Reviewing and validating Community Development Program (CDP) Provider Reports 001-10040010

Item

Scenario

1

Amending an incorrect incident date

Joe failed to attend an appointment with a third party organisation arranged by the provider on 4 July. Joe's provider submits a PR to Services Australia with a reason code of 'Failed to attend other provider appointment' and an incident date of 5 July.

Before attempting to contact Joe, Penny (a Participation Solutions Team (PST)-skilled Service Officer) reviews the PR and identifies the provider sent out appropriate notification for an appointment date of 4 July. Additional comments inserted by the provider on the PR also refer to failure to attend an appointment on 4 July.

As all evidence suggests that had the incident date been correct, the failure would have been valid. Penny amends the incident date and ensures the decision includes documentation about the reason why the failure incident date was amended.

Similar to this scenario, it is appropriate to amend a failure incident date when a serious failure has occurred and the provider has used the date the incident of misconduct occurred rather than the date of unemployment advised on the Employment Separation Certificate (SU1).

2

Amending an incorrect failure reason

John's provider has submitted a PR for 'failure to attend a job interview' on 4 August. This generates a No Show, No Pay failure that Peter, a Participation Solutions Team (PST)-skilled Service Officer is responsible for investigating.

When Peter checks the PR, Peter notices the provider has recorded comments outlining inappropriate behaviour that occurred at the job interview on the 4 August. It is clear from the PR the provider had intended to report the inappropriate conduct during the job interview, rather than non-attendance at a job interview.

In this scenario, the provider has recorded an incorrect Failure Reason. Peter amends the failure reason to 'Inappropriate behaviour at a Job Interview'. When Peter records the summary of the decision on the Decision/Recommendation screen, Peter also includes the reason why the failure reason date was amended.

3

Incorrect failure reason

Justine's provider has arranged a job interview. Justine does not attend the interview and the provider submits a PR using the failure reason 'Refused suitable job offer'.

As part of reviewing the PR, Lina (a Participation Solutions Team (PST)-skilled Service Officer), identifies an incorrect failure reason has been provided. Based on the information provided in the PR, a No Show, No Pay failure may have occurred and the failure reason of 'Failed to attend a job interview' should have been used instead of the serious failure reason 'Refused a suitable job offer'.

In this scenario, because the provider is confused about the correct code to use, Lina rejects the failure as invalid and records free text comments to advise the provider they need to submit a No Show, No Pay failure type.

4

PR incorrectly submitted for non-attendance at provider appointment

Jeremy failed to attend a regular appointment with a provider on 6 July. Jeremy's provider attempted to contact but was unsuccessful. A PR for 'Failure to attend other provider appointment' was submitted. When the PR was received, a connection failure was generated for investigation by Services Australia.

In this scenario, a Non-Attendance Report (NAR) should have been submitted if the provider wished to use the Job Seeker Compliance Framework to re-engage the CDP participant. The provider also has the option to submit a Provider Appointment Report (PAR) after talking with the CDP participant if they are not satisfied with the CDP participant's reasons for non-attendance and they decide to trigger a compliance investigation.

The failure type and reason generated by the PR are appropriate only if the appointment is booked by the provider with a third party organisation.

It is not possible or appropriate to amend a connection failure to a non-attendance failure, meaning it cannot be sent back to the provider to resubmit the correct failure type.

The failure needs to be rejected as invalid, and record free text to advise the incident appears to be a provider appointment, rather than an appointment with a third party organisation and the NAR/PAR process is more appropriate.

Item

Description

1

UNPP not applicable as work deemed unsuitable

John has worked in an 'adult' shop for a period of 8 months and has recently been asked to undertake tasks that have made John feel uncomfortable. John has now voluntarily left this employment. Despite John working there for a reasonable period of time, if the work (or recent changes in role) would not be considered reasonable in the first place (that is, determined unsuitable according to the 'unsuitable' work guidelines) no UNPP is applicable for the voluntary unemployment.

2

UNPP not applicable due to wage below the minimum statutory standard

Janelle has been working in a market garden for 2 years and has voluntarily left the employment due to being underpaid for some time. Upon the investigation of a UNPP, it is discovered Janelle was being paid $8.50 per hour, which was determined to be below the minimum statutory standard for this type of employment. The employment is not regarded as suitable and therefore no UNPP has occurred.