2 Initial Interviews and Seminars

Introduction

2.1. All claimants for a Newstart or Youth Allowance must register with Centrelink. On registering, an appointment is made for the claimant to attend a New Claim Interview (the "initial interview"). The interview is conducted in Centrelink offices, usually at an open plan desk.

2.2. The initial interview has three main purposes. The first purpose is to assess eligibility for income support and arrange commencement of appropriate income support payments. This includes completion of a claim form and provision of other relevant information. The second purpose is to classify the jobseeker in relation to the appropriate types of employment service to be provided and to specify the job search obligations to which the jobseeker will be subject until subsequent variance. This includes administering a questionnaire known as the Jobseeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) and, usually, signing an activity agreement. The third purpose is to give jobseekers an opportunity to select a provider and to expedite referral to it. Increasing emphasis is being placed on this third purpose, which we consider principally in chapter 4.

2.3. The initial interview is supplemented by an employment services information seminar for all claimants. The seminar aims at providing a wide range of information about options for assistance that are available to jobseekers, the obligations which will or may be imposed on them, and their rights concerning information and review of decisions. The seminar is based on a 15-minute video that is presented by Centrelink staff according to a scripted text. It is designed to be paused at intervals to allow questions and is supported by a 28-page printed guide for jobseekers.

2.4. We have identified the following principal issues in this context:

• initial interviews;

• information seminars;

• follow-up interviews;

• privacy of information.

Initial interviews

2.5. Initial interviews usually consist of a Centrelink officer asking a series of standard questions on a computer screen and recording the jobseeker's answers on the screen. They are usually held in an open plan office without privacy screens and are scheduled for short (30 minutes), medium (45 minutes) and long (60 minutes) periods. Medium is the norm; short interviews are commonly scheduled for people re-applying after a short period off an allowance; and long interviews may be scheduled for people needing interpreter services. Administering the standard questionnaire commonly takes the whole of the interview, except for brief formalities and signing the activity agreement.

2.6. The standard questionnaire obtains information for both the income support and employment services purposes of the interview. It seeks such information as is necessary for determining eligibility for income support and for calculating a JSCI "score", which seeks to measure labour market disadvantage and determines the type of employment service for which the jobseeker is eligible. The general funding provided by DEWR under its contract with Centrelink makes allowance for Centrelink to spend 21 minutes of each initial interview administering the JSCI, which forms part of the standard questionnaire. The remainder of the interview is regarded as being concerned with income support, which is within the sphere of DFACS rather than DEWR. Interviewers are not expected to go beyond the formal questionnaire and it appears that usually they do not do so.

2.7. Our inquiries indicate a need for considerable improvement in the manner and circumstances in which these initial interviews are commonly conducted. Greater attention needs to be given to ensuring that interviewers take sufficient time and care to administer the standard questionnaire correctly, especially in relation to obtaining and recording answers accurately. They also need to give greater attention to explaining clearly why they are asking the JSCI portion of the questionnaire; at this stage, understandably, many interviewees are focussing solely on their pressing need for income support.

2.8. Interviewers need to be given more encouragement and time to develop a broader understanding of the individual jobseeker's circumstances and needs than is usually obtainable from the standard questionnaire. Development of this understanding will enhance the likelihood that appropriate assistance and obligations are identified and that the jobseeker both understands and accepts them. It is important also to explain why disclosure of personal information - even if somewhat difficult or embarrassing - may help to ensure that the system responds helpfully and sensitively to their particular circumstances.

2.9. It seems clear that many breaches arise from weaknesses in the current system in the respects we have described. They can arise, for example, because a jobseeker is referred to an assistance program that is unlikely to provide appropriate support and with the requirements of which they are unlikely to be able to comply. This problem occurs particularly in relation to failures to refer to Intensive Assistance or, especially, the Community Support Program. Late in 2001, the government sought to strengthen its procedures for referral to programs of this kind through making greater use of referrals to follow-up interviews by Centrelink social workers or other specialist officers and by providers after a referral has occurred. These are useful initiatives to which we return later, but their effectiveness still depends on sufficient time and care being taken at the initial interview.

