Australian Community Sector Survey 2022

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the generous leaders from the community services and peak bodies who shared their knowledge, insights, and experience for this project. This report is an output of the Australian Community Sector Study 2021 research project, commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service and the Councils of Social Service in partnership with Bendigo Bank, Australia’s better big bank. Previous reports from the Australian Community Sector Survey can be found at https://www.acoss.org.au/australian-community-sector-survey/

ISSN: 1326 7124
ISBN: 978 0 85871 110 5

© Australian Council of Social Service 2022

This report was written by Dr Natasha Cortis and Dr Megan Blaxland from the Social Policy Research Centre at UNSW Sydney.

This report should be referenced or cited as follows: Cortis N and Blaxland, M (2022) Carrying the costs of the crisis: Australia’s community sector through the Delta outbreak. Sydney: ACOSS

This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Enquiries should be directed to the Publications Officer, Australian Council of Social Service. Copies are available from the address above.

Key Findings

• COVID-19 has revealed the impacts of chronic under-investment in the community sector. Organisations whose financial outlook is worst are more likely to be those who are reliant on the Federal Government for their main income stream.
• Only 20% of community sector organisations said that their main funding source covers the full costs of service delivery; and only 14% said that indexation arrangements for their main funding source was adequate.
• While 5-year contracts are beneficial for service delivery, planning and staff retention, they are far from universal, with only 40% of respondents stating that their organisation has at least one contract with government of 5 years or more.
• 5-year contracts are less common among organisations whose main income source is the Federal Government.
• Just over half of all organisations surveyed received only 2-8 weeks’ notice of renewal of government funding contracts, making it impossible to plan with certainty.
• Only 5% of organisations reported at least 6-months’ notice of contract renewal.
• The majority of respondent organisations either have contracts that preclude engagement in systemic advocacy (27%) or are concerned about the possible ramifications of doing so (38%).
• A majority of employees are working extra unpaid hours, on average 15% of total hours worked (25% for CEOs and 10% for frontline workers)
• The uncertain funding environment constrains job security and employee confidence for their immediate future.
     > 73% of fixed-term employees’ contracts are linked to the funding cycle;
     > The majority of workers planning to leave are doing so due to problems such as insufficient paid hours of work and lack of permanent work due to funding uncertainty.
• Respondent organisations highlighted the hugely beneficial impacts of the introduction of the Coronavirus Supplement for the people using their services: Doubling the jobless payment in 2020 was the number one factor in improving family functioning for the families I was working with and the disturbing impacts of its removal: …real hardship was the result. This also caused mental health issues and increased sense of betrayal and dismissal by government.

Executive Summary

This report explores the experiences of , captured for the Australian Community Sector Survey (ACSS) during September 2021.[1] Participants shared their perspectives on working in the community sector through 2021, including during the COVID-19 Delta outbreak. Questions covered service delivery, workforce, funding, and contractual arrangements.

Results show the Australia’s community sector responded to the prolonged crisis with determination, resilience, innovation, and extraordinary industriousness. Participants provided multiple accounts of the ways organisations swiftly adapted service models to sustain appropriate support for people experiencing disadvantage, poverty, and hardship, and to help communities navigate health, economic and social disruption.

However, the community sector also faced significant challenges in 2021, as governments adopted more passive approaches to managing the crisis, withdrawing financial supports before the crisis subsided, and shifting responsibility onto individuals, families, and communities. The Federal Government’s withdrawal of the Coronavirus Supplement in April 2021 reduced JobSeeker payment levels, despite the demonstrated benefits this essential financial support had for millions of people on low income.[2] The community sector saw the substantial progress made during 2020 in addressing poverty and inequality fall away in 2021.[3] In the absence of adequate government support, community sector workers, organisational leaders and individual service users were left to carry the ongoing costs of the crisis.

Poverty and hardship remain entrenched

Survey participants were greatly concerned about growing social and economic disadvantage. Housing insecurity, mental health challenges, and difficulties experienced by children and families came through strongly in survey results as persistent problems, in particular for groups with disability and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. These problems were widespread, affecting jurisdictions with lower COVID-19 case numbers as well as the more populous states with higher infections and longer lockdowns.

Funding shortages are acute

The COVID-19 crisis has revealed governments’ chronic under-investment in the community sector. After operating for years with insufficient funds, services have needed to meet rising levels of demand caused by COVID-19.¹ Most organisations report that the funding they receive falls well short of what is required, which in turn affects their operations. When asked to rate their organisation’s main funding source:

• Only a minority of leaders reported that funding had adequately supported their organisation to cope with the pandemic: 27% said that funding supported the organisation to develop good models of remote service delivery, and just over a third (35%) felt funding had appropriately supported them to address the emergencies confronting their communities (including COVID and environmental disasters such as fires and floods).Only 20% said it covers the full costs of service delivery.

• Only 17% said it recognises increasing wage costs.
• Only 14% said it properly recognises their overheads.
• Only 14% reported that indexation arrangements for their main funding source are adequate.

Even before the Omicron outbreak, many leaders were concerned about the short-term financial position of their organisations. A third of respondents (34%) said their organisation’s financial position had remained about the same, and 29% said their financial position had worsened during 2021, while 31% experienced improvement. A total of 29% of respondents anticipated their finances would worsen in 2022. The financial outlook was poorest among organisations whose main income stream came from the Federal Government.

Funding is becoming more difficult to secure

In addition to the acute under-investment in the community sector, many service leaders expressed concern that funding sources are becoming more difficult to secure. Two in three leaders said their organisations are finding it more difficult to source donations from the public and business. Half of respondents said it is becoming more difficult to attract market-based income such as consumer or membership fees. Some have stable government funding, but 45% reported that Australian government funding has become more difficult to access and 40% reported the same problem when sourcing state and territory government funding.

