Australian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Web viewAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program...

Australian Apprenticeships Access Program ReviewFinal Report Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

8 February 2013

Contents1. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................11.2 The purpose of this Report...........................................................................................................................11.3 Summary of Findings....................................................................................................................................1

2. Summary of Findings and Recommendations............................................................43. Australian Apprenticeships Access Program.............................................................9

3.1 Background..................................................................................................................................................93.2 Summary of the 2009-10 Access Program Changes..................................................................................103.3 Access Program Description......................................................................................................................103.4 Access Program Processes and Performance Management......................................................................15

4. Review Approach.........................................................................................................184.1 Evaluation Framework and Evaluation Questions......................................................................................184.2 Stakeholder engagement............................................................................................................................204.3 Data Collection...........................................................................................................................................204.4 Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis.........................................................................................................23

5. Key Findings and Recommendations........................................................................245.1 Focus and Outcomes of the Access Program.............................................................................................245.2 Support during the life of the Access Program............................................................................................435.3 Funding model for the Access Program......................................................................................................465.4 Reporting and Monitoring...........................................................................................................................54

6. Conclusion................................................................................................................... 55Appendix A References..................................................................................................56Appendix B Evaluation Questions.................................................................................58

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary EducationAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Ernst & Young i

AbbreviationsAbbreviations used in this document are listed in the table below.

AAC Australian Apprenticeships Centre

AIMS Access Information Management System (pre 2009–10)

ALMP Active Labour Market Programs

APPC Access Program Participants Category

BAFW Building Australia’s Future Workforce

CDEP Community Development Employment Program

CPI Consumer Price Index

DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

DES Disability Employment Services

DIISRTE Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

EPP Employment Pathway Plan

ESA Employment Service Area

ESS Employment Services System

GFC Global Financial Crisis

GTO Group Training Organisation

IEP Indigenous Employment Program

JSA Job Services Australia

JSCI Job Seeker Classification Instrument

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LEC Local Employment Coordinators (DEEWR)

LLNP Language Literacy and Numeracy Program (NB. This program will transition to the Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) Program in 2013-14)

LMR Labour Market Region

MYEFO Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary EducationAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Ernst & Young ii

RESJ Regional Education, Skills and Jobs (DEEWR)

RFQ Request For Quotation

RTO Registered Training Organisation

TAFE Technical and Further Education

YC Youth Connections

Our report may be relied upon by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education for the purpose of informing the review of the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program only pursuant to the terms of our engagement letter dated 26 September 2012. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to the other party or the reliance on our report by the other party. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary EducationAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Ernst & Young iii

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction Ernst & Young was engaged by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE, the Department) to review all aspects of the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program (Access Program) including:

► current funding model;► access Program processes;► access Program delivery;► fitness for purpose; and► outcomes in the context of the Australian Government's approach to skills development

and building a productive workforce.

The review, which used both quantitative and qualitative data, was undertaken from September 2012 to December 2012. The majority of stakeholder consultations occurred during the months of October and November. This document is the Final Report from the review.

1.2 Purpose of this ReportThis Final Report contains the final results of data collection and analysis. It outlines the key findings from the review and associated recommendations for consideration by the Department regarding the Access Program.

1.3 Summary of FindingsIn summary the review found:

► The Access Program overall is valued by participants, employers, Providers and Program Brokers and fills a necessary niche in the Employment Services/skills training system for those disadvantaged jobseekers who wish to enter an Australian Apprenticeship or require training to increase employment opportunities. What differentiates this Program from other Programs that seek similar outcomes is: the focus on a disadvantaged and vulnerable target cohort; and the goal of delivering a skills-based, career-oriented outcome for this cohort.

► The design of the Access Program for the target cohort of disadvantaged jobseekers is well supported by the literature. Small scale targeted programs which combine technical and soft skills training with strong engagement of employers and practical placement into real jobs are considered more effective than job creation programs, training only or job seeking support programs1.

► Overall the Access Program is achieving strong training completion rates (average of approximately 80 percent since 2009-10, well above target of 70 percent); however, outcome targets have been challenging for the targeted cohort. A number of factors were identified that plausibly contributed to training completion and to better outcome rates, including: a rigorous Provider selection process by Brokers; development of training courses in collaboration with employers (including identification of available jobs prior to course commencement); more intensive case management to address client barriers; pre-class interviews as part of selection process; flexibility in training approaches; and increased participant motivation with team building activities.

1 Meager, N., (2008) The Role of Training and Skills Development in Active Labour Market Policies, IES Working Paper: WP15, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, UK, accessed online at http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp15.pdf

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary EducationAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Ernst & Young 1

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp15.pdf


► Given the targeted cohort, the outcomes achieved through the Access Program are in line with similar (but not identical) programs. For example, the Pre-Vocational Training Programme (PVP) provided by the then NSW Department of Education and Training targeted a similar cohort including disadvantaged people with multiple barriers. An evaluation of the PVP over the period 2003-2006 found that it achieved an annual average articulation from pre-apprenticeships into apprenticeships (traditional trades) of 39 percent, and 5.4 percent into traineeships. As this program was smaller than the Access Program (2,499 commencements and a budget of $3.5 million in 2006), direct comparisons cannot be made with the Access Program. However it is interesting to note that the Access Program achieved an overall outcome rate of 38 percent in 2007-08 (the following year).

► Although the Access Program is intended primarily as a pathway to an Australian Apprenticeship for vulnerable and disadvantaged job-seekers, some provider stakeholders view employment (of any kind) as an acceptable outcome of the Access Program. This leaves the Access Program at risk of being perceived as an employment option, rather than a targeted opportunity for disadvantaged jobseekers to move into a skilled career pathway commencing with an Australian Apprenticeship.

► There are examples of good practice from within the existing Broker and Provider sample to inform a re-focused Access Program, if the Access Program model is to concentrate more closely on supporting attainment of Australian Apprenticeships for a targeted group of participants. These examples include:

► strong connections with industry and employers; ► industry and employer involvement in planning and delivering Access Programs; ► prior identification of Australian Apprenticeship opportunities;► tailored and proactive job search support and post-placement support;► mentoring; and ► using available funding and payments to drive performance.

► The employment market, particularly for Australian Apprenticeships, is different in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, with a lower number of Apprenticeships available in non-metropolitan areas. The cost of providing training in non-metropolitan regions is reported as being higher, with difficulties reported by some Brokers in finding and accommodating qualified trainers for more isolated areas.

► The review noted a range of Australian Government Programs that have an impact on the effectiveness of the Access Program. The capacity to maximise synergies between Programs could be strengthened by addressing issues related to competitive funding models, lack of knowledge about the Access Program, and/or limited relationships between Programs. The review found that current funding and incentives across Employment Support Programs, for example Job Services Australia (JSA) and Disability Employment Services (DES), appear to encourage competition rather than collaboration between and within employment support organisations.

► Although Access Program Providers generally address immediate participant barriers to accessing the Access Program, the more systemic barriers, related to life situations, disability or culture are less easily addressed. By its nature, the Access Program should be supporting populations with additional support needs to enter an Australian Apprenticeship pathway; however, the review did not find a systematic approach to ensuring specialist support was available for participants with additional support needs (for example highly vulnerable young people, people with disabilities and Indigenous participants). If the aim of the Access Program is to assist disadvantaged jobseekers to enter a skills pathway, then supporting those participants who are most disadvantaged may require more intensive effort, over a longer period of time.


► The Access Program funding model differentiates between Australian Apprenticeships outcomes and other outcomes; which can be used by Brokers to drive Provider performance. However, some Providers are focused on receiving funds for training activities and consider training costs to be insufficiently recognised. The Access Program funding model does not include regular review and increase in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

► Access Program reporting and the capacity to measure Access Program performance as a whole is hindered by information system limitations, which do not enable detailed analysis without manual manipulation of data. Valid comparisons of performance with other Australian Government Programs are not possible because outcomes are calculated differently. AccessOnline (the current information management system for the Access Program) is reported by a number of stakeholders to be unwieldy and inflexible.

1.3.1 Recommendations for the Access ProgramThis Final Report contains a series of suggested recommendations for changes to Access Program processes and systems that should be considered. These are outlined in Section 5 and summarised in Section 2.


2. Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Key Findings Recommendations

Finding 1: The Access Program is valued. It provides an Apprenticeship pathway to skilled employment for the specified target population. Within that population there are some groups who are more likely to achieve an Australian Apprenticeship, for example young people.

Finding 2: Overall the Access Program is achieving a strong training completion rate (average of approximately 80 percent since 2009-10, well above target of 70 percent), however achieving outcome targets for the targeted cohort has been challenging.

Recommendation 1: The Department should consider:

► reviewing and adjusting Access Program outcome targets using the achievements of recognised high performing Brokers as a reference point;

► reviewing the procurement process for Brokers to:► tighten selection criteria to maximise selection of those Brokers most

likely to achieve desired outcomes;► introduce a panel arrangement to increase responsiveness and

performance of the Access Program.

Finding 3: The focus and identity of the Access Program includes full-time or part-time employment as a payable outcome, which may be diverting attention and effort from seeking Australian Apprenticeships as a priority outcome.


► redeveloping the Access Program model and contractual arrangements with Brokers to more clearly focus activity on Access Program goals, preferred target populations, best practice models of service delivery and Provider accountabilities;

► clearly defining the targeted cohort of Access Participants and tailoring the Access Program to meet specific needs of these cohorts of participants to ensure optimal outcomes;

► defining the position of the Access Program and Access Program participants on the continuum of skills development Programs and strengthening contract management to achieve targeted outcomes for this group;

► supporting the provision of training for a full Certificate II in justifiable circumstances;

► differentially rewarding part time employment outcomes that include an Australian Apprenticeship or will lead to entry into an Australian Apprenticeship.



Finding 4: There are examples of good practice, including industry partnership, participant support and performance based funding, that could form the basis for a re-focused model of practice.

Recommendation 3: The Department should consider working with successful Brokers and Providers to develop outcome-oriented models of practice that are considered to achieve best results and establishing these as preferred models for the Access Program.

Finding 5: The Access Program works differently in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions.

Recommendation 4: The Department should develop different Access Program models that address the intractable differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. These might include:

► increased funding to support provision of training in identified higher cost non-metropolitan areas where there are identified potential outcomes;

► differential funding for outcomes in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, potentially increasing the reward for employment outcomes in non-metropolitan areas in recognition of the relative value of this outcome in regions with low Apprenticeship rates.

Finding 6: The current referral process does not fit with the operational imperatives of the referring agencies or the business needs of the Access Program.

Recommendation 5: The Department should consider :

► removing the requirement for referrals to the Access Program to come only through JSA, Centrelink, DES, Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) and Youth Connections (YC), while retaining the requirement for an eligibility assessment to be obtained through one of these agencies;

► extending opportunities to make referrals to the Access Program to a broader range of stakeholders, such as those within the Australian Apprenticeships system;

► removing the $500 incentive payment to JSA.



Finding 7: Barriers to participant access are partially addressed by the Access Program; however there are systemic barriers to supporting participants with additional challenges.


► formalising the requirement for provision of additional support such as:► provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or tickets and

licences to support increased employability of participants► provision of aids and appliances to support participants with disability

► working with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) to remove the current suspension of DES clients after the first 4 weeks to enable continued support through, for example, the purchase of aids and appliances or additional mentoring by their DES Provider while they are attending the Access Program;

► making explicit the expectation that Access Brokers will require Providers to actively engage with and seek ongoing involvement from specialist support services which do not have their relationship suspended when their client enters the Access Program. Examples might include YC and Indigenous support agencies;

► including in the Access Program model an intensive mentoring component for those participants with additional needs;

► including in the Access Program model a more intensive support component for employers who engage a participant with additional needs.

Finding 8: The funding model does not take into account variations in costs and outcomes of the Access Program across Australia nor does it include CPI increases.

Recommendation 7: The Department should consider regular review of Access Program payments to align them with CPI increases.



Finding 9: The funding model does not fully recognise the additional costs associated with supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers to gain an Australian Apprenticeship.

Recommendation 8: Given the focus on targeting those participants most suited to a careers pathway through an Australian Apprenticeship, including those with higher levels of disadvantage, the Access Program funding model may need to be adjusted to better reflect the effort required to support the most disadvantaged and vulnerable jobseekers. This might include:

► a greater differentiation in reward payments between outcomes achieved for jobseekers classified as JSA Stream 1 and outcomes achieved for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers (JSA Stream 3 or 4);

► additional funding for purchase of special support such as one to one mentoring and/or extended post-placement support;

► capacity for Stream 3 or 4 participants to re-enter the Access Program within 12 months to support a stepped approach to employability and skills development.

Finding 10: The capacity to maximise synergies between the Access Program and related Government Programs is limited by competitive funding models, and local barriers to effective local networking.


► disseminating examples of best practice across the Access Program to encourage proactive networking with other Programs;

► requiring formalised relationships with other Australian Apprenticeships support services, including Australian Apprenticeship Centres (AAC) as a mandatory element of the Access Program in order to maximise links with the overall Australian Apprenticeships Program. These relationships might include establishment of referral processes and information provision to employers and participants in the Access Program.

Recommendations 5 and 6 should be considered in the light of Finding 10.



Finding 11: The funding model rewards Australian Apprenticeship outcomes however the balance between payments for training and outcomes needs to be carefully monitored.

Recommendation 10: (Cross reference to Recommendation 8). The Department should consider:

► strengthening the requirement for Access Brokers to provide focussed and intensive job search and post-placement support as part of their core offering to participants. Manage this through contractual requirements between Brokers and the Department;

► encouraging the dissemination of models of delivery that encourage outcomes oriented behaviour by Providers and promoting these as examples of best practice;

► partial outcome payment for those released from the Access Program prior to the completion of the training to take up an Australian Apprenticeship.

Finding 12: Monitoring and reporting systems do not enable comprehensive reporting on Access Program performance. The points at which outcomes are recorded do not align with the outcome measurement points of related Programs, hence limiting the capacity for meaningful comparison between Programs.


► aligning Access Program measurement points so that valid comparisons can be made between the performance of the Access Program and other Programs. For example, current anomalies in the time between entry into the Program and measurement of an outcome for JSA and Access Program should be reviewed;

► determining a set of reports that might be required for ongoing monitoring of the Access Program and addressing, where economically feasible, some of the current reporting deficits in AccessOnline. Suggested reports might include (by age, gender and geography):► industry to which courses relate► breakdown of Apprenticeship outcomes by industry► breakdown between part-time employment and further education.


3. Australian Apprenticeships Access Program

3.1 BackgroundErnst & Young was engaged by DIISRTE to review all aspects of the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program including:

► current funding model;► access Program processes;► access Program delivery;► fitness for purpose; and► outcomes in the context of the Australian Government's approach to skills development

and building a productive workforce.

The links between the various inputs and activities to the intended outputs and outcomes were also reviewed as outlined in Figure 1 below.

Particularly, this review was intended to assess the effectiveness of the Access Program following the changes in the delivery model in 2009-10. The review drew on Access Program data as well as the experience of National and State Office Departmental staff, Access Program Brokers and their subcontracted Providers, and a range of external stakeholders including referral agencies, employers and other organisational groups that had an interest in supporting vulnerable job seekers or the development of a skilled workforce.

Figure 1: Logic Model for the Access Program

Pre-vocational training, individualised job search and post-placement support

Training programs and people trained. Numbers of people provided with individualised job search. Number and type of post placement support.

