Building Family Opportunities: Program Evaluation

Transcription

1 Building Family Opportunities: Program Evaluation Summary Report The National Institute of Labour Studies (NILS) Southgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity (Southgate) July 2014 Megan Moskos, National Institute of Labour Studies Linda Isherwood, National Institute of Labour Studies Ruth Walker, Southgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity Lynsey Brown, Southgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity

2 Contents 1. Introduction Why focus on jobless families? Prevalence of Family Joblessness Consequences of Family Joblessness The BFO Program BFO Program Approach Program Delivery and Processes Staffing the BFO Program BFO Program Families and Jobseekers BFO Program Outcomes Employment Outcomes Achieving Employment Outcomes Education and Training Outcomes Achieving Education or Training Outcomes Other BFO Program Outcomes Overall Value of the BFO Program Informing Future Policy and Practice Key Successful Features of the BFO Program Learnings for Future Programs Conclusion References

3 Acknowledgements Evaluation of the Building Family Opportunities (BFO)/ Family Centred Employment Project (FCEP) spanned several years and has benefitted from many people s involvement. The authors thank previous members of the evaluation team, including Associate Professor Deb King (formerly of NILS), Katherine Patel, Dr Katy Osborne and Dr Kathy Arthurson (formerly of Southgate). In addition, the authors thank Shirley Smith (formerly of the South Australian Social Inclusion Unit); Christine Plush (formerly of DFEEST); Christa Christaki, Jenny Lauritsen, Alyssa Ratzmer, Gilda Campbell and Santing Ung (DFEEST); Ania Twardowski and Sue Tilley (DCSI); and the FCEP team from the former Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for their helpful comments and contributions to the development and implementation of the evaluation. Finally, the authors thank Professor Kostas Mavromaras and Professor Sue Richardson for comments and contributions to the development of this summary report

4 1. Introduction Long-term unemployment is harmful to both economic and general well-being. When families endure this, the harm extends beyond the individual unemployed adults to include their children, greatly adding to the damage done. The reintegration of long-term unemployed families into paid work is extremely beneficial but extremely difficult. Building Family Opportunities (BFO) is designed to do just this. It is a demonstration program that provided strengths-based intensive case management to long-term jobless families in South Australia. Its objective was to apply best-practice strategies to assist these families to obtain employment. BFO interventions considered the family dynamic as a whole and provided professional and practical assistance to address complex and interrelated personal, family and vocational barriers to employment. It took a life-first rather than work-first approach. The design and implementation of the BFO program drew upon, and developed, what is known about how best to assist jobless families to obtain employment and to make other gains in well-being. As a demonstration project, it sought to test its strategies for their effectiveness, to learn how to improve them, and to assist the participating families to move along the pathway to employment. BFO was an initiative of the South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and was administered by the South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST). The BFO program operated from June 2010 to Decem ber 2013 in three local government areas within South Australia: Playford, Port Augusta and Port Adelaide Enfield. The primary objectives of the BFO program were: 1. To increase the social and economic participation of long-term jobless families through securing sustainable employment in a decent job for one or more family members; 2. To increase the engagement of jobless adults and their dependents aged 24 years or less in learning, training or skills development; and 3. To improve the responsiveness of systems and services in order to meet the workforce participation needs of long-term jobless families. An evaluation was built into the program design to assess how the BFO program operated, and the extent to which it achieved its stated objectives across the three implementation sites over the period June 2010 to December The evaluation was led by the National Institute of Labour Studies (NILS), Flinders University in collaboration with the Southgate Institute for Health Society and Equity. It used quantitative data collected as part of the management of the program, together with qualitative interviews with program participants, staff and stakeholders. The evaluation followed two cohorts of participants: the first cohort joined BFO between June 2010 and June 2011 (with their progress followed until December 2011); a second cohort entered BFO between July 2011 and June 2012 (and were followed until December 2012). The outcomes reported in this evaluation are likely to underestimate the total number of successful outcomes achieved by participants, as families were still actively involved in the program at the end of the respective evaluation periods. This report provides a summary of the BFO evaluation conducted by NILS. It first provides a short account of the prevalence of and harm done by family joblessness. The reality that it describes is the motivation for the BFO program. The report then describes how successful the program was in assisting families into employment and training, and in other life domains. Finally this report outlines the key features of the BFO program which enabled successful outcomes for the families in the program, as well as learnings which can inform the development of future programs

