040 Kimberley Employment Services by Oi4S6F






        Kimberley Employment Services
          Cnr Weld and Fredrick Streets
              BROOME, WA 6725
              Phone: 08 9192 6700
               Fax: 08 9192 8635

CONTENTS:                                                    PAGE
   Introduction                                              3-4

   Moving towards a new approach                             4-5

         How can we provide services in a better way?         6

         How can we improve results for people?              7- 9

         How do we get more community ownership and

          responsibility?                                    10 - 12

         Issues for Service Providers to Consider           13 – 14

      Conclusion: Including Venn diagram of proposed model     15

      Acronyms                                                  16


                                  KES Our Mission …

       Kimberley Employment Services (KES) is a socially responsive community
  not for profit organisation providing appropriate and supportive people centred
services; working with others to promote holistic community development through
                                  social inclusion.”

Kimberley Employment Services (KES) is a community-based organisation dedicated to
the provision of the highest quality employment, training, support and enterprise
development services in the Kimberley. KES was established in 2003 and has a long
history of promoting equity, addressing social injustice and building community capacity.

KES currently provides services to the community through the provision of a variety of
State and Commonwealth funded initiatives aimed at assisting the most disadvantaged in
our community.

Kullarri Employment Services, trading as Kimberley Employment Services (KES)
was formed in 2003 by local Indigenous community members and business interests
specifically to tender as a member of Job Futures for the Job Network contract in the West
Kimberley area of Western Australia. These interests identified the need for people with
local knowledge and experiences to be involved in the delivery of employment and social
services in the region, particularly as they felt that the long term unemployed and
Indigenous people had not received a ‘fair go’ from previous providers. KES joined Job
Futures so they could gain all the advantages of keeping their strong local identity while
being a part of a successful national network.

Particular focus for KES has been on the provision of Employment Services, Social and
Training services to highly disadvantaged Indigenous people. Through our knowledge of
the local community and our experience in delivering a range of support services KES
understands that people with high-needs in the Kimberley community are likely to face a
variety of challenges that require a holistic service-delivery approach. The approach at
KES is very much client based with services individually tailored to identified needs. This
is achieved by running industry specific training tailored to employer, Client and
Community needs. We have run successful programs in most of the remote communities
in the West Kimberley, and are currently running several programs with relevant
stakeholders/Employers in the region.

KES is a local Aboriginal owned Job Service Provider that has been successfully
delivering contracted services on behalf of the Department of Education Employment and
Workplace Relations to remote communities across the West Kimberley region.

Kimberley Employment Services (KES) is a Non For Profit organisation that is focused on
improving the lives of our clients by creating opportunities and empowering them to

This paper has been developed by number of key staff members who hold many years of
experience in working with remote service delivery and community development initiatives
both in the Eastern States of Australia and here in the West Kimberley. The CEO of KES
who contributed and fully endorses this submission has also many years experience within
the Department of Human Services as we know it now.

The paper has resulted from what we would call a holistic approach as it included
numerous consultation session with Community Leaders, Members and other
stakeholders that deliver remote services within the West Kimberley. This consultation
process may be considered by some as informal. However as a result of numerous
discussions with our clients regarding issues faced by people living in Remote
communities through our current role delivering Job Services Australia, State Workforce
Development, Fitzroy Crossing Money Management and In Roads CDFI (pilot) contracts,
we have developed a wealth of knowledge and experience and feel we can offer a real
future model that could work.

KES would like to particularly acknowledge our Chairman and Board, Senior Members of
the Fitzroy Crossing Communities, Chairman and Management of Marra Worra Worra
Aboriginal Corporation, Kullari Regional CDEP and the Foundation for Indigenous
Sustainable Housing Chairman for the time also spent contributing to discussing these
matters at length with KES.

