Job Seeker Classification Instrument

15.87 The JSCI questionnaire is used to determine a job seeker’s relative level of disadvantage in the labour market and, therefore, the likely difficulty of obtaining employment.^[52] In the course of the JSCI, job seekers are assigned points according to their answers to specific questions which, in turn, indicate factors that correlate with disadvantage in the labour market. The total score is designed to reflect how disadvantaged a job seeker is in the labour market: a higher score should reflect a greater level of disadvantage.

15.88 For example, a job seeker is assigned two points for having poor English proficiency, three points for living in temporary accommodation, four points for being unemployed, and up to twelve points for being on income support for over two years or living in certain remote Indigenous locations.^[53] Job seekers are classified as Stream 1 if they have fewer than 19 points; Stream 2 if they have 20–28 points; and Stream 3 if they have more than 29 points. Entry to Stream 4 is based on an ESAt or JCA, as discussed later in this chapter. DEEWR considers that this process is ‘essential to ensuring that, in line with Government policy, resources are preferentially directed to those who are most in need’.^[54]

15.89 Where a JSCI has been administered but a job seeker’s individual circumstances have changed or the job seeker discloses new or additional information, such that their original JSCI, or the result of their last Stream Services Review, is affected a Change of Circumstances Reassessment (COCR) may be conducted.^[55] COCR is the term for the process used to determine employment services eligibility.^[56] In conducting a COCR, a JSA provider may ask the job seeker all the JSCI questions again, or only those questions that relate to the change in circumstances or disclosed information.^[57]

15.90 In response to the Employment Law Issues Paper stakeholders expressed a range of broad concerns about the JSCI, in particular indicating that it does not encourage job seekers to disclose sensitive information, such as family violence. In addition, two key aspects of the JSCI emerged as of central relevance to job seekers experiencing family violence:

• the administration of the JSCI, which may prevent job seekers from feeling comfortable enough to disclose family violence; and
• the content of the JSCI, which, even where family violence is disclosed, may inadequately recognise the extent to which experience of family violence is a barrier to employment.

15.91 A related issue is referral to the ESAt and JCA, which is discussed in further detail later in the chapter.

15.92 DEEWR advised the ALRC that it plans to re-estimate the JSCI ‘through detailed econometric analysis’ in 2011–12 using labour market and job seeker outcomes data. This may involve ‘refinement to the weights for the 18 factors, or adjustment of the JSCI score band widths that allocate job seekers to different service streams’. DEEWR also advised the ALRC that ‘appropriate refinement of the ‘triggers’ that identify job seekers who may require referral for JCAs could also occur as an outcome of this research’.^[58]

Administration of the JSCI

15.93 Ordinarily, the JSCI questionnaire is administered by Centrelink, often at first contact when a job seeker registers for activity tested income support. JSA or DES providers or JCA/ESAt assessors may also administer the JSCI in certain circumstances.^[59] The JSCI may be administered in person, or by telephone interview.

15.94 The JSCI Guidelines provide that a JSCI:

must be conducted in a private setting. It must also be conducted face-to-face, unless there are Exceptional Circumstances. For an initial JSCI, all questions must be asked in full. Interpreter services should be used where appropriate … A job seeker can be accompanied by a nominee, including a family member, advocate, social worker or counsellor for support when the JSCI is conducted.^[60]

15.95 Several organisations have expressed concern that the way in which the JSCI is administered impedes the identification of sensitive issues, like family violence. Criticisms have related to:

• conduct of the JSCI over the phone, in public areas within Centrelink or in the presence of partner;
• the JSCI being premised on self-disclosure and barriers to disclosure; and
• difficulties updating the JSCI.^[61]

15.96 The revised JSCI includes wording and sequencing changes designed to highlight the importance of full disclosure and make job seekers more comfortable disclosing sensitive information. To compensate for nondisclosure, the revised JSCI allocates job seekers one point for not answering certain voluntary questions and one point for having received a Centrelink Crisis Payment in the previous six months.^[62]

15.97 These revisions may address some of the concerns raised in the 2008–09 review. Other concerns—such as the increasing use of phones to conduct interviews—were recognised by DEEWR, but not addressed in the revised form of the JSCI.^[63] The ALRC asked for stakeholder comment about whether the reforms have encouraged greater disclosure of information about family violence.

Submissions and consultations

15.98 Stakeholders expressed a range of concerns about the administration of the JSCI.^[64] There were concerns about the conduct of the JSCI by telephone, which may lead to non-disclosure of family violence. This was also noted in the 2010 Report of the Independent Review into the Impacts of the New Job Seeker Compliance Framework, which commented that submissions to the Review ‘point to the barriers of understanding, communication and trust which are likely to affect a telephone interview’.^[65] This may have a particular impact on job seekers from non-English speaking backgrounds.

