresingleparentsand26%hadadisability.ThesefindingsaresupportedbyrecentlyreleasedresearchbytheSalvationArmy(2013),whichfoundthat90%ofclientsaccess-ingits237ERoutletsacrossthecountrywerereliantonincomesupport;and33%weresingleparents.79%werewithoutpaidworkand95%ofthosewhohadpaidworkwereengagedonacasual,temporaryorpart-timebasisorwereunder-employed19.
Thereisevidencethatinadditiontorelianceonincomesupportandsingleparenthood,twofactorsaredrivingdemandforER:thehousingcrisis;andtheinfluxofasylumseek-ersintothecommunitywhoareunabletoworkortoaccessincomesupportpayments.Forexample,asurveyofERprovidersinVictoriafoundthatoverhalfofallclientspre-sentedwithahousingissue20.Governmentfundingcutstopublichousingandthefailureofhousingsupplytokeeppacewithdemand,particularlyinpopulationgrowthcorridors,haveexacerbatedthesepressuresonER,whichasbecomethe‘lastsafetynet’forpeo-plewhocannotgettheirneedsmetelsewhere.
19SalvationArmy(2013) It’s not asking too much… National economic and social impact survey,http://www.salva-tionarmy.org.au/Global/ESIS2013/The%20Salvation%20Army%20ESIS%20Report%202013.pdf20ERVictoria(2012)‘The last safety net’: Housing issues in the emergency relief sector,http://www.cisvic.org.au/uploadedFiles/1352746666900-8803.pdf
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 32
Figure 14: Client demographics for ER providers
Inthecaseofasylumseekers,continuinginadequaciesinthepolicyframeworkhaveseenasy-lumseekersresidinginthecommunitywithoutaccesstoadequatehousing,incomeoressen-tialsupports.Inparticular,largenumbersofasylumseekersarereleasedintothecommunitywithouttherighttowork.ERprovidersarelefttopickupthepieces,providingsupportthathasbecomeessentialformanyfacingthesecircumstances.YetFederalgovernmentfundingforERisallocatedaccordingtoCentrelinkdataaboutthenumbersofincomesupportrecipientsintheservicearea.Becauseasylumseekersareineligibleformainstreamincomesupportpay-ments,theyarenotcapturedinthisofficialdata,leavingERprovidersunfundedtomeettheirneeds.TheACSSreflectedthisexperience,withrefugeesandasylumseekersaccountingfor9%ofERclients,substantiallymore thananyotherservice typereportedon.Furthermore,servicesreportedthat36%werelivingininsecurehousingorhomeless.
IncreasingenergyhardshipisalsodrivingtheincreaseindemandforER,withover80%ofprovidersagreeing thatdemand forassistancepayingelectricitybills increasedeithera lot(55%)oralittle(29%)in2011/12(Figure15).Simply,thecostofenergyisunaffordableformanypeopleonlowincomesandtheyareturningtofinancialcounsellorsandERprovidersingreaternumbersforassistance.Anecdotalevidencesuggeststhat,whileassistingpeopleinenergyhardshiphastraditionallybeentheremitoffinancialcounsellingservices,asdemandincreasesandwaitinglistslengthen,ERserviceshavetakenagreaterrolebyprovidingsmallassistancepaymentsandengagingwithutilityhardshipschemessothatfinancialcounsellorscanfocusonmorecomplexcases.
14%
26%
36%
9%
42%
63%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Culturally and linguistically diverse
People with a disability
Living in insecure housing or homeless
Refugees
Single parent
Unemployed
Women
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 33
Figure 15: Demand for assistance paying energy bills
Question: Comparedwith2010/11,wouldyousaythatthenumberofclientsin2011/12needingassist-ancebecauseofdifficultiespayingelectricitybillshas…increasedalot,increasedabit,stayedaboutthesame,decreasedabitordecreasedalot?
Oneofthemostinterestingfindingsfromthe2011/12ACSSisthatwhilelargenumbersofERprovidersreportstrugglingtomeetclientneedandreallocatingresources,askingstaffandvolunteers toworkmorehoursand targetingservicesmore tightlyor limitingservicelevelstomanagedemandpressures,thereportedturn-awayratewaslowcom-paredwithotherhighneedservicessuchashousing/homelessnessandlegalservices.
Anumberoffactorsmayexplainthisapparentcontradiction.OnetrendidentifiedintheVictoriancontext isthat,asdemandforservicesincreasesandclients’needsbecomemorecomplex,someERprovidersarerestrictingassistancetotypesforwhichtheyhavestrongandfunctionalinfrastructuresuchasfoodaid.Withstrongervolunteernetworks,foodhubsandsupportfromFoodbank,manyERproviderscaneffectivelyandefficientlydistribute largevolumesof foodaid,enablingclients touse theirextremely limited in-comestomeetotheressentialcosts.However,whilethemajorityofclientspresentingforassistancemayreceiveafoodpackageandthusaservice,thismightbemaskingthetrueextentandcomplexityoftheirneeds.Similarly,theincreasinguseofcasemanage-mentmodelsandreferralsinERworkmayalsobemaskingtherangeandcomplexityofentrenchedissuesclientsarepresentingtoserviceswith.Moreover,ifERisstretchedinpresenteconomicconditions,aneconomicdownturnmightresultinseverepressuresonthesector.
