Australia's welfare spending and workforce

2.0 Introduction

Australia's welfare system is a complex network of services, payments and providers. As might be expected, a system of such complexity and scale comes at a cost—in 2012-13, government spending on welfare was an estimated $136.5 billion.

This chapter examines the trends in welfare spending over the past decade. It notes that while spending has grown faster than population growth, this growth has been slower than for the overall economy.

The main components of spending are also examined: cash payments for specific populations, accounting for the bulk of spending (68.2%) (not including unemployment benefits); welfare services, accounting for about 26.3% of spending; and unemployment benefits, accounting for the remaining 5.5%.

In addition to spending, this chapter also looks at another key crucial input for service delivery—the welfare workforce.

A diverse range of services is delivered by welfare workers through many public and private organisations and across various sectors. In 2014, there were approximately 449,000 workers in paid employment in the welfare workforce. This includes welfare workers such as nurses and counsellors working in aged care services, child care workers in child care services and early childhood (pre-primary) teachers working in preschool education. Women make up the majority of workers in the welfare workforce.

Growth in the welfare workforce is expected to continue, however, whether the rate of growth will keep up with demand into the future is unclear, amid an environment of workforce shortages and changing client needs.

This chapter also highlights the crucial role played by the unpaid workforce of informal carers and volunteers.

In 2012, about 2.7 million Australians were informal carers, providing help, support or supervision to family members, friends or neighbours with a range of physical, mental and end-of-life health conditions, and disability. Most informal carers were of working age (67%), while 22% were aged 65 and over, and 11% were under the age of 25.

In 2010, an estimated 6.1 million people performed voluntary work for an organisation in the previous 12 months, with volunteering rates highest among people aged 35 to 64.

2.1 Welfare expenditure

The Australian Government and state and territory governments contribute to welfare spending, as do non-government organisations and individuals. The Australian Government primarily contributes to welfare expenditure through cash payments relating to its areas of responsibility defined in the Australian Constitution (which include family allowances, unemployment benefits and pensions), although it also contributes some expenditure on welfare services. The states and territories focus more on the provision of welfare services. Government expenditure on cash payments and welfare services is reported in this article as welfare expenditure.

Both the Australian Government and state and territory governments often choose to provide welfare services through funding non-government sector organisations to deliver those services. The non-government sector also contributes some welfare services expenditure from its own sources, including fees charged to individuals. However, there are limited data available on expenditure by the not-for-profit non-government sector (see Box 2.1.4) and the for-profit non-government sector, such as aged care providers. Expenditure on welfare services by the non-government sector from its own sources (including expenditure by individuals) is therefore not included as welfare expenditure here.

Where possible the welfare expenditure estimates have been developed to be consistent with the AIHW's Welfare Expenditure series of publications, in which welfare expenditure was last reported in full for the 2005-06 financial year. This has been done to maintain a consistent time series with data from 2005-06 and before. As a result, however, these estimates of welfare expenditure may not match the coverage of 'welfare' in other sections in this report or in other AIHW publications.

Cash payments covered are those provided by the Australian Government to assist older people, people with disability, people who provide care for others, families with children, war veterans and their families, and people who are unemployed (See Box 2.1.2).

Welfare services covered include supported accommodation, family support, early intervention programs, outreach services, counselling, youth programs, child care services, home and community care services for older people, and specialist services for people with disability (see Box 2.1.3).

This article covers the amounts spent on financial assistance and welfare services—however, it does not cover how well the money was spent or the outcomes achieved.

Expenditure is reported in constant prices (that is, adjusted for inflation) except where noted (See Box 2.1.1).

Trends in total welfare expenditure

In 2012-13, Commonwealth and state and territory government expenditure on welfare was $136.5 billion. It included 68.2% ($93.1 billion) in cash payments for specific populations (not including unemployment benefits), 26.3% ($35.9 billion) in welfare services and 5.5% ($7.5 billion) in unemployment benefits (Figure 2.1.1).

Welfare expenditure increased between 2003-04 and 2012-13, with an average annual growth rate of 2.6%. There was a particular increase in 2008-09, when the Australian Government implemented a number of initiatives as part of a response to the global financial crisis (GFC) that increased expenditure substantially in that year.

Expenditure grew faster than the population with per person expenditure rising by an average of 1.0% a year over the 10-year period (from $5,446 to $5,955 per person) (Table S2.1.4).

Despite this growth, welfare expenditure grew more slowly than the overall economy over the same period. Gross domestic product (GDP) experienced annual growth of 2.9% in constant prices between 2003-04 and 2012-13, compared with 2.6% annual growth in welfare spending. As a consequence, welfare expenditure fell from 9.5% of GDP in 2003-04 to 9.0% in 2012-13. This trend was disrupted by the GFC—however, the effect of the GFC (reduced GDP growth and increased welfare expenditure) was short-lived, with the ratio returning to pre-GFC levels after 2008-09 (Figure 2.1.2).

As a proportion of taxation revenue, government spending on welfare fell by 3.6 percentage points between 2003-04 (32.8%) and 2007-08 (29.3%). It then rose by 10.3 percentage points in 2008-09 following the GFC. Unlike the GDP ratio, the spending-to-revenue ratio did not immediately return to pre-GFC levels in the following years. At 34.6% in 2009-10, it was 5.4 percentage points higher than in 2007-08. The ratio has remained about the same since then, ending the period at 34.0% of revenue.

Cash payments

In 2012-13, the total amount spent by governments on cash payments, excluding unemployment benefits, was estimated at $93.1 billion, up from $92.8 billion in the previous year and $77.0 billion in 2003-04 (Figure 2.1.3).

The contribution of cash payments to total welfare spending fell by around 3 percentage points between 2003-04 (71.3%) and 2007-08 (68.2%). The Australian Government's response to the GFC at that time included a substantial increase in cash payments. This increased the proportion to 72.5% in 2008-09. The proportion has since fallen and in 2012-13 had returned to pre-GFC levels (68.2%).

Of the estimated $93.1 billion spent in 2012-13, $40.1 billion was for older people, $28.2 billion was spent on families and children, and $22.8 billion on people with disability. Other cash payments made up $2.0 billion (Figure 2.1.3). Between 2003-04 and 2012-13, spending for people with disability grew at an average rate of 6.4% per year; spending for older people grew 2.8% on average per year; and spending for families and children fell 0.7 % on average per year. Spending on 'other' cash payments fell by 3.1% on average per year (Table S2.1.3).

Unemployment benefits

In 2012-13, the total amount spent on unemployment benefits was estimated at $7.5 billion, an 11.1% increase from $6.7 billion in the previous year. This represented 5.5% of total welfare expenditure in 2012-13 (Table S2.1.1). This relatively large increase in unemployment benefits in 2012-13 coincided with a 20% increase in the number of Newstart recipients. The majority of this increase (66%) was due to people transferred from the Parenting Payment (DEEWR 2013). While it is difficult to directly track this shift in expenditure between categories in the data, there was a similar, though not quite as large decrease in cash payments to families and children and 'other' cash payments in 2012-13.

Spending per person (in the population) on unemployment benefits declined from $309 per Australian in 2003-04 to $226 per Australian in 2007-08. It then rose to $327 per Australian in 2012-13 coinciding with the increase in overall spending on unemployment benefits noted above (Table S2.1.4).

Welfare services

In 2012-13, the total amount spent by governments on welfare services was estimated at $35.9 billion, up from $25.0 billion in 2003-04 (Table S2.1.1). Most spending on welfare services is recurrent, and comprises payments for wages, salaries, operating expenses and running costs. The remainder is capital expenditure. Over the decade to 2008-09, government capital expenditure on welfare services was less than 2% of total welfare services expenditure (AIHW 2011). An estimate of capital expenditure for later years is not available.

In 2012-13, the state and territory governments were responsible for 44.4% of government expenditure on welfare services.