Organisations are left relying on short-term contracts

13% of leaders said their organisation’s longest contract was less than 12 months, and a further 10% said their longest contract was less than 2 years.Government resource models have not provided a reasonable level of certainty or predictability. Only a quarter of leaders consider funding timeframes to be long enough (26%). Although five-year contracts are beneficial for service delivery, planning and staff retention, they are far from universal:

• 40% of leaders said their organisation has at least one contract with government of 5 years duration or more.[1]

5-year contracts are more common amongst child, youth, and family services, and least common among organisations focused on ageing, disability, and carer services (21%), financial counselling and support (19%) and migrant and multicultural services (17%). 5-year contracts are also less common among smaller organisations and those for whom the Federal Government is the main income source.

Contract renewal processes remain opaque and problematic

Although governments depend on the organisations they contract to deliver complex human services, governments tend to give minimal notice about contract renewals. When asked about the last time a funding contract came up for renewal:

• one in eight leaders (12%) said the organisation received no notice at all as to whether the contract would be renewed, and
• a further 9% received less than 2 weeks’ notice.

Around half (52%) received between 2- and 8-weeks’ notice, giving organisations only a short time to plan ahead, and increasing the risk that staff will lose their jobs with little notice.

Only 5% of leaders said their organisation received at least 6 months’ notice about renewal. This makes it impossible for organisational leaders to plan with certainty.

Contracting arrangements constrain or influence advocacy

Community sector workers and leaders are experts in the impacts of public policy on the community, yet sharing this expertise with government through their advocacy work is still often perceived to jeopardise funding.

• More than a quarter (27%) of leaders said that their organisations have funding contracts that preclude the use of funds for systemic advocacy
• 38% of leaders said they were cautious about engaging in systemic advocacy because of their funding arrangements
• 1 in 5 leaders (19%) said they avoided engaging in systemic advocacy due to concerns about possible repercussions. This was highest among organisations focused on housing and homelessness services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services.

The community sector remains viable due to high amounts of unpaid work

The result of short-term, unpredictable, and limited funding is that community sector workers are carrying the costs of the crisis. Resourcing arrangements do not meet the true and full cost of delivering services. Without appropriate funding and staffing levels, paid workers have to meet demand, and offset funding shortfalls, by performing large amounts of unpaid work. More than half (55%) reported that in the last week, they performed at least one hour of unpaid work in addition to their paid time, and many workers were making large unpaid contributions.

• On average, CEOs contributed 11.6 hours of unpaid work in the previous week, in addition to 35 hours of paid time (25% of total hours worked were unpaid).
• Frontline workers averaged an extra half day of unpaid work per week (3.5 hours) in addition to an average of 31.8 paid hours.

Workers are often paid to work part time, despite working full time hours. Higher hours of unpaid work increased the likelihood of workers reporting that they are not paid fairly for the work they do. Under-investment in the sector is not new, but the pandemic has revealed heightened risks of workforce attrition and burnout.

Job security remains a major concern

Equally, the funding environment is undermining many workers’ job security and confidence in their near-term future.

• 2 in 5 community sector workers worry about the future of their job (41%)
• Most fixed-term employees (73%) have employment contracts linked to the funding cycle, but this is more common among frontline practitioners and team leaders (83% and 91% respectively)
• Job security is better among those with longer histories of work in community services. However, it is not clear whether this is because job security improves over time; or whether new recruits are entering jobs with poorer security and will maintain lower levels of job security throughout their careers.

Recruitment and retention of workers is a challenge

The overall situation outlined above makes recruitment and retention a major ongoing challenge.

• Most participants (71%) said they intend to remain in their role in 12 months. However, 29% of respondents said they plan to leave their role, with 9% planning to leave the community sector altogether.
• CEOs are most likely to intend to remain in their role in 12 months (86%). Staff in communications, policy, project, or research roles are least likely (51%).

• Two-thirds of frontline practitioners (67%) intend to remain in their current role in twelve months.

Some workers plan to leave their role to use new skills, find new challenges or seek promotion. Most however are leaving due to problems in their current job or organisation, including insufficient paid hours and because funding uncertainty means contracts are short term and there is no pathway to permanency. Other reasons for intending to leave include work intensity, and lack of professional development.

Leaders described difficulties recruiting and retaining a wide range of staff including mental health clinicians, advocates, lawyers, financial counsellors, carers, social workers, and allied health workers. It is also difficult to fill administrative, communications, payroll and human resources roles, and fill project officer, team leader and program manager roles. Some leaders have found it difficult to find suitable staff to fill vacancies. They noted difficulties finding staff who had specific employment or lived experience, or experience working with particular client groups or in highly complex circumstances. Often, leaders put these difficulties down to low pay, short contracts and part-time hours on offer.

The survey findings reflect structural dilemmas that have compounded for years and stand in the way of Australia’s pandemic recovery. The ACSS has shown that the failure of government to meaningfully address community priorities, and the premature withdrawal of government support, has taken a toll on communities and placed the community sector under immense strain. A refreshed and reenergised relationship between the sector and government is needed to properly acknowledge and value the central role the sector plays in people’s lives and in creating better public policy.

Conclusion

The survey findings reflect structural dilemmas that have compounded for years and stand in the way of Australia’s pandemic recovery. The ACSS has shown that the failure of government to meaningfully address community priorities, and the premature withdrawal of government support, has taken a toll on communities and placed the community sector under immense strain. A refreshed and reenergised relationship between the sector and government is needed to properly acknowledge and value the central role the sector plays in people’s lives and in creating better public policy.

