|
Post by Banjo on Jun 14, 2016 14:57:27 GMT 7
Information received?
("my neighbours mowing his lawn")
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jun 14, 2016 15:06:16 GMT 7
Lets let this thread run a bit before we discuss any ideas put forward please.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jun 14, 2016 15:07:56 GMT 7
Do you think people in the capital cities where theres more jobs and training programs are more likely to be picked then people in rural areas or will that make no difference, also how many people are there on the DSP over 35 that have part time jobs , would that be one of the main factors in getting chosen ? l guess if they want to save money they would want people who are able to go in the workforce and not be on newstart.
|
|
|
Post by muggins on Jun 14, 2016 16:24:21 GMT 7
Do you think people in the capital cities where theres more jobs and training programs are more likely to be picked then people in rural areas or will that make no difference Location based algo, that's an interesting point. JCA's and Doctors are more scarce in rural areas.
|
|
|
Post by muggins on Jun 14, 2016 16:28:47 GMT 7
l was wondeding do the entire 30,000 for 2016 reassessment all get informed at once in the beginning of july that they have been chosen or are they informed slowly over the course of the year and not all at once No, it's not possible to review everyone at once. I think i read somewhere that you are only given a months notice, compared to the 2 months or so i got.
|
|
|
Post by krystal on Jun 14, 2016 16:33:21 GMT 7
The Age Groups of DSP according to the Department of Human Services Administrative data are 'Under 35'. '35-54'. and '55+'
1) Age range 35-54's 2) Not under a manifest grant 3) DSP Granted under the impairment tables of Schedule 1B of the Social Security Act (pre-2012) 4) Does not have an condition that scores 20 on one table. 5) Work or Studying for 15 hours a week or more 6) Reported income that resulted in a nil payment of DSP for maybe 8 payments (pick a number, I just guessing 8 or 4 months worth of payments) 7) Have not undergone a Program of Support 8) Doesn't currently have a DES provider
If I was writing the algorithm I would start with a list of people that fit No 1 and then add in the rest of the list one by one (that decreased the number) until I have the number of potential reviews I was after.
Probably another that could be added was location especially if it referred to an Indigenous DSP recipient living in a remote community.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jun 14, 2016 16:50:06 GMT 7
The Age Groups of DSP according to the Department of Human Services Administrative data are 'Under 35'. '35-54'. and '55+' 1) Age range 35-54's 2) Not under a manifest grant 3) DSP Granted under the impairment tables of Schedule 1B of the Social Security Act (pre-2012) 4) Does not have an condition that scores 20 on one table. 5) Work or Studying for 15 hours a week or more 6) Reported income that resulted in a nil payment of DSP for maybe 8 payments (pick a number, I just guessing 8 or 4 months worth of payments) 7) Have not undergone a Program of Support 8) Doesn't currently have a DES provider If I was writing the algorithm I would start with a list of people that fit No 1 and then add in the rest of the list one by one (that decreased the number) until I have the number of potential reviews I was after. Probably another that could be added was location especially if it referred to an Indigenous DSP recipient living in a remote community. 1) l'm in the 35-54 age range 2) l'm not manifest 3) l'm pre 2012 4) l have a number of conditions and l don't know if l have 20 points for one 5) l'm not working or studying at all 6) l have never reported income resulting in nil payment 7) l haven't gone a program of suppoer 8) don't have a DES l live in a rural area. What do you think my chances of being in the 90,000
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jun 14, 2016 17:11:18 GMT 7
You might be due to be reviewed Bunyip. I would have said 60% chance, but with the rural area possible advantage, i'll say 40%. Not trying to scare you by the way. thanks yes l was thinking the same around 50/50 chance. l guess even if l get reviewed its unlikely l will lose the DSP, l guess only 10,000 of the 90,000 will lose it and my conditions have gotten worse since l got the DSP 10 years ago
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 17:14:08 GMT 7
- not assessed under 2012 tables - Greater than 5 years since last review - 35-50 years old - 8hrs or more work capacity at last JCA - Less than 40 points under old tables - working 25-29 hrs per week (basing this on Centrelink's arguments in Trenter decisio) - Grant based solely on mental health condition Edit: studying 25 or more hrs per week The Age Groups of DSP according to the Department of Human Services Administrative data are 'Under 35'. '35-54'. and '55+' 1) Age range 35-54's 2) Not under a manifest grant 3) DSP Granted under the impairment tables of Schedule 1B of the Social Security Act (pre-2012) 4) Does not have an condition that scores 20 on one table. 5) Work or Studying for 15 hours a week or more 6) Reported income that resulted in a nil payment of DSP for maybe 8 payments (pick a number, I just guessing 8 or 4 months worth of payments) 7) Have not undergone a Program of Support 8) Doesn't currently have a DES provider If I was writing the algorithm I would start with a list of people that fit No 1 and then add in the rest of the list one by one (that decreased the number) until I have the number of potential reviews I was after. Probably another that could be added was location especially if it referred to an Indigenous DSP recipient living in a remote community. Can't argue with these. Two main algorithms are not assessed under the new tables and age. And both would be the process I suspect they'll use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 7:41:07 GMT 7
Updated medical information would be another trigger to consider.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 13, 2016 8:33:28 GMT 7
Remember there's 650K not assessed under new tables. Paring that down to 90K would surely involve more than just age. Suspect presently working may also be a risk factor? Or previously assessed at 8hrs or more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 9:06:31 GMT 7
Remember there's 650K not assessed under new tables. Paring that down to 90K would surely involve more than just age. Suspect presently working may also be a risk factor? Or previously assessed at 8hrs or more? Of course. While I do think it will be 35 plus it will not only include that but various other factors like income, program of support, 8 hours work capacity or more, updated medical info etc. Being they will do screening out I think the first ones they will rule out are those that have had a review since 2012 tables came in, probably anyone under 8 hours a week.
|
|
|
Post by murphy on Jul 13, 2016 10:33:33 GMT 7
Some completely hearsay stuff I've heard from other DSPers who think these activities triggered a review in their cases:
- registered an ABN - commenced study - had a temporary increase in work hours to more than 30 hours
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Jul 13, 2016 10:51:43 GMT 7
l also wonder if they would base it on Geographical location, would people who live in places such as Sydney or Melbourne where theres much more opportunities for employment and training be more likely to be reassessed then people who live in regional areas hours from capital cities where there few jobs or does location make no difference to who they choose? is there much point in reassessing someone who lives in Woop Woop if they will be stuck on newstart for good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 16:21:52 GMT 7
Location might be a possibility.
|
|