NPA LAS REVIEW ADVISORY GROUP WORKSHOP 19 OCTOBER 2018

Transcription

1 NPA LAS REVIEW ADVISORY GROUP WORKSHOP 19 OCTOBER 2018

2 OBJECTIVES The review team wants to road test key findings, focusing on those which are contested Update the Advisory Group on progress Present key findings from the NPA Review Invite comment/critique of preliminary findings Receive specific advice on supplementary evidence that might challenge findings or address gaps 2

3 AGENDA Progress update Overview of data collection and analysis Discussion of key findings Next steps 3

4 PROGRESS UPDATE

5 DATA COLLECTION All LAC Bi-Annual Reports (CLASS data review in progress) Received 50 submissions Reached 247 stakeholders from 120 organisations across Australia: Sector Engagement ORGANISATION TYPE ORGS. ATSILS/ALS 5 CLCs 74 Legal Aid 14 Government 13 Peak Bodies 7 Jurisdictional Engagement JURISDICTION SITES ORGS. PEOPLE ACT Canberra 6 17 NT Darwin, Alice Springs 9 34 NSW Sydney, Dubbo, Lismore QLD Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville SA Adelaide 8 16 TAS Hobart, Launceston, Devonport 9 12 Others 7 VIC Melbourne, Dandenong, Bendigo WA Perth, South Hedland, Albany

6 ANALYSIS Coding in progress on transcripts and submissions Quantitative analysis completed on LAC bi-annual reports and available CLC funding data Team working with NACLC on CLASS report for analysis Thematic analysis completed to date has utilised completed coding and quantitative analysis, as well as interview notes Emerging findings still to be tested further as coding done and deeper analysis occurs Today will guide where we put some priority in testing / deepening findings 6

7 KEY FINDINGS

8 APPROACH The structure will follow the TORs There are many findings made not our intent to interrogate every one Today we want to focus on those which are contested, surprising or absent (i.e. gaps) We want to leave with guidance on: - where to focus drill down effort within findings - any additional evidence that might alter a finding 8

9 TOR 1: IMPACT ON EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES Stakeholders generally reported that the outcomes and aspirations of the NPA remain broadly appropriate Limited impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of legal assistance services, and on improving targeting of services The NPA has encouraged some innovations to address legal and other problems Agreement across sub-sectors that outcomes and key principles are generally appropriate. Some disconnections between the aspirations and the structure and mechanisms within the NPA. Consistent commentary from CLC and LACs that sector is stretched and this affects practical achievement of NPA goals. Few substantiated impacts on service effectiveness or efficiency. Limited sector rationalisation/redistribution observed. LAC/CLCs generally observed few substantiated impacts on the targeting of services: common observation that services were already focused on disadvantage. Major distractors for CLCs include funding cliff, CLASS, DSM rollout. Potential gains also inhibited by slow start for CSP. LACs report greater freedom for innovation under current NPA, and cite some examples (e.g. sociolegal initiatives). Other innovations are occurring within the sector. Not hindered by, but not attributable to NPA per se (health-justice partnerships; blurred borders; technology utilisation for remote conferencing). 9

10 TOR 1: IMPACT ON EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES Constraints on law reform work are a concern for CLCs Significant unmet legal need remains across Australia, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas Value for money remains difficult to assess [finding in progress] CLCs generally strongly of the view that their law reform work provides an important community service, but that the NPA constrains their ability deliver this work. Stakeholders reported that there continues to be a high level of unmet legal need across Australia. This issue is particularly felt in rural, regional and remote areas where services can only offer outreach on a weekly or monthly basis. Services report increasing their focus on early intervention to reach those who don t realise they have a legal problem to help address legal need. Significant variances in input funding to the sector. CLCs have concerns about reported data not representing or inconsistently representing effort. Outcomes delivered are difficult to define and measure. 10

11 TOR 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLABORATIVE SERVICE PLANNING Broad principle of CSP is generally supported by stakeholders Significant variation exists in term of the approaches that have been taken to CSP, including methods, use of data and organisational roles Different jurisdictions are at different stages when it comes to the implementation of CSP Generally there is support for area-based, evidence driven planning by key players. Key enablers are clarity of purpose, pre-existing relationships and resourcing. Identified barriers are partial sector engagement, siloes reinforced by multiple funding streams, competition undermining collaboration, perceived power imbalances, conflicts of interest and concerns about gap shifting. Differences in CSP approach relate to - intent: resource allocation, prioritisation, service integration, innovation - leadership: who drives process - engagement: which players are involved in process - scale: geographic unit of planning - scope: legal vs socio-legal - data: which data is used. Overall progress has been slow, and different jurisdictions are at different stages in the CSP journey. Collaboration forums/processes existed before the NPA - in some states the NPA has assisted to formalise these processes. 11