[1] Data on increased demand for community services from the same survey is in a companion publication, see Cortis N and Blaxland, M (2021) Meeting demand in the shadow of the Delta outbreak: Community Sector experiences. Demand Snapshot 2021. Sydney: ACOSS. Previous reports from the Australian Community Sector Survey can be found at https://www.acoss.org.au/australian-community-sector-survey/

[2] Klein, E., Cook, K., Maury, S. and Bowey, K. (2021) An exploratory study examining the changes to Australia’s social security system during COVID-19 lockdown measures, Australian Journal of Social Issues. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajs4.196; Grudnoff, M. (2021) Opportunity lost: Half a million Australians in poverty without the coronavirus supplement, Discussion paper, The Australia Institute, https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2021-03/apo-nid311627.pdf

[3] Davidson, P., (2022) A tale of two pandemics: COVID, inequality and poverty in 2020 and 2021, ACOSS/UNSW Sydney Poverty and Inequality Partnership, Build Back Fairer Series, Report No. 3, Sydney.

Service delivery and the Delta Outbreak

Since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced community services to operate differently as demand for services greatly increased. The report’s data was collected in September 2021, following the Delta outbreak and prior to the Omicron wave. At this time, lockdowns continued to restrict individual movement and constrain face-to-face service delivery in many parts of Australia. Concurrently, some communities struggled to access vaccinations, and children in the more populous states were undertaking remote learning Survey participants were asked about the pressures faced by the people and communities they supported during 2021, including the impacts of disruptions caused by COVID-19. Unsurprisingly, data attests to substantial challenges on all fronts and that the impact of the pandemic was felt throughout the country. In the absence of appropriate government support, the social and economic costs of the crisis fell onto communities and the local organisations supporting them. While survey participants located in jurisdictions with the longest lockdowns described particularly difficult circumstances due to COVID-19, participants in other jurisdiction also commented on the impact of border closures, economic hardship, stress, and uncertainty.

For some respondents, grappling with COVID-19 came during or swiftly after dealing with natural disasters. This placed enormous pressure on impacted communities and tested the capacity of the local organisations to support competing and complex individual need (see the following text box encapsulating one particular experience in detail). Overall challenges were exacerbated by the premature discontinuation of government supports, which disrupted models of service delivery established in the earlier phase of the pandemic. As one CEO explained:

Respondents commonly described housing, mental health, and family and domestic violence as key concerns for local communities, as well as loss of income, withdrawal of additional payments like the Coronavirus Supplement and increased costs of living. For example, a WA participant noted that:

Housing shortages

Housing shortages were a persistent challenge experienced across the country, and observed across all service types. For example, this project officer, working at a family support service, found that families connected with their service have experienced serious challenges with housing:

Many regional providers reported that people leaving urban areas due to the pandemic placed pressure on local rental markets.

Experiences of housing shortages in 2021 reflected the fact that long-term affordable housing options remain severely limited in all jurisdictions.

Mental health Participants reported a continued rise in need for mental health support among community members, particularly in states affected by long lockdowns. Participants were frustrated by barriers their communities faced in accessing suitable supports.

Survey respondents explained how families they supported grappled with the mental health impacts of home schooling, working at home and the ever-present worry of job loss and further poverty, made more serious by the withdrawal of certain government support payments.

Family and domestic violence Participants reported that mounting pressures on families due to prolonged housing stress, loss of employment, rising costs of living and the multiple difficulties posed by the pandemic, had impacted on the need for family and domestic violence support.

Digital divide Survey participants across the country rearranged service delivery to support clients remotely. This adaptation ensured continuity of care for many existing clients, and had flow on benefits such as connecting with people who previously faced access barriers.

Some of the benefits [of online and remote service delivery] have been greater inclusion of rural staff and people with disabilities as meetings and services moved online. (Senior manager, Child, youth and family services, VIC) However, participants also observed that a transition to online service delivery highlighted the digital divide. Many clients were unable to access electronic devices, afford the necessary data packages or did not feel confident using digital platforms to access services. For example:

Coronavirus supplement, JobKeeper and other government supports Participants explained how in the earlier stage of pandemic, additional government support payments for community members had alleviated considerable financial hardship. They expressed concern about their removal while the impacts of the pandemic were still being acutely felt. As this frontline worker from Victoria explained in detail, the supports previously in place had helped to reduce the load on community services.

Others observed that when the payments were withdrawn, poverty and hardship in the community increased, which intensified pressures on services during 2021.

Challenges for particular groups Some participants pointed to particular groups in the community who experienced exceptional difficulties through 2021, such as people with disability and their carers, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. For instance, some participants in the states with extended lockdowns pointed to the additional challenges presented by learning from home for families with children with disability:

They also described the difficulty for people with disability in accessing appropriate and essential services:

There was also concern that community members from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds were struggling more than others due to difficulties accessing timely and appropriate COVID information, accessing services, or supporting children to learn from home in English.

Some mentioned particular concerns relating to women, and older people, within CALD communities who required additional support:

It is within this context, of enormous social challenges facing individuals, that the community services sector continued providing support. The sector’s resourcefulness and innovation came in the face of immense challenges, as the following sections of this report will show. These challenges chiefly included ongoing difficulties accessing sufficient funding to cover costs of essential services, lack of funding security, short funding contracts, high levels of unpaid work by staff, a lack of job security and other workforce issues.

Funding arrangements and financial security

Australia’s community sector continues to confront the COVID-19 crisis following years of inadequate funding. Too often, funding fails to sufficiently provide for overhead, administration, and workforce costs in addition to program delivery. The community sector is unfairly expected to meet community needs with an unstable funding base that does not recognise full operational costs. As most community service organisations deliver services on behalf of government, government funding is the sector’s most important income source. Three in five leaders (60%) said state or territory governments were the most important funding source for their organisation. A further 20% said Federal Government funding was most important, and this group included many larger organisations and organisations focused on areas of Federal responsibility, such as ageing and disability services (see Appendix B, Table B. 1, Table B. 2). Few organisations relied mainly on philanthropy (5%), client-based fees (7%), other commercial sources (4%), and other sources (4%). Contracting with government, and the adequacy of government funding, are therefore key issues to which the following data attests. Funding adequacy Leaders were asked about the adequacy of their main funding source for covering costs and meeting need. Leaders clearly highlighted the multiple ways funding falls short (Figure 3.1):

• Only one in five (20%) agreed that funding covers the full costs of service delivery and three quarters (76%) disagreed.
• Only 14% agreed that funding properly recognises their overheads, and 78% disagreed.
• Only 17% agreed that their main funding source recognises increasing wage costs, and 74% disagreed.
• Only 14% agreed that indexation arrangements are adequate while two thirds (65%) disagreed.

