Performance Framework Guideline V2.1 - … · Web viewGuideline:Performance Framework jobactive is...

Guideline:Performance Frameworkjobactive is underpinned by a sound Performance Framework based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, quality and assurance. This Guideline contains detailed information on the Performance Frameworks for each of the services delivered under jobactive. Performance Framework elements common to all programs are outlined in this section.

The following programs are outlined in stand-alone chapters:

Employment Provider Services Work for the Dole Coordinators New Enterprise Incentives Scheme (NEIS) Harvest Labour Services (HLS)National Harvest Labour Information Services (NHLIS)

Version: 2.1 Published on: 11 August 2017

Effective from: 11 September 2017

Changes from the previous version (Version 2.0)

Policy changes:

Wording changes:Star Ratings: Amendments to anticipated months of release (Table 3). Refinement of performance measure definitions to account for two year rolling assessment periods. Inclusion of links to publicly available labour market data.Quality Assurance Framework: Restructure of content including minor wording changes to improve clarity. Minor changes have been made to four quality performance measures for Surveillance Audit scope reduction in Attachment A. These amendments align the data for the quality performance measure to information that providers receive.

Document Change History:A full document history is available in Archived Guidelines, on the same Provider Portal page as this guideline.

Related documents and referencesProgram policy Guidelines on Provider PortalLearning Centre websiteEmployment Services Reporting and Qlik

https://dynamic.reports.employment.gov.au/bi/hub/stream/bf7cb396-cbdf-4add-95de-b621d68f2e8c

https://reports.employment.gov.au/PORTAL/

https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/learningcentre/EmploymentServices/Pages/home.aspx

https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/Guidelines/Pages/default.aspx

jobactive guideline Performance Framework

Contents

1. Performance assessment and management 4

2. Indigenous Outcomes Targets 4

3. Star Ratings 6

Star Ratings Methodology 6

Star Ratings Definitions 8

Star Ratings Worked Examples 16

4. Quality Assurance Framework 21

Administrative Considerations 22

The Quality Principles 22

The Quality Standards 24

CABs and Quality Auditors 25

Quality Principles Audits and Reports 25

Preparing for your Audit 27

Finalising your Audit 32

5. Compliance Indicator 35

The Compliance Indicator Methodology 36

Star Ratings Interaction 39

Out of Scope Reviews 42

6. Service Guarantees and Service Delivery Plans 43

7. Performance Reviews 44

8. Business Reallocation 44

9. Work for the Dole Coordinator Performance Framework 45

10. New Enterprise Incentive Scheme Performance Framework 48

11. Harvest Labour Services Performance Framework 52

12. National Harvest Labour Information Service Performance Framework 52

Attachment A: jobactive Quality Assurance Framework Evidence Requirements 53

Attachment B: Work for the Dole Coordinator Quality Principles 67

Attachment C: Self-Assessment Quality Report Template 78

Attachment D: QAF Audit Process Flow Chart 81

Effective from: 11 Sep 17 version 2.0 of 85


1. Performance assessment and managementPerformance Framework elements common to all programs are outlined in this section.

Principles for the assessment of performanceThough methods of assessment differ across services, the following three elements form the basis of all jobactive Performance Frameworks:

efficiency effectiveness quality and assurance.

For Employment Providers, Work for the Dole Coordinators and NEIS Providers, these elements are identical to the three contractual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) against which their performance will be assessed. Although Providers of HLS and NHLIS are not assessed against a set of KPIs, the performance measures used are informed by the same performance assessment elements.

Deed ComplianceThe Department monitors compliance matters such as fraud, wrongdoing, whether claims meet requirements, discrimination and other potential breaches of the Deed and will raise any concerns in a timely manner. These monitoring activities are supported by ongoing review, contract management and regular and discrete Programme Assurance Activities.

The Department may apply business sanctions for administrative breaches of the Deed or any of its supporting Guidelines. A separate legal framework applies where intent to defraud the Commonwealth is proven.

Joint Charter of Deed ManagementThe Joint Charter of Deed Management (Joint Charter) reflects the commitments of Employment Providers and the Department in contributing to the effective management of jobactive. It is available on the Provider Portal and sets out the standards for performance and conduct expected in the delivery of services according to jobactive deeds.

The Joint Charter is applicable to Employment Providers, Work for the Dole Coordinators, NEIS Providers, HLS Providers and the NHLIS Provider. Providers’ performance against the Joint Charter will be assessed as part of ongoing contract management activities and performance assessments.

2. Indigenous Outcomes TargetsIntroduction

An objective of jobactive is to increase job outcomes for unemployed Australians with specific targets for Indigenous job seekers. Indigenous Outcomes Targets are designed to focus Providers on achieving employment outcomes for Indigenous job seekers in parity with the proportion of Indigenous job seekers on their caseloads in every Employment Region.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkSetting Indigenous Outcomes Targets

Providers are expected to achieve outcomes in parity with the proportion of Indigenous job seekers on their caseloads. They are required to meet nine separate targets—4, 12 and 26 Week Outcome targets for Indigenous job seekers in Streams A, B and C. For example, if 5 per cent of the job seekers on a Provider’s Stream B caseload identify as Indigenous then at least 5 per cent of the Provider’s 4 Week, 12 Week and 26 Week outcomes in Stream B must be achieved for Indigenous job seekers.

The Indigenous Outcomes Targets are set one month before the start of each Performance Period and Providers are advised of these in advance through the IO01 - Indigenous Outcomes Targets report on the Employment Services Reporting Portal.

(Deed reference: Annexure 1)

Measuring Performance against the Indigenous Outcomes TargetsProviders are assessed against Indigenous Outcomes Targets at the Employment Region level only.

Assessment of performance against the Indigenous Outcomes Targets will take into account:

outcome claims lodged within the Performance Period with a status of approved or pending on the final day of the period

Full Outcomes for the 4, 12 and 26 Week Outcome targets Partial Outcomes for the 4 and 12 Week Outcome targets the identified Indigenous status of job seekers at the time they were placed in

the job which led to the outcome.

Timing of performance assessmentsProviders’ performance against Indigenous Outcomes Targets will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and at the end of each Performance Period as part of formal performance reviews.

(Deed reference: Clause 28)

Actions taken where there is poor performanceProviders that do not achieve Indigenous Outcomes Targets may be subject to sanctions under the Deed.

(Deed references: Clause 101.9 and 52.2)

Provider performance reports Targets and Outcomes achieved for each performance period are provided in the IO01 - Indigenous Outcomes Targets report on the Employment Services Reporting Portal.

Additional informationAdditional information on the Indigenous Outcomes Targets is available on the Learning Centre and the Provider Portal. The Business Review and Reallocation page on the Provider Portal contains the Industry Information Paper – Indigenous Outcomes Targets Performance Framework which includes further information about measuring performance and actions taken when there is poor performance against Indigenous Outcomes Targets.



3. Star RatingsThis section describes the methodology used to calculate the jobactive Star Ratings which assess the relative performance levels of Providers. They inform job seeker and employer choice as well as the Department’s business review and reallocation processes.

Star Ratings are calculated at both Employment Region (contract) level and site level. All ratings are released for the information of all Providers on the Provider Portal while the public releases on the jobactive and Department websites include only the site level ratings.

(Deed references: Clauses 99, 100, Annexure A1).

Star Ratings MethodologyThe Star Ratings assess Providers against Key Performance Indicator 1 (efficiency) and Key Performance Indicator 2 (effectiveness) via the six performance measures listed in Table 1. The methodology has seven major steps:

Step 1: Calculate Actual PerformanceActual performance is calculated against the six performance measures for each Stream.

Table 1 – Performance Measures and WeightingsPerformance Measure Weighting26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers 50%26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers 10%26 Week Outcomes – Time to Placement 10%12 Week Outcomes (with Collaboration Bonus) 10%Work for the Dole Phase – Participation 10%Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity 10%

Step 2: Calculate Expected PerformanceFor five of the six performance measures, regression analysis determines the performance levels which could reasonably have been expected given the individual characteristics of the job seekers assisted and the characteristics of the local labour market.

Regression analysis is not used in the assessment of the Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity measure.

Step 3: Calculate Actual to Expected RatiosActual performance is divided by expected performance.

Step 4: Standardise Actual to Expected RatiosThe Actual to Expected Ratios are standardised to performance measure scores which are similarly distributed on the same scale, allowing them to be aggregated in line with their respective weightings.

Imputation rules are applied when there are sufficient data for the ‘26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers’ measure but insufficient data to reliably calculate expected performance for the ‘26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers’ measure and/or the ‘26 Week Outcomes – Time to Placement’ measure.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkStep 5: Calculate Stream Level and Overall Star Percentages

Stream level performance scores are calculated by aggregating the performance measure scores according to their weightings. The Stream level score is compared with the national average score to calculate the Stream level Star Percentage.

Imputation rules are applied where there are insufficient data for a Stream level performance score to be calculated (less than 20 eligible commencement records for the 26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers performance measure).

The Overall Star Percentages are calculated by aggregating the Stream level Star Percentages with the following weightings:

Stream A: 25% Stream B: 35% Stream C: 40%

Step 6: Apply Compliance Indicator PenaltiesIn cases where a Provider’s Employment Region Compliance Indicator Score is below 83, a penalty is applied to the Overall Star Percentages in that region at both contract and site level. This may also lead to lower Overall Star Ratings. See the Compliance Indicator section for a full description of how the Compliance Indicator Score is calculated.

Step 7: Allocate Star RatingsStar Ratings are allocated according to the Star Percentage bandwidths shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Star Percentage BandwidthsStar Rating Star Percentage Bandwidth5-Star 30 per cent or more above the national average4-Star Between 15 and 29 per cent above the national average3-Star Between 14 per cent above and 14 per cent below the national average2-Star Between 15 and 39 per cent below the national average1-Star 40 per cent or more below the national average

Performance ReportsStar Rating related performance reports have been progressively released from October 2015. The reports are updated weekly and are accessed from the Employment Services Reporting site of the Employment Community Service Network (ECSN) by selecting reports, jobactive and performance. The reports detail performance data for the six performance measures in each Stream, including:

numerators, denominators and rates for a Provider’s Employment Regions and sites

summary information, such as averages and maxima, for all Providers by Employment Region and nationally.

A Qlik Sense Star Ratings Analysis App is available from the ‘Qlik Data Analysis’ site of the ECSN. It is updated monthly and provides visual analysis and discovery tools to assess performance levels against the six Star Rating performance measures over time. These include instant and dynamic transformations of performance data in to charts and tables at Employment Region and site level. A User Guide for the App is available from the ‘About Qlik’ site of the ESCN.

Additional InformationFor additional information on the Star Ratings go to:


jobactive guideline Performance Framework the Learning Centre the Provider Portal the Department of Employment website.

Star Ratings DefinitionsThis section describes various aspects of the methodology in detail.

Rolling Assessment Period and TimingStar Ratings are calculated quarterly and use a two year rolling assessment period. Table 3 details the assessment periods for each release and the month of publication. The end dates for each assessment period variously account for weekends, public holidays and the Department shutdown period. Any extensions to the end dates will be advised in news items on the Provider Portal.

Table 3 – Assessment Periods for Star Ratings ReleasesStar Ratings Release Assessment Period Public Release Date /

Anticipated Release MonthJune 2016 1 July 2015 – 7 July 2016 8 August 2016September 2016 1 July 2015 – 7 October 2016 7 November 2016December 2016 1 July 2015 – 6 January 2017 13 February 2017March 2017 1 July 2015 – 4 April 2017 28 April 2017June 2017 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2017 4 August 2017September 2017 1 October 2015 – 3 October 2017 October 2017December 2017 1 January 2016 – 5 January 2018 February 2018March 2018 1 April 2016 – 3 April 2018 April 2018June 2018 1 July 2016 – 2 July 2018 July 2018September 2018 1 October 2016 – 2 October 2018 October 2018December 2018 1 January 2017 - 4 January 2019 February 2019March 2019 1 April 2017 – 1 April 2019 April 2019June 2019 1 July 2017 – 1 July 2019 July 2019September 2019 1 October 2017 – 1 October 2019 October 2019December 2019 1 January 2018 – 3 January 2020 February 2020March 2020 1 April 2018 – 31 March 2020 April 2020June 2020 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2020 July 2020

Note: March 2016 ratings were given to their owning providers with no public release.

Performance Measure DefinitionsThe actual performance levels for each performance measure represent a ratio of a numerator divided by a denominator as defined below.

26 Week Outcomes - All Job SeekersThe 26 Week Outcome rate for all eligible job seekers.

Numerator: 26 Week Outcomes for eligible job seekers which were lodged during the assessment period plus Transition to Work Sustainability Employment Outcomes for job seekers who were referred from jobactive.

Denominator (Stream A): Job seekers who reached three months in Employment Services at least 28 weeks before the end of the assessment period.

Denominator (Streams B & C): Job seekers who commenced at least 28 weeks before the end of the assessment period.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkDenominator (Exclusions): The following groups of job seekers are excluded from the denominator to reflect the two year rolling assessment period.

job seekers who exited at least 26 weeks before the assessment period start date.

job seekers who exited up to 26 weeks before the assessment period start date with a 26 Week Outcome lodged prior to the assessment period start date.

Two Year Rolling Assessment Period Case StudyA job seeker exits Stream C assistance with a Provider site on 1 February 2016 and a 26 Week Outcome is lodged on 1 June 2016.

For the June 2018 Stream C Star Ratings, the two year assessment period start date is 1 July 2016. As the outcome was lodged prior to 1 July 2016 it is excluded from the numerator in the calculation of the rating. The commencement record is also excluded from the denominator as the job seeker exited within 26 weeks of 1 July 2016 and a 26 Week Outcome was lodged prior to 1 July 2016.

26 Week Outcomes - Indigenous Job SeekersThe 26 Week Outcome rate for all eligible Indigenous job seekers.

Numerator: 26 Week Outcomes for eligible Indigenous job seekers which were lodged during the assessment period.

Denominator (Stream A): Indigenous job seekers who reached three months in Employment Services at least 28 weeks before the end of the assessment period.

Denominator (Streams B & C): Indigenous job seekers who commenced at least 28 weeks before the end of the assessment period.

Denominator (Exclusions): The following groups of job seekers are excluded from the denominator to reflect the two year rolling assessment period.

Indigenous job seekers who exited at least 26 weeks before the assessment period start date.

Indigenous job seekers who exited up to 26 weeks before the assessment period start date with a 26 Week Outcome lodged prior to the assessment period start date.

26 Week Outcomes – Time to PlacementThe average number of days taken to achieve 26 Week Outcomes.

Numerator (Stream A): Total period of service days between job seekers’ commencement dates or passing three months in Employment Services (whichever is the latest) and their job placement dates that led to the 26 Week Outcomes in the denominator.

Numerator (Streams B & C): Total period of service days between job seekers’ commencement dates and their job placement dates that led to the 26 Week Outcomes in the denominator.

Denominator: 26 Week Outcomes for eligible job seekers which were lodged during the assessment period.

Two Year Rolling Assessment Period Case Study


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkA Provider site lodged a Stream C 26 Week Outcome on 1 June 2016. The job seeker had a period of service of 100 days between their commencement date with the site and the date of placement in the job which led to the outcome.

For the June 2018 Stream C Star Ratings, the two year assessment period start date is 1 July 2016. As the outcome was lodged prior to the rolling period start date it is excluded from the denominator and the 100 period of service days is excluded from the numerator.

12 Week Outcomes - All Job SeekersThe 12 Week Outcome rate for all eligible job seekers.

Numerator: 12 Week Full and Partial Outcomes for eligible job seekers which were lodged during the assessment period plus Transition to Work 12 Week Employment Outcomes for job seekers who were referred from jobactive.

Denominator (Stream A): Job seekers who reached three months in Employment Services at least 14 weeks before the end of the assessment period.

Denominator (Streams B & C): Job seekers who commenced at least 14 weeks before the end of the assessment period.

Denominator (Exclusions): The following groups of job seekers are excluded from the denominator to reflect the two year rolling assessment period.

job seekers who exited at least 12 weeks before the assessment period start date.

job seekers who exited up to 12 weeks before the assessment period start date with a 12 Week Outcome lodged prior to the assessment period start date.

Collaboration BonusThe collaboration bonus adjusts the standardised score for the 12 Week Outcomes performance measure. It is calculated at Stream and Employment Region level and is applied to both contract and site level scores.

Numerator: 12 Week Outcomes lodged during the assessment period which were achieved in the assessed provider’s jobs by job seekers on another Provider’s caseload.

Denominator: 12 Week Outcomes lodged during the assessment period which were achieved in the assessed provider’s jobs by job seekers on their own caseload and job seekers on another Provider’s caseload.

Work for the Dole Phase - ParticipationThe average proportion of Annual Activity Requirement hours achieved by job seekers while in the Work for the Dole Phase.

Numerator: Aggregate proportions of job seekers’ (who are in the denominator) Annual Activity Requirements met during the Work for the Dole Phase.

Denominator: Job seekers with an Annual Activity Requirement who completed or exited the Work for the Dole Phase during the assessment period.

Note: Job seekers who are placed in a job during the Work for the Dole Phase and achieve a 12 Week Full Outcome from that placement during the same phase are


jobactive guideline Performance Frameworkcounted as having met the entirety of their Annual Activity Requirements (since the September 2016 release).

Two Year Rolling Assessment Period Case StudyA Stream C job seeker exited the Work for the Dole Phase on 1 June 2016. The job seeker had completed 325 of 650 AAR hours (that is, a proportion of 0.5).

This job seeker is excluded from the June 2018 and subsequent Stream C Star Rating calculations having exited prior to the assessment period start date of 1 July 2016. Therefore the numerator is reduced by 0.5 and the denominator by 1. Note that if the job seeker had exited on 1 July 2016 then the record is included in the June 2018 rating calculations as the phase exit date was within the two year assessment period.

Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / ActivityThe average numerator value (see Table 4) achieved by job seekers who commenced in the Work for the Dole Phase, noting:

‘Transition’ job seekers transferred in to the Work for the Dole Phase from Job Services Australia on 1 July 2015.

‘Non Transition’ job seekers are all other commencements in the Work for the Dole Phase.

The approved activities to meet the Annual Activity Requirement are in the ‘Managing and Monitoring Mutual Obligation Requirements and Job Plan Guideline’

Numerator: Aggregate values for time taken to commence job seekers (who are in the denominator) in a Work for the Dole or other Approved Activity.

Denominator: Job seekers with an Annual Activity Requirement who commenced in the Work for the Dole Phase on or after the assessment period start date.

Denominator (Exclusions): Job seekers who commenced within 15 business days of the end of the assessment period and who had not achieved a numerator value.

Table 4 – Numerator Values for Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity

Time taken to Commence Approved Activity after Commencing in the Work for the Dole Phase

Transition Commencements

Non Transition Commencements

<= 5 business days (1 week) 1 1 6 to 10 business days (2 weeks) 0.8 0.66 11 to 15 business days (3 weeks) 0.6 0.33 16 to 20 business days (4 weeks) 0.6 0 21 to 40 business days (8 weeks) 0.2 0 41 to 100 business days (20 weeks) 0.1 0 > 100 business days (>20 weeks) 0 0Yet to commence Activity and past maximum days 0 0

Two Year Rolling Assessment Period Case StudiesA Stream C job seeker (Transition) commenced in the Work for the Dole Phase on 1 September 2015 and commenced an approved activity 23 business days later on 2 October 2015. This earns a numerator value of 0.2 for the March 2016 to June 2017 ratings. For the September 2017 (and subsequent) ratings the job seeker is excluded having commenced the phase prior to the assessment period start date of 1 October 2015. This reduces the numerator by 0.2 and the denominator by 1.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkA Stream C job seeker (Non Transition) commenced in the Work for the Dole Phase on 20 June 2016 and commenced an approved activity eight business days later on 30 June 2016. This earns a numerator value of 0.66 for the June 2016 to March 2018 ratings. For the June 2018 (and subsequent) ratings, this job seeker is excluded having commenced the phase prior to the assessment period start date of 1 July 2016. This reduces the numerator by 0.66 and the denominator by 1.

