Community Services COVID-19 Emergency Response — Literature Review

Community Services COVID-19 Response Evaluation Project Literature Review November 2021

Page | 1

Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.

Service Delivery ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Constraints on service delivery......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Changes in needs and demand ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Learnings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Technology and systems .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Work from home and flexible work policies fit for purpose ...................................................................................................... 7 Place-based responses ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Communications and partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Planning and preparedness ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.

Workforce.......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Impacts .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Volunteering issues ............................................................................................................................................................................10 Resilience and burnout......................................................................................................................................................................10 Agility and adaption ............................................................................................................................................................................10 Learnings ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Supporting workforce wellbeing .....................................................................................................................................................11 Strengthening leadership capabilities..........................................................................................................................................11

3.

Financial ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Impacts .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Revenue and funding .........................................................................................................................................................................13 Learnings ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Review of funding models and sustainability.............................................................................................................................14

Conclusion and Implications .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Page | 2

Introduction The COVID-19 crisis has had significant and wide-reaching implications at a local, national and international level.

The community services industry has been at the forefront of many of these impacts, witnessing substantial increased need in communities and significant impacts on the ways in which community services were able to deliver on this need. In Tasmania, around 50 community service organisations were provided with some form of emergency funding as a result of COVID-19. 1 This forced many organisations to adapt and innovate in order to survive.

This literature review sets out to examine available published evidence to contribute to an initial understanding of what happened to the community services industry in Tasmania and in comparable jurisdictions. This will then inform TasCOSS’s evaluation of emergency response funding during COVID-19 in 2020. The review relies heavily on grey literature and is not able to be completely exhaustive and academic, however does represent an initial overview which sets the scene for further work.

The review identifies three overarching and interrelated categories of effects on organisations. It examines the literature under each category and highlights the impacts and learnings for community services. The categories are: • •

•

Impacts on service delivery, Workforce impacts; and Financial impacts.

See Department of Premier and Cabinet 2020, COVID-19 Social and Economic Support Measures Update (July 2020); Department of Communities Tasmania (Communities Tasmania) 2020, Local Emergency Food Relief — COVID-19 Grants Program.

1

Page | 3

1. Service Delivery Even prior to COVID-19, Tasmania faced challenges driving an increased need for services. These include an ageing population and increasing numbers of Tasmanians living in poverty or on inadequate incomes. These challenges are exacerbated by the impact of crises such as COVID-19 and climate change. 2 A significant body of work suggests underlying service demand could be reduced by greater investments in expanding access to quality services which reduce social and structural inequalities, including government increasing income support above the poverty line. 3 This would put the country in a better place to respond to such disruptions.

The Tasmanian community services industry’s model of service delivery aims to place the needs of people at the centre, ensuring that connected, responsive and coordinated care and support is provided by local organisations and communities. 4 The ability to deliver services to clients in this way was significantly hampered by the COVID-19 crisis. With these challenges came innovations, adaptations and lessons which will put the industry in a better position to respond to future crises.

Impacts Constraints on service delivery While Tasmania has not experienced the same protracted and repeated lockdowns required in many other jurisdictions, there was still significant, widespread and evident disruption to service delivery in our state. 5 The introduction of Public Health measures to combat COVID-19 affected community service organisations’ ability to continue to deliver services. Disruptions to service delivery included: • • •

Explicit Public Health measures and restrictions (e.g. social distancing, lockdowns and business closures), 6 Rapidly changing/evolving guidance from government, and insufficiently clear and agile communication; 7 and A strong general desire to limit potential for virus transmission to staff and clients.8

These constraints particularly applied to services’ ability to deliver in-person, place-based services. In one national survey of community sector workers from September 2020, 80% of respondents reported that at least part of their

Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS) 2021, A Community Services Industry Built for Tasmania’s Future: Community Services Industry Plan (2021-31), September, Hobart.

3 See Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) and RMIT University 2021, Stories into Evidence: COVID-19 adaptation in the Victorian community services sector, June, Future Social Services Institute, Melbourne; Blaxland, M and Cortis, N 2021, Valuing Australia’s Community Sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact, Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Sydney; Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney; Social Ventures Australia (SVA) and the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) 2021, Vital Support: Building resilient charities to support Australia’s wellbeing.