15.99 Stakeholders also emphasised that it was inappropriate for the JSCI to be conducted in a public place, or in the presence of a job seeker’s partner. For example, the ADFVC recommended that

any discussions about family violence issues be conducted in a private space wherever possible to encourage disclosure, protect client confidentiality and minimise the possibility that the perpetrator of the violence is in the vicinity of the client when the above questions are posed.^[66]

15.100 WEAVE submitted that, in administering the JSCI,

staff routinely skip questions bundling several questions into one generic question such as ‘Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about, are they any other issues that impact on your ability to undertake employment?’ For many women, these questions are not sufficiently specific for them to disclose the existence of domestic violence and they will routinely answer no, having no understanding that such issues could be considered.^[67]

15.101 However, DEEWR advised that:

The conduct of interviews by telephone is essential to ensuring the cost-effective deliver of Centrelink business and providing job seekers with convenience and speed of access to benefits and services. Around 65 per cent of First Contact Service Offers, which incorporate the initial administration of the JSCI, are conducted by telephone interview.^[68]

15.102 DEEWR also emphasised that the result of independent testing by the Social Research Centre in 2007 and 2008 was that:

no significant difference was found in the consistency of Centrelink JSCIs irrespective of whether the JSCI was conducted face to face or by telephone. For Centrelink job seekers were allocated to the same service Stream between 90 to 94 per cent of occasions.^[69]

15.103 Many stakeholders also emphasised the need for training of Centrelink staff administering the JSCI, however this issue is considered and dealt with in Chapter 7.

ALRC’s views

15.104 The ALRC is of the view that the administration of JSCI questionnaires over the phone may discourage job seekers from sharing sensitive information and that, where the JSCI is administered in person, this should not occur in a public area or in the presence of the job seeker’s partner.

15.105 The ALRC notes the testing highlighted by DEEWR, but this testing does not take account of the fact that administering the JSCI over the telephone may act as an additional barrier to disclosure of sensitive information.

15.106 While the administration of the JSCI by telephone is in part to enable cost-effective service delivery, the ALRC notes the apparent inconsistency between the JSCI Guidelines, which provide for the conduct of JSCIs in person unless there are ‘Exceptional Circumstances’, and the apparently high number of JSCIs administered over the phone.

15.107 The ALRC is of the view that, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to administer the JSCI over the telephone, for example where this will protect the safety of job seekers by ensuring they do not have to attend a Centrelink or JSA provider office, or in rural and remote areas.

15.108 However, the ALRC considers that, where possible, interviews should be conducted in person and solely with the job seeker, unless the job seeker requests the presence of another person—for example, a support person, case manager, interpreter or similar. The ALRC is of the view this may go some way to limit barriers to disclosure of family violence presented by administering the JSCI over the telephone, including those faced by CALD job seekers in particular, or which may arise as a result of the presence of a perpetrator or other family member.

Content of the JSCI

15.109 The JSCI assesses 18 categories of information, or factors. Information about each of the factors is gathered from a number of sources including the job seekers record, a ESAt/JCA report (where available) and direct questioning of job seekers. The current factors include:

• age and gender;
• recency of work experience;
• vocational qualifications;
• Indigenous status;
• access to transport;
• disability/medical conditions;
• living circumstances;
• phone contactability;
• proximity to a labour market; and
• personal characteristics.^[70]

15.110 Information about family violence is not collected as a separate category of information. However, as family violence may have an impact on any number of categories—for example on a job seeker’s living circumstances or access to transport— some of these existing factors may indirectly account for their experiences of family violence. In addition, family violence may be discussed as one aspect of a job seeker’s ‘personal characteristics’.

15.111 In the Employment Law Issues Paper, the ALRC asked a number of general questions about the operation of the JSCI in practice, in particular in relation to:

• how often applicants are asked about family violence;
• how questions about family violence are asked or phrased;
• how much discretion the JSCI administrator has in raising (or avoiding) the subject of family violence; and
• the practical effect of disclosing family violence in the JSCI interview.

Living circumstances category

15.112 Under the living circumstances category, job seekers are asked whether they have been living in secure accommodation for the last 12 months or longer; whether they are staying in emergency or temporary accommodation; how often they have moved in the past year; and whether they live alone and/or have care-giving responsibilities.^[71] The current focus of the question relating to ‘living circumstances’ for the purposes of the JSCI is on secure accommodation for a 12 month period, defined as a ‘reasonably fixed, regular and adequate place to stay’.^[72]

15.113 However, the ALRC considers that there may be scope to expand this definition of secure accommodation to consider the impacts of family violence under this category. The ALRC invites stakeholder comment on whether DEEWR should amend the category of ‘living circumstances’, or the definitions relating to the category, under the JSCI to ensure it incorporates consideration of safety or other concerns arising from the job seeker’s experience of family violence.

