Contract Governance Guidelines. April 2014

Cotract Goverace Guidelies April 2014 1

2

Ackowledgemet The Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services (FACS) uder cotract with CPLI Pty Limited ad Terece Burke, ad usig The Burke Four Pillars Model of Cotract Goverace, has prepared these guidelies, tools ad resources to support District ad Cetral cotract maagers i their work to maage fuded service providers i the delivery of quality outcomes for our cliets. This work has bee udertake i collaboratio with Cetral ad District staff. We thak those members of the peak bodies ad o-govermet orgaisatios who participated i the cosultative forums to iform ad shape this work I particular, FACS would like to ackowledge the work of Terece Burke, the Pricipal of CPLI Pty Limited i the developmet of the framework ad supportig material. This material has bee edorsed for use with o-govermet orgaisatios fuded by FACS. Material licesed to FACS by CPLI Pty Limited ad Terece Burke is uder a o-exclusive, permaet licece. Uauthorised use of this material outside FACS is prohibited. 3

4

Cotets Mai Page Itroductio 7 Backgroud 8 Legislative requiremets for cotractig service delivery 10 Creatig a sustaiable ad high-performig service system 10 The Cotract Goverace Framework 12 Pillar 1: Performace measuremet ad moitorig 15 Priciples of performace measuremet ad moitorig 16 The Performace Measuremet Cycle 22 Maagig service provider risk 30 Roles ad resposibilities of the cotracted parties 32 Caledar for performace measuremet activities 34 Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS) 34 Fiacial acquittal 34 Visits to service provider premises 35 Pillar 2: Achievig performace through uderstadig the cotract documets 37 Backgroud 38 Workig i partership with service providers 38 The Fudig Deed 39 Key areas of the Fudig Deed supportig performace results 39 The Program Level Agreemet (PLA) 45 The Program Guidelies 47 The Service Delivery Schedule 48 Improvemets i the admiistratio of cotracts for service providers 48 Maagig risk i the cotract 51 Pillar 3: Achievig performace through relatioship maagemet 55 Backgroud 56 The stregths-based approach to relatioship maagemet 56 The cotract maager ad relatioship maagemet 57 The six priciples of relatioship maagemet 57 Relatioship maagemet tools 64 Pillar 4: No-adversarial egotiatios i maagig cotracts 67 Backgroud 68 The stregths-based approach to egotiatio 68 Approaches to dealig with coflict 69 Positioal bargaiig 71 Iterest-based bargaiig 72 The egotiatio process 73 Workig with cultural diversity i the egotiatio process 76 What steps should be take whe egotiatio is usuccessful? 77 Appedices 79 Glossary of terms 123 Liks to other documets for Cotract Goverace 127 Idex 128 5

6

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Itroductio 7

1 Backgroud The Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services (FACS) is egaged i a process of sigificat chage ad reform. This has led to a eed to rethik the way we work with the services we fud to esure both FACS ad service providers work together i partership to deliver high-performig services to some of the most disadvataged idividuals, families ad commuities i NSW. I its Strategic Pla 2014 2018, FACS s visio is that All people, icludig the most vulerable, live full lives ad achieve their potetial. FACS is udertakig a ambitious reform ageda which, at its foudatio, is puttig people, our cliets, at the cetre of everythig we do. Improvig the people s lives ad improvig services is the commo goal across all FACS reforms. A robust platform to support these reforms meas we will cotiue to build stroger parterships with o-govermet orgaisatios, philathropists, social ivestors ad busiess. FACS values the role of the o-govermet sector i helpig people to lead fuller, more rewardig lives; we wat to exted their ivolvemet ad that of the private sector ad the commuity. Oly by combiig our efforts ca we reach more people ad make a bigger differece. This will be achieved by: stregtheig ad growig the service system s capacity to deliver more services o behalf of the Govermet streamliig ad stregtheig service provider cotracts ad accoutability with improvemets to fudig cotracts ad coditios improvig service delivery etworks across NSW through the sigificat impact of localisatio to better place idividuals, families ad local commuities, ad esurig we focus o the eeds of idividuals, families ad local commuities. These chages brig together the curret local Ageig, Disability ad Home Care, Commuity Services ad Housig NSW cliet services ad operatios. 1.1 Stregtheig the o-govermet sector i service delivery Util recetly, FACS itself was the primary agecy deliverig services to childre, youg people, families ad commuities. However, the ature of our work has chaged. We o loger deliver most services. Istead we cotract other providers to udertake this importat work. I 2012 13, FACS spet $4.897 billio deliverig services across NSW. The largest category of expediture was i the delivery of our major services ad programs icludig Disability services, Commowealth Home ad Commuity Care, Commuity Care Supports, Out-of-Home-Care, Prevetio ad Early Itervetio, ad Aborigial Commuities Developmet programs. May of these programs are delivered by NGOs o our behalf. This is evideced i the fact that, at the momet, more tha 50 per cet of FACS budget goes towards fudig programs delivered maily by NGOs. This is likely to icrease as we cotiue to icrease the umber ad capacity of service providers across program areas with a ivestmet over the ext few years. 1 2 1 Family ad Commuity Services, Aual report 2012 13, Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services, Sydey, 2012, p. 20 ad 45. 2 Out-of-home care fudig aloe i 2012 13 totalled $773.5 millio. Family ad Commuity Services, Aual report 2012 13, Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services, Sydey, 2012, p. 19. 8

I additio to ecouragig growth i existig service providers, this ivestmet has required ew orgaisatios to eter the sector. Across the sector, there may be fledglig orgaisatios eedig assistace i fidig their feet, as well as larger orgaisatios with larger cotracts eedig support i maagig their growth. FACS will cotiue to build ad grow relatioships with our parters i peak orgaisatios ad frot-lie service providers alike to esure the success of these reforms. The role of the cotract maager is key to supportig the successful growth of our service system, ad this role is supported by improvemets i cotractig ad the performace measuremet ad moitorig of services we fud. 1.2 Stregtheig provider accoutability FACS has further professioalised ad streamlied the work we do by eterig ito cotractual arragemets with most orgaisatios we work with. FACS s ew cotracts, the Fudig Deed ad Program Level Agreemet operate o the basis that fuds are provided for three years, with the opportuity for a extesio of a additioal two years. Oe-off fudig is provided o a occasioal basis. Give this, the chages to our work practices are ot oly about the operatioal aspects of trasitioig service delivery to the broader service sector, as the ature of our fudig arragemets with service providers has chaged as well. The legth of the cotract ad the requiremet for moitorig results mea that there is a requiremet for cotract maagers ad service providers to eter ito a relatioship i which cotract maagers are expected to use a collaborative approach, which appropriately ackowledges the partership betwee the two. This kid of fudig arragemet is referred to as beig a relatioal cotract. The Cotract Goverace Framework aims to provide the supports ecessary for cotract maagers to work withi this operatig model. 1.3 More localised decisio makig ad service delivery FACS has implemeted sigificat structural reforms that will impact o improvig service delivery etworks across NSW, to better place idividuals, families ad local commuities at the cetre of everythig that we do. These localised service systems brig together the portfolios of Housig NSW, Commuity Services, ad Ageig, Disability ad Home Care uder the leadership of a FACS District Director, which meas that relatioship buildig, commuicatio ad collaboratio at a local level has become part of the success of improved service delivery. Cotract maagers ad service providers alike eed to feel that there are processes i place to support operatioal cosistecy, i particular where service providers receive fuds from more tha oe FACS program area. The Cotract Goverace Framework is a relatioship-based model of cotract goverace that ca be applied 9

across agecies ad has bee used widely i maagig cotracts across the public ad private sectors. A high degree of collaboratio has take place across FACS to esure that the systems i place for maagig our cotractual arragemets with service providers are aliged ad support oe aother to achieve results. 2 Legislative requiremets for cotractig service delivery I additio to the imperatives related to chages i our orgaisatio, FACS is required to support the delivery of performace results i cotractig through aligmet with the Public Sector Employmet ad Maagemet Amedmet (Procuremet of Goods ad Services) Act 2012 (NSW). The key objectives of the Act are: drivig value for moey deliverig quality Govermet goods ad services aligig procuremet with busiess eeds. The objectives of the Act mea that FACS is expected to improve performace results i the services we fud through the better use of limited fiacial ad other resources. There are may ways that this occurs throughout the service system ad oe goal of the Cotract Goverace Framework is to brig these elemets together to esure better accoutability for public resources ad the delivery of better services to the childre, youg people, families ad commuities we support. 3 Creatig a sustaiable ad high-performig service system The icreasigly complex ature of our relatioships with all stakeholders withi the service sector demads that we re-thik the role of both cotract maagers ad service providers i the delivery of services to childre, youg people, families ad commuities. Key elemets i buildig a service system that is both high-performig ad stable iclude: buildig a stregths-based partership with service providers ecouragig ad supportig diversity ad iovatio developig a framework that supports performace improvemets as well as maagig risks to the delivery of services. 3.1 Buildig stregths-based parterships with service providers Buildig parterships etails esurig trasparecy i our behaviour, buildig trust ad maitaiig commuicatio. These actios uderpi a stregthsbased approach to maagig cotract relatioships, which ackowledges each orgaisatio s uique set of stregths ad challeges, ad egages each party as a parter i egotiatig, developig ad plaig. Give this, the ability to work with service providers from a stregths-based perspective ca have the followig beefits for both parties to the cotract: 10

iflueces ad icreases egagemet i the delivery of services iflueces ad icreases efficiecy ad idepedece i service providers ehaces the capacity to build relatioships ad support etworks improves cultural competecy ad the ability to support diversity i cotract maagers icreases collaboratio i which the cotract maager ad service provider are viewed as equal parters i the chage process. Supportig a stregths-based approach to cotract maagemet aims to build resiliece i service providers to develop robust systems of operatig. This meas that it is the cotract maager s role to mobilise service providers stregths through fidig opportuities to maximise idepedet fuctioig. As a orgaisatio s resiliece grows, it is expected that improvemets i performace will also grow. Key to the stregths-based approach is the ability of cotract maagers to be aware of gaps i service providers capabilities ad to commuicate this i a effort to support chage. Trasparecy i relatio to discussig risks to service provisio is therefore itegral to the partership approach. The ability to maage these complexities is critical to effective cotract goverace. 3.2 Ecouragig diversity ad iovatio The outsourcig of services to the commuity sector recogises that i order to be effective, our service system eeds to reflect the commuity it is supportig. I order for this to happe, we eed to icrease the umber ad rage of services to reflect our requiremets. 3 We eed to begi to view service providers idepedece from Govermet as beig a stregth from which we ca lear. We also eed to egage service providers as parters i which we have the capacity ad resposibility to liste to service providers eeds, wats ad also their expectatios about their relatioship with cotract maagers. Part of havig the capacity to liste to service providers eeds etails embracig opportuities for iovatio ad ew ways of thikig about how to support the childre, youg people, families ad commuities that we work with. This icludes the developmet of culturally appropriate, iovative ad visioary models of care across the spectrum of services. I takig a stregths-based approach to service providers, i which the relatioship is paramout, the Cotract Goverace Framework allows cotract maagers to look for ad illumiate talets withi the service sector, ad where possible to share ay kowledge gaied. 3 Family ad Commuity Services, Aual report 2012 13, Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services, Sydey, 2013, p. 10. 11

4 The Cotract Goverace Framework The Cotract Goverace Framework provides a set of systems, priciples ad processes by which a cotract relatioship is maaged. The framework is aimed at supportig parterships betwee cotract maagers ad service providers i the delivery of performace goals that support service providers i their idepedece. Cotract goverace is based o the priciples of itegrity, fairess ad trasparecy i relatio to all trasactios, ad a commitmet to coductig busiess i a ethical maer. Figure 1: The Cotract Goverace Framework 4 FACS PILLAR 2 Cotracts Fudig Deed PILLAR 1 Performace PILLAR 3 Relatioships Service providers PILLAR 4 Negotiatio 4.1 Elemets of the Cotract Goverace Framework There are four elemets or pillars to the Cotract Goverace Framework, each of which focuses o aspects of achievig performace i the cotract relatioship. These elemets are: Pillar 1: Performace measuremet ad moitorig Pillar 2: Achievig performace through uderstadig the cotract documets Pillar 3: Achievig performace through relatioship maagemet Pillar 4: No-adversarial egotiatios i maagig cotracts. 4 T Burke, The four pillars model, CPLI Pty Ltd, Sydey, 2013. 12

Effective cotract maagemet seeks to coordiate these elemets throughout the course of the cotract relatioship. 4.1.1 Performace moitorig ad measuremet All four pillars are focused o aspects of the achievemet of performace i the cotract relatioship. However, Pillar 1 is idetified as beig the cetral elemet i the framework as it describes strategies ad tools for moitorig ad measurig performace for the duratio of the cotract s life. Importatly, the pillar recogises that there are two performaces requirig support: that of the service provider ad the cotract maager. This elemet is supported ad bolstered by Pillars 2 to 4. 4.1.2 Achievig performace through uderstadig the cotract documets A ew system of cotractig has bee implemeted by FACS (Commuity Services) with the aim of improvig the performace of both service providers ad FACS i the provisio of services to the commuity, ad streamliig processes to support the eeds of both cotract maagers ad service providers alike. The ew cotract documets iclude the Fudig Deed, the Program Level Agreemet ad supportig documets icludig the Service Delivery Schedules ad Program Guidelies. Pillar 2 describes the role of these documets ad how both cotract maagers ad service providers ca use these to support quatitative ad qualitative performace improvemets. 4.1.3 Achievig performace through relatioship maagemet Relatioship maagemet is arguably the key compoet of cotract maagemet ad research has show that huma relatioships are the most sigificat factor i determiig cotract failure or success. Pillar 3 aims to reiforce the importace of relatioships i achievig positive results for the commuities we work with ad provides key skills for cotract maagers i developig workig relatioships with service providers. 4.1.4 No-adversarial egotiatios i maagig cotracts Havig differeces of opiio is commo to all relatioships ad is ot ecessarily a bad thig. As log as it is maaged effectively, coflict ca lead to both persoal ad professioal growth. I may cases, effective coflict resolutio ca make the differece betwee positive ad egative outcomes. Give the importace for cotract maagers, Pillar 4 shows the importat skills required to maage differeces both i the egotiatio of cotracts ad durig the course of the cotract relatioship. Where ecessary, it is also importat for cotract maagers to uderstad pathways for escalatig issues whe eeded. 13

14

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Pillar 1: Performace measuremet ad moitorig 15

1 Priciples of performace moitorig ad measuremet 1 The Cotract Goverace Framework proposes that, to eable high performace, there eeds to be a reewed emphasis o performace measuremet as a core activity that is embedded i all maagemet fuctios. The four priciples of performace measuremet ad moitorig are: defiig quality performace measures aligmet betwee high-level strategies ad idividual goals achievig two performaces through the relatioal cotract adaptability of performace i a chagig eviromet 1.1 Defiig quality performace measures All parties to the cotract eed to be clear about what it is they wat the cotract to achieve ad what quality performace meas for their orgaisatio. All parties to the cotract eed to be clear about what it is they wat the cotract to achieve ad what quality performace meas for their orgaisatio. This, i tur, eeds to be reflected i the performace results agreed i the cotract. FACS s quality performace measures are defied primarily by our legislative framework, the cotracts ad supportig documets, ad performace measures idetified as key to reducig risk i the delivery of services. 1.1.1 Legislative framework FACS s work is guided by its legislative requiremets across the relevat program areas. Key pieces of legislatio goverig FACS work iclude: Child Protectio (Workig with Childre) Act 2012 Childre ad Youg Persos (Care ad Protectio) Act 1998 Commissio for Childre ad Youg People Act 1998 Commuity Services (Complaits, Reviews ad Moitorig) Act 1993 Commuity Welfare Act 1987 Housig Act 2001 Disability Services Act 1993. 1 Australia Public Service Commissio, Stregtheig the Performace Framework: Towards a high performig Australia Public Service, Caberra, May 2013. 16

Refer to the relevat FACS agecy website for further detail o relevat legislatio. Performace goals across each program area should clearly alig with FACS strategic directio ad the relevat legislatio. More detail about aligmet betwee each program area ad its legislative requiremets are provided i the Program Guidelies for each program area. 1.1.2 The cotracts ad supportig documets The cotract documets iclude the Fudig Deed ad the Program Level Agreemet. Documets supportig the cotract iclude the Program Guidelies ad the Service Delivery Schedule (if applicable). These documets have bee redesiged to support performace improvemets for all programs fuded by FACS. Compliace with FACS s Program Guidelies is ow cotractually required, stregtheig the expectatio that both cotract maagers ad service providers will focus o the achievemet of quality outcomes for childre, youg people, families ad commuities. Idetificatio of key idicators i the Program Guidelies forms the basis of discussio betwee cotract maagers ad service providers about performace requiremets. The three mai areas of performace assessed are Corporate Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery. 1.1.3 Performace measures to reduce risk i the delivery of services There are three mai areas of performace highlighted i the Cotract Goverace Guidelies ad supportig tools, icludig the Corporate ad Program Level Agreemet Ogoig Review Tools, the Corporate ad Program Level Agreemet Self Assessmet Tools ad the Corporate ad Program Level Agreemet Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) Tools. These areas iclude: Corporate Goverace Fiacial Maagemet Service Delivery. 17

Corporate Goverace Corporate Goverace may be defied as the system of rules, practices ad processes by which a orgaisatio is directed ad cotrolled. Corporate goverace also provides the framework for attaiig a orgaisatio s objectives, ecompassig every sphere of maagemet of the orgaisatio. Give rapid growth i the ogovermet sector ad the eed for orgaisatios to build capacity, the eed for robust Corporate Goverace has bee idetified as a performace measure i the Cotract Goverace Guidelies. Fiacial Maagemet Fiacial Maagemet may be defied as the plaig, directig, moitorig, orgaisig ad cotrollig of the moetary resources of a orgaisatio. Robust orgaisatios should have policies ad procedures i place for the maagemet of fiaces, ad should be able to demostrate their ability to maage both their assets ad their liabilities. Cotract maagers eed to be able to uderstad ad aalyse fiacial documets to esure that service providers are maagig their fiaces appropriately. Service Delivery Service Delivery may be defied as the quatitative ad qualitative outcome measures service providers are required to fulfil to meet their cotractual requiremets. This may rage from meetig basic requiremets such as esurig that services are directed to the target cliet group ad are provided i the required geographic locatios, to esurig that the quality of services delivered are commesurate with requiremets stipulated i the Program Guidelies ad i accordace with FACS s policies ad legislative requiremets. 1.2 Aligmet betwee high-level strategies ad idividual goals Achievig aligmet betwee orgaisatioal strategy, ad group ad idividual goals is importat i allowig people to see how their idividual effort cotributes to FACS ad broader govermetal goals. Whe aligmet is achieved, clear goals ca be see at the top of the orgaisatio ad are commuicated at all levels. 18

Figure 1: FACS s fudig strategies ad idividual goals Our strategic directio is outlied i FACS Aual Report 2012 13. Pillar 1, Sectio 1.2 outlies the importace of aligmet with our orgaisatio s strategic goals. FACS s strategic directio The Commuity Services Pla provides the framework that shapes the services we provide ad the decisios we make. It sets objectives ad performace measures as well as the ratioale behid those measures. Commuity Services Pla Pillar 1,Sectio 1.2 refereces the Commuity Services Pla 2012 14. Pillar 1, Sectio 1 refers to the liks betwee legislatio, orgaisatioal directio ad program areas. Programs Pillar 1, Sectio 1 refers to the liks betwee legislatio, orgaisatioal directio ad program areas. Pillar 2, Sectio 6 refers to the Program Guidelies. Policy ad guidelies Program Guidelies Legislatio ad stadards Pillar 2, Sectio 3 refers to the Fudig Deed. Fudig Deed Pillar 2, Sectio 5 refers to the Program Level Agreemet. Program Level Agreemet Pillar 2, Sectio 7 refers to the Service Delivery Schedule. Service Delivery Schedule 19

Aligmet betwee FACS s goals ad the NSW Govermet s goals may be viewed i the NSW Govermet s pla, NSW 2021, a 10-year pla to rebuild the ecoomy, provide quality services, reovate ifrastructure, restore Govermet accoutability ad stregthe the local eviromet ad commuities. I deliverig quality services across the priority areas of child wellbeig, homelessess ad disabilities, the pla idetifies collaboratio with the service sector i the desig ad delivery of services as beig key to deliverig performace outcomes. 2 FACS s Commuity Services Pla 2012 14 provides further detail o how we may achieve performace i the delivery of services i idetifyig both the eed for us to develop as a capable orgaisatio, as well as supportig the broader service system to perform. 3 Aligmet with Govermet, orgaisatioal ad program goals should be a cosideratio whe defiig performace goals withi the cotractig eviromet. Cotract maagers ad fuded orgaisatios should aim to egage i ope ad frequet commuicatio through formal ad iformal mechaisms, the provisio of learig ad developmet opportuities, ad rewards ad recogitio for service providers performace achievemets. 1.3 Achievig two performaces through the relatioal cotract Traditioally, service providers may have perceived performace as somethig that is beig doe to them. This focus o compliace has led service providers to perceive performace measuremet as beig a reportig process that has bee used as a puitive tool. This is because Govermet systems are traditioally vertical i ature, with a hierarchical system i place to maage employees withi the orgaisatio. Withi this system of maagemet, much importace is give to systems of cotrol ad accoutability. However, whe i a workig relatioship with aother orgaisatio, this vertical maagemet model has ot proved to be effective. To effectively work with service providers, cotract maagers will eed to adopt a horizotal approach, which recogises the two parties to the cotract as beig equal i coordiatig activities to achieve outcomes agreed to i the cotract. To effectively work with service providers, cotract maagers will eed to adopt a horizotal approach, which recogises the two parties to the cotract as beig equal i coordiatig activities to achieve outcomes agreed to i the cotract. The process is a two-way partership where both FACS ad service providers provide 2 NSW Govermet, NSW 2021: A pla to make NSW umber oe, 2013. 3 Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services, Commuity Services Pla 2012 14: Improvig childre s lives every day, Sydey, 2012. 20

oe aother with ogoig, hoest, ope ad costructive feedback. Where mutuality is evidet, both parties are more likely to demostrate icreased commitmet ad willigess to perform. 1.4 Adaptability of performace i a chagig eviromet The service system i NSW is goig through a process of chage. The ability of cotract maagers ad service providers alike to aticipate, respod ad adapt to chagig circumstaces is a characteristic of high performace. To esure the ability of those workig i our service system to adapt, the workforce eeds to be provided with the kowledge ad skills to be flexible ad resposive to chagig priorities. This ca oly be achieved through the mechaism of ogoig dialogue betwee cotract maagers ad the services we fud. Liked to the ability to adapt is the otio that both we ad the orgaisatios we fud eed to be focused o cotiuous improvemet. Cotiuous improvemet recogises that there are future aspiratios ad goals worth achievig. Agai, dialogue betwee cotract maagers ad fuded orgaisatios should cotiually moitor progress agaist performace goals, ot oly as a mechaism for moitorig risk, but also as a meas of achievig cotiuous improvemet. 1.5 Foudatio elemets uderpiig the priciples The key foudatio elemets uderpiig the priciples are: evidece ad data collectio realistic goal settig. These elemets are discussed below. 1.5.1 Evidece ad data collectio I 2010, the Productivity Commissio reported o the cotributio of the ot-forprofit sector. 4 I discussig productivity, the report oted that it is importat to distiguish betwee efficiecy i productio (how well outputs are produced) ad efficiecy i allocatio (how well resources have bee used to deliver outcomes for the commuity). It was oted that while both are importat, it is the latter which matters most for improved commuity wellbeig. Quality performace is reliat upo there beig a strategic approach to collectig data, which is relevat to goal attaimet ad focuses o both qualitative ad quatitative measures of achievemet. FACS is reliat upo service providers to collect reliable data o Service Delivery for the purposes of assessig performace. Head Office is workig towards improvig systems for the extractio of quality data. It is expected that as our ability to extract quality data from the system grows, our requiremets for reportig o activities will also icrease. It is also aticipated that the availability of quality data will improve the ability of cotract maagers to drive performace improvemets i the sector. 4 Productivity Commissio, Cotributio of the ot-for-profit sector, Research Report, Caberra, Jauary 2010. 21