0%
1%
15%
29%
55%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Decreased a lot
Decreased a bit
Stayed about the same
Increased a bit
Increased a lot
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 34
7.3 Legal services
7.3.1 Summary
MEASURE % RANK
Unable to meet demand (n=46) 63% 2ndTurn-away rate from services (n>35) 20% 1stCost of delivering services exceeded revenue (n=46) 67% Equal 5thReallocated resources to meet demand pressures (n=46)
50% 6th
Targeted services more tightly or limited service lev-els to manage demand pressures (n=46)
85% 1st
Increased waiting times (n=46) 59% 3rdStaff and volunteers to work additional hours (n=46) 76% 3rdServices most needed by the sector’s clients 26% (of all respondents) 14thTop policy priorities for the sector’s clients 12% (of all respondents) 8th
7.3.2 Analysis
Legal services comprise community legal services, Family Violence and Prevention LegalServicesandtheAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderLegalServices.Theseservicesprovidefree legalassistance topeopleexperiencingpovertyandother formsofdisadvantage,whowouldotherwisebedeniedaccesstothejusticesystem.Forexample,ACSSrespondentsre-portedthatin2011/1247%ofcommunitylegalservices’clientswerewhollyreliantonincomesupport.AsshowninFigure16,33%wereunemployed,34%weresingleparents,21%werefromculturallyandlinguisticallydiversecommunitiesand17%werelivingininsecurehousingorhomeless.ThesefindingsareborneoutbytheNSWLawandJusticeFoundation’sAustral-ia-widesurveyoflegalneed,whichalsofoundthatthesedemographicgroupsweremorelikelytoaccesscommunitylegalservicesthanothersinthecommunity21.
In2011/12,legalservicesreportedthehighestturn-awayrateofallservicetypesincludedintheACSS,withoneinfiveclientsinneedofassistanceturnedaway.Unsurprisingly,legalserv-icesalsorankedsecondoninabilitytomeetdemand.Themostcommonlyreportedresponsetothisinabilitytomeetdemandwastotargetservicemoretightlyortolimitservicelevels.Inpractice,thismightmeanthataclientwhorequestslegalrepresentationinsteadreceiveslegaladvice,orinsteadofreceivinglegaladviceisreferredtoaprivateorprobonosolicitor.Indeed,withthesystemat‘crisispoint’peoplewhocannotaffordalawyeraremissingoutonaccesstojustice22.Thisisbecausecommunitylegalcentresareoftenthelastoptionforpeopleneedinglegalassistancewhocannotaffordtopay;andforthoseturnedaway,thereisoftennowhereelsetogo.Similarly,forpeopleatimmediateriskoffamilyviolence,evictionorbeingunfairlydismissed,increasedwaitingtimesunderminestheircapacitytoseekprofessionallegalhelpatall.
21NSWLawandJusticeFoundation(2012)Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal need in Australia,http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/templates/LAW_AUS/$file/LAW_Survey_Australia.pdf,pg.6622CommunityLawAustralia(2012)Unaffordable and out of reach: the problem of access to the Australian legal system,http://www.communitylawaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CLS_Report_Final.pdf
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 35
Figure 16: Client demographics for legal services
Legalservicesalsorelyheavilyonvolunteersupporttomeetdemandforservices,witharecentreportshowingthat95.2%utilisevolunteersandthat3,637volunteersworkatotalof8,369hoursperweek.Inaddition,thereportfoundthat89.2%ofservicesusedvolunteerstoprovidedirectlegalservicestoclientsandthatpaidemployeesspent1,071hoursperweeksupervisingvolunteers23.Hence,whilelegalservicesderivesignificantbenefitfromvolunteers,significanttimeandresourcesarespenttrainingandsupervisingvolunteerstomeetdemand.
These findings suggest that the funding increases for legal services called for by theCommunityLawAustralia(CLA)campaignarecritical.CLAhasbeenadvocatingforauniversalsafetynetforlegalhelp.Inamovewelcomedbythecommunityservicessec-tor, the2013-14FederalBudget includedasignificant funding increaseforcommunitylegalservices,AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderLegalServiceandLegalAid.InJune2013, the Federal government also announced that theProductivityCommission hasbeenfundedtoexamineaccesstojusticeinAustralia,withaspecificfocusonaccesstojusticeforpeopleonlowincomesandthoseexperiencingotherformsofdisadvantage24.