5 2. Why focus on jobless families? 2.1 Prevalence of Family Joblessness Despite relatively high rates of overall labour market participation, Australia has one of the highest levels of joblessness among fam ilies (and particularly sole parent families) in the OECD 1. South Australia has higher levels of joblessness among families than does Australia as a whole. Indeed, at the time of the inception of the BFO program, South Australia had the highest proportion of its child population aged less than 15 years living in jobless families of any state or territory 2. Family joblessness has a strong geographical concentration. Rates of family joblessness are higher in regional and rural towns than in metropolitan areas. Outer low-socioeconomic suburbs also have higher rates of family joblessness than inner suburban areas. The Social Health Atlas of South Australia shows that the City of Playford and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield have significantly higher rates of family joblessness than other metropolitan Adelaide LGAs. Outside the metropolitan area, the LGAs with the highest levels of family joblessness are Port Pirie (24%), Whyalla (24%) and Port Augusta (22%) 3. When unemployment is entrenched within specific geographical areas, its social consequences are amplified, contributing to poor lifetime labour market outcomes and increased and multiple disadvantages. To illustrate this point, we note that a relatively small number of communities are heavily over-represented in the factors that cause or demonstrate disadvantage (low income, early school leaving and low educational attainment, high unemployment, poor physical and mental health, high rates of imprisonment and high rates of confirmed child maltreatment) 4. Tackling these geographically entrenched disadvantages requires a location-based approach to improve the economic and social participation of those facing multiple and generational barriers. The BFO program applied such a location-based approach. 2.2 Consequences of Family Joblessness The proportion of children growing up in jobless families is widely regarded as a key indicator of the health of societies 5. Children are among the most vulnerable groups in society and family joblessness substantially raises the risk that children will experience economic, health, social and developmental disadvantages now and into the future. To illustrate, children living in jobless households in Australia are themselves almost twice as likely as those with working parents to experience unemployment and subsequent disadvantage in adult life 6. The potential for family joblessness to give rise to in tergenerational transmission of disadvantage is a compelling reason to prioritise this issue. In addition, family joblessness also has a wide range of negative consequences for parents, including higher rates of poverty and poorer health and well-being. Long-term unemployment has been associated with family breakdown, violence, abuse and neglect 7 ; poorer health, well-being and self-esteem 8 ; and homelessness 9. Long-term unemployment erodes job skills, and the longer a person remains 1 OECD Miranti et al Social Health Atlas Vinson OECD Headey & Verick Christoffersen 2000; Elder & Caspi Scutella & Wooden 2008; Whiteford Steen, Mackenzie & McCormack

6 jobless, the lower are the chances of getting a job 10. Furthermore, family joblessness increases the risk of household poverty, thereby limiting opportunities for economic and social participation for both parents and children 11. Indeed, around 70 per cent of all children that live in poverty in Australia are members of jobless families 12. In addition to the impact of joblessness on well-being, joblessness among families is a substantial waste of a nation s economic potential. If the adults in these families could find work, this would improve their own material circumstances, raise current national output and reduce the size of the welfare bill. These immediate benefits would be amplified in the future. As Australia faces an ageing population, with growing longevity and sh rinking cohorts of new workers, our continued prosperity depends on the adequate supply of future workers. Raising workforce participation among jobless families and protecting children from the damage of an impoverished childhood is one of the best investments Australia and South Australia could make for the future. A reduction in family joblessness is expected to have positive intergenerational effects that serve to stem the flow of intergenerational disadvantage and social exclusion. For these compelling reasons the DCSI and DFEEST prioritised family joblessness through the BFO program. 10 Knights, Harris & Loundes 2002; Headey & Verick Baxter et al. 2012; Headey & Verick Whiteford