Additional Notes on Performance Measure DefinitionsThe denominator conditions for the 12 Week and 26 Week Outcome performance measures include an additional two weeks to allow for cases where the outcome start date is moved forward to align with Department of Human Services fortnightly payment periods.

Stream A job seekers who are exited from assistance before reaching three months in Employment Services are not eligible for Employment Outcomes and are excluded from the relevant denominators.

Commencement records for which the ‘Days Available’ job seeker characteristic reflects less than two weeks of assistance are excluded.

Commencement records which otherwise would not meet the criteria for inclusion in the denominator are included if an outcome for the measure has been achieved.

The 12 Week and 26 Week Outcome claims submitted by Providers count towards Star Rating calculations if they:

were lodged within the period being assessed

have a status of approved, pending, or acquitted on the final day of the period being assessed (this means that Pay Slip Verified Outcome Payments need to be finalised by the final day of the period and Outcomes which have since been recovered are not included).

are not a multiple outcome for a single job seeker commencement record for the same performance measure. For example, if a Stream A job seeker has a 12 Week Partial Outcome followed by a 12 Week Full Outcome, then only the first Outcome will count towards the Stream A 12 Week Outcomes measure.

Where a proportion of all claims is deemed to have not met requirements under clause 29 of the Deed, individual claims equivalent to the proportion of each claim type to be deemed to have not met requirements, will be selected for removal from Star Ratings calculations.

RegressionThe Star Ratings methodology recognises that Providers operate in disparate labour markets and work with diverse job seekers. To control for differences in job seeker and labour market characteristics, the Star Ratings methodology uses regression analysis—a standard statistical technique that accounts for different relationships among variables. The use of regression analysis allows for fair comparison of Providers’ performances across Australia.

A separate regression model is run for five of the six performance measures for each Stream, resulting in ‘expected’ outcome rates for each Provider. These ‘expected’ rates represent what Providers could reasonably be expected to have achieved given the unique set of job seekers they assisted under local labour market conditions. The actual Outcome rate is divided by the expected Outcome rate to derive an actual-versus-expected ratio. Higher ratios contribute to higher Star Percentages and Star Ratings.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThe Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity performance measure is not subject to regression analysis as performance is a function of individual Provider’s level of organisation and ability to activate job seekers, as opposed to external factors such as local labour market conditions. Providers should plan ahead of job seekers commencing in the Work for the Dole Phase in order to perform well against the measure.

The job seeker and labour market characteristics which are accounted for in the jobactive Star Ratings model are set out in Table 5. Additional characteristics may be included for one or more of the six performance measures.

Table 5 – Labour Market and Job Seeker CharacteristicsLabour Market CharacteristicsEmployment Growth Employment growth rate of job seeker’s Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

Statistical Area 4 level.Income Support The proportion of the population on income support for the job seeker’s ABS

Statistical Area 2 level.Low Skilled Vacancy Rate Low skilled vacancies proportion for job seeker’s Internet Vacancy Index region.Metro Employment Region Job seeker is being assisted by a Metropolitan located site.Unemployment Rate 1 The unemployment rate of the job seeker’s ABS Statistical Area 4 level spatial

unit.Unemployment Rate Change 1

Change in unemployment rate over 12 months at Greater Capital City Statistical Area 2 level (since the March 2017 release).

Job Seeker CharacteristicsAccess to transport Type of transport available as recorded in the Job Seeker Classification

Instrument (JSCI).Age Age at commencement.Age Youngest Child The age of the youngest dependent child.Allowance Type Allowance type at commencement.Commencement Month The year and month that the job seeker commenced assistance.Contactability Has access to a phone as recorded in the JSCI.Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Country of birth – three groups of varying level of disadvantage (align with JSCI groupings).

Days Available Number of days provider has had to place the job seeker.Disability Identification of any disability as recorded in the JSCI.Early School Leaver Identified as subject to the Early School Leavers policy.Education Level Highest education level as recorded in the JSCI.Ex-Offender Identified as having had a custodial sentence in JSCI.Flow Identified as an active job seeker at the start of jobactive.Gender Gender.Indigenous Job seeker is Indigenous.JSCI Score JSCI Score.Long Term Income Support Proportion of the preceding 10 years the job seeker was on income support (or

from the age of 15 if under 25).Pre Release Prisoner Has participated in a pre-release prisoner project.Previous Work Experience Work experience type over the previous two years prior to JSCI interview.Transient Number of moves to different postcodes during period of assistance.Unemployment Duration Unemployment duration at commencement.Unstable Accommodation Identified as having unstable accommodation in JSCI.Vocational Qualifications Job seeker has a useful vocational qualification as identified in their JSCI.Work Capacity Hours Hours per week available for work as identified by the Employment Services

Assessment.

Table 5 Notes:


jobactive guideline Performance Framework1 This Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website page has Unemployment Rate and Unemployment Rate Change statistics with particular reference to the following tables: 6291.0.55.001 - Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery – Table 02 and

RM12 This ABS website page has information and maps on the Greater Capital City Statistical Areas with particular reference to: 1270.0.55.001 - Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 1 - Main

Structure and Greater Capital City Statistical Areas 1270.0.55.001 - GCCSA ASGS Edition 2011 pdf maps

StandardisationStandardisation is applied to each Star Ratings performance measure which results in a final performance measure score. Standardisation is used to ensure that above average performance is properly credited. This enables the Star Ratings model to treat performance measures with different means and standard deviations equally. In this way, the Star Ratings compensates for differing distributions of performance measure results without advantaging or disadvantaging Providers.

The standardised performance measure scores for any Provider will have the same rank as the equivalent pre-standardised performance measure score. Additionally, standardisation preserves relative difference in results between any two performance measure star scores.

Star Ratings for New and Ceased Contracts and SitesNew Contracts and Their SitesFrom the time a Provider commences delivering jobactive services in an Employment Region, all performance data which meet the criteria for individual performance measures will be included in the statistical regression calculations of the Star Ratings model. However, around 12 months of performance data are required before its contract and site level ratings are publicly released. In advance of this, preliminary ratings covering around the first nine months of operation may be distributed to the Provider.

For example, if a Provider commences in an Employment Region in July 2017, it will receive preliminary March 2018 ratings and its first published ratings will be included in the June 2018 release.

An exception to this occurs with contract novations, where new Providers take over the operations of existing contracts. The new provider has a new contract and new sites but inherits the past performance data of the ceased contract and its sites. The Star Ratings model aggregates the performance data of both the new and original contracts and sites. This means that Star Ratings for the new contracts and sites can be calculated from the very next release following the novations.

New Sites with Existing ContractsIn the immediate release following their commencement of service, these sites receive ratings which have been imputed from their contract level ratings. Preliminary actual ratings covering around the first nine months of operation may be distributed to the Provider. Actual ratings will be calculated and published after around 12 months of operation. However regardless of whether an actual rating is calculated for a new site, from the time the site commences, all performance data which meet the criteria for individual performance measures will contribute to the Provider’s contract level ratings.


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/PrimaryMainFeatures/1270.0.55.001?OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/6291.0.55.001

jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkCeased Sites with Continuing ContractsWhile Star Ratings will not be calculated for ceased sites, their performance data will continue to contribute to their respective contract level ratings.

Ceased ContractsThe performance data for ceased contracts and their associated sites are excluded entirely from the Star Ratings model. This ensures that national average performance is based on the performance of current contracts only.

VolunteersThe Star Ratings model includes volunteers in the calculation of Stream A Star Ratings where they meet the denominator criteria. Providers are encouraged to complete JSCI assessments for volunteers to ensure that their characteristics are accounted for in the statistical regression. Where a JSCI has not been completed, default values will be applied to the job seeker’s record.

Treatment of job seekers who are referred to the Community Development Programme

The Star Ratings model accounts for job seekers who are transferred to the Community Development Programme (formerly the Remote Jobs and Communities Programme) but are not immediately exited. For these job seekers, their Community Development Programme referral dates are deemed to be their exit dates.

Performance Measure ImputationWhere the denominators for the 26 Week Outcomes - Indigenous Job Seekers and 26 Week Outcomes - Time to Placement performance measures are below 20, the following business rules are applied for these two measures to ensure that affected Providers are treated equitably:

If 50 per cent or more of all contracts within a Stream have fewer than 20 eligible records in the denominator then the performance scores for the 26 Week Outcomes - All Job Seekers performance measure are used for all contracts in that Stream.

If there are fewer than 20 eligible records in the denominator at Employment Region level then the performance score for the 26 Week Outcomes All Job Seekers measure is allocated to the measure.

If there are fewer than 20 eligible records in the denominator at Site level then the Employment Region level performance score for the measure is allocated.

Calculation of Stream and Overall Star PercentagesStream Star Scores are calculated by aggregating the six final performance measure scores according to their respective weightings. The national average Stream Star Score is calculated and Stream Star Percentages are determined by comparing the Stream Star Score with the national average Stream Star Score.

Star Scores are calculated by aggregating the Stream Star Scores according to their respective weightings. The national average Star Score is calculated and Star Percentages are determined by comparing the Star Score with the national average Star Score.

Imputed Star RatingsOverall Star Ratings can only be calculated if there is a rating for each of the three streams. Some Employment Regions and sites may have insufficient data for ratings


jobactive guideline Performance Frameworkto be calculated in one or more of the three streams. When this occurs, a Star Rating will be imputed using the following methodology:

Employment Region level ratings for a Stream are imputed by calculating the average Star Percentage of those streams that did have sufficient data.

Site level ratings for a Stream are imputed by using their Employment Region level Stream Star Percentages.

Star Ratings Worked ExamplesThis section provides worked examples to practically demonstrate important elements of the Star Ratings Methodology.

Worked Example: 26 Week Outcomes – All Job SeekersThe Provider Jobs R Us has 1,000 Stream B commencement records across its six sites in the Brisbane South East Employment Region. Of these, 500 commenced at least 28 weeks prior to the final day of the performance period being assessed, and weqre either still in assistance or had exited assistance, having been assisted for at least two weeks. Jobs R Us had achieved 50 26 Week Outcomes.

The Stream B outcome rate for Jobs R Us for this measure is 10% (50 / 500).

Worked Example: 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job SeekersOf the 500 commencement records noted above, 100 were for Indigenous job seekers. Jobs R Us had achieved 10 26 Week Outcomes for these job seekers.

The Stream B outcome rate for this measure is also 10% (10 / 100).

Worked Example: 26 Week Outcomes – Time to PlacementThis measure calculates the average number of days taken to achieve the job placements which resulted in 26 Week Outcomes. This is the period between the commencement date and the date the job seeker started in the job.

Jobs R Us has achieved 50 Stream B 26 Week Outcomes. The first outcome took 14 days from commencement to placement, the next outcome 16 days and so on. In aggregate, the 50 outcomes have taken a total of 2,000 days to achieve.

The Stream B average days taken for this measure is 40 days (2000 / 50).

Worked Example: 12 Week OutcomesOf the 1,000 commencement records noted above, 700 commenced at least 14 weeks prior to the final day of the performance period being assessed, and were either still in assistance or had exited assistance, having been assisted for at least two weeks. Jobs R Us had achieved 105 12 Week Full and Partial Outcomes.

The Stream B outcome rate for this measure is 15% (105 / 700).

Worked Example: Collaboration BonusThis credits a provider which has sourced and lodged a vacancy and agrees to refer a job seeker from another provider’s caseload to that vacancy, which results in a 12 Week Outcome for the other provider.

Jobs R Us has achieved 190 Stream A 12 Week Full and Partial Outcomes for job seekers which it has assisted. It also sourced and lodged 10 vacancies, which job seekers being assisted by Skills First have been placed into and for which Skills First have achieved 10 12 Week Outcomes.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThe Stream A Collaboration Bonus is 5% (10 / (190 + 10)). The bonus is applied to the Stream A 12 Week Outcome performance measure score as described in Worked Example: Applying the Collaboration Bonus.

Worked Example: Work for the Dole - ParticipationThis measure calculates the average proportion of hours achieved by job seekers who have exited the Work for the Dole Phase and who had Annual Activity Requirements (AAR). Here are some individual job seeker examples:

A job seeker who has an AAR of 390 hours and on completion of the phase has achieved 351 hours is recorded with a proportion of 0.9 (351/390).

A job seeker has an AAR of 650 hours and exits the phase after three months, having completed 350 hours. The target hours is reduced to 325 hours to reflect the actual time spent in the phase. The job seeker is then recorded with a proportion of 1 (350/325 = 1.08 but the proportion is capped at 1).

A job seeker commences the phase with an AAR of 650 hours but eight weeks into the phase this is reduced to 390 hours. The job seeker is now assessed for the six month period with an AAR of 390 hours. The job seeker completes 195 hours and is recorded with a proportion of 0.5 (195/390).

Jobs R Us has assisted 400 Stream C job seekers who are eligible for assessment in the measure. The aggregate proportion of hours achieved for those job seekers is 200.

The Stream C rate for this measure is 0.5 (200 / 400).

Worked Example: Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / ActivityThis measures the time taken to commence job seekers in Approved Activities from their commencement dates in the Work for the Dole Phase. To ensure that job seekers are able to meet their Annual Activity Requirements, it is expected that Providers will use the time leading up to the phase to source appropriate placements to ensure timely commencement.

A sliding scale of credits are applied according to the number of business days taken to commence job seekers in approved activities (see Table 4). To recognise the transition from Job Services Australia, a different approach is applied for job seekers who transitioned immediately into the Work for the Dole Phase than for all other job seekers who commenced in the phase. Suspension periods are excluded in calculating the number of business days.

Jobs R Us has 160 eligible Stream A job seekers who have commenced in the Work for the Dole phase. Of these, 40 transitioned immediately from Job Services Australia in to the Work for the Dole Phase. The number of days taken to commence each job seeker and the resulting credits are shown in Table 6.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkTable 6 – Worked Example of Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity

The Stream A rate for this measure

is 0.44 ((25.5 + 44.8)/160)

Worked Example: Regression

The regression models what Providers can

reasonably be expected to have achieved against a performance measure, given the unique caseloads assisted and labour market conditions Providers are operating in.

Consider two Providers operating in different Employment Regions. Jobs R Us operates in a region with high unemployment and services a high proportion of disadvantaged job seekers. Skills First operates in a region with low unemployment and services a low proportion of disadvantaged job seekers. Both providers achieve an actual Outcome rate of 20 per cent for the Stream A 26 Week Outcomes—All Job Seekers performance measure.

According to the results of the regression analysis, Jobs R Us has an expected outcome rate of 18.5 per cent, while Skills First has an expected outcome rate of 21.5 per cent. The actual to expected ratios are calculated:

Jobs R Us: 1.08 (20 per cent divided by 18.5 per cent) Skills First: 0.93 (20 per cent divided by 21.5 per cent)

Jobs R Us achieved the same actual outcome rate as Skills First despite operating in a more disadvantaged labour market with a more disadvantaged caseload. The regression analysis recognises this and calculates a lower expected rate for Jobs R Us. This means that Jobs R Us achieves a higher actual to expected ratio for the Stream A 26 Week Outcome performance measure than Skills First.

Worked Example: StandardisationStandardisation takes the actual to expected ratios for all Employment Providers for a performance measure and standardises them to create final performance measure scores. Note that performance measure imputation occurs after standardisation so performance measures that are subject to imputation are excluded when calculating a performance measure’s mean or standard deviation.

The formula used to calculate the final performance measure score is as follows:

Final performance measure score (target minimum – target maximum) = Target Mean + Target Standard Deviation * (pre-standardised performance measure score – pre-standardised mean) / pre-standardised standard deviation.


Time Taken Credit Job Seekers Total CreditNon-Transition Job Seekers<= 5 days 1 25 25.06 to 10 days 0.66 20 13.211 to 15 days 0.33 20 6.6> 15 days 0 50 0.0Not commenced 0 5 0.0Total 120 44.8Transition Job Seekers<= 5 days 1 10 106 to 10 days 0.8 10 811 to 15 days 0.6 5 316 to 20 days 0.6 5 321 to 40 days 0.2 5 141 to 100 days 0.1 5 0.5> 100 days 0 0 0Not commenced 0 0 0Total 40 25.5

jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThe Star Ratings model uses values of 0, 4, 2 and 1 for the target minimum, target maximum, target mean and target standard deviation respectively. These values could be changed without impacting the final result so long as they are constant across all performance measures.

Consider Jobs R Us and assume that they achieved a pre-standardised performance measure score of 1.1 (reminder: - this is the same as their actual to expected ratio) for both the Stream B 12 Week Outcomes and 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers measures. For the purposes of the example, the national mean for the 12 Week Outcomes pre-standardised performance measure scores was 1.05 and the standard deviation was 0.5. The 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers results were poorer with a mean of 0.95 and a standard deviation of 0.4.

Without standardisation Jobs R Us would be credited with the identical score for both measures, failing to recognise that the 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers score was in fact more in excess of the national mean than the 12 Week Outcomes score was. Therefore, standardisation better reflects the actual level of achievement.

Using a target mean of 2 and a target standard deviation of 1, the final performance measure scores for Jobs R Us would be as follows:

12 Week Outcomes 2.1: (2 + 1 * (1.1 - 1.05) / 0.5) 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers 2.375: (2 + 1 * (1.1 - 0.95) / 0.4)

These calculations happen to all pre-standardised performance measure scores. This means that relative differences in scores are being preserved even though it might feel as if individual scores are moving.

Note that the target minimum and target maximum were not used in the example. These are relevant in cases of extreme under performance and extreme over performance. The target minimum serves to ensure that an under-performing provider is not being unfairly disadvantaged while the target maximum serves to ensure that an over-performing provider is not being unfairly advantaged.

Worked Example: Applying the Collaboration BonusRecall that Jobs R Us achieved a Stream A Collaboration Bonus of 5%. Consider that its Stream A 12 Week Outcome final performance measure score was 2.0. The Collaboration Bonus is applied and improves the final performance measure score from 2.0 to 2.1 (2.0 + (5% x 2.0).

Worked Example: Performance Measure Imputation - ContractWhen there are fewer than 20 eligible commencement records for the 26 Week Outcomes—All Job Seekers performance measure in a Stream then no performance measure scores are calculated for that Stream and the Stream score is imputed.

Scores are imputed for the 26 Week Outcomes—Indigenous Job Seekers and 26 Week Outcomes—Time to Placement measures when there are fewer than 20 in their respective denominators.

Consider Jobs R Us. In Stream A it has 20 or more commencement records in the denominator for the 26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers performance measure and achieves a final score of 1.9 for this measure.

However, it has fewer than 20 commencement records in the denominator for the Stream A 26 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers measure. The score for this measure is then imputed as 1.9.


jobactive guideline Performance Framework It also has fewer than 20 in the denominator for the Steam A 26 Week

Outcomes – Time to Placement measure and the score for this measure is also imputed as 1.9.