2.10. Unnecessary breaches can arise because consideration is not given to whether the jobseeker is eligible for exemption from the activity test or qualifies for another payment (such as Disability Support Pension) to which no activity test applies. They can also arise because of pressure (sometimes conveyed as a requirement) for jobseekers to complete an activity agreement at the initial interview. This is especially so as the agreement commonly involves detailed and onerous obligations and may require jobseekers having to select which of a range of activities they will begin undertaking six months or more into the future, when their circumstances may be very different.

2.11. Improving the quality of the initial interview in the ways that we have described earlier requires raising the level of training and experience of initial interviewers. It also requires providing better interview facilities, either in separate offices or in properly screened spaces, that are more conducive to a frank and confidential interview. At the first meeting, in particular, it is not surprising that many interviewees are anxious, wary and somewhat confused. These difficulties can be reduced substantially if the physical environment is appropriate and the interviewer is not under excessive time pressure.

2.12. We recognise, however, that even if initial interviews are substantially improved some important information may remain unlikely to be disclosed at the initial interview and that sufficient discussion, analysis and response may not be feasible at that stage. Accordingly, we make recommendations later which are aimed at strengthening the role of subsequent interviews by Centrelink itself and by providers.

Especially vulnerable jobseekers

2.13. One of the highest priorities, in our view, should be to give much greater emphasis in the initial interview to identifying those jobseekers who are especially vulnerable to incurring breaches. They are jobseekers whose personal circumstances make them especially vulnerable to particular difficulties in receiving, understanding or being able to comply with official communications about obligations such as attending interviews or returning forms. These circumstances are often not immediately apparent and include

• illiteracy and innumeracy;

• poor English comprehension;

• medical, psychiatric and psychological disabilities;

• substance dependency;

• no accommodation, temporary or short-term accommodation, or remote location;

• dysfunctional domestic circumstances, or exposure to violence;

• onerous financial obligations;

• poor access to other support and resources.

2.14. It is clear that a very substantial proportion of breaches are incurred by people who fall into this general category of especially vulnerable jobseekers. If they were identified from the beginning of their involvement with the system and then special measures were initiated to reduce their risks of non-compliance, both they and the system itself would benefit considerably. Here, as in all aspects of the system, special care must be taken to identify and address special needs and circumstances of Indigenous people.

2.15. As we explain later in this report, such measures might include, for example, obtaining and using additional methods of contacting especially vulnerable jobseekers; ensuring that providers are aware and take account of their difficulties; and, in the event of apparent non-compliance, making special efforts to secure compliance before deciding whether to impose a breach. Unless this identification and action is initiated at the outset, experience indicates that a substantial number of people may quickly begin failing to comply with obligations, especially to attend their first appointment with a provider, and thereby incurring breaches and penalties.

2.16. The standard questionnaire for the initial interview includes a number of questions that could be used to help identify especially vulnerable jobseekers. They include, for example, questions about literacy, place of residence, health, English comprehension. In some cases, the answers to these questions may contribute to achieving the relatively high JSCI score that is necessary for referral to Intensive Assistance, the Community Support Program or some other program through which further investigation may occur and assistance be provided. They may also suggest that an activity test exemption should be granted or a follow-up interview arranged. In many other cases, however, either the problem is not identified by the questionnaire or no sufficient action is taken.

2.17. These shortcomings could be addressed by adding some appropriate questions to the questionnaire and then ensuring that certain answers to these and some existing questions automatically trigger additional questions (including informal exploration by the interviewer). A special section of the interview, after completion of the questionnaire but prior to possible consideration of an activity agreement, could be designated for this purpose and guidelines could be developed for its conduct. It will also be appropriate, in our view, to provide for special follow-up interviews. This is a proposal to which we return later in this chapter.

