8 Welfare Services Resources

8.1 Introduction

This chapter presents information on the resources devoted to welfare services in Australia. Broadly, these resources can be depicted in two ways:
* by describing the sector's financial resources, that is, the funds that are made available for expenditure on services or for other forms of assistance (such as cash benefits, benefits-in-kind or concessions); and
* by describing the sector's physical resources, that is, its human resources (the people who provide or support community services), its capital resources (equipment, buildings, land and other assets), the materials and energy consumed during service provision, and so on.

As to the financial depiction of resources for welfare services, the statistics describe, on the one hand, those who provide the funding and the amounts of money they provide for various services and other assistance and, on the other hand, those who incur the expenditures and the amounts of money they spend on various services and other assistance.

The financial statistics presented in this chapter cover three kinds of activity or assistance:
* welfare services, such as the provision of a child care service
* concessions, such as concessional fares on public transport for age pensioners
* cash benefits and benefits-in-kind, such as disability support pensions.

Data on the financial value of services and other support are readily available when a financial transaction is involved, say, when a wage or salary is paid to an employee who provides a child care service or when a cash benefit is paid to an age pensioner.

But many welfare services provided in Australia do not involve direct financial transactions. These include care provided by families or neighbours to older people, people with disabilities or families with children. They also include the work that volunteers do to support organisations that provide welfare services. To present as comprehensive a picture as possible of the total value of welfare services that are provided to Australians, it is informative to include an equivalent dollar value for these unpaid welfare services. In the absence of direct financial measurement, it is necessary to invoke assumptions to impute a value to services produced by the unpaid workforce; the assumptions and data sources that underlie the estimates have been detailed in previous editions of Australia's Welfare.

Concessions are of two kinds: concessions to households or individuals (through lower fares, fees and other charges); and concessions to non-government providers of community services (also called 'tax expenditures'). In the main, the data presented in this chapter cover concessions to households and individuals; estimates are not yet available for a major class of concessions to service providers, namely Goods and Services Tax (GST) concessions.

Data on cash benefits and benefits-in-kind are included in Australia's Welfare for the first time. These data, which provide a broader view than is provided by expenditures on welfare services alone, have been compiled in accordance with the international standard, the OECD's Social Expenditure (SOCX) framework.

As to the physical depiction of resources for community services in Australia, the available statistics refer, in the main, only to human resources. The statistics presented in this chapter cover three groups of people:
* people who are in paid employment within community services industries, such as employees in the child care services industry. These comprise people who provide direct care (those in community services occupations) and people who provide support (those in other occupations);
* people who are in paid employment in community services occupations within other industries, such as child and youth services workers employed in the education industry; and
* people who provide or support the provision of community services on an unpaid basis, either through community services organisations or as informal carers of family members, neighbours and friends.

To present as comprehensive a picture as possible of human resources in the sector, it is necessary to describe all three groups.

8.2 Total Resources For Welfare Services

The total value of welfare services provided during 2002-03 was estimated at $49.5 billion. Of this, 34.6% ($17.1 billion) related to services for which expenditure was incurred (Figure 8.1).

Of the remaining $32.4 billion, some $30.9 billion was 'imputed' as the value of services where no payments or expenses were actually incurred. The rest ($1.4 billion) was payments to carers by the Australian Government through the social security system.

Of the $17.1 billion in expenditure, $16.9 billion was incurred by governments and nongovernment community services organisations (NGCSOs). The remaining $208 million was fees paid by households for informal child care services provided by other members of the household sector.

The $30.9 billion of expenses not actually incurred comprised $735 million of revenue forgone by governments as a result of concessional tax treatment for NGCSOs, and the household sector's contribution estimated at $30.2 billion. Of the latter, $1.5 billion was in the form of voluntary work through organisations, but most ($28.8 billion) was the imputed value of informal care in the household sector. This included neighbours providing care to others, informal child care arrangements, and informal care of older people and people with disabilities. However, Australian Government payments to informal carers through the social security system in the form of Carer Allowance or Carer Payments (see Box 5.7) which, in 2002-03, totalled $1.4 billion (FaCS 2003:181) have been separately identified as contributing to the funding of such informal care. This represented 4.4% of the total imputed value of informal care.

The paid workforce involved in providing welfare services and/or providing administrative and managerial support to services in 2002-03 was estimated at around 268,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers. The unpaid workforce was estimated to be more than three times the paid workforce (in terms of FTEs).

Figure 8.1: Total resources on welfare services provision, 2002-03. - Figure omitted in this file.

8.3 Expenditure On Welfare Services

Australia spent an estimated $17.1 billion on welfare services in 2002-03 (Table 8.1: Welfare services expenditure, current and constant (a) prices, share of gross domestic product (GDP) and annual growth, 1992-93 to 2002-03). This represented 2.3% of gross domestic product in that year.

In real terms, expenditure on welfare services grew at an average rate of 5.7% per year between 1998-99 and 2002-03. Estimated real growth in the latest year, 2002-03, was higher, at 8.2%, than it had been in any of the preceding three years. As a share of GDP, estimated expenditure on welfare services increased from 2.1% in each of the years 1998-99 to 2001-02 to 2.3% in 2002-03.

Table 8.1: Welfare services expenditure, current and constant (a) prices, share of gross domestic product (GDP) and annual growth, 1992-93 to 2002-03
Year	Current prices	Constant prices (a)	
	Expenditure ($m)	Share of GDP (%)	Expenditure ($m) 	Growth  (%)	
1992-93	7,124.9	1.7	8,812.3	. .	
1993-94	7,726.4	1.7	9,620.4	9.2	
1994-95	8,355.3	1.8	10,291.6	7.0	
1995-96	9,068.6	1.8	11,044.6	7.3	
1996-97	9,958.0	1.9	11,719.0	6.1	
1997-98	10,874.2	1.9	12,520.3	6.8	
Break in time series	
1998-99	12,087.4	2.1	13,694.1	. .	
1999-00	13,096.7	2.1	14,658.1	7.0	
2000-01	14,026.4	2.1	15,086.2	2.8	
2001-02	15,288.6	2.1	15,827.1	4.9	
2002-03	17,130.5	2.3	17,130.5	8.2	
Average annual growth rate	
1992-93 to 1997-98	 - 	- 	- 	7.3	
1998-99 to 2002-03	- 	- 	- 	5.7	

(a) Constant price estimates are expressed in terms of 2002–03 prices. Source: AIHW 2005.

Box 8.1: Break In Expenditure Time Series

Most governments in Australia moved from cash to accrual accounting from the beginning of 1998-99. This, combined with some substantial changes in data sources after 1997-98, has resulted in a break in the time series data after 1997-98. The earlier figures are presented to provide context, but the analysis in this chapter concentrates on the later period.

End of Box 8.1.

Most expenditure on welfare is for recurrent purposes. It goes to pay the wages and salaries and the many other operating expenses incurred by individuals, governments and non-government organisations in providing or arranging the provision of the services concerned. In 2002-03 estimated recurrent expenditure on welfare services was $16,906.0 million (Table 8.2). A further $224.5 million was for capital purposes.

Three broad sectors incurring expenditure are governments, NGCSOs and households. The proportion of expenditure incurred by NGCSOs has been higher than for the other two sectors, and rose from 49.6% in 1998-99 to 52.6% in 2002-03 (Table 8.3). Sources of funding for NGCSO expenditure are governments, clients and own source (Table 8.15). The role of NGCSOs is predominantly as providers of services rather than as funders.

Table 8.2: Welfare services expenditure, by type of expenditure, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03 ($m)
Year	Recurrent expenditure	Capital expenditure(a)	Total	
1992-93	6,648.0	476.9	7,124.9	
1993-94	7,347.0	379.4	7,726.4	
1994-95	8,112.3	243.0	8,355.3	
1995-96	8,851.4	217.3	9,068.6	
1996-97	9,671.7	286.3	9,958.0	
1997-98	10,679.5	194.7	10,874.2	
Break in time series	
1998-99	11,859.8	227.6	12,087.4	
1999-00	12,887.3	209.4	13,096.7	
2000-01	13,754.3	271.0	14,025.4	
2001-02	15,099.6	189.0	15,288.6	
2002-03	16,906.0	224.5	17,130.5	

(a) Only includes expenditure on capital that was funded by governments. Source: AIHW 2005.

The average rate of expenditure on welfare services per Australian resident in 2002-03 was $867-up from $782 in 2001-02 (Table 8.4). Per person expenditure grew, in real terms, by 7.0% in 2002-03; real growth averaged 4.5% per year between 1998-99 and 2002-03.

8.4 Funding for Welfare Services

Funding for welfare services comes largely from governments, particularly the Australian Government and state and territory governments. Local governments also provide funding for some welfare services. In addition, welfare services clients are charged fees for some services, and NGCSOs are sometimes called upon to use their own resources to support some of the welfare services that they provide.

Over two-thirds (69.5% or $11.9 billion) of all the funding for welfare services in 2002-03 was provided by governments (Table 8.5). The states and territories contributed $6.0 billion (35.3%) and the Australian Government $5.4 billion (31.6%). The remainder of government funding for welfare services was contributed by local governments ($456 million).

Households, through the payment of fees for particular welfare services, contributed $3.2 billion in funding during 2002-03, with NGCSOs providing a further $2.0 billion from their own resources.

The relative shares changed little between 1998-99 and 2002-03. The Australian Government contribution in 1998-99 ($3.8 billion) represented 31.2% of total funding; the state and territory governments' contribution of $4.4 billion was 36.0%; and the non-government sector's contribution of $3.7 billion was 30.5%. Thus, the rates of growth for the different funding sources were quite similar between 1998-99 and 2002-03.

Government funding and non-government funding both grew at an average rate of 5.7% per year.

Table 8.3: Welfare services expenditure, by sector incurring expenditure, current prices, 1998-99 to 2002-03 ($m)
	Sector incurring expenditure		
Year	Governments (a)	NGCSOs	Households (b)	All sectors	
1998-99	5,890.9	5,989.8	206.7	12,087.4	
1999-00	6,319.0	6,582.5	195.2	13,096.7	
2000-01	6,580.6	7,260.5	184.3	14,025.4	
2001-02	7,145.6	7,969.0	174.0	15,288.6	
2002-03	7,925.7	9,010.8	194.0	17,130.5	

(a) Includes Australian Government, state and territory governments and local governments; expenditure has been derived by subtraction.
(b) Includes only estimated client fees paid by households for informal child care services.

Source: Australian Government - compiled from DHAC 1999, 2000, DoHA 2001, 2002, 2003; FaCS 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; DIMIA unpublished data; Department of Veterans' Affairs unpublished data; State/territory government - Recurrent expenditure - PC 2004; ABS unpublished public finance data; Capital expenditure - ABS unpublished public finance data; Local government - ABS unpublished public finance data; NGCSOs - AIHW estimates based on a sample of NGCSOs' financial reports; Household sector - Child care service clients' contribution - estimated by AIHW from ABS 1997, 2000, 2003.

Table 8.4: Average welfare services expenditure, per person, current and constant (a) prices and annual real growth, 1992-93 to 2002-03
	Expenditure per person ($)		
Year	Current prices	Constant prices (a)	Annual real growth (%)	
1992-93	405	501	. .	
1993-94	435	542	8.1	
1994-95	465	573	5.8	
1995-96	498	607	5.9	
1996-97	540	636	4.8	
1997-98	584	673	5.7	
Break in time series	
1998-99	642	728	. .	
1999-00	688	770	5.8	
2000-01	727	782	1.6	
2001-02	782	810	3.5	
2002-03	867	867	7.0	
Average annual growth rate	
1992-93 to 1997-98	 - 	 - 	6.1	
1998-99 to 2002-03	 - 	 - 	4.5	

(a) Constant price estimates are expressed in terms of 2002-03 prices. Source: AIHW 2005.

