If govt wants reforms to work, they’ll need our help, say sector leaders

The release of the Productivity Commission’s report into doubling philanthropy earlier this month came ahead of the much-anticipated release of a federal review into community sector funding by the Department of Social Services (DSS), and the sector-led NFP Sector Development Blueprint, both expected soon.

Together the reviews have the potential to completely remake a sector that is itching for change. Many remain sceptical about the government’s ability to meet the need.

ACOSS community services program director Rob Sturrock summed up the views of many when he suggested the work had just begun with the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into philanthropy.

"ACOSS commends the Productivity Commission for its methodical work identifying opportunities for charities to better raise philanthropic funds.

“However, we remain deeply concerned by the fact that community services are facing their most challenging operating environment in a generation, and the Federal Government is moving far too slowly on fulfilling its election commitments to fairer funding, improved job security and better contract management.

“With the release of the Productivity Commission’s report, it is critical to reiterate that philanthropic giving must only ever be an additional income source for organisations. It must never replace the active role of government in investing in services and supporting our sector to be stronger and more financially viable.

“There is precious time left before the next election, and we strongly urge the government to genuinely work in partnership with the sector to deliver its promises.”

Speaking at the recent Not-for-profit Agenda webcast this month, attended by hundreds of community leaders, Mr Sturrock said the entire sector had been under “immense strain for at least five years”, beginning with its response to the catastrophic bushfires of 2019–2020, continuing with the covid years and the pandemic’s economic, social and health impacts, and now with the prolonged cost-of-living crisis affecting the whole country.

Those difficulties came after “at least a decade of chronic underfunding of services”, exacerbated by a huge increase in demand for community services, he said.

“A lot of the services we talk to, like food relief, financial counselling, community legal, homelessness, etcetera … the need in the community to access those services is beyond pre-pandemic levels”.

Speaking at the recent Not-for-profit Agenda webcast this month, attended by hundreds of community leaders, Mr Sturrock said the entire sector had been under “immense strain for at least five years”, beginning with its response to the catastrophic bushfires of 2019–2020, continuing with the covid years and the pandemic’s economic, social and health impacts, and now with the prolonged cost-of-living crisis affecting the whole country.

Those difficulties came after “at least a decade of chronic underfunding of services”, exacerbated by a huge increase in demand for community services, he said.

“A lot of the services we talk to, like food relief, financial counselling, community legal, homelessness, etcetera … the need in the community to access those services is beyond pre-pandemic levels”.

Mr Sturrock said the sector was “absolutely beyond its capacity”, and waiting lists were growing longer, and people were getting referred to other services or turned away.

“Obviously one of the critical points was around improving the funding model for the sector. Really, we need to move to a funding model that fully funds the full costs of service delivery.

“What we've seen for the last 10–15 years is money going into the sharp end of program and service delivery, but not enough funding and resourcing for all legitimate overheads that community sector organisations have – like any organisation – including supervision, training, IT, or the office overheads. A lot of that organisational cost is not [contained] in Commonwealth grants.

“We know that might take a couple of steps, but we really need to have a better funding model that moves the sector to full funding so that it is more sustainable, more viable… so we keep and retain workers as well.”

He said there had been “a lot of good faith engagement by the sector” over the past two years and in response to many government reviews.

“It's really time to start seeing the results,” he said.

Women escaping violence housing provider wants better results from reviews

The Department of Social Services community sector funding review received 237 submissions from the sector, and a summary of those published earlier this year indicated that a large number wondered why previous inquiries had been largely shelved.

“Several expressed frustration that the sector is being asked to respond to questions that government has asked previously, and where there is already significant agreement on what changes are needed,” the summary says.

McAuley Services for Women chief executive Jocelyn Bignold has seen it all before when it comes to government reviews that have done precious little to improve the lot of the most vulnerable.

Ms Bignold was dismayed at the lack of action from a royal commission into family violence in Victoria nearly a decade ago.

“The risk we have in undertaking major reviews, such as the Royal Commission into Family Violence, is that it becomes a ‘tick box’ exercise, where implementation is rushed and not sequentially embedded because of the need to report on progress quickly.

“Once all recommendations are ticked off, work becomes ‘business as usual’ and we miss the opportunity to transform the system itself.”

“What I’d like to see more is that systematic thinking, the ability to step back and reflect on how all the pieces are fitting together”.

In the latest round of inquiries, Ms Bignold said the sector had an expectation that there would be “genuine and actionable outcomes”.