Referrals made into the program

Entry into Australian Apprenticeships, employment, further training/education

Budget allocations Program Planning Procurement and Contracts Milestone Payments Outcome Payments Incentive Payments

Funding model

Referring agenciesTraining ProvidersProgram BrokersInputs

Activities

Outputs

OutcomesContext:

► Other government programs

► Local labour markets► Local economy► Local target populations► National economy► Local training

opportunities► Local Industry► Employer interest► Culture ► Language► Geography► Demography


3.2 Summary of the 2009-10 Access Program ChangesThe changes that were made in 2009-10 to the Access Program in its delivery approach included:

► using the Employment Services model to allocate places to every Employment Service Area (ESA) in Australia to provide national coverage (since amended to metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions);

► a new milestone payment and moderately increased outcome payments;► recognising skill shortages and participant barriers;► increasing the cap for payable outcomes by 10 percent; ► extending post-placement support period for participants with greater levels of need; and ► incentives designed to improve linkages with JSA, including a $500 incentive payment to

a JSA when a client they refer is placed in an Australian Apprenticeship.

In 2012-13 changes were made to the target allocation areas in order to increase flexibility for better employment opportunities. These changes broadened the allocation from ESA to Local Market Regions (LMR). Currently the allocations are made to metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions.

3.3 Access Program DescriptionThe Access Program receives funding of approximately $27 million per annum, with a target of 9,500 eligible job seekers entering the Access Program per annum.

The Access Program provides nationally accredited training to job seekers through Registered Training Organisations (RTO). Eligible job seekers are provided the following assistance as part of the Access Program:

► job preparation;► industry training;► connections with actual employers; and► on-the-job support to help job seekers settle in the first 13 weeks.

The Access Program assists job seekers in:

► becoming 'job ready';► acquiring the workplace qualities employers seek;► receiving nationally recognised training to provide basic industry skills; and► learning how to write a resume, look for jobs and prepare for interviews.

The primary aim of the Access Program is to assist job seekers to find and keep an Australian Apprenticeship leading to skilled employment, particularly in occupations identified in the Skilled Occupation List, and in response to labour market needs. Other types of employment, further education or training are also possible outcomes for participants.

An Australian Apprenticeship is an umbrella term for the national apprenticeship and traineeship arrangements which came into effect in 1 January 1998 and known in some States and Territories as Apprenticeships and Traineeships. This review will consider Apprenticeships and Traineeships as ‘Australian Apprenticeships.’

3.3.1 Access Program EligibilityFor an individual to be eligible to participate in an Access Program, the participant must meet the residency status2, be registered for employment assistance, and meet one of the following criteria:

2 Residency status requires the participant meet at least one of the following: Australian citizen; the holder of a permanent Australian visa, or the holder of a New Zealand passport who has been resident in Australia for at least six months prior to commencing the pre-vocational training course.


► unemployed and registered with Centrelink as unemployed for at least three months;► homeless;► have a disability;► a sole parent receiving Parenting Payment (noting that from 1 January 2013, recipients

will move to Newstart Allowance);► an early school leaver who has not completed either Year 10, 11, or 12 of school;► an 'at risk' Year 12 school leaver;► an Indigenous Australian;► an Australian-born descendant of a South Sea Islander;► a self-disclosed ex-offender;► a mature-aged job seeker aged 45 years and over; and► a person who has completed a Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program (LLNP),

funded by the DIISRTE.

There are also a number of exclusions and clarifications, including:

► secondary school students are not eligible to participate in the Access Program;► participants may be eligible for AUSTUDY or ABSTUDY during the training component of

the Program. ABSTUDY clients who are already studying full-time are not eligible to participate in the Access Program. If they wish to participate in the Access Program, they should discuss their circumstances with Centrelink;

► a job seeker may only participate in the Access Program once within a 12 month period of commencing a previous Access Program pre-vocational training course, even if they did not achieve a successful outcome. In exceptional circumstances, DIISRTE may approve a further commencement. Approval must be sought prior to accepting the job seeker into the Access Program;

► persons who are serving a sentence of imprisonment are ineligible for the Access Program, regardless of meeting other eligibility criteria. Persons who are serving a sentence include those in detention on a full-time or part-time basis in a correctional facility or jail, remand centre, pre-release centre, periodic detention centre or compulsory drug treatment centre. Persons released on parole or other community early or temporary release schemes (such as home detention or work release programs) are also ineligible for the Access Program. A person who commences the Access Program but subsequently becomes a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment is ineligible to continue in the Program; and

► a job seeker who has been assessed as eligible to participate in the Access Program is able to continue to participate regardless of a subsequent change in eligibility, with the exception of a participant who is convicted to serve a sentence of imprisonment as set out in the dot point above.

3.3.2 Participant AssessmentOnce a job seeker is considered eligible, participants are then assessed on their individual needs based on the extent of their barriers to participation in training and employment. Participants are categorised under the Access Program Participant Categories (APPC) as outlined below:

► Category A: Participants who are nearly work ready and require some targeted support to improve their ability to find and keep skilled employment via an Australian Apprenticeship;

► Category B: Participants who require additional targeted support to improve their ability to find and keep skilled employment via an Australian Apprenticeship; or

► Category C: Participants who require significant additional targeted support to improve their ability to find and keep skilled employment via an Australian Apprenticeship.

These categories will affect the level of support provided to that participant during the life of the Access Program.


The APPC is determined by the Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) score, used to identify the level and extent of barriers job seekers face to employment. At the referral stage a participant will be automatically placed in an APPC, on the basis of the JSCI received when registering with Centrelink or JSA. Where a JSCI score is not provided to a participant the following business rules are applied to participants:

► referrals made by YC, DES and CDEP will be placed into Category C;► referrals made by Centrelink or JSA without a Job Seeker Classification Instrument

(JSCI) score will be placed into Category A; and► referrals without an active JSCI will be placed into Category B.

3.3.3 Referral AgenciesAn initial assessment of eligibility and suitability is undertaken before any job seeker can participate in the Access Program. This initial assessment needs to be undertaken by a referring agency. Referring agencies are:

► Centrelink;► JSA Providers;► YC Providers;► DES Providers; and► CDEP Providers.

Other organisations such as community organisations and providers of other Australian Government-funded Programs including Skills for Education and Employment (SEE, formerly Language, Literacy, Numeracy Program) and Access Program Providers can identify potentially suitable job seekers for the Access Program. Potential participants, identified by these organisations and Access Program Providers, will need to have their eligibility and initial suitability assessed and referred by Centrelink or JSA.

3.3.4 Delivery ModelDIISRTE contracts Access Program Brokers to deliver Access Program services on behalf of the Australian Government in Regions on a State/Territory basis as identified in their contracts. Access Program Brokers are expected to have strategies in place to deal with fluctuations in the following:

► size of the labour market;► participant profile; ► needs of participants; and► industry needs.

Access Program Brokers may subcontract to one or more Providers to deliver some or all of the services for pre-vocational training course delivery, job search support or post-placement support. However, Brokers retain overall responsibility for delivery of all services, meeting contractual agreements with DIISRTE and achieving agreed performance targets consistent with the Access Program guidelines and contractual obligations.

3.3.5 Funding ModelThe Access Program is a capped procurement Program funded through an Annual Appropriation with a base of 9,500 places available nationally per annum across both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The amount Brokers receive is based on the number of commencements, training completions, outcomes achieved and the participant’s Access Program Participant Category (APPC). Payments are set based on milestone type.

Access Program Brokers receive payments for the following achievements:

► commencements where a participant attends for five consecutive days;► completion of training; and


► achievement of an outcome.

The milestone payments to Access Program Brokers are based on the participants APPC as outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Commencement and Completion Payment by APPC

Achievement APPC

Category A Category B Category C

Commencement for five consecutive course days

$1,600 $1,600 $1,600

Completion of training $100 $500 $500

Table 2: Outcome payment by APPC

Outcome Type APPC

Category A Category B Category CAustralian Apprenticeship on the Skilled Occupation List

$4,000 $4,200 $4,400

Other Australian Apprenticeships (not on the Skilled Occupation List)

$3,000 $3,200 $3,400

Full Time Employment $900 $1,000 $1,500

Part time Employment or Further Education and Training

$0 $500 $1,000

3.3.6 Pre-Vocational TrainingParticipants receive a minimum of 150 hours of pre-vocational training during the course component of the Access Program. The requirements of the training include:

► delivery by a Registered Training Organisation with appropriate scope;► nationally recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework;► linked to an Australian Apprenticeship pathway;► prepares Access Program participants for work;► linked to local labour market needs/skill shortages; and► provides participants with appropriate certification, which at a minimum must be a

Statement of Attainment (and a maximum of a Certificate II).

In addition the delivery of the training must ensure the following:

► it meets the above requirements;► is full time (at least 20 hours per week) and of at least 150 hours duration;► has a mix of technical units of competency from national training packages;► has a minimum of three units of competency, though more can be delivered, depending

on the need of the target industry and of participants;► provides nationally recognised generic skills to assist participants to prepare for skilled

employment; ► is tailored to address the individual participant’s needs and barriers to obtaining an

Australian Apprenticeship (where possible);► is linked to training in skills areas which meet local labour market needs and/or industry

skills required (rather than in set occupations), particularly those listed on the Skilled Occupation List (where possible);

► uses the competencies from the relevant Australian Apprenticeship pathway; and► provides generic support and personal development that is relevant to the job seeker’s

current needs.


Consideration should also be made for pre-vocational training to be located where it is easily accessible within the community, where it:

► limits any difficulties for people accessing the Access Program;► is suitable for people with disabilities; and ► is located within reasonable walking distance of public transport (where applicable).

Work experience may also be provided to participants comprising up to 25 percent of the total pre-vocational training hours.

3.3.7 Job Search Support Job Search Support is available to participants for up to 13 weeks commencing upon the completion of the pre-vocational training. During this period Brokers are expected to find placements using the allotted 13 weeks of job search support. The mix of support during this period may include the following:

► basic computer literacy;► preparing and updating a resume;► interview preparation and practice;► assistance attending job interviews;► tailored job matching in addition to teaching participants how to research and apply for

employment opportunities;► guidance on personal grooming and presentation;► other life skills affecting participants’ ability to find and keep a placement;► career counselling, coaching and personal development, including providing assistance

to build motivation and personal and professional confidence; and► referral to other community services and organisations where appropriate.

The role of Providers should be, where possible, to pre-arrange potential employment placements before the pre-vocational training course is advertised. This should include actively pursuing opportunities with local JSA Providers, job placement organisations, employers and other relevant organisation. This is to ensure that job placement commences shortly after training.

In exceptional circumstance, Access Program Providers may request an extension of Job Search Support for those participants:

► who have not successfully gained a placement by the end of the 13 weeks of the Job Search Support period; or

► who have not achieved a placement of 13 consecutive weeks (and therefore does not last the duration of required post-placement support period) and whose 13 week job Search support period has been fully expended.

In this instance, additional support and assistance can be provided for up to a further four weeks, subject to the Broker’s approval.

In exceptional circumstances, further to the extension of Job Search Support, an additional four weeks may also be requested via submitting a Guideline Waiver to DIISRTE should a placement opportunity not be found within the 17 weeks of approved job search support.

3.3.8 Post-placement SupportThe aim of post-placement support is to provide support to both the participant and the employer while they settle into the placement arrangement and build the foundations for a strong, ongoing partnership.

The amount of Post-placement support is linked to the participant’s APPC being:

► Category A: 13 weeks Post-placement support


► Category B: 20 weeks Post-placement support► Category C: 26 weeks Post-placement support

The period of post-placement support starts from the first day of the participant’s initial (and in most cases only) placement. The Provider then has 13-26 weeks in which to support the participant to maintain a placement for 13 consecutive weeks.

Support provided during this period should include the following as a minimum:

► weekly contact with the participant to check their status in placement and maintain effective and open channels of communication, including:► ensuring the participant receives a thorough induction to the place of work or

induction on commencement;► managing expectations, motivation, confidence, anxiety and other issues;► checking in on the relationship and fit between the employer and the participant,

including identifying and mediating any conflicts of opinions, expectations or other issues that impact on the stability of the placement;

► assisting the participant to achieve a further placement if their original placement falls through prior to the end of the post placement support period; and

► ensuring the participant has a Provider contact who can answer queries or address any issued that may arise during the placement.

► fortnightly contact with the employer to maintain effective and open channels of communication, including but not limited to:► mediating issues impacting the stability of the placement;► undertaking on-site visits as appropriate; and

► ensuring personnel with appropriate expertise and adequate resources are readily available to the host to answer queries and address any issues that may arise.

3.3.8.1 Payable outcomesBrokers are eligible for payable outcomes, when they or the Provider support participants for the full term of their 13 consecutive week placement during the Post-placement support period with the same employer. Written confirmation from the employer must also be received.

In order for a Broker to claim an Australian Apprenticeship outcome, the participant must have completed the probationary period, including for long probationary periods. The Broker must certify on AccessOnline, that the participant has finished their probationary period and obtain confirmation in writing from the employer.

3.4 Access Program Processes and Performance Management

3.4.1 Funding Process to Access Program BrokersBeing a capped demand-driven funding model, the maximum amount payable to Access Program Brokers for a financial year is capped at a Notional Budget Allocation determined and notified by DIISRTE each financial year. A review of the Notional Budget Allocation is conducted twice a year with adjustments to funding made as appropriate. Any revisions made to the Notional Budget Allocations will be made with reference to budget constraints, operational requirements, local labour market needs and participants’ profiles.

3.4.2 Access Program Information Management System – AccessOnline

The administration of the Access Program is largely managed through the Access Program Information System – AccessOnline. It is a requirement of Brokers and Providers to use AccessOnline for the activities listed below.


► Course management to record status of the training course and approval of the course six weeks prior to commencement.

► Referral management providing an electronic referral service with relevant organisations.

► Participant management to track participants’ progress in the Access Program and record information about commencements, withdrawals, training completions, job search support, placements and payable outcomes. The following must be adhered to by Brokers and Providers:► commencements confirmed after five consecutive course days;► completion status of each participant entered in AccessOnline within five business

days of completion of training component;► participant withdrawal and exit entered into AccessOnline within five business days

of withdrawal or exit;► placement information for each participant entered in AccessOnline within five

business days of commencement of a placement; and► final outcome for each participant entered in AccessOnline within five business days

of the end of the post-placement support period. ► Financial management of payments to Brokers for the following:

► calculating Broker claims against achievements;► recording offset against advance payments; ► generating invoices; and ► submission of Brokers’ financial management reports.

AccessOnline is used by DIISRTE for monitoring the performance of the Access Program. Analysis of data in AccessOnline will enable DIISRTE to monitor:

► acceptance into, commencement of, retention in and completion rates of training; and withdrawal for participants; and

► performance against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and model benchmarks.

3.4.3 Access Program Performance ManagementThe performance of the Access Program is assessed through the contractual arrangement between DIISRTE and the Access Program Brokers in order to:

► ensure Brokers are meeting their contractual responsibilities;► identify performance trends, policy and Access Program issues early in order to reach a

resolution that support Broker and Provider performance;► develop remedial management places to assist Brokers to achieve minimum KPIs where

appropriate; and► protect Australian Government funds and ensure they are used effectively and efficiently.

The performance of Access Program Brokers is managed by:

► defining expectations including specifying KPIs;► assessing performance against minimum contract requirements with a focus on

performance improvements and good practice;► undertaking performance reviews of Brokers and Providers;► reviewing and analysing quantitative performance data using AccessOnline;► analysing Brokers’ Annual Performance and Acquittals Reports and providing feedback;► developing and maintaining good working relationships with a common goal of delivering

high quality Access Program outcomes;► conducting monitoring visits to Brokers and, where appropriate, Providers;► assessing and managing complaints received; and► sharing and learning from feedback from other sources, including from participants and

referring agencies, and convening the annual Broker’s Forum.