7 3. The BFO Program 3.1 BFO Program Approach The BFO program was developed following an extensive review of the literature on employment programs that targeted long-term jobless families. It was designed as a demonstration program that worked across government departments and jurisdictions to bring about change to systems as well as to the lives of jobless families. It started with the understanding that families that had been disengaged from the workforce for a long time usually faced many obstacles to getting a job and that these needed to be managed in an integrated way. These obstacles included low levels of education and current work skills. They also often included personal issues such as family conflict and violence, divorce, mental and physical health problems, substance abuse, a criminal record and insecure housing. The program thus adopted a life-first rather than job-first approach and counted progess in the precursors to employability (such as basic literacy, a driver s licence, managing addiction) in its measures of success. Furthermore, initiatives were based at the local level, sought to engage both employers and training providers and where possible linked the two. BFO program activities included: Linking clients with other agencies to secure necessary services and job opportunities; Providing social and emotional support to improve motivation and confidence; Support to family members, not just to the jobseeker; Practical support such as material assistance, providing transport, and assistance with job search activities, to deal with barriers to employment and training; The provision of in-house programs and specialist workers; Skills development across life domains such as parenting, household budgeting, applying for jobs; and Advocacy on behalf of the family with other services. 3.2 Program Delivery and Processes The BFO demonstration program was delivered in partnership with non -government organisations in three locations experiencing particularly high levels of family joblessn ess: Centacare Catholic Family Services in the City of Playford ; Uniting Care Wesley at Port Adelaide Enfield; and Uniting Care Wesley Country South Australia in Port Augusta. The Family Centred Employment Project (FCEP) also operated as a subset of the BFO program in Port Adelaide Enfield. The intake of families into FCEP commenced in November Families were eligible for participation in the BFO program if (i) they had a dependent aged 24 years or less; (ii) either one or both parents were on income support; and (iii) had no reported earnings in the previous 12 month period. Participants were self-referred or invited into the program by government organisations and local service providers. Families participated on a voluntary basis, on the understanding that one or more members wished to find employment

8 The BFO program used a strengths-based intensive case management approach to work with jobless families, including the use of outreach to engage clients with complex disadvantage. Case managers worked with families to identify their strengths and the issues of most concern, and to set goals that would facilitate engagement in learning, training, and employment. Intensive family support was provided for up to 18 months, at which point the n eed of participating families to continue to receive further intensive support was reviewed. The BFO providers in each location developed extensive networks among other services, which helped in providing the required assistance to jobseekers and their families. Many of these networks operated at the case manager level, with these workers using their experience and knowledge of services, and drawing on existing networks. These networks aimed to facilitate service integration for clients, and were viewed by providers as integral to program delivery. Providers implemented several strategies to help build partnerships, including: Using pre-existing personal and organisational networks; Presentations to other services or agencies; Liaising with potential partners around issues of common interest; Attending regular community meetings; and Having a regular presence at specific agencies. Local Coordinating Groups (LCGs) were established in each of the BFO program locations. These groups were developed to assist with promoting across-agency service delivery, the identification of local services and/ or policy gaps, and to feed systemic issues up to a Senior Officers Group. LCGs were successful in facilitating the development of networks and partnerships, and they provided a forum to share information, but their ability to affect systemic change was seen as problematic and unrealised. There was clear evidence that the BFO program was successful in linking multiple services within the local area to improve their resp onsiveness in meeting the needs of participating families. There are lots of community things happening. I see lots more networking happening, and BFO has really pushed that, we have really pushed networking on our program. And that breaks down inefficiency, and time supporting your clients and people work better together like that to support; everyone is on the same page, but I felt like before no one was on the same page, there s a person over here, person over here, person over here, and the client is here and no one was talking (BFO staff member). 3.3 Staffing the BFO Program While at each site there was a program manager, case managers, and administrative staff, the three BFO providers had flexibility in how they structured their teams to deliver the required services. The evaluation found that team composition varied in terms of the professional backgrounds of staff members. Case managers viewed this diversity as being central to assisting clients. I think the dynamics of this team work. We come from such a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences and qualifications, and life experience, that we bounce ideas off each other, we can do case conferencing among ourselves to discuss a difficult situation. So we work really well as a team because of the variety (BFO staff member)