The average amount spent by governments on welfare services per Australian resident in 2012-13 was $1,566, up from $1,256 in 2003-04. While it reduced following the GFC, this expenditure has now almost returned to the peak it reached in 2008-09 (when it was $1,613 per person) (Figure 2.1.4). The per person cost represents total spending on welfare services per person in the population. It does not reflect spending for each eligible person or spending per recipient.

Tax concessions

Various tax exemptions, deductions, offsets, concessional rates and deferral of tax liabilities are provided for 'welfare' purposes. The Australian Government Treasury estimated that tax expenditure or concessions by the Australian Government for welfare amounted to $40 billion in 2012-13. This does not include any tax expenditures by states and territories, or local governments. This amount is not included in the estimates of total welfare spending in this article as it is generally in the form of forgone potential revenue rather than expenditure.

Most of the tax concessions total ($30 billion, or 74%) was for concessions for superannuation, which aim to assist older people in their retirement, while $3.5 billion (9%) was for concessions for families and children (Table S2.1.6). Tax concessions for families and children include those for disaster relief and the former Baby Bonus.

Australian Government tax concessions for welfare peaked in 2007-08 (Figure 2.1.5). The declines in concessions in 2008-09 and 2009-10 reflect the effects of the GFC, in particular slower growth in superannuation returns (Treasury 2012).

Welfare expenditure and Indigenous Australians

The ratio of welfare expenditure on one sub-group of the population compared with the entire population can be a measure of relative need within that group and/or the degree to which that group is the target of specific and general welfare programs.

An indication of the expenditure ratio for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian population is provided in the 2014 Indigenous expenditure report (IER) (SCRGSP 2014). While the IER doesn't report welfare expenditure as a single category of expenditure, it does include the category community support and welfare, which aligns closely with what is referred to as welfare services in this article. The alignment is not exact, however, as there is not complete consistency in how certain areas of spending are categorised.

According to the IER, in 2012-13, $5,912 was spent by governments on community support and welfare per Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian compared with $1,421 per non-Indigenous Australian (a ratio of 4.16:1). The IER suggests that, after adjusting for inflation, expenditure on community support and welfare per Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian increased by 20% from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (SCRGSP 2014).

More detailed information on welfare expenditure for Indigenous Australians can be obtained from The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2015 (AIHW 2015). (See also Chapter 7.1 'How Indigenous Australians are faring' for details on the number of Indigenous Australians who receive income support payments and other cash benefits from the Australian Government.)

International comparisons

There are many difficulties in comparing countries in relation to welfare spending. Social support structures in many countries are complex, and not necessarily comparable, with systems generally involving mixtures of:

• government and non-government funding arrangements—including programs funded directly by governments, tax-based systems, employer-focused schemes and fee-for-service systems
• redistribution models—social support structures in some countries focus on redistribution between sections of the society at particular but often differing times. For example, in Australia, unemployment benefits transfer resources via the tax system from the employed to the unemployed. Other schemes act to redistribute resources over the life course (such as through savings and superannuation-based schemes)
• targeted versus non-targeted support arrangements—many countries use means-testing to target support, but do it in different ways with different thresholds.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data for 2011 show that welfare expenditure in Australia was 13.8% of GDP (using the OECD methods for calculating expenditure that differ from the methods used for estimates elsewhere in this article). This was lower than the OECD median of 17.2% (Figure 2.1.6). This puts Australia's expenditure in the lowest quarter of all OECD countries (OECD 2014).

The Australian social security system differs from those in most of Europe and the United States in a number of ways, including:

• the benefits are generally more targeted through means-testing rather than based on factors such as past earnings
• the system is largely funded by general government revenue rather than through contributions by employers or insured employees
• benefits are not time-limited.

Whiteford (2014) argues that these differences contribute to making the Australian system relatively efficient in terms of the distribution of benefits to the most needy, suggesting that the below-average spending understates the impact of the spending in terms of its more targeted nature.

What is missing from the picture?

Estimates of non-government expenditure sourced through fees or fund-raising are an important information gap, as are estimates of expenditure on capital. For example, the currently available data do not allow analysis of how expenditure on welfare services by individuals has changed over time. It is unclear whether individuals are now paying a greater proportion of the cost of welfare services or less. It is also unclear how much is being spent on infrastructure and equipment to support welfare provision, and who is paying.

As noted above, the expenditure estimates that we have been able to collate for this article do not include expenditure for some welfare services and cash payments covered in other parts of this report. This is due to lack of readily available data suitable for incorporation into the estimates. For similar reasons, some important disaggregations (such as between Commonwealth and state/ territory government expenditure) have not been included.

A lack of up-to-date international data, as well as the complex differences between welfare systems, limit any rigorous comparative analysis in this area.

Where do I go for more information?

More information can be found in Welfare expenditure Australia 2005-06 and in The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2015.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2005. Australian system of government finance statistics: concepts, sources and methods, 2005. ABS cat. no. 5514.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2014. Australian national accounts: non-profit institutions satellite account, June 2014. ABS cat. no. 5256.0. Canberra: ABS.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2011. Australia's welfare 2011. Australia's welfare series no. 10. Cat. no. AUS 142. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2015. The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2015. Cat. no. IHW 147. Canberra: AIHW.

DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations) 2013. DEEWR annual report 2012-13. Canberra: DEEWR.

DIICCSRTE (Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education) 2013. Portfolio budget statements, 2013-14. Budget related paper no. 1.12. Canberra: DIICCSRTE.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ) 2014. OECD. StatExtracts. Social expenditure aggregated data. Paris: OECD. Viewed 25 November 2014.

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2014. 2014 Indigenous expenditure report. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

Treasury (The Treasury) 2004. Tax expenditures statement 2003. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2005. Tax expenditures statement 2004. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2006. Tax expenditures statement 2005. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2007. Tax expenditures statement 2006. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2008. Tax expenditures statement 2007. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2009. Tax expenditures statement 2008. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2010. Tax expenditures statement 2009. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2011. Tax expenditures statement 2010. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2012. Tax expenditures statement 2011. Canberra: Treasury.

Treasury 2013. Tax expenditures statement 2012. Canberra: Treasury.

Whiteford P 2014. The nature of Australia's social expenditure. Presentation at the future of welfare conference 30 October 2014, Melbourne. Crawford School of Public Policy. Canberra: Australian National University.

2.2 Labour force participation in Australia

Participation in the labour force and unemployment rates highlight key trends in labour force characteristics in Australia. The labour force participation rate is the number of people in the labour force (persons employed or unemployed) as a percentage of the total civilian population. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people (those not working and actively looking for work) as a percentage of the labour force (employed plus unemployed).

Labour force participation rates

According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) measures, labour force participation rates for Australians aged 15 and over rose from an annual average rate of 60.4% in 1983 to 65.5% in 2008, and have since fallen to 64.7% in 2014.

An increase in female participation played a particular role in the overall increase, with female labour force participation rising steadily from 43.6% in 1979 to a peak of 58.9% in 2011. Female participation in 2014 was 58.6%. The male participation rate declined from 78.4% in 1979 to 71.0% in 2014 (ABS 2015).

Australia ranks 11th out of 34 OECD countries for labour force participation (OECD 2014).

Unemployment rates

The highest rates of unemployment since 1979 were in the early 1990s when they peaked at 10.9%. After that, they fell to a 35-year low of 4.2% in 2008, immediately before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Following the GFC, the rate increased to 6.1% in 2014 (Figure 2.2.1). Youth unemployment followed similar trends to overall unemployment though young Australians have been particularly affected by unemployment with an average unemployment rate of 13.3% for 15-24 year olds in 2014. The gap between the youth unemployment rate and the overall unemployment rate was greatest in the early 1990s (8.6 percentage points higher than the overall rate) and lowest in 2008 at 4.6 percentage points higher.

At the start of the 1980s and the 1990s the overall unemployment rate increased rapidly then declined. During these periods, youth unemployment tended to increase faster than overall unemployment, leading to an increasing gap in the rates. This gap then declined as the overall unemployment rate declined. The gap between youth and overall unemployment also increased following the GFC as overall unemployment increased, and has continued to increase. In 2014 the gap reached 7.2 percentage points, more than 1.6 times the gap in 2008 (Figure 2.2.1) (see Chapter 4 'Transitions to independence').