4. Review ApproachThe review approach was based on the key elements of evaluation design and implementation as follows (also outlined in Figure 2 below):

1. Develop Program logic2. Apply evaluation framework and develop evaluation questions3. Confirm quantitative data sources and design qualitative data collection tools4. Collect and analyse quantitative and qualitative data5. Draw conclusions and develop recommendations6. Deliver Progress and Final reports

Figure 2: Evaluation Approach

Confirm data sources and design

data collection tools Desktop Reviews

• J urisdictional programs

• Literature scan

Advice from subject matter advisors

Draw conclusions and draft recommendations – overall

evaluation

Final Report

Phase 1

Plan Evaluation

Phase 2

Collect & Analyse Data

Phase 3 Develop Findings & Recommendations

Phase 4

Report

= Project Deliverable

1

Collect and analyse data

Progress Report 2

Program logic

Evaluation Framework &

Evaluation Questions



Draw conclusions and draft recommendations – pre and

post 2009-10 changes

4.1 Evaluation Framework and Evaluation QuestionsThe evaluation design was developed using the Ernst & Young framework for evaluation, which considers the five key elements of Program design and implementation as well as considering reporting and ongoing monitoring of the Program throughout its life.

The framework provides direction in forming the evaluation questions to be answered for each specific evaluation and guides the processes for gathering information. Figure 3 depicts the framework as it applies to the Access Program.


PLANNING

MONITORING REVIEW

AND REFO

RM

of the

Access Progr

am

PROVISIONof the Access Program

including by Brokers and

Providers

USEof

the Program by the right clients, including access and addressing barriers

OUTCOMESof the

program including achievement of the

Australian Apprenticeship

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 3: Framework for designing the Program evaluation

4.1.1 Evaluation questionsIn developing the evaluation questions consideration was given to the five key elements of Program development and evaluation (refer Figure 3 above) and how the Access Program has performed and is performing in relation to these elements, as described below.

► Program planning and design, including Program processes, the establishment of governance and reporting, development of performance criteria, Program forecasting such as skills demand or labour market forecasting.

► Budgeting and funding for the Program including the funding model, use of incentive payments, contracting model and/or funding and performance agreements, including the changes made in 2009-10.

► Provision of the services, including Program delivery, location and service offerings from Brokers and Providers, matches to labour market demand and participant requirements.

► Use of the services under the Program, including fitness for purpose, the accessibility of the Program elements to the target population, use of the Program by the target population (including retention rates), and by employers, and any changes since 2009-10.

Evaluation questions were tailored to specific stakeholders by applying the evaluation framework as relevant to each stakeholder group. A full list of evaluation questions for each Stakeholder group can be found in Appendix B: Evaluation Questions.


4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholders that were consulted in this review included:

► participants: completed, current and withdrawn;► employers;► Access Program Brokers;► Access Program Providers; ► referral agencies, particularly Centrelink, JSA and DES; ► linked Australian Government Programs such as JSA, DES, Centrelink, Regional Skills,

Employment and Jobs (RESJ), Local Employment Co-ordinators (LEC), YC, Australian Apprenticeships; and

► departmental Staff specifically engaged in the Access Program.

Stakeholder engagement occurred during the months of October and November 2012 and was conducted in two phases. These phases are described below.

1. Internal & DEEWR Stakeholders – Focus groups or semi-structured interviews were conducted prior to the site visits to external stakeholders to gain a broad understanding of the Access Program implementation. Where required, follow up interviews were conducted to validate the findings following site visits with external stakeholders.

2. External Stakeholders – Face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted on-site in October, with site visits centred on the locations of the Brokers, being in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart and Perth. Wagga Wagga was the only non-metropolitan region visited although phone interviews were conducted with Providers in other non-metropolitan regions such as Central Coast NSW. During those site visits a mix of referral agencies, Access Program Providers, DEEWR stakeholders and internal stakeholders were interviewed. Employer and participant interviews were arranged with the assistance of Brokers. Where face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were not possible, phone interviews were conducted during the month of November.

Prior to the commencement of the engagement, correspondence was sent out to all stakeholders issued by the General Manager, Foundational Skills Branch outlining the terms of reference of the review. This correspondence was then used as the basis to engage all stakeholders.

4.3 Data Collection4.3.1 Qualitative Data CollectionAs highlighted in 4.2, qualitative data was collected via interviews and focus groups. Visits were made to the locations where Brokers are based and stakeholder consultations were undertaken around these locations, mostly in metropolitan areas (Perth, Melbourne, Hobart and Sydney) and one regional area (Wagga Wagga). The qualitative data was collected via:

► semi-structured interviews, tailored to each of the stakeholder groups, using an interview template with a set of guiding questions; and

► focus groups using a template with guiding questions.


A summary of the qualitative data collection approach is outlined below:

Stakeholder Group

Consultation Approach

Sample Size

Area of Coverage

Participants :

► Former with successful completion

► Current

► Withdrawn

► Semi-structured interview

► Focus Group

► Phone interviews

Former = 2

Current = 33

Withdrawn = 7

Semi-structured interview with former participants in Perth

Focus group with current participants in metropolitan areas of Wagga Wagga, Sydney and Melbourne

Phone interviews with withdrawn participants located in non-metro SA, metro QLD, metro NSW and metro VIC.

Employers ► Semi-structured interviews


n= 14 Semi-structured interviews in:

► Perth;

► Wagga Wagga;

► Melbourne;

► Hobart; and

► Sydney

Phone interviews for those employers located in non-metropolitan NSW.

Brokers ► Semi-structured interviews


n= 10 Semi-structured interviews in:

► Perth;

► Sydney;

► Melbourne; and

► Hobart

Phone interviews were conducted for Broker in Regional Victoria due to time availability.

Providers ► Semi-structured interviews


n= 23 Semi-structured interviews in the areas of:

► Perth;

► Sydney;

► Melbourne;

► Hobart; and

► Wagga Wagga

Phone interviews with Providers located in :

► Perth;

► Sydney;

► Non-metropolitan NSW; and

► Melbourne

Referral Agencies:

► JSA

► Centrelink

► Youth Connections

► DES

► Semi structured interviews


n= 10 Semi-structured interviews located in:

► Sydney;

► Melbourne; and

► Hobart

Phone Interviews for referral agencies located in:

► Melbourne;

► Non-metropolitan NSW;

► Brisbane; and

► Hobart


Stakeholder Group

Consultation Approach

Sample Size

Area of Coverage

Program Managers in National Office:

► JSA

► YC

► DES

► LEC and RESJs

► Centrelink

► Focus Group


n= 6 Focus Group discussion was conducted with Program managers in DEEWR National Office.

Semi structured interview was conducted with Centrelink National Office.

Linked Australian Government Programs



n= 6 Semi structured interviews and phone interviews were conducted with Apprenticeship Centres located in Sydney and Melbourne

Semi structured interviews were conducted with the following Program managers in National office:

► Australian Apprenticeship Centres, including Mentoring Program

► Skills Connect

► Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program

Departmental staff

(DIISRTE and DEEWR)



n= 9 Semi structured interviews in:

► Canberra;

► Perth;

► Melbourne;

► Hobart; and

► Sydney

Phone interview in regional office in Adelaide

The review applied a convenience-based sampling strategy, accessing stakeholders in the locations where Brokers were based plus Wagga Wagga. Wagga Wagga was selected because it is a regional centre with a range of Providers and serviced by a national Broker. When accessing a small representative sample within a larger stakeholder group, a focus group session was conducted. This was conducted with current participants referred by representative Providers. Phone interviews were conducted with a selection of participants who had not completed the Access Program. Contact details for participants were provided by the Department.

In addition, a desktop review of publicly available and recent evaluations, reviews and performance reports of similar Programs was undertaken. The criteria used for including a report or review in the dataset were by similar target population, Access Program objectives and Access Program activities. A literature scan was also undertaken for publicly available evidence on similar Programs, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations.

4.3.2 Quantitative Data CollectionQuantitative data was collected through the data sources of AccessOnline (post 2009-10) and AIMS (pre 2009-10).

Population data was collected from both sources and as early as 2007-08 to compare the performance of the Access Program prior to the 2009-10 Program changes. The data collected included:

► participants by age and gender;► participants by jurisdiction and labour market region;► participants successful commencements;


► participants successful completion;► participants successful achieving an outcome by:

► Australian Apprenticeships on the Skilled Occupation List► other Australian Apprenticeships not on the Skilled Occupation List► full time employment► part time employment or further education; and

► source of referrals.

Other data measuring the performance of the Brokers and Providers was also collected. This included:

► number of classes commenced and cancelled by jurisdiction and labour market region;► Brokers Annual Report for 2011-12; and► number of Providers for each Broker.

4.4 Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis4.4.1 Qualitative AnalysisA themes-based approach was applied to the qualitative data analysis, particularly around the evaluation questions related to:

► the attractiveness of the Access Program to employers and participants;► accessibility of the Access Program to potential participants;► matching of training and support to local labour markets;► sustainability of gains for participants;► ability of local employers to offer sustainable employment, particularly in non-

metropolitan areas;► difference between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas; and► overlaps between other Programs across all jurisdictions and service gaps.

The themes of the qualitative analysis were then cross-referenced with quantitative data analysis and both sets of data tested for congruity and anomalies. Data that was not supported was followed with further qualitative analysis to understand the difference and related back to the overall Access Program context and operations.

4.4.2 Quantitative AnalysisThe quantitative analysis was undertaken based on the data collected from AIMS and AccessOnline as outlined in section 3.4.2. Analysis was undertaken to measure the impact of the changes from 2009-10, in particular any changes in:

► referral rates from JSA and Centrelink (although not the process by which these referrals were made);

► commencement and completion rates;► outcomes, including:

► by type of outcome; and► by metropolitan and non-metropolitan outcomes.

In 2009-10 there was a one-off impact to the Access Program due to an increase in places prompted by the response to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Participants affected by this initiative have been removed from the 2009-10 data analysis as this was a one-off impact.

4.4.3 Data limitations

Where quantitative data was not available to reference or could not be extracted in a form that could be used to support conclusions derived from qualitative data, this has been noted in the report.


5. Key Findings and RecommendationsThe key review questions addressed in this report relate to the three elements of the Access Program:

1. Pre-vocational training; 2. Job Search Support; and3. Post-placement support; as outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Key Evaluation Questions

Access Program Elements

Question Finding Recommendation

Pre

-voc

atio

nal T

rain

ing

Job

Sea

rch

Sup

port

How effective has the Access Program been:

► In providing an Apprenticeship pathway to skilled employment for vulnerable job seekers?

► Within its objectives, against the Australian Government policy agenda on skills development and building a more productive workforce?

► With other Australian Government Programs, including Employment Services and Australian Apprenticeship support services?

► In meeting local labour market needs, identifying skilled employment opportunities, and supporting and assisting vulnerable job seekers to meet the skill needs of industry and employers?

1,2

3

6, 10, 12

1,2, 3

1

2

5, 9 11

1, 3

How effective are current referrals into the Access Program, in particular:

► What have been the barriers to vulnerable job seekers accessing and participating in the Access Program including awareness of the Access Program and referral opportunities?

► What has been the relative performance of referral agencies, including the impact of available incentives available and competing Programs and priorities?

6, 7, 10, 12

6, 9, 11

5, 6, 9, 11

5, 9, 11

How is the service delivered in remote and outer regional areas? 5, 4

How does the existing Access Program funding model affect service delivery?

8, 9, 10, 11

7, 8, 9, 10

What would be best practice models for delivery of the type of services provided by the Access Program Brokers and Providers?

4 All recommendations

In addressing these questions, the review noted a number of key themes, under which findings can be grouped. These include areas for improvement in the Access Program reporting and monitoring systems.


5.1 Focus and Outcomes of the Access Program

5.1.1 Finding 1: The Access Program is valued. It provides an Apprenticeship pathway to skilled employment for the specified target population. Within that population there are some groups who are more likely to achieve an Australian Apprenticeship, for example young people.

Feedback from participants, employers, Providers and Brokers indicates that the Access Program is valued, and perceived as filling a gap in the skills training/employment system for disadvantaged jobseekers. Qualitative and quantitative data supports the conclusion that the Access Program provides a pathway to Australian Apprenticeships for specific groups of disadvantaged jobseekers, particularly young people, and provides entry into full-time or part-time employment for participants across all working age groups.

The design of the Access Program for the target cohort of disadvantaged jobseekers is well supported by the literature. Small scale targeted programs which combine technical and soft skills training with strong engagement of employers and practical placement into real jobs are considered more effective than job creation programs, training only or job seeking support programs for this participant group3. It can be considered then, that the Access Program is an effective mechanism for addressing the development of workforce skills and increase in workforce participation rate for disadvantaged jobseekers. As such it supports the Australian Government response to structural changes taking place in Australia’s economy. Skills development, in particular, fosters resilience and flexibility and is one of the best ways to assist people who risk being displaced in a changing labour market. Skills development drives productivity, and is the essence of innovation.

Qualitative data collected from key stakeholders supports the conclusion that there are clear benefits for vulnerable job seekers and for employers who participate in the Access Program. These benefits include:

► providing an opportunity for those who would not otherwise participate to be engaged in the economy and increase human/social capital through an Australian Apprenticeship or employment;

► preparing participants for work through training and placement and, by doing so, engaging potential apprentices with the trade;

► addressing the economic and social needs of disadvantaged individuals through training and support and, ultimately, employment in an Australian Apprenticeship;

► providing an opportunity for some participants to try new career options at minimal cost; and

► broadening opportunities for the return to work/mature age cohort while enhancing employers’ ability to tap into this hidden labour market.

Quantitative data since 2007-08 indicates that young participants (15-24 years of age) benefited the most from participating in the Access Program, contributing to the majority of the Apprenticeships outcomes and being twice as likely to achieve an outcome than other cohorts (refer Figure 4 below). This is reinforced by qualitative data collected from stakeholders, which indicated that one of the cohorts most likely to benefit from the Access Program was young people. This cohort included young people disconnected from the school system/and or following one or more unsuccessful attempts to enter training/Apprenticeship/employment. Young people are recognised nationally and internationally as being one of the groups more vulnerable to unemployment in periods of economic downturn4.

3 Meager, N., (2008) The Role of Training and Skills Development in Active Labour Market Policies, IES Working Paper: WP15, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, UK, accessed online at http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp15.pdf 4 Eurofound (2012), NEETs – Young people not in employment, education or training: Characteristics, costs and policy responses in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, accessed online at www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf


http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf



Figure 4: Apprenticeship Outcome Rate by Age Bracket (2007-11)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Appr

entic

eshi

p Out

com

e Rat

e

Year

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

5.1.1.1 Procurement Process of BrokersWhile the Access Program provides an Apprenticeship pathway to skilled employment for a proportion of vulnerable job seeker participants, particularly young people, the translation from entry into the Access Program to entry into an Apprenticeship pathway is affected by:

► the availability of Apprenticeships in the local area;► the correct selection of participants who are ready for the Access Program and match

employer expectations/requirements;► the extent to which the Broker and/or Provider is connected with and delivers the

Access Program in partnership with local industry and local employers; and► the degree to which the Provider and participants are committed to an Apprenticeship

pathway as opposed to seeking a job.

These challenges were identified from qualitative data collection, particularly interviews with Brokers and Providers. The fact that these challenges exist should not detract from the success of the Access Program to date, particularly in targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers, however it does present an opportunity to strengthen the focus of the Access Program.

