access and equity: evaluation summary · evaluation summary canberra, australian government...

Office of Multicultural Affairs, Department ofPrime Minister and Cabinet Access and EquityEvaluation Summary Canberra, AustralianGovernment Printing Service, 1992.

Prime Minister's Foreword

My Government seeks to build an Australiawhich is fair, strong, prosperous and united inits purpose and outlook. This goal can only beachieved if governments deal with all Australiansin an even-handed manner. It is particularlyimportant that equality of opportunity andequity in outcomes are pursued in all programsand services delivered by government agenciesto the public.

My Government is, therefore, firmly committedto ensuring that all Australians, irrespective oftheir race, culture, religion or language, are ableto benefit equitably from the re s o u rces it manageson behalf of the community. To facilitateequitable sharing and participation, theGovernment adopted the Access and EquityStrategy in 1985 for implementationthroughout the Australian Public Service.

The Government decided to evaluate theStrategy in 1991-92 and I now welcome thefindings and conclusions of this EvaluationReport. It demonstrates that the Access andEquity Strategy has been a constructive step inbuilding a better, fairer Australia, the kind ofAustralia which we want for ourselves and ourchildren. It found that the Strategy improvedservice delivery, particularly to those clients ofnon-English speaking background. It shows thatPublic Service managers have responded to thechallenge of diversity by changing their attitudesand adjusting policy and program developmentand delivery of services.

The Evaluation's findings also see room forimprovement. The language barrier, and to a

lesser degree other barriers, continue to inhibitaccess to services and equity in programoutcomes for many fellow Australians. Inparticular, the extension of the Strategy in 1989to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples has yet to produce significant results.This is therefore one group targeted for specialattention to further improve Access and Equityin public programs.

This Evaluation Report provides a range ofsound recommendations. My Governmentendorses the Report and its recommendations.The Access and Equity Strategy is an effectivepublic policy response to the challenges of ourculturally diverse society. It will continue to beimplemented with vigour by Commonwealthdepartments and agonies.

P J Keating

Preface

The Office of Multicultural Affairs within theDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinetis responsible for developing, implementing,reviewing and reporting on the performance ofthe Commonwealth Government's Access andEquity Strategy.

In the second half of 1992, OMA concluded amajor cross-portfolio Evaluation of the Accessand Equity Strategy's impact on allCommonwealth Government departments andagencies.

This booklet is intended to provide acomprehensive but concise summary of thefindings of the Evaluation and theRecommendations they gave rise to. It is aimedat a general audience. Fu rther information canbe found in the Evaluation Report and in theassociated Companion Volume of EvaluationResearch, both available through the

1Making Multicultural Austral ia Access and Equity: Evaluation Summary

Access and Equity:Evaluation Summary

Commonwealth Government Bookshop.

Dr J R VerrierAssistant Secretary,Equity and Community Relations Branch officeof Multicultural Affairs November 1992.

Terms of Reference

The 1986 Access and Equity (A&E) Strategy,extended in 1989, covers all residents ofAustralia who may face barriers of race, culture,religion or language, including Aboriginalpeople and children of parents with non-Englishspeaking backgrounds (before July 1989 itrelated to immigrants only). The Strategy seeksto ensure that these people have:

• equal life chances and enjoy equitable accessto and an equitable share of the resourceswhich the Commonwealth Governmentmanages on behalf of the community;

• the opportunity to participate fully in societyand in the decisions which directly affectthem.

Against this background and taking intoaccount program management and budgetingand other reviews of government programs, the1991 Evaluation of Implementation of A&EStrategy shall:

(1) as its central focus, assess the impact of theStrategy on all those who should benefit from it;

(2) assess the effect of the Strategy on relevantCommonwealth agencies and their programsand services both at the policy development anddelivery levels;

(3) assess program effectiveness (including costeffectiveness) and efficiency in terms of theStrategy in achieving goals;

(4) assess whether the Strategy as a whole andthe specific A&E requirements, continue to bethe best available mechanisms to implementA&E policy in Commonwealth funded

programs;

(5) in making these assessments consider:

(a) the purpose, scope and rationale forthe Commonwealth A&E policy;

(b) the range available A&Eimplementation strategies and methodsused by the Commonwealth,State/Territory and local governmentsin Australia;

(c) scope for improvement of A&Eperformance in Commonwealthprograms which have potential formajor impact on the A&E targetgroup.

(6) report on whether the Strategy has achievedits A&E goals and recommend as to the changesneeded to advance further the A&E policy.

The Access and EquityStrategy

Access and Equity (A&E) is a concept, aprinciple and a policy given practicalmanagement content by a Strategy. The Strategybegan as a policy response to service provisionfor people of non-English speaking background(NESB) in 1985. In 1989 it was extended toinclude all groups who may face barriers of race,religion, language or culture includingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

A&E is not about providing special services tomigrants but about providing equal access togovernment services for all residents of Australiawho may face barriers of race, culture, religionor language, including Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples and children of parentswith non-English speaking backgrounds. It isabout the rights and entitlements all shouldexpect to enjoy.

A&E policy represents aspects of the principleof universalism in the delivery of governmentservices. It recognises that, while services may beuniversally applicable, they may not be equally

2Making Multicultural Australia Access and Equity: Evaluation Summary

accessible if they are uniformly designed anddelivered. The A&E Strategy seeks to overcomeany barriers of language, culture, race andreligion which impede the delivery ofgovernment services to all residents.

The mechanism by which the Strategy isimplemented consists of eleven Requirements toassist departments address all who faceparticular barriers to access.

The Government decided in 1989 that thereshould be a comprehensive Evaluation of theimpact of the Strategy in 1991.