23NationalAssociationofCommunityLegalCentres(2012)Working collaboratively: community legal centres and volunteers,http://www.naclc.org.au/resources/NACLC_VOLUNTEERS_web.pdf24AustralianGovernmentProductivityCommission(2013)Access to Justice: Terms of Reference,http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/access-justice
14%
21%
17%
17%
2%
34%
33%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Culturally and linguistically diverse
People with a disability
Living in insecure housing or homeless
Refugees
Single parent
Unemployed
Women
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 36
7.4 Youth and youth welfare services
7.4.1 Summary
MEASURE % RANK
Unable to meet demand (n=31) 52% 3rdTurn-away rate from services (n>28) 17% 2ndCost of delivering services exceeded revenue (n=31) 55% 9thReallocated resources to meet demand pressures (n=31) 52% 4thTargeted services more tightly or limited service levels to man-age demand pressures (n=31)
65% 4th
Increased waiting times (n=30 47% 6thStaff and volunteers worked additional hours (n=31) 65% 4th
7.4.2 Analysis
AccordingtotheAustralianYouthAffairsCoalition(AYAC),youthworkisthepracticethathasyoungpeopleasitsprimaryconstituents.Itisrelationalandworksalongsideyoungpeopleintheircontext.Youthworkfacilitatesyoungpeople’sagency,andtherealisationoftheirrights,aswellastheirconnectiontothosewhomattertothem25.Arecentsurveyofover1500youthworkersconductedbyAYACrevealsthatthetypesofissueswithwhichyoungpeoplemostregularlypresenttoyouthservicesincludeeducation,mentalhealth,behaviourmanagement,income support/social security, drugs, housing/homelessness and alcohol issues26. As re-vealedbytheACSSdata(Figure17),youngpeoplewhowereunemployed(47%),livinginin-securehousingorwerehomeless(36%)wereover-representedintheclientgroupsaccessingyouthservices,aswereAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderyoungpeople(26%).
Whiledemandforyouthservicesdidnotchangesignificantlyin2011,itremainedhigh27.Atthesametime,changesingovernmentfundingmodelshaveresultedinamoveawayfrom‘gen-eralist’youthservicestowardsspecialistmodelsofservicedelivery.Forexample,thefocusonyouthmentalhealthandearlyinterventionforpeopleunder18yearsofageinrecentyearshasseenincreasedfundingdirectedtowardsspecialistyouthservicesintheseareas,withflow-onimpactsforotherpartsofthesub-sector28. Thisshift inthewayyouthservicesarefunded,combinedwithservicefundingcutsandoverallfundingshortages,mayexplainboththeex-tremelyhighturn-awayratefromservices(17%)andthehighpercentageofrespondentsthatreportedtargetingtheirservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevelsinordertomeetdemand.Forexample,whereasa‘generalist’youthworkermightrespondtoanynumberofissuesacli-entpresentswith,workersinspecialistservicesmightonlybeabletoassisttheyoungpersonwithasingleservice,suchasstreamliningthemintoanemploymentpathwaysprogram.
25Todate,therehasbeennoagreeddefinitionofyouthwork.ThedefinitionpresentedhereisaworkingdraftthatisbeingdevelopedbyAYACinconsultationwiththeAustralianyouthandyouthservicessector26AYAC(2013)AYAC National Snapshot of Youth Work 2013,http://www.ayac.org.au/projects/AYACsnapshot2013.html27AYAC(2011)Australian Youth Affairs Coalition submission in response to Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council Environmental Scan 2012,http://www.ayac.org.au/uploads/AYAC%20Submisson%20to%20E-Scan%202012%20-%20Final.pdf28Ibid
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 37
Figure 17: Client demographics for youth and youth welfare services
AnEnvironmental Scan of the youth sector conductedbyAYAC in2011 reveals thatfundingshortageshavealsoresultedinstaffingshortages,withareductioninfull-timepositionsacrossyouthservicesinmoststatesandterritories29.Chronicstaffingshort-agesexistinregional,ruralandremoteareas,particularlyremoteAboriginalcommuni-ties,wheremanyservicesareprovidedona‘flyin-fly-out’basis;andthesectorisfacingextremedifficultiesattractingandretaininganadequatelyskilledworkforce30. Assuchitisunsurprisingthat65%oftheyouthservicesintheACSSsamplerequiredstaffandvolunteerstoworklongerhourstomeetdemandforservices.
29Ibid30Ibid
26%
19%
16%
36%
3%
12%
47%
49%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Culturally and linguistically diverse
People with a disability
Living in insecure housing or homeless
Refugees
Single parent
Unemployed
Women
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 38
7.5 Mental health services
7.5.1 Summary
MEASURE % RANK
Unable to meet demand (n=34) 47% Equal 4thTurn-away rate from services (n>29) 1% 8thCost of delivering services exceeded revenue (n=34) 62% Equal 8thReallocated resources to meet demand pressures (n=33) 46% 9thTargeted services more tightly or limited service levels (n=33) 70% 3rdIncreased waiting times (n=32) 50% 5thStaff and volunteers worked additional hours (n=34) 77% 2ndServices most needed by the sector’s clients 57% (of all respond-
ents)2nd
Top policy priorities for the sector’s clients 34% (of all respond-ents)
3rd
7.5.2 Analysis
Non-government,communitymentalhealthcentresprovidecommunity-basedservicealterna-tivestoclinical,hospital-basedfacilities.Theyfocusonearlyintervention,preventionandsup-portingsocialinclusionbyaddressingthelinksbetweenaperson’ssocialcircumstances–in-cludingaccesstocommunity,family,housing,employmentandeducation–andtheirphysicalandmentalhealth31.Despiteclearevidencethatholistic,community-basedprogramssuchastheHousingAccommodationSupportInitiative(HASI)aresuccessfulinsupportingpeoplewithmentalillnesstostaywellandthriveintheircommunities,fundingformentalhealthservicesremainslowandfocussedonhospital-based,acutecare.Forexamplein2010,mentalillnessaccountedfor14%ofthehealthburdeninNSW,butonly8%ofhealthfunding.Inaddition,a2006nationalsurveyofclinicalservicedirectorsrevealedthat43%ofallpatientswithamentalillnessbeingcaredforinhospitalscouldbereceivingmoreappropriatecareincommunityset-tings32.