R1. Initial Centrelink Interviews

(1) The effectiveness of Centrelink's initial interview should be improved substantially by
• providing better training for interviewers;
• improving the content and administration of standard questionnaires, including the Jobseeker Classification Instrument (JSCI);
• providing more opportunity for informal exploration of issues by both interviewers and jobseekers;

• ensuring that interviews take place in reasonable privacy.

(2) Centrelink should be funded for, and should allocate, sufficient time to properly carry out the interview. This will usually require not less than 45 minutes, and not less than 60 minutes when the interview indicates that the claimant may be "especially vulnerable" (see R2).

(3) If required to sign an activity agreement, jobseekers should be given at least fourteen days to do so or to propose amendment.

R2. Especially Vulnerable Jobseekers

(1) The initial Centrelink interview should give close attention to identifying "especially vulnerable jobseekers"; that is, jobseekers who appear likely to experience difficulties in receiving, understanding or being able to comply with official communications that require attendance at interviews, notification of information or other obligations.

(2) Reasons for identifying jobseekers as being especially vulnerable in this way should include homelessness; transitory, uncertain or remote accommodation; literacy or language difficulties; physical or intellectual disabilities; substance dependency; and other relevant problems.

(3) When a jobseeker is identified as especially vulnerable, a special follow-up interview should be scheduled (see R4). Either at the initial interview or the follow-up interview, special arrangements should be made for facilitating ongoing contact and communication (R9) and close consideration should be given to providing an activity test exemption (R15).

Information seminars

2.18. Even if the conduct of initial interviews is improved in the ways that we recommend, it will remain important to require jobseekers also to attend an information seminar. It is not appropriate or feasible to seek to convey all the necessary information in the initial interview. Moreover, some information may be conveyed more effectively and expeditiously in a seminar environment and by video rather than in a one-to-one interview. The seminar can also provide useful opportunities to seek informal information and advice from seminar presenters, by contrast with the more intense and personalised focus of the formal interview that determines eligibility for income support and imposes specific job search obligations.

2.19. Our inquiries suggest, however, that improvements could be made in the content and presentation of the seminars, one consequence of which would be reduced incidence of breaches. Greater emphasis could be placed on conveying information that is likely to be of relevance to new claimants in the near future rather than, for example, seeking to convey too much information about the full range of employment services. These issues include availability of urgent support, assistance for especially vulnerable jobseekers, the extent to which personal information is needed and protected by Centrelink, and the importance of meeting obligations in relation to attendance, provision of information, etc.

2.20. The general quality of seminar presentation could be improved, especially by ensuring that adequate time is provided for questions and informal discussion rather than the seminar being merely a video session. The needs of people without good English comprehension should be addressed better, including through wider availability of seminars and videos in other languages and of interpreters at seminars. One of the greatest potential benefits of the seminars is to help jobseekers choose an appropriate provider. We make specific recommendations on this issue in chapter 4. The importance of the information in the seminar would be reinforced for all jobseekers if some essential information were also made available in a simple and manageable printed format, such as a laminated pocket-size card, in a range of languages.

2.21. Difficult but important questions arise about the timing of the seminar relative to the initial interview. It is not feasible to provide them on the same day in all or most instances. The frequency and timing of seminars varies considerably between Centrelink offices, partly due to differing caseloads and resources and partly due to different views about the most effective way of proceeding. In some circumstances there may be as many as two seminars each day while in others there may be less than one per week. Limits on the number of participants in any one seminar can sometimes mean a wait of 2-3 weeks before being able to attend a seminar. In some offices, the general practice is for claimants to attend a seminar first and then be booked in for an interview; in others, the opposite procedure is usually adopted.

2.22. Attending the seminar before the interview can reduce the need for jobseekers to ask basic information questions at the interview. This can be especially useful if it frees up interview time for more specific questions by the jobseeker or more informal exploration by the interviewer of special needs and circumstances. Thus, a preceding seminar can help both the jobseeker and Centrelink to put the interview to best use. As we emphasise in chapter 4, prior scheduling of the seminar can help jobseekers to investigate which provider they would like to be referred to and to express that choice at the initial interview so that a referral can be arranged on the spot. But we also emphasise the considerable dangers that need to be avoided in seeking to expedite selection of a provider.