The concept of Access and Equity has evolvedin tandem with the increasing variety ofAustralia's migrant intake. The Government'sresponse passed through phases of assimilation,integration and finally multiculturalism. Policyon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplesalso passed from assimilation to self-management and self-determination, includingidentification of Torres Strait Islanders.

As part of multicultural policy the issue ofmainstream sensitivity to migrant needs came tothe fore. The Galbally Report of 1978 adoptedthe principle that the needs of migrants should,in general, be met by programs and servicesavailable to the whole community but thatspecial programs and services - known as ethno-specific services - were necessary at that time toensure equality of access and provision.

To strengthen Government efforts, in 1985 theA&E Strategy was inaugurated. All portfolioswere required to produce a three-year A&E Planwhich identified obstacles to access and toequitable access. In March 1987 the Office ofMulticultural Affairs (OMA) was established asa division of the Department of the PrimeMinister and Cabinet. OMA was given theresponsibility for coordinating and monitoringthe Strategy. As already stated, in 1989 theStrategy was strengthened and expanded.

The Evaluation found that A&E had not so farbeen adequately defined. It can be defined as 'apolicy to ensure that equitable access to

government programs and services by allmembers of the Australian community is notimpeded by barriers related to language, culture,race or religion'.

At the root of the logic of the A&E policy wasnot only a concern for equity but also a concernfor efficiency. It reflected a governmentcommitment to ensuring that public institutionsand agencies provide effectively for all membersof society.

The Strategy's role in relation to departments isto encourage them to design their programs toensure that they reach the entire range ofpotential clients. The Strategy's focus, therefore,is on measures to be taken by departments toadjust their mainstream policy and programdesign and delivery to provide equitable accessfor the broadest possible range of clients.

A&E relates to other Commonwealth servicesand reforms. Migrant settlement programs andthe concept of A&E are closely related. Englishlanguage training shows that settlementprograms work to skill individual migrants sothat they themselves may overcome what wouldotherwise be barriers to access. The A&EStrategy takes up where settlement programsleave off.

Ethno-specific or non-mainstream services havebeen held to have an important role to playbecause language and cultural requirements mayprevent migrants from seeking assistance fromgeneral services. It has been concluded thatspecialist organisations do not marginalise theirclientele and the continuation of these ethno-specific agencies should not be seen ascontravening the objectives of the A&EStrategy.

A&E is a key component of the Government'sSocial Justice Strategy (SJS). The SJS addressesfactors of disadvantage such as inadequateincome, gender, race or disability. A&E focuseson a specific aspect of social justice. It isconcerned about whether, if a service exists,there are barriers to its use.


Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)initiatives have a longer history than does theA&E Strategy and have similar goals, but theyare one-dimensional since they are limited tothe workplace.

The A&E Strategy includes Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander peoples. In March 1990the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio was reorganisedand the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission (ATSIC) established. ATSIC has astatutory coordination role with respect to theactivities of other Commonwealth bodies thataffect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples and a function of monitoring theeffectiveness of programs including programsconducted by bodies other than ATSIC. TheA&E Strategy is an important means by whichAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,living in urban, rural and remote areas ofAustralia, gain equitable access to, and a fairshare of, government programs and services.

The issue of whether the A&E Strategy needsstrengthening by legislation was canvassedduring the Evaluation.

The Evaluation Methodology

The Evaluation methodology is linked to theProgram Logic of the A&E Strategy. From theProgram Logic the Terms of Reference (TORs)and methodological framework were developed.OMA worked in close consultation with theDepartment of Finance and other experiencedevaluators. The Evaluation was overseen by aninterdepartmental Steering Committee andcarried out by a Task Force in OMA.

The Evaluation sought to investigate the impactof the A&E Strategy on clients, to assess itsimpact on relevant Commonwealth agenciesand to review the Strategy as a mechanism forimplementing A&E policy.

Certain exclusions and limitations were imposedon the Evaluation. For example, A&E inCommonwealth-funded but State-deliveredprograms was excluded from the scope of theEvaluation, although some of the research

touched on the issue.

The Evaluation made use of a wide range ofresearch techniques because of the complexityand breadth of the issues to be studied. TheTORs required measurement of impact on bothclients and departments.

Fifteen projects were ultimately commissionedfor research. To obtain clients' views, five studiesof Access and Equity in selected localities werecommissioned including one Aboriginal study.Among other research were studies focused onparticular programs and some dealing withparticular Access and Equity Requirements suchas the Evaluation of ethnicity data collection.

Two surveys were commissioned to obtain agreater breadth of understanding of theknowledge, views and practices of the officerswho were directly responsible for policydevelopment, program design and actual servicedelivery to migrants - a survey of SeniorExecutive Service (SES) officers and a survey ofcounter staff in NSW.

Community consultation was an extremelyimportant part of the Evaluation. Material frompast consultations was reviewed and aconsultancy was established to conduct twentyAustralia-wide regional communityconsultations with members of ethniccommunities. OMA's Bilingual CommunityNetwork (BCN) complemented this by reachingsmall groups which might be outside the firstconsultancy network. A pamphlet wasdistributed to increase awareness of theEvaluation process. The Evaluation also calledfor public submissions. Small grants were madeto umbrella organisations to conductconsultations in the course of preparing theirsubmissions.

Thirty or so Commonwealth instrumentalities,including departments, contributed to theEvaluation's information base on their ownA&E activities. OMA's role was independentlyassessed by a consultant. Efforts were made toestablish what administrative or delivery costsattached to the implementation and

4Making Multicultural Austral ia Access and Equity: Evaluation Summary

maintenance of A&E measures. Departmentswere asked for their perceptions of the Strategy.