4 TasCOSS 2021, A Community Services Industry Built for Tasmania’s Future: Community Services Industry Plan (2021-31), September, Hobart.

5 TasCOSS 2020, Community Services Industry Combined Response, PESRAC Stage One Consultation, June, Hobart, p. 3.

6 See Table 9 in Storen, R and Corrigan, N 2020, COVID-19: A chronology of state and territory government announcements, Parliamentary Library Research Paper Series 2020-21, Canberra, pp. 61-70.

7 Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC) 2020, PESRAC Interim Report, Department of Treasury and Finance, Hobart, pp. 30, 42-43; see at least 26 separate announcements in the two months to May 2020, in Storen, R and Corrigan, N, 2020, COVID19: A chronology of state and territory government announcements, Table 9.

8 Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney.

2

Page | 4

service could not be delivered at all due to COVID-19. 9 Services which continued during the lockdown were mainly delivered online, but these were unfortunately limited by the effectiveness and/or availability of systems and processes to enable staff to engage in online work.10 For many community sector organisations funds are stretched thin, and IT upgrades and maintenance were lower priorities in pre-pandemic business-as-usual operation. The need for support in this area was made clear when the Community Services Essential Technology fund was initially budgeted for $250,000 but received 121 applications totalling eligible requests of over $1 million. 11

Changes in needs and demand There have been many attempts to track demand for and provision of services over the pandemic, not all of which have produced consistent results that provide a basis for clear understanding. The general picture emerging from the literature sighted for this review is one of increasing demand, as well as clients presenting with increasingly complex needs. This has been experienced differently by different organisations, sub-sectors and across time. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has found that “2020 was marked by rapid growth of new groups in the community requiring support, coupled with increased need among existing clients and communities”. 12 COVID-19 has had a unique and significant impact on people on low incomes, 13 in casual or insecure work, 14 women, 15 migrants and culturally diverse communities, 16 older people, 17 young people, 18 people with a disability, 19 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, 20 and LGBTIQ+ people. 21

Ibid.

TasCOSS 2020, Essential Technology Fund: Evaluation Report, Communities Tasmania, Hobart.

11 Ibid.

12 Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2021, Meeting Community Needs in Difficult Times: Experience of Australia’s community sector, ACOSS, Sydney.

13 See ACOSS 2021, Financial distress in lockdown, July, ACOSS, Sydney; Thomsen, A et al. 2020, COVID-19 and Consumers: From crisis to recovery, Consumer Policy Research Centre, Melbourne, p. 17.

14 Dawson, E 2020, The Case for a Care-led Recovery, Per Capita, Melbourne.

15 See Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2020, Gender Indicators Australia; Churchill, B 2020, COVID-19 and the Immediate Impact on Young People and Employment in Australia: A gendered analysis, Gender Work & Organisation.

16 See Weng, E, Mansouri, F and Vergani, M 2021. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery of services to CALD communities in Australia, ADI Policy Briefing Series, vol. 2, no. 2, Melbourne; Multicultural Council of Tasmania 2020, MCOT Survey: How is COVID-19 impacting your community?, Hobart.

17 See Parkinson, D, O’Halloran, K and Dinning, J 2020, The impact of COVID-19 pandemic response on older people, Respect Victoria, Melbourne; COTA Tasmania 2020, Submission to the inquiry into the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

18 Churchill, B 2020, COVID-19 and the Immediate Impact on Young People and Employment in Australia: A gendered analysis, Gender Work & Organisation; McAllister, J et al. 2021, The Most Important Task: Outcomes of our collective care for low income children in Aotearoa New Zealand in the first year of COVID-19, Child Poverty Action Group, Auckland.

19 See Commonwealth of Australia 2020. Statement of Concern: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic for people with disability, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 26 March, Canberra; People with Disability Australia 2020.

People with disability and COVID-19, Sydney.

20 See SNAICC 2021, COVID-19 Ongoing Impacts Survey Report, January, Melbourne; Power, T et al. 2020, COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples: An imperative for action, Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 29, no. 15-16, pp. 2737–41.

21 Equality Australia 2020, Inequality Magnified: Submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Response to COVID-19, Melbourne.

