In Yuendumu, the CDEP scheme offers the only sustained employment opportunities to the majority of adults. This is also true in Kuranda, which appeared to have a reasonably thriving tourist-based local economy. For many families, the employment exit from the social security system is likely to continue to be via the local ‘community development’ labour market, of which the CDEP scheme constitutes the major component.
Government policy which attempts to transform the scheme into a labour market program, to secure increased transitions to mainstream employment, will fail in locations where there are no such labour market opportunities. This is the case in the majority of the 172 remote CDEP communities. The practical reality of the scheme is that CDEP organisations operate on the ‘front-line’ of the social security system, at the family and household level, where they are often called upon to address a wide range of social and economic problems. Furthermore, recent legislative changes mean such organisations can accept a wider range of social security recipients as participants, including sole parents, the aged, and the disabled. The welfare-related roles and responsibilities of CDEP organisations could be widened accordingly.
It seems there is potential for CDEP organisations to play an enhanced role in assisting the development of regional and community-wide frameworks for the implementation of mutual obligation; in negotiating customised mutual obligation agreements for individual welfare recipients; and in providing mentoring, work experience, and training to sole parents and young parents on income support. But such expanded responsibilities raise concerns about the overall effectiveness of CDEP organisations, the adequacy of their funding base (see Bartlett, Ch. 20, this volume), and the availability of local training and employment opportunities for participants.
It goes without saying that some CDEP organisations are not operating effectively, or are operating in locations where opportunities for enterprise and employment generation are extremely limited. But equally, there are also CDEP organisations which are establishing viable employment projects, generating additional income, developing enterprises and small businesses, and assisting participants to become work-ready and to take up employment within and outside the scheme.
CAEPR case studies carried out with CDEP organisations (see Gray & Thacker 2000, and Ch. 15, this volume; Madden 2000, and Ch. 18, this volume; Smith 1994, 1995, 1996) suggest that the successful ones generally share a mix, or all, of the following characteristics:
a competent, stable governing body with the capacity to systematically formulate and enforce policy guidelines;
competent management and staff capable of operating consistently and fairly;
a stable organisational structure;
a separation of local politics from the daily business and decision-making of the CDEP scheme;
transparent decision-making, and procedures for dealing with conflict of interest and appeals;
financial accountability, and financial management policies and systems;
active networks which feed into the wider community economy and local businesses;
ongoing assessment of training needs, and an in-house training coordinator;
the capacity to provide intensive case management and mentoring of participants (both within the scheme and during the transition to other forms of employment);
a match between cultural and commercial objectives that allows successful participation in the ‘real’ economic world facing the organisation and its participants;
cultural authority and community support; and importantly,
a stable source of recurrent block funding sufficient to undertake their administrative, economic, employment and training, and governing roles.
Where CDEP organisations do not exhibit these characteristics, or are insufficiently funded to develop them, they are unable to develop the capacities needed to generate local economic opportunities, and to assist people to move off welfare. They tend instead to replicate the conditions and experience of welfare for their participants. If such CDEP organisations were to undertake a wider role in assisting welfare recipients in their communities, they would need an enhanced level of funding for training, governance and the capacity building of staff and participants.