Oneresultofthelackoffundingforcommunitymentalhealthservicesisthatparticulargroupsofclientswithhighlevelsofneedbecomedisengagedfromthementalhealthsystem,oftenwithcatastrophicconsequences.Forexample,whileAboriginalpeopleinNSWaremorethantwiceaslikelytoreporthighorveryhighlevelsofpsychologicaldistressthannon-Aboriginalpeople,theyremainunder-representedinmainstreamhealthservices.Similarly,upto25%ofpeopleaged15to25–whoseneedformentalhealthservicesisgreatest–havethelowestaccesstocare,withonly13%ofyoungmenwithamentalillnessaccessingtheservicestheyneed.Thesystem’sresponsetoasylumseekersandrefugees,manyofwhomareovercom-ingtortureandtraumaandfacingthechallengesofstartinglifeinanewcountry,isalsoinad-equate33.
31NSWMentalHealthCommission(2013)Living well in the community: towards a strategic plan for mental health in NSW,http://www.nswmentalhealthcommission.com.au/assets/File/Living%20Well%20in%20Our%20Community%20-%20FINAL%2020130523.pdf32 Ibid33Ibid
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 39
Figure 18: Client demographics for community mental health services
Anecdotalevidencefromcommunitymentalhealthservicesconfirmsthissurvey’sfind-ingsthatdemandpressuresonservicesareveryhighandsuggeststhatasaresultoftheacutelackofresourcesforcommunity-basedpreventionandearlyinterventionserv-ices–particularlyinregionalandremoteareaswherealternativestohospital-basedcarearevirtuallynon-existent–clientsarenotabletoaccessthefullrangeofservicestheyneed.Indeed,community-basedmentalhealthservicesreporthavinglittlecapacitytoof-ferearlyintervention,preventionorcommunity-basedmentalhealthservices,withmostoftheirresourcesdivertedtocrisisresponseduetothelargenumbersofclientspresent-inginacutecrisis.
Given the lackof resourceswithin thementalhealthsector forcommunity-basedcareandthediversionofresourcestocrisisresponse,itissurprisingthatonly70%ofservicesreportedtargetingservicesmoretightlyorlimitingservicelevels.Similarly,theturn-awayratefromservices(1.4%)seemsverylow.Oneexplanationforthismismatchbetweeninabilitytomeetdemandforservicesandturn-awayratesisthatmentalhealthservicestendtobereluctanttoturnpeopleaway,particularlyifthereisahighriskofself-harmorharmtootherspresent.Explanationsforthelowturn-awayrateincludetheuseofrefer-ralsandwaitingliststomanagedemandforservices.Forexample,whereaservicedoesnothavecapacitytoassistsomeoneinacutecrisis,theywillregularlyreferthatpersontoacrisislinesuchasLifelineortothelocalhospitalEmergencyDepartment.Thus,whiletheserviceproviderhasnotbeenable tomeet theclient’sneeddirectly, theyarenotcountedashavingbeen turnedawaywithoutassistance.Anotherexplanationmaybefoundintheresponsesof70%ofservicessurveyedthatreportedrequiringstaffandvol-unteerstoworkadditionalhourstomeetdemandasanalternativetoturningawayclients
17%
16%
51%
29%
2%
25%
57%
54%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Culturally and linguistically diverse
People with a disability
Living in insecure housing or homeless
Refugees
Single parent
Unemployed
Women
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 40
inneed.Finally,useofwaitinglistsmayalsobemaskingthetrueturn-awayrateaspeopleplacedonwaitinglistsarenotgettingtheservicestheyneedwhentheyneedthem,butmaynotbebeingcountedamongtheturn-awaystatisticseither.
The 2011/12 Federal Budget committed $2.2 billion tomental health services through theNationalMentalHealthReformPackage,whichfocussedonimprovingcoordinationofmen-talhealthservices,strengtheningprimarymentalhealthcareservices,expandingaccesstoalliedpsychologicalsupportand increasingoverall thenumberofcommunitymentalhealthservicesacrossthecountry,particularlythroughestablishing30Headspacecentres,12EarlyPsychosisPreventionandInterventionCentres(EPPIC)and40FamilyMentalHealthSupportServices34.Despiteoverwhelmingsupportforthepackage,concernsremainaboutdelaystotheroll-outoffundingandprogramimplementation;andwhetherthefullextentofpromisedfundingwillbedelivered.Forexample,atthetimeofwriting(over2yearssincethepackagewasfirstannounced)only60%oftheservicesoutlinedhadbeenimplemented,withtendersforthePartnersinRecoveryProgramannouncedinthefirsthalfof2013andonlynineEPPICsestablished.