The above statistics reveal just how thin the funding model tends to be for the sector. Similar patterns of response to these questions were evident across small and large organisations, metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations, and across organisations delivering different types of services.

Figure 3.1 Leaders’ ratings of their main funding source

Shortfalls for essential service activities

Figure 3.2 details how participants saw insufficient funding impacting their organisations, and how it curtailed fundamental elements of their operations.

• In 2021, only 18% agreed that funding allows their organisation to innovate, and 65% disagreed. Disagreement was higher in 2021 than in 2019, when ACSS participants were also asked this question, and 25% agreed and 59% disagreed.[1]
• Leaders have increasingly found their funding is inadequate to attract and retain staff. In 2021, only 19% agreed with the statement “Funding enables us to attract and retain high quality staff”. This is worse than in 2019, when 25% agreed.
• Leaders of organisations for which the main funding came from a non-government source were slightly more likely than those more reliant on government to agree that funding enables them to attract and retain high-quality staff.

In addition, in 2021, many leaders reported inadequate funding for monitoring and reporting on program delivery:

• Less than a quarter of leaders (22%) said that their main source of funding supported monitoring and evaluation, while 58% disagreed.

In 2021, funding also fell short in relation to collaboration and engagement.

• Only a quarter (24%) agreed that funders work with them to understand community need and plan responses, while double this proportion (49%) disagreed this occurred.
• Only 28% said that funding supports the organisation to engage with government policy and reform processes, while 48% disagreed.
• One in three leaders (32%) agreed that their main source of funding enables genuine involvement of consumers or people with lived experience, while 46% disagreed. This shows slight improvement compared with 2019, when 29% agreed and 42% disagreed.[2]

Figure 3.2 Leaders’ agreement with statements about funding

Funding and the pandemic

When asked about receiving support to respond to emergencies, just over a quarter of leaders (27%) agreed funding supported the development of good models of remote service delivery; this was fairly consistent, with no notable differences among groups of organisations. Although many saw benefits in the transition to online service delivery, it also highlighted the digital divide (see Section 2.4). Just over a third (35%) agreed that funding had appropriately supported them to address emergencies facing their communities (see Figure 3.3). However, 43% reported that this was not the case.

Figure 3.3 Leaders’ assessment of funding in the context of the pandemic

Access to different funding sources

Leaders were particularly concerned that despite the community need generated by the pandemic, philanthropic funding has become more difficult to access (Figure 3.4).[3]

• Two thirds of leaders reported that in 2021, their organisation was finding it more difficult to access donations from the public, and donations from business.
• In addition, almost half (48%) reported consumer fees were becoming more difficult for their organisation to access, and 55% found other commercial income was becoming more difficult to attract
• While for many, access to government funding was stable, 45% said Australian Government funding was becoming more difficult to access and 40% were finding state and territory funding was becoming more difficult to access.

For each income source, only small minorities reported improved funding access (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 Leaders’ ratings of changing access to funding sources

Comments on changing access to funding sources

To explore funding issues in more detail, leaders were asked to provide brief comments on how funding sources are changing, or likely to change.

Changing Government funding

Organisational leaders outlined growing challenges with state, territory or Federal Government funding. Some felt that funding opportunities were becoming increasingly scarce, or that competition was more fierce with growing numbers of organisations seeking support:

Others noted that funding processes and contract requirements were making government funding more difficult. This included high reporting expectations, lack of information about contract renewals, and a shift to individualised funding or ‘payments in arrears’. One explained, for example, that in this context they needed:

As the CEO above noted, funding often does not fully cover costs. Even for those few participants who had said that state, territory, or Federal Government funding is becoming easier to access, this remained a problem, for example:

Changes in non-government funding Many sector leaders wrote about changes in non-government sources of funding for their organisations, including social enterprises, service fees, fundraising and philanthropic contributions. For some, these offered new funding opportunities:

Some sector leaders explained that they would like to secure alternate funding sources, for some because their government funding was uncertain, but were equally unsure how successful they would be, especially in the current financial climate:

Others described additional barriers to these sources of income and funding, mostly due to pandemic lockdowns and the COVID-19 impact on the economy.

Small services Some small services argued that securing funding in their circumstances is particularly difficult. They reported that recognition of the benefits of smaller organisations was diminishing, placing their financial security at risk. As a result, they felt that funding processes favoured large organisations with substantial grant-writing, reporting and management infrastructure.

Financial position in 2021 [4] Around one third of organisations (34%) reported their financial position stayed about the same, while 31% reported improvement. A total of 29% of leaders said their financial position had worsened (Figure 3.5). However, perceptions differed across states and territories. Finances improved for 49% of organisations responding from Victoria, likely reflecting recovery from the challenges of prolonged shutdown in 2020. Among those from NSW, a relatively high proportion experienced deterioration in financial status (38%) and a lower proportion reported improvement (24%), likely reflecting the depth of the Delta outbreak.

Figure 3.5 Changes in organisations’ financial position in 2021 (leaders’ reports)

Outlook for 2022

Even before the Omicron phase of the pandemic, 29% of leaders were anticipating that finances would worsen in 2022, while 37% expected no change and 20% expected to see improvement (Figure 3.6). Expectations were lowest among organisations in the ACT, where 50% of leaders expected their financial position to worsen in 2022, likely reflecting the lockdown and growing impact of the pandemic around the time of the survey (Figure B. 1). Among organisations dependent on Federal Government funding, two in five (40%) expected their finances to worsen in 2022 (Figure B. 2).