9

10

Page | 5

Four sectors for which there is considerable available literature are: i.

Mental Health and Wellbeing Early in the pandemic many held grave concerns for the mental health impacts of COVID-19. By April 2020, twice as many people nationally were self-reporting poor mental health than prior to the pandemic.22 In Tasmania, a survey by the Mental Health Council of Tasmania (MHCT) found that by July 2020 71% of providers were reporting increased demand for mental health services due to COVID-19 with anxiety and depression particularly common new presentations.23 Lifeline Tasmania also reported record numbers of calls for crisis-support in 2020. 24 A significant proportion of the demand appears to have been new presentations, and the main drivers identified were feeling of lack of control, anxiety and fear, and isolation and loneliness. 25 The pandemic and its impacts have necessitated whole of population approaches to mental health and wellbeing which leverage existing connections to support everyone, at all stages of their lives. 26 ii.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs The pandemic also saw increasing alcohol and other drug consumption and associated demand for support and information from the alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATOD) sector. The Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drugs Council Tasmania (ATDC) found that 85% of surveyed ATOD organisations in Tasmania reported increased demand in December 2020 compared to the previous year with alcohol, tobacco and cannabis the most common drugs of concern. They also noted increasing telephone and online support seeking throughout the pandemic.27 iii.

Emergency Food Relief Emergency food relief was a particular focus during the pandemic. A national report by Foodbank found that the proportion of Australians seeking food relief at least once a week doubled from 15% in 2019 to 30% in 2020. 28 This is consistent with the experience of two significant providers in Southern Tasmania. Hobart City Mission reported a 52% increase in their food assistance provision29 and Kingborough Family Church reported a 20-25% increase in tandem with assisting with the establishment of an entirely new provider.30 The distribution of need also changed throughout the pandemic with an increase in food insecurity evident among international students, young people and casual workers. 31

22

Liddy, M, Hanrahan, C and Byrd, J 2020, ‘How Australians feel about the Coronavirus crisis and Scott Morrison's response’, Australian

Broadcasting Commission (ABC), 27 April.

Mental Health Council of Tasmania (MHCT) 2020, COVID-19 Impacts and Emerging Themes within the Mental Health Sector, Monthly Report 3, July.

24 Lifeline Tasmania 2020, Annual Report 2019/20.

25 Findings of COVID-19 psychosocial supports working group, reported in MHCT 2020. COVID-19 Impacts and Emerging Themes within the Mental Health Sector, Monthly Report 3, July.

26 See MHCT 2021, A Tasmanian State of Mind.

27 Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drugs Council Tasmania (ATDC) 2020, COVID-19 Impact on Tasmanian ATOD Services, Report 2, December.

28 Foodbank 2020, Hunger Report 2020: Food insecurity in the time of COVID-19, Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, p. 11.

29 Hobart City Mission 2020, Annual Report 2020: Helping people where help is most needed, p. 14.

30 Foodbank 2020, Hunger Report, p. 14.

31 Ibid.

23

Page | 6

iv.

Family and Sexual Violence At the beginning of the pandemic, many voiced concerns that the pandemic would increase experiences of family and domestic violence. 32 One national study published in July 2020 found that two-thirds of women who had experienced physical or sexual violence from a cohabiting partner since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic said the violence had either begun or escalated during the pandemic period.33 In Tasmania, two specialist organisations, Engender Equality and the Sexual Assault Support Service (SASS), reported a doubling of service demand since 2019. 34 Client statistics from Engender Equality also show that the overall number of counselling hours delivered grew by 143% to meet demand in 2020. 35

Learnings Technology and systems The most obvious learnings about service delivery during this period were those associated with a shift from inperson to remote work and service delivery. It was clear from much of the literature that as health measures restricted community services’ ability to deliver traditional in-person services, the ability of organisations to shift to working from home and online service delivery was key to service and business continuity.

One report found that those not-for-profits in Australia and New Zealand who had established good systems and infrastructure prior to the pandemic have been better able to maintain services and keep staff productive, however only 30% of organisations were in this position. 36 For the remainder, this meant a rapid shift to adapt to the changing needs of the sector and the community.