1.5.2 Realistic goal settig While FACS s aim is to improve ad support quality performace i the delivery of services to vulerable idividuals, childre, youg people ad families, it is recogised that plaig for the achievemet of performace goals should be realistic ad fit for purpose. This meas that we eed to cosider our ow orgaisatioal cotext ad also that of the service. Give rapid growth i the sector, some service providers will eed support to achieve quality performace ad may eed time to develop systems to support these achievemets. 2 The Performace Measuremet Cycle The Performace Measuremet Cycle focuses o activities udertake by cotract maagers ad service providers staff i moitorig ad recordig progress towards performace goals agreed i the cotract ad i the course of the ogoig cotract relatioship. The Performace Measuremet Cycle focuses o activities udertake by cotract maagers ad service providers staff i moitorig ad recordig progress towards performace goals agreed i the cotract ad i the course of the ogoig cotract relatioship. The Performace Measuremet Cycle cosists of two compoets: Busiess as Usual (Figure 2) ad Whe Performace Issues are Idetified (Figure 3). The busiess as usual compoet cosists of five key activities: Ogoig Review to be completed by both service providers ad cotract maagers Self Assessmet ad fiacial reports to be completed by service providers Aual Desktop Review to be completed by cotract maagers Risk assessmet (udertake as part of the Aual Desktop Review process) the decisio to cotiue fudig a service. 22

Figure 2: Busiess as usual Ogoig Review Decisio to Keep Fudig Performace Measuremet Cycle Self Assessmet 31 October Aual Desktop Review November/December The Whe performace issues are idetified compoet cosists of two additioal activities: Moitorig ad Review Meetig Performace Improvemet Pla. Figure 3: Whe performace issues are idetified Ogoig Review Self Assessmet October Decisio to keep fudig Performace Measuremet Cycle Aual Desktop Review November/ December Performace Improvemet Pla Moitorig ad Review Meetig Risk Assessmet If ay issue is idetified, the cotract maager would udertake a Desktop Review to idetify if further issues eed to be revised i the discussio with the provider. 23

2.1 Ogoig Review FACS cotract maagemet staff are resposible for measurig performace ad supportig performace improvemets i service provisio, ad moitorig their ow performace. Amog other thigs, this ivolves year-roud, ogoig iteractio with service providers staff. Every documet received ad each site visit ad telephoe cotact cotributes to the stock of iformatio that FACS holds about a orgaisatio ad its performace. The Ogoig Review process is a key plaig ad relatioship-buildig process to determie each party s expectatios ad resposibilities i a ope ad trasparet maer, ad drive performace. The Ogoig Review process is a key plaig ad relatioship-buildig process to determie each party s expectatios ad resposibilities i a ope ad trasparet maer ad to drive performace. The opportuities for discussio about issues ad cocers esure that service providers remai o track to achieve their performace goals. The process ivolves collaboratio betwee both FACS ad service providers i achievig performace goals i the areas of Corporate Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery. Research suggests that high-performig orgaisatios are characterised by a focus o cotiuous improvemet ad cotiual progress agaist agreed goals. 5 Cotract maagers ad service providers will meet as frequetly as is ecessary to allow for cocers to be raised ad resolved, ad to esure that performace goals agreed to i the cotract or i the course of ogoig work are met. Depedet upo a assessmet of risk ad eed, this may be as frequetly as oce a moth or less frequetly, for example aually. Determiatio of risk is based o factors assessed i the suite of risk maagemet tools detailed i Sectio 3. 2.1.1 Tools for the Ogoig Review process The aim of the plaig tools is to esure there is trasparecy betwee the parties ad clear directio for tasks that eed to be udertake so service providers are able to meet FACS s expectatios. The tools also provide trasparecy i relatio to the tasks FACS eeds to complete so cotract maagers effectively support service providers i achievig these aims. Two tools have bee developed to support the Ogoig Review process: the Ogoig Review Corporate ad the Ogoig Review Program Level Agreemet. The Corporate tool is desiged to support cotract maagers measurig orgaisatioal performace agaist the Fudig Deed, i particular i the areas of Corporate 5 Australia Public Service Commissio, Stregtheig the Performace Framework: Towards a high performig Australia Public Service, Caberra, May 2013. 24

Goverace ad Fiacial Maagemet. The Program Level Agreemet tool is desiged to assist cotract maagers measurig orgaisatioal performace agaist the Program Level Agreemet, i particular i the areas of Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery. For larger service providers, it may ot be the same cotract maager moitorig these processes. Where this is the case, it is the resposibility of Program Maagers to coordiate the flow of iformatio to esure that service provider performace is comprehesively captured ad reflected i the Aual Desktop Review. The process of Ogoig Review will esure that ay risk to a fuded service provider ot meetig its cotractual agreemet is idetified early o. Ogoig Review also esures that there is comprehesive, documeted iformatio to iform the Desktop Review. 2.1.2 Relatioship buildig as the basis for Ogoig Review Cotract maagers use several meas to gather ad record iformatio about joit progress towards agreed goals. However, the backboe of the Ogoig Review process is relatioship buildig through regular meetigs with service providers, attedace at iteragecy meetigs ad aual geeral meetigs, email ad phoe cotact ad site visits to observe operatioal activities o the groud. 2.1.3 What evidece of performace is gathered ad recorded? Cotract maagers obtai regular service data reports from service providers depedet o the program s performace goals those set out i the Program Level Agreemet, ad the Service Delivery Schedule if applicable. Iformatio is also gathered from observatios throughout the ogoig cotract relatioship. For example, i out-of-home care (OOHC) services this icludes iformatio o the cotracted umber of beds, umber of referrals ad actual placemets, as well as data o progress towards cotracted quality outcomes defied i the Program Guidelies or elsewhere. Cotract maagers also have access to Head Office data reports o the service provider s performace. Data reports are assessed agaist agreed performace goals ad form the basis of discussio whe determiig if strategies for achievig goals eed to be adjusted or refied, whether actio eeds to be take to reduce a idetified risk, ad importatly to esure that good service provisio is recogised ad rewarded. Corporate Ogoig Review Tool Program Level Agreemet Review Tool How evidece is commuicated Key to the success of the Cotract Goverace Framework is effective commuicatio ad sharig of iformatio betwee the various stakeholders to a cotract. It is the role of the Program Maager to facilitate commuicatio betwee Districts ad betwee agecies to esure that cotract maagers ca effectively assess both the performace of a service provider ad ay risks to the delivery of services. For 25

example, whe assessig whether or ot there have bee complaits agaist a orgaisatio, cotract maagers are required to commuicate with other Districts ad, where Head Office is ivolved, with Head Office staff to esure that all the ecessary iformatio has bee captured. Where more tha oe agecy holds a cotract with a orgaisatio, cotract maagemet staff are required to commuicate with other agecies to determie if there are ay sigificat performace issues or risks that may affect their aalysis of a service provider. If cotract maagers are usure if aother agecy holds a cotract with a particular orgaisatio, they are required to fid out. Self Assessmet provides a opportuity for service providers to reflect o their performace ad preset FACS with evidece that they have fulfilled their cotractual requiremets. 2.2 Self assessmet process for service providers Each year, service providers udertake a Self Assessmet of their performace agaist the expectatios outlied i their cotract. It provides a opportuity for service providers to reflect o their performace ad preset FACS with evidece that they have fulfilled their cotractual requiremets. The process is completed olie through the Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS) portal. The process is udertake usig either the Self Assessmet Corporate or the Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet. The Self Assessmet Corporate aims to assess service providers agaist high-level Corporate Goverace ad Fiacial Maagemet performace measures, ad the service provider is primarily assessed agaist the requiremets of the Fudig Deed. The Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet aims to assess service providers agaist the requiremets of each Program Level Agreemet ad should be completed for each Program Level Agreemet. The Self Assessmet process may vary betwee programs. It may also vary from year to year for a particular program. The Self Assessmet process is a practical recogitio by FACS that the service provider is a parter i the delivery of services ad that resposibility for performace is shared. Service providers have access to FACS cotract maagemet staff for advice ad assistace durig the process of completig the Self Assessmet as well as the portal support service provided by the Head Office Fudig ad Cotractig team, ad may choose to have FACS staff commet o a draft before the fialised Self Assessmet is formally submitted. I additio, to the Self Assessmet completed by the service providers, aual fiacial accoutability reports are submitted for both corporate ad Program Level 26

Agreemet Levels. Each year, i terms of the Fudig Deed, FACS requires fuds that have bee paid to service providers be acquitted. Service providers are required to complete the package icludig Self Assessmet ad retur it to the FACS for aalysis. Self Assessmet Corporate Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet For iformatio o Fiacial Reportig requiremets, please refer to the Fudig Deed, relevat Program Level Agreemet ad Program Guidelies. 2.3 The Aual Desktop Review Each year, FACS formally reviews the iformatio it holds about the service provider it fuds i order to form a overall view about the service provider s performace over the course of the year ad future fudig. This is a desktop review i that it relies o iformatio gathered throughout the course of the year by FACS durig the Ogoig Review process, ad from the service provider s Self Assessmet ad acquittals processes. The Desktop Review comprises a short series of questios desiged to aalyse service provider performace over the last aual period, as well as a assessmet of risk The Desktop Review comprises a short series of questios desiged to aalyse service provider performace over the last aual period, as well as a assessmet of risk agaist the suite of risk maagemet tools outlied i Sectio 3. The assessed level of risk determies the frequecy of cotact betwee the cotract maager ad service provider. For example, if a service provider is still developig its Goverace ad Fiacial Maagemet structures, it will be cosidered a higher risk tha a service provider with well-established systems i place. The cotract maager completes the Desktop Review o a aual basis at a corporate level, ad agaist each of the Program Level Agreemets held by a orgaisatio. The process is itegrated with the Self Assessmet Tool o the COMS portal, to streamlie the process. This meas that as a cotract maager reviews a service provider s Self Assessmet olie, they are able to aalyse this agaist the requiremets of the Desktop Review. The outcome of the Desktop Review is shared with all who cotributed, ad with the service provider. Where agreed performace goals have bee met, the service provider receives writte cofirmatio from FACS that discussed expectatios have bee met. Where it is determied that a service provider is ot meetig its agreed performace goals, the service provider is asked to atted a formal discussio about the issues 27

(Moitorig ad Review Meetig). The Ogoig Review ad risk assessmet processes ca provide advace warig of ay difficulties to eable both parties to pla ad work costructively i movig forward. FACS may also visit some service providers to cofirm iformatio provided i their Self Assessmet (see Sectio 8). Site visits should be viewed as beig a usual part of the cotract maager/service provider relatioship, that is, part of the Ogoig Review. Desktop Review Process Map 2.4 Moitorig ad Review Meetig The Moitorig ad Review Meetig is the forum where FACS formally discusses ay issues it has idetified i relatio to the service provider s compliace with, or performace agaist, the cotract. The Moitorig ad Review Meetig is the forum where FACS formally discusses ay issues it has idetified i relatio to the service provider s compliace with, or performace agaist, the cotract. It may be ecessary to hold a series of meetigs to resolve the issues to both parties satisfactio. Give the Moitorig ad Review Meetig is a formal process, service providers ca expect at least two weeks otice of this meetig. Service providers should prepare for the meetig by locatig relevat papers ad esurig that there is evidece to support the claims described i their Self Assessmet. Iterviews may be arraged with Board members, maagemet, staff ad service users as part of this process. Where sigificat cotiuig performace issues are idetified by FACS, the service provider is asked to develop proposals for improvig performace. These are described i a Performace Improvemet Pla (see Sectio 2.5). The miutes from Moitorig ad Review Meetigs, ad other relevat papers form part of FACS permaet record about the service provider. Whe FACS is satisfied that the service provider has addressed the issues idetified for discussio, the service provider is iformed i writig. Maagemet Review Meetig Letter 1 Maagemet Review Meetig Letter 2 Moitorig ad Review Meetig Ageda 28

2.5 The Performace Improvemet Pla The Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) is a agreemet betwee the service provider ad FACS about actios the service provider will take to improve performace. A PIP is egotiated where cotract maagers idetify a sigificat cotractual or performace issue for the service provider to address. A PIP is egotiated where cotract maagers idetify a sigificat cotractual or performace issue for the service provider to address. A service provider should ot draft a PIP o its ow iitiative ad submit it to FACS for edorsemet. PIPs are developed at either the Corporate level or Program Level Agreemet level. There are two separate templates to reflect this. To determie which level PIP to use, cotract maagers eed to determie at which level the issues lie. While FACS idetifies the eed for a PIP, the cotets of the PIP are to be egotiated betwee FACS staff ad represetatives of the service provider. Negotiatio cotiues util FACS is satisfied that the PIP: accurately describes the issues describes solutios that are specific, measurable ad achievable. PIP actios must have timeframes. If there is o agreemet betwee FACS ad the service provider about PIP actios, the egotiatio process outlied i Pillar 4 of the Cotract Goverace Guidelies would be followed. Failig this, the dispute resolutio process outlied i the Fudig Deed is used. It may be ecessary to prioritise the actios described i a PIP; priority is determied by the relative impact ad urgecy associated with the actio. FACS advises the service provider about the relative urgecy of PIP actios. A copy of the agreed PIP is attached to, ad forms part of the Fudig Deed the service provider has etered ito with FACS. Because of this status, the PIP has the same sig-off criteria as the Fudig Deed at a District level, ad for the service provider, a duly authorised represetative coutersigs the PIP. As part of their day-to-day fuctios, FACS s staff actively moitor the progress that service providers make i implemetig actios listed i the PIP. A PIP remais curret util all the actios have bee achieved or it is replaced by a ew PIP. Some PIP actios will exted beyod 12 moths. These are reviewed, ad 29

if foud to be still ecessary, icluded i the ext PIP. Corporate Performace Improvemet Pla Program Level Agreemet Performace Improvemet Pla 2.6 Cotiuatio of fudig A Program Level Agreemet may refer to two types of fudig aual fudig ad oe-off fudig. Aual fudig is a amout applied to a Program Level Agreemet for a particular fiacial year. This fudig may be applied over a multi-year Program Level Agreemet with a amout for each fiacial year, or it may be provided for a sigle year. Oe-off fudig is a amout of fudig paid oce oly. It may be applied to a Program Level Agreemet of ay legth of time. Where a service provider has failed to meet performace requiremets, FACS cosiders ay circumstaces outside the service provider s cotrol that may have affected its ability to achieve the specified performace requiremets, icludig ay delays or omissios by FACS. Progress towards implemetig actios agreed i a PIP iflueces the decisio to reew fudig or chage the coditios uder which fudig is offered. Progress towards implemetig actios agreed i a PIP iflueces the decisio to reew fudig or chage the coditios uder which fudig is offered. The basis o which fudig is allocated must be cosistet with Govermet priorities. If the Govermet s priorities chage, FACS s must egotiate with service providers to chage the purpose of fudig. The provisio of fudig is also more broadly predicated o the availability of fuds from Treasury, which may be a factor i the decisio to cotiue fudig. 3 Maagig service provider risk I 2010, the Productivity Commissio recommeded that Govermet agecies put i place a specific risk maagemet framework with service providers to assess ad maage risk. 6 Followig this, as part of FACS Iteral Audit Pla for 2012 2013, KPMG carried out a iteral audit of FACS cotract maagemet arragemets. 7 It was foud that, while FACS staff were, to some degree, supported i maagig performace issues, there were o cosistet policies, processes or tools to support 6 Productivity Commissio, Cotributio of the ot-for-profit sector, Jauary 2010. 7 KPMG, Goverace ad Assurace iteral audit report: Commuity Services goverace arragemets iteral audit, October 2013, p. 3. 30

staff i moitorig service provider risks. 3.1 The risk maagemet process Risk maagemet is a cotiuous process supportig improvemets i Service Delivery. Risk maagemet does ot aim to focus o poor performace per se, but rather it eables gaps to be idetified ad supported. Risk maagemet is a cotiuous process supportig improvemets i Service Delivery. Risk maagemet does ot aim to focus o poor performace per se, but rather it eables gaps to be idetified ad supported. It is clear that the icrease i the umber ad the capacity of services i all the program areas has resulted i the establishmet of ew orgaisatios which will take some time to develop their systems, for example Goverace or Fiacial Maagemet systems. At the same time, existig orgaisatios are experiecig growth ad eed time to maage these chages. The risk assessmet process should be udertake, as a miimum, o a aual basis with each service provider as part of the Desktop Review process. However, it ca be udertake at ay poit i the Performace Measuremet Cycle if there is a idetified eed. The FACS Risk Maagemet Guidelies were adapted from the iteratioal stadard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Maagemet Priciples ad Guidelies. The Cotract Goverace Framework has take this guidace ad has developed a suite of risk maagemet tools aimed at supportig cotract maagers i idetifyig, assessig ad maagig risks to the provisio of services. The tools, discussed below, provide a stadardised approach to determiig which service providers require higher levels of support, ad therefore the frequecy of the Ogoig Review process. For those service providers where we have idetified a higher risk or exposure, cotract maagers may elect to meet for Ogoig Review as frequetly as oce a moth. For those providers where there is less risk or exposure, cotract maagers may elect to meet as ifrequetly as aually or less. The risk assessmet process cosists of four elemets: idetifyig risk, aalysig risk, evaluatig risk ad treatig risk. 3.1.1 Idetifyig risk Service provider risks are best idetified usig a variety of stakeholders with experiece ad differet views. Commuicatio betwee Districts, betwee Districts ad Head Office, as well as commuicatio betwee FACS agecies is critical to 31

accurately assessig the risk of a orgaisatio. Risk is idetified usig the Risk Idetificatio Matrix Guide for Assessmet Tool ad Risk Assessmet Ratig Tool. The Risk Idetificatio Matrix Guide for Assessmet Tool ad Risk Assessmet Ratig Tool icludes key questios ad risk idicators for cotract maagers to cosider i idetifyig service provider risks i the areas of Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet, ad Service Delivery. The tool also lists data ad iformatio sources that cotract maagers ca use to idetify risk factors. 3.1.2 Aalysig risk Oce risks have bee idetified, a aalysis eeds to be udertake to determie the severity of the risk ad the likely impact o Service Delivery. There are two tools available for aalysig risk at Corporate ad Program Level Agreemet levels. These iclude the Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool Corporate ad the Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool Program Level Agreemet. Based o the ratig provided for each risk elemet, the tool calculates a overall score ad assigs a level of risk. Guidelies have also bee produced to assist cotract maagers i aalysig risk whe completig the tools, called the Risk Idetificatio Matrix guide for assessmet tool (for both Corporate ad PLA levels). 3.1.3 Evaluatig risk Followig aalysis ad ratig of the risk, the risk is evaluated to determie optios for treatmet ad the level of support required. The Risk Categorisatio Guide is the istrumet used to assist cotract maagers i determiig the frequecy of Ogoig Review ad supports required. 3.1.4 Treatig risk Treatmet of the idetified risk is udertake usig the Risk Moitorig ad Performace Measuremet Pla. This is a template that allows staff to effectively documet risk ad performace issues, re-assess risk based o commuicatio with the service provider, ad develop actio plas for the treatmet of ay issues. The documet is iteded to be dyamic, ad should be updated as risks ad issues are idetified. Treatmet of some risks may result i the developmet of residual risk, which should also be assessed ad treated durig the regular moitorig process. 4 Roles ad resposibilities of the cotracted parties 4.1 Head Office uits FACS Head Office uits for each program area are resposible for developig cotract ad performace measuremet policy; desigig ad implemetig the associated 32

procedures ad systems; ad supportig District colleagues with briefigs, traiig ad advice. Additioally, Fudig ad Cotractig staff i Head Office are resposible for egotiatig cotracts with o-govermet service providers ad maagig some larger state-wide cotracts. 4.2 Program Maagers Each FACS program is supported by a Program Maager. Program Maagers are resposible for the operatioal success of their program areas. Each FACS program is supported by a Program Maager. Program Maagers are resposible for the operatioal success of their program areas. The program team drives the program strategy icludig program operatioal ad performace outcome pla. Their role ecompasses program leadership ad maagemet, maagemet of exteral relatioships ad maagemet of kowledge about the program area. The Program Maager has resposibility for coordiatig the moitorig ad review of Program Level Agreemets. Give this, it is the resposibility of the Program Maager to coordiate iformatio sharig betwee Districts i relatio to a service provider. For example, if oe District completes a PIP with a service provider, it is the resposibility of the Program Maager to distribute this iformatio to other Districts to iform their decisio-makig processes. Critical iformatio such as complaits agaist a orgaisatio also eed to be coordiated ad shared betwee Districts by the Program Maager to esure that risk is beig appropriately idetified ad aalysed. 4.3 District teams FACS District office staff are resposible for udertakig the detailed activities that make up the formal Performace Measuremet Cycle. This icludes support for service providers i meetig performace goals through relatioship buildig, advice, ad moitorig of activities aimed at reachig cotracted goals. 4.4 Service providers Service providers are resposible for the delivery of cotracted services ad all activities related to performace measuremet. These iclude gatherig data ad exchagig of iformatio to assist i assessig progress, participatig i the 33

completio of performace measuremet templates, ad attedace at meetigs with FACS staff to discuss progress towards cotracted goals ad performace eeds. 5 Caledar for performace measuremet activities Formal performace measuremet activities are scheduled to occur at various poits i the year. A updated Fudig ad Cotractig Caledar is released at the begiig of each fiacial year, i July. A umber of practical cosideratios shape the geeral timelie for formal performace measuremet activities, as follows: Self assessmets cotiue to be submitted by the provider at the October deadlie as the fiacial acquittal documets (see Sectio 7 Fiacial acquittal ). All formal performace measuremet activities must be cocluded i time for the results to iform FACS s decisio to cotiue fudig a service provider. This decisio is usually made before the ed of March. Formal performace measuremet activities are associated with the fiacial year i which they take place, rather tha the year of the Program Level Agreemet, ad the service data. For example, a service provider would complete a Self Assessmet durig the latter part of 2014, agaist performace requiremets described i the Fudig Deed ad Program Level Agreemet for 2013 14. 6 Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS) The Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS) is a computer system itroduced by FACS to support the ed-to-ed busiess processes for maagig cotracts with our service providers. Paymets to our service providers are also maaged i COMS. The desig of COMS reflects chages itroduced by fudig reforms, icludig performace-based cotractig, ad the Cotract Goverace Framework. Service providers ow have the ability to complete fiacial acquittal ad reportig agaist performace (such as completio of the Self Assessmet) olie, which eables both ease of access ad cosistecy i reportig processes ad practices. 7 Fiacial acquittal Like other fudig agecies, FACS requires the service provider it fuds to accout formally for the fudig they receive. This process is kow as fiacial acquittal. Like other fudig agecies, FACS requires the service provider it fuds to accout formally for the fudig they receive. This process is kow as fiacial acquittal. The requiremets of fiacial acquittal vary accordig to the type of service provider 34

ad the volume of fudig received. Fiacial acquittal is maaged separately from FACS s formal performace measuremet system for service providers but is closely associated with it. The requiremets for fiacial reportig are set out i the FACS Fudig Deed ad i Pillar 2: Achievig performace through uderstadig the cotract documets. Service providers are required to submit this fiacial acquittal iformatio through the COMS portal before the ed of October each year. For coveiece, FACS requires service providers to submit Self Assessmets at the same time. 8 Visits to service provider premises A ecessary aspect of moitorig ad measurig performace is the ability of FACS to audit service providers compliace with the Fudig Deed or Program Level Agreemet if ecessary. This meas that FACS is able to atted service providers premises to ispect the operatio of the program. If FACS wishes to visit a service outlet, cotract maagers should provide at least 48 hours otice. If FACS wishes to atted a cliet s or carer s private home, the cotract maager should provide 14 days otice, ad must oly atted with the permissio of the cliet or carer. For more iformatio i relatio to site visits, see the Fudig Deed for a particular service provider. 35