Changing labour force

On average, Australians worked fewer hours each week in 2013 (32.0 hours) than they did in 2003 (33.8) or 1993 (34.4). The fall in average working hours coincided with the increase in female labour force participation, with 45.9% of employed women working part-time compared with 16.8% of employed men. The fall in average hours worked also coincided with a drop in full-time average weekly hours worked, from 40.3 in 1993 to 38.9 in 2013 (ABS 2014).

The labour force is also ageing. The proportion of the labour force aged 55 or over increased from a low of 8.6% in 1993 to a high of 17.4% in 2014 (Figure 2.2.2) (See Chapter 5 'Older Australians staying at work'). The proportion of the labour force aged between 15 and 24 declined steadily from a peak in 1980 of 27.4% to 16.8% in 2014. This coincided with an increase in the proportion of people aged 15 to 24 in full-time education, and not in the labour force, from 20.7% in 1987 to 26.5% in 2014. (AIHW analysis of ABS 2015).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander labour force

In 2012-13, 3 in 5 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 15-64 years (60%) were participating in the labour force.

The overall unemployment rate was 21%. As with the total population, unemployment rates were highest for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (31% of those aged 15-24 years). Unemployment rates were lowest for those aged 55-64 years (9%).

The unemployment rates did not differ markedly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in non-remote and remote areas (21% compared with 20%), or between males (22% in both non-remote and remote areas) and females (20% in non-remote areas and 18% in remote areas) (ABS 2014a).

What is missing from the picture?

The data sources relating to unpaid work are far less developed than for the paid labour force; it is therefore difficult to know how the trends outlined above relate to trends in unpaid work (such as volunteers, carers and people performing household duties).

Where do I go for more information?

For detailed labour force data, including data on underemployment (which is also relevant to understanding labour force participation), visit the ABS website.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2014. Labour statistics in brief, Australia, 2014. ABS cat. no. 6104.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2014a. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey: updated results, 2012-13. ABS cat. no. 4727.0.55.006. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2015. Labour force, Australia, detailed—electronic delivery, December 2014. ABS cat. no. 6291.0.55.001. Canberra: ABS.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2014. LRS by sex and age—indicators. Paris: OECD. Viewed 19 September 2014.

2.3 The changing face of the welfare workforce

The welfare workforce delivers diverse services through many public and private organisations across welfare sectors. Information on the workforce—for example, the professions involved, and characteristics of the people employed—helps describe the sector and the nature of the services provided. This information is also relevant to understanding the effectiveness and sustainability of the sector, which is highly dependent on the availability of sufficient workers with appropriate skills.

Despite the diversity of services provided by the different welfare sectors, the skills, personal attributes and qualifications required of the workforce are often similar between welfare sectors, as well as with other service sectors. For example, nurses are employed in many welfare sectors, including aged care and disability services, as well as in non-welfare sectors like health.

The similarity of many of the roles allows a high degree of mobility for workers. This can result in movement of staff from one welfare sector to meet the demands in another, and between the welfare sector and other care-based (non-welfare) sectors such as health.

However, this is not true of all welfare sectors. In some, the workforce is required to be highly specialised. For example, child protection workers are required to have knowledge of the significant statutory requirements that are in place within this sector.

This article presents some summary information on the total paid welfare workforce, based on the best available data (see Boxes 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 for more detail about the data sources used). Information about the unpaid (voluntary) workforce and carers is not included here; they are discussed in Chapter 2 'Volunteering' and 'Informal carers', respectively.

A growing workforce

Community services industries

According to ABS Labour Force Survey data, in 2014 there were 605,900 paid workers employed in community services industries, representing 5% of the 11.6 million employed people in Australia across all industries. Of all those working in community services industries, about 3 in 4 (74%) were working in community services occupations and 1 in 4 (26%) in other occupations (Figure 2.3.1).

The number of workers in community services industries increased from 393,600 in 2004 to 605,900 in 2014—an increase of 54%. In comparison, the number of employed in all industries increased by 21% over the same period.

Between 2004 and 2014, the number of workers in community services industries per 100,000 population grew by 31%, from about 1,974 to 2,579 per 100,000 population (Table S2.3.1).

Employment in Child care services and preschool education (per 100,000 population) increased by 58% from 2004 to 2014. Over the same period, employment in Residential care services (per 100,000 population) grew overall by 20%. Between 2004 and 2009, the Other social assistance services workforce (per 100,000 population) grew by 22%, while it remained relatively stable between 2009 and 2014 (Figure 2.3.2; Table S2.3.1). The estimates for each type of industry here may be subject to variability due to small sample sizes. Hence year-on-year changes may not be meaningful, but the longer term trends are likely to reflect actual growth.

Community services occupations

According to ABS Labour Force Survey data, in 2014 there were 918,100 paid workers working in community services occupations, representing 8% of employed people across all occupations. Of all those working in community services occupations, about one-half (449,000 or 49%) were working in community services industries (Figure 2.3.1). These 449,000 workers represent an estimate of the number of people in paid employment in the welfare workforce. The remaining 469,100 people employed in community services occupations were working in other industries (such as nurses in the health industry, counsellors in the education industry). This reflects the fact that nurses, for example, are included in the definition of community services occupations, although most work in the health industry (such as in hospitals), rather than in community services.

Among community services occupations within community services industries, early childhood education and care workers—an occupational group created for the purposes of this article and comprised of child carers, child care centre managers and early childhood (pre-primary school) teachers—was the largest occupational group. In 2014 they made up 34% (154,300) of all workers in community services occupations within community services industries. Meanwhile, aged and disabled care workers made up 26% (115,600), nursing support and personal care workers 12% (54,700) and registered nurses 9% (41,800) of all workers in community services occupations within the community services industry (Figure 2.3.3; Table S2.3.2).

Selected community services workforces

This section presents sector-based information on the early childhood education and care services, child protection services, disability services, homelessness services and aged care services workforces. As noted above, the information is not necessarily comparable with the ABS data presented above, and the information is not necessarily comparable across the sectors.

Early childhood education and care services

The 2013 National Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce Census (SRC 2014) collected information from service providers about their workers in child care centres and preschools. It showed that:

• 153,200 people were employed in the early childhood education and care workforce during the reference week in 2013, an increase of 14,000 (10%) since 2010
• 9 in 10 workers (90%) were engaged in a contact role, with almost 4 in 5 (79%) of the workforce employed in a 'primary contact' role. Most workers were engaged by long day care services (49%), followed by those working in preschools (18%), out-of-school hours care (12%), vacation care (10%) and family day care services (9%)
• most of the workforce was female (94%), although the number of males had increased by 13% since 2010. In 2013, 17% of people working in vacation care were males and 16% working in out-of-school hours care were males, representing the largest share of male workers across all service types
• nearly one-quarter (23%) of all workers were aged under 25. Almost two-thirds of the workforce in vacation care and out-of-school hours care were aged 15-34 (65% and 63% respectively), while almost one-half of the workforce in preschools and family day care services were aged over 45 (48% and 47% respectively) (Figure 2.3.4)
• about two-fifths (41%) of staff worked full-time (35 or more hours per week), with those who worked 35 to 40 hours making up one-third of the workforce. For part-time staff, a similar proportion worked up to 19 hours per week (27%) as 20 to 34 hours per week (31%)
• about 4 in 5 workers (82%) had a qualification in early childhood education and care. One in 6 workers (16%) had a bachelor degree or higher qualification in an early childhood education and care related field. Across the different service types in early childhood education and care, workers delivering preschool programs (39%) were more likely to have a bachelor degree or higher qualification in early childhood education and care.