The Essential Technology Fund in Tasmania was one example of a simple, innovate and flexible program which assisted with this shift, allowing 62 community service organisations to quickly acquire necessary information technology products and equipment. 37 This included devices and software for organisational use and, for some organisations, devices or data that could be provided to clients to overcome digital access barriers. As the new environment was seen to exacerbate the digital divide for those facing digital exclusion, some organisations partnered with businesses to expand digital access for clients. A notable example is the expansion of the Donate Your Data partnership between Optus and The Smith Family to include The Salvation Army, Mission Australia and others.38

Work from home and flexible work policies fit for purpose As many as 81% of organisations nationally shifted to at least part of their workforce working from home. 39 It seems that many organisations who were required to transition employees to working from home quickly and for long See for example: Morton, R 2020, ‘Family violence increasing during COVID-19 lockdown’, The Saturday Paper, 4 April.

Boxall, H, Morgan, A and Brown, R 2020. ‘The prevalence of domestic violence among women during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Statistical Bulletin No. 28. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

34 Engender Equality doubling of calls from December 2019 to August 2020; Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS) doubling of monthly referrals. For more information, refer to their annual reports.

35 MCHT 2021, COVID-19 Impacts and Emerging Themes within the Mental Health Sector, Monthly Report 8, February/March.

36 Infoxchange 2020, Digital Technology in the Not-for-Profit Sector, October.

37 See TasCOSS 2020, Essential Technology Fund: Evaluation Report, Communities Tasmania, Hobart.

38 Jegatheeswaran, T and Hems, T 2020, Increasing the resilience of social sector organisations in the face of COVID-19, Deloitte Access Economics, April. For more information on the program, see Optus 2021, Donate Your Data.

39 Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney.

32 33

Page | 7

periods have seen benefits they considered worth retaining, such as increased flexibility in work hours for staff, efficiencies related to reduced travel, staggered shifts and the introduction of extended service delivery hours. 40

Place-based responses The literature suggests that place-based responses which acknowledge and leverage the strengths, needs and context of local communities and organisations are better able to deliver meaningful outcomes. 41 In Tasmania, this was acknowledged in the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC) consultations and report and through the key response role played by locally-based organisations, including the Neighbourhood House Network. 42, 43 At the heart of successful place-based responses were initiatives empowering local communities, which built on trusted relationships and facilitated cross-sector collaborations. This ensured community members were well informed and supported and stopped people falling through the gaps of broader state or national responses. 44

Communications and partnerships Another clear theme from published sources was the importance of strong communication, collaboration and partnerships. Although there were initial inconsistencies with the collection and sharing of data on service need and delivery, efforts to generate and share this data helped organisations to identify and respond to community needs more effectively throughout the pandemic.45 Organisations were also able to better respond to community need where there were expanded formal and informal channels of communication for experiences to be shared, which provided the opportunity to learn from successes and failures. 46 Examples have included collaboration across subsectors in the industry, cross-industry, and with government, which increased with the rise of virtual options reducing many barriers to engagement. 47 In Tasmania, the Community Services COVID-19 Recovery Statewide Meetings provided an example of this in practice — with opportunities for organisations and government to come together (initially on a weekly basis), communicate experience from the ground and share learnings and practice.

Each sector peak also connected with and captured the concerns of their stakeholders, which were subsequently communicated through the Tasmanian Government’s Recovery Partners Network and informed advocacy and action, both individually and as a broader industry.

Planning and preparedness Disaster preparedness and planning in Australia generally coalesces around the ‘comprehensive approach’ involving PPRR: Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery.48 This approach involves identifying and managing risks and consequences across social, built, economic and natural environments. A recent Australian Red Cross report also highlighted the particular importance of the recovery phase, which can be overlooked in disaster VCOSS and RMIT University 2021, Stories into Evidence: COVID-19 adaptation in the Victorian community services sector, Future Social Services Institute, June, Melbourne.

41 Collier, T et al. 2021, Disaster Planning and Recovery Roundtable 2020 Report, Thriving Communities Partnership, p. 20-23.

42 PESRAC Final Report, see recommendations 22, 31, 35 and pp. 57-60.

43 See Neighbourhood Houses Tasmania (NHT) 2021, Neighbourhood Houses in Tasmania — Connecting people and supporting their communities: Budget Priorities Statement 2021/22, Derwent Park.