Table 8.5: Funding for welfare services (a), by source, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03 ($m)
	Government funding sources	Non-government funding sources		
Year	Australian Government	State and territory	Local	Total	NGCSOs    	Households	Total	Total funding	
1992-93	2,113.4	2,446.5	22.5	4,582.4	934.0	1,609.0	2,543.0	7,125.4	
1993-94	2,493.9	2,468.5	45.9	5,008.4	990.0	1,728.0	2,718.0	7,726.4	
1994-95	2,891.5	2,551.5	99.3	5,542.3	995.0	1,818.0	2,813.0	8,355.3	
1995-96	3,074.5	2,736.9	157.0	5,968.4	1,039.0	2,062.0	3,101.0	9,069.4	
1996-97	3,263.5	3,146.9	121.0	6,531.4	1,143.0	2,284.0	3,427.0	9,958.4	
1997-98	3,272.6	3,592.5	218.9	7,084.0	1,229.0	2,561.0	3,790.0	10,874.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	3,771.3	4,361.9	270.1	8,403.3	1,368.3	2,315.8	3,684.1	12,087.4	
1999-00	4,010.7	4,694.1	288.8	8,993.6	1,550.4	2,552.7	4,103.2	13,096.7	
2000-01	4,328.8	5,041.9	274.0	9,644.6	1,620.4	2,760.3	4,380.7	14,025.4	
2001-02	4,945.3	5,489.7	252.7	10,687.7	1,741.4	2,859.6	4,601.0	15,288.6	
2002-03	5,405.8	6,038.6	456.4	11,900.9	2,019.2	3,210.5	5,229.6	17,130.5	

(a) Does not include funding of expenditure on high-level residential aged care and state government nursing homes, both of which are regarded as health expenditures (estimated at $4,934 million in 2002-03).

Source: AIHW 2005.

Government Funding

Total government funding for welfare services in 2002-03 was estimated at $11.9 billion (Table 8.6). Of this, $11.7 billion (98.1%) was for recurrent purposes and the remainder for capital purposes. The recurrent share of total government funding fluctuated from year to year, but has generally shown an upward trend from 97.3% in 1998-99.

Table 8.6: Total government funding for welfare services, by type of expenditure, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03 ($m)

Year	Recurrent expenditure	Capital expenditure	Total	
1992-93	4,105.5	476.9	4,582.4	
1993-94	4,628.9	379.4	5,008.4	
1994-95	5,299.3	243.0	5,542.3	
1995-96	5,751.1	217.3	5,968.4	
1996-97	6,245.1	286.3	6,531.4	
1997-98	6,889.3	194.7	7,084.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	8,175.8	227.6	8,403.3	
1999-00	8,784.2	209.4	8,993.6	
2000-01	9,374.7	271.0	9,645.7	
2001-02	10,498.7	189.0	10,687.7	
2002-03	11,676.4	224.5	11,900.9	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Recurrent Funding by Governments

A little over half (50.8%) of estimated recurrent funding by governments for welfare services in 2002-03 came from state and territory governments' own funding (derived from Table 8.7). This share fell from 52.1% in 1998-99; the Australian Government's share rose over the period from 44.9% to 45.6%; the local government share rose from
3.0% to 3.5%.

Table 8.7: Recurrent government funding for welfare services, by level of government, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03 ($m)
Year	Australian Government	State and territory government	Local government	Total government	
1992-93	1,892.8	2,207.5	5.2	4,105.5	
1993-94	2,311.3	2,299.3	18.3	4,628.9	
1994-95	2,723.8	2,517.1	58.4	5,299.3	
1995-96	2,936.8	2,691.0	123.3	5,751.1	
1996-97	3,097.7	3,070.6	76.8	6,245.1	
1997-98	3,187.4	3,531.0	170.9	6,889.3	
Break in time series	
1998-99	3,671.8	4,262.3	241.7	8,175.8	
1999-00	3,956.6	4,577.3	250.3	8,784.2	
2000-01	4,253.1	4,868.2	252.3	9,373.7	
2001-02	4,877.9	5,383.6	237.2	10,498.7	
2002-03	5,329.3	5,934.1	413.0	11,676.4	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Only funding by the Australian Government and the state and territory governments is included in the remainder of this discussion of government funding of welfare services. Data are not available to allow the decomposition of funding by local government.

When allocating funding by governments to the different categories of welfare services (that is, services for families and children, for older people, and for people with disabilities), there were some kinds of funding that could not be easily identified as having flowed to particular categories. These included funding for services for unaccompanied women in crisis, as well as funding to support a broad range of services for Indigenous Australians or other disadvantaged groups within the Australian community. The estimates of funding that flowed to such welfare services fluctuated considerably from year to year. Sometimes, this was due to specific initiatives in the areas concerned and at other times it was because of better identification of where the funding was being directed in a particular year. Consequently, the estimates for 'Other recipients of welfare services (nec)' is regarded as the residual after the identified welfare services funding estimates have been deducted from the estimates of total funding for welfare services. In 2002-03, estimated government funding for these types of services was $1.8 billion, or 15.8% of total funding by governments for welfare services.

Government funding for welfare services grew, in real terms, at an average rate of 5.7% per year between 1998-99 and 2002-03. By far the most rapid growth was in welfare services for families and children, which averaged 10.0% per year over the period (Table 8.8).

Table 8.8: Recurrent funding of welfare services by the Australian, state and territory governments, by major area of expenditure, constant prices (a), and annual real growth 1992-93 to 2002-03
	Families and children	Older people (b) (c)	People with disabilities	Other recipients of welfare services	Total welfare services	
Year	Amount ($m)	Growth
(%)	Amount   ($m)	Growth (%)	Amount ($m)	Growth
(%)	Amount ($m)	Growth
(%)	Amount   ($m)	Growth (%)	
1992-93	1,729.5	n.a.	1,250.8	n.a.	1,702.5	n.a.	442.4	n.a.	5,125.1	n.a.	
1993-94	1,954.4	13.0	1,434.7	14.7	1,882.9	10.6	455.7	3.0	5,727.6	11.8	
1994-95	2,252.8	15.3	1,720.4	19.9	1,929.0	2.5	543.3	19.2	6,445.6	12.5	
1995-96	2,513.9	11.6	1,772.0	3.0	1,959.3	1.6	576.1	6.0	6,821.3	5.8	
1996-97	2,620.0	4.2	2,077.3	17.2	2,058.4	5.1	570.0	-1.1	7,325.7	7.4	
1997-98	2,594.7	-1.0	2,409.0	16.0	2,235.1	8.6	618.8	8.6	7,857.7	7.3	
Break in time series	
1998-99	2,431.9	n.a.	2,141.3	n.a.	2,702.3	n.a.	1,758.4	n.a.	9,027.5	n.a.	
1999-00	2,779.8	14.3	2,285.2	6.7	2,836.6	5.0	1,677.7	-4.6	9,578.0	6.1	
2000-01	2,737.7	-1.5	2,398.4	5.0	2,946.1	3.9	1,745.4	4.1	9,827.6	2.6	
2001-02	3,305.8	20.8	2,436.3	1.2	3,151.4	7.1	1,742.8	-0.1	10,629.0	8.2	
2002-03	3,565.7	7.9	2,637.6	8.7	3,271.7	3.7	1,788.5	2.6	11,263.5	6.0	
Average annual growth	
1992-93 to 1997-98	 - 	8.5	 - 	14.0	 - 	5.6	 - 	6.9	 - 	8.9	
1998-99 to 2002-03	 - 	10.0	 - 	5.4	 - 	4.9	 - 	0.5	 - 	5.7	

(a) In constant prices (estimates expressed in terms of 2002-03 prices).
(b) Does not include Australian Government funding, through the residential aged care subsidies, for high-level care, which is regarded as expenditure on health services (estimated at $3,643 million in 2002-03).
(c) Does not include nursing home funding by state and territory governments, which is regarded as expenditure on health services (estimated at $452 million in 2002-03).

Source: AIHW 2005.

A little over half (52.8%) of the recurrent funding for welfare services for families and children during 2002-03 came from the Australian Government (Table 8.9). It provided $1.9 billion in funding these services, compared with $1.7 billion by the states and territories. The relative shares changed little between 1998-99 and 2002-03, with the Australian Government share having fallen by 0.5 percentage points, from 53.3% to 52.8%. There was a corresponding increase in the share met by state and territory governments.

The Australian Government was the largest source of government funding for welfare services for older people. In 2002-03 it provided more than two-thirds (68.7%) of all such funding (Table 8.10). Further analysis of the services for older people can be found in Chapter 4. The following paragraphs concentrate on expenditure on the welfare services component.

Most of the funding for welfare services for people with disabilities was provided by state and territory governments. In 2002-03, they provided an estimated $2.1 billion out of total government funding of $3.3 billion (Table 8.11). This represented almost two-thirds (63.7%) of the combined funding by the Australian and the state and territory governments on services for people with disabilities.

Table 8.9: Recurrent funding of welfare services by government for families and children, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03
	Australian Government	State and territory government	Total government	
Year	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	
1992-93	611.5	44.2	772.1	55.8	1,383.6	100.0	
1993-94	758.9	48.2	814.4	51.8	1,573.3	100.0	
1994-95	952.6	52.2	872.2	47.8	1,824.8	100.0	
1995-96	1,088.4	52.5	985.6	47.5	2,074.0	100.0	
1996-97	1,161.4	52.6	1,044.6	47.4	2,206.0	100.0	
1997-98	1,089.2	49.1	1,129.3	50.9	2,218.5	100.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	1,139.7	53.3	997.4	46.7	2,137.1	100.0	
1999-00	1,397.8	56.4	1,078.9	43.6	2,476.7	100.0	
2000-01	1,360.4	53.5	1,181.0	46.5	2,541.5	100.0	
2001-02	1,685.3	52.8	1,507.2	47.2	3,192.5	100.0	
2002-03	1,881.9	52.8	1,683.7	47.2	3,565.7	100.0	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Table 8.10: Recurrent funding (a) for welfare services by government for older people, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03
	Australian Government (b)	State and territory government (c)	Total government	
Year	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	
1992-93	586.6	58.6	414.0	41.4	1,000.6	100.0	
1993-94	800.7	69.3	354.2	30.7	1,154.9	100.0	
1994-95	911.3	65.4	482.2	34.6	1,393.5	100.0	
1995-96	916.8	62.7	545.1	37.3	1,461.9	100.0	
1996-97	1,023.7	58.5	725.4	41.5	1,749.1	100.0	
1997-98	1,172.0	56.9	887.7	43.1	2,059.7	100.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	1,324.1	70.5	555.4	29.5	1,879.4	100.0	
1999-00	1,356.3	66.7	676.4	33.3	2,032.8	100.0	
2000-01	1,539.4	69.1	688.2	30.9	2,227.6	100.0	
2001-02	1,628.6	69.5	714.4	30.5	2,342.9	100.0	
2002-03	1,810.9	68.7	826.7	31.3	2,637.6	100.0	

(a) Includes only funding by the Australian Government and by state and territory governments.
(b) Does not include Australian Government funding, through the residential aged care subsidies, for high-level care, which is regarded as expenditure on health services (estimated at $3,643 million in 2002-03).
(c) Does not include state and territory governments' funding for government nursing homes, which is regarded as expenditure on health services (estimated at $452 million in 2002-03).

Source: AIHW 2005.

Other welfare services (not elsewhere classified) comprise services to recipients not classified to the first three target groups. These include services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; services for women who have been subject to domestic violence; prisoners' aid; care of refugees; pre-marital education, information and advice; homeless persons' assistance; and crime victim support, referral and crisis support services.

In 2002-03, recurrent government expenditure on these welfare services was $1.8 billion. State and territory governments accounted for 75% of this amount.