Figure 3.6 How organisational finances are expected to change in 2022

Note: Data is leaders’ perspectives (n=507)

Organisational leaders were given an opportunity to comment about the financial outlook for their organisation, and the factors affecting it. A small selection of participants made positive comments underlining the outcome of their organisation’s efforts to improve sustainability, for example:

For nearly all who commented however, the financial outlook was either bleak or uncertain. Challenges often related to government funding, including uncertainty around contract renewals, and the adequacy of funding to cover rising wages and superannuation:

Most participants spoke of the additional difficulties that COVID-19 had posed for the financial security of their organisations. Some had received extra support or flexibility from government in 2020 and 2021, but these had mostly come to an end, and they were concerned about the future without them. For example:

Some had reduced income because COVID-19 lockdowns had limited access to donations or resulted in reduced operations of their social enterprises.

In a context in which community service organisations are already operating with very tight budgets, unsure when or if their contracts will be renewed, some leaders expressed grave concern about the financial outlook for their organisations.

[1] Cortis, N. & Blaxland, M (2020): The profile and pulse of the sector: Findings from the 2019 Australian Community Sector Survey. Sydney: ACOSS

[2] Cortis, N. & Blaxland, M (2020): The profile and pulse of the sector: Findings from the 2019 Australian Community Sector Survey. Sydney: ACOSS.

[3] For more information about addressing demand and meeting need, see Cortis N and Blaxland, M (2021) Meeting demand in the shadow of the Delta outbreak: Community Sector experiences. Demand Snapshot 2021. Sydney: ACOSS. https://www.acoss.org.au/australian-community-sector-survey/ [4] Note that the survey was conducted in September 2021, prior to the Omicron phase of the pandemic.

Contracting

Temporary changes to contracting processes were made by some government funders to allow community organisations to respond to the pandemic’s impacts more effectively. Some services received additional flexibility in the use of funds, as well as contract extensions to create further certainty. However, despite such short-term improvements, government contracting arrangements remain a source of significant frustration for community sector leaders. Persistent issues include contract duration and renewal processes. Short contracts and minimal notice periods for renewals are inimical to the services delivered by community organisations, making it difficult for them to plan work, attract and retain skilled staff and deliver lasting positive outcomes for the people they help. Contract duration When leaders were asked if they agreed with the statement “Funding timeframes are long enough”, only a quarter (26%) agreed, and the majority disagreed (59%). Many organisations continue to rely on short term contracts, despite the benefits afforded by longer term contracts for service delivery, planning and staff retention.[1] Five-year agreements are seen favourably in the community sector. For this reason, the survey asked leaders to report the duration of their longest contract with government (see Table 4.1, with a breakdown by service type in Table B. 6):

• 13% of leaders said their organisation’s longest contract was less than 12 months; and
• 10% said their longest was up to 24 months in duration.
• 40% of leaders said their organisation had a contract with government which was 5 years or longer in duration.

Among those focused on child, youth and family services, a relatively high proportion had at least one contract of five years or more (57%), as did those focused on community development (54%). In contrast, low proportions of organisations providing ageing, disability, and carer services (21%) had five-year contracts, along with services focused on migrant and multicultural services (17%) and those delivering financial counselling and support (19%). Five-year contracts were also less common among smaller organisations, those in Victoria and the ACT (see Table B. 3) and organisations for which the main funding source was the Australian Government.

Table 4.1 Leaders’ reports of the organisation’s longest contract currently in place

Contract renewals

Leaders were asked to recall the last time a funding contract came up for renewal, and to indicate how many weeks in advance the organisation was notified as to whether it would be renewed. One in eight (12%) said their organisation received no notice at all, and a further 9% received less than 2 weeks’ notice (Table 5.1). The largest groups received between 2 and 8-weeks’ notice, which gives a very small amount of time for organisations and staff to plan. Indeed, it has previously been recommended that at least six months’ notice of renewal or cessation of funding be provided.[2] Only 5% of leaders said their organisation were notified about renewal at least six months in advance (Table 5.1).

Table 4.2 Advance notification about most recent contract renewal

When asked to comment on contracting issues, some leaders focused on the difficulties posed by short contracts for planning and staffing. They observed that planning for service delivery and retaining staff was difficult when contracts are short, for example.

Most, however, chose to discuss the short notice they received in advance of contract renewals. Leaders typically observed that they were advised about a contract renewal with too little notice. Several even reported they did not officially receive notice, and assurances of formal notification, until several months into the new contract period. This presents a series of compliance risks for organisations in their daily operations.

Many commented that short and substantially delayed notice causes difficulties with fulfilling industrial relations obligations.

While organisations tolerate late notice as a gesture of goodwill to funders, late notice does generate challenges for organisations, and can contribute to staffing difficulties.

As the above Senior Manager from WA observed, this makes planning, budgeting, and service implementation difficult. Other respondents had similar comments:

Contracts and advocacy For many community sector organisations, the nature of their contracts and funding arrangements, influences their willingness or capacity to undertake systemic advocacy on behalf of their clients. Alongside service delivery, advocacy is vital to improve social policy settings and service design. The community sector has immense expertise to offer government, and this has been especially valuable as Australia responds to the multi-faceted crises posed during the pandemic. However, many in the sector continue to have a fraught experience in undertaking advocacy and maintaining funding contracts with government. More than a quarter (27%) of leaders said their organisation has at least one funding contract in place that precludes the use of funds for systemic advocacy. Half (49%) said they did not have a government contract that did this, while 24% were unsure. Among organisations based in NSW, a higher proportion reported having a funding contract that precluded advocacy (34%). Contracts precluding advocacy were also more common among organisations focused on health; employment, education, and training; housing and homelessness, and migrant and multicultural services. For each of these services, over 30% of leaders said their organisation had at least one contract in place precluding use of funds for advocacy. Even though systemic advocacy is well recognised as integral to community sector work, many organisations approach it cautiously. A total of 38% of leaders agreed with the statement “We need to be cautious about engaging in systemic advocacy because of our funding arrangements”. This result is slightly lower than 2019, when 43% of leaders agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.[3] In 2021, caution was a little higher in organisations for which the main funding source was a state or territory government. A total of 43% of leaders in organisations mainly funded by state or territory governments agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, compared with 38% of those mainly funded from Australian Government sources, and 24% of those funded mainly from commercial, philanthropic, or other sources. Caution about engaging in systemic advocacy can alter the behaviour of organisations. One in five leaders (19%) said their organisations had avoided engaging in systemic advocacy due to concerns about possible repercussions. The figure was highest among organisations focused on housing and homelessness services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services. When they commented on their organisation’s advocacy, leaders expressed their deep commitment to this aspect of their work, and gave examples of their approach and achievements:

They also referred to the risks, including threats to their funding:

Overall, participants explained they weigh up several factors when approaching advocacy work – the nature of the issue; contractual limits; how publicly they might be speaking; and their relationship with, and understanding of, the government in question. Many indicated that they advocate in certain circumstances and not others and had to ‘tread carefully’.

[1] See Blaxland, M and Cortis, N (2021) Valuing Australia’s community sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact. Sydney: ACOSS at https://www.acoss.org.au/australian-community-sector-survey/

[2] See foreword by Cassandra Goldie in Blaxland, M and Cortis, N (2021) Valuing Australia’s community sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact. Sydney: ACOSS https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ACSS-2021_better-contracting-report.pdf

[3] See Cortis, N. & Blaxland, M (2020): The profile and pulse of the sector: Findings from the 2019 Australian Community Sector Survey. Sydney: ACOSS

Workforce Issues

The ACSS data reveals the enormous pressure and strain that community sector workers were under in 2021. One major practical challenge included providing both remote and face-to-face services to meet increasing need in the community. Employment challenges have included job insecurity, high workload and pay rates that do not reflect the value of their work. Of significant concern, the data shows that community sector workers and leaders are offsetting funding shortfalls by performing large amounts of unpaid work. Unpaid work As reported previously[1], frontline workers have been particularly stretched in the pandemic. To compensate for insufficient and short-term public funding challenges, it has been the sector’s high level of commitment, namely staff contributing additional, unpaid hours that has made it possible to address rising community need. A total of 22% of participants reported that they had seen increases in unpaid overtime in their organisation during 2021 (Figure B. 3). Participants noted the way their operational environment continued to be predicated on unpaid work. For example:

Loss of volunteers due to the pandemic, in the context of rising demand, also impacted on the time and tasks required of paid staff:

Managers appear to be carrying a particularly high workload, for example:

ACSS 2021 data about working time substantiates these perspectives. When asked to report the number of additional unpaid hours worked in the last week, more than half reported one hour or more (55%). Many however contributed several hours. On average, participants performed an average of 32.9 paid hours per week, and an additional 6 unpaid hours (average of 38.9 hours of total work per week). Of the total hours worked, around 15% was unpaid, amounting to near an additional day unpaid, per week, for every worker. Unpaid hours were particularly high among organisational leaders (Table 5.1). Among CEOs, 90% performed at least 1 hour of unpaid work in the previous week, and on average, CEOs performed 11.6 unpaid hours per week, amounting to 25% of total work hours. Among frontline practitioners, a little over half (52%) performed at least one hour of unpaid work in the previous week, and on average, practitioners contributed 3.5 hours of unpaid work per week – amounting to around half a day or 10% of total hours worked. Data for other roles is in Table 5.1. Unpaid hours point to serious structural issues with how community sector organisations operate with insufficient funding and inadequate contractual arrangements. Unpaid hours were relatively low among those who agreed there were enough staff to complete the work, but above average among respondents who did not agree there were enough staff to get the work done (Table B. 4). Unpaid work is also associated with participants’ perceptions of pay. Those who agreed with the statement “I am paid fairly for the work that I do” performed fewer unpaid hours than others. Correspondingly, those who did not feel they were paid fairly reported higher average unpaid hours (Table B. 5). Not surprisingly, then, working conditions were often cited by participants considering moving into other jobs (see Section 5.4).

Table 5.1 Hours of paid and unpaid work, by role

Job security

Many participants reported that job insecurity had affected staff in their organisation in 2021. A third (32%) had seen job losses or non-renewal of contracts, 29% reported loss of work for casual or fixed term staff, 20% reported reduced hours for paid staff, and 17% had observed a freeze on staff recruitment (Figure B. 3). In addition, two in five participants (41%) said they worry about the future of their job (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Agreement with the statement “I worry about the future of my job”, by employment arrangement

Concern over job security was more common among those employed on a fixed-term basis, a group which constituted around a quarter of participants (26%, Table B. 7).[2] Among those employed on a fixed term basis, almost three-quarters (73%) said that the duration of their contract was linked to the funding cycle. However, this differed across roles: frontline practitioners and team leaders or coordinators of services or programs were most likely to have their contracts linked to the duration of the funding cycle (83% and 91% respectively, see Figure 5.2). Comparatively few CEOs (42%) who were employed on a fixed term basis said this was linked to the funding cycle, indicating use of fixed-term contracts for other reasons.

Figure 5.2 Fixed term staff whose contract duration was linked to the funding cycle

Job security was better among those with longer working histories in community services. Figure 5.3 shows the proportion of participants who were employed on a permanent basis was higher for those who had worked for longer in the community sector, and the proportion working on a fixed term basis was lower. This may reflect the ways employment security improves over time, but may also reflect cohort effects, whereby those most recently entering the sector are entering roles with poorer security.