                          1. “Moving towards a new approach”

KES recognises in the forefront that there is no “quick fix” to overcoming the problems in
remote communities. It will take time and a commitment from all parties to work together to
deliver lasting improvements. KES with their vast experience in delivering services across
the West Kimberley region understands that remote communities and the people who live
in them are extremely diverse. The new, tailored approach to participation and
employment services for remote Australia needs to be able to respond to emerging local
economic opportunities and better support communities to develop economically and
create jobs.

Sustainable progress in Indigenous economic participation requires fundamental changes
to the way we work together. A collaborative approach between employers (from
corporate through to small-to-medium enterprises), all levels of governments, the
community sector and Indigenous Australians is needed to build Indigenous employment
and success for Indigenous Australians in the workplace.

KES believes that Government need to support a more integrated approach to the
delivering of services in remote areas and should keep in mind that this proposed model
or delivery is tailored specifically for the West Kimberley region. Given that the
Government has already provided commitment to the Remote Service Delivery
Framework by establishing Regional Operations Centres ( ROC) to co ordinate the service
delivery within remote locations and to support Closing the Gap initiatives we need to
embrace this commitment in the development of the new model. Government has also
provided further commitment by identifying two areas within the West Kimberley as high
priority areas in terms of Remote Service Delivery and have been actively supporting pilot
initiatives to gain real data on the issues that exist.

This proposal does not provide a national blanket approach solution, however common
elements could be adapted to provide a more tailored approach to service delivery within
Indigenous Communities across Australia.

                            Discussion Points for consideration

           A. How can we provide services in a better way?

KES has identified that within the West Kimberley there are 6 different service delivery
areas which house numerous Indigenous Communities.

   1.   Broome
   2.   Dampier Peninsula (Beagle Bay, Lombadina/Djarindjin, Ardyaloon) and Bidyadanga
   3.   Derby
   4.   Gibb River Road
   5.   Fitzroy Crossing Central
   6.   Fitzroy Crossing Remote Communities (East and West)

KES believes that each of these service areas would benefit from the provision of services
monitored and co ordinate by Regional Operations Centres that has representation from
both Commonwealth and State Government Departments. (DEEWR, FaCHSIA, DIA &

The delivery of services locally would be put up for expressions of interest by the ROC
and potential service delivery agencies would submit an expression to the ROC in the first
instance to deliver services under a number of specialist areas. The ROC would then
forward this to the relevant Government Department State or Federal responsible for
financing these services along with a local recommendation. The specialist areas could be
categorised into the following headings the seven Building Blocks of COAG :

   1.   Community Development
   2.   Essential services
   3.   Economic Development
   4.   Employment, Education and training
   5.   Housing
   6.   Health
   7.   Community Administration and Governance

Service providers can be contracted to provide services under one area of expertise or a
combination of the above. These service providers will be known as the Community
Employment and Enterprise Development Service (CEEDS) providers.

The CEEDS need to be committed to the National Partnerships Agreement and work
towards achieving goals identified in Local Implementation Plans (LIP) that have been
developed with the ROC involving community consultation.

Community Service Centre (CSC) hubs would need to exist in each of the service delivery
areas to provide a logistically viable location for services to be ran from and for the
housing of equipment and infrastructure required to deliver services on the ground within
each location. The CSC hubs would also be under the jurisdiction of the ROC and the
primary role would be to support the achievements of the LIP in each of the areas it exists.
The ROC would need to provide funding for the operation of the CSC.

                        How can we improve results for people?

Participation requirements in remote communities need to meet the needs of government
legislation in regards to participation as well as the community and individual needs.

Social outcomes for individuals need to have more focus in the role of the new CEEDS
providers’ performance and income. These outcomes need to meet individual needs
through soft skills training programs (Including Life Skills and Pre Employment – Such as
Work Ethics as delivered by Kimberley Employment Services) and also empower
communities to have increased positive buy in of participants to develop increased
economic growth within communities.

