‘Meaningful engagement’ is a new requirement to employment services. In the new government program ‘Inclusive Employment Australia’ which is set to replace Disability Employment Services (DES) in November this year, ‘meaningful engagement’ will be used to monitor whether a person with disability is participating in activities intended to help them gain employment. We believe that further work and investigation is required to define and ensure genuine reciprocity between services and participants.
We welcome the reform of disability employment services and welcome the introduction of a new program that will replace Disability Employment Services (DES) in November this year.
The new program - Inclusive Employment Australia-is an opportunity to build a system that:
These features are particularly important for people with disability who often face additional barriers to employment.
The latest information we have about what the new program will look like is from Department of Social Services exposure draft of the Request for Tender. It states that jobseekers with a mutual obligation or compulsory requirement are to ‘Participate meaningfully in the program by engaging with the Provider to prepare for, seek or maintain employment’. We know that "DES job seekers place a high value on providers listening to their needs and allowing them to participate in the decision-making process, as well as having a choice of job type" and "improvements in confidence and motivation are more important than improvements in job search skills when assisting job seekers" (Nevile 2020). We welcome employment services that have a genuine focus on meaningfully engaging jobseekers, we have some concerns about how this will be defined and assessed. If a person is judged as not meaningfully engaging, the Inclusion Employment Australia program provider is allowed to switch them to a more prescriptive job plan aligned with compulsory mutual obligation requirements.
This begs several questions:
There is a risk that it will be interpreted inconsistently by providers if the program design does not include an adequate definition and advice. We need a clear definition to ensure participants will receive a quality service that provides genuinely meaningful engagement opportunities that are tailed to the individual.
As Economic Justice Australia (2024) point out, “while there are positive changes, the language used in the exposure draft still emphasises an inflexible activation model, rather than taking an investment approach that enables providers to innovate and tailor individualised employment pathways that meet the needs of jobseekers with disability”.
We have been trialling a practice based on mutual accountability in our pilot project Inclusive Pathways to Employment (IPE). The IPE pilot has explored how employment services can support young people with disability to pursue their interests, aspirations and goals, and to be socially and economically included in their communities.
IPE utilises an Advantaged Thinking approach called ‘the Deal’. The Deal establishes a reciprocal working relationship between the participant and the service by negotiating what each are responsible for contributing – and makes sure they can be accountable to each other for it. This is brought to life by the job coach and seeker developing a Jobs and Participation Plan together. In this approach, the young person is responsible for identifying their goals and commits to taking up the opportunities facilitated by their coach.
This ensures the plan is tailored to the person with disability’s own unique goals, needs and circumstances. The coach is then responsible for sourcing and coordinating relevant opportunities to the young person’s goals and their “conditions of success”. Conditions of success outline and define the job seeker’s ideal conditions of employment, learning characteristics, interests, preferences, contributions, task competence, and disability support needs. These conditions may also incorporate wider environmental and social conditions including transport, family responsibility and need. Identifying and implementing the conditions of success will ensure opportunities are inclusive, accessible and lead to young people staying employed and employers retaining talent.
The Deal fits into a broader Advantaged Thinking framework.
‘The Deal’ seeks to rebalance the traditional focus of employment services on a ‘push’ approach to the activation of jobseekers with ‘pull’ factors that invest in people’s potential and build their capability. ‘The Deal’ does this by upholding both the rights and responsibilities of jobseekers and employment services. It enables participants to have agency over their progress toward employment outcomes, with agreed support and access to necessary opportunities and resources from the employment service. In turn, both are accountable for their actions, and a culture of reciprocity and shared ownership is fostered.
The Deal is regularly reviewed to ensure both parties are meeting their ‘end of the deal’. This non-punitive approach has the benefit of utilising a person’s intrinsic motivation and allows the person with disability greater agency and choice over their employment pathways. This approach is detailed in BSL’s Submission to the Workforce Australia Review.
In creating individualised Jobs Plans, providers can help people access a mix of supports from across this spectrum, relevant to their needs and circumstances.
In addition to a clear definition– support for practitioners in employment services to grow their skills in this different way of working is also necessary.
While the intention of using ‘meaningful engagement’ as a measure is to provide greater flexibility around job plan and support requirements, if what that actually means is not defined, we risk unintended consequences. There is also a risk if the employment service responsibilities are not included in the definitions of meaningful engagement e.g. to provide quality opportunities that are inclusive and tailored to the aspirations of the jobseeker. Without a clear definition of meaningful engagement, it is subject to the interpretation of individual employment consultants and coaches. This can drive their practice towards compliance and lack accountability to the participant.
We believe that mechanisms to engage do not have to take a compliance approach that we can have mutual accountability not mutual obligation. The principles used in ‘The Deal’ support reciprocity and explore whether the employment provider has been accountable in their role in supporting the person with disability.
This time before the beginning of Inclusive Employment Australia is an opportunity for the government to work with people with disability and employment providers to ensure a definition that will indeed support people into decent and meaningful employment opportunities that match their unique strengths and their conditions for success.
Conditions of success outline and define the job seeker’s ideal conditions of employment, learning characteristics, interests, preferences, contributions, task competence, and support needs. These conditions may also incorporate wider Environmental and social conditions including transport, family responsibility and need, etc. Identifying and implementing the Condition of success help the job seeker thrive in employment is utilised in Customised employment.
Brotherhood of St Laurence and Centre for Policy Development 2023, Summary of joint submission into the Workforce Australia Employment Services Inquiry: Reimagining and rebuilding Australia’s employment services, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
Economic Justice Australia 2024, Submission on The New Specialist Disability Employment Program,
Nevile, Anne 2020, Response to Employment Issues Paper, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Canberra.