9 The other thing is what you see around the table here, the diversity. We ve got diverse clients we ve got a diverse team that is a huge strength So everyone there are so many different ways that we engage in and are productive (BFO staff member). The team composition at each site was influenced by the needs of their specific client group, so that particular sites chose to employ a community health nurse, eng age a visiting psychiatrist, as well as Aboriginal or other culturally diverse support workers and case managers. Although caseloads for staff were set to enable the facilitation of personalised, integrated and intensive support, high staff workload was consistently identified as a challenge for staff over the evaluation period. This impacted on hours spent with clients, as well as on the meeting of prescribed milestones. This was mainly attributed to two causes: the complexity of the client group and the BFO program's reporting requirements. These concerns were exacerbated by the program exceeding client capacity. Offsetting concerns with the high workload was the strong level of commitment and enthusiasm that case managers expressed for their work. Commitment was generated through the intrinsic satisfaction that case managers gained from successfully working with complex clients, many of whom had slipped through the gaps in other programs. BFO staff recognised the strengths of the intensive case managem ent approach, the ability to deal with the complex needs of their clients, and to do so within the local context. I think that the rewards you get from helping these people through their journey far outweigh the frustration you can get from trying to be across everything (BFO staff member). Commitment was actively maintained through strategies implemented at the organisational level: for example being well-supported by BFO program managers and being provided with opportunities to debrief. [Our manager] makes a big thing about that really stresses that we should debrief I feel reluctant sometimes, because I think [other case managers have] got reports to do, or they look really busy, so I ll hold back. But [our manager] doesn t like that at all and has made it clear to just take the time to do it, it s very important. And also [our manager] likes us all in the same room as much as possible for that team building stuff (BFO staff member). BFO staff were praised by management for the level of dedication shown to program delivery and client outcomes. The case managers are positive and committed to the program. Given that they are over 50 per cent Aboriginal families, and that homelessness is the major barrier experienced by families, ensuring that the work is complex, the level of enthusiasm within the team is commendable and contributes to the growing reputation of the program in Port Augusta (Administrative data). 3.4 BFO Program Families and Jobseekers The BFO program aimed to cater for a minimum of 465 families over the initial four-year funding period, with an expected caseload of 235 families at any on e time, once fully operational. Families were considered to have engaged in BFO once the Family Assessment Plan 1 (FAP1) survey had been completed. By June 2012, 347 families (including 393 jobseekers 13 ) had actively participated in the program. An additional 122 families (who had not completed a FAP1 and were therefore out of scope for the evaluation) entered the program in its first two years of operation. This indicates that with 469 families referred into BFO by June 13 Within the BFO program a jobseeker was defined as being a member of a participating family that is seeking work and has completed a FAP

10 2012, the program had already exceeded its overall target caseload within the first two years of operation. 14 The BFO program also had targets relating to the characteristics of participating families. A minimum of 40 per cent of families participating in each BFO location were required to be single parent families, with 30 per cent of families required to be couple parent families. In addition, 30 per cent were required to be of Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) background. In the first two years of operation, 32 per cent of all families in the BFO program identified as ATSI and 73 per cent were single parent families. However, as a result of the high proportion of single parent families, the program did not quite meet its target for the proportion of couple parent families. The BFO program succeeded in attracting jobseekers who have traditionally been among the most difficult to engage in employment programs. BFO jobseekers exhibited low levels of social and economic participation. Participation rates in groups, clubs, organised activities or volunteering were well below those in the whole Australian population. Jobseekers had low levels of formal education and training when they came into the BFO program, and low levels of current participation in education. Although a high proportion of jobseekers (85%) had previous labour market experience, 63 per cent had spent five years or less in paid work, and a third (32%) of jobseekers had been unemployed for six years or more during their working life. 14 Data provided by DFEEST indicates that a total of 555 families participated in the BFO program from June 2010 to December

11 4. BFO Program Outcomes 4.1 Employment Outcomes A primary aim of the BFO program was to secure sustainable employment for at least one member of each participating family. During the two and a half year evaluation period, there were 393 jobseekers; of these 108 (27%) got 187 jobs. An additional 28 family members who were not classified formally as jobseekers also obtained work. Given that at the end of this two and a half year evaluation period the BFO program was still running, it is difficult to provide a final estimate of the level of success of participants in the BFO program in finding employment. 15 The question of what the optimal length of an evaluation period would be to capture the full effects of a program is not one that we attempt to answer, as it lies beyond the scope of this work. However, we have carried out some additional calculations using independent data provided by DFEEST to compare our two and a half year long evaluation outcomes with those of the full program operation (June 2010 to December 2013). The conclusion is that there were additional (longer-term) benefits after the evaluation was completed. The administrative data provided to us by DFEEST indicates that a total of 555 families with 627 jobseekers obtained 395 jobs across the duration of the BFO program. Both the DFEEST and the evaluation data show that there were on average 1.13 jobseekers per family. The evaluation data also show that the 27 per cent of jobseekers who found employment averaged 1.73 jobs each. If this ratio were to be applied to the additional DFEEST data, we would infer that 228 individual jobseekers, out of the total of 627, obtained at least one job, suggesting a success rate of 36 per cent. This calculation supports the view that if the formal evaluation had been run for a longer period a more complete picture of the outcomes would have arisen, offering estimates closer to the full benefits of the BFO program. We judge the best estimate in the present context of outcomes, to be around 35 per cent. 16 Overall, it took jobseekers an average of six months (174 days) to obtain employment from their entry into the BFO program. A higher proportion of non-atsi jobseekers (31%) obtained jobs compared to those who identified as ATSI (21%). Jobseekers from single parent families (29%) were slightly more likely to achieve employment outcomes than were jobseekers from couple parent families (25%). In order to judge whether these job outcomes are a success for the BFO approach, it is desirable to have a proper comparison group of similar jobless families that were not in the BFO program. Unfortunately this has not been possible. The best that we can do to provide a benchmark is to use the experience of jobseekers that use the Job Service Australia (JSA) system. This is only a rough comparison, because the BFO group were selected to include particularly disadvantaged families living in high unemployment areas, which would make the barriers they face higher than for the typical JSA client. Offsetting this to an unknow n extent is the fact that all families volunteered to participate in the program and to use it to try to find employment. The JSA group that we use for comparison is Stream 4. These are the most disadvantaged of the JSA clients, and the most like the BFO families. The proportion of Stream 4 JSA clients who obtained a job over the period from December 2010 to December 2012 ranged (per quarter) from 23 per cent to 31 per cent. On the basis of this comparison, the BFO job outcomes look quite successful. 15 The two and a half year sampling framework for the evaluation contains the number of employment outcomes achieved during that period. Longer term impacts, beyond the first two and a half years, w ould not have been included in our evaluation. The evaluation data indicates that 61 participants in Cohort 1 went on to obtain employment after the end of the first evaluation period (31 December 2011). Further employment outcomes would also have been achieved after December 2012 (the end of the final evaluation period). DFEEST data indicates that a total of 395 employment outcomes were achieved across the whole duration of the BFO program. 16 This calculation assumes that the generation of the data produced by this evaluation and that produced using the DFEEST ad ministrative d ata yield s equivalent results. The evaluation cannot verify this assumption