The Evaluation operated under a number oflimitations. There was no benchmarkmeasurement undertaken before the Strategywas introduced. Further, the Strategy was onlypart of a total picture of change in the period1985-91. Although with these limitationschange could not be assessed in a scientific orsystematic manner, it was hoped sufficientbaseline data would be generated to assist in anysubsequent Evaluation of the Strategy.

The Impact on Clients

The overall conclusion was that clients reportedimprovement and progress as a result of theA&E Strategy. It was recognised that theStrategy had brought about improvements inlanguage and information services and somebetterment in cross-cultural interaction.

However, barriers remained. There were anumber of examples of these. In languageservices interpreters were often not available orused inappropriately. Staff did not always seemto be trained in the use of the TelephoneInterpreter Service.

Cultural barriers existed on both sides of thecounter. Certain cultural attitudes originating inhome country practices could have a negativeimpact on interaction. Heightened staffsensitivity was not universal, particularly whendealing with Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander clients. Locational factors made accessto services difficult.

Race and religious barriers did not appear to bevery marked, except in the case of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander peoples and Muslimwomen.

Mechanisms to assist Access and Equity hadvariable success. It was recognised that agencieshad made considerable effort to disseminateinformation through translated material.However many clients showed a preference forother media, particularly radio.

A successful mechanism was intermediaries, whoplayed an important role in assisting people toaccess both information and their entitlements.Consultative mechanisms encountereddifficulties. They could not always targetsuitable representatives and found difficulty intapping grassroots opinion. Widespreadparticipation by target group members for thepurpose of Access and Equity is not a feature ofagencies' practice.

In addition to general barriers to Access andEquity, a number of groups experiencedparticular difficulty. All felt they required specialmeasures to enable them to achieve equitableaccess to government services.

While their numbers are smaller the barriers toAccess and Equity faced by Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander peoples are far greater thanfor other groups. They relate not merely tostructural impediments but to historical andcultural factors. It was found that culturalconstraints meant that Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples tended to use services lessthan other Australians.

New communities were also found to be under-utilising services. The reasons were various, suchas reluctance to deal with government, failure toacquire information, language barriers related tosmall numbers in some language groups.

The research showed that many women remainespecially vulnerable and isolated. They wereunable to access information due to languagebarriers or to access services due to culturalbarriers.

Other segments of the population facingparticular barriers were the aged and youth. Inaddition certain areas, such as recentlydeveloped housing estates and remote rurallocalities, pose a significant challenge for Accessand Equity.


Effect of the Strategy onAgencies

The impact of the A&E Strategy on individualdepartments and agencies has not beenconsistent. There is also considerable variationfrom central to regional offices within agenciesand from region to region.

Service departments and agencies which havedealings with the public at large and deliverprograms and services have the bestunderstanding and appreciation of A&E issuesand measures. Policy departments experiencedthe most difficulty in finding meaningful andpractical applications for the Strategy.

There is an almost universal perception thatA&E only has relevance to program and servicedelivery activities targeting the general public.

It was found that there is still a way to go forthe A&E Strategy to permeate the core ofcorporate cultures and practices. However thereis evidence of A&E values, objectives andperformance monitoring becoming increasinglyvisible in corporate plans, annual reports andother publicly available corporate literature.

The SES survey showed that virtually allrespondents, and their departments andagencies, have been positively influenced by theStrategy. In relation to counter staff, however,54 per cent have not heard of the Strategy. Itwas shown that A&E awareness andimplementation amongst counter staff washighly dependent on the level of commitmentof the office manager.

The A&E Strategy was designed to be 'topdown'. It has not, however been effective infiltering down to APS staff at the clientinterface. Central Office policy and attitudinalgains are not always transformed into goodA&E practice at the service delivery end.

OMA's 1990 published A&E RevisedRequirements and Guidelines are, to all intents,the Strategy. The impact of the eleven A&E

formal Requirements on departments has beenvaried.

The level of compliance with the Requirementto review, monitor and evaluate services,programs and policies to take account of A&Eobjectives has been poor and patchy, though asmall number of departments appear to beperforming well.

The Requirement to collect ethnicity data hasbeen complied with only to a certain extent,and emphasis has been on collection rather thanutilisation. There has been little standardpresentation of data as laid down in theEthnicity Data Guidelines and cross-agencycomparison is difficult.

Overcoming linguistic barriers through theprovision of a variety of language services hasbeen a major focus of the Strategy and is wherethe most visible signs of progress have beenmade.

The provision of appropriate cross-culturaltraining is a problematic issue. Departmentswhich have significant dealings with the generalpublic recognise its importance. There is a needfor more research into what constitutes aculturally sensitive service.

The participation Requirement needs to bedistinguished from the Requirement forconsultation. Where participation in decision-making and advice to government is involved,generally departments and agencies find itdifficult to demonstrate any concerted effort torecruit representatives of A&E target groups tothe various bodies designed for communityparticipation in government processes.

The Requirement which places together thedevelopment of appropriate informationmechanisms and of consultative mechanismsneeds to be separated. Two quite different sortsof activity are involved.

Those departments and agencies with a highrate of client contact were found to have well-established multilingual information programs.


This A&E Requirement had made a significantimpact, although it was judged the time hadcome to consider the relative effectiveness ofparticular mediums.

Concerning consultation, the broad finding wasthat consultation mechanisms are inadequate,particularly for special groups.

Provision for legislative change was seen as tooprescriptive an approach.