2.23. On the other hand, attending the interview before the seminar means that when claimants attend the seminar their immediate income support needs have been addressed and thus they are more likely to be willing and able to focus on their employment service options and obligations. It also may prevent undue delay in beginning to receive income support. Current policy is to encourage Centrelink offices to schedule seminars before interviews. If this sequencing is to be retained, it will be important to ensure that improvements are made in the conduct of seminars and interviews, and that commencement of income support is not unreasonably delayed. It is often not sufficient merely to backdate payments, since many claimants are urgently in need of cash for basic expenses.

R3. Centrelink Information Seminars

(1) Centrelink information seminars should focus on jobseekers' information needs at the early stage of their involvement with the income support and employment services systems, rather than on providing comprehensive descriptions of the systems as a whole.

(2) Information seminars should be presented by officers with adequate training, in an informal manner, with ample opportunity for asking questions, and with due consideration for people who have literacy difficulties.

(3) The video and supporting written material for the seminar should be available in languages other than English and, wherever possible, appropriate interpreter service should be available.

Special follow-up interviews

2.24. We have recommended earlier that one of the principal purposes of initial interviews should be identification of especially vulnerable jobseekers. In some cases, it may be possible at the initial interview to take action that adequately addresses that vulnerability. In many other cases, however, it may not be feasible even to fully identify what needs to be done let alone take the necessary action.

2.25. One possibility is to require these functions to be undertaken by the provider to whom the jobseeker is referred. At present, providers are not generally required to do so although they may be required to address jobseekers' needs in relation to aspects of literacy, numeracy, English comprehension and "personal development". We look in chapter 4 at referral processes involving providers, especially their first appointments with jobseekers, and propose a greater role for them in assessing special vulnerability and related issues. The government has already decided to take some steps in that direction. But if too much reliance is placed on assessment at that later stage, many jobseekers may not even be referred to an appropriate program and provider or may not manage to attend the first designated appointment with the provider.

2.26. An appropriate approach would be for the initial Centrelink interviewer to refer especially vulnerable jobseekers for a second, follow-up interview to be conducted within fourteen days by a social worker, occupational psychologist, disability officer or other specialist officer nominated by Centrelink. The proposed new Personal Advisers may also be suitable people to handle such interviews for those limited categories of jobseekers whom they will be permitted to assist. In the event of failure to attend this follow-up interview, special measures to contact the jobseeker and ensure attendance should be taken. This referral should not, of course, be allowed to cause delay in commencing allowance payments to the claimant.

2.27. The follow-up interview should concentrate on fully understanding the person's difficulties in receiving, understanding and complying with official communications, and on identifying specific steps that Centrelink or a provider must take to address those difficulties. Some steps that should be considered in this context are mentioned later in this report. The recommended steps should be recorded on the Centrelink file and, with the jobseeker's consent, be conveyed to the provider to whom the jobseeker is referred and any other providers with which the jobseeker registers. It is essential that, subject to appropriate privacy protections, this account of the jobseeker's vulnerability travels with them through the employment services system.

2.28. It would also be appropriate to re-interview especially vulnerable jobseekers each year for the explicit purpose of assessing whether they should continue to be so classified or any further steps to address their vulnerability should be adopted. Before the re-interview, Centrelink should receive, with the jobseeker's consent, a report from the provider or, if the jobseeker is registered with more than one, from one of them.

2.29. At present, major problems can arise with referrals to Centrelink social workers and other specialist officers because the demand very greatly exceeds the supply and long waits for appointments are commonplace. Such delays not only cause considerable hardship to jobseekers but also increase the likelihood of breaches, need for emergency support, or other problem for the effective and economical operation of the overall system. It seems clear that expansion of the supply should be very high priority for future government funding. Moreover, exemptions from the activity test should be available during the waiting period for the interview.