44 Dusseldorp Forum 2020, Place-based Resilience: Community Driven Response and Recovery in a Time of COVID-19, Sydney, p. 1.

45 See for example: Pollard, CM et al. 2021, ‘Using the Food Stress Index for Emergency Food Assistance: An Australian Case Series Analysis during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Natural Disasters’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 6960.

46 SVA) and CSI 2020, Vital Support: Building Resilient Charities to Support Australia’s Wellbeing, Partners in Recovery Series, p. 29, 35.

47 VCOSS 2021, Stories into Evidence, p. 30.

48 See Tasmanian Disaster Resilience Strategy 2020-25 and the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework.

40

Page | 8

preparedness planning.49 Many organisations find themselves unable to find the time to reflect on organisational disaster preparedness, but regular reflection on vulnerabilities and planning for an organisation which enhances the ability to respond as needed has emerged as a clear protective factor in the industry through COVID-19. 50 Beyond internal organisational planning and preparedness, a clear finding of the Royal Commission into the 2019/20 Summer bushfire disaster — which was echoed in the experiences of the COVID-19 crisis — was that nongovernment organisations need a seat at the table in crisis planning and response, and that clear divisions and understanding of roles and responsibilities must be established. 51 The literature demonstrates organisations’ resilience to future shocks is improved by planning with an eye to the future while heeding lessons of the past. As Abonyi (2020) states, “the next crisis will not be exactly like COVID-19, but it may rhyme.” 52

Randrianarisoa, A et al. 2021, Understanding Preparedness and Recovery: A survey of people’s preparedness and recovery experience for emergencies, Australian Red Cross, North Melbourne.

50 SVA and CSI 2020. Vital Support, pp. 21-23.

51 Commonwealth of Australia 2020, Royal Commission into Natural Disaster Arrangements Report, Canberra, p. 439.

52 Abonyi, G 2020, COVID-19 Policy Lessons for Future Crises: Social Learning Framework.

49

Page | 9

2. Workforce Prior to the pandemic, there were many documented workforce issues in the community services industry which affected its ability to attract, retain and support the workforce. 53 These included comparatively poor pay and conditions for workers, workforce and skills shortages, and reasonably high turnover in many sectors.54 The COVID19 crisis added layers of challenge for the industry’s workforce.

Impacts Volunteering issues 90% of Tasmanian volunteer programs and 65% of Tasmania’s volunteers were impacted by pauses or stand downs due to COVID-19 restrictions and concerns. 55 This had a significant impact on the sector, as the Tasmanian community services industry relies on 35,000 volunteers to support its work. 56 Recent reports indicate volunteer numbers are not recovering to meet demand in Tasmania or across Australia more broadly. 57,58

Resilience and burnout The COVID-19 crisis has placed high demands on workers, who have faced restrictions and changes to how and where they work. These challenges were combined with increased levels and complexity of community need, demands of high performance and other transition challenges. In Tasmania, this has resulted in reported high levels of stress, isolation and vicarious trauma for community sector workers. 59 Increased mental health and wellbeing impacts on the workforce was a trend reflected across Australia and internationally, both within and beyond the community sector.60 Frontline care workers do appear, however to have experienced a uniquely strong effect on their health and wellbeing. 61 Burnout has been a concern in many sector surveys throughout the period. 62

Agility and adaption The restrictive challenges of the pandemic also had the impact of catalysing and highlighting the industry’s capacity for agility, adaptability and innovation. 63 One national survey of the sector found 96% had adapted their

Dawson, E 2020, The Case for a Care-led Recovery, Per Capita, Melbourne, pp. 11-16.

For greater detail, see TasCOSS 2021, A Community Services Industry Built for Tasmania’s Future: Community Services Industry Plan (202131), September, Hobart.

55 Volunteering Tasmania 2020, Annual Report.

56 TasCOSS 2021, A Community Services Industry Built for Tasmania’s Future: Community Services Industry Plan (2021-31), September, Hobart.

57 PESRAC Final Report, p. 58.

58 Volunteering Australia 2021, Reengaging volunteers and COVID-19; Our Community 2021, COVID-19 Community Sector Impact Survey, June, p. 19.