Table 8.11: Recurrent funding (a) of welfare services by government for people with disabilities, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03
	Australian Government	State and territory government	Total government	
Year	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	Amount ($m)	Share (%)	
1992-93	548.0	40.2	814.0	59.8	1,362.0	100.0	
1993-94	596.3	39.3	919.4	60.7	1,515.7	100.0	
1994-95	698.2	44.7	864.3	55.3	1,562.5	100.0	
1995-96	729.1	45.1	887.3	54.9	1,616.4	100.0	
1996-97	728.0	42.0	1,005.2	58.0	1,733.2	100.0	
1997-98	744.2	38.9	1,166.8	61.1	1,911.0	100.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	867.0	36.6	1,503.2	63.4	2,370.2	100.0	
1999-00	886.7	35.1	1,641.2	64.9	2,527.9	100.0	
2000-01	985.2	36.0	1,748.8	64.0	2,734.0	100.0	
2001-02	1,121.2	36.8	1,923.0	63.2	3,044.3	100.0	
2002-03	1,188.5	36.3	2,083.2	63.7	3,271.7	100.0	

(a) Includes only funding by the Australian Government and by state and territory governments.

Sources: Australian Government - compiled from DHAC 1999, 2000, DoHA 2001, 2002, 2003; FaCS 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; DIMIA unpublished data; Department of Veterans' Affairs unpublished data. State and territory government - Recurrent expenditure compiled from PC 2004; ABS unpublished public finance data.

Australian Government recurrent funding

Services to families and children and to older people accounted for the largest shares of Australian Government funding for welfare services in 2002-03: 35.3% and 34.0% of the total, respectively. The composition of services receiving Australian Government funding changed somewhat between 1998-99 and 2002-03. At the beginning of that period, estimated funding of services for older people represented 36.1% of its welfare services funding, while funding for families and children was lower, at 31.0%.

State and territory government recurrent funding

Services for people with disabilities and for families and children received substantial shares of state and territory government funding. Services for people with disabilities attracted more than one-third (35.1%) of such funding in 2002-03; this share has been fairly stable since 1998-99. The next largest share (28.4%) went to fund services for families and children; this share has risen noticeably since 1998-99.

The shares of state and territory funding that supported services for people with disabilities changed little between 1998-99 and 2002-03, generally remaining around 35-36% of the total. Funding for services for families and children increased as a share of the total, from 23.4% in 1998-99 to 28.4% in 2002-03. This was counterbalanced by a decrease in the estimated share attributed to 'unidentified welfare services' (down from 28.3% to 22.6%).

Capital Funding by Governments

Government funding for capital expenditure may take the form of direct outlays - usually by state and territory or local governments - or it may involve grants and subsidies to support private sector investment in welfare services infrastructure.

Total welfare-related capital expenditure in 2002-03 was estimated at $224.5 million (Table 8.12). Almost half of that - $104.5 million or 46.5% -came from state and territory governments, and the remainder chiefly from the Australian Government.

Capital expenditure is, by nature, quite 'lumpy' - that is, the relative shares of capital funding fluctuate from one year to the next. For example, in 1998-99 the amounts of funding by the Australian Government and the state and territory governments were almost equal, at $99.5 million and $99.6 million, respectively. In the next year, estimated funding by state and territory governments ($116.8 million) was more than double that provided by the Australian Government ($54.2 million).

Table 8.12: Government funding for welfare-related capital expenditure, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03 ($m)
	Australian Government	State and territory government	Total	Local government	Total	
1992-93	220.6	239.0	459.6	17.3	476.9	
1993-94	182.6	169.2	351.8	27.6	379.4	
1994-95	167.7	34.4	202.1	40.9	243.0	
1995-96	137.7	45.9	183.6	33.7	217.3	
1996-97	165.8	76.3	242.1	44.2	286.3	
1997-98	85.2	61.5	146.7	48.0	194.7	
Break in time series	
1998-99	99.5	99.6	199.1	28.5	227.6	
1999-00	54.2	116.8	171.0	38.4	209.4	
2000-01	75.7	173.7	249.4	21.6	271.0	
2001-02	67.5	106.1	173.6	15.5	189.0	
2002-03	76.5	104.5	181.0	43.4	224.5	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Indirect Government Funding

Two forms of indirect funding of welfare services are examined here. They are tax expenditures, most of which flow to people involved in the provision or funding of welfare services; and concessions to or for people within social groups in need of special assistance.

Tax expenditures include concessions such as exemptions, deductions, rebates, reduced rates and deferral of tax liability.

Some tax expenditures go (in the form of tax deductions) to individual taxpayers who make donations or gifts to organisations that provide services or who directly provide care to dependants assessed as being in need of assistance. Tax expenditures flowing to such individuals in 2002-03 were estimated at $680 million (Table 8.13: Tax expenditures by governments for welfare services, current prices, 1995-96 to 2002-03 ($m)13).

A second form of tax expenditure relates to special treatments afforded to service providers in respect of some inputs to the services they provide. The major such tax expenditures in 2002-03 were exemption from the Australian Government's fringe benefits tax for benevolent organisations ($165 million); and exemptions from a number of state and territory government taxes, including payroll tax ($207 million), land tax ($104 million) and stamp duty and bank taxes ($259 million). In all, estimated tax expenditures related to inputs totalled $735 million in 2002-03.

Table 8.13: Tax expenditures by governments for welfare services, current prices, 1995-96 to 2002-03 ($m)
Tax expenditure type	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	
Donations to benevolent institutions	160	169	184	230	250	300	310	340	
Tax offset for housekeeper who cares for a prescribed dependant	579	400	400	420	430	360	340	340	
Australian Government tax exemptions on inputs	
Fringe benefits tax	75	150	180	60	210	230	230	165	
Wholesale sales tax	137	153	172	207	227	—	—	—	
State and territory government tax exemptions on inputs	
Payroll tax	91	102	115	138	151	167	183	207	
Land tax	46	51	57	69	76	83	92	104	
Stamp duty, etc.	114	127	144	172	189	209	229	259	
Total input tax exemptions	463	583	668	645	853	689	734	735	
Total tax expenditures	1,226	1,179	1,278	1,295	1,533	1,349	1,384	1,415	
Total welfare services expenditure	9,069	9,958	10,874	12,087	13,096	14,026	15,289	17,130	
Tax expenditure proportion of total welfare spending (%)	13.5	11.8	11.8	10.7	11.7	9.6	9.1	8.3	

Source: AIHW 2005.

The proportion of welfare services expenditure that is funded through identified tax expenditures fell from 13.5% in 1995-96 to 8.3% in 2002-03. This was influenced, to a large extent, by the removal of one major input tax expenditure - exemption from wholesale sales tax - following the reform of the tax system by the Australian Government in 2000. But, even if the new wholesale sales tax arrangement is backcast, tax expenditures as a proportion of total welfare services expenditure fell from 12.0% in 1995-96 to 8.3% in 2002-03.

Concessions that are allowed by government service providers are treated as indirect government expenditures, and some of these are classified as indirect expenditures on welfare services. Estimates of such welfare-related concessions are included in the expenditure accounts as 'core' concessions; they include concessions on electricity, public transport, water and sewerage and on local government rates. In 2002-03, indirect expenditure by governments through core concessions was estimated at $1,146.5 million (Table 8.14). Some other government concessions are available to individuals (such as schoolchildren) who are outside the accepted welfare services target group categories; they are not included in the figures presented here.

In earlier years, eligibility for many state and territory government concessions was restricted to people identified by governments as requiring such assistance (usually limited to full-rate social security pensioners and beneficiaries and eligible veterans). Since 1997-98, however, the Australian Government has entered into agreements with the states and territories to extend eligibility for concessions to a much broader range of social security recipients.

Table 8.14: Core government concessions for welfare services target populations, current prices, 1998-99 to 2001-02 ($m)
	Core concession type		
Year	Electricity	Public transport	Water and sewerage	Council rates	Total concessions	
Estimated total expenditure on concessions	
1998-99	178.5	412.4	160.0	220.6	971.5	
1999-00	212.6	402.6	161.9	226.3	1,003.5	
2000-01	228.6	420.8	178.9	221.0	1,049.3	
2001-02	263.0	429.4	188.9	248.1	1,129.4	
2002-03	258.7	439.2	190.8	257.9	1,146.5	
Funded by Australian Government through extension of fringe benefits funding to states and territories	
1998-99	27.9	64.4	25.0	34.5	151.8	
1999-00	32.9	62.3	25.1	35.0	155.3	
2000-01	35.8	66.0	28.0	34.6	164.5	
2001-02	39.8	65.0	28.6	37.5	170.9	
2002-03	40.2	68.3	29.7	40.1	178.3	
Funded by states and territories from own sources	
1998-99	150.6	347.9	135.0	186.2	819.7	
1999-00	179.7	340.3	136.9	191.3	848.2	
2000-01	192.8	354.8	150.8	186.3	884.8	
2001-02	223.3	364.4	160.4	210.6	958.6	
2002-03	218.4	370.9	161.1	217.8	968.2	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Non-Government Sector Funding

There are two major non-government sources of funding for welfare services:
* funding provided by NGCSOs from their own sources - in 2002-03, NGCSOs provided $2,019.2 million from their own sources (Table 8.15); and
* fees charged to the clients of services - in 2002-03, client fees provided $3,210.5 million (Table 8.16).

Table 8.15: Recurrent funding of NGCSOs' welfare services expenditure, amount and share, by source of funds, current prices, 1992-93 to 2002-03

	Funding source	Total expenditure by NGCSOs	
	Governments	NGCSOs	Client fees		
Year	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	
1992-93	1,846.0	46.9	934.0	23.7	1,153.0	29.3	3,933.0	100.0	
1993-94	2,074.0	47.9	990.0	22.8	1,270.0	29.3	4,334.0	100.0	
1994-95	1,973.0	45.8	995.0	23.1	1,338.0	31.1	4,306.0	100.0	
1995-96	2,305.0	46.5	1,039.0	21.0	1,608.0	32.5	4,952.0	100.0	
1996-97	2,552.0	46.2	1,143.0	20.7	1,831.0	33.1	5,526.0	100.0	
1997-98	2,895.0	46.5	1,229.0	19.7	2,103.0	33.8	6,227.0	100.0	
Break in time series	
1998-99	2,805.4	46.8	1,368.3	22.8	1,816.2	30.3	5,989.8	100.0	
1999-00	2,951.5	44.8	1,550.4	23.6	2,080.6	31.6	6,582.5	100.0	
2000-01	3,383.5	46.6	1,620.4	22.3	2,256.6	31.1	7,260.5	100.0	
2001-02	3,887.1	48.8	1,741.4	21.9	2,340.6	29.4	7,969.0	100.0	
2002-03	4,319.8	47.9	2,019.2	22.4	2,671.9	29.7	9,010.8	100.0	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Table 8.16: Funding of welfare services, through fees paid by clients, amount and share, by provider sector, current prices, 1998-99 to 2002-03
	Provider sector	Total client fee funding	
	Governments	NGCSOs	Households as providers of informal childcare		
Year	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	Amount ($m)	Share
(%)	
1998-99	292.9	12.6	1,816.2	78.4	206.7	8.9	2,315.8	100.0	
1999-00	276.9	10.8	2,080.6	81.5	195.2	7.6	2,552.7	100.0	
2000-01	319.4	11.6	2,256.6	81.8	184.3	6.7	2,760.3	100.0	
2001-02	345.0	12.1	2,340.6	81.9	174.0	6.1	2,859.6	100.0	
2002-03	344.6	10.7	2,671.9	83.2	194.0	6.0	3,210.5	100.0	

Source: AIHW 2005.

Most client fee funding in 2002-03 was directed to services provided by NGCSOs. These were for privately provided services such as private childcare services and care facilities for older people. Client fee funding of services provided by NGCSOs in 2002-03 was estimated at $2,671.9 million, or 83.2% of total estimated client fee funding for welfare services.

In the case of client fee funding of services provided by households, the only estimates that are available relate to childcare services. It is estimated that $194.0 million was provided by clients to support childcare services provided by households in 2002-03; this represented 6.0% of all identified client fee funding.

It is possible that some of the informal care provided by households to older people and people with disabilities may also have attracted funding from this source, but information that would support estimation of the expenditure and funding for such informal services is not available.