“We don’t just want reviews for the sake of reviews. We want them to lead to tangible improvements. This means not only identifying issues but also implementing solutions effectively and promptly.

“We expect the reviews to bring about better coordination between NFPs, charities, and government bodies. This includes more consistent and long-term government funding, as opposed to the short-term, project-based funding that often leaves us scrambling to sustain our programs. Additionally, we hope for more inclusive and collaborative decision-making processes where the insights and experiences of NFPs and charities are genuinely valued and considered.

“Another crucial expectation is the enhancement of support systems for technology, data collection and evaluation. Proper funding and resources in these areas will enable us to measure our impact more effectively and make informed decisions to improve our services. It’s also essential that we move towards a more stable environment where government representatives and key contacts are not frequently changing, so we can build lasting relationships and maintain continuity in our work.

“Overall, we want the reviews to result in a more supportive, collaborative and resource-rich environment where NFPs and charities can thrive and make a more significant impact on the communities we serve.”

Ms Bignold believed there should be five-year funding periods and better relationships with government bodies that go beyond the occasional consultations and round tables, which she described as “fairly exclusive” and not fully accessible to all stakeholders.

She hoped for a greater co-design on projects backed by “more resources for better technology, better data collection, better evaluation”.

Many in the sector were unable to afford the evaluation that was needed and demanded by government, leading to less effective results.

“We can’t afford evaluations, we can’t think about collective impact, and we can’t do that partnership work without sufficient resources.”

Addressing these issues would generate better collaboration in her sub-sector, which addresses housing issues for those affected by family violence.

“We’re practised at filling service gaps with philanthropic support. Philanthropy is important for highlighting the need and testing innovation but it’s more difficult to translate into sustainable change. Having the capacity and capability to take a more localised and collective view, inclusive of lived experience input, is likely to produce better outcomes for everyone. I hope the reviews help create the environment to contemplate these ways of working.”

Ms Bignold said she was hopeful the reviews would create the chance for the sector to forge a better relationship with governments, which would require governments to rethink the way they worked with the sector.

“We [in the sector] have experience and see the things governments want to know, and together we can work out what’s required.

“But what we’re finding in government is that there’s a culture of moving people around, or initiating an entire restructure resulting in a substantial loss of corporate knowledge and valued relationships. We find that momentum is lost, and we’re really basically having to start from scratch every few years.”

Sector and government relations must improve

Scope Australia director Barbara Hingston told the Not-for-profit Agenda webcast that the relationship between government and the community sector must change.

“I'd like to see an acknowledgement of the sector as an equal partner in the governance of very significant social problems and issues,” the board member for Australia’s biggest disability services provider said.

“The sector is at the frontline of responses but without the resources that need to be applied to carefully considered responses to those issues.

“It’s not just about the money. We need a partnership in which the government is able to tell us what’s needed, but we’re able to achieve those aims together.

“In the areas in which I've worked – in family violence, sexual assault, disability and community health spaces – I'd like the government to be less of a control agent and more of a ‘cohesion agent’ in bringing together that sort of partnership to serve the needs of people who are most affected by issues such as poverty, poor health and inadequate education, as well as the related social issues that ensue from that.

“I'd like them to be less controlling of the message or how the message is told, because I think a lot of knowledge is in the sector.”

Ms Hingston said that government agencies and politicians needed a more nuanced understanding of who they were dealing with.

“They need to understand that the sector is not homogeneous. If you want to get things done, you've got to be able to work with a whole lot of different stakeholders who are involved in delivery of services and responses to wicked problems. I'd like to see less bureaucracy and control and more listening and shared response.”

Finances and tech the key to stronger organisations

Community Directors Council chair Susan Pascoe, a former commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, told the webcast that “stable financing” would be a central issue for a sector that was at the “absolute frontline” when it came to building and maintaining the health of the Australian community.

She said that the DGR reforms proposed by the Productivity Commission would be very important to many in the sector, but hoped that contracting arrangements could be reformed too.

She said the length of contracts and the amount of administration expected by government agencies should be “proportionate”.

Ms Pascoe also said not-for-profits must be supported to upgrade their information and technology system capability to a level that was comparable to government and commercial sectors’.

The government has said it will roll out a community sector partnership framework as one response to the demand for change.

The framework will be developed this year with a Community Services Advisory Group, which has representatives from 27 community service organisations.

A DSS departmental spokesperson said there was no date set for publication of the framework, but that the advisory group would meet in August to discuss "priority actions that should be included in the ... framework".

It is expected that submissions to the public consultation will also be published some time in August.