Despite shortcomings, triennial A&E PortfolioPlans have had possibly the most impact of allthe formal Requirements in establishing andraising an A&E profile in departments andagencies. The impact of the Plans was highest atCentral Office level. Nevertheless, the Plans hadsignificant shortcomings.

It was considered that annual reports andprogram performance statements are a usefuland high profile vehicle for reporting A&Eprogress and achievements, but they do notoffer opportunity for adequately addressing theissues involved.

The Requirement to review existingarrangements for Commonwealth funding ofservices provided by State/local governmentsand non-government organisations would havehad more impact if it had clearly placed anobligation on all funding departments andagencies to incorporate A&E provisions in theircontracted arrangements with otherorganisations.

Departments and agencies were not able todemonstrate that they had significantlyaddressed A&E issues in internal audits. Thereis a clear need for recognition in the audit areathat A&E goes to the heart of the efficiency andeffectiveness of program and service delivery.

OMA has been a catalyst and conscience forA&E related issues. Its major impacts have beento raise the visibility of A&E, reinforce A&Eplanning and reporting structures, and providecommunity groups with a focal point to pursuecross-portfolio A&E concerns. It has also had a

formulating role, laying down principles andguidelines.

Costs, effectiveness andefficiency

The Evaluation aimed to assess the cost todepartments and agencies of implementing theA&E Strategy and how efficient and effectivethe application of those resources has been inrelation to achievement of the Government'sA&E objectives. It also aimed to assess howefficient and effective the A&E Strategy itselfhas been.

From 1985 the A&E Strategy was regarded anddeclared to be cost-neutral. Managers were todesign and deliver programs to accommodatediversity in a multicultural Australia, withinbudget. Any costs which might have beenincurred were not identified in departmentalexpenditure. This created a great deal ofdifficulty in the costing aspect of thisEvaluation.

This deficiency of the costings database, addedto the poor response to the ethnicity datacollection re q u i rement, meant that theEvaluation had to rely more on qualitative ratherthan quantitative assessments of cost-benefits, orof assessments of efficiency and effectivenessunrelated to budget allocation per se.

A number of attempts were made to assistdepartments to identify A&E costs. Guidelinesfor costing were issued, followed by revisedguidelines (Costing Guidelines II). The latteridentified three categories in which costs shouldbe measured: Category I, the cost ofadministering the A&E Strategy per se,including such activities as the cost ofdeveloping the three-year A&E Portfolio Plans;Category II, the additional cost of deliveringprograms and services to people who facebarriers to access, which includes all A&Emeasures regardless of whether they are directlyattributable to the Strategy or have simply beenabsorbed by it; Category III represents theadditional cost of delivering programs andservices to the expanded A&E target groups


announced in 1989.

Data on costs incurred under the A&E Strategyfrom 1986-87 to 1990-91 was requested fromthirty-two departments and agencies. Significantdifferences and misunderstandings in theinterpretation of the revised costing guidelinesand the wide variety of formatting differences ofreturns made it impossible to create an A&ECosting Database to make cross-portfoliocomparisons and provide a standardised totalcost to the Commonwealth of each of the threecategories identified in the revised guidelines.

There were some significant costs indicated, butthere is no means of telling whether thisexpenditure would not have been incurred inany case. Information relating to Categories IIand III lacked consistency and comparability,but Category I was more promising. Theconclusion could be drawn that, in terms ofactivities identified such as the preparation ofA&E Plans, the costs of administering theStrategy are relatively small when compared tothe total level of Commonwealth Budgetoutlays.

It was not possible to gather enough well-founded data to draw conclusions about thecosts of the A&E Strategy itself. It wasconcluded that the costs are marginal. Enoughevidence emerged, however, to demonstrateconclusively that the implementation of A&E(that is, the provision of services designed toaccommodate diversity) does cost and costsignificantly.

In relation to efficiency and effectiveness it wasconcluded that, as a consequence of the datashortcomings, it is not possible to make astandard assessment of the efficiency andeffectiveness of the Strategy.

What has been achieved as a direct result orconsequence of the Strategy alone is notdemonstrable. Few departments acknowledgedthat initiatives taken in the area of the specificRequirements and guidelines have occurredsolely as a result of the implementation of these.The general position appears to be that

initiatives taken arise from wider programmanagement concerns and have served tosupport and reinforce the Requirements. It ispossible to form the view that the A&Eoutcomes are being achieved for reasons otherthan the influence of the guidelines.

The role of OMA was independently assessed. Itwas concluded that much of the effectiveness ofthe Strategy was dependent on the role ofOMA. OMA not only provided a catalyst forsignificant progress on A&E issues in manydepartments and agencies and a prod for at leastsome action in most others, but also practicalguidance, advice and support. Much of thecredit for OMA's success is because it is afunctional division of the Department of thePrime Minister and Cabinet and well placed toinfluence and bring comprehensive perspectiveson issues to the attention of top decision-makersin government organisations. It also plays aneffective regional role and a role on behalf ofethnic communities.

Nevertheless, responsibility for theimplementation of the A&E initiatives restedclearly with departments and agencies. Theircommitment was and is essential to effectiveprogress.

Further, assessment of the relative efficiency andeffectiveness of the Strategy depends uponaccess to ethnicity and other relevant data. Thefailure to collect - or use - ethnicity data is onevery significant failure of the A&E regime andone point on which it must be judged to havebeen ineffective.

The conclusion is that, in sum, the A&EStrategy has been more effective than it has beenefficient.