This focus can be met by the new CEEDS providers by including performance measures
and payments for providers based around social outcomes that are beneficial to both
individuals and communities in relation to economic growth and community sustainability

Participation parameters need to be integrated into the new activities created within
communities as a priority to ensure uptake of the new model. Community members can
nominate/apply for the specialist area that they wish to participate in. These applications
would be assessed and approved by the Local Area Community Council (LACC) and
participant lists are developed in conjunction with the Local Operation Coordinator (LOC)
to provide details of community activities and participant details that align with the goals
identified in Community Area Action and Local Implementation Plans. This needs to be in
line with the new legislation under the CEEDS provider guidelines for participation and be
malleable to ensure Department of Human Services is able take compliance action for non
participation or abuse of new flexibility parameters in close consultation with LACC and
CEEDS. The definition of “Reasonable Excuse” for non compliance would also need to be
determined with the Local Area Councils and approved by the ROC which would overarch
the participation in all programs offered by the CEEDS.

Given that Community Service Centre (CSC) hubs using the buildings and infrastructure of
current CDEP providers could accommodate the presence of LAC’s, LOC’s and CEEDS
providers the need for a central reporting system would need to be available back to the
ROC and Department of Human Services in relation to approved activities and
participation requirements and results of same.

Given that CEEDS providers would be a jointly funded by an agreement between Federal
and State Government Departments in line with the National Partnerships Agreements,
consideration should also be given to include additional services/programs offered to
people with disabilities, youth and women’s programs for people living in these locations.

CEEDS providers across the different specialist areas would receive additional
performance and financial rewards for providing activities and programs that deliver to
these client types to actively increase outcomes for them within community programs
whether employment based or for community economic development activities achieving
results. These specific programs and or activities would also be carefully monitored and
assessed for viability and suitability by the ROC.

To ensure all programs and activities have longevity and sustainability, there needs to be
a commitment made under the proposed CEEDS provider funding guidelines to have
longer periods of contact with the individual to support their participation in activities and
programs developed LAP’s and LIP’s put in place.

Consideration within the funding parameters need to include support for individuals to
further develop career paths and if required relocate to gain further experience and or
qualifications with the long term view that they would at some point return to traditional
lands to impart their knowledge and further support Community Development initiatives.

Guidelines also need to be put in place for any organisation to have contact with
communities to first make contact with the ROC where they would receive the contact
details for the CEEDS providing the services in specific locations through contact with the
LAC at the CSC.

Where participation compliance has been reduced to allow Parents with caring
responsibilities for young children, there still needs to be an incentive for the parents
commitment to supporting the development of their child. They are expected to be
engaged in early learning activities to promote the future development of that child. Where
parents allow or contribute to their child disengaging from these programs and services
possible penalties and support mechanisms may need to be imposed. Additional Family
Support Payments from Dept of Human Services for Parents who have children engaged
in early learning activities. A similar approach could be applied to Youth at Risk and Early
School Leavers until completion of Federally Legislated Education Activity i.e.: completion
of Year 12 or Certificate II Level of vocational studies.

To further support community members ability to participate in CEEDS provider programs
there also needs to be consideration towards the limited Government Funded Childcare
places available to them which could also be a catalyst for Community Development and
Economic Participation through the development of Family Day Care Services if an Early
Learning Centre is not available.

To increase motivation and participation in remote community’s CEEDS providers need to
include engagement of LACC’s and LOC’s overseen by the ROC to ensure that
community members are able to contribute to the creation of new and the continuation of
the ongoing community focus. This would be required to ensure there was community buy
in for sustainable economic and community development programs to emerge. This will
lead to supporting sustainable local employment as well as having continued support for
the already ongoing programs that have been deemed viable.