8.5 Welfare-related Social Expenditure

This section looks at Australia's spending on welfare services in the context of its overall social expenditure. This provides a broader picture than can service expenditures alone of the levels of support provided to people in need of assistance. Examining overall social expenditure helps to abstract from some of the fluctuations that can occur when funding for services is replaced by cash benefits to individuals and families (to provide them with greater capacity to purchase services, for example).

For the purposes of this analysis, the scope of social expenditures has been confined to those directed at groups in society that would access the types of services usually covered in analyses of expenditures on welfare services. The international social expenditure (SOCX) classifications that have been developed by the OECD provide the broad framework for this analysis. For the analysis below, the SOCX classifications have been limited to welfare-related categories by excluding some classes of expenditure (Table 8.17).

Table 8.17: SOCX categories and their treatment in respect of welfare-related social expenditure
SOCX category no.	SOCX category title	Treatment	
1	Old age	Included	
2	Survivors (a)	Included	
3	Incapacity-related benefits	Included	
4	Health	Excluded	
5	Family	Included	
6	Active labour market programs	Excluded	
7	Unemployment	Excluded	
8	Housing	Excluded (b)	
9	Other social policy areas	Excluded (c)	

(a) 'Survivors' refers to widowed spouses and orphans.
(b) All expenditures on housing classified by OECD into category 9 are excluded except those expenditures that come within the scope of the ABS government purpose classification (GPC) 262 'welfare services'. For Australia the included housing expenditures have been included in category 9.
(c) Includes social expenditures classified by ABS to GPC 2619 'Social security (nec)' and those housing expenditures that come within the scope of the GPC 262 class.

Estimated welfare-related social expenditure in Australia during 2002-03 was $69.1 billion (Table 8.18). Just over three-quarters (75.2% or $52.0 billion) of this was in the form of cash benefits and the rest was benefits-in-kind.

Most expenditure on cash benefits in 2002-03 was directed to older people ($22.0 billion) and families ($18.7 billion).

The expenditure on benefits-in-kind here relates to expenditure on welfare services. Overall, they accounted for around one-quarter (24.8%) of estimated welfare-related social expenditures in 2002-03. Benefits-in-kind accounted for 26.2% of welfare-related social expenditures for people with disabilities, and this changed only marginally over the period since 1998-99, when it was estimated at 25.8%. In the case of older people, benefits-in-kind played a somewhat lesser role than for people with disabilities. In 2002-03, estimated benefits-in-kind comprised 10.7% of the welfare-related social expenditures for older people. The corresponding proportion for families was 16.0%.

Table 8.18: Social expenditure, current prices, 1998-99 to 2002-03 ($m)
SOCX category	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	
1. Old age	
Cash benefits(a)	16,424.4	16,826.6	22,369.8	20,916.6	22,044.2	
Benefits-in-kind	1,879.4	2,032.8	2,227.6	2,342.9	2,637.6	
Total	18,303.8	18,859.3	24,597.4	23,259.6	24,681.8	
2. Survivors	
Cash benefits(b)	1,402.7	1,425.9	1,608.3	1,751.8	1,840.9	
3. Incapacity-related benefits	
Cash benefits	6,801.6	7,135.4	8,039.7	8,704.1	9,209.1	
Benefits-in-kind	2,370.2	2,527.9	2,734.0	3,044.3	3,271.7	
Total	9,171.9	9,663.3	10,773.7	11,748.4	12,480.7	
5. Family	
Cash benefits	12,040.1	13,938.7	17,285.8	18,606.7	18,703.4	
Benefits-in-kind	2,137.1	2,476.7	2,541.5	3,192.5	3,565.7	
Total	14,177.2	16,415.4	19,827.3	21,799.1	22,269.1	
9. Other social policy areas	
Cash benefits	204.1	120.1	139.9	149.5	156.7	
Benefits-in-kind	5,700.7	6,059.5	6,523.3	6,708.9	7,655.5	
Total	5,904.8	6,179.6	6,663.2	6,858.5	7,812.2	
Total	
Cash benefits	36,873.0	39,446.7	49,443.5	50,128.6	51,954.2	
Benefits-in-kind	12,087.4	13,096.7	14,026.4	15,288.6	17,130.5	
Total	48,960.4	52,543.4	63,469.9	65,417.3	69,084.7	

(a) Not including mandatory employer superannuation contribution of $22,899 million, $25,955 million, $27,416 million, $28,574 million, and $34,676 million in 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03 respectively.
(b) Benefits in-kind for survivors should include welfare services provided to widows. But in the Australian data, these are classified to the SOCX category 'Other social policy'. Category 9 also includes all recurrent funding for welfare services by local governments, plus government capital expenditure, and expenditure by NGCSOs and households.

Sources: Benefits-in-kind: AIHW; Cash benefits: FaCS 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003.

International comparisons of social expenditures have been drawn from the SOCX database. The latest year for which comprehensive estimates are available is 2001. In that year, all OECD members, except Turkey, reported social expenditures (Table 8.19).

Overall, Australia's social expenditure as a proportion of GDP was estimated at 13.7% in 2001 if superannuation payments are included in social expenditures and 9.2% if they are excluded. The former is about the middle of the range of expenditures and above the weighted mean for all OECD countries (11.6%).

Table 8.19: Social expenditure (a) by SOCX category, OECD countries, current prices, 2001 ($m)
	SOCX category			
Country (b)	Old age	Survivors	Incapacity-related	Family	Other	Total (c)	Total as %of GDP	
Austria	32,648	8,137	10,380	8,902	1,477	61,544	20.2	
Switzerland	33,644	4,445	12,246	3,738	1,801	55,874	19.6	
Sweden	29,468	1,978	18,429	9,328	1,997	61,200	19.1	
Germany	326,631	12,116	101,134	55,663	14,566	510,109	18.2	
Greece	31,590	2,145	4,461	4,552	1,535	44,284	17.8	
France	230,104	32,465	46,456	60,735	8,531	378,291	17.5	
Poland	45,599	11,362	29,685	5,077	1,212	92,934	17.4	
Belgium	32,273	9,861	12,130	8,602	1,533	64,399	17.3	
Denmark	17,384	23	8,630	7,933	2,199	36,169	17.3	
Norway	14,946	658	13,615	7,076	1,378	37,674	17.1	
Italy	221,989	51,057	41,624	19,301	702	334,674	17.0	
Finland	14,669	1,781	7,074	5,510	958	29,992	16.4	
Luxembourg	2,175	174	1,038	1,000	63	4,451	15.3	
United Kingdom	182,830	12,530	54,512	47,455	3,996	301,324	14.2	
Hungary	14,182	514	4,783	4,442	334	24,256	13.7	
Portugal	19,446	3,650	7,208	2,847	649	33,801	13.7	
Australia (d)	55,826	1,752	11,748	21,799	6,858	97,984	13.7	
Australia (e)	23,260	1,752	11,748	21,799	6,858	65,417	9.2	
Netherlands	39,156	4,176	29,611	6,993	3,847	83,784	13.6	
Iceland	606	63	468	284	48	1,469	13.3	
Czech Republic	13,607	1,870	6,108	3,243	1,255	26,084	12.8	
Slovak Republic	5,662	139	1,947	1,249	980	9,977	12.2	
Spain	95,390	6,565	27,198	5,770	1,721	136,643	11.9	
Japan	354,488	54,606	29,886	27,039	7,306	473,324	10.5	
New Zealand	5,272	121	3,130	2,417	100	11,039	9.9	
Canada	59,270	5,360	10,142	10,888	29,955	115,616	9.4	
Mexico	90,184	2,026	1,826	3,530	2,527	100,092	8.3	
United States	702,677	111,813	180,995	51,000	63,515	1,110,000	8.3	
Ireland	4,095	1,225	2,166	2,507	730	10,724	7.0	
Korea	12,273	2,049	6,076	1,599	4,750	26,748	2.7	
OECD total (b)	2,655,518	344,662	684,708	390,481	166,525	4,241,895	11.6	

(a) Includes public and mandatory private social expenditures.
(b) Excludes Turkey.
(c) Excludes health, active labour market programs, unemployment and housing.
(d) Including superannuation payments.
(e) Excluding superannuation payments.

Note: Expenditures converted to Australian dollar values using GDP purchasing power parities. Source: OECD SOCX database 2004.

8.6 Human Resources in Community Services

Human resources in community services comprise:
* people in paid employment in community services occupations that provide and support community services; and
* volunteers who contribute their time to community services organisations.

In addition to services provided by organisations, the equivalents of many welfare services (for instance emergency relief, or non-parental care for children or care for people who are ageing or have disabilities) are provided informally by networks of family members, friends and neighbours. While these networks are not part of the formal welfare system, consideration of human resources in community services is incomplete without discussion of carers, as they have shaped and continue to complement the more formal services.

There is a complex interplay within and between these groups (Figure 8.2). Consider, for example, the effects of an ageing population: on the one hand, the number of people exiting the paid workforce is likely to increase in years to come; and, on the other hand, the number of older people requiring assistance will increase. Together, these influences change the demand for new entrants into the aged care workforce.

Potential entrants into the paid community services workforce may come from the education system, migrants or the pool of former workers re-entering the paid workforce. Of those exiting the paid workforce, some may continue to contribute in the form of voluntary work with community services organisations, or may provide informal care to family members. The supply of labour for community services is affected by changes in the hours worked as well as by the number of workers.

Figure 8.2: Human resources in the community services supply 'pipeline'. - Figure omitted in this file.

This section reports the current status of the paid workforce using the most recent information from various sources, including reported shortages and entrants into the paid workforce. This is followed by a description of the unpaid workforce.

Paid Workforce

 Community Services Industries And Occupations

The community services industry, as defined by the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industry Classification, includes units that are mainly engaged in providing either child care or community care services (comprising accommodation for the aged, residential and non-residential services, and other community and community care services undefined). Community services industry workers are composed of two groups:
* those employed in community services occupations, based on the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, who provide services directly to clients (such as counsellors and aged care workers); and
* those who are employed in the community services industry to provide support and infrastructure (such as administrative staff and computer technicians).

Typically, workers in community services occupations who provide services directly to clients are employed in the community services industry; but a larger number of workers in such occupations are employed across a range of other industries, particularly the health, education and government administration and defence industries (see shaded box in Figure 8.3).

Figure 8.3: Relationship of community services occupations to community services and other industries, 2004. - Figure omitted in this file.

In 2004, workers in community services industries who were employed in community services occupations (i.e. providing direct care) comprised approximately two-thirds of the industry. The remaining one-third worked in other occupations providing managerial and infrastructure support for the delivery of care. Figure 8.3 illustrates how community service occupations and industries relate to one another.

According to the ABS Labour Force Survey, in 2004 there were approximately 243,000 people employed in community services industries in Australia, representing 2.5% of all employed persons across all industries. The number of persons employed in community services industries increased by 22.6%, between 1999 and 2004. This compares with a 10.5% increase across all industries. Within community services industries, the number employed in childcare services increased by 42.0% and in community care services increased by 10.2% (Table A8.1).

In 2004, employees in community services were predominantly female (81.0%) and nearly half worked part-time (45.8%). Other industries with a broadly similar profile include health services (77.3% female, 41.6% part time) and education (67.7% female, 34.5% part time; Table A8.1).

Box 8.2: The Use Of Different Data Sources

Because the Labour Force Survey is a sample survey, it has limited capacity for providing more detailed breakdown of community services occupations by industry. So the 2001 Census of Population and Housing data have been used to describe the distribution of community services occupations across industries. Census data also allow analyses of specific occupations; however, to align with the categories used in the Labour Force Survey, broader occupational categories from the Census have been used in this report. Consequently, some figures in this publication differ from those previously published (e.g. AIHW & ABS 2003) because of the inclusion of some specific occupational categories.

End of Box 8.2.

Data from the 2001 Census show that approximately 44.8% of people working in community services occupations were employed in community services industries. Within these industries, children's care workers was the largest occupational group (39.6%), followed by special care workers (27.5%), welfare and community workers (10.0%) and welfare associate professionals (8.9%). Across other industries, education was the second largest employer, employing a third (33.0%) of all community services occupations, followed by health (8.5%; Table 8.20).