Conclusions

The conclusion of this Evaluation is that,between 1985 when it was announced asGovernment policy and 1992 when thisEvaluation was completed, progress was madetowards achieving Access and Equity (A&E)goals and that the A&E Strategy made a


significant contribution to that end. TheEvaluation concludes that while the causal linksbetween the Strategy's impact and initiativestaken to advance A&E objectives cannot alwaysbe demonstrated, the Strategy created aconsciousness among managers and a climateconducive for them to occur. It also concludesthat the impact of the Strategy was variable onboth clients and departments but that the neteffect on the part of clients was to improve theiraccess to services delivered by the government,while for departments and agencies, the Strategyacted as an additional stimulus for change in theway they deliver services.

In relation to clients, while it was recognisedthat the Strategy had brought aboutimprovements in language and informationservices and some betterment in cross-culturalinteraction, it was acknowledged that barriersremained. In language services interpreters wereoften not available or used inappropriately,media used for information dissemination notalways appropriate and cultural barriers ofvarious sorts persisted.

A major finding of the A&E Evaluation wasthat the application of all the Requirementsequally to all departments and agencies, or to allprograms within a department or agency, wasinappropriate on account of the different rolesthey play and functions they perform. Thisaccounted in large part for the variable responseto the A&E Requirements. One objective of theproposed refined A&E regime is to encouragegreatest focus on those programs in those placesfor those people for whom the application ofA&E principles is likely to make the mostdifference - and the most cost-effectivedifference.

The Evaluation also found that there was afailure to understand at what points and to whatdegree the A&E Strategy applies to departmentsand agencies, particularly those traditionallyregarded as policy or commercially oriented andso, apparently, outside its orbit. There was also afailure to understand how the Strategy relates tothe Government's Social Justice Strategy. TheProgram Logic illustrates the relationship

between the Social Justice and Access andEquity Strategies. The Office of MulticulturalAffairs (OMA) will prepare an A&E Guide forAPS Managers to assist them assess to whatdegree the following recommendations apply totheir operations and how they should put themin place.

The Evaluation found that A&E training,including cross-cultural training, was limited. Itconcluded that, while the value of cross-culturaltraining in particular was generally increasinglyrecognised by APS organisations, there was alack of methodological certainty in endeavours.

Another key finding of the Evaluation was thatmanagers were not using the tools alreadyavailable to them as a consequence of the rangeof management reforms of the 1980s to fulfiltheir A&E implementation obligations; norwere they adequately assisted to do so. As aresult, A&E was inclined to be considered as anadded 'extra' and therefore as an additionalresource cost managers often felt too hardpressed to meet.

One key objective of the refined A&E Strategyindicated in the recommendations below is toencourage departments and agencies to takeprimary responsibility for their own applicationof A&E principles. Another is to encouragethem to integrate into their central managementmachinery those of the recommendations whichthey judge will best meet their needs; that is, tocapitalise on the existing structures andarrangements of the program management andbudgeting environment to fulfil their A&Eimplementation obligations. Therecommendations below relating to A&Ereporting requirements and training, forexample, or to planning, Evaluation andmonitoring, are designed to fit in this way.

Another finding of the Evaluation was thecritical role that the existence of a centralcoordinating agency played in acting as acatalyst, a consciousness-raiser, a policeman anda watchdog on the A&E Strategy and that, hadthis role not been played, there would not havebeen the same amount of progress that is


generally agreed to have been made in theimplementation of the A&E Strategy. At thesame time, another finding was that this rolewas sometimes intrusive into departmentalautonomies and, as such, a resource cost. Therecommendations that follow are thereforedesigned to retain a role for a central agency butto change its nature to focus on the provision ofthe kinds of practical assistance such as thatenvisaged in the A&E Guide for APS Managersand in the identification of appropriate A&Erelated training.

The role of a central agency would also focus onthe provision of practical assistance toheadquarter agencies to add to the gains thathave been made in A&E appreciation at headoffices by extending it to the regions. A keyfinding of the Evaluation was that whileprogress had been made, albeit patchily, in headoffices - and that the attitude of managers wascritical to any understanding of A&E on thepart of their staff - much less had been achievedin the regions, at the coalface where it is inmany ways most immediately needed (i.e. at theclient end of the delivery of services).

Another key finding of the Evaluation was thatthe barriers to A&E were inclined to be moremarked, more common and more resistant toerosion in the case of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples. That is, that the barriersAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplesface - and particularly the cultural barrier -while superficially apparently the same, were infact different in degree if not in kind. Theconclusion that emerges from this finding isthat the explicit inclusion of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander peoples in the A&EStrategy with its extension in 1989 has yet tomake its mark. Particular attention willtherefore need to be paid to the provision ofservices to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples and include their own expertiseappropriately applied to the problems in thesuccessor A&E regime.

In the recommendations that follow whichenvisage a more focused application of theStrategy, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples fall into the category of high prioritytarget group. Given that A&E principles requirethat mainstream programs and services bedesigned to accommodate the needs of all thoseentitled to them and that the onus to do so ison the service provider, the particular needs ofthose who face barriers must be assessed andtaken into account. The nature ofCommonwealth funding of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander programs and services, themajority of which necessarily target the needs ofthe rural and remote, depends upon thesuccessful application/design of mainstreamservices to accommodate the general needs,particularly of urban Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples.

For more than two decades, there has beendebate about both the place and the provisionof ethno-specific services. This Evaluationfound, on the one hand, that the consequencesof ethno-specific provision could include anexcuse for mainstream providers not to adjusttheir programs for particular target groups; thatis to presume that those cases in the 'too-hardbasket' could, would or should be provided forelsewhere. On the other hand, the findings ofthis Evaluation also support the Review ofMigrant and Multicultural Programs andServices (ROMAMPAS) evidence that, in somecases, ethno-specific provision is the most cost-efficient means to provide a service to somesectors of the population experiencing barriersto access. As such, ethno-specific provisionshould not be considered as necessarilyimpermanent or apart from the mainstream.Moreover, the important role played byintermediaries is to a considerable extent relatedto the ethno-specific networks.