12 A strength of the BFO program, compared to many other labour market programs, was the emphasis placed on achieving sustainable and decent employment outcomes for job seekers. The BFO program defined decent sustainable employment as (i) work carried out in reasonable conditions; (ii) with hours that approximate the preference of the worker (for 25 to 45 hours per week); (iii) which is paid at least the Federal Minimum Wage; and (iv) that is expected to last for at least 26 weeks. Of the 187 jobs obtained by BFO jobseekers, nearly two-thirds (64%) were part-time and a third (34%) were full-time. Over half (53%) of all these jobs were casual, 12 per cent were permanent, and a further 14 per cent were temporary contracts, indicating scope for more secure employment in the future. Twenty seven per cent of the employment obtained by BFO jobseekers was in labourer occupations. A further 25 per cent were in service sector occupations as community and personal service workers, clerical and administrative workers, or sales workers. The evaluation found that participants had very subjective and personal views about what was a good job and these did not necessarily match the BFO definition. The diversity of the group of BFO clients was reflected in the range of their view s on what constitutes a good job we believe that a broader data collection would be necessary to discern clear definitions and patterns. Many clients spoke of their current family responsibilities and valued the fact that their initial employment outcomes were compatible with these responsibilities. Some of these jobseekers looked forward to future opportunities which could occur when their children were old enough to attend school, thus giving them more flexibility in terms of availability to work. For those clients unable to reach their desired employment outcomes, this was often a result of complex barriers, such as a previous history of criminal offences. Additionally, the economic context and in particular the availability of jobs in local labour markets had an impact on both the possibility, and the perceived quality of employment outcomes Achieving Employment Outcomes The BFO program assisted jobseekers to achieve employment outcomes in various ways. BFO case managers provided assistance with job search activities such as resume writing, career counselling, researching job vacancies, the completion of application forms and the development of interview skills. In addition, brokerage funds were available, and were used, to facilitate the progress of clients along job pathways. This financial support was used to help pay for course fees, educational equipment, work clothes and licences. Liaison frequently occurred with employment service providers in order to obtain employment pathway plans or to provide coordinated support to their joint clients. Case managers also helped to organise work experience, volunteer work opportunities, or course placements that were directly linked to future paid work opportunities. These activities not only had a positive impact on jobseekers' employment outcomes, but were also seen as a mechanism to in crease the social participation of BFO clients. I got a job with [retail outlet] in Port Augusta, did the traineeship in October, and since Christmas I ve been made permanent three days a week put it this way, I wouldn t be working now [without BFO support] and to be perfectly honest with you, I don t know if I would be here now. I mean we ve gone in one side and come out the other side. We were told that we were a family that they were really happy with because a lot of the work, we did it on our own we did it on our own but we also had the backup if we needed it (Thomas, Port Augusta). The BFO program offered a six month period of post-employment support to jobseekers who had secured employment. During this period, various forms of support were offered including liaising with employers to resolve difficulties encountered in the workplace, liaison with employment services for financial assistance with work equipment, providing transport vouchers to attend work, ongoing encouragement, and assisting clients with managing their home and family responsibilities in order to enable continued employment