Child protection services

The Institute of Child Protection Studies conducted a survey about the statutory child protection workforce in Australia in 2011. Information on workforce statistics was requested from all states and territories. Five jurisdictions provided usable data (ICPS 2012:23). These were New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. As such, these data do not present a profile of the total national statutory child protection workforce. Also, the lack of comparable data on the characteristics of workers across jurisdictions was identified as a quality concern (ICPS 2012). Data from the survey indicate that at 30 June 2011:

• the workforce was predominantly female (84% to 89% depending on the jurisdiction) and relatively young, with 25% to 50% under the age of 35
• the portion of the statutory child protection workforce with less than 1 year of experience varied between jurisdictions, with a range of 6% to 20%. The proportion with more than 5 years of experience in child protection ranged from 27% to 69%
• staff turnover for the 2010-11 financial year varied from 8% to 22%
• in the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia (the two jurisdictions for which data on qualifications were published), close to 80% of child protection workers had a degree-level qualification, and half of these were degrees in social work.

Homelessness services

The Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland surveyed the homelessness workforce in 2011, and estimated that about 11,600 people were employed in Australia as specialist homelessness workers or as managers of these workers. Taking into account part-time employment, the workforce was said to be the equivalent of about 7,600 full-time workers. The survey results are based on 951 workers and 362 service providers (Martin et al. 2012). Other findings include:

• about three-quarters of the workforce (77%) were female, with more than one-half of the workforce aged between 30 and 50, and 20% aged under 30
• 43% were employed in professional occupations (defined as housing/tenancy support workers, outreach workers, social workers and other professionals such as a social worker, counselor or nurse), 42% were in non-professional occupations (defined as residential support workers and other non-professionals such as children's workers and networking/community education workers), and 14% were employed in managerial positions (Figure 2.3.5)
• just over one-half (51%) of specialist homelessness workers were employed permanently on a full-time basis, and 31% were employed permanently part-time; casual employment was most common among those in non-professional occupations (31% of workers)
• virtually all services providing specialist homelessness services were non-profit or charitable organisations, employing 98% of all workers
• 39% of workers had a degree-level qualification, and 9% had no post-school qualifications. Around one-quarter (28%) were studying for a qualification in 2011
• over one-third (37%) of workers in this sector had previously worked in another part of the welfare sector, or as a carer in other sectors, prior to becoming a homelessness worker. They often entered the field fairly early in their careers (41% before the age of 30). However, turnover of workers in homelessness services is quite high, with 49% having had less than 5 years of experience in the sector.

Aged care services

The aged care workforce includes a range of occupations, such as registered and enrolled nurses, personal care attendants and a range of allied health professionals. The Aged Care Workforce 2012—final report (King et al. 2013) provides a national picture of the aged care workforce in both residential and community care (referred to as community outlets) settings. The report presents the results from the 2012 National Aged Care Workforce Census and Survey.

The survey report estimates total employment in aged care services to have been 352,100 in 2012, of which 240,400 workers were employed in direct care roles. Of the direct care workers providing aged care services, 147,100 worked in residential facilities (an increase of 10% since 2007) and 93,400 in community outlets (an increase of 26% since 2007) (Figure 2.3.6).

The 2012 report also shows that for the direct care workforce:

• workers were predominantly female (about 90%). The share of male workers in residential facilities had increased since 2007 to 11% (from 7%); while males employed in community outlets was unchanged at 10% over the same period
• 27% of workers in residential facilities were aged 55 and over, an increase from 23% in 2007 and 17% in 2003. One-third of those employed in community outlets were aged 55 and over, an increase from 29% in 2007
• 72% of workers in residential facilities were employed on a permanent part-time basis, compared with 69% in 2007. About 62% of those working in community outlets were working on a permanent part-time basis
• more than 85% of workers had some form of post-school qualification
• 28% or more of workers reported migrating to Australia (35% of workers in residential facilities and 28% of workers in community outlets)
• one-third of the overseas-born workers in residential facilities had been in Australia for 5 years or less and were coming increasingly from countries in which English is not the primary language (for example, India, China and the Philippines).

Nurses are one group of direct care workers providing aged care services. The 2014 National Health Workforce Data Set (AIHW 2015) showed that 43,500 nurses registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to practise in Australia reported aged care as the principal area of their main job. For this group of nurses:

• males made up 9%
• they had an average age of 46.9, with about one-half (49%) aged 50 and over
• they worked on average 32.7 hours a week
• about 3 in 5 were registered nurses (and 2 in 5 enrolled nurses).

Key issues facing the welfare workforce

The issues facing the welfare workforce include workforce shortages, changing needs and sector fragmentation. These issues interact with each other and with related concerns such as attraction and retention of workers, pay dissatisfaction, ageing workers and changing staff skill requirements, to create a particular set of workforce challenges (Martin & Healy 2010). Changes in the policy environment can also have major effects on the welfare workforce.

As indicated above, growth in community services industries has been much faster than average growth across all industries in Australia, and this has been forecast to continue by the Department of Employment (DoE 2014a). This growth has reflected increases in demand (such as in child care and aged care services). The welfare workforce is dominated by females, and its growth may have been facilitated by increasing female workforce participation more generally. Welfare workforce growth may also have been facilitated by migration.

Whether the rate of growth in the workforce will keep up with demand into the future is unclear. It will be affected by aspects such as the availability of funding as well as trends in workforce participation, migration and productivity. A study in 2012, by Health Workforce Australia, for example, suggested that there would be substantial shortfalls in the nursing workforce, particularly in aged care, by 2025 (HWA 2012).

Workforce shortages

An illustration of the workforce shortage difficulties being faced is that, for the past 10 years, the Department of Employment has included child care workers on the Skill Shortage List for migration, with shortages most pronounced for diploma-qualified child care workers (DoE 2014c). As with many sectors, this shortage appears likely to be heightened in the future with increasing demand for early childhood education and care places (DEEWR 2013) and the introduction of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care (ACECQA 2012), which includes increased staffing and qualification requirements.

Attraction and retention issues

Findings from the Department of Employment's Survey of Employers Who have Recently Advertised indicate community services employers are attracting large numbers of suitable applicants. This can be attributed to the increases in new supply, particularly through higher training numbers. Despite this, recruitment difficulty was most common for higher-skilled occupations (such as early childhood teachers and registered nurses), and skills shortages existed for workers with significant years of experience rather than entry level workers. Employers have suggested that low levels of staff retention limit supply, as well as qualification requirements (for example, jobs in aged care or disability services often require a Certificate III or higher qualification) (DoE 2014b).

The Australian Community Sector Survey is the annual survey of community services across Australia conducted by the Australian Council of Social Service. Results of the 2013 survey showed that attraction and retention of staff (reported by 16% of service providers) was the single biggest operational challenge facing not-for-profit community services, followed by the implementation of the 2012 Equal Remuneration Order for community sector workers (ACOSS 2013). This order sets pay rises of between 19% and 41% to be phased in via 9 annual instalments from 1 December 2012 to 1 December 2020 (FWC 2012).

The child protection services sector is another example of an area experiencing staffing supply issues, with most jurisdictions reporting insufficient numbers of social work, psychology and human service graduates available or willing to work in child protection to meet the demand. The sector faces particular difficulties in recruiting men to child protection work as the proportion of men studying in disciplines from which child protection services recruit remains low (ICPS 2012). Recruitment in regional and remote areas is also a major challenge for the child protection workforce, as is recruiting staff from an Indigenous or a culturally diverse background, and those with a degree or higher qualification (ICPS 2012).

The disability sector has long experienced workforce recruitment and retention issues (PC 2011b). The establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme may further increase the demand for workers in this sector.

Aged care service providers highlighted three main causes of skill shortages when surveyed in 2012: lack of specialist knowledge, slow recruitment, and geographical location. Each of these causes was nominated by one-third of the residential facilities and community outlets reporting skill shortages. Of the remaining causes, low wages were singled out by 15% of service providers (King et al. 2013:163).