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis indicates that the role of the Brokers and their contractual management of Providers can play an important role in strengthening the success of the Access Program. Based on interviews with Brokers and Providers, the review found that some Brokers play a more active role in selecting and managing their preferred Providers, applying criteria such as relationships with relevant industry groups and/or employers; industry involvement in course content; and their potential Apprenticeship employment opportunities which meet local labour market demand. In other cases Brokers allow their Providers to determine the training courses based on the local labour market demand, with limited involvement of industry in course content or proactive involvement with employers. Those Brokers who appeared to achieve higher outcome rates (based on review of outcomes data from AccessOnline), described strategies that included some or all of the following elements:

► evidence of consistently successful apprenticeship outcomes in line with Access Program outcome targets;

► demonstrated relationships and formalised arrangements with relevant industry groups and/or employers which could lead to:► shared identification of labour market needs,► industry involvement in course content and course delivery, and► regular longer term planning with employers for Apprenticeship employment,

opportunities, which drives program planning; ► demonstrated capacity to manage Providers to:


► ensure a balance of training, job search support and post-placement support,► drive outcomes through contract management and funding,► apply training methods and select trainers that suit the characteristics of the cohort

for the Program,► ensure links with industry and employers (as outlined above) are also maintained at

Provider level, and ► avoid unsuitable course selection;

► evidence of an operational model that utilised synergies between funded Programs within the organisation in order to maximise outcomes for participants; and

► evidence of formalised agreements between Brokers and other related employment and skills development programs within their geographic area of delivery.

In light of the variation in outcomes achieved between Brokers, it may be worth considering a general tightening of selection criteria to enable the Department to choose high performing Brokers with a demonstrated history of success. In addition, the Department should consider the establishment of a preferred provider panel of Brokers. Introducing a panel arrangement should assist in increasing responsiveness and in managing Access Program Broker performance.

5.1.2 Finding 2: Overall the Access Program is achieving a strong training completion rate (average of approximately 80 percent since 2009-10, well above target of 70 percent), however achieving outcome targets for the targeted cohort has been challenging.

5.1.2.1 Training CompletionAccess Program Providers are either RTOs or Group Training Organisations (GTOs), with training being their core strength. The success of the training component of the Access Program was evidenced by the overachievement of the training completion rate with an average of approximately 80 percent since the introduction of the 2009-10 changes. The highest training completion rate achieved was 83 percent in 2010-11 (see table 4 below):

Table 4: Training completion since 2009-10

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12% of training completion

79% 83% 80%

In interviews, relevant Brokers and Providers attributed above target training completion to a number of factors, including:

► a rigorous Provider selection process by the Broker to ensure Providers have the appropriate infrastructure, learning guides and assessment tools, but most importantly the right staff with the experience and skills to support the participant;

► developing training courses in collaboration with employers and tailoring them to the needs of the local labour market to ensure better outcomes;

► more intensive case management to address client issues and support needs that arise during training;

► pre-class interview selection processes to ensure the participants who commence training are the most suitable and have the best capacity to benefit from the training; and

► increasing participant motivation, through conducting team building activities, using flexible training approaches and recognising the need for disadvantaged participants to adjust over time to routine and structure.

While there are specific issues associated with providing training to vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers, the review heard examples of adaptations made by Providers to adjust to the learning challenges experienced by some groups of participants. For example, most classes aimed at women re-entering the workforce adjusted their hours to school hours to enable mothers to manage their parenting responsibilities.


Retention of disadvantaged youth in training programs appeared to increase when classroom learning was interspersed with outdoor or practical learning. The location of training has been observed in the literature to have an impact, with better outcomes achieved where training is undertaken in the workplace rather than in a classroom5.

5.1.2.2 Access Program OutcomesStakeholder interviews indicate that overall and at the individual Broker level it has been challenging to achieve the outcome rate target of 40 percent6.

Quantitative analysis of data from AccessOnline supports this view, with outcome rates ranging from 26 percent to 39 percent as outlined in Table 5 below. The best performing Broker (overall) in 2010-11 achieved an outcome rate of 36 percent.

AccessOnline data for 2011-12 was not used for this analysis, as this data cannot be considered complete until all outcomes based on commencements in that year have been realised and recorded by Brokers. Due to the extended time period between commencement and measurement of an outcome, not all outcomes for 2011-12 had been recorded at the time this report was compiled.

Table 5: Outcome trend since 2007-08

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

% of outcomes to commencements

39% 37% 26% 27%

Given the targeted cohort, the outcomes achieved through the Access Program are in line with similar (but not identical) programs. For example, the Pre-Vocational Training Programme (PVP) provided by the then NSW Department of Education and Training targeted a similar cohort including disadvantaged people with multiple barriers.

An evaluation of the PVP Programme over the period 2003-2006 (before the GFC) found that it achieved an annual average articulation from pre-apprenticeships into apprenticeships (traditional trades) of 39 percent, and 5.4 percent into traineeships7.

The low overall rates of articulation, particularly for traineeships, largely reflected the focus of the PVP program, targeting disadvantaged people who were confronted with multiple barriers to successful engagement in education and employment. The higher articulation rate from pre-apprenticeships was partially attributed to the fact that almost all the pre-apprenticeship training involved a rigorous selection intake of pre-apprentice students by providers.

This program was smaller than the Access Program (2,499 commencements and a budget of $3.5 million in 2006), so direct comparisons cannot be made. However it is interesting to note that the Access Program achieved an overall outcome rate of 38 percent in 2007-08 (the following year).

Apprenticeship outcomes comprise more than 50 percent of Access Program outcomes. (refer Figure 5 below).

5 Adams, A. (2012), The role of skills development in overcoming social disadvantage Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012 accessed online at www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-ED-EFA-MRT-PI-04.pdf 6 Attainment of outcomes is calculated as the number of payable outcomes divided by the number of commencements. 7 Toner P. and Woolley R. (2007) Evaluation of Pre-Vocational Training, NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training, accessed online at: http://www.bvet.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Pre_Voc_report.pdf


http://www.bvet.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Pre_Voc_report.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-ED-EFA-MRT-PI-04.pdf

Figure 5: Payable Outcomes by Outcome Type (2007-11)

55%51% 53%

55%

21%

19% 20%

17%

24%

30%27%

29%

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Ou

tcom

esYear

Apprenticeship FT Employment PT Employment / Further Ed

These results indicate that, while achieving the objectives of the Access Program is challenging, the Access Program has made a real difference to a cohort who would otherwise have a very low probability of entering skilled employment. The provision of skills development is central to improving productivity, and in turn, productivity is an important source of improved living standards and growth8.

Part time employment/further education outcomes are achieved more often than full time non-apprenticeship employment outcomes (Refer Figure 5 above). This may be an indication of the increasing rate of part time employment over full time employment during tight fiscal times.

There has been a trend of declining outcomes, which has continued despite an additional 3,669 commencements in the financial year 2009-10 (refer Figure 6).

Figure 6: Number of Commencements and Outcomes (2007-11)

-

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Year

Commencements Payable Outcomes

This could be partly explained by subdued demand for labour and continued rising unemployment expected in 2009-109, during the peak of the GFC. Recent forecasts from the 2012-13 Mid Year Economic Fiscal Outlook10 forecast employment growth to remain below trend.

8 International Labour Office (2008) Skills for Improved Productivity, Employment Growth and Development, Report V, International Labour Conference, 97th Session9 Commonwealth of Australia (2009), 2009-10 Mid Year Economic Fiscal Outlook, http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf 10 Commonwealth of Australia (2012), 2012-13 Mid Year Economic Fiscal Outlook, http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf


http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf




Pressures on the Australian economy and an uncertain global outlook continue to influence hiring decisions. In light of these economic conditions, achieving outcomes for the Access Programs could potentially become or continue to be difficult.

Category A participants (i.e. those who are nearly work ready and require some targeted support) are significantly more likely to achieve an Apprenticeship outcome under the current model (based on 2010-2011 data) as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Outcome Rate by APPC (2010-11)

22%

18%

8%6% 5%

3%

7% 9% 8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

A B C

Outc

ome /

Com

men

cem

ents

APPC


The percentage rate of employment outcomes remains relatively stable across the three categories. This result is similar to that experienced in international programs, where the evidence indicates that the achievement of outcomes for more vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers requires greater investment in resources and time than for those less disadvantaged and vulnerable jobseekers11,12.

Generally speaking, the Apprenticeship outcome rates for young participants are higher than for other age groups (refer Figure 8 below). This data is supported by qualitative data collected during the review.

Figure 8: Apprenticeship Outcome Rate by Age Bracket (2007-11)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Appr

entic

eshi

p Out

com

e Rat

e

Year

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

11 Anderson, K., Brophy, M., Mc Neil, B. And Potter, D. (2009), Opening the door to apprenticeships – Reaching young people who are disadvantaged and disengaged from apprenticeships. Paper1: Setting the scene, The Local wellbeing Project, UK accessed online at http://www.youngfoundation.or/files/images/Opening_the_door_to_Apprenticeships.pdf 12 Adams, A. (2012), The role of skills development in overcoming social disadvantage Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012 accessed online at www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-ED-EFA-MRT-PI-04.pdf



http://www.youngfoundation.or/files/images/Opening_the_door_to_Apprenticeships.pdf

However, full-time employment outcomes appear to be consistent across the age brackets, slightly favouring those aged 35 years and over as outlined in Figure 9 (below).

Figure 9: Full Time Employment Outcome Rate by Age Bracket (2007-11)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

FT E

mpl

oym

ent O

utco

me R

ate

Year

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64

Overall, this is consistent with the vocational education sector, where Apprenticeships are geared to school leavers in terms of curriculum, pedagogy and qualification structure. Qualitative evidence from Brokers and Providers indicated that, with a few notable exceptions, employers continue to prefer younger Apprentices. One exception was an employer organisation in a regional area which had a stated preference for Apprentices over the age of 21, due to the nature of the work.

5.1.2.3 Suitable Access Program ParticipantsAnecdotally, participants for whom the Access Program appeared most likely to achieve an outcome were described by Providers as having the following characteristics:

► recently unemployed or recently re-entered the job-seeking cohort;► motivated to attend training and seek work; and► having specific characteristics suited to a particular industry or employer’s needs, for

example one employer described ideal participants as mature adults with integrity and discretion, and other industry-specific Providers identified numeracy as a prerequisite for particular Apprenticeships.

Quantitative data to the level of detail that enables analysis of cohorts against industry type was not available for the review. Qualitative data collected from stakeholders indicated that participants considered most likely to benefit from the Access Program fell into several categories, as described below.

► Young people, including those disconnected from the school system and/or following one or more failed attempts to enter training, an Apprenticeship or other employment appeared to be most likely to benefit from Apprenticeships assistance Programs. Stakeholder interviews and personal observation indicated that in traditional trades such as automotive, this group was most likely to be young males. In non-traditional Apprenticeships, such as child care, the review was informed the cohort was more likely to be females.

► Mature women, including those re-entering the workforce following an extended period of home commitment and/or intermittent casual work were described by Brokers and Providers as more likely to benefit from an Australian Apprenticeship in a non-traditional trade, such as hospitality, child care or aged care, or from direct placement in employment.

► Mature age people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background or Indigenous Australians with employment barriers related to culture, language and literacy were also included in the cohort described by stakeholders as being most likely to benefit from the Access Program.


The needs and aspirations of the different groups of participants described above appeared to vary and each may require a different approach to delivery of the Access Program. For example, current literature indicates that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people who have become disconnected from the school system have their own set of aspirations and challenges that shape how activities within the Access Program should be designed for them13. This group is likely to be dealing with additional life issues that need addressing before, during and after their participation in the Access Program. Anecdotally, this group was more likely to find classroom teaching environments difficult. Providers reported better retention rates when they mixed classroom work with practical hands on work.

Mature women re-entering the workforce may find full-time training/work hours difficult to balance with their parenting responsibilities. Evidence from Europe indicates that women re-entering the workforce are more likely to benefit from a combination of vocational and general training, such as that provided through some RTOs delivering Access Programs targeting this cohort14.

5.1.2.4 Participants less likely to benefit from the Access ProgramThere was another group of participants, identified by some Provider stakeholders, which met eligibility criteria but were less likely to benefit from the Access Program. These participants might have been seeking participation in the Access Program only to comply with their Employment Pathway Plan (EPP). The review heard from Providers in particular that this group was the most difficult to engage with and to retain in the Access Program. According to Provider stakeholders it was often these participants who withdrew and did not complete the training.

This was borne out in interviews with some participants who had withdrawn from the Access Program. For example, when asked for reasons for withdrawal from training, one participant response was that the participant ‘...did not want to do anymore training and wanted to find a job, having been unemployed for five years’.

5.1.2.5 The National Skilled Occupation ListApprenticeships for trades that are identified on the National Skilled Occupation List attract higher outcomes payments. In interview, some Brokers and Providers identified issues with the applicability of this list at the local or regional level. This was more likely to be an issue for Brokers and Providers in non-metropolitan regions. These stakeholders provided examples of cases where locally relevant skills shortages were not recognised on the National Skilled Occupation List and where nationally identified skills shortages were not relevant locally.

Addressing this issue is not as simple as adjusting desired outcomes to match local skills deficits, as one of the underlying goals of the Access Program is to increase the national skill base through improving access to Apprenticeships for a specific sub-set of the job-seeking population. Locally driven solutions are not likely to do this and may be in response to short lived trends. It is possible that a balanced approach may need to be taken to the application of locally or regionally identified skills shortages, through balancing immediate local employment benefits with the portability of skills development in trades with nationally recognised shortages.

13 Collura, J. (2010). Best Practices for Youth Employment Programs: A Synthesis of Current Research. What Works, Wisconsin Research to Practice Series, 9. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison/Extension.14 European Commission, Europe 2020 accessed online at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020


http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020

Recommendation 1The Department should consider:

► reviewing and adjusting Access Program outcome targets using the achievements of recognised high performing Brokers as a reference point;

► reviewing the procurement process for Brokers to:

► tighten selection criteria to maximise selection of those Brokers most likely to achieve desired outcomes; and

► introduce a panel arrangement to increase responsiveness and performance of the Access Program.

5.1.3 Finding 3: The focus and identity of the Access Program includes full-time or part-time employment as a payable outcome, which may be diverting attention and effort from seeking Australian Apprenticeships as a priority outcome.

5.1.3.1 Australian Apprenticeships as a priority outcomeAs already outlined, one of the benefits of the Access Program is to fill a gap in the skills training/employment system. The flexibility of the Access Program in providing not only Apprenticeship outcomes but also employment outcomes, makes for a very attractive program which vulnerable job seekers can either move through into an employment pathway or use as a ‘taste tester’ for a career pathway.

While these opportunities have value to vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers, this perception could detract from the focus and intent of the Access Program as a targeted opportunity for disadvantaged jobseekers to move into a career pathway commencing with an Australian Apprenticeship. The Access Program occupies a specific place on the continuum of support for vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers. There are also Employment Support Programs on this continuum, which might be leveraged more effectively for those disadvantaged jobseekers seeking employment but not necessarily seeking an Australian Apprenticeship.

There were many examples, provided by Brokers and Providers, of classes within the Access Program that have been specifically set up and implemented with a view to establishing participants in an Australian Apprenticeship. However, a number of Providers have advised that their key priority for Program participants was to find them a job. Of note, this approach is more likely to be taken with older participants or those returning to the workforce following a long term absence. There is a general view held by Providers that employers are not interested in older apprentices (in traditional trades) and that older people would find it challenging to live on an apprentice wage (again for traditional trades).

Increasing employment through training is a type of Active Labour Market Programs (ALMP) that is well supported by evidence. This evidence suggests that the key success factors for such ALMP are:

► a tightly defined participant group;► relatively small scale Programs;► achievement of an industry recognised and valued qualification; ► strong industry connections; and ► an on-the-job component15.