Funding pools could be jointly contributed to by the Government Departments represented
by the ROC to deliver services. It would be realistic to expect that there be two funding
pools for CEEDS to apply for funds from depending on services being delivered

   1. To support Community Groups or Individuals wishing to pursue enterprise creation
      for Community – Economic Development Fund (EDF)
   2. Individual Career Development support could be supplied via a – Individual
      Employment Fund (IEF)

Under this new model the focus of the EDF and IEF will be to enable individual
participants and community groups within Indigenous communities to take the lead in
driving and achieving positive economic enterprise and personal career development.
These funding Pools would be monitored by the ROC and viability of programs or activities

The ultimate aim of the CEEDS provider programs need to be aimed at achieving a
change to the social stereo types attached to remote participation. New CEEDS provider
reduces the current welfare dependency and moves participants from program
participation to real employment through basic skills training, accredited training,
employment creation, new enterprise creation supported by individual and group based
mentoring, post placement support, and business mentoring to ensure sustainability and
overall community growth.

Outcomes for CEEDS providers (both financial and performance) need to be tiered and
linked to different points along the progress. For example, increased payments for
providers as a participant moves from education to employment or social to employment,
and from either into economic or community development.

Having ROC as the one central controlling body, the CEEDS providers for employment,
education, training and economic development would continue to utilise the joint servicing
interviews for participants until deemed work ready and able to progress into either
community development or economic development activities. The community will have
identified within the LAP and LIP previously. This would be advantageous to all involved
creating a better understanding of roles and obligation of both CEEDS providers and
Department of Human Services.

This joint initiative of remote servicing would increase communication exchange between
CEEDS providers, Department of Human Services and reduce confusion to clients who
currently have obligations from CDEP, JSA and Department of Human Services as well as
employer engagement and community commitments.

 The overall delivery of services under the new CEEDS provider program as stated, would
tie in ROC, LIP, LAP, and LOC in the initial consultation process encompassing
participation, engagement, compliance, community development, economic growth,
activity creation within indigenous communities in a unified manner through the
Community Service Centre (CSC) hubs. Linkages to community elders, community
councils, regional and local employers and on the ground staff who have been working in
communities to achieve social change which include both employment and community
development would be enhanced by the proposed model.

           How do we get more community ownership and responsibility?

Communities need to have an influence in the delivery and participation of all CEEDS
operating in their region. This can be achieved through the Governments COAG
agreement “Closing the Gap” initiatives and the recent formation of the Regional
Operations Centres (ROC). ROC would be the coordinator of community engagement to
ensure that the community members have full input into the development of Local
Implementation Plans (LIP). ROC would support the formation of regional LACC’s and
provide support to the CSC’s to deliver more effectively at a regional community level.
Government Policy is working towards this model of Community driven plans to actively
support participation and provide economic and community development within
Indigenous Communities.

The LACC’s, CEEDS and ROC representatives would meet on a regular basis (quarterly)
to review and revisit the LIP and it’s progression and comment from the ROC on
Government support.

CEEDS meetings creating community focus and supporting engagement would occur at
regional levels and locations more frequently (bi-monthly). This would give nominated
community representatives (LACC’S) the chance to participate in the real action planning
and risk management for all CEEDS providers and will create opportunities in mentoring
communities and there members in meaningful and sustainable Governance and
Leadership processes.

This model will also allow for community members within the regions to be clear in who
are the CEEDS providers working in their region and assist in avoiding confusion and
frustration over having to deal with too many service providers coming in to community
and will enable a coordinating of their approach.

Communities should have a greater say in determining participation and employment
obligations. We feel that this is one of the crucial points of the discussion, in that the
community will be given the understanding by the ROC, CEEDS and Department of
Human Services when developing strategies to promote and legislate future participation
in close consultation with community leaders. Recognition that enhanced community input
in line with the LIP will lead to increased engagement and ownership by the community as
a whole in developing the agenda for change and enhance the aspirations of the
community and also that of the individuals that reside in these communities.

There should be recognition of participation of all community members and the time and
skill that the LACC members will bring. These LACC positions should be paid positions
under ROC to support the community and individuals to achieve their own capacity
development. As seen time and time again unless the bulk of the participation
requirements are centred around the community and individual aspirations being aligned
and supported, there will be no “buy in” from the community members and councils.

