Community Services Reform in Victoria

Professor David Adams

Seeing Like A State

There have been many attempts at community services reform in Victoria over the past six decades but most have been at best

partial because of:

• Mistrust and an imbalance of power • Investments not matching rhetoric and

principles• Discontinuity of government policy • Changing embedded practices and cultures in

government and in the community sector• Program logics that have been faulty

Converging Themes

• Until recently the focus in the Child and Family Sector has been on responses to the PVVC Report, the development of the VCC –Our Shared Responsibility Strategy and the organisational reforms promoted by DHS.

• The Shergold ‘White Paper’ provides a more coherent framework but raises the stakes as well.

Critiques of the Sector

• Don’t speak with one voice• Agency and service focus rather than systemic view• Goal displacement and over reliance on government funding for

many• Variable performance, accountability and governance ( link to

skills, career paths, wages etc) • Not enough client voice• Scale and scope not always viable

These are quite significant critiques, have some evidence to support them and need to be seen to be in scope in any engagement on the broader policy issues. These are important issues for the Sector to address.

Positives about the Sector

• Nimble, responsive• Value for money • Contribute to a health civil society• Local and locally accountable • Able to knit together /package services• Long term commitment to addressing

disadvantage • Can be aggregated without loss of focusThese are the key openings to build mandate.

Main Themes• Shift from outputs to outcomes focus• Collaborative planning and service delivery• Place and case orientation supported by pooled funding • The consolidation or federation of CSO’s to create a smaller number of

larger entities with increased scale and scope capabilities such as a broader range of more flexible services across the intervention spectrum.

• Cost savings to governments through productivity gains, innovation, early intervention , technical efficiencies ( eg shared services) and better demand growth management

• Expectations of improved performance from NGO’s ( and the public sector) around quality, accountability competitiveness and governance

• Opening up service planning and delivery to competition

Some broad issues are either omitted or glanced over in the Paper.

• The tendency to reduce the sector to a service design and delivery roles. There is very little mention in the paper of the important roles of the sector in client advocacy, community building and broader strategic policy development ( and therefore how to support the sector in exercising these capabilities).

• Recognition of the need for objective evidence based research and especially evaluation of existing policy initiatives ( eg Services Connect) to underpin responses to many of the questions.

• The role of the private sector especially in the light of international trends and the Vertigan Report in Victoria.

• The scope of possible services to be included in funding pools• The important of local government in the future especially in area based models.

Potentially local government could form a major coalition with the child and family welfare or broader community sector. There is an extensive and mature body of evidence around e.g. resource sharing in local government which could readily apply to the community sector

Experiences Elsewhere

• Both the ACT, and NSW have tested components in recent years – mainly outcomes funding packages

• WA is now three years into a similar process• UK Government has (2012) evaluated its

locality based outcomes approach to multiple problem families

• Generally positive views from the CFS

A Focus on Area Based Policy • In relation to area based policy four of the eleven pathways are of

particular significance:• Pathway 1 Put people at the centre of service delivery (p10)• Pathway 2 Focus more on supporting people to build their

capabilities (p11)• Pathway 3 Develop place-based approaches (p12)• Pathway 6 Adopt different funding models ( pages 15-16)• One option is to now focus in on these pathways ( and the

linkages with the other pathways) as the framework for the next steps. There is a considerable body of knowledge around the types of risks and opportunities to be considered and how to work towards constructive and innovative positioning for the CFS.

There are six basic propositions behind place based approaches to child and family services planning and service delivery:

• That local agencies better understand clients and take a holistic view of the person, in the family in the community

• That local agencies can access and manage more effectively and more efficiently endogenous community resources

• That service planning and delivery is best co-designed (with clients and other agencies/networks) locally

• That clients are more likely to trust, engage earlier and develop with local agencies

• That pooled and or client purchasing models are best managed locally and reduce transaction costs

• That areas differ significantly in terms of client characteristics, needs, resources etc.

• Service integration and co-ordination is best achieved on an area rather than a functional basis

Place based approaches face a number of challenges

• Reaching agreement on exactly what spatial area is being proposed and its resource importance to clients

• Ensuring that all places are covered especially new places• Dealing with mobile clients and agencies that cross place boundaries• Guaranteeing that all key agencies have the same boundaries,

information systems and collaboration capabilities• Recognising how key client characteristics shape service systems ( eg

client purchasing models)• Establishing equitable resource allocation models and client outcomes

between places with different features• Understanding how place dynamics operate and how to harness them• Resourcing place based network governance

What works?

• A large pool ( eg needs mental health, drug and alcohol etc)

• Local co-location and connectivity – joint place and case management

• Lots of trust and flexibility • Strong client voice• Focus on small number of high risk families• Investment in capacity building ( eg WA, UK)• Central agency support and focused leadership in

government and the sector

Basic Architecture

Col 1 Col 2 Vision vulnerable families Principles Outcomes areas Families

Children/AdultsCommunities CSO/SectorGovernments

Outcome Domains Specifications Funding Framework Inputs

OutputsOutcomes

Consortia mix roles and performance framework

X place = funding package

A Window of Opportunity• The key opportunity is to build on sector strengths and propose a

framework which: – Begins with families and children in communities – Focuses in on vulnerable families and statutory responsibilities ( largely the

tertiary service system) – Takes a life cycle and preventive approach within this – Develops an outcomes framework– Connected to funding packages– Organised around places ( which closes the loop back to families and children

in communities) – With good collaborative governance

• Despite many attempts at bits and pieces no one in Australia has yet systematically developed any let alone all of these.

• We should have a go at sketching out the key design features.

1. Outcomes Framework2. Intervention Models3. Client/Family Centered Approach4. Place-based Approach5. Funding Model 6. Collaborative Service Provision7. Cultural Change

Priority Theme Areas

Key Questions1. What would the system look like?2. Key design features?3. Distinctive features relevant to the sector?