59 TasCOSS 2020, Community Services Industry Combined Response, PESRAC Stage One Consultation, June, Hobart, p. 3.

60 See Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney, p. 74; Integrated Health & Wellbeing 2021, ‘Chapter 3: The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of Australians’ in Australia’s Welfare 2021: Data Insights, p. 49; Global Social Service Workforce Alliance 2020, Social Service Workforce Safety and Wellbeing during the COVID-19 Response — Recommended Actions.

61 Kidd, M 2020, ‘Five Principles for Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons from the Australian COVID-19 primary care response’, British Journal of General Practice, vol. 70, no. 696, pp. 316-17.

62 See Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney; VCOSS 2021, Stories into Evidence.

63 Coram, V et al. 2021, Community Service Sector Resilience and Responsiveness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Australian Experience, The Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 10, no. 1002.

53 54

Page | 10

service in some way due to the pandemic.64 These changes are common throughout the literature and include changes to how staff work and deliver services highlighted above, including working from home, hybrid approaches and digital and telephone service delivery. 65 Many in the sector quickly realised the shift to digital delivery required additional support initiatives to enable clients to access and use new technologies. 66 Some organisations which were engaged in providing relief support transitioned to non-contact delivery, for example, footpath or door dropoffs for food and other care packages. 67

Learnings The literature appears to coalesce around two main groups of learning for workforce issues:

Supporting workforce wellbeing A healthy, supported workforce was increasingly recognised as a key underpinning of a successful, functional organisation, even prior to the COVID-19 crisis. 68 Workplace wellbeing has proven even more critical in a crisis such as this pandemic. For the community sector this extends to include the volunteer as well as paid workforce. Many organisations have learned ways to better support their workforce through the crisis. Sector surveys indicate that more regular and clear channels for internal communication and formal and informal connection have supported clarity about situations and expectations and have assisted to overcome the isolating experience of more remote and digital work.69 Examples of changes included more regular or accessible check-ins through management structures where appropriate, while being careful to avoid a sense of micro-management. 70 Organisations also learned the importance of developing, improving and communicating supportive health and wellbeing policies and processes. Examples include flexible working from home policies, sufficient additional leave for testing and/or COVID-19 infection, and sufficient safeguards around expectations, self-care and work-life balance. 71 However, one major challenge identified in supporting the workforce in these ways was lack of adequate funding which covers the full cost of service delivery, including the ‘overheads’ of adequate support arrangements for staff. 72

Strengthening leadership capabilities The literature also suggests strong leadership and governance capabilities in the workforce were a protective factor for organisations, enabling them to respond flexibly while maintaining the wellbeing and output of staff.73 The

Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney, p. 9.

65 Muir, K et al. 2020, Pulse of the For-purpose Sector Final Report: Wave One, Centre for Social Impact, p. 19.

66 See New South Wales Council of Social Service (NCOSS) 2021, Examples of COVID-19 innovative practices in the sector.

67 Coram et al. 2021, Community service sector resilience and responsiveness, p. 14.

68 Volini, E et al. 2020, Designing work for wellbeing, Deloitte Insights, Deloitte Access Economics, USA. 69 VCOSS 2021, Stories into Evidence, p. 22-24; Cortis, N and Blaxland, M 2020, Australia’s Community Sector and COVID-19: Supporting communities through the crisis, September, ACOSS, Sydney, pp. 14, 74.

70 Maxwell, J 2021, SASS presentation, Community Services COVID-19 Recovery Statewide Meeting; Chong, E et al. 2021, Agile Resilience in the UK: Lessons from COVID-19 for the ‘next normal’, September, McKinsey & Company, UK. 71 See Global Social Service Workforce Alliance 2020, Social Service Workforce Safety and Wellbeing during the COVID-19 Response — Recommended Actions; Volini, E et al. 2020, Designing work for wellbeing, Deloitte Insights, Deloitte Access Economics, USA. 72 See Blaxland, M and Cortis, N 2021, Valuing Australia’s Community Sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact, ACOSS, Sydney, p. 23; SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support, p. 15.

