On 24 June 2000, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, announced that 'the Department of Family and Community Services will consult with community organisations and other stakeholders on the best future structure for peak body funding'.
The Minister also announced that the Department of Family and Community Services would release a discussion paper on future funding structures and invite organisations to have their say and submit responses by September 2000. These responses will be used to help shape a new funding model, to be announced before December 2000.
At the same time, funding for 20 peak community-based organisations that was due to cease on 30 June 2000, was extended for six months to 31 December 2000. This funding is administered by the Department of Family and Community Services. In making these announcements, the Minister emphasised that there is no intention to reduce total Federal Government funding to peak bodies. This amounts to over $3 million each year.
The program provides financial support to a large number of peak community-based organisations that represent the community and family services, welfare, disabilities and children's services sectors. In return for funding, organisations are expected to contribute to government policies that support families and communities and to carry information between the community and the Government on important social policy issues.
Because of the history of the program, there are a variety of funding agreements that have different funding levels, eligibility criteria and contract and reporting requirements. As well, this funding involves three programs and each is covered by separate appropriations. This makes funding arrangements administratively inefficient and difficult to understand.
The Government intends to create a new funding model and combine the three existing programs into one. The aim is to set up a fairer and more professional and collaborative arrangement that better reflects both government and community needs, and is able to accommodate changing needs in the portfolio.
Broadly, the new funding model will need to ensure that peak bodies truly re-present the views and interests of their constituents and the broader Australian public at the national level. The model will also need to be more logical and easier to administer.
Drawing on international evidence and the findings of recent reports on the Australian situation, this paper includes details about the current arrangements and reasons for change. It also suggests a more efficient and effective funding model for the future.
In May 1996, the Community Sector Support Scheme was announced in the Federal Budget. The Scheme replaced the Community Organisations Support Program that was established in 1990-91.
This paper is designed to promote debate and discussion about what constitutes the best model for funding national peak bodies. The Government will carefully consider community views before making any final decisions. The Department of Family and Community Services therefore welcomes written submissions from interested organisations and individuals on the issues raised.
Over the last four years, a number of reviews and administrative changes have affected how the Federal Government funds national, community-based peak bodies. In May 1996, the Community Sector Support Scheme was announced in the Federal Budget. The Scheme replaced the Community Organisations Support Program that was established in 1990-91. The Community Sector Support Scheme was managed by the (then) Department of Health and Family Services. Part of this Scheme assisted peak organisations with funding for their national offices.
In early 1997, the (then) Department of Health and Family Services commissioned Coopers & Lybrand to look at whether the various organisations funded under the Community Sector Support Scheme were still relevant to the portfolio's interests. Coopers & Lybrand was also asked to 'investigate and make recommendations about the purpose, nature and level of funding for secretariats of community organisations'.
In line with the Cooper & Lybrand report's recommendations, the (then) Minister for Health and Family Services announced continued outcome-based funding for most funded organisations. The new arrangements meant that organisations had to achieve specific outcomes under formal, annual contracts - outcomes that were relevant to the health and family services needs of the Australian community. Funding levels were also set at three levels - for single 'umbrella' peak bodies; for one key 'satellite' group in each sector; and for more narrowly-focused interest groups.
However, the Coopers and Lybrand study had only looked at the organisations funded under the Community Sector Support Scheme - it took no notice of community peak bodies funded under other programs. These continued under their existing funding arrangements, creating immediate funding and operational disparities.
After the 1998 Federal Election, the new Family and Community Services portfolio took on responsibility for community services functions from the Department of Health and Family Services (along with the Child Support Agency and the Family Relationships Services Program from the Attorney-General's Department). Funding for peak bodies specifically representing the interests of families and communities was transferred to the Department of Family and Community Services.
In essence, the Community Sector Support Scheme was 'split' between two departments. Responsibility for eight 'community services' organisations and the Volunteer Management Program moved to the Department of Family and Community Services. The new Department of Health and Aged Care was to manage the 12 health-related organisations.
On 1 July 1999, following a process of looking at the various grant programs that it was administering, the Department of Family and Community Services identified ten community peak bodies that were being funded, to add to the eight Community Support Sector Scheme peak bodies (a total of 18 organisations). These additional 10 organisations represented groups within the family relationship services, disabilities and child care sectors. The Minister also approved 'seed' funding for the Lone Fathers Association Australia making a total of 19 funded organisations. A second organisation, the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, was provided with seed funding in October 1999, bringing the total to 20 funded organisations.