13 4.2 Education and Training Outcomes A main objective of the BFO program was to increase the engagement of jobless adults and their dependents in learning, training, or skills development. Overall, 391 education and/ or training outcomes were achieved by the 347 families in the evaluation. This gives an average skills development rate of 1.14 per family. 17 Of those that entered education and training, 171 were jobseekers, out of the total of 393 jobseekers. 18 Hence, 44 per cent of all BFO jobseekers successfully engaged in education and training following entry into the program. As with employment, this figure under-estimates, by an unknown amount, the final program outcome, and gives a lower bound to the true outcome. To give some perspective, the proportion of JSA Stream 4 clients who participated in an education course ranged between 16 and 20 per cent. 19 This suggests that the BFO lower bound outcome of 44 per cent represents a considerable success. A slightly higher proportion of non-atsi jobseekers entered education and/ or training (45%) than those from ATSI backgrounds (40%). Compared to couple parent families (36%), a higher proportion of jobseekers from single parent families (47%) engaged in education and/ or training. On average, jobseekers entered education and/ or training five months (144 days) after joining the BFO program. More than a quarter (27%) of all education outcomes were at Certificate level I or II, with a further 22 per cent at Certificate level III and IV. Almost one-third (30%) of education and/ or training activities were u ndertaken in the VET sector; a further 62 per cent of training was undertaken in non-vet sectors. Over a third (37%) of training activities were undertaken on a part-time basis, while a further 30 per cent were full-time. No training status information was available for the remaining third (33%) of educational activities. More than half (52%) of all jobseekers reported that they had undertaken education and/ or training to obtain work. The BFO program was also successful in engaging family members in educat ion and/ or training. Across the evaluation period, an additional 69 education outcomes were achieved by 54 family members who were not classified as jobseekers. We know from countless research studies that education and training im proves the scope for employment. This evaluation also highlighted that these opportunities are facilitated through increased self-worth and personal confidence. Participation in education and learning was effective in moving clients along the job pathway as well as expanding social and community networks. Without [my case manager s] help, I d still be sitting back in my house doing nothing you know, not having the confidence to approach people to do study. I never thought I d be in this position at this age you know, studying and that. I thought I was too old (Tanya, Port Augusta). 17 Similar to the calculations we presented on jobseeker employment outcomes using independent DFEEST data for a longer timeframe, we note that relevant DFEEST data from June 2010 to December 2013 show that the 555 families in the program during this time undertook 708 episodes of education or training; an activity rate of 1.28 per family. Some families remained in, or joined the program beyond the evaluation period and suggests the presence of longer -term program outcomes which would have been captured by an extended evaluation. 18 The evaluation data indicates that 88 participants in Cohort 1 went on to enter education and/ or training after the end of the first evaluation period (31 December 2011). Further education and training outcomes would also have been achieved by the Cohort 2 participants after December 2012 (the end of the final evaluation period). 19 Australian Government Department of Employment, Labour Market Assistance Outcomes, December 2012: docs.employment.gov.au/ systems report_december_2012.pdf, accessed July

14 4.2.1 Achieving Education or Training Outcomes The BFO program assisted jobseekers and their family members to pursue opportunities for education or training in several different ways. Engaging in education or training often requires specific equipment or course fees and related expenses. Given that BFO families lived on low incomes, education and training were often difficult for them to afford. Practical assistance was therefore important and the BFO program either sought funding opportunities from other agencies or provided direct financial support. Further practical assistance was provided with the exploration of training options, referrals to programs, support with completion of enrolment forms, and accompanying clients to information sessions. For many clients, achieving education and training outcomes required dealing with the complex social, economic, and health-related barriers present in their lives. Case managers worked directly with families to reduce their barriers to educational engagement and enhance motivation to pursue training goals. The BFO program also assisted by liaising with education and training providers, and sometimes employers, to identify training opportunities for clients. Once clients had enrolled and commenced their education and training courses, liaison frequently occurred with educational organisations to assist with sustaining engagement and the successful achievement of goals. 4.3 Other BFO Program Outcomes Through the life-first approach, the BFO program supported participants to achieve outcomes in life domains beyond employment and education. Case managers worked with families to improve their housing and living circumstances, family and household functioning, health and well-being, and community and social participation. Interviews indicated that achieving an outcome in one life domain often had a positive impact in other areas and thereby on the readiness to make progress along job or education pathways. The m ain types of support offered by the BFO program w ere practical assistance, socioemotional support, links with other agencies, and skill development. It was clear from the qualitative data that this support was highly valued by clients. Case managers provided families with a range of practical assistance including providing transport to appointments or to attend social groups, enabling access to material assistance to overcome immediate financial crises, and the provision of in-house programs and specialist workers. The provision of social and emotional support was often necessary before more targeted work towards employment and educational goals could commence. Psycho-social support facilitated the successful achievement of goals and clients experienced increased motivation, self-esteem, confidence and resilience. Progress with client is as expected to be, slow, but has been making great inroads in terms of her therapeutic needs. It is anticipated that this will be a long journey but will be very beneficial, as to date she has never dealt with her deep and complex issues. To date, the client is discovering her inner strengths and capacities in a way she has never thought of before (Administrative Data). 4.4 Overall Value of the BFO Program The value of the BFO program was not questioned. BFO staff recognised the strengths of the intensive case management approach used in the program, the ability to deal with the complex needs of their clients, and to do so within the local context. The case managers, particularly, described the benefits of having a flexible client-centred program that was able to deal with needs for the whole family. The first thing that comes to my mind I think it is rare to have a program that will say ok it ll suit the whole family, there s so many programs that will work with children or a few will, or