Worked Example: Performance Measure Imputation - SiteImputation at the site level operates in the same way as for contracts except that scores are imputed from the corresponding measure scores at contract level.

Continuing the previous example, consider that a Jobs R Us site does have more than 20 eligible job seekers for the Stream A 26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers performance measure. Therefore a Stream A rating will be calculated for this site.

However, it has fewer than 20 in the denominator for the Stream A 26 Week Outcomes—Indigenous Job Seekers performance measure. Therefore the score for this measure is imputed as 1.9 from the contract level score for this measure (which itself was imputed).

Worked Example: Calculate Stream Star ScoresStream Star Scores are calculated by aggregating the final performance measure scores together using the measure weightings. Table 7 is a worked example for Jobs R Us.

Table 7 – Stream Star Score Calculation Worked ExamplePerformance Measure Final Score Weighting Weighted

Score26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers 2.2 50% 1.1026 Week Outcomes – Indigenous Job Seekers 1.0 10% 0.1026 Week Outcomes – Time to Placement 1.5 10% 0.1512 Week Outcomes (includes collaboration bonus) 2.3 10% 0.23Work for the Dole Phase Participation 1.9 10% 0.19Time to Commence in Work for the Dole / Activity 1.7 10% 0.17Jobs R Us Stream B Star Score 1.94

Worked Example: Calculate Overall Star ScoresOverall Star Scores are calculated by aggregating the Stream Star Scores using the Stream level weightings. Table 8 is a worked example for Jobs R Us.

Table 8 – Overall Star Score Worked ExampleStream Final Stream Score Weighting Weighted Star ScoreStream A 1.53 25% 0.383Stream B 1.94 35% 0.679Stream C 2.97 40% 1.188Jobs R Us Overall Star Score 2.250

Worked Example: Calculate Stream and Overall Star Percentages and Star Ratings

Star Percentages are calculated by comparing the Star Score with the national average of 2. A positive Star Percentage indicates the distance above the national average while a negative Star Percentage indicates the distance below the national average. Star Percentages are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

The formula for determining the Star Percentage is:

(Star Score – National Average) / National Average × 100


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkConsider the Star Scores for Jobs R Us from the previous two examples. Their Star Percentages are calculated as shown in Table 9 using the above formula. The Star Ratings are allocated by mapping the Star Percentages to the Star Percentage bandwidths as detailed in Table 2.

Table 9: Stream and Overall Star Percentages and Star Ratings Worked Example

Stream Star Score

National Average

Comparison Star Percentage

Star Rating

Stream A 1.53 2.00 -23.5% -23 2-StarsStream B 1.94 2.00 -3.0% -3 3-StarsStream C 2.97 2.00 +48.5% +48 5-StarsOverall 2.25 2.00 +12.5% +12 3-Stars

Worked Example: Stream Imputation - ContractThe following is a worked example of how contract level Stream Star Ratings are imputed if one or more Streams have less than 20 eligible job seekers for the 26 Week Outcomes – All Job Seekers performance measure.

A contract does not meet the threshold for a Stream A Star Rating to be calculated. However, in Stream B the contract achieves a Star Percentage of + 10 and in Stream C a Star Percentage of + 20. The Star Percentage for Stream A is then imputed as the average of Stream B and Stream C which is + 15.

Worked Example: Stream Imputation - SiteTable 10 is a worked example of how site Star Percentages are imputed if one or more Streams do not meet the thresholds for calculating ratings, considering three operating sites for Jobs R Us.

Table 10 – Stream Imputation - Site Worked ExampleStar Percentage Overall Stream A Stream B Stream CContract +12 -22 -3 +48Site Lots-of-traffic +16 -26 -10 +66Site Not-so-much-traffic Insufficient

Data-10 Insufficient

Data+31

Site Minimal-traffic Insufficient Data

Insufficient Data

Insufficient Data

Insufficient Data

Site Not-so-much-traffic has insufficient data in Stream B. It is given the contract level Star Percentage of –3 which contributes to an Overall Star Percentage of +8.

Site Minimal-traffic has insufficient data in all three Streams. It is given the same Overall and Stream level Star Percentages as were achieved at contract level.

4. Quality Assurance FrameworkIntroduction

The Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) sets the minimum standard of quality for Providers. Certification under the QAF assures the Department that Providers have in place policies and processes to support service delivery. Certification under the QAF is made up of two components:


jobactive guideline Performance Framework The Department’s Quality Principles , which a Provider must demonstrate

adherence to through an on-site audit conducted by a Quality Auditor . Certification against one of the Department’s approved Quality Standards .

All organisations contracted under the Deed to deliver jobactive must achieve and maintain QAF Certification in accordance with the requirements specified in the Deed (clause 98). Providers new to the market are required to obtain QAF Certification within the timeframes defined in this Guideline.

There are three types of audits under the QAF. Where a Provider is up to in its QAF audit cycle will determine the type of audit they must complete.

Certification Audit – is conducted when initially gaining QAF Certification and when seeking recertification. Certification is valid for four years.

Surveillance Audit – is conducted within two years of achieving QAF Certification or recertification.

Extraordinary Audit – is only conducted if directed by the Department.

The Overview of QAF Certification Process diagram outlines the general process for conducting QAF Audits, and includes information on each stage of the QAF process. This applies when achieving or maintaining QAF Certification.

Administrative ConsiderationsRoles and Responsibilities

Employment Provider – is responsible for ensuring it is meeting the requirements of the QAF. This includes engaging a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) from the QAF Auditor List to conduct its QAF Audits and requesting its Audit Plan template from the Department prior to its Audit. They are also responsible for approving any documentation resulting from an Audit (Audit Report, Corrective Action Plan, etc.) before submitting to the Department.

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) – is responsible for meeting the conditions of the QAF Auditor List Deed. CABs must sign off on documentation prepared by its Quality Auditors before submitting to the Provider.

Quality Auditor – is responsible for conducting Audits on behalf of CABs. They provide recommendations on the Provider’s conformance with QAF requirements.

The Department – is responsible for administering the QAF and supporting Providers and Quality Auditors through the Certification process. The Department is responsible for granting Certification against the QAF and ensuring QAF requirements continue to be met by Providers throughout the life of the Deed. The Department also manages the CAB Deed and the QAF Auditor List.

Tendering GroupsWhere the Provider is a collection of organisations delivering Services as a Tendering Group, the lead member of the Tendering Group must achieve and maintain Certification against the QAF. All Sites listed in the Tendering Group’s deed schedule are within the scope for the Site sample. When auditing against the Quality Principles, the lead member’s head office must be audited as part of the Site sample.

Change of membershipIf there is a change in membership of the Tendering Group resulting from a deed of novation, the new Tendering Group must gain QAF Certification in accordance with this Guideline.


https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/PerformanceFramework/QualityAssuranceFramework/Pages/default.aspx




https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/Documents/Current/Overview%20of%20Quality%20Assurance%20Framework%20Certification%20Process.pdf

https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/ContractualInformation/jobactiveDeed20152020/Pages/default.aspx

jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkNovations, transfers and new Employment Providers

If an organisation becomes a Provider following the execution of a deed of novation, or if a new Provider is awarded a jobactive Deed 2015-2020, the organisation must demonstrate adherence to the Quality Principles through a Certification Audit. The organisation must also achieve certification against an approved Quality Standard within the timeframe defined by the Department.

The Quality PrinciplesThe Quality Principles have been developed by the Department as a basis for measuring quality and improving services delivered to Stream Participants, Employers and the Department. They bridge the gap between the requirements of the Quality Standards and the qualitative aspects of the Deed. Providers must undergo an on-site audit process to demonstrate its adherence to the Quality Principles as part of its QAF Certification.

The Quality Principles have been designed to cover the minimum requirements for delivering quality Employment Services and promote a strong focus on continual improvement. The audit criteria of the Quality Principles are made up of Key Performance Measures (KPMs) and Practice Requirements. The audit criteria are supported by Minimum Evidence Requirements . The detailed list of KPMs, Practice Requirements and Minimum Evidence Requirements is in Attachment A.

Providers are required to demonstrate conformance with Quality Principles 1-3 only during Certification or recertification Audits unless otherwise directed by the Department.

Quality Principle 1—Governance This Principle relates to governing effectively and ensuring efficiency through corporate arrangements and management systems. These systems support practices that optimise outcomes for the Provider and its client groups, including appropriate planning strategies that support and improve organisational effectiveness.

Quality Principle 2—Leadership This Principle relates to effective leadership that establishes a Provider’s direction and purpose and supports a positive organisational culture and reputation.

Quality Principle 3—StaffThis Principle relates to each employee having the relevant skills and competency to successfully undertake their role. Plans and mechanisms should be in place to identify these skills and competencies and to ensure that they are maintained and enhanced through training and development.

Quality Principles 4-7 relate to Deed specific requirements and are required to be addressed and reported on during all Quality Principles Audits unless otherwise advised by the Department.

Quality Principle 4—Participants This Principle relates to a Provider having processes in place to ensure that each Participant receives a service tailored to meet their individual needs and personal goals. The Provider should undertake a process of planning, implementation, review and adjustment to facilitate the achievement of these goals, in line with program eligibility.

Quality Principle 5—Labour market, Employers and communityThis Principle relates to the Provider and its staff having a clear understanding of the local labour markets in which it operates. The Provider should engage effectively with Employers, complementary service Providers and other stakeholders that assist Participants to achieve their goals.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkQuality Principle 6—Operational effectiveness This Principle relates to the organisation adopting operational systems of good quality that ensure effective service delivery.

Quality Principle 7—Continual improvement This Principle relates to the Provider having a systematic approach to improving all aspects of its operations. There should be an effective internal audit function that identifies and promotes opportunities for improvement.

Key Performance MeasuresEach Quality Principle has been divided into a set of Key Performance Measures (KPMs) as described in Attachment A. The KPMs set out the evidentiary elements underpinning the Quality Principles and provide the basis by which Providers can demonstrate conformance to the Quality Principles.

Practice RequirementsEach KPM contains two or more Practice Requirements. Providers must meet each Practice Requirement within the KPM to demonstrate conformance to the KPM.

Minimum Evidence RequirementsIn order to demonstrate conformance with each Practice Requirement, the Provider must address each of the Minimum Evidence Requirements during its audit.

Attachment A sets out the evidentiary requirements against which a Provider must demonstrate conformance.

The Quality StandardsThe Quality Standards set the foundation of quality management and support an organisation to achieve consistent business processes and drive measurable performance improvements.

The Quality Standards approved by the Department under the QAF are:

ISO 9001 – Internationally recognised standard that promotes a quality management system as an integral part of an organisation’s operations. ISO 9001 is recognised in Australia as an appropriate continuous improvement tool used by a range of industry sectors.

Employment Services Industry Standards (ESIS) – This standard was developed by the National Employment Services Association (NESA) for the Australian Employment Services industry.

National Standards for Disability Services (NSDS) – This standard provides the basis for the Disability Employment Services Quality Framework.

Providers must choose one of these Quality Standards to be certified against as part of its QAF Certification.

For QAF purposes, the scope of Quality Standard certification must include a Provider’s jobactive business. All non-jobactive business is outside the scope for QAF Certification. For example, Quality Standard certification based on Disability Employment Services, training or state-based community services is not considered relevant for QAF Certification.

Providers using NSDS for the purposes of the QAF must seek departmental endorsement of its NSDS audit plan prior to audit commencement. This is to ensure the audit sampling is representative of its jobactive business.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkQuality Standards Certification

Providers must achieve and maintain certification against a Quality Standard by fulfilling all the requirements of the relevant Quality Standard.

Providers must submit its latest Quality Standards Report to the Department in accordance with the QAF Reporting Schedule. The Provider must notify the Department immediately if certification against its Quality Standard lapses or is suspended, as this may affect its QAF Certification.

Any Non-conformances identified during a Quality Standards Audit must be addressed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Quality Standard and with this Guideline. Refer to Addressing Non-conformance for further information.

Note: Where Quality Auditors do not use the sampling requirements of the Disability Employment and Enterprise Services Scheme for Quality Standards Audits against NSDS, they should use the sampling methodology outlined in Quality Principles Audit Sampling.

Changing your Quality StandardA Provider may change to a different Quality Standard. However, it must achieve certification against the new approved Quality Standard prior to the expiry date of its previous certification.

CABs and Quality AuditorsThe Department has established the QAF Auditor List comprising of CABs approved by the Department to conduct QAF Audits. CABs are also accredited to certify organisations against the Quality Standards. The QAF Auditor List will be maintained on the Provider Portal.

Quality Auditors will conduct audits on behalf of CABs on the QAF Auditor List. All Quality Auditors must be approved by the Department to conduct Quality Principles Audits and undertake training as directed by the Department.

Audit recommendations and disputesThe Department is responsible for granting QAF Certification. While Quality Auditors will make recommendations to the Department about Certification against the QAF, the Department can accept or reject a recommendation made by the Quality Auditor. The Department may seek additional information from the Provider and/or the Quality Auditor, before making a final decision about a recommendation.

Quality Principles Audits and ReportsAll Quality Principles Audits will be conducted by the Quality Auditor on site, unless otherwise agreed by the Department, and in accordance with this Guideline and the approved QAF Audit Plan. Requests for alternate audit methods, including the use of videoconference, will be considered by the Department on a case-by-case basis.

During the audit, the Quality Auditor will determine whether a Provider adheres to the Quality Principles by gathering evidence and conducting interviews with staff and Participants.

Generally, Quality Auditors will follow the steps below while visiting each Site during the audit: conduct opening meeting collect and analyse evidence prepare Site findings.



jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkOnce audits are completed, the Quality Auditor must prepare the Quality Principles Report and complete an Audit Close Meeting with the Provider.

Providers are responsible for its audit costs.

Quality Principles Audit Types There are three types of Quality Principles Audits under the QAF:

Certification/recertification Audit Surveillance Audit Extraordinary Audit.

Certification AuditsProviders must undergo a Certification Audit when initially gaining QAF Certification and when seeking recertification against the QAF. QAF Certification is valid for four years and Providers must achieve recertification against the QAF before its Certification expires.

The scope of the Certification Audit encompasses all of Quality Principles (Quality Principles 1–7). Quality Auditors must assess the Provider’s adherence to the Quality Principles by auditing a sample of the Provider's Sites and its head office. Further information in relation to the sampling requirements of a Certification Audit is contained in Quality Principles Audit Sampling.

Once the audit has been completed, the Quality Auditor must prepare a Quality Principles Report addressing all seven of the Quality Principles and indicate whether conformance has been demonstrated against each Practice Requirement. The Provider must review the Certification Report and then submit it to the Department in accordance with the QAF Reporting Schedule.

Quality Principles 1–3 align closely with each of the Quality Standards under the QAF. Therefore, a Quality Auditor may use the Quality Standards Report to address these Quality Principles, providing the information is relevant. In these instances, Quality Auditors must reference the relevant section(s) of the Quality Standards Report in the Certification Report.

Providers must work with the Quality Auditor to ensure that all Practice Requirements are appropriately addressed.

Surveillance AuditsThe purpose of the Surveillance Audit is to ensure that Providers have maintained those systems, polices and processes that led to Certification. Surveillance Audits must be completed within two years of Certification or recertification.

Surveillance Audits involve auditing a sample of the Provider's Sites, including the head office. However, the size of the sample is smaller than that of a Certification Audit. Further information about the sampling requirements of a Surveillance Audit is contained in Quality Principles Audit Sampling.

Providers must undergo a Surveillance Audit and submit a Quality Principles Report to the Department in accordance with the QAF Reporting Schedule. The Surveillance Audit will generally include Quality Principles 4 to 7. However, all Providers undertaking a Surveillance Audit will be considered for a scope reduction. The scope of the audit will be determined based on a Provider’s performance against a number of measures within the audit criteria. An assessment of a Provider’s performance will occur at the time it requests its Audit Plan template.

The Department will advise the Provider of its audit scope at this time and reserves the right to include any KPMs, regardless of a Provider’s performance against the


jobactive guideline Performance Frameworkquality performance measures. Details of the quality performance measures used to determine Surveillance Audit scope are outlined in Attachment A.

The Quality Principles Report must address each Practice Requirement in scope and include a recommendation on whether conformance has been demonstrated.

Providers may still be required to be audited against Quality Principles 1 to 3 during a Surveillance Audit if:

a Non-conformance was identified during the most recent Quality Standards Audit that is relevant to any Practice Requirements within Quality Principles 1 to 3,

a Non-conformance was identified during the previous Quality Principles Audit, or

the Department requests the Provider to do so.

In these instances, the relevant Practice Requirements must be assessed in the Surveillance Audit. The Provider will be informed of this requirement at the time it receives its Audit Plan template.

Failing to undergo a Surveillance Audit in accordance with the QAF Reporting Schedule may result in the suspension of the Provider's QAF Certification.

Extraordinary AuditsAn Extraordinary Audit is conducted at the direction of the Department by a Quality Auditor and does not form part of the regular audit schedule.

An Extraordinary Audit is usually targeted to a specific aspect of the QAF. Quality Auditors may also recommend additional auditing requirements. The Department will consider recommendations from Quality Auditors to determine if an Extraordinary Audit is required.

The scope of an Extraordinary Audit is determined by the Department on a case-by-case basis and the Provider is required to cover the cost of the audit.

Preparing for your AuditIt is the responsibility of the Provider to allow sufficient time for the QAF Audit process to be completed prior to its QAF anniversary date. It is strongly recommended that a Provider begins preparing for its Certification or Surveillance Audit nine months prior to its anniversary date to allow sufficient time for the on-site audit, completion of the audit report and addressing any Non-conformances.

Note that the anniversary date refers to the date on which a Provider was awarded its most recent QAF Certification (or recertification) and therefore identifies when the next QAF Audit is due. the anniversary date for the Surveillance Audit is two years after its QAF

Certification date. the anniversary date for the Certification Audit is four years after its QAF

Certification date (the QAF expiry date).

Audit timeframesWhen scheduling Audits, the Provider should be mindful of the key dates (QAF anniversary date, QAF Audit Report due date) to ensure that it meets the required timeframes.

The flow chart at Attachment D outlines the timeline for the overall QAF process.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkQAF Reporting Schedule

The QAF Reporting Schedule for Providers is detailed in Table 11. Providers must meet these requirements unless advised otherwise by the Department.

Table 11 – QAF Reporting Schedule During the Contract Year:

Providers who achieved QAF Certification in 2016, must:

Providers who completed a Surveillance Audit and maintained its QAF Certification in 2016, must:

1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018 2

Complete a Surveillance Audit, and

Submit a Surveillance Report to the Department at least four months prior to the two year anniversary of initially achieving QAF Certification and within six weeks of its Audit Close Meeting.

A copy of the latest Quality Standards Report must also be submitted with the Surveillance Report.

Complete a Certification Audit, and

Submit a Certification Report at least four months prior to the expiry of its QAF Certification and within six weeks of its Audit Close Meeting.

A copy of the latest Quality Standards Report must also be submitted with the Certification Report.

1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019

Submit Quality Standards Report for those Standards with annual auditing requirements.1

1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020

Providers can choose to complete either a Certification Audit or a Surveillance Audit.2

For a Certification Audit:Submit a Certification Report at least four months prior to the expiry of its QAF Certification and within six weeks of its Audit Close Meeting.

