Work-for-the-dole, Jobactive KPI, performance review, and audit documentation

Gaius Maxwell made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Jobs and Small Business

The request is waiting for clarification. If you are Gaius Maxwell, please sign in to send a follow up message.

From: Gaius Maxwell


Dear Department of Employment,

I will breakdown my requests as succinctly as possible.

First, I am seeking documents and data related to the effectiveness of the work-for-the-dole program. I would also like this data to clearly differentiate job seekers who have gained real part or full-time employment (partial or full outcome) vs. the job seekers who are removed from unemployment statistics while in a work-for-the-dole placement.

Second, I request any documentation regarding what parameters are reviewed during a performance review of an employment service provider (Jobactive provider), and what the broad KPI or targets are for Jobactive providers, not the exact figures, just what a Jobactive provider is monitored on (e.g Partial outcomes, WFD placements).

Third, I would like to know which body was responsible for determining the fees paid to jobactive providers, specifically WFD placement fees vs. Partial-outcome fees, how they came to the final decision, and how the current fees are designed to reduce unemployment.

Fourth, Has there been any documentation or directive from the department of employment regarding how a Job Seeker is placed with a Jobactive provider (e.g to favour one provider over another), and also any information regarding how the system places a jobseeker with an employment service provider (E.G Location and alphabetical, or Location and performance); In addition, I request any documents pertaining to the Department increasing market share of specific jobactive providers, which providers have had their market share increased, when it was increased, and how the department increases market share.

Fifth and final, documentation regarding whether or not audits are taken on Jobactive providers, and if so, when the last audit took place. If audits are performed to give a breakdown of how many total participants a jobactive provider has, and how many of them they are claiming WFD placement fees, partial outcome fees, and full outcome fees for; Is the Department aware that Jobactive providers may be intentionally bending the law in order to double-dip and claim both WFD fees and Partial outcome fees at the same time (by placing participants who do not receive the full rate of income support into a WFD placement anyway, despite their ineligibility).

Yours faithfully,

Gaius Maxwell

Link to this

From: Employment - FOI

Attachment Correspondence from the Department of Employment 9 June 2016.pdf
1.2M Download View as HTML

For Official Use Only

Dear Mr Maxwell,


I refer to your emails of 30 and 31 May 2016 directed to the Minister for
Social Services, the Minister for Employment and the Department of
Employment and requesting access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982


Please find attached correspondence in relation to your requests.


Should you have any questions, please contact me.


Kind regards,


Imogen Thomas

Information Law Team

Information Law, Practice Management and Corporate Advising Branch

Australian Government Department of Employment
Email: [1][email address]



The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8am - 5pm Local time)
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Department of Jobs and Small Business only: