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.


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


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


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%).


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


Housing/homelessness services

Youth and youth welfare services

Legal services


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







Legal Services



Disability Services

Emergency Relief for Financial Crisis


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





Legal Services


Youth and Youth Welfare Services

Disability Services





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







Disability Services

Emergency Relief Services


Legal Services




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




Disability Services








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.


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





Disability Services





Legal Services



74% of family and relationship services reported increased waiting times for services.

Housing and homelessness service clients also faced higher waiting times (62%).


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.


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


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


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


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




Refugees

Single parent

Unemployed

Women


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


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


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





Refugees

Single parent

Unemployed

Women


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


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





Refugees

Single parent

Unemployed

Women


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


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





Refugees

Single parent

Unemployed

Women


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


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%).


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.


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


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


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.


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

LinkedIn

Twitter

None

Facebook

1%

4%

5%

6%

9%

12%

24%

32%

0 10 20 30 40

Flickr

LinkedIn

Videos

YouTube

Online petitions

Twitter

Facebook

None


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


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


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.


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

national report - australian council of social service

Documents