36

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Pillar 2: Achievig performace through uderstadig the cotract documets 37

1 Backgroud I 2013, FACS implemeted the Cotract Goverace Framework with the aim of improvig the performace of both service providers ad FACS i the provisio of services to vulerable childre, youg people, families ad commuities, ad streamliig processes to support the eeds of cotract maagers ad service providers alike. The ew system has replaced the old Service Agreemet with a Fudig Deed, ad the Service Specificatios with a Program Level Agreemet (PLA). The role of the Fudig Deed is to outlie the terms ad coditios of the cotract, while the PLA maps further detail i relatio to service provisio. The real focus of the ew cotract documets ad supportig tools, however, is a greater emphasis o achievig both quatitative ad qualitative improvemets i service provisio. Drivig value for moey meas that FACS aims to improve performace results i the services we fud through the better use of limited fiacial ad other resources. Fudig o actuals, i which FACS pays service providers for the actual umber of uits provided, is oe example of this shift. Achievig red tape reductio through the streamliig of admiistrative processes is aother example ad is discussed below. The real focus of the ew cotract documets ad supportig tools, however, is a greater emphasis o achievig both quatitative ad qualitative improvemets i service provisio. I the Fudig Deed, this is achieved through cotractig service providers to provide evidece of their performace i the key risk areas of Corporate Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery. I the PLA ad supportig documets, there is a stroger focus o providig evidece of quatitative ad qualitative results i Service Delivery. 2 Workig i partership with service providers At the core of the relatioship betwee FACS ad service providers is the fudig agreemet betwee the two orgaisatios. FACS ew cotracts, the Fudig Deed ad PLA, operate o the basis that fuds will be provided for three years, with the opportuity for extesio of a additioal two years. These cotracts are referred to as relatioal cotracts as the fudig arragemets betwee FACS ad service providers are parterships. Partership arragemets are desiged for circumstaces where there is a log-term commo desire to achieve the same goals, ad both parties work towards the delivery of services. As such, the focus is o close iteractio ad commuicatio betwee the parties. 1 1 Idepedet Commissio Agaist Corruptio (ICAC), Fudig NGO delivery of huma services i NSW: A period of trasitio, Cosultatio Paper, Sydey, August 2012, p. 16. 38

Ulike fuds that are committed through a grat process, cotracted fuds focus o the egotiatio ad specificatio of deliverables, ad the moitorig ad maagig of the cotract over a period of years. Give the substatial ivestmet of public fuds, ad FACS commitmet to achievig results for childre, youg people, families ad commuities, relatioal cotracts require ogoig support to esure that improved performace is achieved. 3 The Fudig Deed The Fudig Deed is a agreemet that FACS will provide fuds to a service provider ad i retur the service provider will deliver the services required. The Fudig Deed is a writte legal agreemet betwee FACS ad a service provider, made to eable the delivery of services to childre, youg people, families ad commuities. The Fudig Deed sets out the terms ad coditios, or the framework, for the agreemet. It icludes details about who ca access the service, ad the workforce, goverace, data collectio, Fiacial Maagemet ad other requiremets. Further detail o the actual service results required i the delivery of services is cotaied i the PLA ad other supportig documetatio. 4 Key areas of the Fudig Deed supportig performace results The aim of the ew Fudig Deed is to drive improved performace i the cotract relatioship betwee FACS ad service providers. The three key areas of performace iclude: Goverace Fiacial Maagemet Service Delivery. The aim of the Cotract Goverace process is to improve these three areas of performace with the aim of stregtheig ad supportig orgaisatios to deliver results. 4.1 Achievig performace through good goverace A orgaisatio demostrates good goverace whe it has a iteral system of checks ad balaces that esures the public iterest is served. 39

A orgaisatio demostrates good goverace whe it has a iteral system of checks ad balaces that esures the public iterest is served. The Board is the cetral decisio-makig body i a (o-govermet orgaisatio), represetig the multiple iterests of stakeholders to the service. It is the role of the Board to esure that these systems are i place ad to drive performace. The Fudig Deed outlies the followig goverace obligatios for service providers: Sectio 3.3(a) states that the Service Provider must provide FACS with writte otificatio of ay proposal to chage the orgaisatio s costitutio All NGOs are legally required to operate uder a costitutio. The costitutio states the purpose of the orgaisatio ad the services to be delivered. Ay chages to the costitutio may therefore impact o the delivery of services to cliets ad should therefore be coveyed to the fuder. Sectio 17.1 states that the service provider must take out ad maitai appropriate ad adequate types ad amouts of isurace to cover the Service Provider s obligatios uder a Program Level Agreemet The Self Assessmet Corporate supports the requiremet that service providers eed to provide cotract maagers with evidece of their isurace obligatios. Sectio 3.4(a) states that Service Providers should esure that the provisios of a Program Level Agreemet are reflected i the Service Provider s service stadards ad other relevat policies ad that these documets are readily available to Persoel ad cliets of the Service Provider. Policies ad procedures for the operatio of all activities, icludig the Goverace of a orgaisatio, the Fiacial Maagemet of a orgaisatio ad Service Delivery are critical for cohesive ad stable operatios. Policies ad procedures outlie best practice stadards i the operatio of a orgaisatio ad are aimed at guidig ad drivig service results. Sectio 3.1(f) states that the Service Provider must ecourage ad eable cliets to whom Services are provided to exercise their rights. I particular their right to iv. have access, without fear, to a effective complaits mechaism, which the Service Provider must provide. Policies ad procedures for maagig complaits are ecessary for esurig that a orgaisatio has the capacity to recogise ad deal with issues as they arise, ad implemet chage where ecessary. It is also importat for FACS staff to take ote of ay complaits agaist a orgaisatio to esure that service providers are maagig ay risks to the performace of services. Sectio 3.2(a) states that the Service Provider must esure that all Persoel egaged i providig Services are properly authorised, accredited, traied ad experieced to provide the Services. Service providers are resposible for esurig that staff at all levels of the orgaisatio are qualified ad experieced i providig the services required. Appropriate skills developmet ad ogoig traiig for staff also aims to esure that performace is achieved i the delivery of services. Sectio 3.2(b) states that if the Service Provider is a employer for the purposes of sectio 9 of the CPWC Act [Child Protectio (Workig with Childre) 40

Act 2012], the Service Provider must esure that all madatory employmet screeig has bee udertake o all Persoel egaged to work i child related work If applicable, all staff, icludig members of the Board should have completed a Workig with Childre Check. A Workig with Childre Check is a pre-requisite for ayoe i child-related work. It ivolves a atioal crimial history check ad review of fidigs of workplace miscoduct. The ew Workig with Childre Check is udertake by the Office of the Childre s Guardia. The completio of a Workig with Childre Check for all staff is oted as a performace measure i the Self Assessmet Corporate, completed by service providers o a aual basis. 4.2 Achievig performace through good Fiacial Maagemet All staff members of a orgaisatio, ad most importatly the Board, have a resposibility to prevet fiacial mismaagemet ad esure that both exteral ad iteral fiacial cotrol mechaisms ad policies are i place. All staff members of a orgaisatio, ad most importatly the Board, have a resposibility to prevet fiacial mismaagemet ad esure that both exteral ad iteral fiacial cotrol mechaisms ad policies are i place. FACS also has a resposibility to esure that fuds provided are used for the services we have cotracted service providers to deliver, ad that value for moey is achieved. The Fudig Deed outlies the followig provisios for esurig effective Fiacial Maagemet i the services we fud: Sectio 6.2(a) states that fuds paid to the Service Provider by FACS remai the property of FACS, ad are held o trust by the Service Provider o behalf ad for the beefit of FACS, util the services are delivered to the reasoable satisfactio of FACS There has bee a sigificat shift i the cotractig arragemets for fuds paid to service providers, with a focus o the expectatio that both cotract maagers ad service providers will esure the strog fiacial performace of services we fud ad the proper use of public resources. Ulike FACS s previous Service Agreemet, whe fuds were paid to a service provider, they ow remai the property of FACS. As the fuds cotiue to be the property of FACS, ay uspet fuds ca be recouped by FACS. FACS may also withhold fuds (or part of the fuds) if it is of the reasoable opiio that the fuds are ot required to meet the agreed delivery of services. Ay decisio to withhold fuds would be discussed ad egotiated betwee the cotract maager ad service provider. 41

Sectio 9.1(a) states that the Service provider must vi. vii. maitai a register of these assets over the value of $5,000; ad provide a copy of the register of Assets to FACS withi four moths of the ed of each Fiacial Year durig the Term. Like fudig, ay assets purchased with FACS fudig cotiue to be the property of FACS ad are held o trust by the service provider. Like fudig, ay assets purchased with FACS fudig cotiue to be the property of FACS ad are held o trust by the service provider. This meas that ay assets purchased with FACS fuds caot be disposed of without the writte approval of FACS. Ay proceeds of the sale of assets should be paid to FACS. At the expiratio of a PLA (where a decisio has bee made ot to reegotiate the PLA) or at the termiatio of a PLA, the service provider should sell the asset for the best price reasoably obtaiable ad pay the proceeds of the sale to FACS, less the amout cotributed by the service provider to the purchase price of the asset. Sectio 7.1(a) states that if the Service Provider is required by law to prepare audited fiacial statemets, the Service Provider must provide FACS with copies of such audited fiacial statemets Ay copies of audited fiacial statemets should be accompaied by a Audit Certificate. The Audit Certificate should iclude a statemet that the audit has bee completed i accordace with Australia Accoutig Stadards. If the service provider is ot required to provide a audited fiacial statemet, the the followig fiacial statemets are required: balace sheet icome ad expediture statemet statemet of chages i equity for the fiacial year. This requiremet is supported i the Self Assessmet Corporate. Sectio 7.2(a)(i) states that the Service Provider must provide a icome ad expediture statemet: for Fuds uder each Program Level Agreemet valued at above $25,000 This requiremet is supported i the Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet. 42

4.3 Achievig performace through Service Delivery cotract maagers ca focus o those orgaisatios eedig greater support to achieve performace goals ad also recogise the achievemet of those orgaisatios meetig ad exceedig performace goals. The aim of Service Delivery is to achieve positive results for the childre, youg people, families ad commuities we work with. Give this, it is ecessary for service providers to provide evidece of both the quatitative ad qualitative results they are achievig for the fudig received. I this way, cotract maagers ca focus o those orgaisatios eedig greater support to achieve performace goals ad also recogise the achievemet of those orgaisatios meetig ad exceedig performace goals. Sectio 3.1(b) states that the Service Provider must provide services i a way which provides reasoable access to all people i the idetified cliet group The Fudig Deed further states that services should be provided to all cliets i the target group regardless of race, geder, age, pregacy, marital status, disability, sexual preferece, religio, cultural backgroud, trasgeder or health status. It is expected also that, if requested, the service provider should provide evidece of their support to all people i the idetified cliet group. Sectio 3.1(e) states that the Service Provider must provide services i accordace with: i. the requiremets of the Program Level Agreemet ad the Deed; ii. iii. iv. its costitutio all applicable laws ad accreditatio requiremets [icludig legislatio, guidelies, frameworks ad policies] all applicable professioal ethics, priciples ad stadards. Service providers are expected to operate withi the legislative, ethical ad policy cotext prescribed. I additio to this, it is expected that services will themselves draft strog costitutios with clear guidelies for the services they pla to deliver. Workig withi these supportig frameworks aims to provide directio ad clarity to the work doe by both cotract maagers ad service providers alike. It is expected this clarity will the further support the achievemet of performace aims. 43

Sectio 5.1(a) states that FACS may audit the Service Provider s compliace with this Deed or a Program Level Agreemet A ecessary aspect of moitorig ad measurig performace is the ability of FACS to audit a service provider s activities i relatio to the Fudig Deed or PLA if ecessary. This eables FACS to atted a service provider s premises to ispect the operatio of the program. If FACS wishes to visit a service outlet, cotract maagers should provide at least 48 hours otice. If FACS wishes to atted a cliet s or carer s private home, the cotract maager should provide 14 days otice, ad must oly atted with the permissio of the cliet or carer. If requested, the service provider should make available all requested records ad documets, ad provide all reasoable assistace if a audit is coducted. Both FACS s cotract maagers ad service providers are required to participate i performace measuremet processes, aimed at supportig ad improvig results. Sectio 5.2 states that: b. The Service Provider must report o the Service Provider s performace agaist the Performace Measures, as outlied i the Program Level Agreemet or as otherwise otified by FACS from time to time. c. must participate i all Performace Measuremet Cycles Service providers are required to provide evidece of the results they are achievig with childre, youg people, families ad commuities. Both FACS s cotract maagers ad service providers are required to participate i performace measuremet processes, aimed at supportig ad improvig results. These processes iclude the Ogoig Review, Self Assessmet ad Desktop Review, coducted by the cotract maager, ad are desiged to support all parties i workig towards the commo goal of meetig Service Delivery aims. The performace measuremet cycle is further described i Pillar 1: Performace measuremet ad moitorig. Sectio 11.1(a) states that the Service Provider must establish ad maitai clear operatioal records for each Program, i a form that meets appropriate record-keepig stadards ad all applicable legislative requiremets. The service provider must establish ad maitai clear operatioal records for each program, i a format that meets appropriate record-keepig stadards ad legislative requiremets. Records should be retaied for a period of seve years after the expiry or termiatio of the Fudig Deed, or as otherwise specified i writig by FACS. I the evet that the service provider ceases to operate, the records should remai accessible to FACS for seve years after the expiratio of the Deed. Note that case file records relatig to childre i care should ot be destroyed ad, if a service folds, should be retured to FACS or trasferred to the Govermet Records Repository (GRR) for archivig purposes. 44

Sectio 21.1(e) states that the Service Provider will cotiue to be boud by, ad resposible for the performace of, this Deed ad the relevat Program Level Agreemet, otwithstadig that part or all of the Program Level Agreemet may have bee sub-cotracted. The service provider may, i cosultatio with FACS, sub-cotract ay part of a PLA to a sub-cotractor. FACS is ot obliged to agree to a sub-cotractig arragemet where the service provider caot satisfy FACS that its obligatios uder the Fudig Deed will cotiue to be met. Key to the sub-cotractig arragemet is the fact that the service provider will cotiue to be boud by, ad resposible for, performace required uder the Fudig Deed ad relevat Program Level Agreemet. Sectio 16.1(i) states that at the expiry or termiatio of this Deed or Program Level Agreemet, the service provider must: if requested by FACS, work with FACS to esure the orderly trasitio of cliets to a ew service provider. The performace resposibilities of both FACS s cotract maagers ad service providers do ot ed with the expiratio or termiatio of the Fudig Deed or PLA. Both parties are expected to esure the smooth trasitio ad cotiued wellbeig ad support of cliets through ay process of chage. Service providers should also esure that ay reportig requiremets are completed ad provided, i additio to ay cofidetial materials relatig to the Fudig Deed or PLA. 5 The Program Level Agreemet (PLA) The Program Level Agreemet outlies the services that the orgaisatio agrees to provide. Followig cosultatio betwee FACS ad the provider, these services may be varied from time to time. While the Fudig Deed specifies the terms ad coditios of a cotract betwee a service provider ad FACS, the PLA outlies the services that the orgaisatio agrees to provide. Followig cosultatio betwee FACS ad the provider, these services may be varied from time to time. Specificatios i the PLA will iclude the service start ad ed date, details of the District admiisterig the service, the geographic coverage for the service, ad service levels (the maximum level of services that the service provider will provide uder the PLA). Further details about the cliet group are provided i the Program Guidelies, as well as the Service Delivery Schedule or other documetatio. 45

The PLA does ot cotai iformatio about performace measures aimed at achievig qualitative program results. Istead, the documet states that service providers should adhere to the Program Guidelies for each of the FACS-fuded programs. Program Guidelies map qualitative performace measures ad expected results for each of the programs. Service providers performace will be assessed agaist quatitative measures outlied i the PLA ad qualitative measures outlied i the Program Guidelies. 5.1 Fudig o actuals to drive performace i Fiacial Maagemet Sectio 4.1(a) of the Program Level Agreemet states that FACS will pay the Service Provider Fuds, based o the Services actually provided by the Service Provider, i accordace with the Fudig Deed ad this Program Level Agreemet. While the Fudig Deed provides the framework for the maagemet ad provisio of fuds to service providers, the PLA provides the detail o the actual maximum fuds payable to a service provider. This meas that while a service provider may be cotracted to provide a certai umber of uits, the actual umber of uits provided may vary from the agreemet. Paymet to the service provider will therefore be based o the umber of uits provided rather tha the umber of uits the service was cotracted to provide. Fudig o actuals is a key measure aimed at achievig value for moey, ad ecouragig services to achieve the performace results agreed to. It is recogised that there will be some smaller orgaisatios aimig to build capacity, which may require higher levels of support, ad there is some flexibility for Districts to use discretio i relatio to providig additioal fiacial support to these orgaisatios. As stated i the Fudig Deed, fudig o actuals meas that, from time to time, FACS will recocile the fuds paid to a service provider agaist the level ad umber of services provided durig the period i questio. If more fuds were provided tha services delivered, the service providers may be required to repay fuds. 5.2 Supportig documets aimed at drivig performace The PLA does ot provide the full detail of performace measures that service providers are expected to achieve. Istead, the documet states that services should be delivered i accordace with the followig documets: PLA itself Fudig Deed Program Guidelies ay implemetatio pla approved by FACS Service Delivery Schedule (if applicable). Key to defiig performace expectatios are the Program Guidelies for each of the 11 fuded FACS programs. 46

Compliace with FACS Program Guidelies is ow cotractually required, stregtheig the expectatio that both cotract maagers ad our service providers will focus o the achievemet of quality outcomes for childre ad youg people, families ad commuities. Compliace with FACS Program Guidelies is ow cotractually required, stregtheig the expectatio that both cotract maagers ad our service providers will focus o the achievemet of quality outcomes for childre ad youg people, families ad commuities. Idetificatio of key idicators i the Program Guidelies will form the basis of discussio betwee cotract maagers ad service providers about qualitative performace requiremets. 5.3 Data collectio aimed at measurig ad improvig performace results Like the Fudig Deed, the PLA reiforces that the service provider must collect ad provide data to FACS about the services operated. Primarily, this icludes iformatio required to report agaist performace measures ad the delivery of services cotracted uder the PLA. However, it also icludes requests from FACS for iformatio required for surveys or research authorised by FACS. Quality performace is reliat upo there beig a strategic approach to the collectio of data, which is relevat to goal attaimet ad focuses o both quatitative ad qualitative methods. FACS is reliat upo service providers to collect reliable data o Service Delivery for the purposes of assessig performace.head Office is workig to extract relevat data from the KiDS computer system ad it is expected that as our ability to extract data from the system grows, our expectatio i relatio to reportig activities will also icrease. 6 The Program Guidelies FACS provides fudig to a rage of programs across the spectrum of services to vulerable childre, youg people, families ad commuities i eed. Program Guidelies have bee developed for each of these program areas to provide a overview of how they should be implemeted i NSW. The guidelies esure that the purpose ad parameters of the fudig program are clearly articulated, eablig both FACS ad service providers to be clear about what is beig fuded ad why. 47