34ACOSS(2011)ACOSS Federal Budget: Analysis of health measures,http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/NCOSS_Analy-sis_2011_Federal_Budget_FINAL_18_05_11_2.pdf
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 41
8. Issues facing the sector
8.1 Future pressures on the sector
Underfundingofservicesbygovernment,fundinguncertainty,andchallengesforsmallerorganisations to remainviableandcompetewith largerorganisations for fundingcon-tractsleadthelistoffuturestressesonthesector(Figure19).
Figure 19: Most significant issues facing the sector
Question: Hereisalistofissuesfacingthesector.Pleasetelluswhichofthefollowingyouthinkisthetopissuefacingthesectorasawhole.Andthesecond?Andthethird?(Responsesaretotalmentionsex-pressedaspercentageofrespondents).
7%
8%
9%
11%
13%
15%
16%
21%
23%
32%
36%
51%
58%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Recruiting and retaining volunteers
Unreasonable demands from funders
Implementing new Equal Pay arrangements
Pressure to compete
Uncertain political environment
Constantly changing policies affecting not for profits
Attraction and retention of staff
Increased regulation and reporting obligations
Pressure to attract non-government funding
Unmet demand for services
Challenges for smaller organisations to remain viable/compete
Funding uncertainty
Underfunding of services by government
Funding was the most mentioned issue...
... followed by challenges for smaller organisations to remain viable.
Underfunding (58%) and funding uncertainty (51%) top the mentions of is-sues facing the sector.
Closely related, pressures on small service providers and unmet demand for services ranked 3rd (36%) and 4th (32%).
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 42
8.2 Opinions about sector-wide reforms
RespondentsoverwhelminglyagreedthattheequalpaydecisionhandeddownbyFairWorkAustraliain2012wasagoodthingforthesector(90%),but73%believedits8yearimplemen-tationwastooslow(Figure20)35.
Figure 20: Opinions about sector-wide reforms
Strongly agree
Agree Neither agree
nor disa-gree
Disagree Strongly disagree
It is a better idea to fund clients directly than to fund services
4% 16% 26% 33% 21%
Good service providers have nothing to fear from direct client funding
11% 29% 20% 29% 11%
A national non profit regulator is a good thing for the sector
16% 47% 31% 5% 2%
Overall the equal pay decision is a good thing for the sector
42% 48% 8% 1% 1%
Implementing equal pay over 8 years is too slow 37% 36% 18% 7% 1%
Increased competition has delivered better services for clients
32% 14% 32% 39% 12%
NPFs should have to prove that they are making a positive impact
16% 55% 16% 1% 2%
Question: Pleasetellushowmuchyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatements.Rowssumto<100%duetonon-response.
35Whileserviceswereaskedabouttheperiod2011/12,inthissectiontheywerelikelytobeasinfluencedbyeventstakingplaceatthetimeofcompletingthesurvey(March-June2013),asresponseshereindicate.
Strong support for proof of impact
71% supported all for not-for-profits to prove their postive impact.
Call for sector regulation63% support the implementation of a national not-for-profit regulator for the sec-tor.
Ambivalence about direct client funding40% agreed good service providers have nothing to fear from direct client funding, while 40% disagreed.
54% believed it was better to fund services than to fund clients directly.
...and the impact of competition on service delivery.46% agreed increased competition would lead to better services and 51% disagreed.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 43
8.3 Understanding the ACNC
51%ofrespondentswereclearabouttheACNC’sroleandhowitsoperationswouldaf-fecttheirorganisation.23%didnotunderstandhowtheACNCwouldaffecttheirorgani-sation(Figure21)36.
Figure 21: Do services understand the role of the ACNC?
Question: Pleasetellushowmuchyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatement,‘MyorganisationunderstandshowtheACNCwillaffectit’.
8.3.1 Does size influence understanding of the ACNC’s role amongst services?
36Itisimportanttonotethatthe2013ACSSwasassessingservices’knowledgeoftheACNC’srolefortheperiod2011/12,whenthelegislationgoverningthecreationandoperationoftheCommissionwasstillbeingdraftedandconsideredandpriortoitsformalestablishment.
While 34% of respondents from organisations with total annual revenue of less than $250,000 reported understanding the role of the ACNC, an equal percentage of respondents were unsure about the ACNC’s impact on their organisations.
The larger the total annual revenue of the organisation, the higher respondents’ knowledge about the role of the ACNC:
Less than $250,000: 34%$251,000 - $999,999: 41%$1,000,00- $4,999,999: 61%$5,000,00- $19,999,999: 66%More than $20,000,000: 75%
3%
20%
26%
42%
9%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 44
8.4 What aspect of the ACNC’s role is most important to organisations?
52%ofrespondentsreportedthatthealignmentbetweenStateandTerritoryregulatoryobliga-tionsandthoseoftheAustralianGovernmentwasmostimportanttotheirorganisation.ThestreamliningofregulatoryobligationsacrosstheAustralianGovernmentwasreportedasmostimportantby27%ofrespondents(Figure22).
Figure 22: Respondents’ priorities for regulatory reform
Question: TheACNCisresponsible for reducingunnecessaryregulatoryburdensoncharitiesandothernot-for-profits.Tohelp theACNCdirect itsefforts,whichof the followingwouldmake themostdifference toyourorganisation?
8.4.1 Does size influence services’ priorities for regulatory reform?
Overall, 52% felt ACNC should prioritise the alignment of State and Territory regulatory obligations with those of the Australian Government.