15 adolescents or parents, but very few will encompass that whole family. So that s one thing that I ll speak strongly of and how beneficial that is (BFO staff member). That flexibility to be able to cover all aspects of life, not just focus on drug and alcohol or mental health, it s very much across the board (BFO staff member). Staff from DFEEST and DCSI acknowledged the value of the program in terms of its ability to engage families experiencing complex disadvantage. There were some very good outcomes I think, for families that would have been left basically would have been considered too hard and unemployable (DFEEST and DCSI staff member). It s one of the few programs where the people delivering the program have really got alongside very disadvantaged clients and families, and worked to the degree that those people have been able to feel that they re understood, they need to be appreciated, somebody s willing to help them, address them, there s funding available, there s resources available, the resources that were always there but the client didn t know about are actually brought to bear, because you ve got someone doing that intermediary role (DFEEST and DCSI staff member). Likewise, there was evidence that local stakeholders perceived value in the program, including highlighting gaps in service delivery and collaboration, and promoting positive outcomes for complex families. BFO gives people the opportunity to choose to make changes, outside the compliance frameworks that many systematically funded programs use. It gives people the chance to identify their own goals, use their strengths and gather appropriate supports that can assist them to achieve their chosen result (Local stakeholder). Participants in the BFO program are people experiencing long-term disengagement and complex issues that have prevented them progressing in the way that more mainstream services fund and expect outcomes for investment. This program has achieved significant positive outcomes for people, particularly Aboriginal families who now participate, are increasing their education levels, have secured jobs and are contributing to the well-being of their family, their communities and the broader economy (Local stakeholder). BFO provides a client-focused, holistic approach to service delivery that assists the participant to weave meaningful goals into their interactions with local agencies. There has been a direct positive impact on increased school attendance, completion of further training and educational attainment, and securing of ongoing employment opportunities. This provides flow on effects for future generations (Local stakeholder). In financial terms, the BFO program was not being viewed in terms of the cost per client but, rather, in the potential long-term success of each family member 20. I think if you do the cost benefit analysis it s quite clear that... it might look like a lot upfront but in fact it s not, over a lifetime If you take into consideration health costs... incarceration, Centrelink, welfare, all the other things (Local stakeholder). 20 The South Australian Government commissioned Deloitte to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the BFO program. Deloitte (2012) estimated that the financial returns of the BFO program (in terms of earnings from participant employment) were considerably greater than the d irect financial costs to the South Australian Government