The guidelies esure that the purpose ad parameters of the fudig program are clearly articulated, eablig both FACS ad service providers to be clear about what is beig fuded ad why. Importatly, the Program Guidelies are key to defiig qualitative performace measures i each of the program areas. Service providers will be assessed agaist these performace measures, ad will be expected to provide evidece that they have achieved qualitative performace results i their Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet completed o a aual basis. Qualitative performace results will also be measured o a ogoig basis through the Ogoig Review Program Level Agreemet. This will provide service providers ad cotract maagers the opportuity to gauge where there may be gaps i service provisio ad idetify opportuities for improvemet. Esurig that qualitative performace measures are mapped i the Program Guidelies rather tha the Fudig Deed or PLA provides FACS with greater flexibility, ad less red tape, givig Program Maagers the ability to chage performace measures whe eeded without havig to make chages to the cotract. 7 The Service Delivery Schedule The Service Delivery Schedule is used to provide more detail about the services, activities, cliet groups ad geographic locatio of services provided. The Service Delivery Schedule is used to provide more detail about the services, activities, cliet groups ad geographic locatio of services provided. The Service Delivery Schedule also documets ay implemetatio or trasitio plas, milestoes ad how growth targets should occur. For example, i relatio to documetig growth targets, the PLA may specify the maximum umber of services that are beig purchased ad the maximum amout of fudig that may be paid to a provider. However, if the service provider is ew, the Service Delivery Schedule would be used to pla growth over a period of time. The beefit of documetig this iformatio i a schedule separate to the PLA is the ability of service providers ad cotract maagers to reegotiate details at ay time, without eedig to reegotiate the PLA. Like the use of Program Guidelies, this aims to build flexibility ito the process of egotiatig ad achievig performace goals. 8 Improvemets i the admiistratio of cotracts for service providers There are several key areas i the Fudig Deed aimed at reducig red tape ad improvig the admiistratio of cotracts for service providers. These areas of improvemet iclude: 48

the itroductio of a ew Fudig Deed which aims to reduce the eed for documets to be re-siged whe updatig is required reducig the frequecy of effort i tederig processes by offerig loger cotract terms subject to performace reducig the ecessity for variatios to the cotract documets ehacig the Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS). 8.1 The requiremet to oly sig oce Previously, the Service Agreemet (ow the Fudig Deed) had to be siged every year to keep the Service Specificatios active, eve though they may be three-year agreemets. The Fudig Deed ow oly has to be siged oce durig the course of a threeyear agreemet, ad may be exteded for a additioal two years. The Fudig Deed ow oly has to be siged oce durig the course of a threeyear agreemet, ad may be exteded for a additioal two years. Service providers who are performig well would therefore be likely to oly sig oce every five years. Uder the earlier arragemets, if the terms ad coditios eeded to be updated, the the whole documet would eed to be re-siged. Now if the terms ad coditios are chaged, FACS will sed the service provider a letter advisig them of where the chages ca be foud o the website. Every five years FACS seds the service provider a letter advisig of the requiremet to abide by the ew terms ad coditios. PLAs are siged oce every year for five years, depedig o the legth of the agreemet. The service provider is set a remider letter six moths prior to the Fudig Deed re-sig date ad the agai three moths prior. If the Fudig Deed is ot re-siged by the re-sig date, the Fudig Deed ad ay PLAs uder them are suspeded. This meas o paymets ca be made util the Fudig Deed is siged. Whe the Fudig Deed is siged, paymets ca be released. 49

8.2 Loger cotract terms ad icetives for performace The iitial term for a Fudig Deed is three years, uless for some reaso it is termiated earlier. FACS may exted the iitial term for a further period of up to two years. The iitial term for a Fudig Deed is three years, uless for some reaso it is termiated earlier. FACS may exted the iitial term for a further period of up to two years. This is called the extesio period. Writte otice of a extesio will be provided to the service provider at least three moths prior to the expiry of the iitial term. If the Fudig Deed expires or is termiated, ay PLA i force uder the Fudig Deed will also ed, uless FACS otifies the service provider otherwise i writig. Loger cotract terms have the beefit of reducig red tape as service providers are ot required to teder for services o a regular basis. This also eables more stable service provisio as services have a greater capacity to pla ad develop the delivery of services. Performace moitorig ca be iterpreted as Govermet agecies puishig service providers for poor performace outcomes. However, the aim of Cotract Goverace is to esure that service providers are supported to achieve performace results. Providig icetives for performace, such as the optio of a additioal period of fudig, esures that those orgaisatios which are performig well are recogised. 8.3 Elimiatig the eed for variatios to the cotract documets A sigificat improvemet to the cotractig eviromet has bee the elimiatio of the eed to vary cotract documets o a regular basis. Previously, service providers were required to sig a terms ad coditios documet (the Service Agreemet). If FACS eeded to chage ay detail i the Service Specificatios (ow the PLA), this was cosidered to be a variatio of the agreemet. It was possible for service variatios to be set out dozes of times a year, which was problematic as it was time cosumig ad frequetly held up paymets. If there is a chage to the PLA, the service provider sigs that documet ad does ot have to sig the Fudig Deed as well. They accept that by sigig that they are agreeig to a variatio i the PLA. Terms ad coditios ca ow also be reviewed ad published o a eeds basis. 8.4 Ehacemets to the Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS) Sigificat improvemets have bee made to the admiistratio of fudig ad cotractig with ehacemets to the COMS ad the implemetatio of a ew service provider portal. 50

The ew service provider portal will eable all cotract documets to be dowloaded electroically, rather tha eedig to be mailed. The portal will eable all cotract documets to be dowloaded electroically, rather tha eedig to be mailed. The portal provides the ability for FACS to email the Fudig Deed ad the PLA to service providers for them to sig ad sed back. Service providers will be asked to affix their digital sigatures, the same sigatures issued by the Australia Taxatio Office. This will mea much shorter waitig periods for documetatio to be siged ad service provisio to commece. I additio to beig able to dowload cotract documets, the service provider portal will eable service providers to access ad complete performace measuremet templates such as the Self Assessmet templates, olie. Form letters relatig to performace measuremet ad the review process will also be set ad accessed electroically. The ehacemets aim to have a positive effect o streamliig processes ad reducig red tape. 9 Maagig risk i the cotract The Cotract Goverace Framework has developed processes ad tools to esure that both cotract maagers ad service providers are able to measure ad moitor both performace ad risk areas i the cotract. Refer to Pillar 1 for further discussio o risk assessmet. A system of triage will assist cotract maagers i idetifyig which orgaisatios are at high risk of ot meetig their cotracted obligatios, ad these orgaisatios will attract a higher level of support ad guidace. It is expected that cotract maagers ad service providers will work together to reduce the opportuity for risks to develop ito performace issues. Where risks develop ito performace issues, Pillar 1: Performace measuremet ad moitorig provides a framework for the maagemet of performace agaist cotracted requiremets. 9.1 The role of the Law ad Justice Directorate The provisio of legal services is divided amog a umber of specialist teams, oe of which is the Fudig ad Cotracts team. 51

The Law ad Justice Directorate provides all i-house legal services as well as moitorig ad supervisig all exteral legal advice give to the Miister, Chief Executive ad FACS staff. The provisio of legal services is divided amog a umber of specialist teams, oe of which is the Fudig ad Cotracts team. Fudig ad Cotracts provides advice o FACS s provisio of fudig to NGOs. Advice could iclude preparig or advisig o fudig agreemets or issues arisig from the ogoig viability of the provider beig fuded. 9.2 Mismaagemet ad fraud i service providers FACS has a obligatio to esure that fuds provided to service providers are spet appropriately, ad i lie with the cotracted agreemet that service providers have etered ito with FACS. Where fuds have bee spet outside the cotracted agreemet, it is ecessary for the cotract maager to make a clear assessmet about whether mismaagemet or fraud has occurred. Mismaagemet of fuds may occur due to a lack of fiacial experiece or a service provider s lack of effective goverace procedures. I this situatio, it may be appropriate for cotract maagers to support the orgaisatio to improve their fiacial or goverace structures. I some istaces this may ivolve cotractig outside parties to assist with either developig systems or udertakig Fiacial Maagemet of the orgaisatio if eeded. I cotrast to mismaagemet of fuds, fraud is a deliberate ad premeditated act ivolvig deceptio to gai advatage from a positio of trust ad authority. Fraud may be a offece uder Sectio 253 of the Childre ad Youg Persos (Care ad Protectio) Act 1998, Sectio 76C of the Commuity Welfare Act 1997 ad the Crimes Act 1900. Cases of major fraud are defied as: ay idividual occurrece where the value is estimated to exceed $10,000, ad/or ay systematic problem where the cumulative losses are estimated to exceed $10,000, or potetial exists for major fraud to occur, ad/or the ature of the fraud could be damagig to FACS s reputatio. There are specific procedures for the maagemet of suspected fraud. See FACS S (Commuity Services) policy Respodig to Fraud i Fuded Services for more iformatio. Effective Cotract Goverace aims to reduce both istaces of mismaagemet ad fraud through assessig service provider risk ad moitorig progress i performace across the key areas of Fiacial Maagemet, Corporate Goverace ad Service Provisio. 52

53

54

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Pillar 3: Achievig performace through relatioship maagemet 55

1 Backgroud Relatioship maagemet is arguably the key compoet of cotract maagemet, ad research has show that huma relatioships are the most sigificat factor i determiig cotract success or failure, as see i Figure 1. Figure 1: Factors that cotribute to cotract failure Poor or damaged relatioships 52% Poor strategy ad busiess plaig 37% Bad legal ad fiacial terms 11% A key elemet of the Cotract Goverace Framework is to reiforce the importace of relatioships betwee the service provider ad the cotract maager i achievig positive outcomes for idividuals, families ad commuities. A key elemet of the Cotract Goverace Framework is to reiforce the importace of relatioships betwee the service provider ad the cotract maager i achievig positive outcomes for idividuals, families ad commuities. Each service provider is differet ad requires flexible support. Customisig cotractual ad reportig arragemets will facilitate a improved workig partership as they will reflect a geuie attempt to work collaboratively; the coordiatio ad delivery of a cotract is a two-way process. 2 The stregths-based approach to relatioship maagemet FACS has moved towards a stregths-based model of maagig the cotract process because the model s success is drive by collaboratio. The stregths-based model provides opportuities for the parties to examie the uiqueess of the partership ad to work towards buildig o capacity rather tha deficiecy. A regular ad 56

ogoig relatioship betwee the parters is importat. The cotract maager may wish to udertake the Ogoig Review as a way of esurig they are cofidet about their performace ad that of the provider. By doig this, the parties will become more equipped to deal with risks, maage obstacles ad meet future challeges. Refer to the Itroductio for more details o the stregths-based approach. 3 The cotract maager ad relatioship maagemet To assist i the trasitioal stage, a process of traiig, supervisio ad support from FACS will assist i embeddig the framework ito practice. To itegrate the Cotract Goverace Framework across Districts, FACS eeds to explore perceived resposibilities. To assist i the trasitioal stage, a process of traiig, supervisio ad support from FACS will assist i embeddig the framework ito practice. Some key messages to cosider are: The cotract maager is represetig FACS a party to the cotract. The cotract maager, through a process of iteractio, develops a relatioship with someoe who is represetig the service provider. The goal is to develop ad maitai the workig relatioship. The parties have the opportuity to resolve risks earlier ad i a cooperative eviromet. The parties are able to regulate the quality of their relatioship. There are priciples which are applicable to relatioships ad relatioship maagemet that should be adopted. It is ecessary to explore what costitutes good relatioship maagemet to provide clarity o what relatioship maagemet meas. 4 The six priciples of relatioship maagemet The six priciples or relatioship maagemet provide the cotract maager ad service provider with behavioural guidelies for achievig effective relatioship maagemet. 57

The priciples set out i Figure 2 provide the cotract maager ad service provider with behavioural guidelies for achievig effective relatioship maagemet. These priciples each represet a idepedet system; however, the failure i oe priciple potetially damages the performace of the whole set of priciples. Each priciple is described below. Figure 2: Six priciples of relatioship maagemet SIX PRINCIPLES OF RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT Source: Adapted from T Burke, The four pillars model, CPLI Pty Ltd, Sydey, 2013. 4.1 Priciple 1: Maage emotios Emotios displayed ca support dealigs with oe perso ad hider dealigs with aother. Uderstadig the differeces betwee emotios ad how they are displayed is importat as it is reflected i behaviour. High levels of stress ca be overwhelmig ad get i the way of the ability to accurately read a situatio ad hear what someoe else is sayig. It is ecessary for the parties to be aware of their ow feeligs ad eeds, ad commuicate clearly. High levels of stress ca be overwhelmig ad get i the way of the ability to accurately read a situatio ad hear what someoe else is sayig. This may occur because: they are uaware of their emotioal state strog emotios ca surface quickly leavig the parties uprepared ad susceptible to uchecked behaviour 58

the parties may ot have strategies to balace or regulate their emotios. To improve decisio-makig abilities, the parties eed to uderstad ad cotrol their emotios. Some strategies for parties to maage their emotios are: Lear to idetify emotioal resposes. Everyoe reacts differetly to their emotios. If someoe teds to become agry or agitated, they may respod best to activities that do ot usettle them. Ackowledge emotios by talkig about them, allowig room to deal with them effectively. Coect to your ow emotios so that you have a momet-to-momet awareess of your emotios ad how they ifluece thoughts ad actios. 4.2 Priciple 2: Improve uderstadig of the other party Parties should work from the premise that they eed to kow more about the perso they are workig with ad show that iterest through their commuicatios. The more they move towards uderstadig the distictiveess of the perso, the better they will be able to maage the relatioship. It is usual for people to first seek to be uderstood, rather tha liste to what other people have to say. Misuderstadig leads to misiformatio ad ecourages ucooperative behaviour. It is usual for people to first seek to be uderstood, rather tha liste to what other people have to say. Misuderstadig leads to misiformatio ad ecourages ucooperative behaviour. People are task ad outcome-focused ad this ca stop them from cosiderig the situatio ad a party s eeds. It is importat for parties to uderstad each other s: cotract, busiess ad persoal iterests wats values, i a iterpersoal sese perceptios ad cocers regardig the cotract, deliverables ad performace obstacles. Parties eed to be midful of the role of perceptios i relatioship maagemet. A party may have what is called a partisa bias ad if uchecked they will see ad respod i ways that takes their orgaisatio s iterests disproportioately ito accout. The parties will see ad perceive thigs differetly i regard to both performace ad their motivatio to iteract. 59

As Stephe Covey oted, Our paradigms affect the way we iteract with other people. As clearly ad objectively as we thik we see thigs, we begi to realise that others see them differetly from their ow apparetly equally clear ad objective poit of view. Where we stad depeds o where we sit. 1 4.3 Priciple 3: Improve your commuicatio skills The relatioship betwee the cotract maager ad service provider ca be see as a process of complex iteractios betwee the represetatives of each orgaisatio. Some of the processes ecessary to maitai a healthy fuctioig relatioship iclude: a commuicatio strategy that provides clarity aroud meetigs, phoe calls ad emails discussig expectatios of performace ad reportig, methods to celebrate achievemet, ad maagig performace i a safe ad supportive eviromet movig towards a partership model which promotes a atmosphere coducive to mitigatig risk. Good commuicatio betwee the cotract maager ad service provider is ecessary for a good workig relatioship but it does ot eed to sigify friedship. Dr Joh Lud offers some excellet yet simple advice o how to improve commuicatio: 2 Do t commuicate to be uderstood; rather, commuicate so as ot to be misuderstood. Ecourage both formal ad iformal iteractios whe commuicatig with the other party. Ivestmet i the relatioship will result i improved performace while effectively dealig with coflict ad resistace i a timely maer. Good commuicatio betwee the cotract maager ad service provider is ecessary for a good workig relatioship but it does ot eed to sigify friedship. Relatioship maagemet aims to guaratee that the associatio betwee the parties is ope ad costructive, with a target of improvig measurable outcomes through better relatioship maagemet practices. Curretly, the three most commoly used modes of commuicatio are: Face-to-face commuicatio this is the most effective method i buildig relatioships because it helps to establish a persoal coectio. Toe, pitch ad body laguage used i these iteractios covey a very differet message to a writte commuicatio. Meetigs are cosidered to be a 1 S Covey, Seve habits of highly effective people, Free Press, Illiois, 1989. 2 A Rees Aderso, Successful busiess commuicatio: It starts at the begiig, Forbes, May 2013. 60

relatioship-buildig activity that allows for the sharig of ideas, experieces ad cocers i a hoest ad ope eviromet. It also esures bods are formed, helped by the opportuity for regular cotact. Email emails should be carefully worded. Miscommuicatio, misuderstadig ad misiterpretatio are very commo due to the absece of o-verbal cues, such as the pitch, toe ad body laguage. Telephoe project a positive attitude whe makig telephoe calls as it will affect how the recipiet reacts ad iterprets the message. 4.3.1 Obstacles to effective commuicatio The Cotract Goverace Framework idetifies several key obstacles to effective commuicatio, as outlied below. Perceptios of behaviour A party s behaviour ca cotribute to iterpersoal commuicatio issues although they do ot ow the problem. A blid spot could prevet a party from beig aware of how their behaviour affects others. For example, a perso may be perceived as stubbor. However, the perso assessig the behaviour could be uaware of their ow tedecy to be oppositioal with regard to that perso s thoughts ad ideas. Fear of criticism A perso may fear criticism; they struggle to liste whe someoe shares aythig egative or uacceptable. The positio of mistrust icludes a fudametal belief that others will maipulate them if they liste to them. A absece of empathic uderstadig may prevet them from listeig to others. Such difficulties may be overcome by: beig more iclusive through cosultatio havig a structured commuicatio process askig for feedback, advice ad views listeig to the parties ad icorporatig their suggestios. People may assume what they have to say is more importat ad as a result they do ot always liste to others. Poor listeig skills Commuicatio ca be oe directioal due to poor listeig skills. People may assume what they have to say is more importat ad as a result they do ot always liste to others. 61

Stephe Covey has idetified five levels of listeig: 3 1. igores ad does ot liste to the speaker 2. preteds to liste to the speaker 3. selectively listes to the speaker 4. listes attetively to each word 5. listes empathetically. Mixed messages Mixed messages or double messages are sources of may commuicatio problems i relatioships. A mixed message seds coflictig ad icosistet iformatio, verbally ad/or o-verbally. It ofte occurs whe people have differet iterests, differet audieces ad mixed emotios, thereby udermiig the effectiveess of the message. Plaig ca reduce the occurrece of mixed messages, icludig: What is the purpose of the commuicatio? What does the perso hope to lear? What is the best forum to commuicate the message? 4.4 Priciple 4: Improve trustworthiess The Cotract Goverace Framework is based o the priciples of itegrity, fairess ad trasparecy, ad parties to the cotract are expected to demostrate a commitmet to ethical coduct. This is highlighted by the Ogoig Review process. Refer to Sectio 2.1 of Pillar 1 Ogoig Review for a overview of this process ad the Corporate ad Program Level Agreemet Ogoig Review tools. While you may ot be able to cotrol the level of trust someoe has i you, you ca ifluece it by beig as trustworthy as possible. Research shows that trust is the core of relatioships. Trust is a belief i the hoesty, reliability ad itegrity of aother perso. Whether fair or ufair, trust is a perceptio of oe perso by aother. The way we perceive ad iteract with someoe will ofte be reciprocated i their behaviour. While you may ot be able to cotrol the level of trust someoe has i you, you ca ifluece it by beig as trustworthy as possible. Step back from your relatioships to evaluate the level of trust others have i you. For example: Does the other party have ay reaso to mistrust you? Would they say your coduct is erratic? 3 S Covey, Seve habits of highly effective people, Free Press, Illiois, 1989. 62

Are you careful i your choice of words whe you commuicate? Do you follow through with your promises? Have you ever bee deceptive or dishoest i your dealigs with the other party? 4.4.1 Improvig the level of trust betwee parties If it is apparet that there is mistrust betwee the two parties to the cotract, there are ways to alleviate this mistrust. These iclude: beig more predictable ad followig through beig hoest always beig clear i messages ad cofirmig if it has bee uderstood treatig difficulties i the relatioship as a joit problem avoidig overloadig trust to istead focus o reducig risk givig both positive ad egative feedback accurately ad specifically admittig to sometimes beig wrog. I practice, trust traslates ito a cosistecy betwee words ad actios; betwee thoughts ad beliefs ad what is said; beig true to oe s priciples; ad beig cosistet over time. I practice, trust traslates ito a cosistecy betwee words ad actios; betwee thoughts ad beliefs ad what is said; beig true to oe s priciples; ad beig cosistet over time. It meas ever seekig to deceive or maipulate people. If people are trustworthy ay coflicts ecoutered will be easier to resolve because the uderlyig workig relatioship will be healthy allowig for costructive commuicatio. 4.5 Priciple 5: Improve egotiatio skills At the earliest opportuity the cotract maager eeds to clarify with the service provider what elemets of the cotract are ot egotiable ad what elemets are ope to compromise. Durig difficult egotiatios the disparities ad uresolved issues betwee parties ca surface ifluecig the process of achievig agreed ad mutually beeficial results. 63