73 SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support.

64

Page | 11

Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) found that many not-for-profit boards experienced some initial hesitation, but those that had the skills to quickly focus on and respond to the organisational risks and challenges from COVID-19 ensured their organisations’ survival and continued successful delivery of key services. 74 In the same survey, 69%of directors reported that COVID-19 had increased the amount of time they spent on governance. 75 Recommendations in this area include greater investment in leadership and governance development in the community sector to develop adaptive change capabilities and technical skills for staff and boards. 76 In the UK, it was reported that organisations fostered a culture of empowerment through COVID-19, whereby frontline staff were given greater credence and autonomy in recognition of their direct client experience. 77 Chong et al. (2021) suggests building in this approach could further strengthen leadership capabilities and employees’ sense of agency. 78 However, it is unrealistic to expecting this to happen within current budget constraints and funding arrangements, which is why community sector workforce development requires comprehensive focus, planning and investment in partnership with government. 79

Australian Institute of Company Directors 2020, Not-for-Profit Governance and Performance Study 2020: The COVID-19 Edition, November, Sydney.

75 Ibid.

76 SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support.

77 Chong, E et al. 2021, Agile Resilience in the UK: Lessons from COVID-19 for the ‘next normal’, September, McKinsey & Company, UK. 78 Ibid.

79 For example, see TasCOSS 2021, A Community Services Industry Built for Tasmania’s Future: Community Services Industry Plan (2021-31), September, Hobart.

74

Page | 12

3. Financial Organisations need to have secure, stable finances to deliver quality, flexible services. The community services industry has a unique mix of funding structures which fall under three main categories: i. ii. iii.

Cost recovery from service delivery, Philanthropy and fundraising; and Direct government funding and grants. 80

The literature shows the impact of COVID-19 on the sector varied depending on funding mix and certainty.

Impacts Revenue and funding Revenue was highly variable for those relying primarily on service delivery for income. Where client demand did not reduce due to the pandemic, such as residential aged care, revenue was relatively stable. 81 Block funded services were more secure and able to negotiate changes in Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) where needed. For others who relied on individual fee-for-service models or revenue streams from social enterprises or op shops, restrictions meant a dramatic cut in demand and revenue. 82 Philanthropic funding also varied. Long-term funding commitments remained largely unchanged, however organisations relying on new commitments or regular fundraising drives found their sources of funding were much less reliable. One national study found that 47% of surveyed organisations saw a significant decrease in fundraising income in 2020 with 30% still reporting the same in 2021. 83 A further complicating factor is that the fundraising regime in place in Australia is complex and, many suggest, outdated. 84 Direct government funding remained relatively stable and even increased for many target organisations throughout the period. 85 However, funding of this type comes with its own issues including reported inflexibility, insufficient length of contracts, a power imbalance in the funder/recipient relationship, and insufficient recognition and reimbursement of the full cost of service delivery. 86 The full cost of services is rarely covered by any grant arrangements with one large 2020 survey of the sector indicating that only 39% of government grants, 34% of philanthropy grants and 35% of corporate grants cover full direct and indirect costs.87 This causes serious financial vulnerabilities for organisations in the sector which rely on these funding arrangements, often causing them to ‘run lean’, which can

SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support.

Ibid.

82 See PESRAC Interim Report, p. 21; TasCOSS 2020, Community Services Industry Combined Response, PESRAC Stage One Consultation, p. 3.

83 Our Community 2021, COVID-19 Community Sector Impact Survey.

84 Piazza Research 2021, Charities Crisis Cabinet Fundraising Survey 2021, Charities Crisis Cabinet: Fix Fundraising Campaign.

85 TasCOSS 2020, Community Services Industry Combined Response, PESRAC Stage One Consultation.

86 See Thorp, S 2021, Vulnerability and Resilience in the Social Sector: What we learnt through COVID-19; Productivity Commission 2010, Contribution of the Non-for-Profit Sector, Canberra; SVA Quarterly 2021, Issue 34, 31 March; Blaxland, M and Cortis, N 2021, Valuing Australia’s Community Sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact, ACOSS, Sydney, p. 23; SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support; SVA and CSI 202, Taken for Granted? Charities role in our economic recovery.

