7 November 2023

CCA Submission to the Department of Social Security – A stronger more diverse and independent community sector

News, Submissions-post

CCA Submission to the Department of Social Security - A stronger more diverse and independent community sector

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the issues paper: A stronger more diverse and independent community sector.

It is difficult to know how to respond to such a paper without suggesting that the knowledge about what is needed to strengthen community sector organisations and improve the way the Department of Social Services engages with the sector has already been clearly communicated for over a decade, and repeatedly ignored.

There is little or no contention, for instance, that the length of social service contracts requiring the employment of staff should not be less than three years, or that notice periods to end contracts should be at least six months.  There is also little contention that such readily accepted fundamentals are regularly ignored by the Department of Social Services.

More than a decade ago the Productivity Commission unambiguously laid out some of the reforms needed to boost community sector productivity through more effective and efficient contracting of non-government organisations in this report: Contribution of the Not for Profit Sector – Commissioned study – Productivity Commission (pc.gov.au)  CCA and our members support the recommendations of this report, at least ten of which relate to the way governments engage with and contract community organisations.  This report should be the reference point for any action.

In terms of paying what it takes to provide contracted services, this is another good starting point: Paying what it takes Report, Social Ventures Australia and the Centre for Social Impact

Eight years ago CCA provided a submission in relation to the way the Department of Social Services contracts NGOs.

A copy of this submission is attached (see: https://communitycouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CCA-DSS-Grants-Sub-0315.pdf). All of the recommendations in this submission remain current and CCA would like this submission to form the basis of our response to the latest issues paper.

The recommendations in this 2015 submission are:

Summary of Recommendations 

  1. Australian governments should urgently review and streamline their tendering, contracting, reporting and acquittal requirements in the provision of services to reduce compliance costs.  This should seek to ensure that the compliance burden associated with these requirements is proportionate to the funding provided and risk involved.  Further, to reduce the current need to verify the provider’s corporate or financial health on multiple occasions, even within the same agency, reviews should include consideration of:
    • development of Master Agreements that are fit-for-purpose, at least at a whole-of-agency level
    • use of pre-qualifying panels of service providers.

(Recommendation 12.7 Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Productivity Commission, 2010)

  1. The Department of Finance and Deregulation should develop a common set of core principles to underpin all government service agreements and contracts in the human services area. This should be done in consultation with relevant government departments and agencies and service providers.

(Recommendation 12.8 Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Productivity Commission, 2010)

  1. All government tendering processes should actively involve those being contracted to provide services and those who will benefit from the services in the design and implementation of programs.
  1. All government tendering processes should have a publicly stated policy goal, and a measurable indicator of success. 
  1. Funding decisions need to be supported by a clear and transparent account of the criteria used to assess applicants, the process by which these criteria were applied, the information used to inform decision making, and the rationale for final decisions. 
  1. Expertise in the area of service provision being contracted should be included in all decision-making panels. 
  1. When entering into service agreements and contracts for the delivery of services, government agencies should develop an explicit risk management framework in consultation with providers through the use of appropriately trained staff.  This should include:
    • allocating risk to the party best able to bear the risk,
    • establishing agreed protocols for managing risk over the life of the contract.

(Recommendation 12.6 Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Productivity Commission, 2010)

  1. All government contracts seeking to achieve a social purpose should have at least a 5% allocation to support the collection and reporting of appropriate performance measures.
  1. Contracts with not-for-profits to provide community services should be for at least three years and no program should lose funding with less than six months’ notice.
  1. Establish a closed independent feedback loop to enable NFPs a confidential solutions focused avenue in provision of feedback on government relationships with the sector.

 

As already noted, the questions about what needs to be done to strengthen the community services sector through better contracting arrangements have been repeatedly discussed and generally agreed by the sector, and by key inquiries and reports over more than a decade.  No doubt most of these recommendations will again be reported by the Department of Social Services in summarising this current process.

The most important question that now needs to be answered is whether the Department of Social Services has any real intention or commitment to implement any of the changes required?

Thank you for considering this submission.

David Crosbie

CEO, Community Council for Australia

More decoration or meaningful reform?

News
Published in The Community Advocate: More decoration or meaningful reform?