Durig difficult egotiatios the disparities ad uresolved issues betwee parties ca surface ifluecig the process of achievig agreed ad mutually beeficial results. Similarly, whe cotract maagers ad service providers eter ito resolvig performace issues or reducig risks through egotiatios whe their relatioship is strog, it is less likely that coflict will damage the partership. The process of workig out a agreemet may produce a psychological commitmet to a mutually satisfactory outcome. Further iformatio o egotiatio ca be foud i Pillar 4: No-Adversarial egotiatios. 4.6 Priciple 6: Accept the perso Regardless of persoal differeces, parties to a cotract eed to focus o developig ad maitaiig a good workig relatioship. The expectatio is that both parties should: respect the other party as beig someoe with whom they must deal respect the other party s iterests ad views as worth takig ito accout. Acceptace meas treatig the other party as a equal i a fudametal sese. This does ot, however, mea that parties should igore differeces i skills, experiece ad authority. Acceptace meas treatig the other party as a equal i a fudametal sese. This does ot, however, mea that parties should igore differeces i skills, experiece ad authority. I a elemetary sese it meas treatig the other party as a equal: equally caught up i this cotractual arragemet ad equally etitled to have rights, iterests ad views. A perso who pays attetio to whether idividuals i the cotract trust each other, work together ad commuicate effectively will ot oly be able to recogise the key warig sigs, but will be i a better positio to flag relatioship issues ad address them before they affect the ability of the parties to work together. 4 5 Relatioship maagemet tools There are two tools attached to this pillar that seek to support improvemets i the relatioship betwee cotract maagers ad service providers. These are: Relatioship Audit Relatioship Level Agreemet. The tools require the parties to explore how they will maage each other s expectatios, ad provide a workig framework that will guide the coduct of both parties for the 4 D Eaves, J Weiss ad LJ Visioi, The relatioship relauch: How to fix a broke alliace, Ivey Busiess Joural Improvig the Practice of Maagemet, May Jue 2003. 64

duratio of the cotract. It is expected that the parties will, as a result, be better equipped to maage cotractual obstacles ad avoid performace issues. 5.1 Relatioship Audit The Relatioship Audit allows parties to the cotract to looks beyod measurig the cotracts busiess success to addressig how they would like to work together. The Relatioship Audit allows parties to the cotract to look beyod measurig the cotract s busiess success to addressig how they would like to work together. The tool aalyses the stregth of the relatioship, degree of trust, respect, uderstadig ad the ability to joitly solve problems. The parties idividually complete the audit ad the compare resposes ad take corrective actio where required. 5 The Relatioship Audit will be completed betwee the parties i the first istace as it will facilitate coversatios that are useful whe completig the Relatioship Level Agreemet. The tool should be completed o a aual basis or whe there are chages to staff. See the Relatioship Audit Tool. 5.2 Relatioship Level Agreemet The Relatioship Level Agreemet attempts to recogise some features that will assist i sustaiig a healthy ad productive professioal relatioship. The Relatioship Level Agreemet attempts to recogise some features that will assist i sustaiig a healthy ad productive professioal relatioship. These iclude idetifyig the frequecy of meetigs ad cotact; idetifyig roles ad resposibilities; maagig coflict ad disagreemets ad how cotact should be recorded, as well as the opportuity to tailor the agreemet to meet the idividual eeds of both parties. Like the Relatioship Audit, the Relatioship Level Agreemet should be completed o a aual basis or whe there are chages to staff. See the Relatioship Level Agreemet Tool. Key to the success of cotract maagemet is the relatioship betwee the cotract maager ad service provider. Although the cotract itself is importat i achievig results, without commuicatio, trasparecy ad a good workig relatioship betwee the parties, achievig cosistet outcomes will be more difficult. 5 J Weiss, S Kee ad S Klima, Maagig alliaces for busiess results: Lessos leared from leadig compaies, Vatage Parters, Massachusetts, 2006. 65

66

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Pillar 4: No-adversarial egotiatios i maagig cotracts 67

1 Backgroud Havig differeces of opiio is commo to all relatioships ad is ot ecessarily a bad thig. As log as it is maaged effectively, coflict ca lead to both persoal ad professioal growth. I may cases, effective coflict resolutio ca make the differece betwee positive ad egative outcomes. However, if coflict is ot maaged effectively, the results ca be damagig. Coflictig goals ca become persoal dislikes ad teamwork ca break dow. Talet is wasted as people ca become disegaged from their work. Whe ot maaged, coflict also has the ability to substatially icrease costs ad timeframes, as well as put the performace of the cotract at risk. Whe ot maaged, coflict also has the ability to substatially icrease costs ad timeframes, as well as put the performace of the cotract at risk. At times, these differeces are elevated to the level of a formal dispute, divertig resources from both sides from the origial itet. It is i the iterests of all parties to work proactively to prevet disagreemets ad disputes from becomig embittered ad to resolve them fairly at the earliest opportuity. 1 This pillar aims to provide guidace to cotract maagers whe maagig egotiatios both prior to a cotract beig siged ad i the course of a ogoig cotract relatioship betwee the service provider ad cotract maager. 2 The stregths-based approach to egotiatio I oe way or aother, we egage i egotiatio i a iformal sese o a daily basis. This process of egotiatio ca be useful ad ca ofte be the impetus for chage. 2 The challege is ot to elimiate coflict but to trasform it, ad to chage the way we deal with our differeces. It might be argued that a geeratio ago, the prevailig view of decisio makig i most places was hierarchical. 3 It might also be argued that this is the cotiued prevailig wisdom i govermet istitutios with soud reasos relatig to the eed for accoutability of decisio makig ad for public fudig. Whe workig with service providers, we might sometimes ucosciously thik of that orgaisatio as beig a extesio of our ow, ad o this basis might seek to apply the above template to our dealigs with service providers. However, it is importat to recogise that this approach is ot always useful whe ivolved i the egotiatio process. 68 1 NSW Govermet, Procuremet practice guide: Cotract dispute resolutio, NSW Govermet Procuremet System for Costructio, August 2013, p. 1. 2 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012, p. xi. 3 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012, p. ix.

Practices that focus o puitive approaches to egotiatig ad resolvig differeces ca be stigmatisig, ad may have the effect of producig passive ad resistat resposes from others. Practices that focus o puitive approaches to egotiatig ad resolvig differeces ca be stigmatisig, ad may have the effect of producig passive ad resistat resposes from others. Takig a stregths-based perspective o the other had may have the followig beefits for both cotract maagers ad service providers: ifluece ad icrease egagemet i the delivery of services ifluece ad icrease efficiecy ad empowermet ehace relatioship-buildig capacity ad support etworks improve cultural competecy icrease collaboratio i which the cotract maager ad service provider are viewed as equal parters i the chage process. Although we fud service providers, they are idepedet etities with their ow costitutio, set of values ad experiece ad perhaps culture, which eed to be respected. The stregths-based approach values this differece ad recogises the eed to deal with the orgaisatios we fud i a collaborative fashio. 3 Approaches to dealig with coflict If we look at theories relatig to the way people approach coflict, we might gai a deeper uderstadig of our ow ucoscious approach to decisio makig. I the 1970s, Keeth Thomas ad Ralph Kilma idetified five mai approaches adopted by people whe dealig with coflict. 4 We might view these approaches as operatig o a spectrum with assertiveess or competitiveess (self-iterest) at oe ed ad avoidace (empathy or a over-cocer for others) at the other. Thomas ad Kilma argued that people typically have a preferred coflict resolutio style ad that differet approaches may be most useful i differet situatios. 69

They argued that people typically have a preferred coflict resolutio style ad that differet approaches may be most useful i differet situatios. The authors developed the Thomas Kilma Coflict Mode Istrumet (TKI) which assists i determiig which approach a perso should adopt whe coflict arises. The TKI s five approaches to dealig with coflict are outlied below. 3.1 Competitive approach People who ted towards a competitive approach take a firm stad ad kow what they wat. They usually operate from a positio of power draw from thigs like positio, rak, expertise or persuasive ability. Idividuals with a competitive approach view coflict as beig a wi or lose situatio. This approach ca be useful whe there is a emergecy ad a decisio eeds to be made quickly, whe the decisio is upopular or whe defedig agaist someoe who is tryig to exploit the situatio selfishly. However, those with a competitive approach ca be argumetative, aggressive ad hostile, which ca leave others feelig aggrieved ad resetful. 3.2 Collaborative approach People tedig towards a collaborative approach try to meet the eeds of all people ivolved. These people ca be highly assertive, but ulike the competitor, they cooperate effectively, ad ackowledge that everyoe is importat. This approach is useful whe you eed to brig together a umber of viewpoits to get the best solutio, whe there have bee previous coflicts i the group, or whe the situatio is too importat for a simple trade-off. The collaborative approach teds to be the most useful approach i egotiatig situatios of coflict. 3.3 Compromisig approach People who prefer a compromisig approach try to fid a solutio that will, at least i part, satisfy everyoe. Everyoe is expected to give up somethig ad the compromiser also expects to give up somethig. Compromise is useful whe the cost of coflict is higher tha the cost of losig groud, whe equal-stregth oppoets are at a stadstill, ad whe there is a deadlie loomig. 3.4 Accommodatig approach This approach idicates a willigess to meet the eeds of others at the expese of oe s ow persoal eeds. The accommodator ofte kows whe to give i to others, but ca be persuaded to surreder a positio eve whe it is ot warrated. This perso is ot assertive but is highly cooperative. Whe faced with coflict, people with a yieldig coflict maagemet style ted to give i to other people s demads i order to preserve the social relatioship. 3.5 Avoidace approach People with this approach seek to avoid the coflict etirely. This approach is typified by delegatig cotroversial decisios, acceptig default decisios, ad ot watig to hurt ayoe s feeligs. It ca be appropriate whe victory is impossible, whe the cotroversy is trivial, or whe someoe else is i a better positio to solve the problem. However, avoidace ca also allow a issue to spiral out of cotrol. 70

Oce you uderstad the differet approaches you may wish to reflect o the most appropriate approach for the situatio you are i. You may also reflect o your ow istictive approach ad cosider how you may eed to adjust this if ecessary. 4 Positioal bargaiig Regardless of whether a egotiatio cocers a family argumet, a cotract or iteratioal diplomacy, people routiely egage i positioal bargaiig. Withi this, each side takes a positio, argues for it ad makes cocessios to reach a compromise. 5 The problem with positioal bargaiig is that whe egotiators bargai over positios, they ted to lock themselves ito those positios. The more a positio is clarified ad defeded uder attack, the more you become committed to it. The, the more you try to covice the other side of the impossibility of chagig your opeig positio, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Positioal bargaiig becomes a cotest of will ad has the effect of edagerig a ogoig relatioship. Positioal bargaiig teds to alig with the competitive approach to egotiatig coflict, i which there are wiers ad losers. Positioal bargaiig teds to alig with the competitive approach to egotiatig coflict, i which there are wiers ad losers. This kid of cofrotatioal approach ca easily lead to disagreemets spirallig out of cotrol ad, i the case of cotract disputes, ca lead to either party seekig legal recourse about a matter. While there are times whe it is ecessary to seek legal advice, ad ideed take legal proceedigs agaist aother party, the aim of the egotiatio process is to reduce the ecessity to seek this course of actio, give the high trasactio costs ad potetial damage to ogoig relatioships that this ca cause. 5 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012, p. 3. 71

5 Iterest-based bargaiig The priciple of iterest-based bargaiig or mutual-gais bargaiig is based o the premise that each party to a disagreemet has uderlyig iterests that may well be differet to the positio they would take i a dispute. The priciple of iterest-based bargaiig or mutual-gais bargaiig is based o the premise that each party to a disagreemet has uderlyig iterests that may well be differet to the positio they would take i a dispute. Each side examies its ow iterests ad becomes educated about the legitimate iterests of the other party. Iterests may iclude the eeds, desires, cocers ad fears importat to each side. The issues are addressed together, havig i mid the iterests of all parties ad how they may best be accommodated. Iterest-based bargaiig ofte takes loger as it requires ope discussio about the uderlyig issues i a disagreemet; however, the beefit is a better outcome, with the opportuity to meet both parties eeds ad to ivet creative solutios to problems. The more complex the issue, the less useful positioal bargaiig strategies are, ad the more useful it is to work collaboratively towards seekig a useful outcome for everyoe. A compariso of positioal bargaiig ad iterest-based bargaiig is set out i Table 1. Table 1: Positioal bargaiig versus iterest-based bargaiig POSITIONAL BARGAINING Hard Participats are adversaries The goal is victory Demad cocessios as a coditio of the relatioship Be hard o the problem ad the people Distrust others Dig i to your positio Mislead, use tricks Apply pressure Look for wi for you aloe INTEREST-BASED BARGAINING Pricipled Participats are problem solvers The goal is a wise outcome reached efficietly ad amicably Work together to determie who gets what Be soft o the people, hard o the problem Proceed idepedet of trust Focus o iterests ot positios Isist o objective criteria, cosider multiple aswers Use reaso, yield to priciple ot pressure Look for wi-wi opportuities 6 Adapted from R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012. 72

6 The egotiatio process The egotiatio process is commo across both the area of cotract egotiatios ad i the course of the ogoig cotract relatioship. However, there are some mior differeces i the elemets that should be cosidered, depedet upo where i the process you are. Differeces are atural ad ievitable i cotractual relatioships due to the coflictig iterests ad wats of each of the parties, the varyig perceptios of people, ad the people s differet values, as discussed i Priciples 2 ad 3 of the Six Priciples of Relatioship Maagemet i Pillar 3. To achieve the cotract maagemet goal of gettig what you wat from the relatioship, you eed to deal with these differeces. The egotiatio process is commo across both the area of cotract egotiatios ad i the course of the ogoig cotract relatioship. However, there are some mior differeces i the elemets that should be cosidered, depedet upo where i the process you are. 6.1 The priciples of egotiatio There are five mai priciples of egotiatio: 7 Separate the people from the problem. Focus o iterests, ot positios. Ivet optios for mutual gai. Kow your best alterative to a egotiated agreemet (BATNA) ad their BATNA. (predomiatly used whe udertakig cotract egotiatios prior to a cotract beig siged) Use idepedet criteria to break the deadlock. 6.1.1 Separate the people from the problem Separatig the people from the problem meas recogisig that ay problem has two compoets: the relatioship compoet ad the substative or cotet issue. I situatios of coflict, these issues ofte become etwied ad it may be difficult to isolate the core issue. It is therefore ecessary to separate these issues ad deal with them idepedetly. Negotiatio theorists have idetified issues relatig to three key relatioship areas that require cosideratio: perceptio, emotio ad commuicatio. 8 The issue of 7 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012. 73

perceptio (refer to Priciple 3 of the Six Priciples of Relatioship Maagemet i Pillar 3) is importat as this ofte defies both the problem ad the solutio. Differig perceptios mea that people may iterpret reality differetly, i differet situatios. While each party has a differet uderstadig of the dispute, egotiatio may be difficult to achieve. Sharig each party s perceptio of the problem is a startig poit for comig to a commo uderstadig. I additio to perceptio, a key relatioship issue is recogisig ad uderstadig our ow emotios ad those of others (refer to Priciple 1 of the Six Priciples of Relatioship Maagemet i Pillar 3). Some of these emotios could iclude fear, ager, distrust, ad axiety amog others. These emotios ca get etagled with the substative issues i the dispute ad make both harder to deal with. Sometimes it ca be helpful to make explicit how we are feelig, ad to ecourage other parties to do the same, thus ackowledgig the legitimacy of emotios. The aim of the egotiatio process is to chael emotios ito a productive visio of workig side by side to attack the problem. With respect to commuicatio (refer to Priciple 3 of the Six Priciples of Relatioship Maagemet i Pillar 3), clarity is importat i bridgig differeces or solvig mutual problems. Essetially, commuicatio fouders whe people do ot liste, do ot hear, misuderstad or misiterpret. I brief, it is importat to liste actively i order to better uderstad. 6.1.2 Focus o iterests, ot positios As discussed earlier, egotiatio theorists have idetified two types of egotiatio strategies: positioal ad iterest-based. Positioal egotiatig refers to egotiatig o the basis of a perso s positio about what they state they wat. Whe people defie their disputes i terms of positios, they ofte appear highly itractable as their wats may be somethig the other party completely opposes. Rather tha defiig a dispute i terms of both parties positios o what they wat, it is ofte useful to redefie the situatio based o the reasos uderlyig these positios. By focusig o uderlyig iterests rather tha positios, coflicts may become more solvable. This is because ofte iterests are more compatible tha positios. Negotiatig about iterests meas egotiatig about thigs people really wat ad eed, rather tha what they say they eed. Negotiatig about iterests meas egotiatig about thigs people really wat ad eed, rather tha what they say they eed. Ofte these are ot the same. People ted to take extreme positios that are desiged to couter their oppoet s positios. It is also importat to uderstad that i egotiatios with differet cultures, all parties eed to accout for cultural eeds ad ot allow judgemets ad biases to affect the 8 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012. 74

egotiatio process. Gettig to kow ad uderstad the other party is vital to the process of comig to a agreemet. 6.1.3 Ivet optios for mutual gai By focusig o iterests, parties ca more easily ivet optios for mutual gai. This meas that egotiators should look for ew solutios to the problem that will allow both sides to wi, ot just disagree over the origial positio which assumes that for oe side to wi, the other must lose. 6.1.4 Kow your BATNA ad their BATNA Kowig your BATNA ad their BATNA should predomiatly be used whe udertakig cotract egotiatios prior to a cotract beig siged, rather tha i the course of a ogoig relatioship as the parties do ot have the opportuity to walk away from a deal, but are required to be committed to fidig a solutio to the problem. Best alterative to a egotiated agreemet (BATNA) is the course of actio that will be take if the curret egotiatios fail ad a agreemet caot be reached. BATNA is the course of actio that will be take if the curret egotiatios fail ad a agreemet caot be reached. A party should geerally ot accept a worse resolutio tha its BATNA. Care should be take, however, to esure that accurate value has bee placed o the issue beig egotiated, takig ito cosideratio the value of the relatioship as well as the fiacial value. Although a egotiator s alterative optios should, i theory, be straightforward to evaluate, the effort to uderstad which alterative represets a party s BATNA is ofte ot ivested. Optios eed to be real ad actioable to be of value; however, without the ivestmet of time, optios that are icluded will ofte fail o oe of these criteria. The authors of Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, ote that attractive alteratives are eeded to develop a strog BATNA 9. Attractive alteratives should be developed by: ivetig a list of actios you might take if the egotiatios fail covertig some of the more promisig ideas ad trasformig them ito tagible ad partial alteratives selectig the alteratives that soud best. It is importat to uderstad that a party s BATNA should ot be disclosed durig the egotiatio process uless it is beeficial to do so. 9 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, Uited Kigdom, 2012. 75

6.1.5 Use idepedet criteria to break the deadlock While ot always available, if objective criteria for fairess ca be foud, this ca greatly simplify the egotiatio process. For example, if people are egotiatig over the price of a house or a car, they ca look to what similar houses or cars have sold for. This gives both parties some guidace as to what is fair ad makes it harder to oppose offers i this rage. 7 Workig with cultural diversity i the egotiatio process To most of us, our culture is so embedded that it is ivisible to us. As a result it is ofte easy for us to overlook the role cultural orms ad practices play i creatig coflict, affectig its course ad ifluecig the way people resolve their differeces. Whe we do focus o culture, it is easy to view it as beig the overwhelmig determiat of what will occur, ad as egotiators we ofte feel helpless about alterig the way disputats from differet cultures approach coflict. 10 Eve if we do ot take culture ito cosideratio, as egotiators, differet people will have differet iterests ad styles of commuicatio. Differet thigs may be persuasive to them, ad they may have differet ways of makig decisios. Thakfully, there are some ways that we ca accommodate cultural ad other differeces whe egotiatig with people. 11 7.1. Get i step I ay egotiatio it is importat to be sesitive to the values, perceptios, cocers, orms of behaviour ad mood of the other party. As a egotiator, you should adapt your behaviour accordigly. The more successfully you ca get i step with the other perso s way of thikig, the more likely you are goig to be able to work out a agreemet. 7.2. Pay attetio to differeces i beliefs ad customs, but avoid stereotypig idividuals Differet groups ad people have differet customs ad beliefs. Kow ad respect them, but avoid makig assumptios about people. Makig assumptios about people based o their group characteristics ca be isultig, as well as beig factually risky as it deies that perso their idividuality. Each of us is affected by aspects of our eviromet ad upbrigig, our culture ad group idetity, but ot ecessarily i a predictable way. 7.3. Questio your assumptios ad liste actively Whatever assumptio you make about aother perso, whether it be that they are just like you or totally differet you should questio it. Be ope to learig that they are quite differet to what you expected. Remember that all of us have special iterests ad qualities that do ot fit ay particular mould. 10 B Mayer, The dyamics of coflict resolutio: A practitioer s guide, Jossey-Bass, Sa Fracisco, 2000, p. 71. 11 R Fisher ad W Ury, Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i, Radom House Busiess Books, 2012, pp. 168 170. 76

8 What steps should be take whe egotiatio is usuccessful? Wherever possible, disputes arisig i the cotext of fuded services should be dealt with by direct liaiso ad discussio betwee fudig staff ad service providers. However, where that is usuccessful, we are able to refer to: Fudig Deed FACS Dispute Resolutio Policy Law ad Justice Directorate. 8.1 FACS Fudig Deed The stadard Commuity Services Fudig Deed icludes detailed requiremets for the way that disputes over fudig matters should be dealt with. As a first port of call, cotract maagers should refer to the Fudig Deed i place betwee Commuity Services ad a service provider for the steps ivolved. 8.2 FACS Resolutio Policy The purpose of the formal dispute resolutio process is to resolve disputes without the eed for legal proceedigs, icludig court actio. The purpose of the formal dispute resolutio process is to resolve disputes without the eed for legal proceedigs, icludig court actio. The process draws o widely accepted priciples of Alterative Dispute Resolutio (ADR). However, the dispute resolutio process caot be used to determie ay of the followig issues: a variatio i fudig or service levels casework disputes ivolvig idividual cliets complaits agaist FACS ot directly related to the terms ad coditios of the Fudig Deed. The dispute resolutio process is structured i stages, with opportuity to resolve a dispute at ay stage. If a dispute caot be resolved at a early stage i the process there is escalatio to a later stage. Further iformatio o this process ca be foud i the FACS Dispute Resolutio Policy o the itraet. 8.3 Law ad Justice Directorate The Law ad Justice Directorate provides all i-house legal services as well as moitorig ad supervisig all legal advice give to the Miister, Chief Executive ad staff. The Directorate has a team dedicated to supportig ad providig advice to FACS s fudig ad cotractig teams. Advice may rage from preparig or advisig o fudig agreemets to issues arisig from the ogoig viability of a provider. 77

78

Cotract Goverace Guidelies Appedices 79

80

Cotets Busiess as usual cycle Ogoig Review Corporate 82 Ogoig Review Program Level Agreemet 85 Provider Aual Self Assessmet Corporate 88 Provider Aual Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet 91 Desktop Review Process Map 94 Aual Desktop Review File Note 95 Relatioship Audit 97 Relatioship Level Agreemet 98 Risk Idetificatio Matrix guide for assessmet tool 101 Risk assessmet ad ratig tool corporate ad PLA 108 Risk categorisatio tool 109 Performace issues assessmet guidace 110 Performace issues idetified Moitorig ad Review Meetig Letter 1 113 Moitorig ad Review Meetig Letter 2 114 Performace Improvemet Pla Corporate 115 Performace Improvemet Pla Program Level Agreemet 117 Moitorig ad Review Meetig Ageda 119 Moitorig ad Review Process Map 120 81