For a Surveillance Audit:Submit a Surveillance Report to the Department at least four months prior to the expiry of the QAF Certification and within six weeks of its Audit Close Meeting.

Complete a Surveillance Audit, and

Submit a Surveillance Report to the Department at least four months

prior to the two year anniversary of initially achieving QAF Certification and within six weeks of its Audit Close Meeting.

A copy of the latest Quality Standards Report must also be submitted with the Surveillance Report.

Table 11 Notes:1 To maintain certification against an approved Quality Standard, Providers must follow the relevant audit schedule of that Quality Standard. Providers should discuss the auditing requirements of the Quality Standards with its CAB. In order to demonstrate its ongoing certification against its chosen Quality Standard, a Provider must submit its Quality Standard Audit Reports conducted between Quality Principles Audits to the Department upon confirmation of ongoing certification being awarded, along with a copy of its updated Quality Standards Certificate.2 If the Provider choses to undergo a Surveillance Audit, they will be required to complete a Certification Audit during the first year of the next contract period to maintain QAF Certification.

Engaging a Conformity Assessment BodyProviders must engage a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) from the QAF Auditor List to conduct a Quality Principles Audit. Any agreement entered into by a Provider with a CAB must:

be in writing require the CAB to provide any information (including working papers) and

assistance relating to QAF Audits to the Department when requested


jobactive guideline Performance Framework reserve the right of termination to take into account the Department’s right to

remove the CAB from the QAF Auditor List.

Providers must ensure that Quality Principles Audits are conducted in accordance with this Guideline, including ensuring:

the reporting requirements are satisfied documents such as the QAF Audit Plan, Quality Principles Report and

Corrective Action Plan are submitted within the required timeframes.

Requesting and Completing your Audit PlanThe QAF Audit Plan (Audit Plan) provides the basis on which the Quality Principles Audit will be conducted. It outlines the Sites that are to be included in the sample and the relevant Claims Sampling and Participant Sampling to be conducted at each Site.

When preparing for the audit, the Provider must request the Audit Plan template from the Department. The Audit Plan template will assist the Quality Auditor and the Provider in ensuring that the relevant sampling requirements will be met during the audit.

The Provider must complete the Audit Plan in conjunction with its Quality Auditor and submit it to the Department for approval no later than two months (40 business days) before the commencement of its Quality Principles Audit.

For Surveillance Audits, the Department will include the relevant audit criteria that will be in scope for the audit. This will be based on any Non-conformances from the previous audit and the Provider’s performance against the quality performance measures. The Quality Auditor must consider any Non-conformances from the Provider’s latest Quality Standards Audit. If any Non-conformances are relevant to any Practice Requirements within the Quality Principles then those Practice Requirements must be included in the Audit Plan. For further information please refer to Surveillance Audits.

The Quality Principles Audit must be conducted in accordance with the approved Audit Plan. The Department will consider requests to change the Audit Plan on a case-by-case basis. However, any changes must be approved by the Department before the Quality Principles Audit starts.

Audit IntelligenceAt the time the Audit Plan is requested from the Department, the Department may provide the Provider with information to assist with the Quality Principles Audit. This may include information resulting from Programme Assurance Activities. The Provider must provide this Audit Intelligence to the Quality Auditor to assist in the planning of the audit.

Quality Principles Audit SamplingThe sampling methodology outlined in this Guideline is for Quality Principles Audits only. The sampling requirements for the Quality Standards are governed by the Standards themselves. Providers should discuss the sampling requirements of the Quality Standards with its CAB.

All Quality Principles Audits must be conducted according to the sampling methodology described below. The sampling numbers provided in this document are the minimum numbers required. If a Quality Auditor considers that additional sampling is required to determine conformance with the audit criteria, they may increase the sampling numbers.

For Quality Principles Audits, sampling falls into the following three categories:


jobactive guideline Performance Framework Site sampling Claims sampling Participant sampling.

Site samplingQuality Auditors must ensure that the Site sample is representative of the Provider’s business. As most Providers operate more than one Site, multiple Sites must be audited to ensure adequate representation of its business. Table 12 explains the method for determining the number of Sites to be included in the sample for each type of Quality Principles Audit.

The Provider’s head office must be audited at each Quality Principles Audit. If the Provider has a jobactive delivery Site co-located with its head office, this may be included in the audit sample, however, will be subject to the same considerations listed below (i.e. no repetition, geographical coverage, etc.)

Table 12 – Calculating Site Sample Sizes Audit Type Number Of Sites

Certification Audit

The square root of Site count ( √n ) rounded to the next whole number, plus the head office.

Surveillance Audit

60 per cent of the square root of the Site count (√n×0.6 ) rounded to the next whole number, plus the head office.

Extraordinary Audit

The Department will determine the number of Sites in an Extraordinary Audit on a case-by-case basis.

Table 12 Note:The Site Count is equal to the sum of the Full-time and Part-time Sites listed in the Provider’s Deed Schedule.

The Quality Auditor will determine the Sites that make up the Site sample. When determining the Site sample, consideration should be given to the following:

No repetition—It is expected that over the Certification period, Quality Principles Audits would sample as many Sites as possible, in accordance with the sampling requirements outlined in the table above. Generally, Sites that have been audited previously within the Certification period would not be included in future Quality Principles Audits unless it is considered relevant. For example, following the identification of Non-conformance, or when the Site count is too small, requiring Sites to be audited multiple times.

Geographical coverage— Where the Provider operates in more than one Employment Region, Quality Auditors should aim to select Sites from different Employment Regions. Where the calculated Site sample is larger than the total number of Employment Regions in which the Provider operates, the Quality Auditor may choose multiple Sites within Employment Regions.

Varying Site types—Quality Auditors should consider the range of service Sites (Full-time, Part-time and Outreach) operated by the Provider.

Changes in servicing arrangements—Whether the Provider has established any new Sites or received additional Business Share in an Employment Region since the last Quality Principles Audit.

Subcontractor Sites—Sites operated by Subcontractors are included in the scope of the Quality Principles Audit. Quality Auditors should give consideration to the amount of Subcontractors delivering services on behalf of the Provider. The Site sample should reflect the level of business delivered by


jobactive guideline Performance Frameworkeach Subcontractor. Quality Auditors should seek to include Sites from different Subcontractors where relevant.

Please note that the above considerations are provided as guidance only and are not mandatory requirements. They are intended to assist in ensuring the Site sample is reflective of the Provider’s business.

Claims samplingQuality Auditors must select and review enough claims for payment or claims for reimbursement (Claims) to determine the level of conformance with the Provider’s claims processing procedures.

A minimum of 10 Claims per Site, capped at a total of 50 Claims across the organisation, must be reviewed by the Quality Auditor. However, Quality Auditors may review further Claims if they consider additional checking is required to determine the Provider’s level of conformance.

Where the Provider’s Site sample is greater than five Sites, the number of Claims checked must be evenly distributed across each of the Sites in the sample. If the Provider processes its Claims through a central claims processing unit, the Quality Auditor must ensure that the Claims reviewed during the audit are linked to the Sites included in the Site sample.

The Department may request that Quality Auditors focus on particular Claim types. Quality Auditors may refer to the Documentary Evidence Guideline and other relevant guidelines when considering a Provider’s approach to Claims processing. Please note, Quality Auditors must check Claims to ensure the Provider’s adherence to its policies and processes. However, they are not expected to check Claims for validity against the Deed.

While it is not expected that every Claim type be checked by the Quality Auditor, all Claim types made by the Provider are within the scope for checking.

Participant samplingWhile assessing adherence to the Quality Principles, Quality Auditors must collect evidence to demonstrate the Provider’s delivery of quality Services to Participants.

Participant sampling is conducted in two ways. The first is through a selection and review of Participant files, which involves an audit review of all documentation associated with providing Services to the Participant. This can include, but is not limited to:

file notes (both electronic and hard copy) copies of Job Plans Employment Fund reimbursements and receipts the Participant’s resume training referrals and certificates Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) and other Participant assessments reviews and participation reporting information.

Participant files should be up to date and should accurately represent the Participant’s experience through Employment Services.

The second method of Participant sampling is through conducting interviews directly with Participants. Acceptable methods for interviewing Participants include one-on-one sessions, group interviews, phone interviews as well as video conference tools such as Skype. Quality Auditors may choose to review the files of those Participants they interview in advance, to help develop questions for the interview.


https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/Documents/Current/Documentary%20Evidence.pdf

jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThe number of Participant interviews and file reviews to be conducted at each Site depends on the Site’s caseload. The file review and Participant interview sampling requirements in Table 13 provides a breakdown of the caseload thresholds and the Participant interview and file review requirements.

Table 13 – File review and Participant interview sampling requirements

SITE SIZE (Stream Participants on Site’s active caseload)

File review sample

Participant interview sample

SMALL (0–600) 4 4MEDIUM (601–1200) 8 8LARGE (1201+) 12 12

If the Quality Auditor is unable to interview the minimum number of Participants at a given Site, the Quality Auditor must state this in the Quality Principles Report and explain why these interviews were not conducted. The Department may require additional interviews to be conducted if there is a significant gap between the number of interviews conducted during the audit and the minimum sampling requirements.

Selecting the sampleThe Quality Auditor will be responsible for selecting and reviewing Site, Claim and Participant samples. However, for Participant sampling, the Quality Auditor may seek assistance from the Provider to better understand the Participant. Participants selected for the sample should be representative of the organisation and include Participants from a range of cohorts. Providers should be mindful of the minimum sampling requirements and make necessary preparations to ensure those numbers are met during the Quality Principles Audit.

Finalising your AuditAudit Close Meeting

Following the completion of Quality Principle Audits, Quality Auditors must discuss the outcomes of the Audit and conduct an Audit Close Meeting with Providers. The date of the Audit Close Meeting must be consistent with the date detailed in the Audit Plan (unless a change was approved) and recorded in the Quality Principles Report before it is submitted to the Department.

Quality Principles Reports Following a Quality Principles Audit, Quality Auditors are required to complete a Quality Principles Report and provide justification statements against each Practice Requirement being audited, and raise Non-conformances where required. The Department has developed an electronic Quality Principles Report template that must be used.

Providers and Quality Auditors must ensure that all Quality Principles Reports meet the reporting requirements of the Deed and this Guideline. The QAF Reporting Schedule outlines the timeframes for submission of Quality Principles Reports.

The Quality Principles Report must be submitted to the Department within 30 business days (six weeks) from the Audit Close Meeting.

If Non-conformances have been identified during the Quality Principles Audit, the Provider must also submit a Corrective Action Plan to the Department within 30 business days (six weeks) from its Audit Close Meeting. Providers and Quality



jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkAuditors should discuss any corrective actions required, including how and when any Non-conformances should be downgraded or closed out.

Quality Principles Reports must be clear, accurate and evidence based, to assist the Department in determining whether a Provider has met the requirements of the QAF. The Report must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate how the recommendations for Conformance or Non-conformance were determined for a Practice Requirement.

Evidence can be presented in many forms, including:

hard copy—signed forms or records of attendance electronic—comments recorded in the Department’s Employment Services

System or the Provider’s third-party IT System observed—staff meeting with Participants or staff demonstrating a process interviews—staff and/or Participant’s confirmation of ability or service

delivery and satisfaction.

Once the Quality Principles Report has been received by the Department, a thorough review of the documentation is conducted. This review focuses on how effectively the justification statements provided in the report addresses the Minimum Evidence Requirements under each Practice Requirement being audited. Also, whether justification statements support the conformance ratings recorded. During this process, the Department may request further information to clarify any issues or request changes to the report in consultation with the Quality Auditor. The Department may reject Quality Principles Reports if Practice Requirements are not appropriately addressed, which could impact on the Provider’s Certification against the QAF.

The Department endeavours to complete these reviews within 20 business days. If there are any delays, the Provider and the Quality Auditor will be notified.

Addressing Non-conformanceWhen auditing against the Quality Principles, any issues identified by a Quality Auditor are raised in the form of a Non-conformance. Non-conformances are issued when a Quality Auditor determines that a certain aspect of the system being audited does not conform to the Quality Principles. This section provides information about what constitutes a Non-conformance and the action a Provider must take in the event that a Non-conformance is raised.

Non-conformance ClassificationsThere are two Non-conformance classifications which are defined in Table 14.

Table 14 – Non-conformance classificationsMajor Non-conformance Minor Non-conformanceA Major Non-conformance is defined as: a failure to satisfy 50 per cent of the Practice

Requirements across a Quality Principle, regardless of which KPM they fall under or

a failure to satisfy any of the Practice Requirements within a KPM or

a failure to close out a Minor Non-conformance within six months or

a Major Non-conformance identified against a Quality Standard during a Quality Standard Audit.

A Major Non-conformance is defined as: failure to meet a Practice

Requirement or a Minor Non-conformance

identified against a Quality Standard during a Quality Standard Audit.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkImpact on QAF Certification

Major Non-conformanceIf any Major Non-conformances are issued, Certification against the QAF is not granted or renewed until all the Major Non-conformances are downgraded to a Minor Non-conformance or closed out. Major Non-conformances must be closed out or downgraded within 3 months of the Audit Close Meeting. Failure to address Major Non-Conformances within the required timeframes may result in QAF Certification being suspended and remedial action being taken against the Provider (see clause 52.2 and 98.11 of the Deed).

Minor Non-conformanceIf any Minor Non-conformances are issued, there is no impact on QAF Certification provided the Minor Non-conformances are closed out within six months of the Audit Close Meeting. A Minor Non-conformance will be upgraded to Major Non-conformance if it has not been addressed within the required timeframe and may result in QAF Certification being suspended.

Summary of Non-conformanceThe Quality Principles Report includes the Summary of Non-conformance which summarises the Non-conformances identified during a Quality Principles Audit and automatically calculates the Non-conformance classification against the Quality Principles.

Auditors should advise providers of their Non-conformances at the Audit Close Meeting. Auditors may elect to provide the Summary of Non-conformance to the provider at this time. Providers must ensure that the Corrective Action Plan submitted to the Department reflects the Non-conformances and their classifications outlined in the Quality Principles Report. This is to give the Provider sufficient time to address the Non-conformances.

Quality Standard Non-conformance If a Non-conformance is issued during a Quality Standard Audit, and the Quality Auditor considers that it is relevant to the Quality Principles, that Non-conformance will be deemed a Non-conformance against the Quality Principles. Quality Auditors must include the Non-conformance in the Quality Principles Audit Report under the relevant Quality Principle.

Any Non-conformance raised against a Quality Standard that results in the suspension or cancellation of certification against that Quality Standard may result in the Provider’s QAF Certification being suspended.

Departmental Non-conformanceThe Department may issue a Non-conformance where it is not satisfied that the evidence included in the Quality Principles Audit Report addresses the requirements or indicates a Non-conformance. The Department reserves the right to raise Non-conformances where it has received information contrary to that provided in the Quality Principles Report, including information provided through its assurance activities.

Corrective Action PlanA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) must be submitted to the Department within 30 business days (six weeks) of the Audit Close Meeting. The Quality Auditor may use the Department’s Corrective Action Plan template or its own template. The CAP must contain:


https://ecsnaccess.gov.au/sites/SecureSitePortal/jobactive/ContractualInformation/jobactiveDeed20152020/Pages/default.aspx

jobactive guideline Performance Framework The proposed action to be taken to address the Non-conformance (that is to

close the Non-conformance, or to downgrade a Major Non-conformance to a Minor Non-conformance)

The timeframes for progress milestones The endorsement from the Quality Auditor and a determination as to whether

the Non-conformance can be closed out remotely or if further on-site audit activity is required.

The Department may request that any Departmental Non-conformances are added to the Corrective Action Plan.

Closing out Non-conformancesThe Department must receive confirmation from the Quality Auditor that the Non-conformances have been addressed within the required timeframes. This is done through submission of an updated Corrective Action Plan to the Department by the Provider that includes the Quality Auditors agreement to the close out of the relevant Non-conformances.

Closing out Major Non-conformances can be achieved by downgrading it to a Minor Non-conformance, which must also be agreed through a Quality Auditor and may be demonstrated remotely or at the Site. If the Major Non-conformance has been downgraded, the Provider must completely close out the Minor Non-conformance within three months (that is, a maximum timeframe of six months from the closing meeting of the audit).

All Non-conformances must be checked during the next Quality Principles Audit.

5. Compliance IndicatorIntroduction

The Compliance Indicator is a measure of each Provider’s compliance with the Deed and guidelines in submitting claims for payment and other relevant processes.

It is used by the Department to assist in the evaluation of Providers’ compliance performance including to acknowledge Providers who comply with the deed, inform procurement and business reallocation, and determine future Programme Assurance Activities. In addition and where performance is below a designated minimum level, it may also contribute to a reduction in the Provider’s Star Percentage.

How the Compliance Indicator is measuredThe Compliance Indicator is calculated as a value between zero (0) which indicates absolute non-compliance and one hundred (100), where one hundred represents perfect compliance.

It is calculated quarterly based on reviews finalised (the finalisation date is when each activity is completed in its entirety) by the Department in the preceding 12 months.

Activities finalised more than 12 month prior to the date of calculating the Compliance Indicator are excluded and it only includes reviews relating to the current jobactive Deed – starting 1 July 2015.

A Compliance Indicator is calculated for each Provider at three levels:

National State Employment Region.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThe Compliance Indicator is not calculated at the individual site level as there are generally too few claims reviewed to record a Compliance Indicator score.

A Compliance Indicator score will only be recorded if it meets minimum statistical standards—where the individual margin of error is less than 12 per cent. Where a Provider’s Employment Region score has a margin of error greater than 12 per cent, the score will be imputed from the Provider’s State or National level score.

The development and ongoing measurement of the Compliance Indicator has, and will continue to be, subject to independent actuarial review and endorsement. The Department is committed to ensuring it is a true reflection of individual Providers’ compliance throughout the Deed period.

The Compliance Indicator MethodologyThe Compliance Indicator aggregates the results of Providers’ compliance reviews completed over the preceding 12 month period. Each review is scored individually and then collated at the National, State and Employment Region level for each Provider.

The Compliance Indicator uses a number of variables in its calculation:

The claim value weighting: The value of the claim or activity The review result score: The assessment result for each individual claim or

activity The review type weighting: The type of Programme Assurance Activity

undertaken.

The Compliance Indicator is calculated by taking a weighted average of the review results. The weights take account of the value of the claim (with higher value claims having a higher weighting) and the review type.

Step 1: Claim Value WeightingThe Compliance Indicator includes a weighting for the value of the claim or transaction reviewed. This balances the impact and importance of larger value claims compared to smaller value claims – for example, a claim for a 26 Week Outcome Payment for $6,250 is weighted more heavily than a claim for a $50 Employment Fund transaction.

The minimum and maximum values attributed to the claim value weighting are capped between one and eight respectively. Transactions worth $100 or less have a value of one and any claim with a value of $6,400 or more is capped at a value of eight. This is achieved by taking the square root of the claim value and dividing by 10.

Table 15 provides examples of the different claim value weightings that are applied for claims of varying amounts.

Reviews that do not have a monetary value, such as Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) Change of Circumstance Reassessments and Work for the Dole, have a fixed claim value weighting. For the Job Seeker Classification Instrument Change of Circumstance Reassessments, a claim value weighting of four applies. Work for the Dole reviews have a claim value weighting of six.