The ABS Labour Force Survey estimated that between 1999 and 2004 there was a 23.4% increase in the number of persons employed in community services occupations, compared with an increase of 10.5% across all occupations. In 2004 the majority of workers were female (86.6%) and just over half (51.6%) worked part-time. This compares with 44.6% female and 28.4% part-time for all occupations. Children's care workers were predominantly female (96.0%) and were generally younger than other community service occupations, with three-quarters (75.3%) aged under 45 years compared with 59.0% of all community services workers; and just over half (51.2%) worked part-time. Overall, pre-primary school teachers were predominantly female (98.1%). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers were predominantly male (57.7%). Counsellors tended to be older (56.7% aged over 45) and tended to work full-time (35.6% part-time; Table A8.2).

Table 8.20: Persons employed in community services occupations, by industry, 2001
	 Community services industries	Other industries		
Occupation	Child care         services	Community care services	Total community services (a)	Health services	Gov. admin, and defence	Education	Other industries	Total all industries	
Child care coordinator	4,353	92	4,471	46	104	1,578	179	6,400	
Pre-primary school teacher	1,406	16	1,440	24	126	12,445	80	14,151	
Special education teacher (b)	24	241	286	82	215	10,955	137	11,701	
Social welfare professional nfd	14	318	367	200	162	86	108	930	
Social worker	119	2,679	3,195	3,052	1,588	202	438	8,542	
Welfare and community worker	893	9,208	11,678	3,552	4,869	1,081	2,407	23,730	
Counsellor (c)	18	3,611	3,838	2,009	792	3,176	924	10,804	
Welfare associate professional (d)	199	9,391	10,379	913	2,309	742	2,023	16,528	
Indigenous health worker	3	61	84	551	151	7	30	841	
Carer or aide nfd	115	1,963	2,241	1,088	337	158	527	4,700	
Education aide (e)	261	162	466	73	1,529	42,650	625	45,558	
Children's care worker(f)	44,933	1,072	46,274	575	785	11,587	6,468	67,299	
Special care worker (g)	361	30,556	32,148	10,062	2,287	1,383	2,895	49,831	
Total	52,699	59,370	116,867	22,227	15,254	86,050	16,841	261,015	

(a) Includes community services industries, undefined.
(b) Includes special needs teacher, teacher of the hearing impaired, teacher of the sight impaired, and special education teachers nec.
(c) Includes rehabilitation counsellor, drug and alcohol counsellor, family counsellor, careers counsellor, student counselor, and counsellors nec.
(d) Includes parole or probation officer, youth worker, residential care officer, disabilities services officer, and family support worker.
(e) Includes preschool aide, integration aide, teacher's aide, and Indigenous education worker.
(f) Includes child care worker, family day care worker, and nanny.
(g) Includes hostel parent, child or youth residential care assistant, refuge worker, aged or disabled person carer, and therapy aide.

Note: Totals will differ from those published in previous reports because of the use of broader occupational categories. Source: AIHW & ABS 2003.

While there was an increase in the number of workers in community services occupations, changes in the proportion working part-time need to be taken into account when ascertaining whether there was any change in the supply of community services between 1999 and 2004. Also, changes in the size of the population may affect the level of supply. To account for these factors, the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of workers per 100,000 population is used as a measure of supply. In 2004, there were approximately
1,362 FTE workers per 100,000 population, up from 1,156 in 1999, a 17.8% increase in the rate of supply. In comparison, the total supply of labour in the Australian workforce increased from 46,949 FTE per 100,000 population in 1999 to 48,722 in 2004, a 3.8% increase in supply (Table A8.2).

Average Weekly Earnings

Employed community services workers are relatively low-paid. The biennial ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours provides weekly earnings for various categories of employees by occupation and industry.

According to the 2004 survey, the average total weekly earnings of full-time non-managerial employees working in each of the community services occupations was lower than that for all occupations ($916 per week). Social workers and counsellors were paid the highest average total weekly earnings ($909.89 and $905.95, respectively). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers and children's care workers were the lowest paid ($547.76 and $570.09, respectively; Table 8.21).

Table 8.21: Average weekly earnings and hours paid for full-time non-managerial adults, selected community services occupations, 2004
Occupation(a)	Average weekly earnings (b)	Average hours paid for (c)	
Social worker	$909.89	37.5	
Welfare and community worker	$877.54	37.1	
Counsellor	$905.95	37.2	
Social welfare professional	$885.27	37.4	
Pre-primary school teacher	$846.87	37.4	
Special education teacher	$824.51	37.3	
Welfare associate professional	$842.13	38.3	
Aboriginal and Torres Strait			
Islander health worker	$547.76	36.6	
Education aide	$679.21	36.5	
Children's care worker	$570.09	38.2	
Special care worker	$692.42	38.1	
Carer and aide	$650.29	37.8	
Total all occupations	$915.66	39.5	

(a) Excludes child care coordinator.
(b) Average total earnings for full-time non-managerial adults. Includes ordinary time and overtime earnings.
(c) Average total hours paid for. Includes ordinary time and overtime hours. Source: ABS 2005a.

Earnings of workers in these community services occupations also varied depending on the industry in which they worked. In 2004, the average total weekly earnings of full-time non-managerial employees working in community services occupations and whose jobs were in the health and community services industry ($725.20) were lower than that for all industries ($757 per week). Within the health and community services industry, workers in these occupations within the health sector earned more per week, on average ($760), than their colleagues within the community services sector ($701.90 per week; Table 8.22).

Table 8.22: Average weekly earnings and hours paid for full-time non-managerial adults employed in selected community services occupations, selected industries, 2004
Industry	Average weekly earnings (a)	Average hours paid for (b)	
Health and community services	725.20	38.2	
Health services	760.00	37.9	
Community services	701.90	38.4	
Education	752.50	36.9	
Government and administration	903.60	37.2	
Other industries	784.30	37.2	
Total all industries	757.00	37.7	

(a) Average total earnings for full-time non-managerial adults. Includes ordinary time and overtime earnings.
(b) Average total hours paid for. Includes ordinary time and overtime hours.

Source: ABS 2005a.

Workforce Shortages

Information on workforce shortages in various community services occupations was obtained from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), which monitors occupational labour markets in Australia and assesses whether skill shortages exist. This is done through consultation with employers, industry, employer and employee organisations, and education and training providers. DEWR does not quantify the skill shortage of the occupations that it identifies are in shortage.

In addition to the general shortages shown in Table 8.23, DEWR reported that shortages of child care coordinators in New South Wales were mainly for degree-qualified coordinators in long day care centres, while in Victoria, shortages were for all qualified child care coordinators. In Western Australia, shortages were greatest in some regional and outer metropolitan areas.

Table 8.23: Shortages in community services occupations, states and territories, March 2004
Client group/occupation	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia	
Child care coordinator	M, R-D	S	S	R	D	S	*	D	N	
Child care worker	M, R-D	S	S	S	S	S	*	D	N	
Social workers	R	R-D	*	*	*	R	*	R-D	*	
Aged care registered nurse	S	S	S	S	S	S	*	S	N	
Community nursing	S		S	S	S	S	*	S	N	
Enrolled nurses	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	N	

Note: N = national shortage, S = state-wide shortage, D = recruitment difficulties, M = shortage in metropolitan areas, R-D = recruitment difficulties in regional areas, R = shortage in regional areas, * = no shortage assessed.

Source: DEWR national and state skills shortage lists.

For child care workers, shortages were particularly evident in long day care centres in New South Wales, while in Victoria shortages were again for all qualified child care workers. Shortages of registered community nurses and aged care nurses in Tasmania were particularly apparent for positions outside Hobart. Finally, recruitment difficulties for social workers in Victoria were restricted to some regional areas and specialist areas such as aged care and trauma counselling.

Box 8.3: National Skills Shortages

DEWR defines skills shortages as follows:

'Skills shortages exist when employers are unable to fill, or have considerable difficulty in filling vacancies for an occupation, or specialised skill needs within that occupation, at current levels of remuneration and conditions of employment, and reasonably accessible location. Shortages are typically for specialised and experienced workers, and can coexist with relatively high unemployment overall or in the occupation. An occupation may be assessed in shortage even though not all specialisations may be in shortage. Occupations may be in shortage in particular geographical areas and not in others.' <http:// www. workplace.gov. au/Workplace>.

The skills shortages list may not be complete in that occupations/skills where the number employed is very small may not be identified in the consultations with industry bodies and other stakeholders. In addition, occupations that require only a very limited period of training and/or experience to acquire (e.g. disability carers) are not included in the list.

Occupational categories are reported using the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations. Therefore, only occupations that are related to community services, defined previously, have been included in this report. The categories of aged care and community nurses have also been included in this section because they are generally employed in community services industries. While a large proportion of enrolled nurses work in aged care and mental health facilities, a detailed breakdown of the different subspecialties is not available.

End of Box 8.3.

National shortages were reported for child care workers and coordinators, and for aged care and community nurses. The next section provides more detailed information about these two groups of workers.

Child Care Workers

This section focuses on child care workers who work predominantly in direct contact with children. More detailed information on child care and child care services is available in Chapter 3.

Information on child care workers is available from the Census of Child Care Services conducted by the Department of Family and Community Services. This census collects information about service operation and characteristics of children, parents and staff, from child care services that receive Australian Government funding. According to the 2004 census there were 67,658 people employed and 2,371 unpaid workers in positions where the majority of their work was spent in direct contact with children (Table 8.24). Another 12,864 were engaged as caregivers in family day care and in-home care services. Staff involved in direct contact with children worked across a range of services, including private long day care services (41.4%), vacation care services (17.5%), community-based day care (16.5%), and outside school hours care services (16.5%). Community-based and private day care centres had the highest proportion of full-time workers (45.1% and 43.2%, respectively), while the majority of those employed in vacation care and outside school hours services were paid on a casual basis (80.1% and 70.4%, respectively).

Of caregivers engaged in family day care, two-thirds (66.7%) worked full-time (on average 46.4 hours per week) compared with one-third (33.8%) of caregivers in in-home schemes (on average 27.5 hours in the reference week).

Table 8.24: Direct contact staff and caregivers working in child care services (a): hours worked and employment status, 2004
	Paid staff	Unpaid staff	
	Working full-time (%)	Working casual (%)	Average hours worked	Total paid staff	Average hours worked	Total unpaid staff	
Direct contact staff	
Private centres	43.2	26.7	29.9	28,038	14.3	881	
Community-based centres	45.1	27.5	28.0	11,135	12.4	445	
Outside school hours care services	4.8	70.4	12.3	11,156	7.9	266	
Vacation care services	6.2	80.1	23.3	11,840	20.0	488	
Other services	31.8	34.3	25.3	1,222	10.7	102	
Total	30.9	43.5	25.3	67,658	14.3	2,371	
Caregivers	
Family day care schemes	66.7	 - 	46.4	12,018	. .	. .	
In-home care schemes	33.8	3.8	27.5	846	. .	. .	
Total	64.5	0.3	45.7	12,864	. .	. .	

(a) Excludes administrative and coordination staff.

Source: FACS, 2004 Census of child care services, unpublished.

Aged Care, Disability and Community Nursing Workers

The nursing labour force represents a major component of community services occupations. The main areas of nursing required in community service provision are those related to ageing and disability nursing.

Between 1999 and 2003 there was a slight increase (3.6%) in the total number of employed clinical nurses. Against this, there was a 12.0% decrease in the number of clinical nurses working in aged care, a 24.4% increase in community/domiciliary care and minimal change in developmental disability/rehabilitation. Although aged care nurse numbers decreased, those working increased their hours, on average, by 2.6 hours per week. The net effect of this increase was a decrease in supply, from 27,626 FTE to 26,578 FTE nurses. In contrast, there were increases in community/domiciliary and developmental disability/rehabilitation nursing, from 7,863 to 9,881 FTE and from 6,549 to 6,784 FTE, respectively (Table 8.25).