High turnover rates

Compounding these supply issues are high turnover rates in a number of community services workforces, with many employers replacing around one-quarter of workers every year (Martin et al. 2012:4). Nationally, about one-quarter of workers in child protection (27%) and disability (24%) services workforces had been in their jobs for 1 year or less in 2009 (Martin & Healy 2010). Furthermore, a study in 2011 of the statutory child protection workforce in 5 of 8 jurisdictions found that between 6% and 20% of workers had lengths of service of less than 1 year in child protection (ICPS 2012). This leads to a substantial recruitment, induction and training burden for employers, and increases caseloads for the existing workers (Martin & Healy 2010).

Low earnings

Low earnings of workers employed in certain industries (such as child care services and residential care services), in combination with a number of other factors, contribute to the challenges faced by employers in retaining staff. In 2013, full-time workers in child care and residential care services had some of the lowest median earnings of all industry groups. Full-time median earnings in child care services were 35% lower than across all industries ($750 per week compared with $1,152). For residential care services, full-time median earning were 21% lower ($910 per week) (DoE 2014b).

The 2014 ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours showed, among all employees, that the average weekly cash earnings of child carers, and aged and disabled carers, were $537 and $679, respectively—these amounts were 55% and 43% lower than cash earnings of workers across all occupations ($1,182), respectively. Both occupations were among the lowest-paid of all community services occupations covered in this article. The survey also showed that, among full-time non-managerial workers paid at the adult rate, child carers had the lowest average weekly cash earnings of all the reported occupational groups at $865, which is 43% lower than workers across all occupations ($1,509) (ABS 2015).

Initiatives to address workforce shortages

In recognition of the workforce shortages in the welfare sector, a number of initiatives and programs have been developed at national and jurisdictional levels. Some of these are wide-ranging across welfare sectors. For example, as noted above, the 2012 Equal Remuneration Order required the phased implementation of equal pay for community sector workers. Funding these wage increases is an ongoing issue for governments and community services organisations, requiring the development of funding models to accommodate the pay increases.

Many programs are more sector-specific. For example, in recognition of the critical importance of workforce shortage issues in the child protection sector, the Council of Australian Governments made the Building Workforce Capacity and Expertise project a National Priority under the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020 (COAG 2009b, 2014). The aim of this National Priority is to 'support the education, professional development, and retention of the child protection and welfare workforce, including a focus on enabling the Indigenous workforce to be more actively involved in tertiary child protection' (COAG 2009a).

Changing needs

Another key challenge facing the welfare workforce is the need to keep pace with changing client needs, as well as service delivery models and qualification requirements and skills. Significant changes to the models of care provided across the welfare sector are driving change in the types of workers required, and an increase in the need for a qualified and skilled workforce. For example, the National Quality Framework for Early Education and Care included the introduction of new qualification requirements for child care workers and early childhood educators from 1 January 2014. The requirements include a provision that one-half of all educators working in long day care centres or preschools will either have or be actively working towards an approved diploma-level education and care qualification or above (ACECQA 2013).

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is introducing new administration and client management systems and funding arrangements for assistance (NDIA 2014). To implement the changes, support workers and administrators will need to become familiar with these new systems and ways of working.

Workforce skills enhancement initiatives

The Australian Government has introduced a number of mechanisms to increase the numbers and level of qualification of workers in occupations where there is a national skill shortage. This includes the establishment of incentives and personal benefits through the Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Programme (DET 2013). Aged care, child care, disability care and enrolled nursing are priority areas in this program (DET 2014).

To tackle the changing skills required of the aged care workforce, the Australian Government established the Aged Care Workforce Fund in 2011. This created a flexible funding pool for initiatives aimed at improving the quality of aged care by developing the skills of the aged care workforce. The fund was allocated $302 million over 4 years in the 2011 Budget (DoHA 2012).

In April 2012, the Australian Government launched the Living Longer Living Better aged care reform package. This package included a component focused on strengthening the workforce (DSS 2013). The Department of Social Services, in 2014, committed to undertake a stocktake and analysis of Commonwealth-funded aged care workforce activities funded over the previous 3 years. The information collected will show any duplication and gaps across activities, and highlight potential synergies and areas of overlap between the aged care and disability workforces. The stocktake will provide an evidence base for developing an aged care workforce strategy, which can help inform future funding outcomes.

The Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council is currently undertaking a review of the Health Industry Training Package and the Community Services Training Package, due for completion in December 2015 (CSHISC 2013, 2014). The Council expects the review to recommend significant changes to the Aged Care, Home and Community Care and Disability training packages to reflect the changing needs of these services. The training packages are prepared by the Community Services and Health Industry Training Board as a set of nationally endorsed standards and qualifications used to recognise and assess the skills of workers (CSHITB 2014).

Sector fragmentation

Another issue that affects the community services workforce is the fragmentation of the welfare sectors. The various welfare sectors often have very different funding and administrative structures. The aged care sector, for example, is administered by the Australian Government, whereas other sectors fall under the administration of the states and territories or a mix of both.

In this context, while the workforce may have high mobility between sectors, coordination and joint planning across the welfare sectors is difficult. This can create a situation where sectors compete for the same workers and where communication between the welfare sectors and training organisations is poorly structured.

What is missing from the picture?

Nationally agreed definitions of occupations and other labour force characteristics are not used in the various sector-specific data collections on the welfare workforce. Hence, data are often inconsistent among the collections, and comparing information from different data sources is difficult.

National data on employed people working in specific industries and/or occupations can be sourced from the ABS Census of Population and Housing (collected every 5 years) and ABS Labour Force Survey (that includes industry and occupation details collected quarterly), as well as other ABS labour-related and social surveys. These data are useful; however, they are less robust than the data collected in the health sector. In the health sector, there is a mandatory national registration system for certain health professionals, with information updated at the time of annual registration renewal. As part of the registration renewal process, a detailed workforce survey is completed that captures data for the National Health Workforce Data Set (NHWDS) on issues such as location of work, work setting and weekly hours worked, and how these are divided between clinical and non-clinical roles, and areas of specialisation. This type of data is not consistently collected across the community services workforces, but could usefully inform workforce planning. Better information on welfare work settings in the NHWDS could also be useful in providing information on health professionals other than nurses who work in the welfare sector.

Where do I go for more information?

Comparable information about the various occupations and industries that make up the welfare workforce in this article is drawn from the ABS Labour Force Survey.

Information about selected community services workforces in this article is sourced from workforce-specific data collections conducted by university-based research agencies— early childhood education and care services, child protection services, homelessness services and aged care services.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2006a. Australian and New Zealand standard classification of occupations. 1st edn. ABS cat. no. 1220.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2006b. Australian and New Zealand standard industrial classification (ANZSIC), 2006. ABS cat. no. 1292.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2013. Information paper: Labour Force Survey sample design, May 2013. ABS

ABS 2014. Australian demographic statistics, June 2014. ABS cat. no. 3101.0. Canberra: ABS. Viewed 10 March 2015.

ABS 2015. Employee earnings and hours, Australia, May 2014. ABS cat. no. 6306.0. Canberra: ABS. Viewed 13 March 2015.

ABS & SNZ (Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand) 2013. Australian and New Zealand standard classification of occupations, 2013.

ACECQA (Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority) 2012. Introducing the National Quality Framework. Sydney: ACECQA. Viewed 16 January

ACECQA 2013. Key changes. Sydney: ACECQA. Viewed 16 January 2015.

ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Service) 2013. Australian Community Sector Survey 2013: national report. ACOSS Paper 202. Sydney: ACOSS. Viewed

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2015. Nursing and midwifery. Canberra: AIHW.

COAG (Council of Australian Governments) 2009a. Implementing the first three-year action plan, 2009-2012: national framework for protecting Australia's children 2009-2012. Canberra: Department of Social Services. Viewed 16 January

COAG 2009b. Protecting children is everyone's business: national framework for protecting Australia's children 2009-2020. Canberra: Department of Social

COAG 2014. Annual report to the Council of Australian Governments 2012-13—Protecting children is everyone's business: national framework for protecting Australia's children 2009-2020. Canberra: Department of Social Services. Viewed 16 January 2015.

