Post by Banjo on Jul 16, 2011 15:41:03 GMT 7
This is a big file, I converted it from PDF to Word but I'll just put the first couple of pages here and a link to the PDF.
IS THE JOB NETWORK
BENEFITING DISADVANTAGED
JOB SEEKERS?
PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE FROM
A STUDY OF NON-PROFIT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
1
Introduction
May 1998 saw the start of a radical experiment in employment service
delivery in Australia. From that date, the public employment service, which
had existed since 1946, was effectively abolished and replaced with a
national network of agencies competing in a quasi-marketplace for contracts
to deliver services to unemployed people.
In a review of trends in the structure of job-placement and employment
services in the mid-1990s in the OECD countries, Walwei (1996) placed
Australia in the most liberal and market-oriented category - even before the
introduction of contracted case management under Labor’s Working Nation
program. Walwei did not find a pure market system operating anywhere at
the time, even though countries like the US and UK made considerable use
of non-governmental and private provision in their training and enterprise
programs. Since 1998, therefore, Australia has arguably gone further in the
market direction than any country in the OECD.
Although non-government agencies were already involved in contracted
delivery of employment assistance, the creation of the Job Network
represented a further major shift in the role of the state from provider to
contractor and purchaser of services. The rationale for this radical shift in
service delivery was that it would provide greater flexibility for agencies to
provide innovative services and, through competition, would increase both
effectiveness and efficiency. This was seen as being in line with
international trends (Fay, 1997) and was justified by reference to reviews of
international experience, such as that by the Industry Commission (1997).
So far, however, little empirical information on the outcomes of the new
system has been available for independent scrutiny. The Government has
made a number of claims of success compared with the previous system, but
in the absence of objective data these have been treated with some
scepticism by many commentators. Thus much of the debate about the
effectiveness of the Job Network has been operating in something of an
information vacuum. Indeed one of the shortcomings of policy development
and implementation in the labour market area in Australia has been the
limited level of independent evaluation of whether major policy initiatives
have made any substantial difference.
2
The creation of the Job Network represented a significant change in the
environment for non-profit, community-based agencies. They had been
accustomed to working in partnership with government on a grant-for-
services basis, and had begun to adapt to the limited competitive framework
of contracted case management under Working Nation. Research on the
contracted case management period by Considine (1999) suggested that
while there were differences in the ways in which public, private and
community sector agencies operated, the latter were, perhaps surprisingly, as
ready as private firms to recommend breaching for non-compliance with
activity tests, and not conspicuously more likely than public or private
agencies to see themselves as client advocates.
Now, however, they were faced with full-scale competition both with private
sector and corporatised public agencies, and with each other. An initial study
of a sample of private and non-profit agencies in the early months of the Job
Network indicated that there was a degree of convergence happening
between the sectors (Lyons and Chan, 1999). Non-profits were adjusting to
operating in a commercial environment – with some embracing competition
wholeheartedly – while some private firms were displaying the kind of
social concern about clients and their needs generally associated with the
community sector.
These observations raise important questions about the nature and role of
non-profit providers in a competitive market framework. What does it mean
in terms of service to clients that an agency is ‘not-for-profit’? Can the
advocacy role which has long been an important raison d’etre for the
community sector survive the incorporation into large-scale service delivery
for government? Is the non-profit sector threatened by the movement of
private firms into social service delivery in the way that Ryan (1999) has
identified in the USA?
In 1998, the SPRC received funding from the Australian Research Council’s
Strategic Partnerships with Industry - Research and Training (SPIRT)
scheme to carry out a study of the impact of the competitive employment
market on non-profit employment service providers and their clients. The
study is being carried out in collaboration with the social action and research
arm of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and with support from JOB futures,
a consortium of community sector agencies which has become one of the
larger players in the employment services market.
www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/dp111.pdf
IS THE JOB NETWORK
BENEFITING DISADVANTAGED
JOB SEEKERS?
PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE FROM
A STUDY OF NON-PROFIT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
1
Introduction
May 1998 saw the start of a radical experiment in employment service
delivery in Australia. From that date, the public employment service, which
had existed since 1946, was effectively abolished and replaced with a
national network of agencies competing in a quasi-marketplace for contracts
to deliver services to unemployed people.
In a review of trends in the structure of job-placement and employment
services in the mid-1990s in the OECD countries, Walwei (1996) placed
Australia in the most liberal and market-oriented category - even before the
introduction of contracted case management under Labor’s Working Nation
program. Walwei did not find a pure market system operating anywhere at
the time, even though countries like the US and UK made considerable use
of non-governmental and private provision in their training and enterprise
programs. Since 1998, therefore, Australia has arguably gone further in the
market direction than any country in the OECD.
Although non-government agencies were already involved in contracted
delivery of employment assistance, the creation of the Job Network
represented a further major shift in the role of the state from provider to
contractor and purchaser of services. The rationale for this radical shift in
service delivery was that it would provide greater flexibility for agencies to
provide innovative services and, through competition, would increase both
effectiveness and efficiency. This was seen as being in line with
international trends (Fay, 1997) and was justified by reference to reviews of
international experience, such as that by the Industry Commission (1997).
So far, however, little empirical information on the outcomes of the new
system has been available for independent scrutiny. The Government has
made a number of claims of success compared with the previous system, but
in the absence of objective data these have been treated with some
scepticism by many commentators. Thus much of the debate about the
effectiveness of the Job Network has been operating in something of an
information vacuum. Indeed one of the shortcomings of policy development
and implementation in the labour market area in Australia has been the
limited level of independent evaluation of whether major policy initiatives
have made any substantial difference.
2
The creation of the Job Network represented a significant change in the
environment for non-profit, community-based agencies. They had been
accustomed to working in partnership with government on a grant-for-
services basis, and had begun to adapt to the limited competitive framework
of contracted case management under Working Nation. Research on the
contracted case management period by Considine (1999) suggested that
while there were differences in the ways in which public, private and
community sector agencies operated, the latter were, perhaps surprisingly, as
ready as private firms to recommend breaching for non-compliance with
activity tests, and not conspicuously more likely than public or private
agencies to see themselves as client advocates.
Now, however, they were faced with full-scale competition both with private
sector and corporatised public agencies, and with each other. An initial study
of a sample of private and non-profit agencies in the early months of the Job
Network indicated that there was a degree of convergence happening
between the sectors (Lyons and Chan, 1999). Non-profits were adjusting to
operating in a commercial environment – with some embracing competition
wholeheartedly – while some private firms were displaying the kind of
social concern about clients and their needs generally associated with the
community sector.
These observations raise important questions about the nature and role of
non-profit providers in a competitive market framework. What does it mean
in terms of service to clients that an agency is ‘not-for-profit’? Can the
advocacy role which has long been an important raison d’etre for the
community sector survive the incorporation into large-scale service delivery
for government? Is the non-profit sector threatened by the movement of
private firms into social service delivery in the way that Ryan (1999) has
identified in the USA?
In 1998, the SPRC received funding from the Australian Research Council’s
Strategic Partnerships with Industry - Research and Training (SPIRT)
scheme to carry out a study of the impact of the competitive employment
market on non-profit employment service providers and their clients. The
study is being carried out in collaboration with the social action and research
arm of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and with support from JOB futures,
a consortium of community sector agencies which has become one of the
larger players in the employment services market.
www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/dp111.pdf