Some recent initiatives

2.30. In the latter half of 2001, Centrelink strengthened its system for referring some jobseekers from initial interviews to supplementary assessment interviews by its social workers, occupational psychologists or other specialist officers. A principal aim is to increase the likelihood of referrals to the Community Support Program or other special programs being made where appropriate. This system is not aimed explicitly at special vulnerability of the kind on which we are focusing in this report although many jobseekers who have that vulnerability are likely to be considered for supplementary assessment. There could be considerable benefits in integrating our proposed processes for initial identifications and follow-up interviews in relation to especially vulnerable jobseekers with those now applying to the supplementary assessment system.

2.31. During 2001, Centrelink also conducted a Second Breach Intervention Pilot in which the files of all jobseekers who had incurred a second breach and penalty were examined by Centrelink staff in an attempt to avoid future non-compliance. Staff were instructed to look closely at the jobseeker's history and personal circumstances in order to identify factors which might make compliance difficult for the jobseeker and, where appropriate, to refer jobseekers to specialist officers for counselling, training and support. This initiative bears obvious similarities to the recommendations in this chapter concerning especially vulnerable jobseekers, with the crucial difference that we recommend adopting it from the outset of jobseekers' involvement with Centrelink rather than waiting until two breaches and penalties have been incurred. It is not yet clear whether the pilot, which has now finished, will be continued and extended across the whole Centrelink system.

2.32. As mentioned earlier, the government intends to establish a new type of officer, known as a Personal Adviser, who will work with some categories of jobseeker. Their proposed roles will include developing closer understanding and rapport with particular jobseekers but it appears that they will not make contact until some time after the initial interview. At present, unfortunately, the proposal would not provide most jobseekers with access to these advisers and it appears that the Personal Advisers will have very heavy caseloads. In any event, we believe that more should be done to achieve these goals at the initial interview rather than through later contacts.

R4. Special Follow-up Interviews

(1) Where jobseekers are assessed in the initial interview as "especially vulnerable", a special follow-up interview by a Centrelink social worker or other specialist officer should be conducted either immediately or at the earliest possible time.

(2) The interview should seek to identify and facilitate ways in which the jobseeker's particular vulnerability can be addressed, such as by identifying additional ways of contacting the jobseeker, using a language other than English in communications, or referring them to appropriate services.

(3) Close consideration should also be given at the interview to providing the jobseeker with an activity test exemption, changing the referral determined at the initial interview, or helping the jobseeker to apply for another form of income support which is not activity-tested.

Privacy of information

2.33. We recommend here and elsewhere in the report that flows of information between Centrelink and providers should be improved. We also emphasise the importance of requiring informed jobseeker consent before transfer of certain types of personal information can occur. Important and difficult questions arise, however, in relation to which types of information must be protected in this way, what processes should be followed when seeking and recording consent, and how the information is to be protected in the hands of the organisation to which it is transferred. There are considerable and understandable differences of opinion amongst Centrelink and provider staff on these matters.

2.34. The Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner has developed guidelines in the general area of flows of information between government agencies and contracted providers, whether in the area of employment services or any other area. The Commissioner is also consulted by government agencies about specific guidelines that they may wish to adopt in relation to such flows. In our view, there would be great value in the Commissioner developing processes which ensure that all relevant guidelines about transfer of jobseekers' personal information between DFACS, DEWR, Centrelink and employment service providers have been the subject of consultation not only with those parties but with community and consumer organisations having special involvement with jobseekers. It would also be important for the Commissioner to ensure that the guidelines are consolidated in a Privacy Code that is readily available to the public, both in full and in a simple summary of key points for distribution to all jobseekers.

R5. Privacy of Information

(1) The Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner should seek to ensure development of a set of comprehensive and specific guidelines about exchanges of personal jobseeker information between Centrelink and providers (a "Privacy Code").
(2) The Commissioner should also seek to ensure that the Code is
• developed in full consultation with providers and with community and consumer organisations having special involvement with jobseekers;

• readily available to the public and a simple summary is made available to all jobseekers.
(3) The Privacy Code should apply, for example, to transfers of information recommended in RR 6,9,13 and 18 below.