CSHISC (Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council) 2013. 2013-2014 version of the 2011/2014 work plan for the continuous improvement of the health and community services training packages. Sydney: CSHISC. Viewed 16 January 2015.

CSHISC 2014. Industry qualifications—training packages: nationally endorsed standards and qualifications. Sydney: CSHISC. Viewed 16 January

CSHITB (Community Services and Health Industry Training Board) 2014. The Community Services and Health Industry Training Board Inc. Melbourne: CSHITB.

DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations) 2013. Child care in Australia, August 2013. Canberra: DEEWR. Viewed 31 January

DET (Department of Education and Training) 2013. Australian Apprenticeships. Canberra: DET. Viewed 16 January 2015.

DET 2014. Summary of the Australian Government Australian Apprenticeships. Canberra: DET. Viewed 16 January 2015.

DoE (Department of Employment) 2014a. Employment projections—employment projections for the five years to November 2019. Canberra: DoE. Viewed 16

DoE 2014b. Industry outlook—health care and social assistance, September . Canberra: DoE. Viewed 11 March 2015.

DoE 2014c. National, state and territory skill shortage information, 8 August 2014. Canberra: DoE. Viewed 16 January 2015.

DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2012. Flexible fund guidelines—Aged Care Workforce Flexible Fund, May 2012. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 30 January

DSS (Department of Social Services) 2013. Living Longer Living Better—aged . Canberra: DSS. Viewed 16 January 2015.

FWC (Fair Work Commission) 2012. Equal remuneration case—order issued, . Melbourne: FWC. Viewed 16 January 2015.

HWA (Health Workforce Australia) 2012. Health workforce 2025—doctors, —volume 2. Adelaide: HWA. Viewed 23 April 2015.

ICPS (Institute of Child Protection Studies) 2012. National analysis of workforce trends in statutory child protection. Canberra: Australian Catholic University. Viewed 16 January 2015.

King D, Mavromaras K, Wei Z, He B, Healy J, Cacaitis K et al. 2013. The aged care workforce 2012— final report, revised 27 February 2013. The 2012 National Aged Care Workforce Census and Survey report. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing. Viewed 27 August 2014, <http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-nat-agedcare-workforce-census-survey/$File/D1010-NACWCAS-Report-Revised.pdf>.

Martin B & Healy J 2010. Who works in community services? A profile of Australian workforces in child protection, juvenile justice, disability services and general community services. Adelaide: National Institute of Labour Studies. Viewed 1 February 2015.

Martin B, Philips R & Xiang N 2012. Developing an effective homelessness workforce. Report under the National Homelessness Research Partnership with the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Brisbane: Institute for Social Science Research. Viewed 16 January 2015, <www.homelessnessclearinghouse.govspace.gov.au/files/2012/04/NHRA-UQ-Final-Report.pdf>.

NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) 2014. National disability insurance —community. Canberra: NDIA. Viewed 1 February 2015.

PC (Productivity Commission) 2011a. Caring for older Australians, report . Canberra: PC. Viewed 16 January 2015.

PC 2011b. Disability care and support, report no. 54. Canberra: PC. Viewed

SRC (Social Research Centre) 2014. 2013 National Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce Census, May 2014. Canberra: Department of Education. Viewed 16 January 2015.

2.4 Informal carers

Many Australians need assistance with activities in their lives, whether this is due to disability, medical conditions, mental illness or because they are frail aged. Formal assistance, provided by organisations that are funded to provide these services, plays an important part in care. However, people needing such assistance want to be cared for by family and friends where possible, and indeed, most of this kind of care is provided by people close to the person in need (Productivity Commission 2011a:xliii).

The role of informal carers (people such as family or friends who provide unpaid care) cannot be underestimated: in fact, the Productivity Commission (2011b: 312) indicated that the contribution of informal carers is so great that no insurance scheme would be likely to fully fund its replacement.

As well as providing vital support, informal carers themselves have particular needs for assistance; meeting these needs is the focus of government policy and programs designed specifically to assist informal carers. However, the pressures on informal carers remain significant, along with the rewards that come from providing care.

Carer-specific policy

Australian government policy recognises the role played by informal carers: the Carer Recognition Act 2010 aims to increase recognition and awareness of the role carers play in providing care and support to people with a need for assistance. The National Carer Strategy, delivered in 2011, has shaped the Australian Government's response to the needs of informal carers in recent years.

In addition to the National Carer Strategy and the Carer Recognition Act, carers are recognised in a range of other contexts including employment, community care, youth, national health and mental health reforms, disability standards and services, aged care reform and action on dementia—see a detailed description in Australia's welfare 2013 (AIHW 2013:323-324). Since that time, the Fair Work Act 2009 has been amended (in the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013) to give employees who are informal carers (among others) the right to request changes to working arrangements to better fit in with their caring responsibilities.

What is informal care?

Informal carers provide help, support or supervision to family members, friends or neighbours with a range of physical, mental and end-of-life health conditions, and disability. Informal carers are defined as those who provide care within the context of a pre-existing relationship, with demands that go beyond that which would normally be expected of the relationship. Informal carers are not paid for the care they provide, although some carers receive government benefits (see 'What assistance do informal carers receive' below). This is quite distinct from the care provided by formal care providers, parents of young children, and volunteers (see Chapter 2 'Volunteering').

Informal care can be diverse, ranging from personal care (such as showering and support with eating), in-home supervision, transport and help with shopping, through to the use of medical devices, therapeutic interventions and wound management. An informal carer may augment the support provided by formal care providers, share care with a network of informal carers, or be the sole carer. The person responsible for the majority of informal caring is known as the primary carer.

There are many advantages for the individual receiving assistance from an informal carer. These include the potential for avoiding or delaying entry into formal residential care or hospital settings; greater inclusion in the community; and better quality of life—including physical and mental health—that comes from remaining in the community. For the carer, there can be negative as well as positive effects of caring. For example, it can reduce ability to engage in work, affect mood and stress and cause disruption to sleep patterns (House of Representatives 2009:44-47; Yeandle et al. 2007; ABS 2014a). On the other hand it can draw the carer closer to the recipient of care, bring family closer together, and provide feelings of satisfaction (ABS 2014a; Cass et al. 2009).

Changing demographics and current health trends are increasing the demand for informal carers. These include the ageing of the population, increased longevity, and the increasing incidence of dementia and mental health conditions. At the same time, the supply of carers is diminishing. Reasons include: the changing roles of women, who were traditionally carers, but now are typically re-entering the workforce after childbearing; pressure on carers to remain in the workforce later into life, thereby reducing the time available for caring; and complex family structures. The end result has been that fewer people are willing and able to provide informal care (AIHW 2013; PC 2011a).

What do we know about informal carers?

In 2012, 2.7 million Australians were informal carers (12% of the population), and of these, around 770,000 were primary carers (ABS 2014a).

Overall, 13% of Australian women (1.5 million) were carers in 2012, and 5% (540,000) were primary carers, compared with 11% and 2% of men (1.2 million and 230,000) respectively. Within each age group, slightly different patterns emerge which reflect the age of the care recipient and the nature of the relationship (Figure 2.4.1) (ABS 2014a). For example, higher proportions of men aged 65 and over have tended to be carers than women, even though there were slightly more female carers in this age group. This is because women have a greater life expectancy, thus outliving and therefore less likely to be caring for a spouse/male partner, men tend to be older than their spouses/female partners, and older men are therefore more likely to be living with a spouse needing care than older women (ABS 2008).

Between 2003 and 2012, the proportion of older men providing care declined, while that of older women increased. This was partly due to demographic factors—there was a greater increase in the total number of older men (36%) than the number of older male carers (21%), and a faster growth of older female carers (37%) than in the total number of older women (28%) (ABS 2014a). Between 1998 and 2012, the gender gap in life expectancy narrowed due to greater gains in life expectancy for males than females (AIHW 2014a).

In 2012, carers living with their recipient of care (co-resident carers) comprised 71% of all carers. Among co-resident carers aged 65 and over, 86% of males and 76% of females were caring for a partner (ABS 2014a).