These values have been set according to the importance the Department places on those processes being done correctly and the consequences of the requirements not being met. For any new review type that does not have a direct monetary value, the claim value weighting that applies will be advised in updates to this Guideline.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkTable 15—Claim value weights

Claim amount Claim value weighting

$100 and below 1.0$400 2.0$1,000 3.2JSCI Change of Circumstances Reassessments 4.0$2,000 4.5Work for the Dole 6.0$4,000 6.3$6,400 and above 8.0

Step 2: Review Result ScoresThe Department will allocate a score for each claim it reviews through the Rolling Random Sample or other Programme Assurance Activities. Table 16 outlines the scores given for each review result in the Compliance Indicator.

Table 16—Review result scoresReview result Review result score

Satisfies requirements 1.0Requirements mostly satisfied (no demerit) 1.0Requirements partially met (demerit) 0.6Requirements not met 0.0

Step 3: Initial Compliance Indicator calculationThe results obtained from Steps 1 and 2 are combined to obtain an individual ‘Weighted Review Score’. This is the score given to each individual review. In this step, the weighted review score is compared with the claim value weighting, which can be thought of as the ‘best possible score’ for that claim.

To calculate the initial Compliance Indicator score for each review, the weighted review score is divided by the claim value weight which is then multiplied by 100.

Table 17 illustrates this for a selection of ten Rolling Random Sample claims. For Claim 7, for example, the Employment Fund Claim was worth $220 which gives it a claim value weighting of 1.48. The review result for this claim was Requirements partially met (demerit) which gives it a review result score of 0.6. Therefore the weighted review score for this claim is 0.89 (1.48 x 0.6). This is less than the claim value weighting of 1.48 (or ‘best possible score’).

Table 17 – Initial Compliance Indicator calculation – for each review type

Note: For the purposes of this example all numbers are rounded to two decimal points. In practice, rounding to two decimal points only occurs at the end of the calculation and for reporting purposes.

Claim # Claim Category Claim amount

Claim value weighting

Review result Score for result

Weighted review score

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (F * D)Claim 1 Outcome Fees $1,250 3.54 Satisfies requirements 1.0 3.54Claim 2 Employment Fund $250 1.58 Satisfies requirements 1.0 1.58


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkClaim 3 JSCI 4.00 Satisfies requirements 1.0 4.00Claim 4 Outcome Fees $1,500 3.87 Satisfies requirements 1.0 3.87Claim 5 Outcome Fees $1,250 3.54 Satisfies requirements 1.0 3.54

Claim 6 Relocation Assistance $350 1.87 Requirements mostly

satisfied (no demerit) 1.0 1.87

Claim 7 Employment Fund $220 1.48 Requirements partially met (demerit) 0.6 0.89

Claim 8 JSCI 4.00 Requirements partially met (demerit) 0.6 2.40

Claim 9 Work for the Dole 6.00 Requirements not met 0.0 0.0

Claim 10 Employment Fund $198 1.41 Requirements not met 0.0 0.0

The Total Weighted review score (sum of the weighted review scores) is 21.69.

The Total Claim Value weighting (sum of the Claim value weightings) is 31.29

Finally, to calculate the Compliance Indicator score for each review type, the total of the weighted review score is divided by the total of the claim value weighting, multiplied by 100. In the example above this would be 21.69 divided by 31.29, multiplied by 100 which is 69.32.

Step 4: Review Type WeightingsThe type of review or activity is next taken into account as some Programme Assurance Activities are targeted towards non-compliance (claim types and/or Providers/Sites) whereas others are randomly selected across claim types of program elements.

There are three separate review types, each with a different weighting.

Rolling Random Sample: These are weighted at 70 per cent of the Compliance Indicator score as the claims and activities selected for review are randomly chosen in an unbiased and non-risk based manner.

Non-Risk-Based activities: These are weighted at 20 per cent of the Compliance Indicator score. These activities are not risk based, but may not include all Providers, Regions or claim types and therefore contribute less to the final Compliance Indicator score.

Risk Based activities: These are weighted at 10 per cent of the Compliance Indicator score. Since these Programme Assurance Activities are undertaken with samples based on known risk factors, they are given the lowest weighting.

The results from the three different types of reviews types are then added together.

The methodology also imposes a condition that if less than 25 reviews of a particular type are undertaken then that review type will not contribute their full weighting but a proportion (of 25) of the review type weighting. For example, if only 10 reviews are conducted on Risk Based activities, then a proportion of the 10 per cent weighting for this Review Type would be applied, In this case the proportion would be (10 ÷ 25) x 10 per cent.

This can be illustrated in the example in Table 18 in which there were 100 Random Sample Reviews, 40 Non-Risk Based reviews and 10 Risk Based reviews.

Table 18—The Compliance Indicator for different review typesRev No.

(A)

Review type

(B)

Review result

(C)

Review weight

Claim value

weighting(D)

Weighted review score

(E)

Compliance Indicator by review type

(E ÷ D)


jobactive guideline Performance Framework1 Random Sample Satisfies requirements 1 2.30 2.30

2 Random Sample Requirements not met 0 1.00 0.00

… … … … … …

100 Random Sample Satisfies requirements: 1 8.00 8.00

Compliance Indicator for Rolling Random Samples 270.80 244.10 0.90

1 Non-Risk Based Satisfies requirements 1 2.80 2.80

2 Non-Risk Based Requirements not met 0 1.70 0.00

… … … … … …

40 Non-Risk Based Requirements partially met 0.6 3.30 1.98

Compliance Indicator for Non-Risk Based activities 87.80 64.78 0.74

1 Risk Based Satisfies requirements: 1 4.00 4.00

… … … … … …

10 Risk Based Requirements not met (recovery) 0 2.2 0.00

Compliance Indicator for Risk Based activities 28.08 17.40 0.62

Applying the weightings we have the following:

Rolling Random Sample = 0.7 x 25 ÷ 25 (as there were more than 25 reviews) = 70 per cent (0.7)

Non-Risk Based = 0.2 x 25 ÷ 25 (as there were more than 25 reviews) = 20 per cent (0.2)

Risk Based weighting = 0.10 x 10 ÷ 25 (as there were only 10 reviews) = 4 per cent (0.04)

The weighting applied to the Risk Based reviews in this example is therefore reduced from 0.1 down to 0.04 while the weighting for the Rolling Random Sample and Non-Risk Based reviews remain at their maximum level of 0.7 and 0.2 respectively as more than 25 reviews of that type were finalised.

Step 5: Final Compliance Indicator ScoreThe final step is to collate all the weightings and results in Steps 1 – 4 into a final Compliance Indicator calculation. This is demonstrated in Table 19 and using the Results from Step 3 and Table 4 above.

Table 19 – Final Compliance Indicator score

Review type Compliance Indicator by review type

Actual review type weighting

Review type weighted Score

(B x C)

Compliance Indicator score

(D / C x 100)

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Rolling Random Sample 0.90 0.7 0.630Non-Risk Based 0.74 0.2 0.148Risk Based 0.62 0.04 0.025TOTAL 0.94 0.803 85.40

The final Compliance Indicator score is therefore 85.40.



Star Ratings InteractionCompliance with the Deed is important and will be taken into account in the Star Ratings calculations to ensure that there is a strong incentive for compliance. Compliance Indicator scores will only impact on Star Percentages once sufficient reviews have been completed to produce accurate Compliance Indicator scores for most Providers. This is when at least 90 per cent of Providers at the Employment Region level have a Compliance Indicator calculated, ensuring a comprehensive coverage at Employment Region level.

A Provider’s Compliance Indicator score may, at the Employment Region level, impact upon their Star Percentage as outlined in Table 20.

Table 20—Impact on Star PercentageCompliance Indicator Score Result Reduction Applied>=95.0 Meeting target83.0 - 94.9 No Penalty81.0 - 82.9 Reduction applied Up to 1 Star Percentage79.0 - 80.9 Reduction applied Up to 2 Star Percentage77.0 -78.9 Reduction applied Up to 3 Star Percentage75.0 -76.9 Reduction applied Up to 4 Star Percentage73.0 -75.9 Reduction applied Up to 5 Star Percentage71.0 -72.9 Reduction applied Up to 6 Star Percentage69.0 -70.9 Reduction applied Up to 7 Star Percentage67.0 -68.9 Reduction applied Up to 8 Star Percentage65.0 -66.9 Reduction applied Up to 9 Star Percentage63.0 -64.9 Reduction applied Up to 10 Star Percentage61.0 -62.9 Reduction applied Up to 11 Star Percentage

0 - 60.9 Reduction applied 1/2 Star Percentage for each unit the Compliance Indicator point is below 83.

Compliance Indicator scores of 95 and above are considered to meet the Department’s target level of compliance with the Deed and guidelines.

Compliance Indicators scores between 83 and 94 are below the Department’s target level of compliance with the Deed, but the Department will not apply any penalties to the Star Percentage to allow for a 12 per cent Margin of Error.

Compliance Indicator scores below 83 will reduce the Providers’ Star Percentage. This may lead to a reduction in Star Ratings. A Provider will lose one Star Percentage for every two points their Compliance Indicator score is below the cut off of 83 points. For example, a Provider with a Compliance Indicator score of 79 is four points below the cut off of 83. Halving this amount gives a reduction of two points to be applied to the Provider’s Star Percentage.

Compliance Indicator reductions will be applied to all Site Star Percentages within the particular Employment Region.

ExamplesAs outlined in Star Ratings interaction section above, the reduction in Star Percentage is half the difference between the Provider’s Compliance Indicator score and the cut off of 83.

In practice a Compliance Indicator Score of:

85.4 will result in no reduction in the Star Percentage as it is above 83 81.2 results in a 0.9 ((83 – 81.2)/2) reduction in the Star Percentage


jobactive guideline Performance Framework 78.0 results in a 2.5 ((83 – 78.0)/2) reduction in the Star Percentage 68.8 results in a 7.1 ((83 – 68.8)/2) reduction in the Star Percentage.

Designated minimum level of performanceThe Department’s expected level of compliance is 95 per cent (equivalent to a Compliance Indicator score of 95).

Given that the Department reviews only a sample of all claims processed, the Compliance Indicator results are therefore subject to a margin of error. In consultation with an external actuary advisor and based on historical compliance results for Job Services Australia, a margin of error of 12 per cent is considered acceptable. This may be reviewed in future based on additional and contemporary review results.

This means that where the margin of error of any calculated Compliance Indicator score is greater than 12 per cent, the Compliance Indicator is not reported at that level.

Imputing (estimating) Compliance Indicator scoresIt is recognised that some of the very small Employment Regions, for example those in the single location Employment Regions in Western Australia, may not have a score calculated because not enough reviews being have been completed in that Employment Region.

If Compliance Indicator scores have a margin of error greater than 12 per cent, they are imputed using the following rules.

In cases where at the Employment Region level the margin of error is larger than 12 per cent, then:

the Provider’s State level Compliance Indicator score is applied if the margin of error at the State level is also greater than 12 per cent then

the organisation level Compliance Indicator score is applied to that Provider at the Employment Region level

if the margin of error at the organisation level is also greater than 12 per cent, then that Provider and all its Employment Regions will not have a Compliance Indicator applied.

This follows the same principles used in the imputing approach used in the calculation of the Star Ratings.

Project TypesThere are three distinct project types included in the Compliance Indicator calculation - plus those activities and claims deemed to be ‘Out of Scope’.

Table 21—Review TypesReview Type Review

Type Weighting

Description Activities

Rolling Random Sample

0.7 These reviews have the highest weighting as selections are stratified across all Providers, Employment Regions and activities.

These reviews are selected randomly and hence the most accurate reflection of aggregate compliance with the Deed.

Quarterly Rolling Random Sample reviews are the only assessments in this review type.

Programme Assurance

0.2 Programme Assurance Activities that review either individual, or groups of, Providers or programme

Programme Assurance Activities



Review Type Review Type Weighting

Description Activities

Activities(Non-Risk Based)

elements where the selection of claims for review are not stratified based on risk indicators.

Because these projects do not capture all Providers or programme elements, they are allocated a lower weighting given they may result in more or less reviews for some Providers at certain times.

where claims are randomly selected and stratified relevant to the review being undertaken (e.g. by Site, claim type etc.) They are not based on any known risk factors.

Programme Assurance Activities(Risk Based)

0.1 Programme Assurance Activities that are risk based and usually aimed towards one or more Providers and/or activities where a potential issue or risk has been identified. The claims selected for review are selected based on the risk indicators identified.

These reviews are given the lowest weighting because of the deliberate targeting of claims for review based on known risk indicators.

Programme Assurance Activities where claims are initially identified using risk indicators and then from a ‘pool’ of similar claims.

Out of Scope ReviewsThere are also some reviews which are ‘out of scope’ and not taken into account when calculating the Compliance Indicator.

Provider Identified ClaimsThese are claims where the provider has identified and surrendered a claim made in error. These are excluded as they would bias results against Providers with effective Internal Controls and where they picked up the error – even if it was after the payment was made. This is only applied if the claim has not been identified by the Department for review prior to surrender.

Hand selected claimsThese are claims that are known to be non-compliant for various reasons and recovered.

Related ClaimsThese are claims that are deemed non-compliant based on a determination of another claim or activity. For example, a 12 week claim is deemed recoverable due to the employment placement not existing, which means the associated bonus outcomes and the 4 week outcome also need to be recovered. These related claims will not be included in the Compliance Indicator scores.

Rolling Twelve Month ReviewsThe Compliance Indicator uses reviews finalised in the preceding twelve months prior to the Quarter in which it is reported.

This is illustrated in Diagram 1, where for example:

the Compliance Indicator for June 2016 includes all reviews completed for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016

the Compliance Indicator for March 2017, includes all reviews completed between 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkThis means, for example, reviews completed in February 2016 will be included in the June, September and December 2016 results, but will no longer be included in the March 2017 results as they have been finalised more than twelve months prior to the reporting of results.

Diagram 1—Impact on Star Percentage

Reporting of Compliance Indicator ScoresThe regular quarterly Star Ratings report will contain information on a Provider’s Compliance Indicator scores and Star Ratings, as well as their Star Ratings before and after the impact of the Compliance Indicator.

The Department also publishes the Star Ratings. The published Star Ratings will take into account reductions caused by the Compliance Indicator.

6. Service Guarantees and Service Delivery PlansService Guarantee

As part of the Australian Government’s commitment to deliver high-quality employment services for Stream Participants and Employers, a key component of the Employment Services Performance Framework is to ensure that stakeholders are receiving quality services.

Common to all Providers, the Service Guarantee reflects the government’s expectations of how Providers will interact with Stream Participants and specifies the minimum level of service each Stream Participant or volunteer Stream Participant can expect to receive, as well as the requirements a Stream Participant needs to meet while looking for a job.

Documentary evidence: The provider must prominently display the Service Guarantees and Service Delivery Plan(s) in its offices and all Sites, and make these available to Stream Participants, potential Stream Participants, Volunteers and Employers.

(Deed References: Clauses 1.6, 28.1, 30.1, 73.1, 99.1(c), Annexure B3)

Service Delivery PlanEach Provider’s Service Delivery Plan(s) is published on the Provider’s page of the jobactive website and given to Stream Participants and potential Stream Participants at their initial appointment with their Provider. The Provider’s Service Delivery Plan(s) captures the commitments made by the Provider in its tender response and outlines the specific services an Employer or Stream Participant can expect from them.

Documentary evidence: The provider must:


jobactive guideline Performance Framework prominently display the Service Guarantees and Service Delivery Plan(s) in its

offices and all Sites, and make these available to Stream Participants, potential Stream Participants and Employers

upload the Service Delivery Plan(s) on the Provider’s page of the jobactive website.

(Deed References: Clause 73.1(b and c))

Assessment of Service Delivery PlansThe Department will monitor Service Guarantees, Service Delivery Plan(s) and representations in the Provider’s response to tender (service offer) on an ongoing basis to assess the Provider’s performance.

The Department’s assessment of service delivery against the Service Guarantees and the Provider’s Service Delivery Plan(s) will be undertaken as part of the measurement of a Provider’s performance against KPI 3. This will involve the Department making an assessment of whether Providers are meeting the service delivery standards outlined in the Service Guarantees, their service offer and their Service Delivery Plan(s) through a range of activities, including direct demonstration by the Provider to the Department.

Where the Department determines that a Provider is not delivering services as outlined in their Service Delivery Plan or the Service Guarantees, the Department reserves the right to apply remedial actions to that Provider, with the type of actions applied dependant on the nature of the non-compliance. Providers not meeting the service delivery standards may also be in scope for business reallocation.

(Deed References: Clauses 28.1, 30.1(a), 73.1, 73.2, 84.1(e), 99.1(c)(iii), 102.1(b), 103.1, 104.1, Annexure B3)

7. Performance ReviewsApproach

The Department will provide timely and regular feedback to Providers regarding their performance and will work proactively with Providers to address performance management issues.

Formal performance feedback will be provided at least once every 12 months, but feedback may be provided, at the discretion of the Department, following each Performance Period and the public release of Star Ratings. This feedback will generally be provided in writing but may also include face-to-face discussions.

Documentary evidence:Without limiting any other provisions of this Deed, the Provider must provide, as required by the Department specific reports on the Services, including on the results of internal and external audits of Payment claims and claim processes, action taken to address performance issues raised by the Department, and training provided to Personnel and Subcontractors.

(Deed References: Clauses 4.1(C), 24.1(a)(i), 26, 28, 29.2, Annexure A2, 99.1(c)(iii), 101)



8. Business ReallocationApproach

There will be two performance-based business reallocations for Providers: at the 18 and 36 months points of the Deed. Providers assessed at a Star Rating of 2-Stars or below at the Employment Region or Site level at these points in the Deed will be in scope for business reallocation. Where performance against other measures of performance and operation, such as the service offer, Compliance Indicator score or Indigenous Outcome Targets is not to the Department’s satisfaction, Providers may also be in scope for business reallocation.

Consistent with past practice, the Department’s approach to adjusting Providers’ Business Shares will be communicated to Providers before the business reallocation process.

(Deed references: Clauses 26-29, 52, 99, 100, 101)

9. Work for the Dole Coordinator Performance FrameworkIntroduction

This section of the Guidelines details the approach and methodology to evaluate the performance of Work for the Dole Coordinators (referred to as ‘Coordinator’) to support the delivery of high quality Services and encourage continuous improvement.

ApproachThe Department will gather information to measure a Coordinator’s performance through the Department’s IT Systems, Progress Reports and any other reports, contract monitoring activities and feedback from Providers, Work for the Dole Host Organisations and job seekers, as appropriate.

TimingFormal performance reviews and feedback will be provided in six-monthly performance periods. Table 22 shows the start and end dates of each performance period being assessed up until 30 June 2020.

Table 22 — Performance periods for CoordinatorsPerformance period Start and End Dates

1 1 May 2015 to 31 December 20152 1 January 2016 to 30 June 20163 1 July 2016 to 31 December 20164 1 January 2017 to 30 June 20175 1 July 2017 to 31 December 20176 1 January 2018 to 30 June 20187 1 July 2018 to 31 December 20188 1 January 2019 to 30 June 20199 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2019

10 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2020


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkKey Performance Indicators and performance measures

Coordinators will be assessed against Key Performance Indicator 1 (Efficiency), Key Performance Indicator 2 (Effectiveness) and Key Performance Indicator 3 (Quality and Assurance). Performance measures for each Key Performance Indicator are listed in Table 23.

Table 23—Performance Measures KPI 1 — EfficiencyNumber of Work for the Dole places sourced assessed against any Targets set.