Howwever, larger organisations expressed a stronger preference for this op-tion than smaller organisations.
Less than $250,000: 65%$251,000 - $999,999: 80%$1,000,00- $4,999,999: 89%$5,000,00- $19,999,999: 86%More than $20,000,000: 93%
22%
52%
27%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Neither - these are not relevant for myorganisation at this stage
Aligning regulatory obligations between thestates and territories and the Australian
Government
Streamlining regulatory obligations acrossthe Australian Government
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 45
8.5 Areas in which services most need external support
Informationtechnologysupport(28%),fundraising(26%)andmarketingandcommuni-cationswerethetopthreeareasinwhichrespondents’mostneededexternalsupportorservices(Figure23).Withunderfundingandfundinguncertaintyconsistentlyidentifiedasthetwomostcriticalchallengesfacingthesector,aswellasstategovernmentfundingcuts tocommunityandwelfareservicesand increasedcompetitionbetweenorganisa-tionsforservicecontracts,itisunsurprisingthatfundraisingsupportisrankedsecond.
Figure 23: Areas in which services most need external support
Question: Inwhichofthefollowingareasdoesyourorganisationmostneedoutsideadviceand/orservicestoimprove?
4%
7%
8%
9%
9%
11%
11%
12%
14%
19%
20%
20%
20%
22%
22%
24%
25%
26%
28%
0 10 20 30
Service delivery
Managing and implementing government contracts
Financial competence
Policy advocacy
Management capability
Community engagement
Developing a risk management framework
Volunteer recruitment and management
Assistance to develop or run a social enterprise
Developing partnerships and collaboration
Governance (includes strategic planning)
Evaluating programs and services
Humans resources/industrial relations
Developing competitive tender proposals
Access to finance
Social media and online campaigning
Marketing and communications
Fundraising
Information technology support
28% ranked information technology support as the area in which they most needed external support.
Fundraising also ranked highly (26%).
Marketing and communications (25%) and social media and online cam-paigning (24%) were the third and fourth areas in which respondents had most need of outside support.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 46
8.6 Services’ use of social media
Similarly,thehighlevelsofneedreportedforinformationtechnologysupportandassistancewithmarketingandcommunications,useofsocialmediaandonlinecampaigningreflectsthesector’sincreasinguseoftheinternetandsocialmediaasfundraising,communicationsandcampaigningtools.Inrecognitionofthesechangesinthewayscommunityservicescommunicateandraiseawarenessandfunds,thesurveyalsoaskedrespondentstoreportontheiruseofsocialmediatools.Figure24showsthat37%ofrespondentsusedFacebook,17%usedTwitterand13%usedLinkedIn,while24%didnotuseanyformsofsocialmedia.
Figure 24: Types of social media used by services
Question: Whattypesofsocialmediadoesyourorganisationuse?(Tickallthatapply.)
Further,61%ofrespondentsreportedusingsomeformofsocialmediaoronlinetoolsforadvoca-cyandcampaigning,withFacebookthemostpopulartoolforthesepurposes(24%)(Figure25).
Figure 25: Forms of social media used for campaigning and advocacy
Question:Whichofthefollowing(ifany)doesyourorganisationuseforcampaigningandadvocacy?(Tickallthatapply.)
1%
4%
5%
11%
13%
17%
24%
37%
0 10 20 30 40
Flickr
Blog
Online discussion forums
YouTube
None
1%
4%
5%
6%
9%
12%
24%
32%
0 10 20 30 40
Flickr
Videos
YouTube
Online petitions
None
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 47
Appendix 1: Methodology
Classification of community service organisations
Currentlythereisnonationaldatastandardforcollectinginformationaboutnot-for-profitorganisations,withdifferentclassificatoryschemesusedbydifferentnationalandinter-national research bodies.Classification schemes commonly used in Australia includetheAustralianInstituteofHealthandWelfare’s(AIHW)NationalClassificationofCom-munityServices(NCCS);theABSclassificationsystems;theAustraliaandNewZealandStandardIndustryClassification(ANZSIC)communityservicesdefinition;andtheInter-nationalClassificationofNon-ProfitOrganisations(ICNPO)scheme.TheABSclassifiescommunity servicesas: residential aged care services; child care services; andothersocialassistanceservices,includingemploymentanddisabilityservicesandpolicyandadvocacywork.BycontrasttheICNPOclassifiesnot-for-profitsocialservicesaccordingtothefollowingcategories:childwelfare,childservicesanddaycare;youthservicesandyouthwelfare;familyandrelationshipservices;disabilityservices;servicesfortheeld-erly;self-helpandotherpersonalsocialservices;emergencyreliefanddisastercontrol;temporaryshelters;refugeeassistance;incomesupportandmaintenance;andmaterialassistance37.
Inaddition, the ICNPOdefinesnot-for-profithealthservicesas:hospitalsandrehabili-tation;nursinghomes;mentalhealthandcrisis intervention;andotherhealthservicessuchaspublichealtheducation38.Finally,theNCCSclassifiescommunityservicesas:personalandsocialsupport;supportforchildren,familiesandcarers;training,vocationalrehabilitation and employment; financial andmaterial assistance; residential care andsupportedaccommodation;correctiveservices;serviceandcommunitydevelopmentandsupport;andothercommunityserviceactivities.EachcategoryofservicewithintheNCCSincludesnumeroussubcategoriesthatfurtherdefineareasofspecificserviceprovision.