The quality of the data base to assist assessequitable access and, therefore, theappropriateness of certain services is critical.Also critical is cooperation and coordinationbetween departments and agencies responsiblefor the delivery of programs and services so thatthe greatest efficiency gains can be made in thisresource costly business. This Evaluation foundthat the Requirement to collect ethnicity dataand, if collected, to use it appropriately, was that

1 0Making Multicultural Australia Access and Equity: Evaluation Summary

which was least well met. It also found that,although beginning to emerge as an issue, theextent of cooperation and coordination betweendepartments and agencies was surprisinglylimited, even in those in which, otherwise, A&Ewas judged to be working well.

Economies could be achieved, for example, bythe more common use and common funding ofalready established interpreter services andconsultative forums and also the communityworkers currently principally funded under theDepartment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs'(DILGEA) Grant in Aid Scheme.

The costs question is naturally contentious in aresource constrained environment. TheEvaluation found that A&E does cost. However,it also found that all of A&E does not cost.That is, if managers design their programs andservices to suit the marketplace of a diverseAustralia in the first place, the result will beboth more efficient and effective - and cost-effective.

However, to provide accessible services equitablyfor those who face what this Evaluation hasfound to be the most persistent barriers toaccess (namely language for a number of groupsand culture for some others) is often aconsiderable additional cost. And so,paradoxically, is effective A&E implementationbecause it is likely to increase the client base.Managers need to factor these costs into routinebudgeting so that it is transparent andaccountable in the usual way. The A&E Guidefor APS Managers will include advice on how tocost A&E implementation.

The A&E policy has its roots in assumptionsabout equity. Whatever the extent of resources,all are entitled to an equitable share. The A&EStrategy puts the onus on public servicemanagers to play their part to ensure that this isso. In order to do so more efficiently andeffectively, the A&E Strategy Evaluation takesaccount of a number of recommendations of theRoyal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths inCustody for this review. The recommendationsof the A&E Evaluation are presented below.

Recommendations

(The Recommendations appear in the orderwhich is suggested by the Terms of Referencefor the Evaluation of the Access and EquityStrategy)

Revised Access and EquityRequirements

1. That revised A&E Requirements be adoptedto reflect the findings of this Evaluation and thefocus of future Access and Equityimplementation be as follows:

a) Planning: incorporate A&E objectivesinto corporate planning and allrelevant program and service deliveryplanning;

b) Evaluation and Audit: incorporateA&E performance into all relevantinternal and external Evaluations andaudits;

c) Performance Indicators: collect andutilise data relevant to A&E planning,implementation and Evaluation,including ethnicity and costs data;

d) Public Accountability: provideinformation on A&E performance inannual reports, program performancestatements and to OMA for an annualA&E report to the Prime Minister fortabling in Parliament;

e) Language Services: implementmeasures to overcome communicationbarriers for clients and potential clientswho do not speak, understand, read orwrite English well;

f ) Staff Training: ensure staff at all levelsare sensitive to client diversity and itsimplications for policy formulationand program design and delivery;

g) Consultation: consult with client

1 1Making Multicultural Austral ia Access and Equity: Evaluation Summary

target groups, their advocates andintermediaries on program design,delivery and the effectiveness of A&Emeasures;

h) Participation: ensure equitableparticipation of representatives of A&Etarget groups in government advisoryand review bodies and processes;

i) Funded Programs: address A&Eaccountabilities in programs funded bythe Commonwealth and delivered byState or local government andcommunity or private organisations;and

j) Coordination: ensure efficiencies areachieved through interdepartmentalcooperation and coordination on A&Ematters such as shared consultative andinformation strategies.

Language Barrier

2. All Commonwealth departments andagencies recognise that language remains the keyA&E barrier to accessing Commonwealthprograms and services for a significantproportion of the public and, to overcome thisbarrier, note the particular importance of accessto professional interpreters and take otherappropriate measures.

Staff Practices

3. Departments and agencies note therecommendations of the parallel review of theLinguistic Availability/Performance Allowance(LAPA) and their potential to maximise thelinguistic skills of staff cost effectively in anA&E context.

4. Departments and agencies optimise the use ofbilingual and bicultural staff by mechanismssuch as:

(a) conducting surveys/audits of languageother than English of all staff andestablishing departmental registries of

available language resources;

(b) maximising participation in the LAPAscheme;

(c) facilitating amongst staff the retentionand upgrading of language skillsthrough study assistance andaccreditation;

(d) designating public contact positionsrequiring specific bilingual and/orbicultural skills where there is a veryhigh component of A&E target clients;and

(e) adopting strategies to persuademanagers that the use of bilingual staffassists in removing barriers toinformation flows and, therefore,improves the quality of decision-making without detriment, in mostcases, to the efficiency of the decision-making process.

5. Where appropriate bicultural and bilingualstaff are not available through normalrecruitment channels and where the presence ofsuch staff is necessary to overcome A&Ebarriers, departments and agencies make specialprovision to recruit officers with bilingual andbicultural skills.

6. The competencies being developed by theJoint Australian Public Service (APS) TrainingCouncil incorporate a range of specific elementsrelating to government policies and practices,including A&E. Prior to endorsement of thesecompetencies by the National Training Board,OMA and the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission will be included as part ofthe consultation process.