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Performance Measure1.1.1 90 per cent of the target it met1.1.2 75 per cent of advertised places in the performance period

are six months in duration1.1.3 100 per cent of places advertised are 15 hours per week

The extent to which the number of Work for the Dole places secured are available to all Providers across the Employment Region and meets their caseload needs.

KPI Performance Measure1.2.1 Percentage of places advertised, relative to the number and location of job seekers with

an Annual Activity Requirement in the Employment Region1

1.2.2 Percentage of places claimed by each Employment Provider in the Employment Region2

1.2.3 Percentage of places with a commenced job seeker in the Employment Region

KPI 2 — EffectivenessThe appropriateness of Work for the Dole Places sourced for a variety of eligible job seekers and delivery of Work-like Experiences.

KPI Performance Measure2.1 Percentage of places recorded on the Department’s IT Systems meet Deed and Guideline

requirements2.2 The spread of places by industry, occupation and task reflects the local labour market in

the Employment Region3

KPI 3 —Quality and AssuranceCompliance with Deed and any Guidelines (Services to the Department):

KPI Performance Measure3.1.1 The content of reports is accurate and contained relevant information3.1.2 The Self-Assessment Quality Report demonstrates conformance to each Quality Principle4

3.1.3 The content of reports is completed and delivered within the set timeframes

Compliance with Deed and any Guidelines

KPI Performance Measure3.2.1 Best-practice methods and approaches are identified in the Reports

3.2.2 Resolution of tip-offs or formal complaints received by the Department in a performance period5

3.2.3 Resolution and recurrence of Deed notices, sanctions and non-conformance issued during a performance period

Outcomes of any performance review undertaken on service delivery


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkKPI Performance Measure3.3.1 Feedback from Employment Providers, Work for the Dole Host Organisations and job

seekers3.3.2 Resolution of all identified performance issues3.3.3 Time taken to resolve identified performance issues3.3.4 Recurrence of previously identified performance issues

Table 23 Notes:1. Measurement of this performance indicator will take into account other factors including job seekers who are not required to participate in Work for the Dole, such as those who are exited or suspended in other approved activities or in employment, the proportion of places sources by the jobactive organisations in the employment region will be excluded from the result against this measure.2. Measurement of this performance indicator will take into consideration other factors that may affect this indicator such as the actions of jobactive organisations in the Employment Region.3. Measurement of this performance indicator will take into consideration other factors that may affect this indicator such as job seeker behaviour and actions of jobactive organisations in the Employment Region.4. The Self-Assessment Quality Report is to be completed within six months of the commencement of the Deed. However, the Department may engage with the Coordinator to review the Self-Assessment Quality Report from time to time.5. Only complaints where the Department has determined that they are legitimate and the Coordinators have had the opportunity to assist the Department in resolving will be factored into the result against this measure. Complaints that require no action from a Coordinator or that are made against the Coordinator where no consent is provided for follow-up will not be included in the overall result for this measure.

AssessmentCoordinators will be assessed against each performance measure. The Department will use quantitative data to help target the analysis of qualitative information. Coordinators will receive the following results for each Key Performance Indicator:

Fully met The Coordinator satisfies all performance measures for Key Performance

Indicator 1. The Coordinator satisfies all performance measures for Key Performance

Indicator 2. The Coordinator satisfies all performance measures for Key Performance

Indicator 3.

Partially met The Coordinator satisfies at least four performance measures for Key

Performance Indicator 1. The Coordinator satisfies at least one performance measures for Key

Performance Indicator 2. The Coordinator satisfies at least seven performance measures for Key

Performance Indicator 3.

Not met The Coordinator satisfies less than four performance measures for Key

Performance Indicator 1. The Coordinator has not satisfied any measures for Key Performance Indicator

2. The Coordinator satisfies less than seven performance measures for Key

Performance Indicator 3.


jobactive guideline Performance FrameworkQuality framework for Coordinators

The quality principles outline the Department’s expectations of service quality. The principles have been designed to cover the minimum requirements for delivering quality services with a strong focus on continual improvement. Each quality principle has been developed as a basis for measuring quality and improving the delivery of services and is categorised into ‘key performance measures’, ‘practice requirements’ and ‘evidence’ (please refer to Attachment B — Table 1).

Self-Assessment Quality Report – by exception (refer Attachment C)Coordinators must complete and submit a Self-Assessment Quality Report on or before the date that is six months from the Deed Commencement Date. A Self-Assessment Quality Report template is available on the Provider Portal for Coordinators to use. This report must address all the Quality Principles relevant to Coordinators in full, as outlined in Attachment B — Table 1. The Self-Assessment Quality Report is to be completed once. However, the Department may engage with the Coordinator to review the Self-Assessment Quality Report from time to time.

The Self-Assessment Quality Report must address each practice requirement and must contain sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate to the Department how the Quality Principles have been met. This includes meeting each element of the minimum evidence requirements (as outlined in Attachment B— Table 1 in demonstrating conformance with each practice requirement.

Please note that where relevant, practice requirements may not be entirely satisfied by the existence of policies or procedures alone. In these instances, Coordinators must demonstrate that the policies and or procedures are being followed and achieve quality results.

If details are missing from the Self-Assessment Quality Report or the Department is unable to make a decision due to a lack of information, further information may be requested.

Non-conformance Classifications for CoordinatorsIf the Department determines that the Coordinator is unable to demonstrate adherence to all elements of a Quality Principle, the Department will issue a non-conformance notice. Non-conformance is categorised into two classifications: major non-conformance and minor non-conformance. Attachment B — Table 2 outlines the non-conformance classifications and process a Coordinator must follow to close out or downgrade a non-conformance.

Once the non-conformance is identified, it must be closed out within six months. In the case of a major non-conformance, the Coordinator is expected to downgrade to a minor non-conformance within three months before completely closing out the minor non-conformance in the remaining three months (that is, a maximum timeframe of six months). Failure to close out a minor non-conformance within six months will also result in a major non-conformance. Where a Coordinator does not rectify the non-conformance within a six month period, the Department may take action under the Deed.



10. New Enterprise Incentive Scheme Performance FrameworkPerformance Reviews

Performance discussions support the contractual relationship between the Department and individual NEIS Providers over the life of the Deed. The timing for these are:

formal performance discussions – will be held annually end of performance period discussions – will be held every six months informal performance discussions - conducted when required, for example if

the Department receives complaints about a NEIS Provider’s Services,

(Deed reference: Clause 28)

Business Reallocation The NEIS Business Reallocation process will occur annually and may result in a reduction to a poor performing NEIS Provider’s NEIS Place allocation.

Poor performance may also lead to a NEIS Provider receiving a Notice from the Department to discontinue providing NEIS Services.

Performance AssessmentNEIS Provider performance is assessed against the three NEIS specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPIs relate to NEIS Provider performance across efficiency, effectiveness, and quality and assurance.

A NEIS Provider’s performance against the NEIS KPIs is measured based on specific requirements and evidence. This information is detailed in Table 24.

(Deed reference: Clause 28, 30.5, Clause 131)



Table 24 — Measuring NEIS KPIs KPI 1 — Efficiency

Key Performance Measure Practice Requirement EvidenceThe NEIS Provider utilises allocated NEIS Places within the Employment Region(s).

The NEIS Provider has in place appropriate strategic and operational planning practices to fully utilise all NEIS Places allocated to them within their Employment Region during each performance period.

The Department’s IT Systems will identify the number of NEIS Places allocated to a NEIS Provider, and the number of NEIS Places used during the performance period.

Reasons for NEIS Participants exiting NEIS Assistance early

The NEIS Provider must discuss the reason a NEIS Participant wants to exit NEIS Assistance prior to completion, and work with the NEIS Participant to resolve any issues.

A NEIS Provider must enter the reason why a NEIS Participant exits NEIS Assistance in the Department’s IT Systems. The Department’s IT Systems will identify those NEIS Participants who exit NEIS Assistance at or before completion (52 weeks).

KPI 2 — Effectiveness

Key Performance Measure Practice Requirement EvidenceThe percentage of NEIS Post-Programme Outcomes achieved

The NEIS Provider delivers NEIS Services that result in a NEIS Post-Programme Outcome.

The Department’s IT Systems will automatically identify those exited NEIS Participants who achieve a Post-Programme Outcome.

KPI 3 — Quality and Assurance

Key Performance Measure Practice Requirement EvidenceThe NEIS Provider’s procedures and practices support the delivery of NEIS Services in accordance with the Deed.

The NEIS Provider has strategies and practices in place to ensure compliance with the Deed and NEIS Guidelines.

The NEIS Provider has documented policies and procedures that reflect their servicing strategies and compliance with the Deed and NEIS Guidelines.

These policies and procedures have been implemented wholly and consistently across the organisation:

staff are consistently applying the policies and procedures when servicing NEIS Participants

all NEIS Participant records maintained by the provider in the Department’s IT Systems and/or in third party systems are accurate and are in accordance with the Deed

NEIS Participants are provided with the services outlined in the Deed within the required timeframes.



Key Performance Measure Practice Requirement EvidenceThe number of validated complaints for the relevant Performance Period received via: the Department’s National

Customer Service Line the Department’s

Employment Services Tip Off Line

the Departments Post-Program Monitoring Survey

ministerial correspondence the Ombudsman.

The NEIS Provider has in place strategies for monitoring NEIS Participant satisfaction of the NEIS Services delivered and addressing complaints when raised.

The Provider has in place documented policies and procedures to support the raising of complaints and feedback. The policies detail:

i. how complaints and feedback are used to improve service deliveryii. how the outcome of a complaint is communicated to the complainant

iii. escalation procedures.

The complaints and feedback process is implemented consistently across the organisation:

i. Staff can readily access the complaints procedure and can articulate the process

ii. Complaints are referred to the Department of Employment when required

iii. Complaints are investigated by an appropriately senior staff member.

Records of complaints are maintained and include:

i. detailed information relating to the complaint, including the date of the complaint and who the complaint relates to

ii. steps taken to resolve the complaintiii. the outcome of any investigationiv. any follow-up action required.

The Provider’s feedback mechanism is open and transparent:

i. NEIS Participants are aware of feedback and complaints procedures and feel comfortable to raise a complaint without fear of retribution.

ii. Feedback from NEIS Participants indicates that complaints lodged have, or are being, resolved.

NEIS Providers delivering NEIS Training are a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) certified against the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) Standards.

NEIS Providers delivering NEIS Training are RTOs.

NEIS Providers delivering NEIS Training are subject to the ASQA compliance and accreditation regime.

Those NEIS Providers who do not deliver NEIS Training must ensure NEIS Prospective Participants are referred (in the Department’s IT Systems) to an RTO for NEIS Training.



11. Harvest Labour Services Performance FrameworkPerformance Assessment

Harvest Labour Services (HLS) Providers will have their performance assessed every six months. HLS Providers must supply comprehensive quarterly and annual Reports to the Department (in accordance with clause 134.8 of the Deed and Harvest Labour Services Guideline).

HLS Providers do not have set KPIs, but will be assessed on: the difference between anticipated and actual placements

value for money, as indicated by a comparison of anticipated and actual financial performance, calculated using the following formulas:

(Anticipated Placement number per year x $49.50) + $215,600 (4 x quarterly service fee)Anticipated Placement number per year

(Actual Placement number per year x $49.50) + $215,600 (4 x quarterly service fee)

Actual Placement number per year

the delivery of ‘Other Harvest Labour Services’, as described by clause 134.6 of the Deed and Harvest Labour Services Guideline (e.g. promotion and marketing to employers).

compliance with IT systems and other requirements as outlined in the Deed and Harvest Labour Services Guideline (e.g. workplace health and safety checks, documentary evidence checks, annual and quarterly reporting).

12. National Harvest Labour Information Service Performance FrameworkPerformance Assessment

The National Harvest Labour Information Service (NHLIS) Provider will have its performance assessed every six months. The NHLIS Provider does not have set KPIs and will be assessed on the annual Reports it submits to the Department within 15 Business Days of 30 June for each year of the Term of the Deed (in accordance with clause 136.10 and 136.11).

The NHLIS Provider must also supply comprehensive quarterly Reports to the Department (in accordance with clauses 136.10 and 136.11) and its Account Manager may choose to conduct a performance discussion earlier if any of the Reports raise concerns.



Attachment A: jobactive Quality Assurance Framework Evidence RequirementsPrinciple 1 - GovernanceKey Performance Measure

Practice Requirement Minimum Evidence Requirements Quality Performance Measures for Surveillance Audit scope reduction

1.1Corporate governance and management systems satisfy legal and contractual requirements that withstand public scrutiny.

1.1.1.The Provider’s corporate governance arrangements promote confidence that Employment Services are being delivered effectively.

a) There are processes in place supporting the ongoing operation of the Provider’s governing body. These processes:

i. ensure that members or directors have an understanding of their responsibilities and accountabilities, including ethical, legal and contractual requirements,

ii. specify how the governing body operates and records its governance function—for example, processes cover escalation of matters to the governing body, frequency of meetings, recording of minutes and management of conflicts of interest.

b) Corporate planning includes integrating internal business services and systems to support the delivery of Employment Services. This includes having in place:

i. organisational charts that outline how business services interlink,

ii. corporate or business plans that ensure that staffing levels and expertise are commensurate with caseload levels.

Not applicable – Principles 1-3 are not included in Surveillance Audits.

1.1.2.The Provider has in place appropriate processes for decision making that outline the authority or delegations within the Provider that support staff in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

a) The Provider has decision-making processes in place that include decision-making matrices (financial and administrative).

b) The Provider can demonstrate that these processes have been implemented, are used and adhered to in day to day operations.



Key Performance Measure


1.2The Provider has appropriate policies and processes in place that manage operational and strategic risks, including disaster recovery, as well as practices to ensure effective document control and record keeping practices.

1.2.1.The Provider has in place corporate governance arrangements that manage risk, including fraud.

a) The Provider has a documented, enterprise-wide risk management framework in place that includes:

i. processes for identifying and managing risk, including incident management and disaster recovery plans,

ii. organisational and Site risk management plans, and

iii. evidence of regular review of risk management plans.

b) To manage the risk of fraud the Provider has a documented fraud control plan, which refers to:

i. clear processes for staff to notify management of potential fraud,

ii. the Department’s tip-off line contact details, and

iii. ensuring staff awareness of fraud prevention.

c) Appropriate treatment for any alleged or actual instances of fraud or misconduct that has been identified, including the documentation of treatment plans.


1.2.2The Provider has in place effective records management and document control processes.

a) The Provider has in place processes to ensure that there is accurate record keeping and document control and that processes are understood by all staff, who can detail how they access information. This includes demonstrating that:

i. there is accurate record keeping that aligns with defined processes, Deed and Guideline requirements, including the Documentary Evidence Guidelines where relevant,

ii. all forms and documents use version control and are kept up to date, with current versions being readily identifiable and accessible, and

iii. out-of-date material is not used by staff.



Principle 2 - LeadershipKey Performance Measure


2.1All employees have a shared understanding of the Provider’s direction, including the vision and purpose that directs the Provider’s conduct.

2.1.1.The Provider has a clear purpose and a vision.

a) The Provider has a vision statement that outlines its mission and values.

b) Staff can demonstrate that they understand the vision and how their individual and team roles link to the objectives of the Provider.


2.1.2.The Provider’s code of conduct is promoted, easily located, followed, and upheld, by the Provider.

a) The Provider has in place a code of conduct that includes:

i. a set of values that outline the expectations placed on staff within the Provider, and

ii. a requirement that staff act in a manner that withstands public scrutiny.

b) The code of conduct is promoted effectively throughout the Provider and:

i. the Provider can demonstrate how it communicates the requirements of the code of conduct to staff,

ii. staff can accurately describe the requirements of the code of conduct, and

iii. where a breach of the code of conduct occurs, it is appropriately managed and action is taken to prevent it from reoccurring.

2.2Internal planning and communication ensures understanding, consistent messaging and encompasses people at all levels.

2.2.1.The Provider has in place appropriate strategic and operational planning practices that facilitate quality management and improve its effectiveness.

a) There are strategic and operational plans that are aligned to and support the Provider’s purpose and vision, and include:

i. performance objectives and reporting mechanisms, and

ii. strategies for achieving Employment program outcomes.

b) Staff are involved, where appropriate, in the development of strategic and operational plans.


2.2.2.Communication and sharing of information occurs systematically throughout the Provider.

a) The Provider has in place systematic internal communication processes and ensures that knowledge and information is shared throughout the Provider. This includes the Provider demonstrating that:

i. processes ensure a regular flow of accurate and timely information, andii. communication processes are followed to ensure all Sites are provided with consistent

information.



Principle 3 - StaffKey Performance Measure


3.1The Provider’s human resource policies ensure that there are systems in place to support staff in the delivery of Employment Services.

3.1.1.The Provider has in place merit-based recruitment and selection processes.

a) Recruitment and selection processes:

i. reflect the core competencies and skill attributes of the job description,

ii. encourage workplace diversity and cultural competency, and

iii. require police checks and Working with Children Checks (as required by relevant legislation).


3.1.2.Staff understand the skills and competency requirements needed to successfully undertake their role.

a) The Provider has documented job descriptions that include statements of the skills and competencies required for the position, including cultural competency skills.

3.2The Provider has a structured approach to developing staff and an effective performance management system.

3.2.1.The Provider has staff training and development policies and processes in place.

a) The Provider has an induction process outlining what is required of inductees, supporting staff and managers, and conducts induction training for all staff.

b) The staff development policy and processes:

i. incorporate details of the Provider’s plan for the ongoing training and development of all staff,

ii. is informed by internal and external audits and/or reviews, and

iii. contains strategies for identifying skill gaps.

c) Staff are appropriately trained to deliver Employment Services on an ongoing basis and individual training records are maintained.


3.2.2.The Provider’s performance management framework supports the ongoing development of staff.

a) The Provider has a performance management framework in place that outlines the methods and timing for providing ongoing individual feedback to staff, particularly where there is skill or competency deficiency identified.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that performance management processes are followed consistently. This includes demonstrating that:

i. all staff are given timely and relevant performance feedback, and





ii. action has been taken when skills or competency deficiencies, or underperformance, has been identified.

Principle 4 - ParticipantsKey Performance Measure


4.1The Provider has strategies in place that result in effective engagement with Stream Participants.

4.1.1.The Provider has a communication policy in place to engage with Stream Participants.

a) The Provider’s communication policies and processes include:

i. a variety of communication methods, and

ii. the frequency of contact between the Provider and Stream Participants, that is line with the Service Guarantee and Service Delivery Plans.

No measures. This KPM will be retained as a minimum requirement for all Providers.

4.1.2.The Provider regularly reviews its caseload to ensure Stream Participant engagement.

a) The Provider has processes in place to conduct regular caseload monitoring across all sites and address emerging issues. These processes support the consistent review of caseloads to ensure:

i. timely activation of Stream Participants from date of referral,

ii. the timely commencement and ongoing participation of Stream Participants into Work for the Dole and other relevant activities, and

iii. prompt re-engagement of Stream Participants following Suspension and exemption periods or who fall out of employment.

b) The Provider has a process in place to maintain engagement with Stream Participants to ensure they remain in Employment for the length of the payment period.

4.2Employment Services are delivered to Stream Participants, assisting them to become work ready

4.2.1.The Provider delivers services in line with the Service Guarantee, its Service Delivery Plans and the Joint Charter of Deed Management

a) The Provider has policies and processes that reflect the servicing strategies outlined in the Service Guarantee and its Service Delivery Plans.

b) Staff can describe the obligations outlined in the Service Guarantee and its Service Delivery Plans and correctly apply them to individual Stream Participants.