The use of FTE nurse numbers masks the effects of changes in the population. For example, while the FTE nurse numbers in aged care increased between 2001 and 2003, changes in the size of the population resulted in a stable level of supply at 134 FTE nurses per 100,000 population in those two years. Between 1999 and 2003, the supply of nursing increased from 42 to 50 FTE nurses per 100,000 population for community/ domiciliary nursing and remained relatively stable for disability/ rehabilitation, where it decreased from 35 to 34 FTE per 100,000 population.

Table 8.25: Clinical nurses (a) employed in selected areas of nursing: type of nurse, 1999 to 2003
Clinical area	1999	2001	2003	Change 1997-2003
(%)	
Aged care nursing	
Number of clinical nurses	34,781	32,212	30,600	-12.0	
Average hours	27.8	28.2	30.4	. .	
FTE nurses (b)	27,626	25,954	26,578	. .	
Community/district/domiciliary nursing	
Number of clinical nurses	9,235	8,895	11,490	24.4	
Average hours	29.8	29.6	30.1	. .	
FTE nurses (b)	7,863	7,522	9,881	. .	
Developmental disability/rehabilitation nursing	
Number of clinical nurses	7,163	7,383	7,261	1.4	
Average hours	32.0	32.0	32.7	. .	
FTE nurses (b)	6,549	6,751	6,784	. .	
All employed clinical nurses	
Number of clinical nurses	200,219	201,754	207,451	3.6	
Average hours	30.2	30.3	31.9	. .	
FTE nurses (b)	172,760	174,661	189,077	. .	
Total population	18,925,855	19,413,240	19,872,646	5.0	

(a) Comprises nurse clinicians and clinical nurse managers only. Includes both registered and enrolled nurses.
(b) Full-time equivalent based on a standard 35-hour week. Source: AIHW, Nursing labour force survey 1999 to 2003.

Potential Entrants Into the Paid Workforce: Students

There are three main sources of additional workers to maintain and/or increase the paid workforce. These are: re-entry into the paid workforce from extended leave or retirement; migration of skilled labour from other countries; and the education system, more specifically, vocational or higher educational institutions. The main source is the education system. Some information on higher education course completions is available from the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). Because of changes in the classification of courses, however, comparisons over time cannot be made prior to 2001.

Between 2001 and 2003 the number of students completing courses related to community services occupations increased from 4,915 to 5,529, a 12.5% increase. Of those students, approximately three-quarters (74.7%) completed undergraduate degrees. Early childhood teacher education had the highest proportion of undergraduate completions (92.5%) while counselling was predominantly a postgraduate degree (21.1%). As with the employed labour force, students in community services occupations were predominantly female, ranging from 71.6% in human welfare studies and services nec to 97.8% in early childhood teacher education (Table 8.26).

Table 8.26: Australian citizens/permanent residents completing selected community services-related higher education courses, sex and course level, 2001 and 2003
	2001	2003	
Field of education	Number	% female	% undergraduate	Number	% female	% undergraduate	
Teacher ed.: Early childhood	1,615	97.9	90.6	1,986	97.8	92.5	
Teacher ed.: Special education	503	90.5	29.4	607	86.8	38.4	
Human welfare studies and services	481	80.9	67.8	437	87.0	78.3	
Social work	1,330	86.7	89.9	1,363	86.0	87.7	
Children's services	25	96.0	96.0	21	90.5	85.7	
Care for the aged	45	93.3	33.3	51	90.2	47.1	
Care for the disabled	73	87.7	91.8	97	88.7	89.7	
Counselling	482	75.5	20.3	629	79.3	21.1	
Welfare studies	231	83.5	85.7	153	84.3	82.4	
Human welfare studies and services, nec	45	68.9	35.6	102	71.6	49.0	
Total	4,915	88.8	74.0	5,529	89.4	74.7	

Note: Time series is limited because of changes in the field of education classifications used by DEST.

Source: AIHW analyses of DEST data.

In addition to higher education courses, students may enter community services occupations by completing vocational education courses. Identification of the type of course is more difficult with such courses due to their nature. For example, some courses may consist of a single module whereas others contain a number of modules. Consequently, reliable data on completions is available only at the broad course level.

In 2003 the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) reported that 1,663 students completed courses in teacher education, of whom 79.4% were female. In comparison, 23,562 students completed courses in human welfare studies and services, of whom 88.3% were female (Table 8.27).

Table 8.27: Vocational course completions for selected community services-related courses by sex, 2002 and 2003
	2002	2003	
	Number	% female	Number	% female	
Teacher education Human welfare studies and services	1,483 22,146	64.2 88.9	1,663 23,562	79.4 88.3	

Source: NCVER unpublished data.

Unpaid Workforce

Volunteers

According to the 2002 General Social Survey conducted by the ABS, approximately one-third (34.4%) of all persons aged 18 years and over had volunteered some of their time, skills or services to various types of organisations or groups within the 12 months prior to the survey. The rate of volunteering differed across age groups, ranging from 42.0% of those in the 35-44 age group to 23.6% of those aged 75 years and over. Nearly a third of all volunteers assisted welfare and community services organisations, accounting for 11.2% of all persons aged 18 years and over. The rate of voluntary work ranged from 6.9% in the 25-34 age group to 18.1% in the 65-74 age group (Table 8.28).

Table 8.28: Persons aged 18 years and over participating in volunteer work by age group, 2002
	Age group (years)	
	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65-74	75+	All persons	
Volunteered in welfare/community (%)	7.9	6.9	10.0	12. 1	16.5	18.1	12.4	11.2	
All persons volunteering (%)	28.1	28.8	42.0	39.2	38.0	32.0	23.6	34.4	
Total persons aged 18 or more ('000)	1,905	2,907	2,933	2,645	1,884	1,282	948	14,503	

Source: ABS 2003b.

Carers

Complementary to the formal provision of services is the informal network of family members, friends and neighbours caring for older people or people with a disability.

The ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers provides some information on carers of people with a disability or the aged. The ABS defines a carer as:

"A person of any age who provides any informal assistance, in terms of help or supervision, to persons with disabilities or long-term conditions, or older persons ... This assistance has to be ongoing, or likely to be ongoing, for at least six months. (ABS 2003:71)"

In 2003, the survey revealed that there were approximately 2.6 million people who were carers, representing approximately 13.0% of people living in households. Just under half (45.9%) of all carers were male. The proportion of people who were carers ranged from 3.6% in the under-18 age group to 21.8% in the 55-64 age group (Figure 8.4; ABS 2004).

Carers aged 75 years and over were more likely to be primary carers, consistent with the likelihood that the more able-bodied partners of retired couples tend to care for partners with a disability.

Primary carers represented 18.6% of all carers and were predominantly female (71.3%). Just under half (45.4%) were in the 45-64 age group and almost a quarter (23.9%) were aged 65 years and over (ABS 2004). Over a third (40.5%) of primary carers in 2003 spent up to 20 hours per week in the caring role, of whom 42.0% cared for persons who lived in other households. Of those who spent 40 hours or more in the caring role, the majority (70.2%) cared for persons with profound or severe core activity limitations living in the same household (Table 8.29).

The main implication for the 39.7% of primary carers spending 40 or more hours per week in the caring role is their limited opportunity for employment. In 2003 over a third (39.0%) of primary carers aged between 15 and 64 years were in the labour force (of whom only 45.7% worked full-time), compared with 69.3% for the total labour force. Consistent with this, over half (55.3%) of all primary carers relied on a government pension or allowance as the primary source of income, compared with around a quarter (26.2%) for the population aged 15 years and over (Table 8.30).

Figure 8.4: Age-specific rates of carers, by type and age of carer, 2003. - Figure omitted in this file.

Table 8.29: Time spent by primary carers aged 15 years and over in their caring role, by selected characteristics of the main care recipient, 2003
 
Characteristic of main recipient of care	Average current weekly hours spent in caring role	
	Less than 20 hours	20-39     hours 	40 hours or more    	Not stated	Total	
	Proportion (%)	
Main recipient of care lives in the same household as the primary carer and is:						
Aged less than 15 years	5.8	16.6	19.9	*19.5	14.0	
Aged 15 and over, with a profound or severe core activity limitation and can cope on his/her own for:	
* a few days	22.2	16.9	*5.0	*17.7	14.5	
* up to one day	8.5	16.4	12.0	*11.0	11.5	
* a few hours or less	10.8	26.6	53.1	*27.2	30.6	
* Subtotal	41.7	59.8	70.2	55.9	56.6	
Aged 15 years with characteristics other than above	10.5	*7.1	*4.3	*11.7	7.7	
Main recipient of care lives in a different household to the primary carer	42.0	16.5	*5.6	*12.9	21.8	
All primary carers aged 15 years and over	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
	Number ('000)	
All primary carers aged 15 years and over	178.3	87.3	175.0	34.2	474.6	

Source: ABS 2004.

Table 8.30: Carers aged 15 years and over living in households, type of carer by labour force status and income, 2003
	Primary carer	Not a primary carer	Total carers	Not a carer	Total	
Labour force status	
Employed full-time (%)	45.7	64.2	61.7	70.5	69.3	
Total employed ('000)	179.5	1,118.9	1,298.4	8,543.9	9,842.2	
Participation rate(a) (%)	39.0	60.2	56.1	67.9	66.1	
Income	
Principal source Government pension or allowance (%)	55.3	35.0	39.0	23.9	26.2	
Total ('000)	474.6	1,980.8	2,455.4	13,272.8	15,728.2	

(a) In the ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, participation rate is defined as the number of persons in the labour force expressed as a proportion of the population aged between 15 and 64.

Source: ABS 2004.

Box 8.4: Data Development Relating To The Community Services Workforce

The five-yearly ABS Census of Population and Housing and monthly Labour Force Survey are the only data sources that provide information on the full range of community services occupations and industries. The ABS Community Services Survey provides information on businesses or organisations in the sector, including finances, characteristics of employment and volunteers. While these sources are invaluable, they all have limitations. The Census, which is the primary source of data for this sector and the best source for geographical coverage, is not designed to keep up with short-term changes, and the information provided is not detailed. The Labour Force Survey is a sample survey, and cross-tabulations for this diverse sector are subject to sampling error. The Community Services Survey is conducted irregularly, and is restricted to those workers employed in the Community services industries.

In addition, the ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours is a useful source of information on pay and hours worked for all employees, by industry.

To supplement these sources, a number of other collections have been developed, or are under development, to provide more detailed information on particular groups of community services workers.

In 2002, the AIHW conducted the first pilot test of the Children's Services National Minimum Data Set, which covers services defined as child care and preschools receiving government funding. A second pilot test, which included 50 children's services agencies, was conducted in 2004. The development stages for this collection concluded in mid-2005. It is expected that this will become a yearly collection providing data on the characteristics of the agencies, the children in their care and their employees.

The Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services has conducted the Census of Child Care Services every two years since 1986. It provides staff-related demographic and work characteristics. The most recent census in 2002 covered ten service types funded through Australian Government Child Care Support.

The CSMAC Structural Issues in the Workforce Sub-Committee undertook a preliminary workforce data collection for the community services (government) workforce in 2004. This included the workforce sub-sectors of child protection, juvenile justice, disability, child care and general community services and was focused on service delivery employees. The data were sourced via an administrative by-product collection from the state and territory human resource systems, and provided information on selected characteristics of employees and their employment circumstances. The Community and Disability Services Ministers' Council has approved funding for 2005-06 for a project to profile the community services workforce, including government and non-government sectors.

The Commonwealth-State/Territory Disability Agreement (CSTDA) National Minimum Data Set collection, for which the AIHW is the custodian, was implemented in 2002. This is an annual service-based administrative collection that includes data items on hours worked by paid and unpaid staff in agencies receiving government funding under the CSTDA and providing services for disabled people.

The Department of Health and Ageing conducted the National Aged Care Workforce Census and Survey in 2003, which supplied information on the workforce in residential aged care facilities and information about the facilities.