12 TOR 3: FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS Legal jurisdiction creates complexities and costshifting concerns Complexities in intersections of legal jurisdictional were consistently raised (e.g. federal family law and state child protection). Stakeholders observed multiple funding arrangements for Indigenous clients - e.g. resourcing constraints driving ATSILS to prioritise criminal law means other areas of law picked up by NPA funded services. There are inequities in total input funding, due to variability in State and Territory contributions State/territory contributions to funding varies considerably. Impact on the sector balance (i.e. CLC v LAC v ATSILS) and on the overall equity of access to services in different jurisdictions. The 2017 funding cliff damaged trust and relationships, and continuity of funding remains front of mind for many services The implementation of the NPA by CLCs was heavily influenced by the foreshadowed funding cut in Fostered survival orientation in many CLCs and increased sector competition. Significant workforce impacts for CLCs that are still being felt. Impact varied depending on jurisdictional response. Continuity of funding remains front of mind; the NPA has not providing funding certainty for CLCs. 12

13 TOR 3: FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS Influence of the NPA is limited due to it being one of many funding streams for services Progress toward NPA outcomes has been influenced by funding levels Distribution of defined funding was generally not aligned to specialisation Most funded entities receive multiple revenue streams as well as the NPA, some receive no NPA funding. Places limits on NPA s leverage as an instrument of reform. While out of scope for this Review, many stakeholders reported that the aspirations within the NPA are compromised by the total quantum of funding. Counterview from some stakeholders that NPA provides policy framework, and the total resourcing available to the sector (NPA + other sources) would need to be considered to address this point. Widely viewed in practice as restoration funding rather than specific purpose funding. Some specialists services contend they are well-placed to deliver greater value for special purpose allocations. Conversely, generalists services also deliver a significant amount of FV work as core business that would be directly affected by reduction. 13

14 TOR 3: FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS SACS funding distribution has mitigated the impact of the ERO Many stakeholders would like greater transparency regarding the NPA funding allocation processes Timing of NPA and carryover funding affects service delivery and planning [finding in progress] Some CLCs observed line item allocation of SACS funding belies the reality that increases to base costs are permanent and ongoing. More broadly, many CLS reported concerns around misalignment of funding growth to rises in costs. Stakeholders would like greater transparency from the Commonwealth regarding the Funding Allocation Model. Stakeholders also would like more transparency about jurisdictional funding allocation decisions. Some services and jurisdictions with high delivery costs consider the weighting does not appear to reflect higher delivery costs in regional and remote areas. Practicalities of payment structures create challenge for some CLCs. Inflexible carry-over provisions undermines long term planning and investments in infrastructure (IT, vehicles for outreach etc). Timing and frequency of funding has an impact on service delivery and can undermine the aspirations of the NPA. 14

15 TOR 4: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING NPA performance indicators have limitations in their representation of input effort, output efficiency and outcome creation Client surveys were reported to be valuable, although methods vary across jurisdictions Stakeholders generally thought that NPA reporting is a relatively low burden Stakeholders would like greater clarity about what kind of performance is being monitored with the data, particularly given uncertainties about how well collected data represents what is happening on the ground. There is conceptual support for outcomes reporting, but it is also generally observed that outcomes are hard to define and difficult to measure. Client surveys were of mixed utility, with some jurisdictions reporting positive experiences, and others less so. A key issue was inappropriateness of some of the questions as framed for vulnerable clients. Generally, reporting not considered to be onerous, and an improvement of prior NPA for those involved in that process. Content of reporting unproblematic, but infrastructure to report in is burdensome. More broadly, other funders have inconsistent reporting frameworks: places a significant burden on services and detracts from the delivery of services. 15

16 TOR 4: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING Use of reported data is not clear to stakeholders The standardisation of data definitions under the NPA is an evolving process The transition to CLASS has presented challenges for many CLCs Stakeholders would like greater transparency about the use of reported data by government. Motivation and engagement with data collection processes would be enhanced where the effort of reporting delivered a benefit to the data collector (CLC, LAC). Data definitions are not consistently applied. Services have developed their own processes and definitions to translate or interpret the DSM. The CLASS database continues to be a work in progress; delays in platform delivery have caused concern for CLCs, as has a perceived shortfall in training and implementation support. There is misalignment between the minimum functional requirements of NPA reporting, and the broader operational requirements desired by CLCs. 16

17 TOR 4: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING Concerns about reporting being used for comparison purposes [finding in progress] There are extensive differences in service delivery models and offerings by CLCs but these differences are not necessarily represented in the data. CLC stakeholders raised concerns regarding the use of reporting (particularly CLASS data) for comparison purposes for this reason. 17

18 TOR 5: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Commonwealth has met the majority of its responsibilities under the NPA Mixed feedback about the extent of Commonwealth direction regarding CSP States and Territories have met their obligations Jurisdictional stakeholders report being open to more direction and active leadership from the Commonwealth at the national level. Opportunity exists for the Commonwealth to facilitate greater knowledge sharing between jurisdictions. Some stakeholders sought more direction and guidance from the Commonwealth about CSP. Others have been positive about the flexibility afforded jurisdictions to adopt approaches suited to their circumstances. States and territories have met their broad responsibilities as defined within the NPA. Stakeholders consistently observe differences in state and territory funding to the sector to influence overall equity of access. Some stakeholders (predominantly CLCs) have sought more leadership at state and territory level, particularly within CSP processes. 18

19 NEXT STEPS

20 NEXT STEPS Receive feedback on structural draft Complete coding and analysis Complete draft report by 19 November Including Urbis recommendations Receive feedback on draft report Finalise report by 12 December

21 THANK YOU