In 1997 the CDEP scheme was the focus of a major review by Ian Spicer (Spicer 1997). The recommendations from that review have served to shape and influence the development of the scheme since that time. The ATSIC Board endorsed the broad recommendations of the Spicer Review, and in particular lent support to three key elements of suggested reform. These are:
a refocusing of the objectives of CDEP to the provision of ‘work’ and skill acquisition, as reflected in the new objective of the scheme to ‘provide work for unemployed indigenous persons in community managed activities which assist the individual in acquiring skills which benefit the community, develop business enterprises and/or lead to unsubsidised employment’ (Spicer 1997);
a recognition that the development of economic independence for Indigenous people is firmly based in providing opportunities for income generation and enterprise development within CDEP, and in securing resources to develop commercial opportunities for CDEP; and
improving the linkages between CDEP and other programs to improve outcomes for CDEP participants, including access to other income support benefits made available by the 1998 CDEP budget initiative, improved access to training and employment opportunities through initiatives such as Job Network, the Indigenous Employment Program, DETYA’s Numeracy and Literacy Programs, and DFACS’s Families and Disability Support Programs.
Since the Spicer Review the government has continued to seek an improved focus on outcomes from CDEP, particularly in regard to employment and training outcomes. ATSIC has identified an agreed number of outputs in relation to the effective delivery of CDEP, on which it will have to report to government. These include:
increased employment;
increased training opportunities;
enhanced community development;
expanded economic activities;
maintenance of culture; and
enhanced social cohesion.
In implementing this new framework there are a number of issues that need to be considered:
how ATSIC is to effectively obtain reporting information from CDEP projects so that they can in turn report to government on these outputs;
how ATSIC is to measure and report back to government on achievements relating to the social and cultural outputs of the scheme (e.g. enhanced social cohesion and maintenance of culture);
the question of whether priority should be given to these types of outputs and whether ATSIC should set specific reporting targets against these outputs; and
whether reporting measures should be framed in terms of the number of participants who find full-time work outside the scheme.
ATSIC is considering initiatives like these to ensure that CDEPs situated in reasonable labour markets produce employment outcomes for participants in the private or public sectors. ATSIC needs to demonstrate that CDEP already successfully delivers these outcomes, and that the additional investment of resources by government will provide the opportunity to further enhance the capacity of the CDEP scheme to deliver them. The government has invested in the Job Network to deliver employment outcomes for the Indigenous unemployed (see Shergold, Ch. 8, this volume). This investment should also be applied to CDEPs if they are to be expected to deliver enhanced employment outcomes.