More decoration or meaningful reform?

When it comes to government forging a stronger community sector, the time for asking questions is over. It’s action that is now required, writes Community Council for Australia CEO, David Crosbie.

“As part of the Australian Government’s election commitment for a stronger, more diverse and independent community sector, the Department of Social Services is exploring opportunities to better support Australian communities through the design and administration of grants to the sector, including more meaningful working partnerships and options for greater innovation. A stronger, more diverse, and independent community sector.” – Department of Social Services.

The Department of Social Services (DSS) is a big spending department with a turnover in excess of $140 billion.

Any area of government where expenditure is this high will always be targeted for cost savings measures, and so it is with the DSS.

The department has been in our news feeds continuously over recent months, and not in a good way.

Robodebt exposed the willingness of senior staff to bend and break rules to please political masters through illegal actions aimed at finding billions of dollars in savings. That the Robodebt scheme persevered for so long despite being so wrong at so many levels will stand as a permanent indictment on DSS practice.

There are many good people who work in DSS, but ultimately the department is a line agency rather than a cross portfolio leader like Treasury or Finance.

The capacity of DSS to influence the way government behaves, outside of DSS itself is, at best, minimal.

DSS also has a long history of mis-managing various grant programs.

This became evident in the 2015 Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into ‘The impact on service quality, efficiency and sustainability of recent Commonwealth community service tendering processes by the Department of Social Services.’

The final report of that committee recommended 12 reforms including a suggested five year minimum length of contract where possible.

Over the past 12 months, DSS has been working with the Community Sector Advisory Group (CSAG) to develop an issues paper titled: A stronger more diverse and independent community sector. The consultation on this document has just closed this week.

Any attempt to improve practices at DSS should be encouraged.

Within the discussion paper DSS acknowledge they have already been told what would improve their engagement and contracting with the broader community sector.

Issues such as ‘pay what it takes’ or meeting the real costs of service provision in DSS contracts, offering longer term contracts, and different kinds of contracting arrangements including lead agencies, are all identified in the issues paper.

The problem with the issues paper is not so much the content (although this could be improved by referencing previous reports) or that it represents DSS seeking feedback from the sector.

What the issues paper highlights is that DSS have been told what needs to be done and can talk about doing things better, but they are making no commitment to change any of their current practices.

All the issues DSS highlights have been consulted on many times before, and been the subject of numerous reports and recommendations, the vast majority of which DSS has repeatedly ignored.

There is little or no contention, for instance, that the length of DSS contracts with community organisations requiring the employment of staff should not be less than three years and preferably five, and that notice periods to end contracts should be at least six months.

“What the issues paper highlights is that DSS have been told what needs to be done and can talk about doing things better, but they are making no commitment to change any of their current practices.”

There is also little contention that such readily accepted fundamentals are not regularly factored into grant program development in the Department of Social Services. Many agencies face rolling 12, 18 or 24 month contract terms.

More than a decade ago the Productivity Commission clearly laid out some of the reforms needed to boost community sector productivity through more effective and efficient contracting of non-government organisations in this Productivity Commission report. More than a decade later, most of these recommendations have not been implemented.

In terms of governments actually meeting the real costs of service delivery, CCA and many other organisations were involved in supporting this report: Paying what it takes.

Eight years ago, CCA provided a submission to the Senate Committee reviewing the way the Department of Social Services contracts NGOs.

The ten CCA recommendations in our 2015 submission covered exactly what most readers would expect – including this recommendation: “Contracts with not-for-profits to provide community services should be for at least three years and no program should lose funding with less than six months’ notice.”

The DSS Issues Paper asks more than 25 questions about the way DSS could or should engage with the community services sector.

We already know from all the research and consultations, all the inquiries and reports into government contracting of charities and community groups, that DSS could significantly improve the way it engages and contracts community service organisations, if it wanted to.

The question CCA asked in our submission in response to the Issues Paper was, does DSS have any intention to change anything or implement any of the many existing recommendations about how it could engage and contract community organisations better?

If not, this latest DSS consultation is yet another exercise in decorative government, another ride on the merry-go-round of consultations and reports, circling back to words everyone can agree to, no change, no action.