There is enormous potential for such a targeted program as the Access Program to deliver on all these requirements and in a number of cases, analysis of qualitative data indicated this 15 Boone, J. & Van Ours, J., Effective Labour Market Policies, Discussion Paper No. 1335, 2004, Provisional Paper prepared for the IZA, Bonn, Germany


approach is already adopted in the Access Program. Nevertheless some factors could be strengthened either across the entire Access Program or in specific areas. For example, some Brokers and Providers provided examples of their development of strong industry/employer relationships, whereby discrete courses are developed based on labour market needs and in partnership with industry/employers. In these cases, these stakeholders reported increased opportunities to place participants into work environments where they were likely to be offered an Australian Apprenticeship.

In other cases, qualitative data indicates the connection between the Access Program and local employers has been less defined and placements more ad hoc. Generally speaking in these cases stakeholders were less likely to describe a clear pathway for participants into an Australian Apprenticeship.

5.1.3.2 Building Australia’s Future WorkforceThe additional investment in the Access Program is one of a number of measures the Government has put in place as part of the Building Australia’s Future Workforce (BAFW) package, a major commitment in workforce development to address workforce skills and participation rates. The BAFW was announced as part of the 2011-12 Budget, and is a $3 billion investment over six years in the following areas:

► building a new partnership with industry by putting them at the heart of training systems;► modernising Apprenticeships;► skills development to support increase participation; and► reforming the national training system.

Evidence on the effectiveness of vocationally based training for disadvantaged job seeking populations indicates that these Programs are more likely to be successful where they are supported by policy (as outlined in Figure 10), are designed for specific population groups, include a work experience component, address skills demand and are supported by employer incentives16.

Figure 10 : Building Australia's Future Workforce

BUILDING AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE WORKFORCE

Apprenticeship Reform

Skills to PromoteIncreased Participation

► Australian ApprenticeshipMentoring package

► Accelerated AustralianApprenticeships

► Improved access to the Language Literacy andNumeracy Program

► A continuation of the current number of placeslevels of services available under the Apprenticeships Access Program

► An expansion of theWorkplace English Language and Numeracy Program

► Training to support the return to work of singleand teenage parents

► More help for Mature AgeWorkers

A New Partnership withIndustry

► Establish a National Workforce and Productivity Agency

► National Workforce Development Fund (including funding from theCritical Skills InvestmentFund)

► A Productivity Educationand Training Fund

Reform of the National Training System

► Renegotiate the NationalAgreement for Skills andWorkforce Development

► Introduce a National Partnership to reform theVocational Education andTraining (VET) system.

The Access Program has been designed with these elements in place and a clear mandate to support disadvantaged and vulnerable jobseekers into Australian Apprenticeships. In considering the realities of operational delivery of the Access Program, the review found

16 International Labour Office (2008) Skills for Improved Productivity, Employment Growth and Development, Report V, International Labour Conference, 97th Session


variability in the extent to which outcomes from individual Programs within the overarching Access Program contributed to increasing Australia’s skilled workforce.

For some Providers, the expressed desired outcomes from the Access Program are more likely to be employment for participants (including part time or casual employment) than an Australian Apprenticeship. While this is a positive outcome at the individual level, it does not necessarily contribute to the overall skilled workforce. Arguably, an employment outcome without an Apprenticeship element should be the result of targeted attention by a JSA Provider rather than a Program with a clear mandate to improve access to Australian Apprenticeships and help build a national skill base.

5.1.3.3 Achievement of QualificationsThe Access Program allows for achievement of qualifications up to a Certificate II, but a qualification to this level is not generally provided. Providers indicated that offering a full Certificate II generates additional costs associated with provision of additional units of training.

While it is not always necessary or desirable to provide a full Certificate II in the delivery of the Access Program, there are times when the possession of a full Certificate II may be an incentive for an employer seeking apprentices, if it is combined with on-the-job training. Including a full Certificate II may be a more costly option for Providers and Brokers and would need to be carefully considered and be justifiable in terms of increased outcomes. It is important to note that achievement of this qualification should lead to an Australian Apprenticeship outcome and not be seen as a standalone outcome in itself.


► redeveloping the Access Program model and contractual arrangements with Brokers to more clearly focus activity on Access Program goals, preferred target populations, best practice models of service delivery and Provider accountabilities;

► clearly defining the targeted cohort of Access Participants and tailoring the Access Program to meet specific needs of these cohorts of participants to ensure optimal outcomes;

► defining the position of the Access Program and Access Program participants on the continuum of skills development Programs and strengthening contract management to achieve targeted outcomes for this group;

► supporting the provision of training for a full Certificate II in justifiable circumstances;

► differentially rewarding part time employment outcomes that include an Australian Apprenticeship or will lead to entry into an Australian Apprenticeship.

5.1.4 Finding 4: There are examples of good practice, including industry partnership, participant support and performance based funding, that could form the basis for a re-focused model of practice.

There are sufficient examples of good practice amongst the Broker and Provider group to inform a renewed focus on supporting attainment of Australian Apprenticeships. These examples, provided by Brokers and Providers in interview, include strong connections with industry, industry involvement in planning and providing training, job search and post-placement support, and effective use of available funding and payments. Through these examples, the review found that a number of factors contributed to good practice. These elements of success for the Access Program at delivery include:


► active management of Providers by Brokers to:► ensure a balance of training, job search support and post-placement support;► drive outcomes through contract management and funding; and► avoid unsuitable course selection;

► involvement of industry in identifying labour market needs, developing course content, specifying available Apprenticeship opportunities, and providing employment;

► engagement by Providers with employers prior to and during the Program to match participants to employers and opportunities;

► careful selection of participants who, with support, would:► match Apprenticeship opportunities available; and► match employer needs

► application of training methods and use of trainers that suit the characteristics of the cohort for the Program;

► a focus on job search support and post-placement support by Providers as critical elements of the Program; and

► an organisational model that utilised synergies between funded Programs in order to reduce internal competition and maximise funding opportunities across Programs.

5.1.4.1 The role of Access Program Brokers in promoting the Access Program modelAccess Program Brokers play a critical role in managing the activities of Providers to attain Access Program objectives. Based on interviews with Brokers and Providers, the review noted variability across the Access Program Brokers in terms of how closely they monitor the

performance of Providers and the alignment of Provider activities with the goals of the Access Program. This is most likely to manifest itself in the Brokering of courses that do not meet local employment market needs or in Programs that that do not contain comprehensive job search and post-placement support components.

There is also variability in the approach taken by Brokers to engaging with industry and seeking Providers who have strong industry connections. Interviews with large Brokers indicated that although they have the advantage of scale and resources, they are less likely to have developed strong links between their internal JSAs, DES and

other employment related divisions. In effect, the competition that exists between external Providers of Employment Support Programs is reflected internally in these larger organisations.

The review noted examples of smaller Brokers with defined geographic areas who actively leverage the capability and resources of associated Programs such as JSA, DES, AAC and/or YC to maximise participant outcomes and, as a consequence, maximise revenue from outcomes funding. Internal competition is reduced when this whole-of-organisation approach is taken. However this approach relies on a governance structure and internal performance management system that discourages internal siloing of Programs. Maintaining this approach becomes more difficult in larger organisations.


Case Study: Link with EmployerA major Melbourne health care provider was able to resolve longstanding difficulties finding and retaining health care trainees for its extensive city network of hospitals and nursing facilities through the Access Program. In 2007 Western Health formed a partnership with Access Pathways to deliver Access Program courses, which were developed jointly and specifically tailored to meet workforce needs. Participants completed essential training and were given support and mentoring throughout the job placement period and during transition into a traineeship or employment. The entire intake for Apprenticeships each year is sourced from the Access Program.

5.1.4.2 Industry involvementIndustry or employer involvement appears to increase the likelihood that participants will achieve an Apprenticeship or employment outcome. A report published by Skills Australia17 states that ‘...to bring about effective vocational education and training means the development of strong linkages with employers, industries and regions and collaborative relationships with other services agencies is important...’(p109). This is supported by the findings of this evaluation.

Anecdotally and observationally, those Programs that are designed in collaboration with employers or industry appear to have a higher success rate in placing participants and in having those placements translate into an Apprenticeship. This observation is supported by the literature, where improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged populations, are observed where employers are involved in the design and delivery of training. Research has shown improved outcomes if education and employment providers aim for stronger engagement with enterprises to identify jobs where there are longer term prospects, with the enterprises assessing skills needs and jointly designing pre-employment training and job preparation18.

Brokers can market the Access Program as a means by which industry or employer groups can “grow their own” apprentices, by providing or sponsoring tailored training to targeted groups of participants. Examples of this approach include the MTA Auto Skills training program and the Western Health partnership with Access Pathways, which are referenced in case studies in this report. These, and other, exemplars could be used to shape Broker driven models for industry and employer engagement with the Access Program.

A potentially underutilised client group for Brokers is the employer group encompassing Government (Local, State and Commonwealth) and non-Government Organisations. In remote and rural communities in particular, these agencies can be the biggest employers in the area. The concept of “growing your own” could be particularly attractive in these regions.

Although industry involvement is encouraged by the Access Program guidelines, qualitative data gathered through interview indicates not all Brokers or Providers have developed and maintained the necessary links with industry. For example, Providers described different approaches to developing and maintaining relationships with local employers. Some Providers stated they would not develop a course without first establishing a local need and real opportunities for participants to gain employment with local employers. In other cases, Providers sought placements with employers only after courses had commenced and on an ad hoc basis. Generally speaking, those Providers who actively sought employer involvement and commitment prior to developing courses reported better outcomes for participants.

17 Commonwealth of Australia (2011), Skills for Prosperity – a roadmap for VET, Skills Australia, accessed online at http://www.awpa.gov.au/our-work/tertiary-sector-reform/documents/SkillsProsperityRoadmap.pdf 18 Wren, T (2011), Lifting participation and employment for disadvantaged job seekers: Demand-led and Supply-Sensitive Reforms, A paper for the ACOSS 2011 National Conference by Toni Wren, accessed online at http://toniwren.com/attachments/ACOSSConfFinal2011.pdf


http://toniwren.com/attachments/ACOSSConfFinal2011.pdf

http://www.awpa.gov.au/our-work/tertiary-sector-reform/documents/SkillsProsperityRoadmap.pdf

5.1.4.3 Job Search Support and Post-placement supportOne of the more successful Programs, working with vulnerable and disadvantaged youth, takes a proactive approach to job search support and Post-placement support and cites some memorable successes in retaining participants during the early placement period by maintaining contact and addressing participant and employer issues.

In some other cases, training organisations are not set up to deliver the level of job placement and post-placement support required for Access Program participants. Interviews with Providers indicated that this component of the Access Program is not necessarily a familiar function or within the usual skill set of traditional RTOs. The review noted a number of cases where post-placement support for participants is limited to phone contact (weekly or fortnightly) and relies on participant’s actively seeking assistance if they need it. While this approach meets compliance requirements and might be suitable for the more highly functioning participants in a supportive employment environment, it represents a risk to completion for those participants with additional challenges and higher support needs.

Recommendation 3The Department should consider working with successful Brokers and Providers to develop outcome-oriented models of practice that are considered to achieve best results and establishing these as preferred models for the Access Program.

5.1.5 Finding 5: The Access Program works differently in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

Stakeholder interviews with Brokers and Providers indicate the employment market, particularly for Australian Apprenticeships, is different in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The review was advised that a lower number of Apprenticeships are available in non-metropolitan areas and that these are more likely to be single Apprenticeships with small businesses. Data on outcomes for metropolitan and non-metropolitan Programs indicates a lower percentage of Apprenticeship outcomes achieved for non-metropolitan regions since 2009-10 (refer Figure 11 below).


Case Study: Links with IndustryBeing an employers association with over 6,000 Members across NSW, MTA are linked with employers across the State to place Access participants in a job placement. MTA formed a partnership with Mission Australia to deliver Access Program courses, which targeted school leavers at risk. MTA training includes individualised job search assistance as well as support for the apprentice and employer after an Apprenticeship is found. The Autostart Access Program provides participants with technical skills through theoretical and practical training as well as the generic knowledge and employment skills needed to work in the automotive industry. This course is a pre-vocational Program towards a Certificate II in Automotive Mechanical.

MTA’s partnership with the Access Program has seen many participants gain an apprenticeship. Examples of action taken by MTA to improve participants’ chances of achieving an Australian apprenticeship include provision of one on one mentoring, teaching etiquette and encouraging appropriately assertive behaviour. Participants have valued the provision of practical information about what to expect from being an apprentice, the increase in confidence engendered through the Access Program and the chance to give and receive peer support.

Figure 11: Metropolitan and non-Metropolitan Apprenticeship Outcomes

34% 33% 33%

49%

69%60%

26% 21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Appr

entic

eshi

p Out

com

es

Year

Metro Non-Metro

Brokers and Providers advised that they face specific issues related to providing the Access Program in non-metropolitan regions. These include:

► higher costs associated with contracting expert and specialist trainers;► a smaller pool of suitable applicants for courses;► limited access to transport for disadvantaged participants to attend courses;► higher unemployment rates with lower employment options;► less Apprenticeships available with more employers (i.e. single Apprenticeships with

small businesses or sole traders); ► locally relevant lists of skills shortages, which were felt to be more relevant than the

National Skilled Occupation List; and► reluctance of participants to move away for work.

Confronted with these challenges, some Providers default to providing Programs based on the knowledge and expertise of their internal trainers or Programs that provide generic employability skills and could be applied in multiple work environments. Some Providers commented that the funding model does not adequately cover the upfront cost of training or recognise the higher risk in non-metropolitan regions of non-achievement of outcomes.

The smaller the community, the more likely the above issues were to affect Access Program delivery and outcomes. For example, some larger regional centres with a stable population and established industry (such as mining or agriculture) appeared more able to support the current Access Program model. Anecdotal evidence indicated that in larger non-metropolitan regions with well established industry, for example the mining industry in the Hunter Valley in NSW, the likelihood of achieving an Apprenticeship outcome was higher. This was supported by quantitative data, with the Hunter region reporting overall outcomes of 30% (fourth highest) in 2010-11.

The introduction of the Remote Jobs in Communities Program (RJCP) may assist in addressing the training and employment issues in more remote communities but will not be applicable to small to medium rural communities.


Recommendation 4The Department should develop different Access Program models that address the intractable differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. These might include:

► increased funding to support provision of training in identified higher cost non-metropolitan areas where there are identified potential outcomes;

► differential funding for outcomes in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, potentially increasing the reward for employment outcomes in non-metropolitan areas in recognition of the relative value of this outcome in regions with low Apprenticeship rates.

Entry into the Access Program

5.1.6 Finding 6: The current referral process does not fit with the operational imperatives of the referring agencies or the business needs of the Access Program.

Referrals to the Access Program need to be made by Centrelink or JSA Providers. DES Providers, YC Providers and CDEP can also refer directly to the Access Program. It is at this stage that an initial assessment of eligibility is undertaken by these agencies before any job seeker can participate in the Access Program. The term “referral” then is a description of a process whereby a potential participant is assessed for eligibility for the Access Program by one of the authorised agencies and recorded as “referred” to the Program.

Analysis of quantitative data (accepted referrals recorded) does not tell the story of the participant journey to the point of referral into the Access Program. Nor does it report the number of unacceptable referrals.

When considering current referral processes, the review found a discrepancy between the quantitative data analysis and the qualitative data analysis.

On the face of it, based on quantitative data, it appears that referrals from the two key agencies, Centrelink and JSA, have decreased slightly since 2009, with some increase in referrals from JSA and decrease in referrals from Centrelink (see Figure 12 below). Recorded referrals from other agencies (such as CDEP and YC) have decreased. The quantitative data does not record unsuccessful referrals.

Figure 12: Accepted Referrals into Access Program by referral source

58% 64% 40%39% 44%

33% 28%

56%

57% 53%

8% 9%

4%

4% 3%

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Acce

pted

Ref

erra

ls

Year

Centrelink JSA Other


In gathering qualitative data, the Review heard that successful Providers relied on their own advertisements and marketing activities to recruit participants, independent of the activities of JSAs or Centrelink. The review heard from a number of Providers that participants were often recruited and then either sent or accompanied by the Access Program Provider to their local JSA or Centrelink to request a referral to the Access Program, in order to comply with the mandatory referral process.