16 5. Informing Future Policy and Practice 5.1 Key Successful Features of the BFO Program The evaluation report found that the achievement of positive outcomes for BFO families w as closely related to the program principles promoted by the BFO program. Several key features of the BFO program were suggested by evaluation analysis as major contributors towards its overall success: A life-first rather than a work-first approach The jobless families in the BFO program faced multiple and intergenerational disadvantages. These included employment and educational barriers, and a range of personal issues such as family conflict, divorce, mental and physical health problems, substance abuse issues, criminal record s and insecure housing. This com plexity and combination of vocational and non - vocational barriers required a sophisticated understanding of the connection between these barriers and the ability to deal with them together, rather than separately. The BFO program adopted a life-first rather than a work-first approach, and interventions integrated vocational assistance with intensive personal support. The program highlighted that in addition to providing vocational support, future programs should give attention to physical and mental health, housing, education and family issues if they are to be effective when assisting jobseekers with multiple barriers to gain and maintain employment. Strengths-based intensive case management The case management model used in the BFO program was able to facilitate a holistic and integrated approach to service delivery. A strengths-based approach emphasised family capabilities and strengths, and empowered participants to identify and work towards achieving their own valued goals. Furthermore, this model offered a way for case workers to build respectful, non-judgemental and trusting relationships with disadvantaged jobseekers and their families. Case managers were also able to provide individualised and context-specific support that was relevant to the jobseekers' circumstances, requirements and specific goals. By taking into account the preferences of participants, the BFO program was able to increase the likelihood of sustainable employment and education outcomes. The use of outreach as a format within the BFO program to deliver case management services was an important key to success, particularly for population groups who were reluctant to access mainstream services, lacked resources (such as transport or child care) to access these services, or who were limited by language or cultural difficulties. Long-term service delivery approach The BFO program worked with families for up to 18 months. Across the evaluation period, participants took an average of five months to enter education and six m onths to find employment. In order to ensure that education and employment are both secured and maintained, a long-term approach to support is warranted, particularly for jobseekers with complex disadvantage. The BFO program was also able to provide an add itional six month period of support for m embers of jobless families who had secured work. These participants benefitted from receiving assistance with both pre-existing issues and new problems that arose once in work, thus enhancing their ability to maintain their employment. Integrated Service Delivery Linking clients with other agencies and services was an important form of support offered by the BFO program. Researching potential options and providing advice and information regarding appropriate services, as well as making direct referrals, were some of the strategies used by case managers to link clients into needed services. Case managers frequently acted in the role of advocate for BFO families as clients sought assistance with the often complex negotiations required when dealing with other services. Once linked in with other agencies,

17 case managers continued to liaise directly with these service providers to provide a coherent wrap-around service to the families in the BFO program. Partnerships Integrated service delivery was most effectively achieved by developing partnerships to allow better linkages between the BFO program and other service providers. Therefore, the development and maintenance of effective partnerships was considered essential to the success of the program. Locally based initiatives A locally based approach was adopted which took account of the fact that the three BFO program locations differed with respect to their labour market and population characteristics, as well as their capacity (in terms of skills, finances, and experience) to deliver the program. The development and delivery of the program at a local level encouraged the commitment of program staff and stakeholders, and generated a clear understanding of the needs of potential program participants and local employers. 5.2 Learnings for Future Programs The evaluation findings identified several learnings from the BFO demonstration program which could assist in the development and operation of future programs of this type. Project implementation As a demonstration project, the BFO program required an initial investment of time to establish processes, recruit staff and build the program in local contexts. Some teething problems were experienced in developing effective referral networks and partnerships, creating a profile in the local community, and in employing suitable staff. Although later successfully resolved, these difficulties did have an impact on the ability of the BFO program to meet desired milestones and outcomes in the early stages of implementation. The implementation of programs in new locations, or with different providers, requires an initial investment of time to establish processes and to successfully build the program within the local context. Life-first approach The life-first approach used in the BFO program was effective in engaging clients with complex needs and with assisting them in addressing vocational and non -vocational barriers. However, the flexibility required for this approach at times conflicted with prescribed program milestones. For example, while the investment of case management time to building trust and rapport had a positive impact on client engagement, the completion of required documentation and goal setting activities was delayed. Furthermore, dealing with the immediate crises that families often brought with them into the program was necessary before clients were ready to proceed on a job pathway. Future programs adopting a life-first approach may need to review the requirement for meeting program milestones and outcomes within particular timeframes. Case management hours The BFO program framework prescribed that each participant family would receive a minimum of 13 hours per month of service delivery. As the number of families in the program grew, however, this expectation was increasingly unable to be met, indicating that the provider organisations were struggling to meet service demand. The capacity of staff to increase case management hours was further constrained both by the complexity of the client group and program reporting requirements. The evaluation found that the provision of more hours of service per family led to better outcomes. Future programs should review reporting requirements, optimum caseload sizes and staffing levels in order to ensure sufficient contact time with clients is attained

18 Stakeholder and partnership relationships A primary aim of the BFO program was to improve the responsiveness of systems and services to better m eet the w orkforce participation need s of long-term jobless fam ilies. Local coordinating groups were planned for each of the program locations to develop and enhance locally relevant partnerships. A senior co-ordinating group - a high level central BFO structure to drive policy change or ministerial action - was also part of the proposed governance structure of the program. Difficulties were experienced in operationalising these groups, and stakeholder and partnership relationships were instead dependent on the networks of individual case managers. Future programs would benefit from improved structural partnerships (formal stakeholder and partnership relationships, efficient governance structures) at all levels of program operation