History

Before the establishment of DWI, the Department of Labour had responsibility for what was known as the Community Employment Group. This Group was set up in 1991 and brought together a number of similarly focussed activities within the Department of Labour and the Department of Internal Affairs. As has been described by the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, one of the essential features of the several activities brought together in 1991 was that they stood outside the mainstream delivery mechanisms. The activities offered a channel directly from the most disadvantaged groups and often remote communities, to central government. The initiative was seen as a positive way of assisting these groups and communities to take the first, and often most difficult, positive steps towards economic and social integration. Since the setting up of the Community Employment Group in 1991 successive governments have maintained a policy designed to assist such groups and communities by processes that have a community development focus rather than one that focussed primarily on individual need and support. The objectives of the programme and its delivery mechanism ie CEG, has centred around assisting communities and local groups to create opportunities for employment and to facilitate positive activity leading to self sufficiency. The identified groups include Maori, rural and urban disadvantaged groups, Pacific Island people and women.

The Community Employment Group operated within the Department of Labour as a separate business group with a General Manager reporting directly to the Chief Executive. The General Manager of the Group was a member of the Management Board and had a direct link, as a senior manager, to Ministers responsible for employment policy. It has been presented to the Review Team that between 1991 and 1998 the Community Development Group developed a high level of maturity as an organisation, put in place good accountability mechanisms, was achieving good outcomes for disadvantaged communities and was successfully managing risk across a wide range of circumstances. We have been told that in 1997/98 the Community Employment Group was involved in 20,408 interventions. 75% of these were targeted at the priority groups.

Post Integration

In July 1999 (some 9 months after the formal establishment of DWI) a business case was prepared following a DWI internal review of community employment. The business case so it now appears, failed to adequately examine the consultative process preceding the development of the case and did not contain any evaluation of the delivery of the government's desired outcomes under the organisational arrangements that then existed to enable a comparative assessment to be made.

The business case presented a number of recommendations that made radical changes to the organisational structure that had been in place previously and placed the community employment field officers under the management of the 13 Regional Commissioners. In the Department of Labour there had been 5 regions covering the CEG activity each with its own regional manager who in turn reported to the General Manager CEG. The new DWI HO organisation provides for a National Practice Manager who reports to the Deputy National Commissioner. That position carries other comprehensive functions within DWI. The effect of these organisational changes means that the senior Community Employment officer in DWI HO is not part of the DWI senior management team. The position is in fact a fourth tier position. In the DOL structure the GM CEG was a second tier manager and part of the senior management team involved in both management and policy matters.

Last year the Social Services Select Committee of Parliament undertook its own Review of the community employment activity in DWI, reporting on 11 October 1999. This review was initiated by the Committee when it became aware of the change in the Community Employment Group's status that was being considered by DWI. In the event the Select Committee's report was not presented until after the decision to re-organise the community employment function in DWI had been taken.

Rightly or wrongly there is a perception that the business case was written to achieve an already determined position. We make no comment on that view but note that the Select Committee in its report was critical of what it saw as an inadequate consultation process. An extract from the Committee's report says:

"While the Chief Executive stated that she was not required to consult, it is regrettable that more extensive consultation did not take place with the groups targeted for assistance by Community Employment"

The Chief Executive of the Department of Labour has pointed out that there is a critical error in the review that preceded the business case relating to the information given to Ministers by the Interim Transition Team about the future organisational arrangements for community employment. There is a statement in the report which reads:

"A 2 June 1998 ITT paper to Ministers noted an overlap of accountabilities between community employment and Regional Commissioners and that in time a full integration would be expected"

This was in fact a statement in an early draft of the paper. The ITT paper that actually went to Ministers (presumably after the matter had been reconsidered) contained a comment that was quite different in its purport. It read:

"The work of CEG is closely aligned with that of Regional Commissioners however full integration of CEG within the regional structure would be inappropriate"

There are no documents available to us indicating that Ministers were consulted before the decision was taken by the Chief Executive of DWI to re-organise the arrangement for community employment by fully integrating responsibility for delivery with the regional commissioner structure.