The advice from Brokers, Providers and participants was consistent on this issue. With few exceptions, the sample of Broker and Provider stakeholders interviewed reported that Providers promoted the Access Program and facilitated the referral process for participants independent of the nominated referral agencies. Exceptions were mainly reported by small organisations which provided Employment Services as well as the Access Program and maintained effective links between the two services.

In light of the discrepancy between quantitative and qualitative evidence sources, it was difficult to determine the degree to which available quantitative data (Figure 12 above) or qualitative data could be relied on in assessing the referral process including source of referrals or the process of initiating referrals since the introduction of the 2009-10 incentives.

5.1.6.1 JSA Referrals When a participant is referred to the Access Program and registered as commencing, the participant is suspended from the JSA caseload and all payments for the participant cease. The Department advises that suspension of participants from JSA while engaged in an Access Program was implemented to prevent participants being pulled from Access Program courses in order to comply with JSA requirements. In most cases the JSA does not receive a 13 week outcome payment (there is an opportunity for JSAs to receive a portion of the 13 week outcome payment consisting of the difference between the Broker’s Access Program outcome payment and the amount the JSA would have received). JSAs are also able to claim a 26 week outcome payment for their participants on the Access Program who have remained in employment. Nevertheless the amount likely to be received by a JSA, even in a best case scenario, is significantly less than what would have been received as a payment for an outcome achieved with the participant still on the JSA books. In effect this places the JSA in competition with the Access Program and may influence the referral decisions made by the JSAs.

In 2009, incentives were provided to JSA Providers to encourage referrals to the Access Program. JSA Providers are able to claim an incentive fee of $500 for each participant they refer to the Access Program who achieved an Australian Apprenticeship. This incentive is payable on successful placement into an Apprenticeship. The review noted, based on qualitative data gathered in interviews with Brokers, Providers and other stakeholders that these additional incentives do not appear to be strong enough referral drivers to balance the disincentives which include:

► loss of the service fee due to suspension of clients;► loss of contact with clients while they are participating in the Access Program;► perceived loss of control over the outcome for the participant;► difficulties in re-engaging with clients if they do not complete or do not achieve an

outcome from the Access Program; and► loss of all or part of the outcomes payments that would have fallen due had the JSA

achieved an outcome for a participant.

Anecdotally the review heard from Providers that JSA initiated referrals have not increased as a result of the additional incentives. Other than one or two exceptions, the review heard that JSAs do not routinely refer to the Access Program. Feedback from Access Providers was that JSA referrals were either minimal or included a high proportion of inappropriate participants, including those seeking registration in order to comply with Employment Pathways requirements. Large organisations which manage the Access Program and JSA noted that there were difficulties achieving internal referrals between the Programs.


On the basis of qualitative and quantitative data it seems that removal of the $500 incentive is not likely to impact negatively on total numbers of referrals from JSA if this is implemented in conjunction with the opening up of referrals to other organisations.

5.1.6.2 DES ReferralsVery few DES referrals are recorded on AccessOnline, and feedback was that these referrals are bundled with JSA referrals, as they are also processed through the Employment Services System (ESS). In interview, DES Program managers noted that disincentives for DES to refer to the Access Program include the concern that participants with disability will not receive adequate support from the Access Program coupled with the suspension from DES after four weeks, which effectively removes the incentive or funding for DES Providers to continue to support their clients in the Access Program.

5.1.6.3 Centrelink ReferralsThe demand on Centrelink services leads to a strong focus on supporting the immediate and complex service needs of customers and minimising waiting times for customers. Centrelink stakeholders noted several challenges to their staff making referrals to the Access Program. These included:

► limited time and staff capacity to assist customers in assessing their goals and capability and to make appropriate referrals (including to the Access Program);

► difficulty in keeping track of the large amounts of information that might be relevant to their customers (including Access Programs);

► insufficient lead time within which to make referrals (courses are advertised for a minimum of six weeks);

► a perception that the course notification system is slow and difficult to use; and► lack of ongoing connection with local Access Program Providers.

With the reliance on Providers to advertise and market their courses, the review found that most Access Providers do not receive or expect many referrals initiated solely from Centrelink (i.e. that are not initiated by the Provider themselves). There is a view held by Providers that the requirement to advertise the course for a minimum of 6 weeks was in response to Centrelink requirements. Some Access Providers expressed the opinion that this six week waiting period put some enrolments at risk (due to a delay between participants expressing interest and the course commencing) and did not appear to result in additional referrals from Centrelink.

There were examples provided of good referral relationships between Centrelink and the local Access Program. Good referral relationships appear to depend on a strong commitment by both parties to maintaining contact and communicating regularly about courses. Centrelink stakeholders noted the value of regular information sessions by Providers and access to up-to-date and attractive marketing material on courses being offered.

5.1.6.4 Referral options

Potentially, referrals to the Access Program could be made by any organisation and could include referrals through industry groups or self-referrals in response to Access Program advertising. This removes dependence on Employment Services for referrals and potentially extends the range of possible participants, including those with greater levels of disadvantage. While referrals could be made by any organisation, eligibility can only be assessed by an agency with access to the personal information required to establish eligibility. This includes Centrelink, JSA, DES and Youth Connections. Eligibility is linked to, but a separate issue from, suitability. Suitability (including aptitude and desire for an Australian Apprenticeship) can be assessed by the Provider but Providers cannot assess eligibility. A possible solution to the issue of establishing eligibility would be to rely on Centrelink to undertake an eligibility assessment, in a “tick the box” format, during the initial enrolment period as part of the overall assessment of a participant for suitability to the Program.


Recommendation 5The Department should consider :

► removing the requirement for referrals to the Access Program to come only through JSA, Centrelink, DES, Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) and Youth Connections (YC), while retaining the requirement for an eligibility assessment to be obtained through one of these agencies;

► extending opportunities to make referrals to the Access Program to a broader range of stakeholders, such as those within the Australian Apprenticeships system;

► removing the $500 incentive payment to JSA.

5.2 Support during the life of the Access Program

5.2.1 Finding 7: Barriers to participation are partially addressed by the Access Program; however there are systemic barriers to supporting participants with additional challenges.

Although Access Program Providers generally address immediate barriers, such as access to personal protective equipment (PPE), supplementary tickets or transport to courses, the barriers related to disadvantage, life situations, disability or culture are less easily addressed. By its nature, the Access Program should be supporting participants with additional needs to enter an Australian Apprenticeship pathway; however, the review did not find a systematic approach to ensuring specialist support is available for these participants. Some Providers advised that they assist participants with more complex needs, but not all Providers do so.

Some of the challenges for participants relate directly to their technical and employability skills (for example language, numeracy or literacy barriers, understanding of workplace behaviour, personal presentation or technical knowledge). Others relate to socioeconomic disadvantage and/or other factors such as legal issues, psychosocial issues, disability, mental illness and alcohol and drug use). Interviews with Brokers, Providers and participants identified barriers to participation and reasons for ceasing the Access Program which include, but are not limited to:

► personal circumstances that prevent participants from completing the course (for example child minding duties);

► psychosocial issues (for example drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues);► lack of participant desire and motivation;► obtaining a job during the training phase;► inappropriate referrals;► not meeting participant expectations during the work placement phase;► limited transportation to the training course and work placement; and► participants needing more one-on-one assistance to address specific issues.

Support provided to participants in the Access Program is tailored to their specific needs and the review saw common examples of support that included:

► transport support (for example collecting participants from the local train station); ► provision of training programs within school hours for parents with young children;► purchase of PPE and/or industry specific uniforms through funding accessed from the

participant’s JSA Provider using the Employment Pathway Fund (EPF) or provided by the Access Provider; and

► language, literacy, and numeracy support.

The examples of support listed above do not necessarily address the complex personal challenges and barriers facing participants.


5.2.1.1 Participants with additional challengesCurrently more participants with higher levels of disadvantage commence the Access program but less of the more disadvantaged participants complete the Program with an outcome achieved (19% in 2010-11 for Category C participants compared to 35% for Category A participants). Even fewer of the most disadvantaged participants achieve an Australian Apprenticeship (refer Figure 13 below).

Figure 13: Outcome Rate by APPC (2010-11)

22%

18%

8%6% 5%

3%

7% 9% 8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

A B C

Outc

ome /

Com

men

cem

ents

APPC


This data does not capture the proportion of disadvantaged participants who are not accepted for enrolment in the Access Program. Participants with higher levels of disadvantage bring with them a set of challenges that require targeted and skilled approaches to engaging with them and keeping them engaged throughout the training, job search, post-placement period, and beyond. Participants who are part of the priority target group and are facing additional hurdles, which might lie outside the capacity of the Access Provider, include but are not limited to:

► people with disability;► young people with behavioural or attention problems; and ► Indigenous Australians.

Support required to retain the most disadvantaged participants in the Access Program might include tailored mentoring, provision of specific aids and appliances, and access to modified or concurrent language and literacy support. There is evidence, based on case studies, that mentoring increases the likelihood of engagement in further education for students with disadvantage, including those experiencing social disadvantage and/or disabilities19. There are various ways in which mentoring could be provided, for example in the UK volunteer employer mentors are matched with 14-16 year old young people at school with the aim of supporting them to guiding them in making longer term career decisions 20. This model could be adapted and provide another means by which Access Program participants engage with employers. The length of time during which mentoring or other support is available may need to be extended for those students with significant disadvantage21.

19 Little, P., (2011) "Creating an inclusive apprenticeship offer", Technical paper. Department for Education and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills United Kingdom, accessed online at http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/~/media/documents/AU-CreatingAnInclusiveApprenticeshipOffer-Report-May2012.ashx 20 NLAO, Employment and Training provision for those most disadvantaged in the labour market and the role of the Local Authority: National report on the role of employment and training services for the active inclusion of people furthest away from the labour market, accessed online at http://tse.two-seas.eu/filelib/file/4974nlao_employmentandtraining_ukreport.pdf 21 Curtis D, Drummond A, Halsey J, Lawson J. (2012) "Peer mentoring of students in rural and low SES- schools: increasing aspiration for higher education" ,Research Report 2012


http://tse.two-seas.eu/filelib/file/4974nlao_employmentandtraining_ukreport.pdf

http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/~/media/documents/AU-CreatingAnInclusiveApprenticeshipOffer-Report-May2012.ashx


The review did observe situations where DES or YC were providing ongoing support to their clients while attending an Access Program. This support, in the case of a DES Provider, was provided with no funding attached to it, as participants are suspended from DES after four weeks, while in the Access Program. The review also saw an example of ongoing mentoring provided to Indigenous participants that exceeded the mandatory level and was voluntarily provided in response to an identified need. This mentoring commenced before participants were enrolled in the Access Program and continued informally after their placement.

Such examples of mentoring, however, were uncommon. There are many reasons why this might be the case. The caseloads of organisations such as DES or YC may work against them being able to offer ongoing support when a client is perceived to be safely in the hands of another agency. In the case of DES Providers, there is no funding attached to providing ongoing support. There may not be an identified position to provide support to Indigenous participants. Access Providers may not always actively seek support from these agencies.

Generally speaking, most stakeholders agreed the abovementioned participant groups require additional support to increase the likelihood of them completing the Access Program and achieving an Australian Apprenticeship. The logical source of this support would be the agency that has been working with them up to the point of their entry into the Access Program. It may be necessary for Providers to actively engage with these agencies to address some of the retention issues for participants with higher levels of disadvantage, who may find full-time attendance at a training program challenging.

During the stakeholder consultation, Providers discussed the significant challenge that regular attendance and a regimented routine presents to some participants. Providers may need support in developing programs that will be flexible enough to build commitment, and attractive enough to encourage retention for more disadvantaged participants. A recent study identified that this is an area of concern to Providers in the UK also22.


► formalising the requirement for provision of additional support such as:

► provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or tickets and licences to support increased employability of participants;

► provision of aids and appliances to support participants with disability;

► working with the Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) to remove the current suspension of DES clients after the first 4 weeks to enable continued support through, for example, the purchase of aids and appliances or additional mentoring by their DES Provider while they are attending the Access Program;

► making explicit the expectation that Access Brokers will require Providers to actively engage with and seek ongoing involvement from specialist support services which do not have their relationship suspended when their client enters the Access Program. Examples might include YC and Indigenous support agencies;

► including in the Access Program model an intensive mentoring component for those participants with additional needs;

► including in the Access Program model a more intensive support component for employers who engage a participant with additional needs.

22 NIACE (2011), Report on the NIACE survey of providers delivering skills provision for unemployed adults including young people aged 19 to 24 not in education, employment or training (NEET), NIAC & BIS, UK, accessed online at http://www.niace.org.uk/current-work/learning-for-unemployed-adult-learners


http://www.niace.org.uk/current-work/learning-for-unemployed-adult-learners

5.3 Funding model for the Access ProgramAs previously mentioned in this report, Access Program Brokers receive payments for the following achievements as stipulated in their Funding Agreements:

► Participants’ course commencements (claimable after five days of consecutive attendance by a participant);

► Participants’ completion of training; and► Participants’ successful achievement of an outcome.

These payments to Access Program Brokers are differentiated based on the participants’ APPC as outlined in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6: Commencement and Completion Payment by APPC

Achievement APPC

Category A Category B Category CCommencement for five consecutive course days

$1,600 $1,600 $1,600

Completion of training $100 $500 $500

Table 7: Outcome payment by APPC

Outcome Type APPC

Category A Category B Category CAustralian Apprenticeship on the Skilled Occupation List

$4,000 $4,200 $4,400

Other Australian Apprenticeships (not on the Skilled Occupation List)

$3,000 $3,200 $3,400

Full Time Employment $900 $1,000 $1,500

Part time Employment or Further Education and Training

$0 $500 $1,000

Finding 8: The funding model does not take into account variations in costs and outcomes of the Access Program across Australia nor does it include CPI increases.Reports from Brokers and Providers indicated that they consider the outcome payments for the Access Program have not increased in line with costs of delivering the Access Program. A number of Providers consider the commencement and completion payments for pre-vocational training courses do not adequately cover their costs, particularly if they do not achieve an outcome.

The relative importance of increased training costs is more likely to be an issue in non-metropolitan regions, where outcomes that attract a higher payment are less likely to be achieved. Balancing this, one non-metropolitan Provider in a large regional area commented that the organisation generally makes a loss on training, which they then recover on receipt of outcomes payments for Apprenticeships. This particular organisation self-reported a high rate of Apprenticeship outcomes.


The payment structure for the Access Program is designed to encourage a model of practice that will achieve outcomes for participants, and the review would be reluctant to recommend a change in payments that supported more focus on training and less on job search support and post-placement support. Nevertheless, there are potential changes to the funding model that might support the continuation of the Access Program in non-metropolitan areas. These might include establishing a funding model for non-metropolitan regions, that matches suggested amendments to outcomes targets.

Recommendation 7The Department should consider regular review of Access Program payments to align them with CPI increases.

Finding 9: The funding model does not fully recognise the additional costs associated with supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers to gain an Australian Apprenticeship.The issue of how to best support the most vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers has been addressed earlier in this report (refer Finding 7). Finding 9 addresses the implications for the funding model of supporting this group of jobseekers to gain and maintain an Australian Apprenticeship.