End of Box 8.4.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 1997. Child care Australia, March 1996. Cat. no. 4402.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 1999. Child care Australia, June 1999. Cat. no. 4402.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 1999. How Australians use their time, 1997. Cat. no. 4152.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2003a. Child care Australia, June 2002. Cat. no. 4402.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2003b. General social survey, summary results, Australia 2002. Cat. no. 4159.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2004. Disability, ageing and carers, Australia, 2003. Cat. no. 4430.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2005a. Employee earnings and hours, May 2004. Cat. no. 6306.0. Canberra: ABS.

ABS 2005b. Labour force Australia. Cat. no. 6291.0. Canberra: ABS.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2005.Welfare expenditure Australia 2002-03. Cat. no. HWE 31. Canberra: AIHW. (Health and Welfare Expenditure Series no. 24)

AIHW & ABS 2003. Health and community services labour force 2001. AIHW cat. no. HWL 27 and ABS cat. no. 8936.0. Canberra: AIHW (National Health Labour Force Series no. 26).

DHAC (Department of Health and Aged Care) 1999. Annual report 1998-99. Canberra: DHAC. DHAC 2000. Annual report 1999-2000. Canberra: DHAC.

DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2001. Annual report 2000-01. Canberra: DoHA. DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2002. Annual report 2001-02. Canberra: DoHA. DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2003. Annual report 2002-03. Canberra: DoHA.

FACS (Department of Family and Community Services) 1999. Annual report 1998-99. Canberra: AGPS.

FACS 2000. Annual report 1999-00. Canberra: AGPS. 
FACS 2001. Annual report 2000-01. Canberra: AGPS. 
FACS 2002. Annual report 2001-02. Canberra: AGPS. 
FACS 2003. Annual report 2002-03. Canberra: AGPS. 
FACS 2004. Annual report 2003-04. Canberra: AGPS.
PC (Productivity Commission) 2004. Report on government services 2004. Canberra: PC.

9 Data environment

Community services and housing assistance information relates to a broad array of services, provided to a widely ranging group of clients and delivered by a complex system of government and non-government organisations. As a consequence, the development of high-quality data which is consistently defined and collected across both programs and jurisdictions is a challenging and multi-faceted task.

Community services are provided to individuals and families of widely differing ages and in widely differing social and economic circumstances. They protect and support vulnerable individuals and families at key stages of their lives. Community services also contribute to the development of community infrastructure and networks that in turn promote the social, emotional, physical, psychological and economic well-being of individuals and families.

This chapter describes the national infrastructure supporting the development of nationally consistent community services and housing assistance data and highlights recent changes and developments in national information on welfare services and assistance.

9.1 The National Information Infrastructure

Information agreements provide the structure and processes needed to support the national statistical effort in both welfare and health statistical work. These agreements are signed by the relevant government departments in all jurisdictions, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the AIHW. Three such agreements are currently in operation in the welfare sector:
* the National Community Services Information Agreement (NCSIA; AIHW 2005a), renewed for a further 5 years in 2004;
* the National Housing Data Agreement (NHDA; AIHW 2000a), renewed for a further 5 years in 2003; and
* the Agreement on National Indigenous Housing Information (ANIHI; AIHW 2000b), renewed in 2003.

A similar agreement in the health sector was renewed in 2004 (AIHW 2005b).

Under each of these agreements, information management groups, data committees and working groups are established to promote the development, collection and use of nationally consistent statistics. In addition, within program areas, groups of administrators support the development of nationally consistent data collections across jurisdictional boundaries. Such groups include the National Disability Administrators, Home and Community Care Officials, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Coordination and Development Committee and the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators. Under the new NCSIA - negotiated in 2004 - each of these groups has become a signatory to a Schedule to the Agreement as indication of their commitment both to the principles of the NCSIA and to participating in achieving its objectives.

The goal pursued within the context of these national arrangements (for more quality and consistency in national statistics) is supported by a national metadata infrastructure for the development, processing, management and dissemination of data standards. This infrastructure has been developed and maintained by the AIHW since 1997. It has comprised the National Data Dictionaries and the Knowledgebase which has now been redeveloped and is replaced by METeOR, the Institute's new metadata online registry which is available at <www.meteor.gov.au>.

METeOR was launched in mid-2005 as Australia's repository for national data standards for the health, community services and housing assistance sectors. It will facilitate the work of the national community services and housing information management committees in promoting greater consistency and comparability across community services and housing assistance data. It also fulfills the same role for health data and contributes to greater consistency of data across the health, housing and community services sectors. Activities to date have involved the re-engineering of existing national standards from the original metadata registry (the Knowledgebase) into a format consistent with recent international standards for metadata registries.

National Community Services Information Management

The development and management of the NCSIA and related structures and processes is the responsibility of the National Community Services Information Management Group (NCSIMG) which is a subcommittee of the Community Services Ministers' Advisory Council. Membership of the Management Group comprises representatives of signatories to the NCSIA and the groups of administrators who signed Schedules to the Agreement. The Advisory Council appoints one of its members as Chair of NCSIMG.

NCSIMG has established the National Community Services Data Committee (NCSDC), sector-specific working groups and ad hoc project groups to assist in its work. The NCSDC and ad hoc project groups undertake NCSIMG projects that cut across community services sub-sectors. The NCSDC also has oversight of the National Community Services Data Dictionary.

The NCSIMG and its working groups are responsible for an extensive work program of data development across the community services sector. The NCSDC Communication Strategy, which aims to promote the benefits of nationally consistent data standards within the sector, was endorsed. Specific plans have been developed in consultation with several jurisdictions and non-government organisations to implement the strategy. NCSIMG, principally through the activities of the Data Committee, has also been actively involved in the development of METeOR.

Since 1999, national community service information development has been guided by the priorities set down in the National Community Services Information Development Plan (AIHW 1999). This first Plan was developed by NCSIMG and approved by CSMAC. The program of work priorities identified in the initial plan has been completed. During 2005 the NCSIMG developed a draft National Community Services Information Strategic Plan to guide its work program over the next 5 years.

The draft plan was the subject of extensive consultation with both government and non-government sectors. The final version is scheduled for release in December 2005 (AIHW forthcoming). The strategic plan outlines key priorities under the following three domains:
* maintaining and strengthening national data standards infrastructure to support information activities across the community services sector;
* improving the scope and quality of sector-specific data and information for reporting and monitoring within program areas; and
* developing cross-sectoral data that crosses program boundaries, and recognises the growing need for person-centred rather than program-centred information.

National Housing Information Management

The 2003 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) continued the arrangement established in 1999 to include a subsidiary NHDA. The agreement is managed by the National Housing Data Agreement Management Group which includes representatives of all jurisdictions, the AIHW and the ABS. The 2003 CSHA also strengthened existing arrangements to resource national data development work in Indigenous housing assistance, continuing the ANIHI. The ANIHI is managed by the National Indigenous Housing Information Implementation Committee. This approach provides a commitment to the development and provision of nationally consistent data and continues, for the duration of the current CSHA, the partnership between the Housing Ministers' Advisory Council and the AIHW to resource national data development work.

As part of the agreements around the 2003 CSHA, a joint review was undertaken of both the NHDA and the ANIHI. The extensive review process reported back to the Advisory Council in August 2004; the recommendation was that both agreements be retained for the duration of the 2003 CSHA. Some modifications were, however, introduced.

Whereas formerly the National Housing Data Development Committee was a subcommittee of the Management Group, from August 2004 the committee was tasked with supporting the work of both the Management Group and Implementation Committee. This joint approach ensures shared expertise across the full range of data development and reporting. The development of common approaches across the CSHA and related programs to defining and measuring need, alignment of national reporting requirements and the use of common standards should be further supported under this arrangement. This new working relationship also recognises that housing assistance to Indigenous Australians is a key component of the 2003 CSHA.

Also as a result of the review, the Management Group now reports to the Advisory Council through the Advisory Council's Policy and Research Working Group, whereas under the 1999 CSHA it had reported directly to the Advisory Council. This change brings a greater interaction between the data and the policy and research agendas of housing ministers. The Implementation Committee reports to the Advisory Council through the Standing Committee on Indigenous Housing.

The NHDA identifies three major work areas comprising development of national minimum data sets, national performance indicators and national data definitions and standards. The work program also meets the national CSHA performance reporting requirements for the Council of Australian Governments' Review of Government Services. The work program for Indigenous housing data development work supports the Standing Committee's national reporting framework. The major component of the work program for Indigenous housing data development is improving the data for the National Reporting Framework for Indigenous Housing. The framework is a set of 37 performance indicators used to monitor changes in housing conditions for Indigenous Australians. The focus of data development work will be on improving the quality of data reported for the Indigenous community housing sector and on developing new measures of dwelling condition.

National Indigenous Information Development

Improving the quality and quantity of information available on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within community services and housing assistance data collections continues to be an area where national statistical agencies, particularly the ABS and the Institute, take an active role across all their collections. Efforts to improve Indigenous statistics in the community services and housing areas are driven by the information governance bodies and articulated through the national information plans and agreements described above.

A number of national statistical surveys and reports describing the information available on Indigenous Australians in the community services and housing assistance areas are conducted or produced regularly. Most recently these include: the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (ABS 2004); the biennial report The Health and Welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (ABS & AIHW 2005); the reports on Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2005 (SCRGSP 2005), Indigenous housing indicators 2003-04 (AIHW 2005c) and State Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing for 2003-04 (AIHW 2005d).

In addition, an assessment of the quality of Indigenous identification in a number of national community services data collections - covering disability services, child protection, aged care and homelessness collections - has been undertaken (AIHW 2004a). The results will assist in furthering the quality of Indigenous identification for those specific national collections.

In the area of juvenile justice, where a new NMDS has been implemented, the ABS standard question on Indigenous status is one of the items collected. The recently agreed Children's Services National Minimum Data Set also includes data items on the Indigenous status of both children and workers which matches the standard question recommended by the ABS.

In mainstream housing data collections, a number of jurisdictions have introduced processes to improve the quality of their Indigenous identification and the number of new households in public housing with 'unknown' Indigenous status is much lower than for all households.

National Data Dictionaries

National Community Services Data Dictionary

The National Community Services Data Dictionary is the reference on agreed data definitions and information standards of relevance to the community services sector. In essence, the aim is to provide a 'common language' for the various agencies and governments involved in community services.

Version 3 of the dictionary (NCSDC 2004) contains the first set of data definitions common to both this dictionary and the National Health Data Dictionary (AIHW 2004b). It also includes refinement of existing items, in particular for consistency with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO 2001) and to take account of a review by the ABS on conformity with ABS standards used for population and household surveys. Subsequent versions of the dictionary will be produced electronically using METeOR.

Further work will continue to align data definitions between the community services, health and housing sectors where possible and desirable, and to improve access to national data standards for use in national data collections and national minimum data sets.

The dictionary is an initiative under the NCSIA, and all signatories to the agreement have agreed to use the dictionary as the authoritative source of information about endorsed metadata for use in data collections in the community services field. The data standards outlined in the dictionary are compiled by the NCSDC under the auspices of the NCSIMG.

National Housing Assistance Data Dictionary

The National Housing Assistance Data Dictionary is part of the national data infrastructure for housing assistance information development. It provides the basis for consistent national data and is designed to make data collection activities more efficient by providing standards for core data items, and more effective by ensuring that information to be collected is appropriate for its purpose. The dictionary is also designed to be compatible with national data dictionaries in other relevant sectors.

Version 3 of the dictionary (AIHW forthcoming) is scheduled for release in late 2005. It will incorporate new data items related to Indigenous housing and community housing and the specification of performance indicators under the 2003 CSHA National Performance Indicator Framework. In addition, it will contain updated data standards and data items from the previous two versions, which includes the alignment of a number of data definitions with the health and community services sectors.

The dictionary is compiled under the direction of the National Housing Data Development Committee, operating under the auspices of both the Management Group and Implementation Committee. The dictionary forms the basis for six national collections relating to the CSHA, and is used to guide other related collections and initiatives such as the National Social Housing Surveys conducted at the direction of the National Housing Advisory Council and managed by the AIHW.