Contracts offered to each of the twenty peak bodies for 1999-2000 included four new generic outcome measures. The new measures required organisations to:
In late 1999, Morgan Disney & Associates was commissioned by the Department of Family and Community Services to undertake a stakeholder analysis of peak bodies funded under the Department's National Secretariat Program. As well as providing this analysis, the Report identified a perceived need for change in the structure of interest groups and peak bodies and, in particular, change in the disability sector. The direction of this discussion paper reflects a number of the issues raised in the Morgan Disney & Associates Report.
In the 1999-2000 financial year, total funds provided for national secretariats of peak bodies amounted to nearly $3.2 million. The current arrangements are that each organisation has been offered pro-rata funding for the first six months of the 2000-2001 financial year, while they are being consulted on future arrangements.
Welfare
ACOSS
Allocation for 1999-2000: $467,227
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $233,613
Disabilities
-services
ACROD
Allocation for 1999-2000: $269,953
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $134,976
-consumers
Australian Association of the Deaf
Allocation for 1999-2000: $114,134
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $57,067
Blind Citizens of Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $165,386
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $82,693
National Council on Intellectual Disability
Allocation for 1999-2000: $129,785
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $64,892
Deafness Forum of Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $169,239
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $84,619
Head Injury Council of Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $112,758
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $56,379
National Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations
Allocation for 1999-2000: $82,316
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $41,158
National Ethnic Disability Alliance
Allocation for 1999-2000: $112,759
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $56,379
Physical Disability Council of Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $112,432
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $56,216
Women with Disabilities Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $112,432
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $56,216
Families
-services
Centacare Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $107,720
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $53,860
Family Services Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $153,822
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $77,044
Relationships Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $105,730
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $52,865
-lone parents
Lone fathers Association of Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $50,000
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $25,000
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children
Allocation for 1999-2000: $36,538
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $25,000
Children's Services
Australian Early Childhood Association
Allocation for 1999-2000: $301,101
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $150,550
Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care
Allocation for 1999-2000: $129,785
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $64,892
Communities
Volunteering Australia
Allocation for 1999-2000: $129,785
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $64,892
Homelessness
Australian Federation of Homeless Organisations
Allocation for 1999-2000: $301,101
Allocation for 1 July-31 Dec 2000: $150,550
1. Note, these figures represent base funding only and do not include
grossing up (plus 100/o) or clawback (minus 0.1%) which is applied according
to the organisation's GST status from 1 July 2000.
2. ACROD owns its own building and therefore has a component deducted for
rent.
3. Included an additional $38,000 for the Deafness Forum for an interpreter.
The Government wants to change the structure of its peak body funding arrangements for several reasons. The main issues surrounding change include the need to:
Respond to expectations for change
Funded organisations have indicated that they expect and want some
form of change. The Morgan Disney & Associates Report found the most
common view was that, to be more effective, the sector must develop better
working relationships, that is, within their sector, with other sectors
and with the Department. However, the Report also found that opinions about
working relationships vary considerably. They range from perceived personality
differences to issues of organisational form and major structural and resourcing
challenges. Responses to this varied from minimal change to a radical restructure
of the sector.
In implementing change, community expectations will be taken into account.
Provide each sector with a fairer funding share
At the moment, some sectors receive a disproportionately higher share
of the total peak body funds available under the Program. In 1999-00, ten
disability organisations received around $1.4 million or nearly half the
total funding provided.
Any new funding arrangements will ensure each sector receives a fair
share of the total funding.
Create more funding certainty
Under present arrangements, funding is allocated on a yearly basis.
Peak bodies are allocated funds each year and agree to meet the requirements
of annual funding contracts. For some organisations, this leads to funding
uncertainty (and consequent difficulties for longer term planning) and
considerable time spent on reporting and administration.
Last year the Office of the Status of Women reviewed its National Women's
Funding Program which resulted in the adoption of two streams of funding:
the national secretariat stream provides funding for a three-year period,
subject to annual review. This arrangement provides a stronger funding
base that enables funded organisations to plan for the longer term; and
the project stream provides funding on a yearly basis for national women's
organisations to carry out activities on current or emerging policy issues
affecting women.