Considering the degree of difference in capacity and capability that might exist between a Category A participant and a Category C participant, the difference in outcomes payments for an Australian Apprenticeship seems relatively small. If the aim of the Access Program is to assist disadvantaged jobseekers to enter a skills pathway, then those participants who are most disadvantaged will need more intensive effort, over a longer period of time, particularly in the Post-placement period. The review heard consistently from Providers that preferred participants in the Access Program were those who could achieve an outcome within the current timeframes which are linked to payments. Data analysis showed that Category C participants are significantly less likely to achieve an outcome than Category A participants.

Category C participants are those with the highest level of disadvantage, yet this group might include people who would be suitable for an Apprenticeship if they remained in the Access Program for longer, were specifically targeted with appropriate training methods, allowed to return to the Access Program in under twelve months and supported in addressing the additional challenges they face in achieving employability.

The question for the Access Program is: Are Category C participants in the target population for the Access Program? If the answer is yes, then changes may need to be made to the funding model in order to accommodate their additional needs.

There may also be some justification to exempt Stream 3 and 4 participants from the 12 month exclusion period activated when a participant leaves the Access Program. The challenges faced by this cohort increase their likelihood of starting, leaving and re-starting the Access Program, as recognised already by the 26 week support period currently allowed to Category C participants.

In addition, consideration could be given to weighting costs and outcomes payments to the expected cost and effort associated with retaining more disadvantaged job-seekers in the Access Program and supporting them for an extended post-placement period.

This change needs to be carefully balanced so that perverse incentives to exclude participants with lesser support needs are not created.


Recommendation 8Given the focus on targeting those participants most suited to a careers pathway through an Australian Apprenticeship, including those with higher levels of disadvantage, the Access Program funding model may need to be adjusted to better reflect the effort required to support the most disadvantaged and vulnerable jobseekers. This might include:

► a greater differentiation in reward payments between outcomes achieved for jobseekers classified as JSA Stream 1 and outcomes achieved for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers (JSA Stream 3 or 4);

► additional funding for purchase of special support such as one to one mentoring and/or extended post-placement support;

► capacity for Stream 3 or 4 participants to re-enter the Access Program within 12 months in order to support a stepped approach to employability and skills development.

5.3.1 Finding 10: The capacity to maximise synergies between the Access Program and related Government Programs is limited by competitive funding models, and local barriers such as lack of effective local networking.

The review noted a range of Australian Government Programs that could directly or indirectly enhance the effectiveness of the Access Program; however the capacity to maximise synergies between Programs is limited by competitive funding models, lack of knowledge about the Access Program and/or limited connections between Programs. The Access Program intersects with multiple government Programs as well as industry and employer groups. Figure 14 (below) provides a representative view of the complexity of the system that the Access Program operates within.

Figure 14: Relationships with other Programs

Access

DES

State Programs

YC

Industry & Employers

RESJ & LEC

Centrelink

IEP

CDEP

AAC

TAFE

Universities

JSA

Connection with Access

Education Providers

Relationship closest with Access

Key current referring relationships

Each of the Programs described below has the potential to enhance or reduce the effectiveness of the Access Program.


5.3.1.1 Job Services AustraliaFor the purposes of this review, there are two main Employment Service provider groups that relate to the Access Program. These are JSA and DES. Most Brokers interviewed for the review are also JSA and often DES Providers. Within the larger organisations this does not in itself guarantee a productive working relationship, as there are indications of internal competition or just lack of awareness of the Access Program in the much larger JSA components of some large organisations.

The review was advised by the Department that the suspension of participants from JSA while engaged in an Access Program was established to prevent participants being pulled from Access Program courses in order to comply with JSA requirements. The cessation of service fees and potential loss of income from outcomes payments to JSAs appears to be a strong disincentive to refer to the Access Program. Although JSA are still able to claim the 26 week outcome payment for their clients, they can only claim (if at all) a small proportion of the 13 week payment. Addressing this issue may be outside the remit of this review. However attention can be paid to the $500 incentive payment. The review found little evidence both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective that the $500 incentive payment, made a difference in referring behaviour.

5.3.1.2 Disability Employment ServicesDES supports a specific population with high support needs, some of whom might be suitable for the Access Program. When jobseekers with a disability are accepted into the Access Program they are suspended from DES services after a period of four weeks. In effect this removes their access to specialised support and mentoring throughout the training, job search and post-placement period and acts as a disincentive for them to attempt the Access Program, as well as a disincentive for DES to refer to the Access Program.

Access Providers observed that they do not necessarily have the funding, skills and capacity to provide the degree of support to participants with disabilities that might be required for them to successfully complete the Access Program. The funding that might have been available to Access Program participants in this situation to support their additional needs is no longer accessible if they were suspended from DES. There may be an argument for removing the requirement for suspension and enabling DES Providers access to a limited funds pool to support their clients while they are participating in the Access Program. This support might include aids and appliances or mentoring.

5.3.1.3 Australian Apprenticeship Support This is primarily provided through Australian Apprenticeship Centres (AAC). AACs are currently the most reliable and identified source of information on the incentives and processes for Australian Apprenticeships. Links with AACs for this purpose alone would provide dividends for Providers in terms of being able to access up to date information on Australian Apprenticeships for their participants and employers. In some cases Access Program Brokers are also AACs and use the information provided by this arm of their business to improve the effectiveness of their interactions with potential employers, referrers and participants. Once participants in the Access Program are employed in an Australian Apprenticeship, they enter the domain of the AAC and are able to access the same information provided to all apprentices and employers.

The Apprenticeships for the 21st Century Expert Panel Report notes a 48 percent completion rate for Apprenticeships overall23. What is not known, and would be useful to know, is the retention rate of apprentices who entered via the Access Program compared to those who entered by more traditional pathways. Obtaining this information would require a system marker, which is currently not in place on the system managed by AAC.

23 Apprenticeships for the 21st Century Expert Panel Paper January 2011, commissioned for the Commonwealth of Australia, 2011. Accessed online at: http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/experts/default.asp


http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/experts/default.asp

Some Brokers report making good use of AAC and work collaboratively with them to ensure employers and participants have up to date and relevant information on Apprenticeships, including employer incentives. AAC are viewed by these Providers as an excellent source of information about local industry and as an important link with employers. This is not consistent though and there is not a systematic link between the Access Program and AAC that would automatically position AAC as a conduit to market the Access Program to employers and industry.

5.3.1.4 Youth Connections The first priority of YC is to re-engage young people with the school system. Where this is not possible, YC could be a natural partner for the Access Program, as long as the course offered related to this age group. An example of this is demonstrated by Marist Youth Centre, in Victoria (see Case Study below).

YC Providers do not have to suspend services for their clients if they participate in the Access Program. Theoretically they could continue to provide support while the young person was attending Access Program training and during the job search and post-placement period.

The review observed less engagement between the Access Program and YC than might have been expected. This appears to be due to several factors. YC Providers pointed out that a proportion of their clients have intense support needs and are not ready for training or job placement activities, particularly where training was classroom training.

The high level of support required by many YC clients would suggest that the support provided by YC should continue throughout the Access Program; however there were indications from Providers that this was not the case and that enrolment in the Access Program corresponded with a drop off in support from YC.

5.3.1.5 Language, Literacy, Numeracy Program (LLNP) Language, literacy and numeracy issues exist for many participants in the Access Program and there was a natural connection between the two Programs. Some Providers include language, literacy and numeracy assistance as part of the course, but with no direct link with LLNP. Where Brokers are also LLNP Providers, the review observed good examples of Providers accessing LLNP on behalf of participants, particularly those with language barriers. Note: This program will transition to the Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) Program in 2013-14.


Case Study: Links with Youth Connections: Marist Youth Centre (MYC) is a non-profit organisation with operations in Sydney and Melbourne. As part of their Melbourne Skills Development Centre, MYC facilitated an ACCESS program that commenced in November 2012. Targeting young people most as risk in our community, the program provided accredited training and employment pathways for participants.

The majority of referrals for the program were received from YC providers. The training provided participants with an introduction to Construction and Bricklaying, with the objective of placing the participants into an Australian Apprenticeship. During the training, two dedicated Youth Workers were available onsite to provide assistance during class and attend the classes as observers in addition to the trade qualified trainer.

MYC have engaged with Aplus, AFL Sports Ready, MEGT, Apprenticeships Melbourne who are Group Training Organisations and Australian Apprenticeship Centre who have aided in placing these participants in an Apprenticeship and are assisting in sourcing employment opportunities for the remaining trainees.

MYC has had repeat referrals from YC providers that referred to the first program.

Feedback from the YC providers has been excellent and through word of mouth, MYC has made contact other more YC providers in surrounding suburbs to Brunswick that are interested in referring to the program.

5.3.1.6 Indigenous Employment Program (IEP) The IEP is able to Broker funds to purchase specific assistance for Indigenous jobseekers. In some cases this includes training Programs, which might be provided by the same RTOs that provide the Access Program. While there could be opportunities for synergy between the two Programs (for example through IEP supporting Indigenous participants through funding mentoring activities), there is also potential for duplication or competition between the two Programs.

5.3.1.7 State and Territory ProgramsAt various times, State and Territory Programs are developed specifically to address the skills development needs of vulnerable and disadvantaged jobseekers. Although these Programs tend to focus on pre-vocational and vocational training rather than training combined with job search and post-placement support, they were nevertheless generally viewed as competitive to the Access Program. An example is the Western Australian Workforce Participation Program Work Readiness and Equity Program which aims to promote work readiness and facilitate entry level participation in the workforce for the unemployed and those who may experience barriers. Other examples of current State/Territory Programs that overlap the Access Program or impact on the performance of the Access Program are described in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Related State and Territory Programs

State/Territory

Program Brief Description

NSW Smart and Skilled Program (effective July 2014)

Aims to deliver high quality training that is relevant to industry so that more people can gain skills that enable them to participate productively in the workforce. It will also expand the skills of NSW workforce to meet future demand for jobs. The Program will provide:► an entitlement to government subsidised training up to and including

Certificate III qualifications for eligible individuals;► funding for higher level training and skill sets in priority areas;► informed choice with improved quality measures;► recognition of the role and function of TAFE NSW as the public Provider;► greater support for regions and equity groups; and► better information for consumers.

Victoria Victorian Training Guarantee – A Skills for Victoria Program

Entitlement to making vocation and training more accessible to people who do not hold a post-school qualification, or who want to gain a higher level qualification than they already hold. Participants that may be eligible must meet resident requirement. In addition participants must meet the following age requirements:► a young person under 20 years; or► over 20 years of age and undertaking recognised training in a Foundation skills

course; or► over 20 years of age and undertaking recognised training in a course that is at a

higher qualification level than the highest qualification held at the time of the scheduled commencement of training.

SA Skills for All Program

Aims to increase skill levels, lift workplace participation and increase productivity by offering training for existing workers and those trying to break into the workforce.All South Australians aged 16 years and above are eligible. The amount of funding available is linked to the level and type of qualification sought, as well as to the State’s priorities. This includes:► Certificate I and Certificate II courses, as well as priority courses in areas such

as Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) courses which are fee free.

► Qualifications at Certificate III level and above receive significant funding. At these levels, students or their employers contribute to the course fee.

► Concessions are available from Certificate III to Advanced Diploma level qualifications for eligible students.

WA Workforce Participation Program Work Readiness and Equity

Aims to promote work readiness and facilitate entry level participation in the workforce has been combined with the previous Access Program’s funding to create the Workforce Participation Program. The Program contains two streams:1. Work Readiness – focuses on training for groups under-represented in the

workforce including the unemployed or those who are under employed, casual or part time workers seeking full time work, those returning to work and youth under Notices of Arrangements seeking training to enter the workforce.

2. Equity – focuses on training for those groups who may experience barriers in


State/Territory

Program Brief Description

their personal circumstances that prevent them from accessing mainstream training Programs.

Strategies for addressing literacy and numeracy issues in these Programs include the Course in Applied Vocation Study Skills (CAVSS).

ACT Priorities Support Programs

Aims to provide access to training opportunities for people who cannot readily access, or who do not have a high chance of success in, other government funded training Programs.For such participants, barriers to access and success may include: cultural difference, physical or mental disability, length of time since previous education and training, lack of success in previous education, literacy and/or numeracy levels which are inadequate to support participation in other formal education and training and lack of emotional readiness and confidence to undertake formal education and training.Funding for this Program is available for Certificate I, II and III qualifications on the Priorities Support Program Qualifications 2013 List, (a subset of the ACT Industry Training Needs 2011-2012 list), and for skill sets from those qualifications.

In some cases, State/Territory Programs offer a higher level of training or additional incentives for Providers or participants, which could enhance, complement or compete with the Access Program. Areas where these programs compete might include offering a full Certificate II or Certificate III without a work experience component. Training to Certificate II level or Certificate III level, without practical experience, appears less attractive to employers and therefore less likely to lead to an Apprenticeship. However achievement of a full Certificate II (or a Certificate III) can exclude a potential participant from entry into the Access Program, where that participant would have received on-the-job experience as well as training.

Some Providers informed the review that the attractiveness of the Access Program for employers is the work-based element, providing the participant with practical experience prior to entering into an Apprenticeship. The Review heard that at times the possession of a full Certificate II, coupled with on-the-job training, may be an additional incentive for an employer seeking apprentices but the on-the-job component is critical.


► disseminating examples of best practice across the Access Program to encourage proactive networking with other Programs;

► requiring formalised relationships with other Australian Apprenticeships support services, including Australian Apprenticeship Centres (AAC) as a mandatory element of the Access Program in order to maximise links with the overall Australian Apprenticeships Program. These relationships might include establishment of referral processes and information provision to employers and participants in the Access Program.

Recommendations 5 and 6 should be considered in the light of Finding 10

5.3.2 Finding 11: The funding model rewards Australian Apprenticeship outcomes, however the balance between payments for training and outcomes needs to be carefully monitored.

The funding model differentiates between Australian Apprenticeships and other outcomes, which could be used by Brokers to drive Provider performance. However, many Providers are focused on receiving funds for training activities and consider training costs to be insufficiently recognised.


Funding for the Access Program is a mix of output and outcome based payments. Payments reward placement in an Australian Apprenticeship and are made to Brokers on the basis of:

► initial notional budget allocation for commencements (generally reviewed twice per financial year and revised based on performance);

► training completion of an Access Program course based on participant’s APPC; and► an outcome by participant’s APPC and outcome type as follows:

► an Australian Apprenticeship (traditional trade or traineeship) on the Skilled Occupation List;

► other Australian Apprenticeships (not on the Skilled Occupation List);► full time employment; and ► part time employment or further education and training.

5.3.2.1 Using funding to drive behaviourAccess Brokers have contractual arrangements with Access Providers that should mirror the intent of the funding model. These contractual arrangements are treated as commercial in confidence by most Brokers and were not made available to the review. There were some examples given of Access Brokers driving the behaviour of Access Providers through conditional release of funds (for example withholding outcome payments unless a specified percentage of outcomes were achieved). This is not always the case and some Providers appeared more focused on the payments made for commencement and completion of training rather than funding that would result from successful placement of a participant in an Australian Apprenticeship. Ultimately it is the responsibility of Brokers to manage this situation in order to achieve the Access Program’s intended outcomes.

There is a disincentive for participants to be released from the Access Program to an Apprenticeship or employment before the completion of training, as the completion payment is not made in these cases. There is a sound reason for not making the payment under these circumstances as this discourages enrolment of work ready participants at the expense of those in genuine need of the Access Program. There were, however, examples given of Providers not receiving completion payments despite having incurred most of the expense of providing the training.

While it must be noted that the majority of the payment for training is made at commencement with a smaller payment at training completion, this situation has the potential to lead to a perverse incentive to retain participants rather than release them to an employer. This is a version of the “locked-in” risk attached to AMLPs such as job-related training, whereby these Programs work against participants achieving employment outcomes by locking them into a Program.