80 per cent of commitments measured by the Department during the monitoring period (two years or contract to date, whichever is less) are assessed as ‘Met’.





and gain sustainable Employment, in line with individual program eligibility and the Provider’s service delivery model.

(Joint Charter). NOTE: Those commitments assessed as partially met will not count as ‘Met’.

4.2.2.Staff understand the eligibility criteria for individual Employment Services programs and can identify the Mutual Obligation Requirements and compliance requirements for individual Stream Participants.

a) Staff are able to describe the various programs and eligibility requirements.

b) Staff can demonstrate that they are able to identify the varying circumstances and Mutual Obligation Requirements of individual Stream Participants.

4.2.3.Staff undertake assessments of Stream Participant’s circumstances and implement strategies that focus on assisting them to become work ready and gain sustainable Employment.

a) The Provider’s Stream Participant assessment is used to implement strategies and includes:

i. complex issue identification and treatment,

ii. identification of employment goals, and

iii. identification of skill and development needs.

4.2.4.The Provider has a variety of strategies in place for promoting a wide range of Employment opportunities to Stream Participants.

a) Staff can describe the strategies they use to provide Stream Participants with advice on:

i. job searching methods,

ii. government incentives such as Wage Subsidies,

iii. available vacancies, local labour market opportunities and employer needs and preferences, and

iv. selecting and applying for suitable jobs.





4.3Job Plans set out an individualised Employment-orientated action plan for each Stream Participant.

4.3.1.Plans are tailored to the Stream Participant. They contain activities that will satisfy the Stream Participant’s Mutual Obligation Requirements (where relevant) and assist them to become work ready and gain sustainable Employment.

a) All Stream Participants have an individualised and up-to-date Job Plan, which has been signed and agreed to by the Stream Participant and recorded on the Department’s IT Systems. There is evidence of regular review and modification in accordance with internal processes.

b) The Job Plan contains:

i. the number of job searches that must be undertaken by the Stream Participant each month,

ii. current, time-specific activities for the Stream Participant to complete,

iii. activities focused on securing and maintaining Employment, and

iv. hours of participation that do not exceed the Stream Participant’s Mutual Obligation Requirements.

c) The Provider has a systematic approach to ensuring that Stream Participants fulfil the requirements of their individual Job Plans, including:

i. ensuring that Stream Participants apply for and accept suitable roles, and

ii. ensuring that Stream Participant mutual obligations are being met.

Less than five per cent rejection rate for the reason ‘Procedural Error’ for Participation Reports over the monitoring period (12 months preceding the Audit Plan request).

and

Less than five per cent rejection rate for the reason ‘Procedural Error’ for Provider Appointment Reports over the monitoring period (12 months preceding the Audit Plan request).and95 per cent of job seekers (who are expected to be looking for work under policy settings) have job search requirements included in their job plan.

4.3.2.The Provider has processes in place to ensure Stream Participants fulfil their Mutual Obligation Requirements and staff effectively undertake action under the compliance framework.

a) The Provider’s compliance processes outline when the reporting of non-attendance or non-compliance in relation to Mutual Obligation Requirements should occur and include:

i. the need to consider complex issues and Reasonable Excuses before reporting incidents of non-compliance, and

ii. the provision of full Formal Notification of the Stream Participant’s requirements in accordance with the Notification Timeframes and using the templates and/or scripts specified by the Department.

b) Where a Stream Participant has failed to comply with their Mutual Obligation Requirements:

i. considering appropriate strategies for engagement and, as appropriate,

ii. ensuring timely re-engagement, and

iii. taking timely action under the compliance framework including submission of compliance recommendations with sufficient evidence to inform the decision by DHS.





4.4The Provider’s service delivery strategy incorporates policies and processes that measure Stream Participant satisfaction, support Stream Participants in the raising of complaints, and are in line with the Deed and Guideline.

4.4.1.The Provider has policies and processes in place for monitoring Stream Participant satisfaction with the Employment Services delivered.

a) The Provider has processes in place for monitoring Stream Participant satisfaction with the Employment Services delivered, which are applied consistently and as planned.

b) Stream Participants confirm that they have received tailored services from the Provider, that are in line with the Service Guarantee and Service Delivery Plan, and which meet their individual needs.


4.4.2.The Provider’s policies and processes support the raising of complaints and feedback, with no fear of retribution, and facilitate complaints resolution.

a) The Provider has in place policies and processes to support the raising of complaints and feedback. The policies detail:

i. how the outcome of a complaint is communicated to the complainant, and

ii. escalation processes, including relevant delegations.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that the complaints and feedback process is implemented consistently across the Provider, and that:

i. staff can articulate the process,

ii. complaints are referred to the Department of Employment when required, and

iii. records of complaints indicate appropriate escalation consistent with processes.

c) The Provider’s feedback mechanism is open and transparent and:

i. Stream Participants are aware of feedback and complaints processes and feel comfortable to raise a complaint without fear of retribution, and

ii. feedback from Stream Participants indicates that complaints lodged have or are being resolved.



Principle 5 – Labour market, Employers and communityKey Performance Measure


5.1The Provider identifies and incorporates local labour market knowledge into service delivery.

5.1.1.The Provider has policies in place to incorporate labour market knowledge to assist staff to achieve Employment outcomes.

a) The Provider has documented labour market plans that demonstrate how local, regional and national labour market information is used to determine areas of current and future job opportunities.

At an organisational level, Indigenous Outcomes Targets have been met for the most recent finalised Performance Period (at the time the Audit Plan is requested).

5.1.2.The Provider identifies the cohort groups it services and implements specific policies that assist these Stream Participants into Employment.

a) The Provider has in place policies that assist staff in tailoring Employment Services to different cohort groups.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that staff consistently apply policies for engaging and servicing different cohort groups in their respective Employment Regions.

5.1.3.The Provider has in place policies and processes that assure the cultural competence of staff in dealing with Stream Participants.

a) The Provider’s policies and processes demonstrate a commitment to culturally appropriate service delivery.

b) The Provider has in place policies and processes for accessing interpreting services, and:

i. staff can accurately describe these processes and how they are used, and

ii. there is evidence of professional interpreters being engaged, where appropriate, to address Stream Participants’ needs.

5.2The Provider has a systematic approach to servicing the needs of Employers including evidence of ongoing relationships that

5.2.1.The Provider has in place proactive policies for meeting the needs of Employers.

a) The Provider can demonstrate how they develop and maintain relationships with Employers and Employer groups. This includes demonstrating that there is:

i. ongoing marketing to Employers both of Provider Services and of individual Stream Participants, and

ii. evidence of Employer networks and/or databases.

b) The Provider can describe how they supply information to Employers about government incentives available to the Employer, including Wage Subsidies.

c) The Provider can describe how they participate, facilitate and contribute to industry strategies including collaboration with other Providers, which improve the quality of services

80 per cent of the provider’s contracts have a Star Rating of 3 or above based on the last published results.





deliver Employment outcomes for Stream Participants.

to Employers.

5.2.2The Provider has in place proactive processes for sourcing and matching Stream Participants with vacancies.

a) The Provider’s staff can describe how they source vacancies and match and place Stream Participants into Employment, including any related strategies outlined in Service Delivery Plans. This involves staff:

i. assessing the needs of Employers,

ii. matching the needs of Employers with skills of the Stream Participants on their caseload, and

iii. providing ongoing assistance to Employers, for eligible Stream Participants post placement, to improve Employment outcomes.

5.3There are effective relationships developed and maintained with Work for the Dole Coordinators, other Providers and organisations that deliver complementary services.

5.3.1.The Provider maintains an effective and regular relationship with Work for the Dole Coordinators.

a) The Provider can demonstrate evidence of ongoing interactions with Work for the Dole Coordinators that ensures it remains aware of developments with requirements of the Work for the Dole Coordinators.


5.3.2.The Provider can demonstrate linkages with Activity Host Organisations.

a) The Provider can demonstrate the approach taken to promote the Work for the Dole program to potential Host Organisations.

b) The Provider has policies in place to develop and maintain relationships with Activity Host Organisations and staff can describe these policies.

c) The Provider can demonstrate collaboration with other Providers to meet the needs of Activity Host Organisations and to deliver the Work for the Dole program.

5.3.3.The Provider can demonstrate linkages between the services that the Provider delivers and appropriate referral to and from other agencies.

a) The Provider has established networks, where relevant, with other services.

b) Information is maintained, at Site level, about complementary programs or services that may be available to Stream Participants.



Principle 6 – Operational effectivenessKey Performance Measure


6.1Provider’s policies and processes support the delivery of services that comply with the Deed and Guideline.

6.1.1.The Provider’s policies and processes ensure compliance with the Deed, and changes in the Deed and Guideline are promptly and accurately reflected in the Provider’s systems, processes and practices.

a) The Provider’s policies and processes ensure that the requirements of the Deed and Guideline are being met.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that it has in place processes for accurately and promptly updating the Provider’s systems, policies and processes following Deed and Guideline updates.

c) The Provider’s staff can describe the importance of complying with the Deed and Guideline, and how they are notified of updated processes.


6.1.2.The Provider has policies and processes in place to ensure staff awareness of probity and accountability issues.

a) The Provider has policies and processes in place to address probity and accountability issues.

b) The Department of Employment’s Information, Communications and Technology Systems—User Declaration Forms, as outlined in Department of Employment Security Policy for External Service Providers and Users have been completed for all staff.

6.2The Provider has arrangements in place to monitor and comply with the Privacy Act, Work Health and Safety Act and other relevant legislation.

6.2.1.The Provider has policies and processes in place to ensure that personal information is handled in a manner consistent with the Privacy Act and other legislation.

a) The Provider has privacy and confidentiality polices and processes in place to comply with all relevant legislative and Departmental requirements (including those outlined in the Department’s Records Management Instructions).

b) The Provider can demonstrate how it has implemented its privacy and confidentiality processes. This includes demonstrating that:

i. staff can accurately describe how these processes are used and how they are implemented in their daily work,

ii. information is stored securely, and

iii. there are facilities, such as private interview rooms, that accommodate private discussion with Stream Participants.


6.2.2.The Provider has

a) The Provider has in place processes to ensure Stream Participants are informed of how their





arrangements in place to promote their privacy and confidentiality policies to Stream Participants and Employers.

personal information may be used. This must incorporate:

i. relevant information about protecting Stream Participants’ privacy and the handling of confidential issues is shared with Stream Participants at their first interview with the Provider, and

ii. where relevant, additional considerations for managing issues of privacy, where these are required by local communities.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that they inform Employers about how their disclosed information is managed.

6.2.3The Provider has policies and processes in place to ensure that Work Health and Safety requirements are handled in a manner consistent with relevant legislation.

a) The Provider has policies and processes in place to comply with all relevant work health and safety legislation, including reporting of Notifiable Incidents.

b) There are polices in place to ensure changes to Work Health and Safety legislation generate a review of the Provider’s processes.

6.3Claiming processes used by the Provider are systematic and ensure claiming practices align with the Deed and Guideline.

6.3.1.The Provider ensures reimbursement and claiming policies and processes are in place and align with the Deed and Guideline.

a) The Provider’s claiming policies and processes:

i. support compliance with the Guideline, including the Documentary Evidence Guideline,

ii. specify the internal and external (where required) approval processes for expenditure, reimbursements and claims, and

iii. clearly identify accountability and delegation arrangements.

At an organisation level the Compliance Indicator result was 83 or more (based on the data available to providers as at the time the Audit Plan is requested).6.3.2.

The Provider ensures that reimbursements and claims policies and processes are systematically applied by the Provider.

a) The Provider can demonstrate that the policies and processes for reimbursements and claims are systematically applied including that when submitting reimbursements and claims to the Department, the staff responsible:

i. process reimbursements and claims in accordance with the Provider’s processes, and

ii. ensure the application of the Deed and Guideline.



Principle 7 – Continual improvementKey Performance Measure


7.1The Provider has an effective internal audit system in place.

7.1.1.The Provider has formally defined internal audit processes in place.

a) The Provider has an internal audit function that supports the Provider’s overall effectiveness. An internal audit process is approved by the Provider’s governing body and outlines the purpose, authority and responsibility of the internal audit function. The audit processes detail:

i. how the Provider ensures that the internal audit function remains an independent process, free of operational interference,

ii. how the Provider’s internal audit activity mitigates fraud and how this activity interlinks with its risk management strategies.

b) The Provider’s staff responsible for conducting internal audits are independent, objective and impartial and have a clear separation of duties, particularly where audits are conducted by Employment Service staff.

Quality Principle 7 is retained in full as continual improvement is the foundation of the QAF.

7.1.2.The Provider ensures that internal audit activity is effectively planned and undertaken as scheduled.

a) The Provider effectively plans internal audit activity by:

i. preparing an internal audit schedule that is approved by directors or board members,

ii. ensuring that internal audit activities are appropriate to the size and structure, for the services being delivered, of the Provider, and

iii. adopting a risk-based approach to determining internal audit priorities.

b) The Provider’s internal audit plan includes activities targeted at its internal quality management system as well as Deed and Guideline related compliance.

c) The Provider undertakes internal audit activities as outlined in the Provider’s audit schedule, and can demonstrate that:

i. all scheduled audits have been conducted, and

ii. reasons that audits are undertaken outside the audit schedule are documented.

7.2The Provider has in place a systematic

7.2.1.The Provider has in place processes for the systematic

a) The Provider has in place processes to measure and review performance at a Site, Employment Region and Provider level. These reviews include specific monitoring of placement and Outcome data in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Quality Principle 7 is retained in full as continual





approach to identifying and implementing continual improvement activities.

monitoring and reporting of Site, Employment Region and Provider performance.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that ongoing performance monitoring is conducted as planned and how this monitoring has informed specific performance improvement policies.

c) The Provider monitors and reviews its Employment placement strategies to ensure they continue to be effective in securing Employment outcomes for Stream Participants.

improvement is the foundation of the QAF.

7.2.2.The Provider can demonstrate how feedback received from a variety of sources informs the implementation of continual improvement activities.

a) The Provider collates Provider-wide information on feedback and complaints received from Employers, Stream Participants, Auditors and the Department of Employment and can demonstrate how feedback received informs continual improvement.

b) Records of complaints and feedback are maintained and include:i. detailed information relating to the complaint, including the date of the complaint and the

Site to which the complaint relates,ii. steps taken to resolve the complaint,iii. the outcome of any investigation, andiv. any follow-up action required.

c) The Provider can demonstrate how it uses observations, recommendations and Opportunities for Improvement from QAF and Quality Standard audits, to improve the Provider’s effectiveness.

7.2.3.The Provider has in place a continual improvement register that is used to monitor continual improvement proposals and the activities that address them.

a) The Provider can demonstrate that there is a continual improvement register and that it is effectively utilised, including demonstrating that:

i. there is a systematic process to updating and monitoring the continual improvement register,

ii. the register contains all corrective action,iii. the register contains all current and completed improvement activities,iv. the register contains issues and opportunities that have been informed by a variety of

sources,v. the register demonstrates the Provider’s timely response to identified issues and

opportunities, andvi. the governing body regularly reviews the continual improvement register and contributes

to its ongoing development.

b) The Provider can demonstrate that non-conformity against either the Provider’s chosen Quality Standard or the Department’s Quality Principles, is reflected in its continual improvement





register and timely corrective action has been completed.



Attachment B: Work for the Dole Coordinator Quality PrinciplesSelf-Assessment Quality ReportThe Self-Assessment Quality Report must address each practice requirement and must contain sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate to the Department how the Quality Principles have been met. This includes meeting each element of the minimum evidence requirements in demonstrating conformance with each practice requirement, as detailed in Table 1 of this attachment.

Please note that where relevant, practice requirements may not be entirely satisfied by the existence of policies or procedures alone. In these instances, Coordinators must demonstrate that the policies and or procedures are being followed and achieve quality results.

If details are missing from the Self-Assessment Quality Report or the Department is unable to make a decision due to a lack of information, further information may be requested.

Non-conformance Classifications for CoordinatorsIf the Department determines that the Coordinator is unable to demonstrate adherence to all elements of a Quality Principle, the Department will issue a non-conformance notice. Non-conformance is categorised into two classifications: major non-conformance and minor non-conformance. Table 2 in this attachment details the non-conformance classifications and process a Coordinator must follow to close out or downgrade a non-conformance.

Once the non-conformance is identified, it must be closed out within six months. In the case of a major non-conformance, the Coordinator is expected to downgrade to a minor non-conformance within three months before completely closing out the minor non-conformance in the remaining three months (that is, a maximum timeframe of six months). Failure to close out a minor non-conformance within six months will also result in a major non-conformance. Where a Coordinator does not rectify the non-conformance within a six month period, the Department may take action under the Deed.



Table 1—Quality Principles for Work for the Dole CoordinatorsQuality Principle 1—Governance

Definition: Effective governance and efficiency through corporate arrangements and management systems. These systems support practices that optimise outcomes for their organisation and their clients. This includes appropriate planning strategies that support and improve organisational effectiveness.

Key performance measure

Practice requirement Minimum Evidence Requirements

KPM 1.1

Corporate Governance and management systems satisfy legal and contractual requirements that withstand public scrutiny.

1.1.1.

The Coordinator’s corporate governance arrangements promote confidence in the effective delivery of Work for the Dole Coordinator Services.

a) There are sound arrangements in place for the ongoing operation of the organisation’s governing body:

i. There is evidence that members/directors demonstrate an understanding of responsibilities and accountabilities, including ethical, legal and contractual requirements.

ii. There are clear processes for the escalation of matters to the governing body.iii. There are documented procedures on how the board operates and records its governance

function, such as frequency of meetings and recording of minutes and management of conflicts of interest.

b) Corporate planning includes integrating internal business services and systems to support the delivery of Work for the Dole Coordinator Services:

i. Organisational charts outline how business services interlink to assist in the delivery of the Work for the Dole Program.

ii. Corporate/business plans ensure that staffing levels and expertise assist in the effective delivery of Work for the Dole.





1.1.2.

The Coordinator has in place appropriate procedures for decision making, which outline the authority/delegations within the organisation that support staff in carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

a) Appropriate documented decision-making procedures are in place, which include decision-making matrices (financial and administrative):

i. There is evidence of the communication of these processes and procedures to staff.ii. Staff and management can demonstrate that these processes have been implemented and

are used in day-to-day operations.iii. The Coordinator can demonstrate how it monitors adherence to these procedures and the

action taken to address any gaps or mitigate further incidents.

1.1.3.

The Coordinator has in place mechanisms that ensure the ongoing financial health of the organisation.

a) The organisation can demonstrate how it maintains financial control. There is:

i. evidence of an appropriate financial management systemii. ongoing review of the organisation’s financial position, including the regular review of

financial statements; andiii. evidence of annual financial audits that provide assurance on financial management of

systems and processes.





KPM 1.2

The Coordinator has in place appropriate risk management procedures that manage workplace and environmental risks, including disaster recovery plans.

1.2.1.