Eachoftheseschemesdiffersinthewayitclassifiesnon-profitcommunityservicesandhascertainlimitationsintermsofcollectingaccurateandcomprehensivedataaboutasectorasdiverseastheAustraliancommunityservicessector.Forexample,datacodedusingtheANZSICclassificationdoesnotallowthesub-sectorsofthecommunityservicessector tobe identified.Similarly, the ICNPOdoesnotreflect thewaycommunityserv-icesarestructuredanddefineddomestically.Aclearexampleofthisisthedefinitionofrefugeeservices.TheICNPOdefinesrefugeeservicesandthoseprovidedtointernallydisplacedpeopleand inhabitantsofUN refugeecamps;whereas inAustralia refugeeservicestypicallycomprisesettlementandothersupportservicesprovidedtopeoplewhohavebeenrecognisedasrefugeesandresettledinAustralia.
Thereareinherentdifficultiesinestablishingadefinitiveclassificatoryschemewhichiden-tifiesorganisationsaccordingtoservicetype.Inaddition,manyorganisationsaretypicallyacompositeofservicesandsupports.ThetypologyadoptedinACSSismoreexhaustivethantheclassificationsystemsoutlinedabove,particularlytheABSandAIHWschema,whichdonotenablethecaptureofdataspecifictoparticularareas,suchasemployment,housing,health,agedcareandchildcareservices.Groupingorganisationsaccordingtotheirprincipalactivitycircumventsthistosomeextent,butneverthelessisacompromise.
37ProductivityCommission(2010)The Contribution of the Not-for-profit Sector,pg.6538 Ibid
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 48
ThetablebelowidentifiesanddefinestheclassificationschemethathasbeenemployedintheACSSsince201139.
Table 1: ACSS service classification scheme
Employment/trainingservicesDisabilityservices(otherthanemploymentormentalhealth)Housing/homelessnessservicesChildwelfare,childservicesanddaycareDomesticviolenceandsexualassaultFamilyandrelationshipservicesEmergencyreliefservicesforthoseexperiencingfinancialcrisisFinancialsupportservices(e.g.financialcounselling,financialliteracy,NILS,gambling)MentalhealthservicesOtherhealthservicesInformation,adviceandreferralservicesAdvocacy(otherthanlegalservices)LegalservicesMigrant,refugeeandasylumseekerservicesIndigenoussupportservicesResidentialagedcareandnursinghomesServicesfortheagedandelderly(otherthanresidential)CommunitydevelopmentAlcoholandotherdrugssupportservicesProvisionofemploymentorvolunteeringthroughsocialenterpriseOther
Sampling and sample limits
Thesampling framewasmembersandsectornetworksofACOSSand theStateandTer-ritoryCouncilsofSocialService.Thiscoversapproximately3,000communityorganisationsnationallyandafurthernumberofindividualmemberswhomaybeassociatedwithadditionalorganisations.
Alarge,stratifiedrandomsampleofthesectorusingahighqualitysamplingframewouldpro-videthebestsurveyevidencebasetocollectdata,butsuchasamplingframeisnotcurrentlyavailableduetoincompletecensus-likerecordsoftheentirecommunityandsocialservicessector.Thereisnonationalprofileofthesectorthatallowsrepresentativesamplingtooccurofeachofthesub-sectors.
Thesamplingmethodadoptedherewasnon-probabilityavailabilitysampling:respondentor-ganisationsfromACOSS/COSSdatabaseswereemailedacoverletterfromACOSSandalinktothesurveyinvitingparticipationandprovidinginstructionsandassurancesaboutdataconfi-39In2011,AlcoholandOtherDrugserviceswereincludedintheACSSserviceclassificationscheme.Unfortunately,duetotechnicaldifficultieswiththeonlinesurveytool,thereisariskthatissuesfacedbytheseservicesandtheirclientswereunder-reportedinthe2013survey
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 49
dentiality.Additionalmeasurestogainasamplewereundertaken.InformationaboutthesurveywasmadeavailablethroughtheACOSSwebsiteandsocialmedia,theACOSS@workbulletin,theACOSSconferenceandthroughACOSSemaildistributionlists.PastrespondentstoACSSwerealsocontactedbyemail.Peakbodieswerealsocontactedbytelephonetodistributethesurveytotheirmembers.
Sincethesample isnon-probabilityderived, therearevalidity threatsthatmustbeac-knowledged.Thesegobeyondtypicalstandarderrorsattachedtoestimatesderivedfromrandomisedsamplingwithhighresponseratesfromcompletesamplingframes.Thereisahigherlikelihoodthatpastrespondentswillcompletethesurvey.Theremayberea-sonsforsurveyrespondentstoanswerthesurveythatmakethemdistinctfrom‘average’respondents(theirorganisationhasa largeamountofresources, theservicewants toventfrustrationwithproblemsetc.)However,withover500validresponses,thesurveycross-sectionrepresentsalargesamplefromcommunityservicesoverallandincludesdatafromalargenumberofthesector’smajorserviceproviders.