87 Muir, K et al. 2020. Pulse of the For-purpose Sector Final Report: Wave One, Centre for Social Impact, p. 7.

80 81

Page | 13

overburden existing staff, impact on service quality for clients, and ultimately undermine the outcomes for which they are funded. 88

Learnings Review of funding models and sustainability The literature indicates there are lessons to be learned from the period, and work to be done on continuing to improve business model sustainability in the community services industry. A clear enabler identified is government and grant funding arrangements which embrace contemporary, flexible, power sharing models of managing funding agreements with a focus on outcomes rather than activity. 89 Partnerships are already emerging between the sector, government and other funders to work on the following: • • •

Increasing funding contract lengths to provide greater security for organisations, 90 Clarifying the transferability of granted funds to enable flexibility; and 91 Developing a modern, nationally consistent fundraising regime. 92

Social Ventures Australia (SVA) and the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) suggest that additional work needs to take place within individual organisations to embed the regular review of their financial position and vulnerability, to better examine how they would respond in the event of future shocks or crises. This could then assist organisations to clarify their strategic organisational priorities, explore alternate or diversified financing options, and consider ways to expand partnerships and share costs and risk. 93

SVA and CSI, 2020, Vital Support.

See recommendations 12 and 13, in PESRAC Interim Report; Blaxland, M and Cortis, N 2021, Valuing Australia’s Community Sector: Better contracting for capacity, sustainability and impact, ACOSS, Sydney; Coram, V et al. 2021, Community Service Sector Resilience and Responsiveness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Australian Experience, The Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 10, no. 1002, p. 15.

90 Ibid.

91 See SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support; TasCOSS 2020, Community Services Industry Combined Response, PESRAC Stage One Consultation.

92 See recommendation 21.2 of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements and the Charities Crisis Cabinet: Fix Fundraising Campaign.

93 SVA and CSI 2020, Vital Support.

88 89

Page | 14

Conclusion and Implications The literature demonstrates the significant effects of COVID-19 on the community services industry broadly in relation to its ability to continue to deliver quality services, to adapt and support its workforce, and to financially support the changes and adaptations to provide services to clients when and where they need them.

This review has highlighted that forward-thinking and strategic investments of time and effort in enabling technologies and platforms, flexible workplace policies and processes, and strengthening communication and partnerships can help to build the resilience of organisational service delivery capacity.

The review has observed the importance of supporting workforce wellbeing, alongside developing leadership capacity to ensure staff are healthy, happy and capable in the face of unfolding crises.

Finally, financial resilience sits alongside and supports service delivery and workforce considerations. The literature indicates that work needs to be done on identifying and addressing financial vulnerabilities in partnership with other organisations and funders to ensure community sector organisations can withstand future shocks.

Beyond the scope of this review, but nevertheless clearly evident throughout the literature, is the need to take broader action to address the underlying structural inequalities which the pandemic so clearly exposed. Part of this could involve taking learnings from the COVID-19 response and applying them to current and ongoing reforms and responses.

While the literature on the COVID-19 crisis and response is still emerging it has some obvious gaps. There is little published which distinguishes impacts for different types of organisations. There are also relatively few metaanalyses and thorough comparisons of jurisdictions which enable a rigorous understanding of different contexts and transferable learnings. These limitations are likely due to a combination of factors, not least of which are: • • •

The relative temporal proximity of events reviewed, meaning many pieces of work are still underway, The ongoing and resurgent impacts of the pandemic in Australia and around the world; and The capacity of organisations, particularly small and frontline organisations, to provide data and other input into more rigorous analyses and studies.

This review and the identified limitations has a number of implications for further research or inquiry, including TasCOSS’s community services COVID-19 response. In particular, there is a demonstrated need to seek out those voices and experiences left out of the published research to date, to include smaller and busy frontline service organisations for a better understanding of impacts on organisations of different sizes and types. Further work should also focus on: • •

Drawing out case studies of successful experiences and outcomes from the pandemic response; and Planning for future resilience based on testing successful approaches identified in the COVID-19 response.

Page | 15

If this work is undertaken, the community services industry will be well placed to learn from the experiences of the COVID-19 crisis and plan for future challenges in ways which recognise and address gaps, and emphasises and builds upon its strengths.

Page | 16