The Coordinator has in place corporate governance arrangements that manage risk.

a) Risk management arrangements include:

i. documented processes for identifying and managing riskii. organisational and Site risk management plans; and

iii. evidence of regular review of risk management plans.

b) The Coordinator has a documented fraud control plan that refers to:

i. clear arrangements for staff to notify management of potential fraudii. the Department’s tip-off line contact details

iii. ensuring staff awareness of fraud prevention, including training; andiv. appropriate treatment of any alleged or actual instances of fraud or misconduct that has

been identified including the documentation of treatment plans.

c) There is evidence of the application of fraud detection strategies, as outlined in the fraud control plan.

d) There is accurate record-keeping and document control:

i. Procedures relating to document control are implemented and understood by all staff.ii. All forms and documents use version control and are kept up to date.

iii. Out-of-date material is not used by staff.



Quality Principle 2—Labour market, employers and community

Definition: The organisation and its staff have a clear understanding of the local labour markets in which they operate. The organisation engages effectively with Work for the Dole Host Organisations, Employment Providers and other stakeholders to effectively deliver the Work for the Dole Program.

Key performance measure Practice requirement Minimum Evidence Requirements

KPM 2.1

The Coordinator identifies and incorporates local labour market knowledge into service delivery.

2.1.1.

The Coordinator has in place strategies to incorporate labour market knowledge to assist staff to secure Work for the Dole Places that provide job seekers with skills that are in demand.

a) The Coordinator maintains documented labour market plans that demonstrate how local, regional and national labour market information is used to determine:

i. details of skills in the local labour marketii. areas of current and future employment growth; and

iii. skill shortages.

2.1.2.

The Coordinator identifies the cohort groups in the Employment Region, and implements specific strategies to secure Work for the Dole Places that meet the characteristics, needs and limitations of these job seekers.

a) The Coordinator has in place and maintains documented strategies that assist in securing Work for the Dole Places that meet the characteristics of different cohort groups in their Employment Region. Cohort groups include, but are not limited to:

i. Indigenous Australians

ii. people subject to stronger participation incentives

iii. people of different age groups

iv. people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and

v. people with disability.

b) These strategies are applied for engaging Work for the Dole Host Organisations to provide a wide variety of Work for the Dole Places to suit different cohort groups in the Employment Region.

c) The Coordinator can demonstrate that these strategies assist in securing Work for the Dole Places for job seekers in the Employment Region.




2.1.3.

The Coordinator has in place strategies that assure the cultural competence of staff.

a) The Coordinator’s policy and procedures demonstrate a commitment to culturally appropriate service delivery.

b) Staff are trained to deliver services in a culturally sensitive way, including working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders.

c) The Coordinator has in place policy and procedures for accessing interpreting services, where relevant.

i. Staff can accurately describe procedures and how they are used.

KPM 2.2

There are effective relationships developed and maintained with Work for the Dole Host Organisations and Employment Providers.

2.2.1.

The Coordinator regularly uses and maintains an effective relationship with Employment Providers and Work for the Dole Host Organisations.

a) The Coordinator can demonstrate evidence of ongoing and constructive interactions with Work for the Dole Host Organisations and Employment Providers, including evidence of how they maintain these relationships:

i. Coordinators can demonstrate the approach taken to promote Work for the Dole, including active marketing to potential Work for the Dole Host Organisations of Work for the Dole.

ii. There is evidence of networks and/or databases with Work for the Dole Host Organisations and Employment Providers.

b) Staff can describe the strategies they use to maintain relationships with Work for the Dole Host Organisations and Employment Providers.

c) The Coordinator has in place documented strategies to keep its staff abreast of any developments or requirements with Work for the Dole Host Organisations and Employment Providers.




KPM 2.3

The Coordinator has a systematic approach to servicing the needs of Work for the Dole Host Organisations. There is evidence of ongoing relationships with Work for the Dole Host Organisations to deliver Work for the Dole for job seekers.

2.3.1

The Coordinator has in place proactive strategies for meeting the needs of Work for the Dole Host Organisations.

a) The Coordinator can describe how they source and secure Work for the Dole Places. This involves:

i. accurately assessing the needs of Work for the Dole Host Organisationsii. collaborating with Employment Providers to meet the needs of Work for the Dole Host

Organisations; andiii. providing ongoing assistance to Work for the Dole Host Organisations.

b) The Coordinator can describe how they tailor services to Work for the Dole Host Organisations by:

i. providing relevant information to Work for the Dole Host Organisations; for example, on Work for the Dole Fees available to offset the costs of hosting a Work for the Dole Place

ii. facilitating and/or participating in industry strategies, where available, to identify Work for the Dole Places that provide job seekers with skills that are in demand in the Employment Region.



Quality Principle 3—Operational effectiveness

Definition: The organisation adopts quality operational systems that ensure effective service delivery.



KPM 3.1

Coordinators’ procedures and practices support the delivery of Services that comply with the Deed and Guidelines.

3.1.1.

The Coordinator has in place a strategy to ensure compliance with the Deed and Guidelines.

a) The Coordinator’s operating procedures ensure that the requirements of Deed and Guidelines are being met.

b) The Coordinator can demonstrate that Services delivered by staff are in line with Deed and Guideline requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, practices to:i. secure a sufficient number of suitable Work for the Dole Places to meet demand across the

Employment Regionii. ensure the distribution of Work for the Dole Places is according to where the job seekers

are located within the Employment Regioniii. undertake a risk assessment, or engage a Competent Person, to identify any work health

and safety issues to ensure the Work for the Dole Place is safe for participation; andiv. demonstrate how due diligence is exercised to ensure Work for the Dole Places do not

displace paid workers.b) Staff undertake specific and ongoing training in relation to the Deed and Guidelines, including

attendance at specific fora, conferences or meetings, induction or training as specified by the Department.

3.1.2.

Operational systems are in place that ensure changes in the Deed and Guidelines are promptly and accurately reflected in the organisation’s own procedures and practices.

a) The Coordinator can demonstrate that they have in place operating procedures for accurately and promptly updating the organisation’s procedures and practices following Deed and Guidelines updates.

b) The Coordinator can demonstrate that these operating procedures relating to Deed and Guideline changes are being followed.i. Current versions of documents are readily identifiable and accessible.ii. Staff can describe in their own words how they are notified of updated operational

procedures.c) Staff can describe, in their own words:

i. the importance of complying with the Deed and Guidelinesii. how they receive training in relation to the Deed and Guidelines; andiii. where they access operational procedures.





3.1.3.

The Coordinator has in place proactive strategies for ensuring staff awareness of probity and accountability issues.

a) The Coordinator has in place documented strategies to address probity and accountability issues and evidence of their communication to and implementation by staff.

b) Coordinators have maintained copies of the Department’s ‘Information, communications and technology systems—User declaration’ forms, in accordance with the Deed.

c) Staff receive training to develop and maintain their awareness of probity and accountability issues.

KPM 3.2

The Coordinator has in place arrangements to monitor and comply with Privacy Act and other relevant legislation.

3.2.1.

The Coordinator has in place policies and processes to ensure that personal information is handled in a manner consistent with Privacy and other legislation.

a) The Coordinator has in place documented privacy and confidentiality policies that:i. address data collection, use or disclosure, security and disposal, as described in the

Department’s Records Management Instructions; andii. reflect a ‘need to know’ basis in relation to personal information.

b) The Coordinator can demonstrate how they have implemented their privacy and confidentiality procedures:i. staff can accurately describe how these procedures are used and can demonstrate their

implementation in their daily work procedures; andii. information is stored securely.

c) The Coordinator can demonstrate that they inform Work for the Dole Host Organisations how their information is managed.

KPM 3.3

Service fee expenditure meets program objectives and invoicing processes used by the Coordinator align with the Deed and Guidelines.

3.3.1.

The Coordinator has in place processes and procedures that ensure expenditure of service fees meets program objectives.

a) The Coordinator’s policy and procedures are in line with the Deed and Guidelines and:i. detail the internal and external approval process (where required) for expenditure; andii. require appropriate record keeping.

b) The Coordinator can demonstrate that their service fee policies and procedures are followed by staff.

c) The Coordinator can demonstrate how the use of service fees:i. provide value for moneyii. comply with any work, health and safety laws that may apply; andiii. ensure effective use and promotion of the Work for the Dole Program.





3.3.2.

The Coordinator ensures that claiming practices are systematically applied throughout the organisation.

a) The Coordinator’s claiming policies and procedures:i. support compliance with the Deed and Guidelines; andii. clearly identify accountability and delegation arrangements.

b) Staff responsible for the submission of invoices to the Department:i. have the required knowledge and training; andii. process invoices in accordance with the organisation’s claiming procedures.

Quality Principle 4—Continual improvement

Definition: The organisation has a systematic approach to improving all aspects of its operations. There is an effective internal audit function that identifies and promotes opportunities for improvement.



KPM 4.1

The Coordinator has in place an effective internal audit system.

4.1.1.

The Coordinator has in place formally defined internal audit procedures or an audit charter.

a) The audit charter or procedures are approved by the directors/board members, where relevant, and outline the purpose, authority and responsibility of the internal audit function. The audit charter or procedures detail:i. how the organisation ensures that the internal audit function improves the organisation’s

overall effectivenessii. how management ensures the internal audit function remains an independent process, free

of operational interference; andiii. how the plan interlinks with the organisation’s risk and fraud management strategies.

b) Person(s) responsible for conducting internal audits:i. are independent, objective and impartialii. should have a clear separation of duties from the Coordinators; andiii. possess the appropriate skills and competencies to undertake internal audits.





4.1.2.

The Coordinator ensures internal audit activity is effectively planned.

a) The Coordinator effectively plans internal audit activity by:i. preparing an internal audit schedule that is approved by directors/board members, where

relevantii. considering the size and complexity of the organisation to ensure internal audit activities

provide the organisation with sufficient assuranceiii. adopting a risk-based approach to determining internal audit priorities; andiv. ensuring audits of the internal quality management system are undertaken, as well as

Deed-related compliance audits, where relevant.b) The Coordinator undertakes internal audit activities as outlined in the organisation’s audit

schedule:i. The Coordinator can demonstrate that all scheduled audits have been conducted.ii. Reasons why audits are undertaken outside the audit schedule are documented.

KPM 4.2

The Coordinator has in place a systematic approach to identifying and implementing continual improvement activities.

4.2.1.

The Coordinator has in place a continual improvement register that is used to monitor continual improvement proposals and the activities that address them.

a) The Coordinator can demonstrate that there is a continual improvement register and it is effectively utilised, including demonstrating that:i. there is a systematic process to updating and monitoring the continual improvement

registerii. the continual improvement register contains all corrective actionsiii. the continual improvement register contains all current and completed activitiesiv. the continual improvement register contains issues/opportunities that have been informed

by a variety of sourcesv. the continual improvement register demonstrates the Coordinator’s timely response to

identified issues/opportunities; andvi. board members/directors, where relevant, regularly review the continual improvement

register and contribute to its ongoing development.

4.2.2.

The Coordinator has in place systematic reporting mechanisms for organisational performance.

a) The Coordinator has in place appropriate mechanisms to measure and review performance of the Employment Region and organisation level:i. These reviews include specific monitoring of the number, nature and distribution of Work

for the Dole Places across the Employment Region.ii. The Coordinator can demonstrate how ongoing performance monitoring has informed

specific performance improvement strategies.





4.2.3.

The Coordinator can demonstrate how feedback received from a variety of sources informs the implementation of continual improvement activities.

a) The Coordinator can demonstrate how feedback received from Work for the Dole Host Organisations, Employment Providers, the Department and other relevant stakeholders informs continual improvement.

b) The Coordinator ensures that this information is documented in the continual improvement register.

4.2.4.

The Coordinator’s ongoing performance against the Quality Framework informs continual improvement.

a) The Coordinator can demonstrate how it uses the Quality Framework and Self-Assessment Quality Report to:i. actively consider observations, recommendations and opportunities for improvement

outlined by the auditor in order to improve the organisation’s effectiveness; andii. inform continual improvement activities that are detailed in the continual improvement

register.b) The Coordinator can demonstrate that where non-conformity has been determined against the

Department’s Quality Principles, corrective action has been promptly taken, is reflected in the continual improvement register and meets the required timeframes.

Table 2—Non-conformance for Work for the Dole Coordinators

Classification Major Non-conformance Minor Non-conformance

Definition A major non-conformance is defined as:a) a failure to satisfy at least one of the practice

requirements within a KPM

b) a failure to satisfy 50 per cent of the practice requirements across a Quality Principle, regardless of which KPM they fall under; or

A minor non-conformance is defined as:a) failure to meet a practice requirement.



Classification Major Non-conformance Minor Non-conformancec) a failure to close out a minor non-conformance within

six months

Corrective Action Plan A Corrective Action Plan must be submitted to an Account Manager within 20 business days of the closing meeting of the audit containing:a) the proposed action to be taken to address the non-

conformance (that is downgrade to minor non-conformance)

b) the timeframes of progress milestones; and

c) a determination as to whether the major non-conformance can be closed out remotely or if further onsite audit activity is required.

A Corrective Action Plan must be submitted to an Account Manager within 20 business days of the closing meeting of the audit containing:a) the proposed action to be taken to address the

non-conformance

b) the timeframes of progress milestones (if any); and

c) a determination as to whether the minor non-conformance can be closed out remotely or if further onsite audit activity is required.

Close out Close out of a major non-conformance is usually achieved by downgrading it to a minor non-conformance.

National office must receive confirmation from the Account Manager that the major non-conformance has been closed out or downgraded within three months from the meeting of when the major non-conformance was identified.

Once the major non-conformance has been downgraded, the Coordinator must completely close out the minor non-conformance in three months (that is, a maximum timeframe of six months from the meeting of when the major non-conformance was identified).

The original issue must be checked during the next performance review, unless otherwise advised by the Department.

National office must receive confirmation from the Account Manager that the minor non-conformance has been closed out within six months from the meeting of when the minor non-conformance was identified.

Consequence if Non-conformance is The Coordinator may be subject to remedial action under the The Coordinator may be subject to action under the Work



Classification Major Non-conformance Minor Non-conformance

not closed out within the required timeframe

Work for the Dole Coordinator Services Deed 2015–2020. for the Dole Coordinator Services Deed 2015–2020.



Attachment C: Self-Assessment Quality Report Template

WORK FOR THE DOLE COORDINATOR ORGANISATION DETAILS

Employment Region:

Organisation Name:

Physical Address:

Contact Number:Name and Signature: Date Submitted:

DD / MM / YYYYDEPARTMENT USE ONLY

Name and signature: Date Received:

DD / MM / YYYY

Comments:

Quality PrinciplesComplete this form and submit to the relevant Account Manager by {DATE}. The Department will determine conformance to a Quality Principle based on the detail provided against each Evidence requirement for each Practice Requirement as set out at Attachment A of the Work for the Dole Guideline.Quality Principle 1 - GovernanceNote: You may reference your tender response against Criterion 1 (Governance) when responding to this Quality Principle at the time of submitting this Self-Assessment Quality Report.

1. Provide details of corporate governance arrangements and management systems that are in place to satisfy ethical, legal and contractual requirements for the effective delivery of Work for the Dole Coordinator Services.

2. Provide details of the procedures your organisation has in place for decision making and how the authority/delegations within your organisation support your staff in undertaking their roles and responsibilities.

3. Describe the mechanisms that are in place to ensure the ongoing financial health of your organisation.



4. Provide details of the risk management arrangements your organisation have in place to manage workplace and environmental risks, including details of disaster recovery plans.

Quality Principle 2 – Labour Market, Employment & Community

1. Provide details of the strategies your organisation has in place that will assist your staff in securing Work for the Dole Places that provide job seekers with skills that are in demand in the local labour market.

2. Provide details of strategies that are in place that will identify job seeker cohort groups in the Employment Region, including specific implementation strategies that will assist in securing Work for the Dole Places to meet the different characteristics of these job seekers.

3. Specify the policies and procedures your organisation has in place to assure the cultural competence of your staff.

4. Provide details of how your organisation will develop, maintain and regularly utilise effective relationships with Employment Providers and Work for the Dole Host Organisations in the Employment Region.

5. Provide details of proactive strategies your organisation has in place for meeting the needs of Work for the Dole Host Organisations.

Quality Principle 3 – Operational Effectiveness

1. Provide details of the operating procedures your organisation has in place to ensure compliance with the jobactive Deed 2015-2020 - Work for the Dole Coordinator and Work for the Dole Guidelines.

2. Provide details of the operational procedures your organisation has in place to ensure that any changes to the jobactive Deed 2015-2020 - Work for the Dole Coordinator and Work for the Dole Guidelines are promptly and accurately reflected in your organisation’s own procedures and practices.

3. Provide details on how your organisation has implemented any commitments, activities, plans and strategies that were included in your response to the Request for Tender.



4. Provide details of proactive strategies your organisation has in place for ensuring your staff is aware of probity and accountability issues.

5. Provide details of the policies and processes that your organisation has in place to ensure that personal information is handled in a manner that is consistent with Privacy and other legislation.

6. Provide details of processes and procedures your organisation has in place to ensure the expenditure of Work for the Dole Coordinator service fees meet program objectives.

7. Provide details of your organisation’s invoicing processes and how these will ensure invoicing practices are systematically applied throughout your organisation.

Quality Principle 4 – Continual Improvement

1. Provide details of your organisation’s internal audit system, including details of internal audit procedures, audit charter and strategies to effectively plan audit activities where relevant.

2. Provide details of your organisation’s continual improvement register and how it is used to monitor continual improvement proposals and the activities that address them.

3. Provide details of the systematic reporting mechanisms your organisation has in place to monitor organisational performance in the Employment Region.

4. Provide details demonstrating how your organisation uses feedback received from a variety of sources to inform the implementation of continual improvement activities.

5. Provide details of how your organisation’s ongoing performance against the Quality Assurance Framework for Work for the Dole Coordinators informs continual improvement.



Attachment D: QAF Audit Process Flow Chart


6 weeks (30 business days)

6 weeks(30 business

days)

2 months(40 business days)

Audit Planning

(Recommended Provider starts planning 9 months prior to anniversary date)

(*Engage Auditor *Self-Assessment *Prepare Audit Plan *Prepare Doc Review)

Audit Plan Submission

(Must be submitted 2 months prior to Audit commencement.

Closure of remaining Non-conformances

(Must be closed within 6 months from audit close meeting)

Major Non-conformances closed/downgraded

(Due within 3 months from audit close meeting)

Auditor to review Non-conformances

(NC report to be submitted)

QAF Certification/ongoing Certification Granted

No Non-conformance identified

Minor Non-conformance

(Must be closed/ within 6 months from audit close meeting)

Major Non-conformance

(Must be closed/downgraded within 3 months from audit close meeting)

Non-conformance identified

Report Submission

(Must be submitted within 6 weeks of audit close meeting and at least 4 months prior to

anniversary date)

Submit Corrective Action Plan

(Must be submitted within 6 weeks (30 business days) of the audit close meeting and at the same

time as the Quality Principles Report.

Audit Commencement

(in accordance with approved Audit Plan)

Audit Close Meeting

(Average audit duration is 4 weeks)


All capitalised terms in this Guideline have the same meaning as in the jobactive Deed 2015–2020 (the Deed).

In this Guideline, references to provider mean an Employment Provider, and references to job seekers mean Stream Participants as defined in the Deed.

This Guideline is not a stand-alone document and does not contain the entirety of Employment Services Providers’ obligations. It must be read in conjunction with the Deed and any relevant Guidelines or reference material issued by Department of Employment under or in connection with the Deed.


Performance Framework Guideline V2.1 - … · Web viewGuideline:Performance Framework jobactive is...

Documents

Transcript of Performance Framework Guideline V2.1 - … · Web viewGuideline:Performance Framework jobactive is...