Whynot pursuea randomisedsamplingapproach?This certainlymaybepossible infutureyears.Somelimitstoarandomisedapproachneedtoberecognised.Thereisnodefinitivesamplingframe,whichmeansrandomisationwouldnotaddresspossiblebiasesintroducedbyincompletepopulationcoverage.Giventhecurrentnumberof500respons-es,thereiseverylikelihoodthatarandomisedmethodwouldneedtoselectaverylargecontactgroup (relative to theoverall population) toensure that the randomlyattainedsamplewasnottoosmallanddisallowsub-sectorbreakdowns.Withalowtomoderateresponserate,obtainingasufficientlylargesamplethroughrandommethodsmayresultinasamplewithsimilarbiasesandproblemsasanavailabilityapproach.
Responses
A total of 532 valid responseswere obtained.Measures to protect the quality of thesamplewereundertaken.Multipleresponsesfromthesame(usuallysmall)organisationweredeleted,withthemorecompleteresponsekeptinthesample.Multipleresponsesfromlargeorganisationswereallowedwheretheseorganisationshavemanysites,state-levelofficesetc.Wheremultipleresponsesweresubmitted,responseswerecheckedtoreducethelikelihoodofaccountingforthesamejurisdictionmultipletimes.Ascreeningquestioneliminatedresponsesfromfor-profitsandgovernments.Outlierswereexaminedandsuppressedincalculationswherejudgednecessary.Newmeasuresthatcontrolforthequalityofdata (in reportingclientprofilesand turn-awaydata)were includedand,generally,datathatwasreportedas‘mostlyguesswork’(lowestlevelofaccuracyona4-pointscale)werenotincludedinprofileandturn-awaycalculations.However,sensitiv-ityanalysiswasconductedonthesedata inparticular, forexampleshifts in turn-awaywithall‘mostlyguesswork’dataincludedandexcludedwascomparedtotestthestabilityoftheoverallfinalestimates.
ACOSS Australian Community Sector Survey 2013
p. 50
Turn-away rates
Inits2011(frequency)surveyofgovernment-fundedspecialisthomelessnessservices,AIHW40presentstwoalternativewaysofcalculatingturn-awayrates: thefirst is thedailynumberofpeopleturnedawayfromaserviceexpressedasaproportionofthosenewclientstheservicewasabletohelp.AsAIHWsay,thisfiguretendstobehighandfailstoaccountforthosewhoarealreadyaccommodated.Thealternativemeasureistopresentthedailynumberofpeopleturnedawayfromaserviceasaproportionof‘thetotalexpresseddemandforaccommoda-tion’,whichproducesamuchlowerturn-awayrate.Initsmostrecentreporthowever,AIHWpresents informationabout levelsofunmetdemand in totalvolume terms, rather thanasaturn-awayrate.
ACOSSproducesameasurethatissomewhereinthemiddle:itcalculatesturn-awayratesforeachsub-sectorofservices(forexamplehousing/homelessnessorlegal)byaddinguptotalannualreportedturn-awaynumbersandtotalannualreportednumbersofpeopleassisted41.Thisproducesa‘weighted’yearlyturn-awayrateforthesub-sectorasawhole,whichishigherthanthesecondAIHWmeasure.ThisisbecausethecomparisonpointinACOSSturn-awayratesisthetotalannualnumberofclientsservicedandtheAIHWturn-awayrateisthetotaldailynumberofclientsserviced.Becauseclientsinsomeormanycasesobtainservicesovermore thanoneday, thedenominator in theACOSS turn-away rateswillbeproportionatelysmaller,thusproducinghigherrates.
ACOSS’measuresofturn-awayratesreflectsampledataonlyandwecautionagainstmakingoverly-confidentgeneralisations.Still,webelievetheseratesarecapableofproducingreliablerelativeturn-awaydatathatprovidesgoodevidenceofwherepressureisemerginginthewel-faresector,especiallywhencombinedwithotherevidence.
40AIHW(2011)People turned away from government-funded specialist homelessness services in 2009-10,http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737419232&libID=1073741923141Itisimportanttonoteanadditionallimitationwithinthemeasureemployedhere,whicharisesfromthewordingusedinthesurveyquestionnairetoelicitdataaboutserviceusageandturn-away.Specifically,tomeasureserviceusagethesurveyaskedrespondentstoreportthenumber of peopletheirorganisationprovidedservicestoin2011-12.However,tomeasureturn-awaythesurveyaskedrespondentstoreportthenumberoftimespeopleeligibleforaservicewereturnedawayduringtheyear.Thisinconsistency(numberofpeoplevsnumberoftimesorinstances)createsambiguityandthepotentialfordif-ferentinterpretations.Forexample,somerespondentsmayhaveinterpretedbothquestionsinthesamewayandprovideddataonthenumber of people assisted andthenumberofpeopleturnedaway,whereasothersmayhaveprovideddataonthenumberoftimespeoplewereturnedaway.Whilebotharevalidmeasures,dataonthenumberoftimeseligibleclientswereturnedawaywillresultinhigherturn-awayrates,whileasingleindividualclientwhohasattemptedtoaccessaserv-icesseveraltimescouldaccountformultipleinstancesofturn-away