ONGOING REVIEW Corporate (To be completed by cotract maager for Fudig Deed) FREQUENCY OF REVIEW Mothly Every three moths Every six moths Aually Every three years Curret date: Next review date: Corporate Goverace Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 Relevat accreditatio/quality maagemet systems are i place ad curret, if required. 2 Service provider has a Strategic/Busiess Pla ad this has bee reviewed i the last 12 moths. 3 Service provider has met obligatios required by the Office of Fair Tradig, ASIC or ORIC, as required. 4 Service provider has appropriate level of isurace cover as required by the Fudig Deed. 5 Board ad Maagemet have reviewed the provider Performace for all Program Level Agreemet ad Ogoig Review Plas to esure that PLA performace measures are beig addressed. 6 Board esures provider complies with all relevat legislatio, regulatios, policies ad procedures required by Fudig Deed icludig Workig With Childre Checks. 7 Service provider has a Code of Coduct ad Practice i place. 8 Service provider has goverace policies ad procedures i place icludig Board compositio, roles ad resposibilities ad delegatios of authority. 9 Service provider has policies ad procedures i place for maagig the performace of the Board ad the Chief Executive or Maager, ad for takig ay steps to address issues that emerge. 10 Service provider has produced a aual report that details the rage of services ad activities provided. 11 Service provider has operatioal policies ad procedures with review dates i place. 12 Board has a compliace caledar i place to remid whe goverace matters, aual performace reviews of staff ad fudig acquittals are due, ad whe aual statemets are set to the Office of Fair Tradig, ASIC or ORIC. 13 Service provider maitais ad reviews appropriate policies ad procedures for complaits maagemet. 14 Service provider has a Risk Assessmet ad Maagemet Pla i place ad they have bee reviewed. 82

Fiacial Maagemet Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 Service provider has submitted appropriate fiacial accoutability reports that comply with audit requiremets. 2 Service provider has writte fiacial policies ad procedures that are used to esure fiacial viability ad service operates withi budget. 3 Service provider has register ad systems i place to maage assets bought with FACS fuds. Additioal Agreed Performace Measures to be Reviewed Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 2 3 Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed/edorsed by the chair ad a secod member represetig the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO, ad they have bee provided with a copy. As duly authorised represetatives of the service provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe 83

FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager with Fudig Deed resposibility Performace measures Compliat/ Partially CS to actio/ Due compliat/not SP to actio date compliat 1 As cotract maager, I have reviewed ay complaits o the project file or elsewhere icludig Briefig Notes or Miisterial Resposes. 2 As cotract maager, I have reviewed ay reports from the Ombudsma ad/or OCG, ad followed up ay actios. 3 If applicable, I have cotacted the relevat ADHC cotract maager to ascertai if there have bee ay provider level issues or complaits, ad processes that have bee implemeted as a result. 4 If applicable, I have gathered iformatio from colleagues withi the District ad other relevat Districts to ascertai if there have bee ay service issues or complaits, ad processes that have bee implemeted as a result. 5 I have applied the Risk Idetificatio Matrix Guide for Assessmet Tool to determie orgaisatio s level of risk across the areas of Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery. 6 If applicable, a Risk Moitorig ad Performace Maagemet Pla has bee implemeted. 7 I have reviewed ay previous PIPs or work plas ad these have bee completed. 8 I have ascertaied total orgaisatioal fudig from FACS o COMS (if there is more tha oe Program Level Agreemet). 9 I have used previous fiacial reports ad reviews i assessig the service provider s performace i fiacial maagemet. Name Sigature Date 84

ONGOING REVIEW Program Level Agreemet (To be completed by PLA cotract maager) FREQUENCY OF REVIEW Mothly Every three moths Every six moths Aually Every three years Program Level Agreemet ame: Operatig ame: FACS District: Curret date: COMS ID: Cotract maager: Next review date: Corporate Goverace Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 Service provider accreditatio/quality maagemet systems are i place ad curret, as required. 2 Service provider works i partership with other agecies, to deliver service results for cliets ad shares iformatio with other stakeholders appropriately. 3 Service provider works cooperatively ad if coflicts arise, they are easy to resolve. 4 Service provider documets ad orgaises relevat systems for the provisio ad review of services ad activities. 5 Service provider has cliet feedback systems i place ad respods to complaits to improve practice ad service delivery. 6 Service provider is able to roster staff with adequate traiig ad qualificatios required to provide appropriate services. 7 Service provider has provided service reports (for example casework reports) that detail the rage of services ad activities provided. Fiacial Maagemet Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 Service provider has submitted appropriate fiacial accoutability reports as required by PLA. 2 Service provider has appropriate register for assets agaist the Program Level Agreemet. 85

Service Delivery Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 The geographical area required i the Program Level Agreemet has bee covered. 2 Service provider is workig with the target group idetified i the Program Level Agreemet. 3 Service provider s policies ad procedures iclude measures to support equity of access to the service ad activities. 4 Service provider s case maagemet framework is cosistet with FACS s Case Maagemet Policy, as required. 5 Service provider submits data i a timely, accurate ad comprehesive maer. 6 Data accurately reflects actual cliet data ad cofirms services provided at levels i Program Level Agreemet. 7 Service data cofirms that services provided achieved results agreed to i the Program Level Agreemet ad Program Guidelies. 8 Service provider participates i evaluatios ad reviews, as requested. 9 Service provider coducts iteral or exteral reviews of service, activities ad implemets the outcomes. Additioal Agreed Performace Measures to be Reviewed Performace measures Compliat/ Partially FACS Due compliat/not or SP actio date compliat 1 2 3 Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed/edorsed by the chair ad a secod member represetig the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO ad they have bee provided with a copy. As duly authorised represetatives of the service provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe 86

FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by PLA FACS cotract maager resposible Performace measures Compliat/ Partially CS to actio/ Due compliat/not SP to actio date compliat 1 I have reviewed ay complaits i the Ogoig Review Corporate to esure that all corporate goverace performace measures have bee addressed. 2 As the cotract maager, I have worked cooperatively ad if coflicts arise, they are easy to resolve. 3 Corporate Ogoig Review Corporate has bee reviewed to esure that all fiacial maagemet performace measures have bee addressed. 4 As cotract maager, I have assessed agaist deliverables i the Program Level Agreemet to determie whether fuds were spet appropriately. 5 As cotract maager, I have applied the Risk Idetificatio Matrix Guide for Assessmet Tool ad Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool at least oce a year. Name Sigature Date 87

SERVICE PROVIDER ANNUAL SELF ASSESSMENT Corporate Level Aual reportig period Service provider ame <<Isert fiacial year>> <<Isert provider s legal ame>> Service provider COMS ID Period of the Fudig Deed <<Isert start ad ed dates>> FACS District As the authorised represetative of the service provider, I cofirm that the Chair of the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad Chief Executive are aware of the ogoig resposibilities ad cotractual obligatios of the Fudig Deed betwee the orgaisatio ad FACS icludig: Part A Goverace Compliat/ Partially compliat/not compliat 1 1 Leadership ad visio buildig Strategic/busiess pla is i place ad has bee reviewed i the last 12 moths Esures appropriate Corporate Goverace arragemets are i place, icludig the capacity to recogise ad maage risks 2 Legislative/regulatory ad fudig resposibilities Accreditatio/quality maagemet systems are i place ad meet fudig requiremets Compliace with all relevat legislatio, regulatios, policies ad procedures outlied i Fudig Deed ad PLAs Appropriate levels of isuraces are i place We have met icorporatio obligatios as required by the Office of Fair Tradig, ASIC or ORIC Board members, maagemet ad staff, have curret Workig with Childre Checks as required 3 Orgaisatioal ad Service Delivery operatios Appropriate policy framework is i place to deliver services uder Fudig Deed Appropriate procedures i place to audit our policies ad procedures to esure maagemet ad staff comply with the requiremets 4 Performace moitorig ad measuremet Board ad maagemet have reviewed performace for all PLAs to esure performace beig addressed Maitai appropriate ad robust complaits hadlig ad documetatio practices If goverace requiremets have ot bee met or have bee partially met, please state below your reasos for this ad ay actios beig take to meet the performace requiremets. 1 See defiitios i Guidace otes provided with Aual Accoutability ad Fiacial Reportig Guidelies 88

Part B Fiacial Maagemet 5 Fiacial Health/Maagemet Appropriate fiacial policies ad maagemet are i place Board regularly receives ad reviews the fiacial health ad maagemet reports o capacity to deliver services fuded by FACS 6 Prevetio of fraud ad mismaagemet Appropriate policies ad procedures i place for the prevetio ad maagemet of fraud for the Board, maagemet, staff ad voluteers Compliat/ Partially compliat/not compliat 1 If fiacial maagemet requiremets have ot bee met, or have bee partially met, please state below your reasos for this ad ay actios beig take to meet the performace requiremets. Part C Further Evidece 7 If required, further evidece of effective Goverace, Fiacial maagemet ad Service Delivery ca be provided Scorig Guide Not complete Partially complete Mostly complete Complete Complete idicates that all 7 areas of the Self Assessmet have bee met. Mostly complete idicates that 6 areas have bee met. Partially complete idicates that 4 5 areas have bee met. Not complete idicates that less tha 4 areas have bee met. If you have scored i the rage Not complete, Partially complete or Mostly complete please state below your reasos for this, icludig ay barriers to service provisio, ad ay actios curretly beig take to meet your performace requiremets. Actios ad Timeframes The actios will eed to be brought to the attetio of the Board to remid members of their resposibilities ad esure that the risks associated with partial ad/o-compliace are suitably addressed. We are kee to hear about ad share stories of success. If you have developed ad implemeted iovative ad positive practices at a corporate level, or have other successes you would like to share, please provide this iformatio below: 2 See defiitios i Guidace otes provided with Aual Accoutability ad Fiacial Reportig Guidelies 3 See defiitios i Guidace otes provided with Aual Accoutability ad Fiacial Reportig Guidelies 89

Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed /edorsed by the Chair ad a secod member represetig the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO, ad they have bee provided with a copy. As duly authorised represetatives of the Service Provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager Name Sigature Date Phoe 90

SERVICE PROVIDER ANNUAL SELF ASSESSMENT Program Level Agreemet Aual reportig period Service provider ame <<Isert fiacial year>> <<Isert provider s legal ame>> Service provider COMS ID Program ad sub-program Check whether applicable Program Level Agreemet ame Service operatig ame Period of the Fudig Deed <<Isert start ad ed dates>> FACS District As the authorised represetative of the service provider, I cofirm that the Chair of the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad Chief Executive are aware of the ogoig resposibilities ad cotractual obligatios of the Program Level Agreemet betwee the orgaisatio ad FACS icludig: Part A Fiacial Reportig 1 Appropriate duly authorised fiacial accoutability reports have bee submitted for this Program Level Agreemet i accordace with FACS requiremets Compliat/ Partially compliat/not compliat 1 If fiacial reportig requiremets have ot bee met, or have bee partially met, please state below your reasos for this ad ay actios beig take to meet the performace requiremets. Part B Service Delivery 2 Accreditatio/quality maagemet systems ad practices Service delivery meets accreditatio/quality assurace requiremets as required by program 3 Service data collectio Provisio of accurate ad timely data submitted to FACS/AIHW 4 Cliet groups/target groups Services defied i Program Level Agreemet are delivered to the agreed cliet groups/target groups 5 Geographic coverage Services have bee delivered or commuities have bee targeted i the geographical areas agreed to i the Program Level Agreemet ad supported i Guidelies 6 Service levels agreed to i the Program Level Agreemet Service levels agreed to i the Program Level Agreemet have bee achieved 7 Performace targets for service result (1) agreed to i the Program Guidelies Performace targets for service result (1) have bee achieved 8 Performace targets for service result (2) ageed to i the Program Guidelies Performace targets for service result (2) have bee achieved Compliat/ Partially compliat/not compliat 1 91

9 Performace targets for service result (3) agreed to i the Program Guidelies Performace targets for service result (3) have bee achieved 10 Performace targets for service result (4) agreed to i the Program Guidelies Performace targets for service result (4) have bee achieved 11 Performace targets for service result (5) agreed to i the Program Guidelies Performace targets for service result (5) have bee achieved If service delivery reportig requiremets have ot bee met, or have bee partially met, please state below your reasos for this ad ay actios beig take to meet the performace requiremets. Part C Further Evidece 1 If required, further evidece of effective Goverace, Fiacial maagemet ad Service Delivery ca be provided Scorig Guide Not complete Partially complete Mostly complete Complete Complete idicates that all 11 areas of the Self Assessmet have bee met. Mostly complete idicates that 8 10 areas have bee met. Partially complete idicates that 6 7 areas have bee met. Not complete idicates that less tha 6 areas have bee met. Overall, if you have scored i the rage Not complete, Partially complete or Mostly complete please state below your reasos for this, icludig ay barriers to service provisio, ad ay actios curretly beig take to meet your performace requiremets. FACS is kee to hear about areas ad stories of successful service delivery. If you have developed ad implemeted iovative ad positive practices to meet the eeds of your cliet group, or have other successes you would like to share, please provide this iformatio below: 92

Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed /edorsed by the Chair ad a secod member represetig the Board of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO, ad they have bee provided with a copy. As duly authorised represetatives of the service provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager Name Sigature Date Phoe 93

DESKTOP REVIEW PROCESS MAP Start REFERENCE DOCUMENTS COMS Desktop Review Provider submitted aual compliace documets? No 1. Cotact provider to check progress 2. Moitor provider retur Yes Does provider have other cotracts with FACS? Yes Liaise with other FACS cotract maagers (ADHC) to discuss ay relevat ifo or joit review REFERENCE DOCUMENTS COMS Portal Acquittals Self Assessmet File TRIM Ogoig Review Program Guidelies PREPARATION FOR REVIEW 1. Check provider has submitted aual fiacial accoutability reports 2. Obtai copies of PLAs ad ay performace data available 3. Review ay issues/complaits o TRIM/file 4. Review project file/otes, discuss with other FACS districts fuded across districts 5. Check accreditatio/ombudsma reports Coduct review Yes Yes Joit review? No additioal iformatio to be gathered REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Letter Email icludig questios, ageda ad relevat material required CONDUCT REVIEW 1. Aalyse Goverace, Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery Corporate ad PLA 2. Check fidigs agaist provider self assessmet Provider submitted reports ad complies i all areas Yes Complete COMS retur ad make file ote REFERENCE DOCUMENTS COMS File ote Aual compliace reports REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Email, portal Phoe file ote REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Risk assessmet tool Project file COMS TRIM file AFTER REVIEW 1. Advise service provider of ay questios or queries 2. Await provider advice, follow-up as required 3. Complete COMS checklist No Follow-up util completed Complete risk assessmet 1. Udertake risk assessmet 2. Review level of moitorig frequecy based o risk FINALISE ACTIONS 1. Close ay outstadig issues from review with provider 2. File all documetatio, otes, letters, recommedatios or work pla o TRIM 3. Complete COMS ad the service provider file Yes, completed Refer to Risk Assessmet Process map Ed 94

Service provider ame ANNUAL DESKTOP REVIEW FILE NOTE (To be compiled by FACS cotract maager for each Program Level Agreemet/Fudig Deed ad filed o Project File)) Program Level Agreemet ame Program Level Agreemet operatig ame Program Level Agreemet COMS ID Assessmet of provider Program Level Agreemet service delivery I have reviewed the service provider s assessmet of performace i the Program Level Yes Agreemet Self Assessmet agaist iformatio gathered durig the process of Ogoig Review, ad ay PIP actios from previous years i the area of Service Delivery. No Based o the iformatio available to me, I agree with the service provider s assessmet of compliace with the Program Level Agreemet. Based o the iformatio available to me, I do ot agree with the service provider s assessmet of compliace with the Program Level Agreemet ad I have discussed this with my maager. Based o the iformatio available to me, I am uable to make a iformed assessmet of the service provider s assessmet of compliace with the Program Level Agreemet. The reaso(s) for this decisio are: 1 2 3 I will take the followig actio arisig from this review (detail what actio is to be take eg. MRM service visit ad what areas of cocer are to be specifically addressed): Assessmet of provider Further evidece I have reviewed the service provider s further evidece if provided. I will provide the Yes followig feedback to the service provider o their commets No Commets: Assessmet of provider barriers to service provisio ad actios beig take I have reviewed the service provider s commets o ay barriers experieced i the Yes delivery of this service, if provided. I will provide the followig feedback to the service provider o their commets. No Commets: FACS COMS Data I have updated COMS with actual service results data for this agreemet, Yes if appropriate (See ihelp topic 7524). I have completed the COMS aual Desktop Review ad accoutability checklist for this agreemet (See ihelp topic 7733). No 95

Risk Assessmet: I have completed the Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool for this service provider. Yes No Based o this assessmet, this Program Level Agreemet will be reviewed: every moth aually every three moths every two years every six moths every three years FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS PLA cotract maager Name Sigature Date Phoe FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager with Fudig Deed resposibility Service Provider Assessmet Corporate Goverace I have reviewed the service provider s assessmet of performace i the Corporate Yes Self Assessmet agaist iformatio gathered durig the process of Ogoig Review; ad ay PIP actios from previous years i the area of Goverace. No Service Provider Assessmet Fiacial Maagemet I have reviewed the service provider s assessmet of performace i both the Self Yes Assessmet Corporate ad Self Assessmet Program Level Agreemet agaist iformatio gathered durig the process of Ogoig Review; ad ay PIP actios from previous years i the area of Fiacial Maagemet. No Name Sigature Date Phoe 96

RELATIONSHIP AUDIT Parties to the cotract should complete this tool at the same time to esure that measures are i place to develop opportuities for buildig trust, respect ad the ability to joitly solve problems. Each idividual completes the audit separately ad the compares resposes. This provides the opportuity for ay corrective actio that eeds to take place. 1 We will cosult with each other before makig decisios that could affect the partership. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 2 We will view solvig problems that arise as a shared resposibility. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 3 We will maage coflict by ivitig coversatios to uderstad differig poits of view. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 4 We will try to uderstad each other s iterests ad idetify ad develop alteratives for mutual gais. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 5 We will each have cofidece the other parter will do what they say they will do. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 I crisis situatios, we will cosult broadly ad will ot rely solely o colleagues from our ow orgaisatios. Strogly Disagree Strogly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Relatioship reflectios Service provider Cotract maager 97

RELATIONSHIP LEVEL AGREEMENT Date agreemet was draw up: Betwee, Service provider s represetative ame: Cotract maager s ame: Copy of agreemet will be held by both parties ad will be reviewed aually, after staffig chages or whe ecessary ad with prior cosultatio. Parties to the agreemet are ecouraged to tailor the roles ad resposibilities i the spaces provided to esure the uiqueess of the partership is cosistet with stregtheig relatioships. Frequecy/legth Flexibility aroud meetig depedig o reasos ad yearly cotractig cycle. Check-i phoe call will occur every weeks/moths. Scheduled meetigs will be held every weeks/moths. If a meetig is missed, the cotract maager takes resposibility for arragig a alterative date as soo as possible. Additioal agreemets Discretio Service provider accepts that work issues will be discussed, whe appropriate, with other FACS staff. The service provider is etitled to have issues cocerig the quality of his/her work to be explicit ad ope to his/her ivolvemet. The cotract maager is etitled to have issues cocerig the quality of his/her work to be explicit ad ope to his/her ivolvemet. Service provider ad cotract maager are to iform each other of aythig that eeds to be kept cofidetial. Service provider ad cotract maager accept that both parties are keepig records of the meetigs. Service provider s role To request urget meetigs aroud cocers/issues. To seek advice ad clarificatio from the cotract maager. To receive feedback. To set part of the ageda. To expect cotract maager to carry out agreed actio or provide a appropriate explaatio, withi a agreed timeframe. To challege ideas ad guidace i a costructive way. Additioal agreemets Service provider s resposibilities To be proactive. To update cotract maager ad provide relevat iformatio. To raise issues, cocers ad problems. To idetify developmet/traiig eeds ad egage i agreed activities. Additioal agreemets 98

Cotract maager s role To request urget meetigs aroud cocers/issues. To give service provider costructive feedback o his/her work performace. To egotiate aroud service provider. Cotract maager s resposibilities To have a predomiatly problem-solvig approach. To esure that service provider is clear about his/her role ad resposibilities. To make available to the service provider relevat iformatio o the Cotract Goverace Framework. To esure that service provider is kept up to date with departmetal policy ad procedures. To deal with problems as they impact o the service provider s performace. Additioal agreemets Coflict Every effort will be made to resolve relatioship ad cotract coflict i a timely maer. I exceptioal circumstaces, where this caot be achieved, the service provider ad cotract maager have recourse to each other s lie maager. Recordig mechaisms The cotract maager ad service provider approve the otes of the agreemet, which should be siged ad dated, usig the pro-forma provided. Please iclude ay additioal agreemets. Siged by: Date: (Service provider s represetative) Siged by: Date: (FACS cotract maager) 99

RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL PROCESS MAP Program Level Agreemet Start Has a risk bee idetified? No Ed Referece documets COMS Desktop Review Letter Yes What area of risk does it relate to? Regulatio/ Goverace Fiacial Service compliace Maagemet Delivery What is the level of impact of the risk ad cosequece? Use Risk Categorisatio Guide Mior/Moderate/Major Referece documets Referece documets COMS Desktop Portal Acquittals Self Assessmet File TRIM Ogoig Review Program Guidelies COMS Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool Risk Categorisatio Guide What is the likelihood of the risk occurrig? Determie risk ratig 1. Idetify the risk ad what actio eeds to occur 2. Await provider advice, follow-up as required 3. Complete COMS checklist Referece documets COMS File ote Aual compliace reports Refer to relevat Escalatio Pathways Yes Does this risk eed to be escalated? Referece documets Performace Assessmet Table Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool No Fialise actios 1. Advise maager 2. Documet course of actio o project file, review with provider 3. record risk ratig ad develop Risk Moitorig ad Performace Maagemet Pla 4. File all documetatio, otes or work pla o TRIM 5. Complete COMS ad the service provider file Ed Referece documets Risk assessmet ad Ratig tool Project file COMS TRIM 100

