Emergency Relief and complex service delivery: Towards better outcomes
Authors:   Queensland University of Technology, McKenna Patrick , Evans Mark 
Published: June 2021

Emergency Relief (ER) is a Department of Social Services (DSS) funded program, delivered by 197 community organisations (ER Providers) across Australia, to assist people facing a financial crisis with financial/material aid and referrals to other support programs. ER has been playing this important role in Australian communities since 1979. Without ER, more people living in Australia who experience a financial crisis might face further harm such as crippling debt or homelessness. The Emergency Relief National Coordination Group (NCG) was established in April 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to advise the Minister for Families and Social Services on the implementation of ER. To inform its advice to the Minister, the NCG partnered with the Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra to conduct research to understand the issues and challenges faced by ER Providers and Service Users in local contexts across Australia. The research involved a desktop review of the existing literature on ER service provision, a large survey which all Commonwealth ER Providers were invited to participate in (and 122 responses were received), interviews with a purposive sample of 18 ER Providers, and the development of a program logic and theory of change for the Commonwealth ER program to assess progress. The surveys and interviews focussed on ER Provider perceptions of the strengths, weaknesses, future challenges, and areas of improvement for current ER provision. The trend of increasing case complexity, the effectiveness of ER service delivery models in achieving outcomes for Service Users, and the significance of volunteering in the sector were investigated. Separately, an evaluation of the performance of the NCG was conducted and a summary of the evaluation is provided as an appendix to this report. Several themes emerged from the review of the existing literature such as service delivery shortcomings in dealing with case complexity, the effectiveness of case management, and repeat requests for service. Interviews with ER workers and Service Users found that an uplift in workforce capability was required to deal with increasing case complexity, leading to recommendations for more training and service standards. Several service evaluations found that ER delivered with case management led to high Service User satisfaction, played an integral role in transforming the lives of people with complex needs, and lowered repeat requests for service. A large longitudinal quantitative study revealed that more time spent with participants substantially decreased the number of repeat requests for service; and, given that repeat requests for service can be an indicator of entrenched poverty, not accessing further services is likely to suggest improvement. The interviews identified the main strengths of ER to be the rapid response and flexible use of funds to stabilise crisis situations and connect people to other supports through strong local networks. Service Users trusted the system because of these strengths, and ER was often an access point to holistic support. There were three main weaknesses identified. First, funding contracts were too short and did not cover the full costs of the program—in particular, case management for complex cases. Second, many Service Users were dependent on ER which was inconsistent with the definition and intent of the program. Third, there was inconsistency in the level of service received by Service Users in different geographic locations. These weaknesses can be improved upon with a joined-up approach featuring co-design and collaborative governance, leading to the successful commissioning of social services. The survey confirmed that volunteers were significant for ER, making up 92% of all workers and 51% of all hours worked in respondent ER programs. Of the 122 respondents, volunteers amounted to 554 full-time equivalents, a contribution valued at $39.4 million. In total there were 8,316 volunteers working in the 122 respondent ER programs. The sector can support and upskill these volunteers (and employees in addition) by developing scalable training solutions such as online training modules, updating ER service standards, and engaging in collaborative learning arrangements where large and small ER Providers share resources. More engagement with peak bodies such as Volunteering Australia might also assist the sector to improve the focus on volunteer engagement. Integrated services achieve better outcomes for complex ER cases—97% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed this was the case. The research identified the dimensions of service integration most relevant to ER Providers to be case management, referrals, the breadth of services offered internally, co-location with interrelated service providers, an established network of support, workforce capability, and Service User engagement. Providers can individually focus on increasing the level of service integration for their ER program to improve their ability to deal with complex cases, which are clearly on the rise. At the system level, a more joined-up approach can also improve service integration across Australia. The key dimensions of this finding are discussed next in more detail. Case management is key for achieving Service User outcomes for complex cases—89% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed this was the case. Interviewees most frequently said they would provide more case management if they could change their service model. Case management allows for more time spent with the Service User, follow up with referral partners, and a higher level of expertise in service delivery to support complex cases. Of course, it is a costly model and not currently funded for all Service Users through ER. Where case management is not available as part of ER, it might be available through a related service that is part of a network of support. Where possible, ER Providers should facilitate access to case management for Service Users who would benefit. At a system level, ER models with a greater component of case management could be implemented as test cases. Referral systems are also key for achieving Service User outcomes, which is reflected in the ER Program Logic presented on page 31. The survey and interview data show that referrals within an integrated service (internal) or in a service hub (co-located) are most effective. Where this is not possible, warm referrals within a trusted network of support are more effective than cold referrals leading to higher take-up and beneficial Service User outcomes. However, cold referrals are most common, pointing to a weakness in ER referral systems. This is because ER Providers do not operate or co-locate with interrelated services in many cases, nor do they have the case management capacity to provide warm referrals in many other cases. For mental illness support, which interviewees identified as one of the most difficult issues to deal with, ER Providers offer an integrated service only 23% of the time, warm referrals 34% of the time, and cold referrals 43% of the time. A focus on referral systems at the individual ER Provider level, and system level through a joined-up approach, might lead to better outcomes for Service Users. The program logic and theory of change for ER have been documented with input from the research findings and included in Section 4.3 on page 31. These show that ER helps people facing a financial crisis to meet their immediate needs, avoid further harm, and access a path to recovery. The research demonstrates that ER is fundamental to supporting vulnerable people in Australia and should therefore continue to be funded by government.