Translating and Interpreting Service

7. Departments and agencies recognise and usethe Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS)(notwithstanding the cost-recovery principle) asthe key agency responsible for delivery ofprofessional translating and interpreting services


across the APS.

8. TIS be enhanced by:

(a) DILGEA undertaking a higher level ofpromotion of TIS services todepartments, agencies and otherclients, particularly in remote localities,including understanding of theoperation of the cost recoveryprinciple;

(b) departments and agencies budgetingfor translating and interpreting serviceson the basis of current usage of TISservices and anticipated additionaldemand generated by planned A&Emeasures;

(c) DILGEA taking a more direct role intraining APS staff in effective use ofTIS; and

(d) consideration should be given to theaddition of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander languages.

9. Departments and agencies develop, wherenecessary, their own specialised supplementarytranslating and interpreting services, includingfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderlanguages.

Multilingual Information andReferral Services

10. Departments and agencies, and in particularsmaller service agencies, recognise that certainsectors of the Australian community continue tolack knowledge and understanding ofgovernment processes, programs and servicesand, as appropriate, take a more active role inproviding information in other languages abouttheir programs through:

(a) development and marketing ofmultilingual telephone informationservices;

(b) greater use of multilingual radio, press

and television in addition tomultilingual literature (pamphlets etc.);

(c) greater use of intermediaries andproviding them with appropriatetraining opportunities and informationabout processes, programs and services;

(d) funding the incorporation of specialistinformation modules into existingtraining such as labour market trainingcourses and English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) courses (includingthose ESL courses that focus onspecific subject matter for well-definedtarget groups); and

(e) consultation and participationprocesses.

Consultation and participation

11. Departments and agencies recognise thatconsultation with client groups andparticipation by them in government processesare the most effective means of ensuring aconsumer focus, effective marketing of programsand a positive public image. In consultationwith Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples, departments also consider theimplications of the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Act 1989 and bear in mind thatRegional Councils are to act as the advocates ofthe interests of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoples in a region.

Consultation with Client G roups

12. Departments and agencies take further stepsto ensure a proper level of consultation withtheir A&E targeted clients through:

(a) further development of their ownconsultation mechanisms both atcentral and regional office levels;

(b) cooperative endeavours with otheragencies which have appropriateconsultative mechanisms in place, forexample peak bodies;


(c) consultations with A&E client groupson the effectiveness of A&E measureswithin individual programs and servicedelivery areas; and

(d) use of OMA's Bilingual ConsultantsNetwork for direct consultation withA&E clients.

Participation by Client G roups

13. Departments and agencies take steps toincrease A&E groups' representation on bodiesresponsible for policy development, servicedesign and delivery and review of decisionsthrough:

(a) actively seeking nominations fromcommunity peak bodies forappointments to a full range ofadvisory bodies, boards and reviewpanels;

(b) advertising vacancies on such bodies inthe ethnic community press;

(c) targeting a proportion of vacancies tomembers from A&E target groups;

(d) seeking appointment advice from theAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission, DILGEA, OMA andother relevant bodies; and

(e) using data management systemsdesigned to coordinate informationrelating to Commonwealth bodies andthe people appointed to them; forexample, the 'Appoint' systemdeveloped by the Department of thePrime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).

Access and Equity Training

14. Departments and agencies recognise the keyrole of training at all levels for implementationof A&E and take appropriate steps to ensurethat their officers are trained to:

(a) understand the A&E Strategy (the

concepts, objectives and practice);

(b) utilise A&E concepts and tools, such asethnicity data collection and cross-cultural communication techniques, inpolicy development, program designand delivery; and

(c) be culturally sensitive in public contactwork.

15. Departments and agencies have as a primarytraining goal the integration of A&E relatedtraining into mainstream training and theidentification of areas which need to be targetedfor specialist training. OMA, in collaborationwith the Public Service Commission (PSC), theAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission and other selected departmentsand agencies, is to develop a cross-portfolioframework/strategy for training of all APSofficers in this context. OMA will play an initialdevelopmental, promotional and advisory roleand thereafter will provide expertise on A&Eissues at both the national and regional levels asrequired.

16. As an interim measure (and in response tothe particular need identified in the Evaluationto make more impact at the client interface),over a six-month period, OMA, with the fullcooperation and assistance of departments andagencies, will design and conduct an initialcampaign of information seminars for APSmanagers responsible for operations at theregional and local levels.

Funded programs

17. Departments and agencies address A&Eaccountabilities in programs and services whichare funded for delivery through otherorganisations such as State, Territory and localgovernment authorities and community orprivate sector organisations, throughinstruments such as program contractualarrangements, memorandums of understandingor formal guidelines.

18. Departments and agencies be responsible for


monitoring the implementation of A&E in suchprograms and services.

Planning, evaluation andmonitoring

19. Departments and agencies direct greaterattention to implementation of the Strategy atthe regional and, in particular, at the clientinterface levels.

Planning

20. The preparation of triennial A&E Plans beleft to the discretion of departments andagencies.

21. Departments and agencies be required toaddress their key A&E objectives in theircorporate plans.

Evaluation and Review

22. Departments and agencies be required toreview implementation of A&E measures intheir annual reports and program performancestatements.

23. Departments and agencies direct greaterattention to Evaluation and review of outcomesthrough:

(a) development of A&E indicatorsincluding indicators relating toAboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples and other performancemeasures for individual programs; and

(b) incorporation of A&E standards intoany relevant Evaluations and reviewactivities.

24. Department of Finance continue toencourage departments and agencies to includeA&E components into appropriate Evaluationsand provide relevant advice and training onconduct of such Evaluations including thedevelopment of performance information.