On 17 February 2000 the Associate Minister of Social Services and Employment directed that proposals to give regional commissioners delegations to approve community employment grants was not to proceed until Ministers had given further consideration to future options for community employment.

Subsequently Cabinet considered but deferred a decision on the future organisational arrangements for community employment until this Ministerial Review had reported and its findings considered by Cabinet.

Discussion

From the information available to the Review Team and from discussions we have had with senior staff in DWI's HO, Regional Commissioners, field workers and others representing community views, there seems to be a wide divergence of views on two major issues.

The first view questions the effectiveness of the community employment activity as it has been delivered. There is a body of evaluative research and other reviews supporting the view that good outcomes for disadvantaged communities have been achieved. On the other hand we received comment questioning whether the Government is in fact receiving value for money and whether the outcomes required by the Government are actually being provided. The second issue is whether the organisational arrangements that now exist in DWI are prejudicing the delivery of government policy and, as a consequence, whether there has been a weakening of networks and other effective mechanisms that have been developed with the community employment target groups to aid the delivery of appropriate and effective options to meet the Government's required outcomes.

In respect of the first question we do not have information available to us that permits us to provide any positive advice. We have been given a range of comment expressing views on both sides. While accepting completely that those who proffered the views were confident in their own judgment, in the case of those advocating for the arrangements that previously existed in the Department of Labour supported by a body of evaluation and reviews, whilst the other was strongly expressed but supported only by anecdotal examples, we have not been able to reach a clear view. . What we can say however is that the idea of central government involvement in a policy initiative that provides disadvantaged groups and communities with the opportunity to develop employment options for their advancement is absolutely supported.

In respect of the second question we have again received a range of views. The preponderance indicate however that the change to the organisational structure has prejudiced the delivery of community employment programmes, that the cohesion that previously existed between field workers and the programme overall has been dissipated, that the flexibility and innovative aspects of the work has been curtailed and that there is no obvious interest in the work from DWI top management. We do note that some field workers have said they have developed a very good relationship with their regional commissioner but that the pressure of work on the regional commissioner means that that relationship cannot be translated into positive action to maintain and enhance the policy objectives of community employment. In other cases we are aware that Regional Commissioners place considerable emphasis on the value of community employment programmes as one of the tools to enable them to achieve the Government's employment objectives.

A general view, is that the decision in July 1999 to make such a radical change to the organisational structure for community employment, was precipitate. This is reinforced by the Select Committee's conclusion that consultation was inadequate, as well as it appearing to be at odds with what Ministers had been told earlier, ie "full integration of CEG within the regional structure would be inappropriate". Since DWI was fully aware of the sensitivity of the matter it would have been a wiser course to have taken the proposal to Cabinet before implementing it.

Conclusions

As is clear from the preceding discussion the way forward for the community employment activity is difficult for us to identify without further work. A reversion to both the structure and location pre DWI is a simple response. The function would, under this option, revert to an environment where the philosophy of community development through employment activities is understood and encouraged. The reinstatement of the organisational structure in DWI that was in place at the time of integration is another option but the skills of a number of the people who were involved at that time have now been lost. A third option is to transfer the community employment function to the new Ministry of Economic Development. A fourth option would be some new organisational approach geared to DoL's view that the function has worked best when it can operate outside the mainstream eg. run by a Board representing the communities themselves.

A further option advocated by some with whom we discussed the issues, is to undertake as soon as possible a review of the policy and delivery of community employment. This would entail a direction from Government as to what it wants to achieve by way of outcomes from such a policy and the target groups upon which Government requires community employment to focus, and would involve a comprehensive consultation process through which the communities' own priorities could be identified. The delivery mechanism and how that should be organised would flow from these processes. It is our understanding Government wants to move quickly in order to preserve the skills and networks currently available but is danger of dissipating. We accept that these considerations are likely to be determine which is the most acceptable option.