Consideration will be given to introducing triennial funding for national,
broad-based peak bodies that would be subject to annual performance in
meeting agreed outputs and subject to Parliamentary appropriation.
Improve accountability and audit procedures
Morgan Disney & Associates reports that all organisations accept
that accountability for public funds is an important issue and that improved
accountability was seen as the minimum anticipated outcome of any new funding
arrangements. Some organisations also believed government support should
be restricted to those bodies that do not have the capacity to charge membership
fees, attract public donations or raise revenue by selling publications.
Currently, contracts for funded peak bodies differ according to their particular
history and have different accountability and outcome requirements. New
uniform accountability and audit conditions could require funded organisations
to develop stronger audit procedures, use best practice in their own organisational
management administration, and develop more effective collaboration within
and across sectors to achieve joint positions on policy issues.
Accountability and audit procedures will continue to ensure responsible
and efficient use of taxpayers' money by peak bodies.
Support peak bodies that truly represent their sectors and are 'consumer'
driven
Currently, the Department of Family and Community Services funds a
range of organisations that represent community service providers, consumers,
or both. In practice, this system can lead to conflicting views being put
to government from different groups claiming to represent the same sector.
The Coopers and Lybrand Review of the Community Sector Support Scheme in 1997 questioned whether 'service provider representative organisations' should be included in the funding program. The Review defined this group as 'those organisations whose primary function is to represent the views and interests of persons whose occupation is the provision of services in the health and community services field'.
They examined several reviews on this issue and recommended, 'that organisations which represent the interests of service providers be excluded from the CSSS funding unless they can demonstrate that no other organisation can be identified which can fulfil the role of representing consumers in their field of interest'.
Morgan Disney & Associates reported perceptions among organisations
that 'Australia is behind other countries in its drive to achieve a strong
network of genuine consumer driven organisations'. However, there is no
broad agreement on what this means in the Australian context. In developing
new policies, the Government is keen to hear the views of consumers from
throughout the Australian community. At the moment, it appears that some
funded organisations do not have effective mechanisms in place to properly
consult with their membership and convey the issues raised to government.
Eligibility criteria for funding will require peak bodies to have broad-based
membership and mechanisms to effectively represent consumers' 'views to
government.
Avoid duplication and identify and fill funding 'gaps'
Among the current list of funded bodies, two organisations represent
single parents, three organisations represent family service providers
and two organisations represent the interests of hearing impaired people.
No group represents people with psychiatric disabilities. Consideration
needs to be given to ensuring that the interests of indigenous, culturally
diverse communities and women are adequately represented across the different
sectors. In addition, the disability sector needs to address the issues
around families of people with a disability.
A new funding model will address duplications and gaps in sector representation.
Encourage the disabilities and families sectors to create their own
peak bodies
The Department provides financial support to ten disability interest
groups and peak bodies. This includes ACROD which is predominantly an industry
body, plus a range of diagnostically-focused (rather than issues-focused)
consumer groups, as well as support through one peak body to an informal
and unincorporated Caucus of Disability Consumer Organisations. There is
no national peak body that speaks on behalf of the whole disability sector.
This would seem to be a desirable step and consideration needs to given
to how these disparate groups might combine in a 'consumer driven' move
to form a single representative body. One option to support such a move
would be to allocate more funds to Caucus. This would enable it to be separately
incorporated and have a separate secretariat from its member bodies, to
improve its operational and collaborative capacities and help it become
a single consumer peak body for the disability sector.
Similarly, there is no consumer peak body representing the interests of families. Currently there are three funded bodies that represent family service providers - Centacare Australia, Family Services Australia, and Relationships Australia.
One consumer peak body that represents the interests of a sector would
improve interaction with government and represent more efficient and logical
use of government funding.
A new funding model will include funds for peak bodies that can fully
represent the disabilities and family services sectors.
Develop world 'best practice' funding arrangements
In Australia, peak body funding arrangements are less well advanced
than in other developed nations. For instance, in Canada national disability
groups sign strict partnership contracts with government and there is a
strong emphasis on consumer-driven and consumer-focused non-government
organisations. In the United Kingdom, the Blair Government has implemented
a 'Compact' between government and what is called the 'voluntary' sector.
Under the Compact, contract requirements are quite specific and disability
organisations, in particular, are required to be issues-focused rather
than diagnostically focused.