Communities would have the capability for taking on these participation and future
planning responsibilities with commitment and support from all stakeholders working within
the CSC’s and CEEDS along with that from the Indigenous people on community

Having the key involvement of the Office of the Coordinator General for Remote
Indigenous Services under the ROC, would allow for the new model to form around
community consultation and drive reform. CEEDS would participate in accountability and
reporting framework for all stakeholders and allow for the community to have more “buy in”
to drive their community aspirations.

A model of best practise for each community will be born through Enterprise development
again driven by what the community is aspiring to, and enable this to become a reality and
thus driving employment into these service providers and community enterprises.
Community members would be trained, mentored and supported to undertake paid
Governance and Administration positions and provide real work experience opportunities
and traineeship opportunities to those being trained.

A model of enterprise mentoring would be a key. CEEDS would have attached to the Job
service provider a business development arm to mentor and assist these emerging
community owned businesses. The Community Development Financial Institutions
program (CDFI) currently being piloting such an idea with KES. It aims to educate the
communities that they are actually a business capable of creating wealth through its
members rather than being the receivers of goods and services by outside contractors and
the like as is the current model.

We believe that if the CDFI program is further funded by govt and the community banking
sector to educate the community through this business and governance mentoring, we will

gain traction in running these communities as enterprises and enable the setting up of a
Kimberley specific community bank with all the services of a large commercial banking

Governance arrangements can be fostered to enable remote communities to have more
say about the services delivered through guidance by the community LIP and funding to
enhance the knowledge of Governance and Business mentoring through the employment
provider CEEDS, can be born through the mentoring of Key community members and the
council to take control over the services and guide the providers of these services to be
more in line with the communities goals and aspirations.

Services will be delivered in a coordinated approach between ROC and CEEDS in line
with the LIPs, regular visits will allow communities will be able to have more say in delivery
of the services.

 Communities will be enabled to provide support for young people to engage with
education, training, employment, community Development and community economic
development through the contracts that are already held and being applied for by
Kimberley employment services i.e.JSA, State Work Force Development, Fitzroy Valley
Money Management Services, CDFI Pilot program with Community Sector Banking, IEP
panel Membership (Tendered For) Business and enterprise development panel
membership (Tendered for) and the national Binge drinking initiative (tendered for with
Marra Worra worra FX and Nirrumbuk in Broome and Peninsula) for education of young
people aged between 14 / 24 years, we feel that we can join the dots with these contracts
to enhance and provide better support for young people especially Early school leavers
and disengaged youth these services will be used much more under the proposed CEEDS
model in linking all services to the community under the LIP

KES’s approach looks for meaningful partnerships with communities other service
providers and employers. It is this approach that has allowed us to provide services to
department of Corrective services Broome regional prison, community Justice and
youth/juvenile justice (pilot about to commence with DCS, Kimberley Training institute and
KES) the program is called Future steps.
We have a meaningful relationship with Kimberley Aboriginal Medical services and have
found many areas in the service where we can value add, and of course the Junjuwa
Fencing crew and women’s group project is an actual live working model of what we are
recommending here.

This has been born from a partnership with the Junjuwa community over a long period of
time in letting the community take control through closely working with the Chairman and
Council of the way in which the community can be trained supported and enterprise
started, this model could not have been a reality without the partnership brokering ability of
KES and its team of local representatives.
We have many MOU’s in place and encourage engagement of community councils in
following not only individual but community aspirations.

              D. Issues for Service Providers to Consider


In line with our preceding recommendations, clients in remote communities will have to
establish they are long term residents of that community and pick in order of preference
what area of the community building blocks they would like to participate and be trained in.