Between 2003 and 2012, the proportion of carers in the population declined slightly, from 13% to 12%, with male carers dropping from 12% to 11% and female carers dropping from 14% to 13% (ABS 2014a). While this may reflect in part changes in disability prevalence, there is also the possibility that the availability of carers has begun declining, as predicted for some years.

As mentioned earlier, there are many advantages to caring for people who need assistance. In 2012, among primary carers who lived with other family members, 13% stated that their caring role brought the family closer together. Of those with a spouse or partner, 31% stated they were closer to their spouse or partner due to their caring role. Similarly, 43% of primary carers felt closer to their recipient of care due to caring for them, and 28% gained a feeling of satisfaction from caring for their recipient of care (ABS 2014a).

However, for many primary carers, there were negative effects as well. For instance, 61% in this group reported that their sleep was frequently or occasionally interrupted; 10% had been diagnosed with a stress-related illness; and 11% frequently felt angry or resentful due to their caring role (ABS 2014a).

What assistance do informal carers receive?

A range of services and support groups are funded by governments to provide carers with respite, counselling, information and education. The Australian Government provides financial support, in the form of the Carer Allowance for those in a primary carer role, and the Carer Payment for primary carers who are unable to maintain employment due to caring responsibilities. As Figure 2.4.2 demonstrates, the majority of primary carers receive payments or allowances, and the proportion has increased slightly in each of the last two years. The Carer Payment is means-tested, including a requirement that the carer's employment capacity is affected by their caring responsibilities; the higher proportions receiving Carer Allowance reflect the fact it is not means-tested (DSS 2015a, 2015b).

In 2013-14, under the National Respite for Carers Program (NRCP), 67,600 carers received information, support or emergency respite through Commonwealth Respite and Carelink Centres, 32,500 received planned respite and 6,600 received counselling services. This comprised 106,800 instances of support for carers through the NRCP. The numbers of instances of support declined from 110,400 in 2012-13 and 109,200 in 2011-12 (DSS 2014b).

Respite is also provided by temporary admission to a residential aged care facility. In 2013-14, there were 63,600 admissions providing 1.5 million respite days (DSS 2014b).

From 1 July 2015, the Commonwealth Home and Community Care Program, NRCP, Day Therapy Centres Program, and Assistance with Care and Housing for the Aged Program, were combined under a single streamlined Commonwealth Home Support Programme (DSS 2014c). Some of the services under these programs provide respite to carers, including both domestic assistance and personal care.

Carers of people with dementia can also access support for behaviour management through the Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Service. Under this program, services are funded by the Australian Government to provide assistance to people caring for someone with dementia who has behavioural and psychological symptoms adversely affecting their care (DBMAS 2014).

Young informal carers

In recent years, the specific needs of young informal carers have received greater attention, in recognition that they may require additional support because of reduced opportunities to access education and employment, or to participate in social and community activities. A reduced opportunity to participate in education and employment, and an increase in expenses, means that informal carers may also experience financial hardship (ABS 2013; Cass et al. 2009, 2011).

In 2012, there were an estimated 306,000 carers aged under 25 (11% of all carers), including 74,800 aged under 15 (3%). Around 4% of all Australian young people under 25, and 7% of young people aged 15-24, were carers. An estimated 23,200 young people aged 15-24 were primary carers in 2012, and these carers were most often children of care recipients (ABS 2014a).

In 2012, 56% of carers under 15 and 53% of carers aged 15-24 were in the lowest two-fifths of households by income, compared with 44% of non-carers under 15, and 34% of non-carers aged 15-24 (ABS 2014a).

Early intervention in the form of support aimed at young carers and the person requiring care is fundamental to preventing inappropriate caring responsibilities for young people (Purcal et al. 2012). Early support in these cases may reduce the level to which young carers are at risk of social, economic and educational exclusion.

At 30 June 2014, 10,200 people under 25 years were receiving the Carer Payment, and 13,500 were receiving the Carer Allowance (DSS 2014a).

Further, government and non-government organisations provide information, respite services, counselling, educational support and recreational activities for young carers. In particular, the Young Carers Respite and Information Services Program funded 39 organisations, in 2013-14, to support over 4,200 young carers in 54 locations across Australia. These young people were assisted with respite services, as they were at risk of not completing their secondary education (DSS 2014a: 75). Of those receiving respite services, 9% were Indigenous young people and 12% were young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (DSS 2014a).

Informal carers of working age

Most informal carers in Australia are of working age (25-64 years). People in this category experience the same benefits and burdens as most other informal carers. However, they are more likely to experience the difficulties involved in needing or wanting to work, or to remain in education or training, while providing care to others.

In 2012 there were 1.8 million informal carers of working age (25-64)—two thirds (67%) of all informal carers. However, less than one-third of these (31%) were primary carers. As with all carers, primary carers in this age group were predominantly female (74%). The likelihood of being a primary carer increases with age: nearly 1 in 4 (24%) of all primary carers in this age group were aged 55-64, and 21% were aged 45-54. More than 1 in 7 (15%) of all people aged 25-34 were informal carers, and 1 in 20 (5%) were primary carers (ABS 2013: Table 33).

Work and income

For this age group, as with others, being a primary carer was associated with reduced participation in the labour force, increased unemployment and reduced earnings. Just over one-half (53%) of primary carers aged 25-64 were in the labour force, compared with 80% of people in this age group who were not carers; and unemployment was 9.3% compared with 5.1% for non-carers (ABS 2014a).

The effect on the working lives of working primary carers in this age group is also considerable. In 2012:

• 39% of primary carers in this age group stated that their weekly hours of work had changed as a result of their caring role
• 12% stated they had had to leave work for at least 3 months as a result of their caring role
• 37% indicated that their caring role had resulted in needing to take time off work at least once a week
• 29% indicated their income had decreased and 31% that they had extra expenses
• nearly two-thirds (65%) indicated they had difficulty meeting everyday living costs because of their caring role (ABS 2014b).

Nearly one-third (31%) of people in this age group who were not carers lived in households in the top one-fifth of household income, compared with one-sixth (16%) of primary carers. Primary carers were twice as likely to live in the bottom two-fifths of households by income (43%), compared with non-carers (22%) (ABS 2014a). Associated with this, primary carers in this age group were much more likely to receive their main income from pensions and allowances (47%) compared with people who were not carers (12%) (ABS 2014b).

At 30 June 2014, 199,200 people aged 25-64 were receiving the Carer Payment and 414,700 were receiving the Carer Allowance (DSS 2014a).

Older informal carers

In 2012, there were an estimated 579,700 older carers aged 65 and over, or 22% of all informal carers. As with carers in younger age groups, most were women, but only by a small margin in this age group (51% to 49%). Men in this age group were more likely to be carers than men in younger age groups—20% of all men aged 65 and over were carers, compared with 12% of men aged 25-64 and 7% of men aged 15-64 (ABS 2013). As married and otherwise partnered men grow older, their wives and partners are more likely than in other age groups to become frail and need care in the home.

As with female primary carers, men were also more likely to be primary carers in this age group than in younger age groups (5.7% for men 65 and over, compared with 2.4% of men aged 25-64 and 0.6% of males aged 15-24). Older men who were primary carers were more likely to be caring for their partner (87% of male 65 and over primary carers) than younger male primary carers (15-24: 19%; 25-64: 61%) (ABS 2014a).

As primary carers age, they may experience the same changing circumstances (such as frailty) as non-carers, and such changes may directly affect the lives of other family members or others who need their care. As would be expected, older primary carers were more likely to have a disability themselves than younger primary carers—11.7% of primary carers aged 65 and over had a severe or profound core activity limitation, compared with only 7.2% of younger primary carers (ABS 2014a).

On the other hand, circumstances are better in some ways for older primary carers. ABS (2014b) found that:

• they were more likely to be able to care for others without assistance than younger primary carers (86% not needing assistance for primary carers aged 65 and over compared with 72% for primary carers aged under 65) (ABS 2014a)
• their income was more likely to be unaffected by their caring role (59% not affected, compared with 38%) (ABS 2014b)
• their friendships were less likely to be affected (53% unaffected, compared with 42%) (ABS 2014b)
• they were more likely to feel satisfied due to their caring role (37% compared with 25%) (ABS 2014b).

