Outcomes (payment Drives system towards Measurement of outcomes, degree by results) outcomes; high level of of change required for transition Yes D2 – transparency Client funding Allows market to operate High degree of administrative packages Aligned with achieving burden, degree of change required justice/equity Client centric High level of transparency Yes D3 – Co-payments Brings new money into the Set up and administration of sector Encourages efficient use of May reduce access to justice if services eligibility criteria are not appropriate based funding Provides government and Does not encourage efficient use of service providers with certainty funding. No around funding levels May encourage use of more inputs over time Transparency of outputs Outputs may not reflect outcomes Output based funding Easy to understand rationale for achieved No allocation Social investment Private investment enters the Family Law seen as personal business sector which does not align theoretically No with social impact investing Social enterprise Could reduce need for New market in Australia. Family Law models government funding for FLS seen as personal business does No over time not align theoretically. Framework for dive’ analysis ‘deep This section presents the framework that was used to critically examine each of the three funding models. The framework allows a consistent approach to be adopted to the analysis of each of the options. A description of its key elements is presented in Table 31 below. Table 31 - Analysis framework for 'deep dive' analysis Key element Description and purpose Description A high level description of the option Rationale Explanation of the aim and rationale for the use of the option Likely impacts An overview of the likely implications of introducing this option for government, providers and clients Policy alignment Alignment of the funding model option with key policy objectives Financial implications The financial impacts and budget implications and consideration, from government’s perspective, of the cost of introducing this funding model option and the financial implications of adopting the model Preconditions The key elements (such as information, resources and governance structures) which are critical for the model to be implemented Implementation Critical factors for providers and Government involved in implementing the option considerations Risk and limitations An outline of key risks that are foreseen and the limitations of the particular option Performance and evaluation The key aspects and requirements for the monitoring and measurement of performance, and any relevant evaluation considerations policy options arising from the analysis Considering the drivers for change and the available range of funding models, several policy options are apparent: In light of the demand pressure for services presented in this report, two particular policy options are evident. Either:
Outcomes (payment by results) Drives system towards outcomes; high level of transparency Measurement of outcomes, degree of change required for transition Yes – D2 Client funding packages Allows market to operate Aligned with achieving justice/equity Client centric High level of transparency High degree of administrative burden, degree of change required Yes – D3 Co-payments Brings new money into the sector Encourages efficient use of services Set up and administration of May reduce access to justice if eligibility criteria are not appropriate based funding Provides government and service providers with certainty around funding levels Does not encourage efficient use of funding. May encourage use of more inputs over time No Output based funding Transparency of outputs Easy to understand rationale for allocation Outputs may not reflect outcomes achieved No Social investment Private investment enters the sector Family Law seen as personal business which does not align theoretically with social impact investing No Social enterprise models Could reduce need for government funding for FLS over time New market in Australia. Family Law seen as personal business does not align theoretically. No Framework for ‘deep dive’ analysis This section presents the framework that was used to critically examine each of the three funding models. The framework allows a consistent approach to be adopted to the analysis of each of the options. A description of its key elements is presented in Table 31 below. Table 31 - Analysis framework for 'deep dive' analysis Key element Description and purpose Description A high level description of the option Rationale Explanation of the aim and rationale for the use of the option Likely impacts An overview of the likely implications of introducing this option for government, providers and clients Policy alignment Alignment of the funding model option with key policy objectives Financial implications The financial impacts and budget implications and consideration, from government’s perspective, of the cost of introducing this funding model option and the financial implications of adopting the model Preconditions The key elements (such as information, resources and governance structures) which are critical for the model to be implemented Implementation considerations Critical factors for providers and Government involved in implementing the option Risk and limitations An outline of key risks that are foreseen and the limitations of the particular option Performance and evaluation The key aspects and requirements for the monitoring and measurement of performance, and any relevant evaluation considerations policy options arising from the analysis Considering the drivers for change and the available range of funding models, several policy options are apparent: In light of the demand pressure for services presented in this report, two particular policy options are evident. Either:
AGD-Family-Law-Services-Final-Report.docx