Data Collection and Reporting

Review Findings

The findings of the review is that the datasets for HACC Community Transport across the Commonwealth HACC Program and the HACC Programs in West Australia and Victoria do not currently provide an accurate or comprehensive picture of HACC Community Transport across Australia. There is limited national data available on unit pricing, regional variations in service provision, or price variations. Community Transport in Victoria is embedded in other HACC services, meaning there is no separate data on the provision of Community Transport in Victoria.

The findings of the review identified a common view that single one-way trips (detailed in the Minimum Data Set) is an inadequate measure of transport outputs. In the National Discussions service providers suggested that any future reporting be aligned to the information required for other program reporting such as NRCP, DVA and state health departments. A consistent theme across the National Discussions was the need to develop and utilise technology in the gathering and reporting of HACC Community Transport. 250 respondents to the Website Questionnaire answered that

they utilise information technology to assist with their transport administration. Common software utilised included: TMA Trips (48 respondents), Alchemy SMS (18), CareLink+ (12), PJB (5), Gold Care (4), RouteMatch (4), and Xpedite (4).

The most consistent alternate measure proposed is to provide data that relates to each client by length of trip. This measure was readily available to service providers responding to the questionnaire who provided information on their costs and trip length. For ease of administration using trip ranges may be the simplest measure for the length of trip e.g. 0 – 10 km. However service providers also provided the following suggestions:

 Distance  Distance/Time  Distance/Clients

 Client support need/Time

 Client support need/Time/Distance/Paid or Volunteer staff/Capped cost  Time

 Time/Number of people/Distance  Book log and Volunteer Report

The National Discussion participants suggested that carers be included in the target group and be reported as an output. Therefore all measures identified in the dot points above would relate to a client as well as to the carer accompanying the client. In the case of CHSP service types that are focused on the carer (such as NRCP) then the use of CHSP Transport for eligible carers in this case would not require/include the requirement of the carer to accompany the client. The carer in these instances would be the primary client.

The current measure of single one way trips and the inconsistent national data, limits planning, impacts on contract management and potentially on the quality of information used to assess growth funding options. Addressing the serious information gaps is essential. The HACC Community Transport Review Data Analysis Report highlights the extent of the issue and the reason that urgent action is required. The report states “Calculated unit prices by state and territory differ widely. NSW with a mean unit price of $24.02, Queensland with a mean unit price of $22.72, Western Australia with a mean unit price of $21.48 and the ACT with a mean unit price of $25.30, provided services at similar unit costs while South Australia’s mean unit price of $15.14 and Tasmania’s mean unit price of $13.56 are lower. The Northern Territory occupies a middle position with a unit price of $18.99. The differences within the unit pricing could reflect the mix of costing models used, such as the use of volunteer drivers and staff members, the nature of transport modes, the distances travelled, the type of transport modes available (including passenger cars, 4 wheel-drive vehicles, people movers and buses as well as special equipment used such as lifts) or indirect transport such as the use of taxis and taxi vouchers. The dataset is silent on these underlying elements which influence service and unit costs.” The level and cost of transport in Victoria, the second most populous State, is unknown as Victoria does not report HACC Community Transport (Service Group 7). Victoria however has two unique elements in regard to HACC Community Transport; volunteer coordination (reported in hours) and a significant and systemic contribution to transport by Local Government.

Improving Reporting – Reducing Red Tape

In developing this proposed measure consideration has been given to the impact of changes to current reporting arrangements and the continuing impact of not changing the reporting. A number of evidence gathering activities were undertaken (including

the National Discussions and Website Questionnaires) regarding potential alternate measures for reporting. The findings of the discussions are detailed as follows:

Future Reporting: National Discussions

The National Discussions considered future reporting in all of the Service Provider forums. The questions asked in the forums and the key responses included:

Q: What information do you already collect?

A: The data collected includes all the current requirements of the MDS. In NSW considerable data is collected and reported by some providers to Transport for NSW. Other providers report considerable variation in the quality and level of data collected

Q: How should transport be reported in the future? What elements would it cover? What measure would be used?

A: A wide variety of parameters for reporting were proposed by providers (a proportion are already collecting this data but not for MDS) – none of the service providers in attendance40 _{considered one way single trips as an appropriate}

measure for transport

Q: How would you collect this data?