Personal characteristics category

15.114 The personal characteristics category is intended to capture any other personal factor or characteristic that may affect the job seeker’s ability to obtain or retain employment. The current question is ‘are there any other factors which you think might affect your ability to work, obtain work or look for work that haven’t already been discussed?’ The question is voluntary and job seekers can choose not to answer, however administrators are told that they should encourage job seekers to ‘fully disclose their circumstances to ensure they receive the most appropriate services’.^[73]

15.115 The Explanation of the JSCI Questions Advice emphasises that factors recorded in response to this category must be relevant to the question and not to other questions in the JSCI and that, as a result, it may be necessary to review and change previous responses. It also notes that conditions such as depression or anxiety or other ‘disability, health or medical issues’, should be recorded under the work capacity category if they are expected to last three months or more.^[74]

15.116 The ALRC notes stakeholder concerns that a single ‘catch-all’ question at the end of the JSCI may not be appropriate or encourage disclosure of family violence.^[75] The ALRC also considers that the advice provided to those administering the JSCI in its current format may lead to the inclusion of family violence in respect of one factor under the JSCI where in reality it impacts on a number of factors. The ALRC is also concerned that it may contribute to the ‘medicalisation’ of family violence highlighted by stakeholders, that is the tendency to focus on isolated medical aspects of the job seekers’ circumstances rather than consider family violence and its impact in a more holistic manner.^[76] However, the ALRC is unsure in practice how often job seekers disclose family violence in response to this question and would like stakeholder feedback on its operation.

15.117 The ALRC considers that either amending the existing question or including an additional question, could ensure that JSCI incorporates consideration of family violence in assessing job seekers’ personal characteristics but would welcome stakeholder feedback on this issue.

New category for family violence

15.118 Rather than relying on disclosure of family violence in the context of the ‘living circumstances’ or ‘personal characteristics’ categories, another possible approach to ensuring that the JSCI captures information about family violence, for the purposes of determining a job seeker’s barriers to work, may be to add a new category of family violence.

15.119 Where family violence is disclosed, ideally there should be automatic referral of the job seeker to a Centrelink social worker. However, the JSCI Guidelines provide that, where family violence is disclosed while the JSCI is being conducted, the JSA provider should complete and submit the JSCI. As a result, in addition to the need for the JSCI to consider all potentially significant barriers to work, this also underlines the importance of the JSCI being designed to consider family violence.

Submissions and consultations

15.120 Stakeholders expressed strong views about the need for the JSCI to consider family violence.^[77] For example, the ADFVC expressed concern about the how information about family violence is sought in the JSCI and recommended the ‘introduction of standard questions for raising family violence issues with clients’.^[78]

15.121 WEAVE suggested that the JSCI ‘should directly inquire with regard to family violence victimisation’ and should include an assessment of the circumstances of the people for whom the job seeker has caring responsibilities.^[79]

15.122 A number of stakeholders outlined a range of information that should be considered under any new category relating to family violence, in particular: ‘ongoing trauma, the cost of child care and the need to attend appointments related to the abuse’.^[80] The ADFVC suggested ‘these issues need to be given adequate weight in the assessment to ensure its accuracy’, emphasising that the result of its research indicated:

A considerable number of the women in the [ADFVC] study stated that they were unable to work because they were experiencing ongoing physical and mental health trauma from the abuse … Women and workers spoken with in the study expressed a need for healing time for victims prior to taking up paid employment … Some women also referred to their children not being emotionally ready to be left on their own or in child care (including older children who might access after school care), due to their own trauma from the abuse. These caring responsibilities prevented women from working … A large number of [women] who were not working stated outright that childcare costs would equal or exceed any earnings gained from their employment … Finally, women spoke of being required to attend multiple appointments associated with the abuse, such as: doctors and other health appointments for them and their children, appointments with police and lawyers, domestic violence services, accommodation services and court appointments.^[81]

ALRC’s views

15.123 The ALRC proposes that a new family violence category should be included in the JSCI. Ensuring that the JSCI captures all relevant information which may affect a job seeker’s disadvantage in the labour market and barriers to work is important in order to ensure they are placed in an appropriate employment services stream and provided with the necessary support to gain and retain employment. To the extent that the JSCI is not currently designed in a way that elicits information about family violence, the ALRC considers it may be beneficial to add a new category.

15.124 The ALRC would like further input from stakeholders on the information that should be considered under the proposed category, for example: safety concerns; caring responsibilities for children, particularly those who have experienced or witnessed family violence; and the impact of family violence on a jobseeker’s housing, transport and health.

15.125 However, the ALRC recognises that a key difficulty underlying any proposal to include a new category is the need to recognise the impact of family violence without necessarily resulting in the categorisation of job seekers into higher streams. While this may involve the provision of necessary services or support, the ALRC has some concern about this effectively resulting in job seekers experiencing family violence being placed into the ‘too hard’ basket and not being provided the necessary support or being a priority in terms of achieving employment outcomes.^[82] While the ALRC considers that the question of weight/score attached to the new category should be left to DEEWR to consider in the context of the overall JSCI, the ALRC welcomes stakeholder comment on how to address this potential unintended consequence associated with the introduction of a new family violence category.

15.126 The ALRC notes that the introduction of a family violence category under the JSCI may affect the circumstances and manner in which a COCR should be conducted.