What is missing from the picture?

Data on disability support services funded under the National Disability Agreement are collected by the AIHW for the Disability Services National Minimum Dataset (DS NMDS), including information on informal carers of service users (AIHW 2014b). However, the data are not of sufficient quality to present in this article for the most recently published year. The main deficiency is in completeness of information on carers of people receiving employment services.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) does not currently report any information on informal carers caring for NDIS recipients (National Disability Insurance Agency 2014: 60).

Where do I go for more information?

Most of the information on informal carers presented in this article is drawn from the ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers. A much wider breadth of information on carers is available from this survey, both from published reports and unpublished data that can be used for tailored analyses. For more information, see www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4430.0.

Information on informal carers collected from the DS NMDS is included in the Report on government services (SCRGSP 2015: Volume F). While the quality of information on informal carers has been very low for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (the latest year), in 2010-11 the DS NMDS showed that 41% of users of disability services had an informal carer, and 34% of users had a primary carer, that is an informal carer who provides assistance with core activities.

The Census of Population and Housing collects information on people who provide unpaid assistance to a person with a disability, long term illness or problems related to old age. This information can be cross-classified by other information, including age, sex, whether the carer has a need for assistance themselves, and special needs groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse people.

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey has included questions on whether respondents provide ongoing help with self-care, mobility or communication to someone who is elderly or who has a disability (since Wave 5). Some of the information derived from these questions has been presented by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (2014) in a chapter entitled 'The characteristics and wellbeing of carers'.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2008. A profile of carers in Australia. ABS cat. no. 4448.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2013. Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: summary of findings, 2012. ABS cat. no. 4430.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2014a. Caring in the community, Australia: summary of findings, 2012. ABS cat. no. 4436.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2014b. Microdata: disability, ageing and carers, Australia, 2012. ABS cat. no. 4430.0.30.002. Canberra: ABS.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2013. Australia's welfare 2013. Australia's welfare series no. 11. Cat. no. AUS 174. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2014a. Healthy life expectancy in Australia: patterns and trends 1998 to 2012. Bulletin no. 126. Cat. no. AUS 187. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2014b. Disability support services: services provided under the National Disability Agreement, 2012-13. Cat. no. AUS 182. Canberra: AIHW.

Cass B, Brennan D, Thomson C, Hill T, Purcal C, Hamilton M et al. 2011. Young carers: social policy impacts of the caring responsibilities of children and young adults: final report. Sydney: University of NSW.

Cass B, Smyth C, Hill T, Blaxland M, Hamilton M 2009. Young carers in Australia: understanding the advantages and disadvantages of their care giving. Sydney: University of NSW.

DBMAS (Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Services) 2014. The Dementia Behaviour Management Advisory Services (DBMAS). What we do. Viewed 22 October 2014.

DSS (Department of Social Services) 2014a. Annual report 2013-14. Canberra: DSS.

DSS 2014b. 2013-14 report on the operation of the Aged Care Act 1997. Canberra: DSS.

DSS 2014c. Commonwealth Home Support Programme. Viewed 22 October 2014.

DSS 2015a. Carer Payment. Viewed 28 January 2015.

DSS 2015b. Carer Allowance. Viewed 28 January 2015.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth 2009. Who cares ...? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research 2014. Families, incomes and jobs, volume 9: a statistical report on waves 1 to 11 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

National Disability Insurance Agency 2014. Quarterly Report to COAG Disability Reform Council 30 September 2014. Viewed 4 December 2014.

PC (Productivity Commission) 2011a. Caring for older Australians: inquiry report no. 53. Canberra: PC.

PC 2011b. Disability care and support: inquiry report no. 54. Canberra: PC.

Purcal C, Hamilton M, Thomson C & Cass B 2012. From assistance to prevention: Categorizing young carer support services in Australia, and international implications. Social Policy and Administration.

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2015. Report on government services. Canberra: PC.

Yeandle S, Bennett C, Buckner L, Fry G, Price C 2012. Stages and transitions in the experience of caring. Report no. 1: carers, employment and services report series. Leeds: University of Leeds.

2.5 Volunteering

Australia has a long and proud tradition of volunteering in many aspects of community life such as education, sport, safety and emergency services, and community-based charities (PM&C 2011). Volunteers are often the foundation of community services, augmenting the support provided by formal and informal carers, and formal service providers. As for the volunteers themselves, many report that volunteering makes them happier, and has health benefits, particularly for older volunteers (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation 2012).

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) defines a volunteer as 'someone who, in the previous 12 months, willingly gave unpaid help, in the form of time, service or skills, through an organisation or group'. This definition therefore excludes informal carers, who provide direct care (see Chapter 2 'Informal carers'), and unpaid work under compulsion because of employment (for example, work for the dole) or as part of study commitments.

In 2010, an estimated 6.1 million people performed voluntary work for an organisation in the preceding 12 months. Volunteering rates were highest among those aged 45-54 (44%) followed by 55-64 year olds (43%) and 35-44 year olds (42%) (ABS 2011: Table 1). Overall, women (38%) were more likely to volunteer than men (34%).

People's circumstances affected the percentage who volunteered (ABS 2011: Table 2):

• Parents in couple relationships with school-aged children were the most likely to be involved in volunteering (fathers 51%, mothers 59%), followed by lone parents (fathers 43%, mothers 36%).
• People living in areas of high socioeconomic status were more likely to volunteer (41% for males, 45% for females) than people living in areas of low socioeconomic status (26% for males, 30% for females).
• People from outer regional and remote areas had higher rates of volunteering than major cities (41% compared with 34%).

Volunteering is associated with high levels of community involvement, trust and life satisfaction (ABS 2011):

• More volunteers had attended a community event in the last 6 months than non-volunteers (82% compared with 55%).
• More volunteers agreed that most people can be trusted (62% compared with 50%).
• More volunteers were delighted or pleased with their lives (48%) than non-volunteers (41%).

The activities attracting the highest rates of volunteering were sporting and physical recreation groups (44% of all men volunteering, 32% of women) followed by religious groups (21% of men, 24% of women) and welfare and community services (18% of men, 25% of women) (Figure 2.5.1).

A considerable proportion of disability and other community services rely on the work of volunteers to provide respite and companionship for their clients. Many volunteers also provide transport services for those who are ageing or who have disability, using community buses and cars. A review of Home and Community Care-delivered community transport demonstrates that extensive use of volunteers is a major feature of the current service system, but that the pool of available volunteers is reducing (DSS 2014). This review also found that transport is 'embedded' in the provision of other community services, including domestic assistance and personal care, and centre-based day care, among others. Much of this is delivered by volunteers.

What is missing from the picture?

The economic value of volunteering in Australia has been calculated for several Australian states, but not for the nation as a whole. The most recent state-level study was The economic value of volunteering in Victoria (Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development 2012).

Information on demand for volunteers is difficult to measure, partly because there is no clear delineation between the demand for paid and unpaid workers.

Where do I go for more information?

Most of the information presented in this snapshot is sourced from the ABS 2010 General Social Survey. The ABS has published much more information on volunteers collected in this survey in Voluntary work 2010 (ABS 2011).

The ABS 2011 Census collected information about voluntary work; however, the type of activity was not recorded, though the breadth of other types of information included in the Census provides the potential to investigate the characteristics of volunteers in ways not available from the ABS 2010 General Social Survey.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2011. Voluntary work, Australia 2010. ABS cat. no. 4441.0. Canberra: ABS.

DSS (Department of Social Services) 2014. National review of community transport under the Commonwealth HACC program: final report. Canberra: DSS.

PM&C (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) 2011. National Volunteering Strategy. Canberra: PM&C.

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation 2012. Volunteering: indicator overview. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development 2012. The economic value of volunteering in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development.