RISK IDENTIFICATION MATRIX GUIDE FOR ASSESSMENT TOOL Corporate Risk Aalysis Guide Risk Area Potetial Risk Idicators Examples of Risk Evidece Risk Cotext Source Regulatio / Compliace Quality maagemet systems ad/ or accreditatio requiremets are beig met (if appropriate) Accreditatio agecy has advised of issues, coditios imposed Actio pla o improvemets or completio of agreed task No quality maagemet systems i place Potetial loss of accreditatio ad closure of service due to o-compliace Failure to meet fudig coditio of curret OOHC accreditatio Third party accreditatio agecy Stakeholder iformatio/visits Aual Self Assessmet Resposibility for regulatory compliace could ot be idetified Service provider demostrates that the whole orgaisatio is compliat to legislatio, regulatios, policies ad procedures defied i Fudig Deed No quality maagemet system i place No compliace framework i place or regular review Iteral policies do ot refer to or alig with legal requiremets Pedig legal actios Provider subject to fies or ocompliace actio as a result of o-compliace with laws No-compliace fies disrupt service delivery Self Assessmet Site visit /complaits/ meetigs Maagemet ad/ or staff have soud kowledge of the key legislative/regulatory requiremets Maagemet/staff do ot demostrate a uderstadig of key legislatio ad/or regulatory requiremets Cliets receive iadequate service due to lack of compliace Self Assessmet Meetigs, visits ad feedback Are there cocers about the provider s services idetified by the ature ad/ or umber of complaits? Cocers raised by member of the commuity Notificatio of evet or icidet by exteral agecy/public Office of Childre Guardia advice Complaits/visits TRIM records Ogoig Review Self Assessmet Goverace Appropriate goverace arragemets i place (goverace policies ad procedures, soud maagemet structure, visio, safeguards for coflict of iterest) Lack of goverace policies ad procedures Lack of safeguards i place to prevet coflict of iterest No strategic busiess plaig process Lack of adequate maagemet reportig to the Board Ethical guidelies for recruitmet of Board members ot followed Absece of safeguards for a coflict of iterest Potetial lack of adequate maagemet reportig to Board Ogoig coflict betwee Board ad maagemet Reported corruptio of Board members Complaits Ieffective oversight of the maagemet/ service delivery Ombudsma reports Stakeholder iformatio/ complaits Meetigs/site visits Aual reports Vulerability of members to iteral/exteral ifluece 101

Risk Area Potetial Risk Idicators Examples of Risk Evidece Risk Cotext Source Goverace Board members ad maagemet have the appropriate level of skills ad traiig i place or plaed to provide goverace arragemets for the service provider Board members have wide rage of skills from Corporate Goverace to Fiacial Maagemet ad Service Delivery Where gaps, o plas to improve Board members skill level to bridge these gaps i kowledge Board refuses to sig compliace reports Potetial breaches Aual report Ogoig Review Evidece of developmet pla for Board members Board/seior maagemet are accoutable for attedace ad participatio i appropriate goverace meetigs/ forums Poor Board member attedace at meetigs Irregular Board meetigs High turover of Board members/seior maagemet Board does ot have right skills to lead, resultig i poor quality of service/meetig service targets No professioal developmet for seior maagemet or Board members Board miutes Aual reports Attedace at Board meetigs Service provider has appropriate policies, procedures ad quality compliace systems ad practices i place for service provisio Lack of relevat policies ad procedures. Staff do ot have soud kowledge of the policies ad procedures No cliet feedback system is i place Staff do ot adhere to the service model ad service specificatios Iadequate service delivery or quality due to poor relatioships betwee cliets ad stakeholders Ogoig Review Aual Self Assessmet Aual Report Complaits Fiacial Service provider demostrates soud fiacial health ad fiacial maagemet practices Lack of fiacial maagemet policies ad procedures Poor fiacial positio/health of provider idicatig viability issues Level of service provider s liquidity ratio of curret assets/ curret liabilities Isufficiet fuds to adjust the operatig model to level of fudig Loss of fudig from other agecies/ programs Iappropriate use of fuds by Board or seior maagemet Liquidity ratio >1.1:1 Audited Fiacial Statemets/Fiacial Reports Self Assessmet Service provider reports frequet surplus ad deficits (more tha oce durig the term of the cotract) Surplus or deficits i acquittals over 2 years >10% of fuds across PLAs Potetially isufficiet fuds to cotiue provisio of services Acquittals/Self Assessmet COMS portal Fiacial reports Service provider submitted comprehesive ad quality fiacial accoutability reports withi the required timeframe Acquittals ad fiacial reports do ot comply with requiremets No qualified audit reports submitted Isufficiet fuds to cotiue provisio of services Audited Fiacial Statemets/Fiacial Reports Quality ad timely icome ad expediture statemets for all PLAs have bee submitted Acquittals ad fiacial reports do ot comply with requiremets Surplus or deficits i more tha oe PLA Frequet deficits resultig i service targets ot beig met Acquittals/ COMS portal 102

Risk Area Potetial Risk Idicators Examples of Risk Evidece Risk Cotext Source Service Delivery Performace report shows service provider is ot meetig the agreed outputs/ outcomes/results Cocers raised that the service provider operates i geographic or other isolatio from the local ad broader commuity ad service system Cotiuig uder achievemet of agreed results No actio pla i place Lack of participatio i iteragecy meetigs ad commuity forums/groups Complaits or cocers from cliets ad commuity feedback Service provider potetially uable to deliver appropriate services to cliets Cliet plas do ot reflect egagemet with other providers or compliace with MOUs, etc. Level ad quality of service is beig compromised Iadequate service delivery or quality due to poor relatioships with key stakeholders Lack of cotact with FACS ad other services resultig i referrals patters ad services ot well established Self Assessmet Other program area data reports Local iteragecy meetig miutes Ogoig Review Site visits Cliet plas Workforce issues impact o capability ad capacity to deliver cliet services, eg high staff turover, uderresourced, suitably qualified staff, WHS claims etc. High staff turover Lack of traiig ad support structures i place for staff Uder-resourcig/high staff turover Lack of suitably qualified staff/ High WHS claims Potetial uavailability to deliver service requiremets to cliets Potetial risk of harm to cliets due to staff with crimial history Aual Self Assessmet Job ad Site visit Ogoig Review 103

RISK IDENTIFICATION MATRIX GUIDE FOR ASSESSMENT TOOL Program Level Agreemet Risk Aalysis Guide Risk Area Potetial Risk Idicators Examples of Risk Evidece Risk Cotext Source Number of complaits received agaist the PLA High umber of complaits Cocers raised by member of the commuity Notificatio of evet or icidet by exteral agecy/public OCG advice TRIM records Ogoig Review Goverace Self Assessmet Does service provider report frequet surplus ad deficits for the PLA over the past 2 or 3 years? If yes, what percetage to their aual fudig? Surplus or deficits i acquittals over 2 years >10% of fuds across PLAs Potetially isufficiet fuds to cotiue provisio of services Acquittals COMS portal Service provider submitted appropriate PLA fiacial reportig, eg fiacial certificatio, icome ad expediture statemet withi the required period? Acquittals ad fiacial reports do ot comply with requiremets Surplus or deficits i more tha oe PLA Frequet deficits resultig i service targets ot beig met Acquittals/ COMS portal Service Delivery Does this PLA meet its aual service or performace targets? Some programs have specific targets, eg OOHC Cotiuig uderachievemet of agreed results No actio pla i place Self Assessmet Other program area data reports 104

Service Delivery (cot.) Cocers raised that service provider is sole provider or operates i isolatio from the local ad broader commuity ad service system Lack of participatio i iteragecy meetigs ad commuity forums/groups Complaits or cocers from cliets ad commuity feedback Service provider potetially uable to deliver appropriate services to cliets Cliets plas do ot reflect egagemet with other providers or compliace with MOUs etc. Iadequate service delivery or quality due to poor relatioships with key stakeholders Lack of cotact with FACS ad other services resultig i referral patters ad services ot well established Local iteragecy meetig miutes Ogoig Review Site visits Cliet plas Workforce issues impact o capability ad capacity to deliver cliet services, high staff turover, uderresourced, suitably qualified staff, WHS claims etc. High staff turover Lack of traiig ad support structures i place for staff Uder-resourcig/high staff turover Lack of suitably qualified staff/ High WHS claims Potetial uavailability of staff to deliver service requiremets to cliets Potetial risk of harm to cliets due to staff with crimial history Aual Self Assessmet Job ad Site visit Ogoig Review 105

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RATING TOOL Service Provider (Corporate) Service provider Service provider s ID District covered Primary service provider cotact Positio Primary FACS cotract maager Email Iformatio etered above will feed ito the Risk Moitorig ad Performace Maagemet Pla Risk ratig 1 to 1.25 = low 1.26 to 2.25 = Medium Risk areas Potetial risk idicators 2.26 to 3 = High Ratig scale Regulatio /Compliace Goverace Quality maagemet systems ad/or accreditatio requiremets are beig met (if appropriate) Service provider demostrates that the whole orgaisatio is compliat with legislatio, regulatios, policies ad procedures defied i Fudig Deed Maagemet ad/or staff have soud kowledge of the key legislative/regulatory requiremets Are there cocers about the provider s services idetified by the ature ad/or umber of complaits? Appropriate goverace arragemets are i place (goverace policies ad procedures, soud maagemet structure, visio, safeguards for coflict of iterest etc.). Board members ad maagemet have appropriate level of skills ad traiig or are plaed, to support goverace arragemets Board/seior maagemet are accoutable for attedace ad participatio is appropriate goverace meetigs/forums Service provider has appropriate policies, procedures ad quality compliace systems ad practices i place for service provisio Sigificat cocers oted = 3 Mior actio required/stable = 2 Meets accreditatio/qa requiremets = 1 Not compliat i critical areas = 3 Partially compliat = 2 Fully compliat = 1 No = 3 Reasoably soud = 2 Yes = 1 Sigificat umber of complaits/cocers = 3 Number of cocers/complaits (mior ature) = 2 No complaits or cocers =1 No = 3 Reasoably soud = 2 Yes = 1 No = 3 Reasoable mix of skills = 2 Yes = 1 No = 3 Reasoable attedace = 2 Yes = 1 No = 3 Reasoable = 2 Yes = 1 106

Risk ratig 1 to 1.25 = low 1.26 to 2.25 = Medium Risk areas Potetial risk idicators 2.26 to 3 = High Ratig scale Fiacial Service Delivery Service provider demostrates soud fiacial health ad maagemet practices Service provider reports frequet surplus ad deficits (more tha oce durig the term of the cotract) Service provider submitted comprehesive ad quality fiacial accoutability reports withi the required timeframe Quality ad timely icome ad expediture statemets for all Program Level Agreemets have bee submitted Performace report shows service provider is ot deliverig the agreed outputs/outcomes/results Cocers raised that service provider operates i geographic or other isolatio from the local ad broader commuity ad service system Workforce issues impact o capacity ad capability to deliver cliet services, eg high staff turover, uder-resourced, suitably qualified staff, WHS claims etc. Low = 3 Moderate = 2 High = 1 Yes, > 25% = 3 Yes, > 10% ad < 25% = 2 No or <10% = 1 Not compliat = 3 Partially compliat = 2 Compliat = 1 Not compliat = 3 Partially compliat = 2 Compliat = 1 No ad variace > 10% = 3 No ad variace < 10% = 2 Yes = 1 Operates i isolatio/solely = 3 To some degree = 2 No = 1 Yes = 3 Mior cocers = 2 No = 1 Overall score FACS factors Risk ratig *** Iteral commuicatio or other factors pose a risk, for cross- District/cross-agecy relatioship maagemet of the provider. Complexity ad the ature of programs beig delivered preset issues for service delivery. Lack of cotiuity ad experiece of FACS cotract maagers ad documetatio, frequecy of cotact ad impact of relatioship Sigificat factors are preset = 3 Moderate issues but steps i place to maage = 2 Noe idetified or issues addressed = 1 Sigificat factors are preset = 3 Moderate issues but steps i place to maage = 2 Noe idetified or issues addressed = 1 Sigificat factors are preset = 3 Moderate issues but steps i place to maage = 2 Noe idetified or issues addressed = 1 Cotract maager commets Risk ratig*** 1 to 1.25 = Low 1.26 to 2.25 = Medium 2.26 to 3 = High 107

DETAILS NOT REQUIRED RISK ASSESSMENT AND RATING TOOL Service Provider Program Level Agreemet Operatig Name PLA ID FACS PLA Ower Provider PLA Cotact Provider PLA Cotact No Cross-District Provider Cross-Agecy Provider Lead District Lead Agecy Iformatio etered above will feed ito the RMPM Pla Risk ratig 1 to 1.25 = low 1.26 to 2.25 = Medium Risk areas Potetial risk idicators 2.26 to 3 = High Ratig scale Goverace Fiacial Service Delivery FACS Factors Number of complaits received agaist the PLA Does the service provider have policies ad soud maagemet practices relevat to this PLA? Has service provider reports frequet surplus ad deficits over the past 2 or 3 years? If yes, what percetage to aual fudig? Service provider submitted appropriate PLA fiacial reportig, i.e., fiacial certificatio, icome ad expediture statemet withi the required period? Does PLA meet its aual service or performace targets? Some programs have specific targets, eg OOHC Cocers raised that service provider is sole provider or operates i isolatio from the local ad broader commuity/ service system Is this PLA the sole provider of this particular service i the area (or are there alterative service providers i the area?) Workforce issues impact o capability ad capacity to deliver cliet services, eg high staff turover, uder-resourced, suitably qualified staff, WHS claims etc. Overall score Iteral factors pose risk with cross-district/cross-agecy maagemet of the relatioship with the provider or the complexity i coordiatig ature of programs delivery Lack of cotiuity ad experiece of FACS cotract maagers ad documetatio, frequecy of cotact ad impact of relatioship Do you cocur with the service provider s Self Assessmet ratigs? If ot, provide explaatio below Average PLA Risk Ratig*** Sigificat umber complaits /cocers = 3 Number of cocers/complaits (mior ature) = 2 No complaits or cocers=1 No = 3 Reasoable = 2 Yes = 1 Yes more tha 25% = 3 Yes more tha 10% less tha 25% = 2 No or less tha 10% = 1 Not compliat = 3 Partially compliat = 2 Compliat = 1 No ad variace > 10% = 3 No ad variace < 10% = 2 Yes = 1 Largely operates solely = 3 To some degree = 2 No = 1 Yes = 3 2 alterative SPs = 2 No = 1 Yes = 3 Mior cocers = 2 No = 1 ***Sum of values i rows 14 to 21 ***Total score divided by o. of idicators Sigificat factors are preset = 3 Moderate issues but steps i place to maage = 2 Noe or issues addressed =1 Sigificat factors preset = 3 Moderate issues but steps i place to maage = 2 Noe or issues addressed = 1 Select Yes or No from dropdow list Cotract maager s commets Risk ratig*** 1 to 1.25 = Low 1.26 to 2.25 = Medium 2.26 to 3 = High 108

RISK CATEGORISATION GUIDE Cotract maagers assess each Service Provider, at Corporate ad PLA Levels usig the Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool. Stadard course of actios recommeded below for each of the ratig category. For Service Providers with multiple PLAs, the table below will guide the ratig. Example, a provider holds 5 PLAs, three rated Low Risks ad two rated Medium Risks, o major performace issues, therefore the provider is a Category 2 - Moderate. Use the Risk Moitorig ad Performace Maagemet Pla to documet each assessmet. Risks Idetified from Ogoig Review/Desktop Risk Moitorig Overall ratig Review Performace Issues Stadard Course of Actio Frequecy Category 1 (LOW) No idetified HIGH or MEDIUM risk ratig NO performace issues Face-to-face commuicatios ot required but oce or twice a year recommeded; occasioal emails, phoe calls to touch base Aually/semiaually Category 2 (MEDIUM) Maximum of two MEDIUM risk ratigs NO major performace issues Iformal meetigs, occasioal visits, emails ad phoe calls may be required to clarify or request for some iformatio; Performace Improvemet Pla if appropriate Semi-aually/ quarterly, depedig o the program Category 3 (HIGH) Oe HIGH risk ratig ad/or maximum of 2 MEDIUM risk ratigs Maximum of ONE major performace issues Formal mothly meetigs; formal correspodece to clarify compliace resposibilities, or formally iform service provider of issues ad warigs; mothly site visits. Performace Improvemet Pla/Fiacial audit if appropriate Mothly or fortightly as required Category 4 (VERY HIGH) Three or more HIGH risk ratigs or more tha 5 MEDIUM risk ratigs MORE tha ONE major performace issues Formal ad detailed review udertake, detailed audit; appoit admiistrator if ecessary; cotiuous follow-up; potetial closure of service, escalated through proper chaels, seior executives otified ad briefed At least mothly with frequet emails ad follow-up calls, fortightly or as ofte as required 109

PERFORMANCE ISSUES ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE Use this guidace to assess performace issues ad documet them i project file, Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool ad relevat Risk Moitorig ad Performace Maagemet Pla. Performace Mior Moderate Major / Issues that do ot require escalatio Issues that do ot require Issues that should be reported Risk Area ad are maaged through immediate escalatio but i accordace with the District/local processes should be flagged accordig to Escalatio Pathway Escalatio Pathway processes Service Delivery Idetified istaces of a small portio of cliets ot achievig iteded outcomes Idetified istaces of a small portio of cliets ot stayig i the program for the plaed duratio Ijury or metal distress to cliet that does ot require hospitalisatio/ ivestigatio Failig to meet some required activities (maagig case plas appropriately, takig ad passig o referrals etc.) Number of cliets ot achievig iteded outcomes Characteristics of some participats ot reflectig the cliet group covered by the service specificatio (target age groups, geographical groups, backgroud groups ad/or disability groups) Failure to establish ad maitai clear operatioal records ad documets Large umber of cliets ot stayig i the program for the plaed duratio Harm, ijury or metal distress to oe or more cliets requirig ivestigatio/ hospitalisatio Avoidable cliet death Characteristics of most idividual participats ot reflectig the cliet group covered by the service specificatio (target age groups, geographical groups, backgroud groups ad/or disability groups) Failig to meet several required activities (maagig case plas appropriately, takig ad passig o referrals etc.) Serious or ogoig breach(es) of Fudig Deed Sigificat turover of staff which has impacted o service delivery ad/or quality of service Staff lack capability or capacity which has compromised service delivery ad/or quality or service Fiacial Delay i providig aual certificate of audited fiacial statemet Fiacial issues (workig capital ratio, reserves, cash flows, debt maagemet etc.) have ot resulted i a disruptio of services ad/or sigificat impact o quality of service Service disrupted for a short period of time as a result of isufficiet fuds No-critical service results ot achieved due to iappropriate use of fudig Lack of adequate isurace Lack of register to track assets valued at $10,000 or more Loss, error or omissio above x% of total level of fudig from acquittal Sigificat disruptio or cessatio of service due to isufficiet fuds Critical or several service results ot achieved due to iappropriate use of fudig Failure to provide aual certificate of audited fiacial statemet Fiacial issues (workig capital ratio, reserves, cash flows, debt maagemet, isolvecy, bakruptcy etc.) have resulted i a disruptio of services ad/or sigificat impact o quality of service Lack of policies ad procedures regardig fiacial maagemet ad/or delegatio procedures Fraud 110

Performace Mior Moderate Major / Issues that do ot require escalatio Issues that do ot require Issues that should be reported Risk Area ad are maaged through immediate escalatio but i accordace with the District/local processes should be flagged accordig to Escalatio Pathway Escalatio Pathway processes Regulatory/ Compliace Mior regulatory/compliace breaches by idividual staff Breaches or o-compliace by the orgaisatio resultig i fie but ot impactig o provisio of services Failure to comply with legislatio, Fudig Deed or iteral policies which have bee corrected without cosequece Iadequate policy eviromet which has ot impacted o provisio or quality of services Iadequate policy eviromet which has impacted o provisio or quality of services Ogoig breach(es) of laws or regulatios resultig i mior disruptio of services ad/or impacts o quality of service Serious (or ogoig) breach(es) of laws or regulatios resultig i disruptio of services ad/ or sigificat impact o quality of service Breach resultig i fies of substatial fiacial value (xx% of YY) Accreditatio or licesig failure Providig misleadig or deceptive iformatio or material Failure to comply with recommedatios of a regulator or a public authority Failure to forward portio of required fudig amout to the ATO as required uder legislatio establishig the GST Goverace Chages i the Board or maagemet structures resultig i miimal impact to service delivery or quality Temporary coflict o the board with short-term/mior impact o service delivery ad quality Chages to the maagemet team that are impactig o service delivery or quality Failure to declare/maage ay potetial coflict of iterest withi the orgaisatio Board or maagemet fail to fulfil their resposibilities Ogoig ad/or uresolved tesios withi the Board ad maagemet team Sigificat or multiple chages to the maagemet team impactig o service delivery or quality Oe of the officers, employees or agets is charged with/or covicted of a crimial offece adversely affectig service delivery 111

RISK MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Service Provider Details (SP data automatically feeds from the Risk Assessmet ad Ratig Tool) Service Provider 0 Service Provider 0 Cross District Provider Yes Lead District 0 Districts 0 Cross Agecy Provider 0 Lead Agecy 0 Primary Provider 0 Positio 0 SP overall risk category Primary Cotact 0 Email 0 Risks/Performace Issues Idetified Service Agreemet Risk Ratig Risks Date Resposibility Actio Date Revised Risk Escalatio Status Specs/PLA ID Ed Date (Refer to Risk Areas Assessed/ Name ad Positio Take Reviewed Ratig, if Assessmet & Idetified Applicable Ratig Tool) 0 Medium 0 Low Overall Commets MadeUp Compay has exceeded their service target for this fiacial year ad has bee cosistet i deliverig high-quality service. Project brief received per request to carry forward surplus ito the ew fiacial year. Request approved. Note: C/f to be reported i the ew fiacial year, check if deliverables o c/f fuds are met. Date Last Qtr Paymet 30/06/2013 Amout 378,339.75 Last Acquittal Received 29/10/2013 Surplus/Deficit 5,228.25 Statemet Date 30/06/2013 Liquidity Ratio 1:1.15 Next Scheduled Paymet 8/12/2013 Amout 378,339.75 Service Specs to Close Termiatio Date Remaiig fuds recovered Amout Recovered Recommeded By/Date Louise Bod Date COMS Status Updated by Date 112