The waiver system provides a means of resolving anomalous situations such as this. This situation may require more flexible application of waivers where it can be demonstrated that the achievement of an early outcome is the direct result of the investment made by the Broker or Provider in training and preparation of the participant.

Recommendation 10: (Cross reference to Recommendation 8).

The Department should consider:

► strengthening the requirement for Access Brokers to provide focussed and intensive job search and post-placement support as part of their core offering to participants. Manage this through contractual requirements between Brokers and the Department;

► encouraging the dissemination of models of delivery that encourage outcomes oriented behaviour by Providers and promoting these as examples of best practice;

► partial outcome payment for those released from the Access Program prior to the completion of the training.


5.4 Reporting and Monitoring

5.4.1 Finding 12: Monitoring and reporting systems do not enable comprehensive reporting on Access Program performance. The points at which outcomes are recorded do not align with the outcome measurement points of related Programs, hence limiting the capacity for meaningful comparison between Programs.

5.4.1.1 Access Program reportingThe information systems supporting Access Program reporting are effective in managing contractual relationships and measuring outcomes for the purposes of compliance with the funding model. However the capacity to measure Access Program performance in detail is limited by the following:

► system capacity to provide more granular reporting, in light of its current performance reporting capacity. Currently a detailed analysis requires manual manipulation of data. This also limits the capacity to measure trends in performance, particularly when comparing across the two systems (AIMS and AccessOnline); and

► different points for measurement of outcomes for the Access Program and other related Programs. The review was advised that comparisons with other Australian Government Programs could not be made because the Programs measure the same outcomes (for example, percentage achievement of employment or percentage dropout rates) at different points from the date of commencement in the respective Programs.

In addition, the capacity to classify courses by industry was not available, limiting the ability to cross reference industry types against outcomes. This information could assist the Department in understanding the cohorts of participants most likely to achieve outcomes in specific industries and support better targeting of courses to participants.


► aligning Access Program measurement points so that valid comparisons can be made between the performance of the Access Program and other Programs. For example, current anomalies in the time between entry into the Program and measurement of an outcome for JSA and Access Program should be reviewed;

► determining a set of reports that might be required for ongoing monitoring of the Access Program and addressing, where economically feasible, some of the current reporting deficits in AccessOnline. Suggested reports might include (by age, gender and geography):

► industry to which courses relate;

► breakdown of Apprenticeship outcomes by industry;

► breakdown between part-time employment and further education.


6. ConclusionThis Final Report of the review of the Access Program describes a program that is valued by those who deliver it and those who have achieved positive outcomes as a result of their engagement with it. The Report finds that the Access Program has noteworthy goals of increasing opportunities for disadvantaged jobseekers to embark on a skills pathway and also increasing the national skills set. It is an effective mechanism for addressing the workforce skills and participation rate, key to responding to structural changes taking place in Australia’s economy. Skills development, in particular, is one of the best ways to help people who risk being displaced in a changing labour market. It fosters resilience and flexibility in our ever changing labour market and provides individuals with an insurance policy against unemployment. Skills development drives productivity, and it is the essence of innovation.

The differentiator for this Program from other Programs that seek similar outcomes is the combination of a disadvantaged and vulnerable target cohort and the goal of a skills-based, career-oriented outcome for this cohort, providing an opportunity for those who would not otherwise participate in the economy and increase the human/social capital through an Australian Apprenticeship or employment. Overall the findings highlight areas of the Access Program that can be better focussed and strengthened in order to maximise chances of outcomes for Australian Apprenticeships. A series of recommendations has been suggested for consideration by the Department, hence designed to address areas for improvement identified in the Review.


Appendix A ReferencesAdams, A. (2012), The role of skills development in overcoming social disadvantage (2011), Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012 accessed online at www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/gmr2012-ED-EFA-MRT-PI-04.pdf

Anderson, K., Brophy, M., Mc Neil, B. And Potter, D. (2009), Opening the door to apprenticeships – Reaching young people who are disadvantaged and disengaged from apprenticeships. Paper1: Setting the scene, The Local wellbeing Project, UK accessed online at http://www.youngfoundation.or/files/images/Opening_the_door_to_Apprenticeships.pdf

Apprenticeships for the 21st Century Expert Panel Paper January 2011, commissioned for the Commonwealth of Australia, 2011. Accessed online at: http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/experts/default.asp

Boone, J. & Van Ours, J., (2004), Effective Labour Market Policies, Discussion Paper No. 1335, Provisional Paper prepared for the IZA, Bonn, Germany

Collura, J. (2010). Best Practices for Youth Employment Programs: A Synthesis of Current Research. What Works, Wisconsin Research to Practice Series, 9. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison/Extension

Commonwealth of Australia (2009), 2009-10 Mid Year Economic Fiscal Outlook, accessed online at http://www.budget.gov.au/2009 - 10/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (2012), 2012-13 Mid Year Economic Fiscal Outlook, accessed online at http://www.budget.gov.au/2012 - 13/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (2011), Skills for Prosperity – a roadmap for VET, Skills Australia, accessed online at http://www.awpa.gov.au/our-work/tertiary-sector-reform/documents/SkillsProsperityRoadmap.pdf

Curtis D, Drummond A, Halsey J, Lawson J., (2012) "Peer mentoring of students in rural and low SES- schools: increasing aspiration for higher education", Research Report 2012

Eurofound (2012), NEETs – Young people not in employment, education or training: Characteristics, costs and policy responses in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, accessed online at www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf

European Commission, Europe 2020 accessed online at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020

International Labour Office (2008) Skills for Improved Productivity, Employment Growth and Development, Report V, International Labour Conference, 97th Session

Little, P., (2011) "Creating an inclusive apprenticeship offer", Technical paper. Department for Education and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills United Kingdom, accessed online at http://www.apprenticeships.org.uk/~/media/documents/AU-CreatingAnInclusiveApprenticeshipOffer-Report-May2012.ashx

Meager, N., (2008) The Role of Training and Skills Development in Active Labour Market Policies, IES Working Paper: WP15, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, UK, accessed online at http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pdflibrary/wp15.pdf





http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/54/en/1/EF1254EN.pdf



http://www.budget.gov.au/201213/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf

http://www.budget.gov.au/200910/content/myefo/download/02_Part_2.pdf

http://www.australianapprenticeships.gov.au/experts/default.asp

http://www.youngfoundation.or/files/images/Opening_the_door_to_Apprenticeships.pdf


NIACE (2011), Report on the NIACE survey of providers delivering skills provision for unemployed adults including young people aged 19 to 24 not in education, employment or training (NEET), NIAC & BIS, UK, accessed online at http://www.niace.org.uk/current-work/learning-for-unemployed-adult-learners

NLAO, Employment and Training provision for those most disadvantaged in the labour market and the role of the Local Authority: National report on the role of employment and training services for the active inclusion of people furthest away from the labour market, accessed online at http://tse.two-seas.eu/filelib/file/4974nlao_employmentandtraining_ukreport.pdf

Toner P. and Woolley R. (2007) Evaluation of Pre-Vocational Training, NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training, accessed online at: http://www.bvet.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Pre_Voc_report.pdf

Wren, T (2011), Lifting participation and employment for disadvantaged job seekers: Demand-led and Supply-Sensitive Reforms, A paper for the ACOSS 2011 National Conference by Toni Wren, accessed online at: http://toniwren.com/attachments/ACOSSConfFinal2011.pdf


http://toniwren.com/attachments/ACOSSConfFinal2011.pdf

http://www.bvet.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Pre_Voc_report.pdf

http://tse.two-seas.eu/filelib/file/4974nlao_employmentandtraining_ukreport.pdf

http://www.niace.org.uk/current-work/learning-for-unemployed-adult-learners

Appendix B Evaluation QuestionsThe following templates were used as the basis for interviews and focus groups, however each interview was semi-structured and allowed for flexibility in the application of specific questions.

Base Evaluation questions – Brokers and Providers

Evaluation Question Suggested Interview Questions

1. How effective is the program in providing an apprenticeship pathway to skilled employment for vulnerable job seekers?

Provision Are Brokers and Providers providing courses and support as intended? How does Access work in your service?Who do you think are the participant best suited to and most likely to benefit from Access?

Use Has the program been accessed by and is it accessible to the intended target population? Is there an unmet demand from populations that are not in the target population?

Who is accessing the program in your areas?Are there people who are missing out?

2. How effectively has the program interacted with other Australian Government Programs, including Employment Services and Australian Apprenticeship support services?

Funding Are there funding overlaps with other programs? How does the funding for this program intersect with the funding for other programs?Does the funding make this program more or less attractive than other programs?

Use Have additional incentives to (for example Job Search Australia) resulted in increased and appropriate referrals to the program?Have referrals been received from Job Search, CDEP, Disability Employment, Youth Connection, Language. Literacy and Numeracy Program and in what proportion?

Who do you receive referrals from?Do you receive as many referrals as you would expect?Has this changed since the new incentives were introduced?What do you think are the drivers for referral to the program?

3. What has been the impact on this program of Australian Government, State and/or Territory programs delivering similar programs to similar participants?

Funding Are there funding overlaps with other programs? Are there overlaps in target population with other programs?How does this shape how you work with individual participants?

Provision Is there overlap in provision – are there gaps? Do programs provided share a common Refer above



population?

Use Is there overlap in participants across different programs – are people receiving the same service from more than one program?

Refer above

4. How effective has the program been in meeting local labour market needs, identifying skilled employment opportunities, and supporting and assisting vulnerable job seekers to meet the skill needs of industry and employers?

Provision How have the three elements of the program been targeted to local labour market, participant characteristics and local training opportunities?

How do you decide what training programs to run or to book participants into?How do you determine which employers you will work with?

► Industry?► Location?► Readiness to participate?► History?

Use Has the target population been accessing the program? Have local employers been accessing the program?

Which local employers are using the program?Can you tell us why they are using the program?Are there examples of employers who have chosen not to use the program?Did they say why?

Outcomes How many participants have transitioned into Apprenticeships or Australian Traineeships that meet market demand? How many employers have recruited and retained participants into Apprenticeships or Australian Traineeships?

Can you give us some information on how many participants have entered an apprenticeship and continued in it?

► Industry?► Participant characteristics?

Monitoring and Reporting

How well do monitoring and reporting protocols capture defined outcomes? What information do you provide on participant outcomes?To whom?

5. What are the barriers for vulnerable job seekers to accessing and participating in the program, including awareness of the program and referral opportunities?

Funding Has funding targeted those most in need of support? Considering the different categories of disadvantage, to what proportion of each have you provided services?Can you tell us about outcomes across the different categories?

Provision How have Providers and Brokers identified and addressed barriers for participants? Can you tell us about the barriers your participants face and how you have helped them overcome these?

Use What do job seekers/ Brokers/ employers view as barriers to jobseekers accessing and participating in the program? How has the program addressed these?

Refer above

6. What has been the relative performance of referral agencies, including the impact



of available incentives and competing programs and priorities?

Funding Have funding incentives increased referrals? Have you noticed a change in referral patterns since the additional incentives for referrers were introduced?

7. How do the answers to the above questions differ in remote and outer regional areas?

Funding What specific funding has been allocated to address remote and outer regional areas? Do you receive different funding for rural and regional areas?

Provision How has the program been provided in remote and outer regional areas? Do you provide services in rural and regional areas?How is this service different from metropolitan areas?

Use How well has the target population been recruited in remote and outer regional areas? How do you access participants in rural and regional areas?

Outcomes What are the differences in outcomes in remote and outer regional areas? Do you get different outcomes in rural and regional areas?What is the difference?

8. How does the existing Funding Model work?

Provision How have funding models affected delivery decisions at the local level? How do your funding arrangements drive the decisions you make?

Monitoring and Reporting

How are funds reported and monitored? How is performance against the three elements of the program reported and monitored?

► Pre-vocational training► Job Search Support► Post-placement support

Can you tell us about how you report activity and outcomes to DIISRTE?


Base Questions – Programs and Stakeholders (employers)




Do you know about the Access Program?What do you think it does?Who do you think the target group are?How do you relate / interact with the program locally?

2. How effectively has the program interacted with other Australian Government Programs, including Employment Services and Australian Apprenticeship support services?

Funding Are there funding overlaps with other programs? Refer below

Use Have additional incentives to (for example Job Search Australia) resulted in increased and appropriate referrals to the program?Have referrals been received from Job Search, CDEP, Disability Employment, Youth Connection, Language. Literacy and Numeracy Program and in what proportion?

If a referrer – what drives your decisions to refer to the Access Program?Can you decide which program among a few that you will refer to?


Provision Is there overlap in provision – are there gaps? Do programs provided share a common population?

Do you think there are overlaps with other programs?Do you consider your programs be complementary or in competition with Access?Are your clients also working with Access?



If you know about Access – how well do you think it is meeting the local labour market needs and skills deficits in your location?What would help this to occur more effectively?

Use Has the target population been accessing the program? Have local employers been accessing the program?

Tailored to stakeholder – How do you work with Access?




Provision How have Providers and Brokers identified and addressed barriers for participants? What do you think are the major barriers for jobseekers in your local area?How do you think Access addresses these program participants?

6. What has been the relative performance of referral agencies, including the impact of available incentives and competing programs and priorities?

Funding Have funding incentives increased referrals? Referrers- What drives your referrals to the program?

7. What would be the best practice models for delivery of the type of services provided by the Access Program Brokers and Providers?

Do you have any ideas about how the program could work better locally?

8. How do the answers to the above questions differ in remote and outer regional areas?

Check rural/ regional differences

9. How does the existing Funding Model work? Refer above


Base questions – Participants




How did you find out about the Access Program?Who referred you to Access? How was Access described to you?

Outcomes How many participants who fit the target group have now taken up an Apprenticeship or Australian Traineeship (industry)?

How much do you think Access assisted you to get this apprenticeship?


Provision Is there overlap in provision – are there gaps? Do programs provided share a common population?

Have you been offered support from other employment or training programs? Which ones? When?



How did the Access program take into account your aspirations and goals?


Provision How have Providers and Brokers identified and addressed barriers for participants? What were the challenges for you in taking part in the Access program?What sort of help did you get to address these issues?

5. What would be the best practice models for delivery of the type of services provided by the Access Program Brokers and Providers?Do you have any ideas on how to improve the Access Program?


Initial Workshop – Internal Stakeholders

► What are the key elements of each your programs?

► How do they each relate to the Access to Apprenticeships Program?

► DES

► RES-J and LECS

► Youth Connection

► JSA

► Let’s talk about referrals to Access from your delivery agencies (where appropriate)

► Are your programs referring more or less to Access than they used to?

► What influences the decisions of agencies to refer to Access?

► How do incentives support or impede referrals to Access?

► Who are the natural competitors in the local communities with Access?

► What have you heard about the Access Program from your stakeholders that you think we should know about?

► How do you think the Access Program relates to other Australian Government programs locally?

► Do you have any examples of places where you think the relationship between your Program and the Access Program work well?

► Do you have any examples of places where you think the relationship between your Program and the Access Program do not work well?

► Do you know of any funding overlaps between your Program and the Access Program?

► Are you aware of any shared KPIs across Programs that Brokers report against?

► Do you have any thoughts on the differences in issues facing Metro vs Non-Metro regions in relation to supporting those seeking an apprenticeship or traineeship?


Ernst & Young

Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About Ernst & YoungErnst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 167,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential.

Ernst & Young refers to the global organisation of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit www.ey.com.

© 2013 Ernst & Young, Australia.All Rights Reserved.

Ernst & Young is a registered trademark. Our report may be relied upon by Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education for the purpose of only pursuant to the terms of our engagement letter dated 21 November 2012. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to the other party or the reliance upon our report by the other party.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Australian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Web viewAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program...

Documents

Transcript of Australian Apprenticeships Access Program Review Web viewAustralian Apprenticeships Access Program...