Figure 5.3 Workers employed on a permanent and fixed term basis, by total years worked in community sector

Other working conditions

Adequacy of staffing

Figure 5.4 provides perspectives on other working conditions. Many workers either disagreed or strongly disagreed (59% combined) that there are enough staff in their service to get all the work done, and only 28% agreed. Relatively high proportions of workers whose organisations were focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services or on community development, disagreed that there are enough staff in their service to get the work done (over two thirds in both) (Table B. 8). Professional learning and development Many staff are missing out on professional development. Over half of participants (56%) agreed they receive the professional learning and development they need while 28% felt this was not the case for them (Figure 5.4). Results differed across types of services, with higher agreement among those focused on housing and homelessness and financial counselling and support. There were greater unmet professional learning and development needs among workers in organisations focused on migrant and multicultural services, employment and training, community development, and ageing, disability, and carer services (Table B. 10) Pay Overall, 57% agreed (or strongly agreed) they receive decent pay for the work that they do (Figure 5.4). A breakdown by role is in Table B. 11, which shows the highest levels of dissatisfaction were evident among CEOs and frontline workers, while those employed as communication, policy, program, or research officers were more likely than others to report that they receive decent pay. Career advancement Around 2 in 5 participants were positive about their prospects, and either agreed (32%) or strongly agreed (7%) with the statement “I have good prospects for career advancement”, while slightly fewer than ? 32% disagreed. Many however were neutral or unsure (30%) about future prospects (Figure 5.4). Those in smaller organisations were less likely than others to agree, but no more likely than workers in medium and larger organisations to disagree with the statement (Table B. 12).

Figure 5.4 Community sector workers’ perspectives on their working conditions (%)

Health and safety

As a measure of working conditions, the survey asked if participants thought COVID safety was well managed in their organisation. Overall, responses were positive, with 82% either agreeing or strongly agreeing COVID safety was well managed. However, there were role-based differences. Among frontline workers, smaller than average proportions agreed with the statement (73%) and relatively high proportions disagreed (12%), while among CEOs, the opposite was evident: 93% agreed and only 1% disagreed COVID safety was well managed (Table B. 8). Recruiting and retaining skilled staff Unsurprisingly, workforce recruitment and retention is proving difficult. Overall, 29% of survey participants plan to leave their role in 12 months, 21% plan to leave their organisation, and 9% plan to leave the community sector. [3] Figure 5.5 shows this differed by role:

• CEOs were most likely to intend to continue in their role (86%), while staff in communications, policy, project, or research roles were least likely (51%).
• Two thirds of frontline practitioners (67%) intend to remain in their current role in twelve months, with the largest group intending to move to a different community sector organisation (17%), or to a different role in their current organisation (8%).

Figure 5.5 Where participants intend to be working in 12 months, by role

Participants intending to leave their organisation, or the industry, were asked to comment on the reasons for this. Among those intending to leave their organisation, some sought new challenges or a promotion, for example:

Others wished to use different skills or work with different community members. For most however, the reasons for leaving were because of issues with their current job and organisation. These issues including insufficient paid hours; because funding uncertainty meant contracts were short term and they lacked assurance of renewal or a pathway to permanency; limited opportunities for professional development and growth; and poor-quality working conditions or work environment. The pressure and intensity of the work, and lack of support and access to resources, were commonly mentioned. As one participant explained:

Some also mentioned they planned to leave due to poor access to decent work entitlements, including maternity leave, in a context dominated by short term funding.

Some organisations were seen to be pushed towards a more corporate approach to service delivery, raising ethical dilemmas about the purpose of community sector work for some workers:

Among those planning to leave the community services industry altogether, many were planning to move to the public sector to obtain better pay and conditions, including regulation of working time:

Importantly, the fractious relationship between government and the community sector was also a reason people were leaving the sector

Leaders’ experiences of recruitment and retention Organisational leaders were asked, “Thinking about your paid staff, are there any particular roles or skillsets that have been difficult to recruit or retain recently?” Most of those who responded, reported that they had difficulty recruiting and retaining specific roles such as mental health clinicians, advocates, lawyers, financial counsellors, carers, social workers and allied health workers. They also found it difficult to recruit and retain staff who could fill administrative, communications, payroll and human resources positions, project officers, team leaders and program managers. Some said they found it difficult to recruit staff with specific employment or lived experience, for example, from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background and/or with cultural or language knowledge, staff with experience working with particular client groups or in specific or highly complex circumstances. Participants rarely commented on why they thought recruiting or retaining skilled and experienced staff was difficult, but some did. Of those who did comment, most often, they said they thought employment conditions were to blame, typically in the form of low pay, short contracts, and part-time hours. For example:

Some commented that it was especially difficult to recruit staff into regional and remote locations.

Leaders were also asked about board members, and the roles and skillsets that have been difficult to recruit or retain. A number said that they had no challenges with recruiting appropriate board members. But most said that it was difficult. For some, any position was difficult to fill, but most specified the skills, experience or positions that posed the greatest challenge. In order from the most to the least common, these included board members with financial knowledge, particularly treasurers, with legal training, with lived experience or experience working in the sector, with communications or marketing skills, with fundraising or grant writing skills, and members with business experience. Some wrote with more detail about the challenges they face recruiting board members:

Some, however, had very positive experiences with recruiting board members:

[1] Cortis N and Blaxland, M (2021) Meeting demand in the shadow of the Delta outbreak: Community Sector experiences. Demand Snapshot 2021. Sydney: ACOSS, p16.

[2] Table B. 7 provides a breakdown of those employed on a permanent (65%), fixed term (26%), casual (4%) or other (5%) basis. Two thirds (65%) said they were employed on a permanent or ongoing basis. Note also that when organisational leaders were asked what proportion of staff in their organisation were employed on a permanent basis, the average was 62%.