In developing new funding arrangements the Government will draw on 'best
practice' overseas models.
This section outlines a possible funding model, developed by the Department of Family and Community Services. It draws heavily on the past structure of the Community Sector Support Scheme; the Morgan Disney & Associates Analysis; and on feedback and discussions with peak bodies and different program areas within the Family and Community Services portfolio.
Developing the model
In developing the model, account was taken of the need to:
This model could be renamed the FACS National Secretariat Fund.
The proposed model addresses the funding inequities that exist under current arrangements. It reflects the need for improved representation of sector issues and concerns to government and better flow of government directions and information to consumers. The model also treats each sector in an equitable way and provides a more streamlined administration.
A two-tier system
The model involves a two-tier system, and includes Level One ('umbrella') and Level Two ('satellite') organisations.
Level One ('umbrella') organisations
This level of funding could be structured to line up with the three outcomes of the Department of Family and Community Services.
Alternatively, it could include single, consumer-based, national organisations that represent joint broad sectors:
To qualify for funding at Level One, an organisation would be required to:
Level Two ('satellite') organisations
This level accommodates the need for specific interest group representation. These groups would include those with interests in particular policies or broader community issues. Organisation must ensure that they also represent the interests of indigenous culturally diverse communities and women in their area of interest.
Eligibility requirements for Level Two funding would be the same as for Level One, except that they would be required to represent 'a significant sub-set of the Australian society with major interests in Family and Community Services' policies'. This recognises that these groups would only represent part of the community, and not the whole.
Free Standing Satellites could include:
Single Parents
Children
Disability* (if not funded as an umbrella) may be subdivided, for example:
Homelessness
Housing
Carer/Volunteers (if not funded as an Umbrella)
* The disability sector would be expected to take an issues focussed approach in their area of interest.
Level One
Each Level One organisation would receive the same amount each
year - say, $300,000 - 400,000. Subject to organisations meeting their
contractual and performance obligations and subject to Parliamentary appropriation,
this funding could be guaranteed for three years.
Level Two
Each Level Two organisation would receive equal support of say,
$100,000 - 200,000. Funds might be allocated on a yearly basis, or triennially.
Performance Agreements
Performance agreements would require Umbrella and Satellite organisations
to demonstrate collaborative working relationships when advising on specific
policy issues.
Funding for special projects
Each year, any remaining funds would be set aside to invest m capacity
budding for funded organisations or to provide 'one-off grants for new
and innovative peak body special projects. Eligibility would depend on
the extent to which the projects helped to improve peak body operations
and representation.
With these funding levels, some allocations to existing peak bodies could increase, while for others the allocations could decrease. However, uniform allocations would make the funding simpler and fairer. It would also make the system easier to understand and administer.
Attached is a list of questions that are aimed at assisting you to respond to the Discussion Paper.
What do you consider to be the minimum amount of money required to fund (a) Level One, umbrella organisations and (b) Level Two, satellite organisations?
Which option is preferred for Level One - structured (a) in line with the Department's Outcomes, (b) against broad joint sectors or (c) other?
What is the best process for creating a new single peak organisation eg: for the disability sector, the families sector?
Would you prefer that a single peak organisation represent the disability sector?
What is your view of the option under Level Two for subdividing the disability sector into 5 groups?
Should organisations that represent service providers be funded and administered separate to that of consumer organisations?
How could working relationships be improved? (ie: within the sector, between sectors and with government.)
What do you consider to be the peak organisation's best mechanism for ensuring effective consultation with their members and with government?
What kinds of initiatives could be fielded to promote organisation best practice in operating as a national secretariat?
For additional copies of this Discussion Paper:
For Inquiries
If you are deaf, hearing impaired or speech impaired, please call
To provide feedback and lodge written submissions on this discussion paper:
Director
Government and Community Team
02 6244 7321
Director
Government and Community Team (CW2)
Partnership and Service Delivery Branch
Department of Family and Community Services
PO Box 7788
Canberra Mail Exchange ACT 2610
IMPORTANT
The closing date for submissions is 30 September 2000.
This site was developed by Carolyn Frohmader for Women With Disabilities Australia.
This site complies with HTML DTD 4.0 and the draft guidelines for page authouring to support Web accessibility for people with disabilities, developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.