 It would be a given that that they would fall into the category consistent with the current
stream 3 or 4 servicing requirements of the current client stream services model. This
assessment would be conducted by the Employment, Education and Training CEEDS, the
Govt information sharing system to determine any other personal barriers recently
idenified. There would be participation requirements by way of a Participation contract with
training and personal development strategies that would be worked on with the individual
trying to centre on the community LIP and local labour market needs.

The CEEDS would make recommendations to the LACC and ROC regarding training
plans etc as there will be a need to coordinate other CEED providers into the programs to
offer support to the community, jobseekers and community members that are in line with
the current LIP and local labour market needs.

A report will be made available to the LACC as to where the clients are on the
employment continuum. This would encompass support, training and job seeking advice.

Clients would continue to draw their benefits with the obligation of participating in the
recommended activities from CEEDS in consultation with the LACC and ROC.

Payments to Providers

All CEEDS providers will receive funding managed from the ROC from the overall Pool of
Funds becoming available through the National Partnerships Agreement under COAG.
Further to this Communities themselves would receive a Participation and Achievement
Incentive payment at regular intervals to acknowledge the participation by Community
Members and reward achievements of the LIP goals.

The community could be paid a fee per client subject to meeting reporting requirements or
if a non valid reason for non participation is decided in consultation with LACC and ROC
that payment would not be forth coming. For this fee the CEEDS would have to meet with
the client at least once a month and report the progress of the client against the criteria
CEEDS supplies to the LACC and ROC. Reporting systems will be specifically designed
for remote communities and it may be that part of the role the CSC to input this reporting

The CEEDS will be paid a fee based on being calculated as a per client service fee. The
CEEDS such as the Employment, Education and Training CEEDS would also be eligible
for outcome payments. All parties will work in partnership within this framework with the
ultimate aim of improving employment opportunities in line with economic development
activities within the community.
Performance Management

Communities and the CEEDS contracted to work within them would have performance
measures in place based around participation and achievement of outcomes in line with
the LIP.

By working with the community, CEEDS would be expected to reach baseline targets and
KPI’s, along with training level activity and social outcomes. Other targets in areas such
as literacy improvement, computer knowledge and general vocational activity will be part
of the target setting framework.

Where community participation levels decrease there would need to be a mechanism for
review to allow for decisions to be made relating to further support and funding that
community would receive and certainly no incentive payment would be made.


In order for us to move forward collaboratively in the provisions of services to Indigenous
Communities across Australia and more specifically the West Kimberley we feel this future
model would need to have serious consideration.

The model provides opportunity for meaningful stakeholder partnerships to be formed with
communities to assist them on the journey of self determination, economic sustainability
and individual self empowerment.

We have been exploring this model for some time and have recently commenced a pilot of
sorts through the development of a special project within the Junjuwa Community (Fitzroy
Crossing) in close consultation with community leaders, it’s members and Marra Worra
Worra Aboriginal Corporation. We would welcome a delegation of the future model
planning committee to travel with us and assess the model we are using in practice. We
feel that this would certainly cement and convince all of its ability to succeed given the
commitment given by service providers and the buy-in that is evident from the community
and its members.

                   Venn Diagram of proposed Model For the West Kimberley

                         List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

KES - Kimberley Employment Services

CEO – Chief Executive Officer

CDFI – Community Development Financial Institutions

CDEP – Community Development and Employment Program

FISH – Foundation for Indigenous Sustainable Housing

RSD – Remote Service Delivery

ROC – Regional Operations Centre

DEEWR – Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

FaHCSIA – Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

DIA – Department of Indigenous Affairs

DET – Department of Education and Training

COAG – Coalition of Australian Government

CEEDS – Community Employment and Enterprise Development Services

NPA – National Partnerships Agreement

LIP – Local Implementation Plan

CSC – Community Services Centres

LACC – Local Area Community Council

LOC – Local Operations Coordinator

EDF – Economic Development Fund

IEF – Individual Employment Fund

JSA – Job Services Australia

FX – Fitzroy Crossing

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

IEP – Indigenous Employment Program

KPI – Key Performance Indicator


To top