A: A proportion are already collecting this data over multiple domains

Q: Could technology be used (what/how)?

A: Develop and utilise technology in the gathering and reporting of HACC community transport

Q: What would the purpose of reporting this data achieve?

A: More detailed reporting and information gathering would assist in identifying gaps, transport trends, future planning, seasonal changes in demand, population shifts and help in researching health trends. It would also enable better recognition of the needs of clients, more targeted funding and the ability to plan realistically for future transport needs

These responses provide insight into the degree to which the sector desires a move from the current measure towards an approach that would add value and make the collection and reporting of data a useful activity for the providers and Government. This theme was repeated in the Website Questionnaire which corroborates the findings of the National Discussions. None of the 112 provider responses to the question regarding future reporting supported the current arrangement. Alternate arrangements are detailed in the discussion in this section ‘review findings’. In-depth interviews also reinforced the issues with providers universally calling for a change. An alternate way of considering future reporting is to reflect on the approach used in Victoria. Transport is not reported under Service Group 7, rather HACC Community Transport is embedded into the delivery of other HACC services and is purchased by the particular HACC services as required. The Victorian Government report the cost of purchasing transport is considered in the overall contract/benchmark price for each service type where transport enables that service. However there are other factors unique in Victoria that distorts any analysis of the benefits or drawbacks of this approach. It therefore considered that using the Victorian approach as an exemplar for collecting and reporting data is not appropriate. The two issues that distort analysis are:

 The significant funding for community transport provided by Local Government in Victoria impacting all LGAs in Victoria

 The utilisation of volunteer coordination (as a distinct service type) in Victoria supporting Community Transport provision

Victorian providers in both the Melbourne and Shepparton forums suggested reporting CHSP Transport as detailed in this section in ‘review findings’ would enable service providers and clients to receive realistic and equitable allocations of funding and identify gaps in service provision and community need. They were favouring similar reporting to other States rather than the continuation of the current approach favoured by the Victorian Government.

In summary taking into account the Website Questionnaire, the National Discussions and in-depth interviews there is a need to change reporting and data collection and there is a desire across the sector to do so, based on the following:

 The current measure (single one-way trips) does not provide meaningful data and cannot measure true outputs

 Many providers already collect and report a large range of data not reflected in the MDS (including kilometres travelled by client)

 There are benefits to providers and by extension to clients if the true outputs are known and better analysis and planning is undertaken by providers and by Government

 By replacing unproductive activities in the current reporting requirements with productive activities red tape is effectively reduced

 By using technology and fostering the further adoption of technology reporting and data collection can be streamlined

Proposed solutions towards common arrangements

While sector input has proposed a range of measures for CHSP Transport the proposal in this section suggests that the current ‘minimum’ measure should be replaced with another measure that is similarly minimalist in its approach. In effect the measure proposed (km travelled per client) can replace an ineffective measure with an effective measure. The effective measure will benefit clients as detailed by Victorian providers …/“clients to receive realistic and equitable allocations of funding and identify gaps in service provision and community need”. By replacing the current measure with another simple measure it is calculated that no additional administrative burden will be placed on providers when the changes are enacted. The proposed solutions include:

 Develop a consistent data collection and reporting approach using kilometres as the output

 Gather the transport data from all services where transport is provided across the CHSP (HACC, DTC, NRCP and ACHA)

 Work with Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory to adopt these measures to facilitate consistent National Reporting including how the Victorian volunteer coordination hours will be reported

 Use the of development and coordination functions to work with service providers to adopt technology to reduce the administration in gathering and reporting this information

 Use grant schemes (Service Group 8) to aid the uptake of technology

 Support an ongoing dialogue and interface with an industry working group to focus on further research

 Report (as detailed in section 3.1) incidence of service for transport reablement programs including the following initiatives:

 public transport travel training/familiarisation

 driver strategies to support the maintenance of driving (as appropriate)  information and support to access other transport schemes as appropriate

 support to plan with family, friends, clubs, churches (circles of support) alternate transport arrangements

 Proposed action towards common arrangements:

 Adopt new MDS reporting from one way trips to kilometres by client/trip

 Include carers in the target group for outputs

 Apply the new reporting across all CHSP services and programs for the transport element

 Report incidence of service for transport reablement initiatives

 Foster the adoption of technology in support of data collection and reporting including the use of grants