MONITORING AND REVIEW MEETING LETTER 1 <Title ad full ame> <Positio <Service Provider Name> <Address> <Suburb> NSW <Postcode> Dear <ame> Thak you for submittig the <isert fiacial year>performace Measuremet ad Moitorig documets for the followig Program Level Agreemets: <isert Program Level Agreemet ame, ID o.> Followig the review of available iformatio, issues have bee idetified that require further clarificatio or discussio. As a result, a Moitorig ad Review Meetig (MRM) will be udertake. A MRM is a formal process where the FACS cotract maager will discuss your orgaisatio s compliace with the Fudig Deed or performace agaist the Program Level Agreemet. If required, a Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) may be egotiated to record specific actios that eed to be addressed. A PIP is a agreemet betwee the service provider ad FACS about the actios the service provider will take to improve performace agaist the Fudig Deed ad/or the Program Level Agreemet. Durig the MRM you will be asked to provide evidece to support the coclusios described i your Self Assessmet documet. Eclosed is a proposed ageda which outlies what will be discussed at the meetig ad a prepared questio set which outlies what will be discussed at the meetig ad provides examples of evidece that you may wat to prepare i advace. Areas for discussio iclude geeral performace ad the followig issues: <isert issues to be addressed at the MRM idetified i the Desktop Review File Note. <add dot poits as eeded>. Also eclosed is a Fiacial Report Checklist prepared followig a review of the fiacial statemets submitted. Please review ad cosider ay actios listed. These may also be discussed at the MRM. I will be i cotact shortly to arrage a appropriate time ad locatio for this meetig. Should you wish to discuss or clarify ay issues raised i this letter, please cotact me o <isert phoe umber> or <email address>. Yours sicerely [Name] Cotract maager [Isert date] 113

MONITORING AND REVIEW MEETING LETTER 2 <Title ad full ame> <Positio <Service Provider Name> <Address> <Suburb> NSW <Postcode> Dear <ame> Thak you for participatig i the Moitorig ad Review Meetig (MRM) o <date>. The focus of the MRM was performace agaist the issues i the followig Program Level Agreemets durig <isert fiacial year>. <isert Program Level Agreemet ame, ID o.> The issues discussed at the MRM have bee successfully resolved ad o further actio is required. I would like to take this opportuity to thak you for your cotiued cooperatio ad look forward to a cotiuatio of our partership i the year ahead. OR At the MRM, sigificat cotiuig performace issues were idetified with the abovemetioed Program Level Agreemet<s>. It is therefore ecessary to documet these issues i a Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP). A PIP is a agreemet betwee the service provider ad FACS about actios the service provider will take to improve performace. Attached is a copy of the draft PIP for you to review. Please cotact me if the draft does ot accurately reflect the issues ad actios discussed ad agreed to at the MRM. If o further chages are required, please have a authorised represetative sig the PIP ad retur it to me at the below address. Progress i implemetig the actios listed i the PIP will be moitored ad recorded by the cotract maager. Should the idetified actios ot be resolved by the ed of the curret fiacial year, those actios will be carried over ad listed i the Program Level Agreemet, Sectio 1.14 Special coditios relatig to this Program Level Agreemet of the subsequet fiacial year. OR I will be i cotact shortly to arrage a further meetig to discuss the PIP. Should you wish to discuss or clarify ay issues raised i this letter, please cotact me o <isert phoe umber> or <email address>. Yours sicerely [Name] Cotract maager [Isert date] 114

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Corporate Service provider s ame: Service provider s COMS ID: Fudig Deed ID: Fudig Deed dates: Start: Ed: FACS District Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) date: Start: Ed: PIP review date PIP review date Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed/edorsed by the Chair of the Board ad a secod member of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO, ad they have bee provided a copy of the actio pla idicatig the steps beig take to address partial ad/or o-compliace. The Board will esure that areas idetified as partial ad/or o-compliace will be addressed as outlied i the attached actio pla. As duly authorised represetatives of the service provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager Name Sigature Date Phoe 115

Corporate Goverace* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 Fiacial Maagemet* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 Other Fudig Deed issues* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 *Delete sectios ot required. 116

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN Program Level Agreemet Service provider: Program Level Agreemet ID: Program Level Agreemet ame: Program Level Agreemet operatig ame: FACS Fudig Program: Program Level Agreemet dates: Start: Ed: FACS District: Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) date: Start: Ed: PIP review date: Date: Date: PIP review date: Date: Date: Service Provider Declaratio I cofirm that these results have bee agreed/edorsed by the Chair of the Board ad a secod member of Maagemet ad/or Maagemet Committee ad CEO, ad they have bee provided with a copy of the actio pla idicatig the steps beig take to address partial ad/or o-compliace. The Board will esure that areas idetified as partial ad/or o-compliace will be addressed as outlied i the attached actio pla. As duly authorised represetatives of the service provider, we warrat the iformatio cotaied i this documet is true ad correct to the best of our kowledge. Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe Name of the represetative Sigature Positio Date Phoe FACS USE ONLY: To be completed by FACS cotract maager Name Sigature Date Phoe 117

Fiacial Reportig* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 Service Delivery* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 Other Program Level Agreemet Issues* Issues Actios Timeframe Resposibility 1 2 3 *Delete sectios ot required. 118

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING Meetig Ageda Subject: Attedees: Date: Locatio: ITEM 1 2 3 4 119

MONITORING AND REVIEW MEETING PROCESS MAP Start COMS Desktop Review Referece documets Outcome of completed Desktop Review idetifies issues? Yes No Ed Prepare questios ad requiremets for documets Advise provider of date ad draft meetig ageda COMS Desktop Review Letter, Email icl questios, ageda ad relevat material required Referece documets Referece documets Prepare for the meetig 1. Esure most appropriate represetative of provider is able to atted 2. If high risk/cotetious ask aother cotract maager to atted 3. Idetify ay documets or further iformatio you may require from the provider Sed format otificatio i writig to provider of meetig Durig visit/meetig 1. Take comprehesive otes 2. Sight relevat documets (remember to ote the documets you have sighted) Agree o ay actio for provider ad FACS COMS File ote PIP Referece documets After the visit 1. Type up comprehesive otes, place o file 2. Idetify ay questios, draft recommedatios ad/or work pla 3. Prepare letter to provider, if required ad iclude recommedatios ad/or work pla 4, If required, fialise Performace Improvemet Pla (PIP) Letter Referece documets Sed letter withi two weeks with relevat documets PIP COMS TRIM file Referece documets Fialise actios 1. Obtai duly authorised PIP from provider 2. File all documetatio, ageda, otes, letters, recommedatios or work pla o TRIM 3. Complete PIP ad upload siged copy to PLA or Deed. Refer attachmets. 120

121

122

Glossary 123

GLOSSARY Term/Acroym Defiitio ADHC Agecy AIHW ASIC ATO BATNA CALD Code of Coduct COMS Cotract Goverace Framework FACS s Ageig, Disability ad Home Care Divisio. A body declared by a regulatio to be a public authority. For the purposes of these Guidelies, this refers to Commuity Services, Ageig, Disability ad Home Care, ad Housig NSW. Australia Istitute of Health ad Welfare Australia Securities & Ivestmets Commissio is a idepedet Australia body that regulates corporatios. Australia Taxatio Office Meas best alterative to a egotiated agreemet. Culturally Ad Liguistically Diverse A set of rules outliig the resposibilities of, or proper practices, for a idividual or orgaisatio. Cotract Olie Maagemet System Provides a set of systems, priciples ad processes by which a cotract relatioship is maaged. The framework is aimed at supportig parterships betwee cotract maagers ad service providers i the delivery of performace goals that support service providers i their idepedece. Cotract Goverace Guidelies Is the cetral elemet i the Cotract Goverace Framework as it Pillar 1 describes strategies ad tools for measurig performace for the duratio of the cotract s life. Cotract Goverace Guidelies Describes the role of cotract ad supportig documets ad how both Pillar 2 cotract maagers ad service providers ca use them to support quatitative ad qualitative performace improvemets. Cotract Goverace Guidelies Reiforces the importace of relatioships i achievig positive results Pillar 3 for the commuities we work with ad provides key skills for cotract maagers i developig workig relatioships with service providers. Cotract Goverace Guidelies Explais that it is importat for cotract maagers to have skills to Pillar 4 maage differeces both i the egotiatio of cotracts ad throughout the course of the cotract relatioship. Cotract maager Corporate Goverace CPWC Act CS/Commuity Services CYPCP Act Eligibility group The perso appoited by FACS to maage the relatioship with the service provider for some or all of the services it provides. This may iclude the purchasig ad moitorig of services. The system of rules, practices ad processes by which a orgaisatio is directed ad cotrolled. Child Protectio (Workig with Childre) Act 2012 (NSW). FACS Commuity Services divisio Childre ad Youg Persos Care ad Protectio Act 1998 (NSW). Those persos who are eligible to receive assistace uder a program. Eligibility groups are geerally broadly defied by the fudig source, icludig by formal agreemet (eg carers, frail aged). 124

GLOSSARY FACS FACS District Fiacial acquittal Fiacial Year Fiacial Maagemet Fiacial reportig Fudig Deed GST HNSW Law ad Justice Directorate Liquidity MOU NGO OCG OOHC ORIC Performace measures Performace Measuremet Cycle Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services FACS is arraged ito 15 local Districts aliged to the NSW Local Health Districts. Each District is led by a District Director who is resposible for the delivery of FACS s services across Ageig, Disability ad Home Care, Commuity Services ad Housig NSW. The process whereby the service provider it fuds accouts formally for the fudig they receive. A year commecig o 1 July ad edig 30 Jue. The efficiet ad effective maagemet of fuds which icludes careful plaig, directig, cotrol ad reportig of the fiacial resources of a orgaisatio. Relates to the gatherig of fiacial data for a orgaisatio s fiacial operatios performace, positio ad fuds flow for a accoutig period. A writte legal agreemet betwee FACS ad a service provider, made to eable the delivery of services to childre, youg people, families ad commuities. Goods ad Services Tax FACS s Housig NSW Divisio Provides all of FACS s i-house legal services as well as moitorig ad supervisig all legal advice give to the Miister, Chief Executive ad staff. A measure of a orgaisatio s ability to pay their debts whe they fall due, which is usually determied by the relatioship of a orgaisatio s curret assets ad curret liabilities. A orgaisatio with assets that are easily coverted to eough cash to cover the liabilities is cosidered to be liquid. Memoradum of Uderstadig No-govermet orgaisatio Office of the Childre s Guardia Out-of-home care Office of the Registrar of Idigeous Corporatios is a idepedet statutory office which admiisters corporatios uder the Corporatios (Aborigial ad Torres Strait Islader) Act 2006 (CATSI Act). A series of quatitative ad/or qualitative idicators idetified that eable aspects of a service provider s performace to be measured, reviewed ad moitored. A cycle that focuses o activities udertake by cotract maagers ad fuded services staff i measurig ad moitorig progress towards performace goals agreed i the cotract ad throughout the course of the cotract relatioship. 125

GLOSSARY Term/Acroym Defiitio Performace targets Program Program Guidelies Program Maager Program Level Agreemet (PLA) Relatioal cotractig Risk maagemet Service Delivery Service Delivery Schedule Service provider Service provider COMS ID Target group TRIM Detail of the work that will be udertake that year agaist relevat compoets. A program of activity to be udertake by the service provider, as idetified i a Program Level Agreemet. These map qualitative performace measures ad expected results for each of the programs. The role omiated by FACS who has overall accoutability ad resposibility for policy, moitorig, review, fiacial performace ad performace outcomes for a idetified program. They drive the program strategy icludig program operatios ad the performace outcome pla. Outlies the services that the orgaisatio agrees to provide. Specificatios iclude service start ad ed date, details of the District admiisterig the service, the geographic coverage for the service, ad states that service providers should adhere to the Program Guidelies for each of FACS-fuded programs. Whe cotract maagers ad service providers eter ito a relatioship i which cotract maagers are expected to use a collaborative approach, which appropriately ackowledges the partership betwee the two. Risk maagemet is a cotiuous process supportig improvemets i Service Delivery. The risk assessmet process cosists of idetifyig risk, aalysig risk, evaluatig risk ad treatig risk. The quatitative ad qualitative measures service providers are required to fulfil to meet their cotractual requiremets. Provides detail about the services, activities, cliet groups ad geographic locatio of services provided. The etity fuded by FACS to provide services icludig o-govermet orgaisatios, local coucils ad other govermet agecies. Uique referece umber assiged to a service provider to idetify them i the Cotract Olie Maagemet System (COMS). Is a specified populatio group withi a broader eligibility group to whom programs are partly or wholly directed. A target group is defied by characteristics such as age bad, level or type of disability, special or support eeds. A electroic file-loggig ad records maagemet program which has search ad cataloguig capacities. It is used by staff throughout FACS. 126

LINKS TO OTHER DOCUMENTS FOR CONTRACT GOVERNANCE Service providers are required to comply with all applicable laws ad accreditatio requiremets, icludig but ot limited to the legislatio, guidelies, frameworks ad policies referred to at the Family ad Commuity Services website, ad all applicable professioal ethics, priciples ad stadards. The followig is ot a exclusive list of the types of policies ad processes. Providers ad FACS staff will eed to be cotiously aware of chages, updates ad ew policies. FACS policies ad processes: FACS Code of Ethical Coduct Procuremet Policy Framework (old Departmet of Huma Services documet) Fudig Policy (old Departmet of Huma Services documet) Further iformatio about FACS s policies ad processes ca be foud o the FACS website at facs.sw.gov.au. Commuity Services policies ad processes: Good Practice Guidelies Workig with Aborigial people ad commuities The Right to Better Service: Rural ad remote commuities policy directios Care ad Protectio Practice Framework (Commuity Services s overarchig strategic documet about our directio) Fudig Deed Program Level Agreemet Fraud Cotrol Pla Stadard Chart of Accouts NSW Stadards for OOHC Services Memoradum of Uderstadig betwee Commuity Services ad Office of the Childre s Guardia Permaecy Plaig Policy Workig with Childre s Check Further iformatio about Commuity Service s programs ad fudig processes ca be foud o the FACS website at commuity.sw.gov.au. Liks to ADHC documets: Workig Together for NSW Agreemet NSW Disability Services Stadards ADHC Systems Recogitio Tool ADHC Fudig Agreemet ad Quality Policy ADHC KPI Guide Positio statemet: the future of sourcig disability fuded services i NSW 2011 2016 Trieial Service Peak Guidelies Aborigial Policy Statemet Aborigial Cultural Iclusio Framework Guidelies for NSW Commuity Care Supports Program Further iformatio about ADHC programs ad fudig processes ca be foud o the ADHC website at adhc.sw.gov.au. Liks to Housig documets: Goig Home Stayig Home Reform Pla Housig NSW commitmet to improvig service delivery to Aborigial people Further iformatio about Housig NSW programs ad fudig processes ca be foud o the Housig NSW website at housig.sw.gov.au. 127

Idex acceptig the perso 64 accommodatig approach to coflict 70 accoutability, stregtheig 9 10, 34 5, 46 ackowledgemet 3 adaptability 21 ADHC programs 127 aligig strategies ad goals 18 20 alterative dispute resolutio 77 aalysig risk 32 aual desktop review 27 8, 94 6 aual fudig 30, 46 appedices 79 120 AS/NZS ISO 31000 2009 Risk Maagemet Priciples ad Guidelies 31 assets register, maitaiig 42 assumptios, questioig 76 attractive alteratives 75 Audit Certificate required 42 avoidace approach to coflict 70 behaviour, perceptios of 61 best alterative to a egotiated agreemet (BATNA) 75 busiess as usual compoet 22 3, 82 111 caledar for performace measuremet 34 chage, respodig to 21 childre i care legislative requiremets 52 records of, retaiig 44 Workig With Childre checks 41 collaborative approach to coflict 70 commuicatig evidece 25 6 commuicatio skills 60 1 Commuity Services dispute resolutio policy 77 policies ad processes 127 Commuity Welfare Act 1997: 52 competitive approach to coflict 70 compromisig approach to coflict 70 coflict maagemet 69 71 costitutio, legal requiremet for 40 cotiuatio of fudig 30 cotract documets see also Program Level Agreemet factors cotributig to failure of 56 Fudig Deed cotract 9, 39, 40 5 goverace-related 127 improvig admiistratio of 48 51 eed for variatios elimiated 50 performace achievemet through 37 52 uderstadig 13 128

Cotract Goverace Framework 10, 12 13, 31, 38 cotract maager, relatioship maagemet ad 57 Cotract Olie Maagemet System 34, 50 1 corporate goverace 18, 39 41 Corporate Ogoig Review Program 24 5 Corporate Risk Aalysis ad Ratig Tool 32 Corporate Self Assessmet Tool agaist performace measures 26 7 form for review of 88 90 isurace obligatios ad 40 Program Level Agreemet review 91 3 requires audited accouts 42 Covey, Stephe 60, 62 Crimes Act 1900: 52 criticism, fear of 61 cultural diversity, egotiatio ad 76 data collectio 21 2, 47 decisio makig 9 10, 68 Departmet of Family ad Commuity Services see FACS desktop review 27 8, 94 6 district teams, roles ad resposibilities 33 diversity, ecouragig 11 double messages 62 electroic documets 52 email commuicatios 61 emotios, maagemet of 58 9 evaluatig risk 32 evidece commuicatio of 25 6 data collectio ad 21 extesio periods 50 FACS audits of service providers by 44 Commuity Services Pla 2012-14: 20 Iteral Audit Pla 30 policies ad processes 127 Resolutio Policy 77 Risk Maagemet Guidelies 30 failure of egotiatios 77 fairess criteria 76 fear of criticism 61 fiacial accoutability reports 27 fiacial acquittal 34 5 fiacial maagemet 18, 41 2 foudatio elemets 21 2 fraud i service providers 52 Fudig ad Cotractig Caledar 34 fudig basis 30, 46 Fudig Deed cotract 9, 40 5, 77 129

Gettig to yes: Negotiatig a agreemet without givig i 75 glossary of terms 123 6 goals 18 20 goals, realistic 22 goverace see corporate goverace guidelies, backgroud to 8 13 Head Office uits 26, 32 3 high-level strategies, idividual goals ad 18 20 high-performig service system 10 11 Housig documets 127 idetifyig risk 31 2 icetives for performace 49 50 icome ad expediture statemet 42 idividual goals, high-level strategies ad 18 20 iovatio, ecouragig 11 iterest-based bargaiig 72, 74 5 KIDS computer system 47 Kilma, Ralph 69 KPMG performace audit 30 Law ad Justice Directorate 51 2, 77 legislative requiremets 10, 16 17, 52 listeig skills 61 2 localised decisio makig ad service delivery 9 10 loger cotract terms 49 50 Lud, Joh 60 major fraud 52 measuremet of performace see performace moitorig ad measuremet meetigs 28, 60 1, 119 20 mismaagemet i service providers 52 mistrust, alleviatig 62 3 mixed messages 62 Moitorig ad Review Meetig 28 mutual gai, optios for 75 egotiatios, o-adversarial 67 77 failure of 77 importace of 13 skills i 63 4 o-adversarial egotiatios see egotiatios, o-adversarial o-govermet sector, stregtheig role of 8 9 NSW 2021 pla 20 obstacles to commuicatio 61 oe-off fudig 30, 46 ogoig review process 24 30, 48, 82 4 operatioal records requiremet 44 130

partisa bias 59 60 parterships with service providers 38 40 see also relatioship maagemet people, separatig from problem 73 4 perceptios, i relatioship maagemet 59 61 performace moitorig ad measuremet 15 35 achievig improvemets 13 caledar for 34 evidece collectio 25 6 form letters 113 14 idetifyig issues 110 11 meetig ageda 119 meetig process map 120 Performace Improvemet Pla 29 30 Performace Measuremet Cycle 22 30 resolvig issues 106 20 risk moitorig 112 through cotract documets 37 52, 115 18 positioal bargaiig 71 2, 74 priciples of egotiatio 73 4 of performace maagemet ad moitorig 16 of relatioship maagemet 57 8 problems, separatig from people 73 4 Productivity Commissio 21, 30 Program Guidelies 17, 47 8 Program Level Agreemet form for review of 85 7 fudig basis 9 obligatios uder 45 7 Ogoig Review Pla 48 performace improvemet pla 117 18 replaces Service Specificatios 38 review tools 25 risk aalysis tools 32, 104 5, 108 Self Assessmet Tool 26, 48, 91 3 program maagers, roles ad resposibilities 33 Public Sector Employmet ad Maagemet Amedmet (Procuremet of Goods) Act 2012 (NSW) 10 realistic goal settig 22 relatioal cotracts 38 relatioship maagemet achievig performace via 13 ogoig review ad 25 parterships with service providers 39 40 performace achievemet via 55 67 Relatioship Audit 65 relatioship audit form 97 Relatioship Level Agreemet 65 relatioship level agreemet 98 9 tools for 64 risk maagemet i Fudig Deed cotract 51 2 performace measures ad 17 18 131

risk assessmet ad ratig tool 106 8 risk assessmet tool process map 100 risk categorisatio guide 109 risk idetificatio matrix guide 101 5 risk moitorig ad performace maagemet pla 32, 112 service provider risk 30 2 roles ad resposibilities 32 3 self assessmet process for service providers see Corporate Self Assessmet Tool Service Agreemet 38 service delivery achievig performace via 43 5 localised 9 10 risk maagemet i 18 schedule for 17, 48 service providers audit of by FACS 44 categorisatio tool 32 mismaagemet or fraud i 52 ew portal for 51 2 parterships with 38 40 roles ad resposibilities 33 self assessmet process 26 7 stregths-based parterships with 10 11 visits to premises of 35 Service Specificatios 38, 50 sigle sigig requiremet 49 stereotypig idividuals 76 Strategic Pla 2014-2018, visio statemet 8 strategies ad goals 18 20 stregths-based approach 10 11, 56 7, 68 9 stress levels 58 9 sub-cotractors, Program Level Agreemets ad 45 supportig documets 46 7 sustaiable service system 10 11 telephoe commuicatios 61 Thomas, Keeth 69 Thomas Kilma Coflict Mode Istrumet 70 tools for aalysig risk 32 for measurig performace 17 18 for ogoig review process 24 5 for relatioship maagemet 64 5 traiig ad accreditatio for service provider staff 40 trustworthiess 62 3 two performaces, achievig 20 1 uderstadig, improvemet of 59 60 132

visio statemet 8 visits to service provider premises 35 whe performace issues are idetified compoet 23 Workig with Childre Checks 41 133