[3] Results were similar in 2020. See Cortis, N & Blaxland, M (2020): Australia’s community sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis. Sydney: ACOSS, p47.

Conclusion: Strengthening the Community Sector

Throughout 2021, the community sector demonstrated remarkable resilience in the context of both the pandemic and long-term underinvestment in social policy priorities. In the survey, participants highlighted aspirations for change, and priorities for the future. These priorities included responding to poverty and inequality, and recalibrating relationships with government, as a basis for proper acknowledgement of the full value of the sector’s contributions, and coverage of the true costs of service delivery.

1. Address structural causes of inequality and disadvantage

Survey findings reflect collective frustration at the failure of government to address root causes of inequality, poverty, and disadvantage, such as lack of income support, lack of adequate housing and social infrastructure, and associated disparities in health and education. Participants reiterated the need to intervene early and maintain longer-term support for people on low incomes.

2. Recognise the sector’s skill and contribution

Participants also underlined the need to fully recognise the skill and value contributed by the sector:

To do this, suggestions included reviewing award settings to ensure classifications recognise the skills and education required for direct practice. Others mentioned the need to ensure the increased productivity and contribution of the sector was recognised with appropriate funding, that did not require staff to contribute voluntary hours on top of their paid work.

3. Improve funding adequacy and security

A common priority was to improve government funding approaches to ensure the costs are covered and to maintain organisational viability and service quality:

Improving the security of funding and providing greater certainty in funding arrangements emerged as a high priority, for example:

4. Address the impact of the pandemic on the workforce

Participants highlighted the need to better recognise the impact of the pandemic on the sector’s workforce through mechanisms such as additional leave and further financial supports:

5. Shift to a more genuine collaboration with government

Better and more genuine collaboration was also a priority among participants. For some, this referred to better cross-sectoral engagement, to ensure that sector representatives were involved in decision making and at earlier points in the policy development process:

Others mentioned better localised commitment to the sector from government agencies:

Improving links within the community sector, to address fragmentation and improve effectiveness, were also priorities:

6. Prioritise workforce development

Many participants commented on the importance of supporting the workforce, as a way to strengthen the quality and contribution of the sector and enhance its professionalisation, and sustainability. For example:

Low pay and the fact it does not reflect the intensity, skillset and demands of professional roles, were commonly mentioned by participants:

While acknowledging recent advances, improving award classifications and rates was seen as a top priority:

7. Support small, localised and specialist organisations

Many participants also noted safeguarding sectoral diversity should be a key priority, such as supporting smaller, localised and specialist organisations, alongside larger organisations. Participants mentioned that such organisations require operational funding and less onerous grant application processes, to sustain their close working with communities:

Conclusion When the data from the ACSS was collected, much of Australia was grappling with the Delta outbreak. This report’s release coincides with the continued spread of the Omicron variant. The health risks and social and economic disruptions of COVID-19 will continue to be felt into the future, along with longstanding problems of poverty and inequality, which the pandemic has exacerbated. As the data shows, Australia’s community sector, which operated under immense strain prior to the pandemic, is now stretched even further. This report draws attention to the way the sector is surviving on the contributions of unpaid hours by paid staff. Continued undervaluation will slow down national recovery and further entrench poverty, inequality, and disadvantage. Alternatively, the sector can be repositioned at the heart of the policy development process, and provided with fair funding for quality services and a thriving workforce to support a more equitable pandemic recovery.

About the survey

The findings in this report are drawn from the Australian Community Sector Survey 2021. The research was approved by UNSW Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HC190646). With the assistance of the Australian Council of Social Service and the state and territory Councils of Social Service, the survey was designed to capture information based on the experiences and perspectives of community sector staff and leaders. The survey was conducted online using Qualtrics. As there is no national list of all relevant community sector organisations from which to draw a sample, we sought to reach participants via COSS members, peak bodies, the Australian Services Union, websites, and relevant social media, to ensure the widest possible reach. The COSS network were asked to share the survey with organisations in their network, and to distribute the link to staff. In addition, we sought to encourage participation by offering an incentive in the form of an opportunity to go into the draw to win shopping vouchers. In total, 1828 community sector workers participated, however not all answered all questions, so responses are lower on some measures. Material relating to demand, and capacity to meet demand, can be found in a previous, companion report.14 This report contains further information, including material from a separate module of questions asked of organisational leaders only (CEOs and senior managers), about funding, advocacy and workforce issues. Other reports from the Australian Community Sector Survey are at https://www.acoss.org.au/australian-community-sector-survey/

Table A.1 Participants’ role and gender

Table A.2 Participants’ locations

Table A.3 Participants’ service type and size of organisation

Table A.4 Age of participants

Table A.5 Select characteristics of participants

Appendix B. Supplementary Data

Table B. 1 Most important funding source for the organisation, by size

Table B. 2 Most important funding source for the organisation, by main service type

Figure B. 1 How organisation’s finances are expected to change in 2022, by jurisdiction

Figure B. 2 How organisation’s finances are expected to change in 2022, by main funding source

Table B. 3 Organisation’s longest current contract, by main service focus

Table B.4 Duration of the organisation’s longest current contract, by jurisdiction

Figure B. 3 Issues seen affecting staff in the organisation in 2021 (n=1672)

Table B. 5 Paid and unpaid hours, by adequacy of staffing

Table B. 6 Paid and unpaid hours, by perceptions of pay

Table B. 7 Employment arrangement, by role

Table B. 8 Agreement that “COVID safety is well managed in my organisation”, by role

Table B. 9 Agreement that “There are enough staff in my service to get the work done”, by main service focus

Table B. 10 Agreement that “There are enough staff in my service to get the work done”, by gender

Table B. 11 Agreement that “I get the professional learning and development I need”, by main service focus

Table B. 12 Agreement that “I receive decent pay for the work that I do”, by role

Table B. 13 Agreement that “I have decent opportunities for career advancement”, by size