25. A second cross-portfolio Evaluation of the

A&E Strategy be commenced in early 1997 toreport to Government in 1998.

Ethnicity Data Collections

26. The National Guidelines for the Collection ofEthnicity Data be revised (in consultation withState and Territory governments, the AustralianBureau of Statistics and the PrivacyCommissioner) to provide for selectivecollection of ethnicity and Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander data and performanceinformation for planning, reporting, Evaluationand review purposes.

27. In order to improve the monitoring ofprogram utilisation (outputs) in A&E targetgroups at program and service delivery arealevels and track staff trends, departments andagencies establish for program and areamanagers direct access to ethnicity and otherrelevant data through:

(a) utilisation of Australian Bureau ofStatistics (ABS) Census data to developdemographic profiles for areas servicedby regional/local offices;

(b) compilation of a register of relevantdepartmental data collection systems;and

(c) providing easy access to data collectionsystems for policy developers, programdesigners and program and areamanagers.

28. OMA, in cooperation with ABS and theBureau of Immigration Research (BIR), extendadvice to key service delivery agencies on thedevelopment of systems to assist regionalmanagers with ethnicity data collection andutilisation, including for Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander peoples.

29. OMA and BIR, as part of the activityassociated with their joint support of theMulticultural and Immigration InformationSystem database, create a register of relevantCommonwealth departments and other data


collection systems which will contribute to anethnicity statistics collection system which is asaccessible and comprehensive as possible.

Monitoring and Audit

30. OMA prepare an annual consolidated A&Ereview report to the Prime Minister for tablingin Parliament before the end of each calendaryear.

31. Departments and agencies collaborateclosely with OMA in the development of theabove report which is to be based on:

(a) departmental and agency corporateplans, annual reports and programperformance statements;

(b) departmental and agency A&Eperformance statements against therelevant recommendations in thisEvaluation provided annually to OMAby the end of each financial year; and

(c) a number of studies focussing on A&Eissues in selected programs.

32. As a matter of standard practice, theAustralian National Audit Office take note ofA&E objectives in planning its audits.

Meeting Access and Equitycosts

33. Departments and agencies recognise thatwhile the administrative costs of implementingthe A&E Strategy are minor, some aspects of thedelivery of programs and services accessibly andequitably to all those entitled to them aresignificant. Departments and agencies alsorecognise that these costs be accommodated inmainstream budget planning where it is moreefficient and effective to adjust the mainstreamthan to provide ethno-specific services.

34. When planning for program and servicedelivery, departments and agencies, and inparticular smaller agencies, allow for costsassociated with their A&E obligations,

including:

(a) implementing A&E measures such aslanguage services, informationstrategies and training; and

(b) meeting additional demand forprograms and services generated byincreased access and equity.

35. OMA include in the A&E Guide for APSManagers the costing guidelines that emergedfrom the experience of this Evaluation.

36. Departments and agencies monitor andrecord expenditures associated with achievingA&E objectives for planning, Evaluation andreview purposes and report it in annual reportsand program performance statements subject toadvice from the Department of Finance onmethodologies.

Cross-portfolio managementand coordination

37. That to assist it in its overall coordinating,supporting and monitoring role in A&E, OMAhas available to it the particular expertise, adviceand support of those departments and agencieswith policy responsibility for specific targetgroups (for example, the Department of Health,Housing and Community Services - DHHCS -in relation to people with disabilities), and thatthese departments and agencies advise onappropriate standards for and the actualapplication of A&E principles in these areas.

38. An inter-departmental A&E AdvisoryCommittee be established to address A&Estrategic issues, in particular, the creation ofeffective lateral links between service providersincluding the scope for common provision ofservices. The Committee will also disseminateinformation, obtain feedback and coordinateimplementation of the Strategy at the CentralOffice level.

39. This inter-departmental A&E Committee,serviced by OMA, be composed ofrepresentatives from PM&C, PSC, the


Department of Employment, Education andTraining (DEET), DILGEA, the Department ofSocial Security (DSS), DHHCS and theAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission, with representation from oneother non-service delivery department on arotating basis and observer status for otherdepartments and agencies as required.

40. OMA Regional Coordinators' initiative ofState/Territory and regional A&E Committeesbe established, or continue to function, in eachState and Territory with representation atregional manager level from OMA, DEET,DILGEA, DSS, DHHCS, the AustralianTaxation Office, the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission and others as required.

41. OMA prepare and disseminate A&Einformation and guidelines, including advice onhow particular A&E Requirements apply todifferent departments, and/or programs todepartments and agencies. In particular, OMAprepare and publish an A&E Guide for APSManagers for distribution to departments andagencies and actively promote the revised A&Eframework.

Other initiatives

42. The PSC, in the context of its developmentof an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)strategic plan for the APS for the 1990s,examine:

(a) options for the employment andadvancement in the APS of people ofnon-English speaking background andAboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples; and

(b) how EEO policies and practices relateto A&E strategies.

43. The Commonwealth consider:

(a) formal extension of the A&E Strategyto all statutory authorities andGovernment Business Enterprises;

(b) initiating, coordinating andestablishing mechanisms forinformation sharing, including on bestpractice, between the Commonwealth,State, Territory and local governmentson A&E policies and practices;

(c) establishing a community-basedconsultative committee to providefeedback on A&E implementation;and

(d) examining formally the role of law insocial change and the logic of anumbrella regime linking A&E, EqualRights and Racial VilificationLegislation.


access and equity: evaluation summary · evaluation summary canberra, australian government...

Documents