9.2 Sector-specific and Cross-Cutting Data Development Activities

Child, Youth and Family Services

Since 2003, significant data development work has been undertaken in the area of child, youth and family services, contributing substantially to national welfare information infrastructure. These activities relate to child protection, children's services and juvenile justice.

The AIHW, working in conjunction with the National Child Protection and Support Services subcommittee of NCSIMG has developed and agreed a draft national minimum data set for the National Child Protection Data Collection. This developmental work shifts the collection to a unit record base, and will be pilot tested early in 2006. The subsequent collection, scheduled for implementation from 1 July 2006, will provide a much richer data source with substantially improved analytic potential, enabling improved national reporting on what is happening to children in the child protection system.

The development phase (including extensive consultations and pilot testing) of the Children's Services National Minimum Data Set (CS NMDS) for child care and preschool services is now complete (AIHW 2004c). This project was undertaken by the AIHW at the request of NCSIMG, under the direction of the Children's Services Data Working Group (a subcommittee of NCSIMG). Full pilot testing of all data items was completed in September 2004, and the final report on the development of the CS NMDS and the data dictionary are scheduled for release in late 2005. NCSIMG has approved the CS NMDS and commenced discussions about implementation processes and associated funding requirements.

At the request of the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, the AIHW has developed, tested and implemented a Juvenile Justice National Minimum Data Set. This work was undertaken under the auspices of these administrators, and with advice and direction from the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (a subcommittee of the Administrators). The Juvenile Justice NMDS was developed in accordance with the principles set down under the NCSIA, and reviewed and approved by the NCSDC and the NCSIMG (AIHW 2004d). The new collection was successfully implemented by jurisdictions in 2004-05, and a national database established at the AIHW covering 4 years of data, from 2000-01 to 2003-04. The first report is scheduled for release in late 2005 (AIHW forthcoming). This database provides, for the first time, statistical information on all young people under juvenile justice supervision, including not only those on detention but also those under community-based supervision.

Services for People Experiencing Homelessness

The Supported Accommodation and Assistance Program (SAAP) national data collection was redeveloped, along with the appropriate software updates, and the new 'core data set' implemented on time from 1 July 2005.

Major changes to the data collection that provides an evidence base for SAAP, the major program that supports homeless people, were introduced from 1 July 2005. A review of the SAAP national data collection (Gleeson & Wilkins 2000) produced a SAAP Information Management Plan (Gleeson et al 2000) which recommended a paradigm shift from data collection to management of information for SAAP service providers. A key characteristic of the plan was to develop a 'core data set' for SAAP.

After extensive consultation with all data collection stakeholders and pilot testing of paper and electronic data collection instruments, a new pared down data set was signed off by the SAAP Coordination and Development Committee. It constitutes a net reduction of six questions (from 29 to 23 items). The questions align more closely with standard data elements collected in other community services data collections and, significantly, the SAAP statistical linkage key will be changed to agree with the linkage key used in other community services data collections such as those relating to HACC and the Commonwealth/State/Territory Disability Agreement. The latter change will provide the potential, once acceptable linkage protocols are developed, to analyse use by homeless clients of other community services over time.

Disability and Disability Services

A disability question for the 2006 Census has been developed by the ABS in consultation with relevant organisations including the AIHW. The collection of basic disability data in the Census will improve data pertaining to relatively small geographic areas, and will support service planning. Disability in relatively small population subgroups will be more accurately described. Information on the experience of people with disability in key areas such as housing and employment will be more comparable with that of the overall population.

With the aim of improving the quality and consistency of national disability data, the AIHW (as the Australian Collaborating Centre for the WHO Family of International Classifications) is continuing to work on the implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. National metadata standards are included in METeOR. A related data capture tool to assist users to apply the classification has been developed - a Functioning and Related Health Outcomes Module - that:
* can be used to describe health status, outcomes of health interventions, and the need for assistance in areas of human functioning; and
* enable the efficient and effective storage and transmission of data on human functioning in a wide range of human service systems.

The National Minimum Data Set for services funded and provided under the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, redeveloped by National Disability Administrators in collaboration with the AIHW, produced the first full year of data for 2003-04. Data from the collection, including new information on informal carers, are included in this report.

Ageing and Aged Care

Several information-related developments have occurred in the ageing and aged care sector. The inclusion of the disability question in the Census (described above) will be a substantial contribution to the quality of information on disability among older people in Australia, particularly as it pertains to geographical areas.

The Community Care Review (DoHA 2004) highlighted the need for increased comparability and consistency across community care data collections maintained by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. This department is considering ways in which this agenda might be taken forward. As a preliminary step, it has asked the AIHW to undertake a review of its community care data collections, with a focus on areas of consistency and inconsistency in existing collections. This work is scheduled for completion in 2006.

Meanwhile, redevelopment of the HACC NMDS has been undertaken under the auspices of the HACC Data Reform Working Group, which consists of the Australian Government, states and territories, service providers and the AIHW. Version 2 has been finalised, and implementation is scheduled from January 2006. One of the key developments has been the inclusion of measures of dependency for the first time, based on the HACC Screening Tool. Version 1 of the HACC NMDS will continue to be supported for a further period as a transitional arrangement.

Finally, in response to the Review of Pricing Arrangements in Residential Aged Care (Hogan 2004), the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing has commissioned the development of a new instrument - the Aged Care Funding Instrument - that will serve as a replacement for the Resident Classification Scale. The new instrument is intended to simplify reporting and funding arrangements, and is currently in a testing phase.

Housing Assistance

Since 2003, the implementation of the new CSHA has identified areas requiring significant data development work. Unlike previous agreements, the CSHA introduced in July 2003 has an emphasis on Indigenous housing assistance, including access to mainstream housing and affordable housing provision through private and social ventures including community housing.

The specific inclusion of Indigenous housing in general terms rather than just specific to the CSHA Aboriginal Rental Housing Program has led to more cross-cutting data development work. This has led to major data development work on Indigenous housing assistance and mainstream housing assistance requiring housing assistance data to be supplemented with data from community services areas such as Centrelink income support and SAAP homeless data. Significant data development work is being undertaken to: align measures of mainstream and Indigenous housing assistance need; align national mainstream and Indigenous housing assistance reporting; and build mainstream and Indigenous community housing data capabilities.

Improving national data on community housing assistance for both Indigenous and mainstream areas is recognised as a major challenge. To address these data issues, a strategy for improving the quality and coverage of community housing data for the 2003 CSHA was developed and endorsed by the National Housing Data Agreement Management Group in 2004. The guiding principles for this data development work cover:
* recognition of the fundamental differences between the public and community housing sectors;
* engaging the sector;
* consultation with stakeholders;
* ensuring data are appropriate to the purpose;
* minimising collection burden;
* use of data standards; and
* alignment of data development work with other housing, health and community services areas to ensure comparability and reduce duplication.

Related to this has been the development and conduct in 2005 of three National Social Housing Surveys covering public rental housing, mainstream community housing, and state owned and managed Indigenous housing.

Data Linkage

In 2004-05 the AIHW established a new unit responsible for driving the integration and linkage of data in the community services sector. The unit was created to facilitate the developed of person-centred rather than program-centred data, in order to support whole-of-government approaches to policy in the community services arena. Linked data sets have long been recognised as essential to understanding the interrelationships between services and client pathways (NCSIMG 2004).

With this new unit, the AIHW has expedited the linkage work already emerging in the ageing and aged care area, and allowed the development of technical and methodological skills relating to data linkage in community services and related areas. An important output from this work is a recommended linkage protocol which ensures - when linking aged care data sets - consistency in linkage procedures over time and across data sets while protecting the privacy of individuals. The work has also generated an aged care data set that made possible the examination of the extent and nature of movements between services, allowing an analytic focus on the flow of clients through the aged care sector rather than simply measures relating to a specific program at a point in time.

Data linkage in community services has progressed in the last couple of years via the use of statistical linkage keys. Different data collections retained different statistical linkage keys, but in the last year or so there has been a shift to promoting the use of a common linkage key (that is, the HACC-type statistical linkage key) across a number of community services data collections, including HACC, disability services, SAAP, child protection and juvenile justice data collections. SAAP has recently piloted and implemented use of the HACC-type statistical linkage key. The adoption of a common statistical linkage key, including clearance by appropriate ethics bodies, would increase the ease of linking community services data sets. In addition to cross-program data linking currently being undertaken in the area of aged care (for example, HACC, Community Aged Care Packages and Residential Aged Care services data linkage; Residential Aged Care services and hospital admissions data linkage), some new possibilities are already being identified; for example, linking child protection data with SAAP data to analyse the extent to which children in out-of-home or institutional care move on to be supported by the SAAP program.

9.3 Conclusion

Throughout Australia there is currently substantial data development activity being undertaken in the community services and housing assistance sectors. This represents a considerable investment of time and resources by governments and the many agencies involved. The complexity of the welfare sector is reflected in the range of committees and working groups which have some influence on the development of community services and housing assistance information.

There are potential benefits, including cost savings, to all agencies, providers and clients from an approach that minimises duplication in data development, collection and reporting activities. A major objective of the NCSIA, NHDA and ANIHI is the development of nationally consistent data. There have been significant achievements towards that end in recent times.

References

ABS 2004. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social survey, 2002. ABS cat. no. 4714.0. ABS: Canberra.

ABS & AIHW 2005. The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. ABS cat. no. 4704.0. AIHW cat. no. IHW 14. Canberra: ABS.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 1999. National community services information development plan. Cat. no. AUS 14. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2000a. National Housing Data Agreement: a subsidiary agreement to the 1999-2003 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Cat. no. HOU 48. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2000b. Agreement on National Indigenous Housing Information. Cat. no. HOU 49. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2004a. Data quality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identification. Cat. no. HWI 79. Canberra: AIHW (Internet only.)

AIHW 2004b. National health data dictionary. Version 12. Cat. no. HWI 75. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2004c. Counting kids: developing a new national collection for child care and preschool services. Bulletin no. 22. Cat. no. AUS 55. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2004d. Juvenile justice: a new national collection. Bulletin no. 19. Cat. no. AUS 52. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2005a. National Community Services Information Agreement. Viewed 12 September 2005, <http://www.aihw.gov.au/committees/ncsimg/ABSOLUTE%20FINAL.doc>.

AIHW 2005b. National Health Information Agreement. Viewed 11 August 2005, <http:// www.aihw.gov.au/committees/simc/final_nhia_signed.doc>.

AIHW 2005c. Indigenous housing indicators 2003-04. Cat. no. HOU 127. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW 2005d. Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement national data reports 2003-04: state owned and managed Indigenous housing Cat. no. HOU 112. Canberra. AIHW.

AIHW forthcoming. National community services information - A strategic plan 2005-2009. Canberra: AIHW.

AIHW forthcoming. National housing assistance data dictionary. Version 3. Canberra: AIHW. AIHW forthcoming. Juvenile justice in Australia 2000-01 to 2003-04. Cat. no. 65. Canberra: AIHW.

DoHA (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing) 2004. A new strategy for community care - the way forward. Canberra: DoHA. Viewed 6 April 2005, <http:// www.health. gov. au/ internet/ wcms/ Publishing.nsf / Content/ ageing-research-commcare.htm>.

Gleeson T & Wilkins B 2000. SAAP IV information review - interim report. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS).

Gleeson T, James D & Wilkins B 2000. SAAP IV information review - information management plan. Canberra: FaCS.

Hogan W 2004. Review of pricing arrangements in residential aged care. Canberra: DoHA.

NCSDC (National Community Services Data Committee) 2004. National community services data dictionary. Version 3. Canberra: AIHW.

NCSIMG (National Community Services Information Management Group) 2004. Statistical data linkage in community services data collection. Canberra: AIHW.

SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2005. Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2005. Productivity Commission: Canberra.

WHO (World Health Organization) 2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO.