c) An acquittals process to be followed and the return of unexpended funds.
-Pursuant to the Funding Agreement DADHC exerts considerable control and supervision over the provision of the defined services and there are Non-compliance Notices and Show Cause procedures;
-Access to DADHC funded places is determined by DADHC, not the first respondent;
-The first respondent also receives a fee from the residents who use its accommodation services. This fee is recorded in some of the financial records of the first respondent, as 'client board and lodgings'. Alternatively, it is recorded as 'fees';
-Where a resident is funded by DADHC, DADHC expects, and assumes when determining the funding to be allocated to a particular service provider, that the resident will be charged no more than 75 percent of the full Commonwealth Disability Support Pension and Rent Assistance, less the Pharmaceutical Allowance, together with some portion of the resident's Mobility Allowance. This is the same amount which DADHC charges residents who are accommodated in DADHC operated facilities. These fees, known as 'residency fees' are paid as a contribution to the costs of rent (if any), food, utilities such as phone, electricity, gas, and water, and motor vehicle running costs, but does not cover the full cost of these items;
-According to DADHC on average the operational cost of a Group Home for four to five people with a disability, including staffing costs, is between $400,000 and $500,000 per annum, whereas the amount recouped from the residents is usually between $50,000 - $62,000;
-The first respondent received on average about 48.2 percent of its total income from DADHC for the provision of this service, being $4,546,486 in 2005-2006 and $5,054,171 in 2006-2007; while on average about 5.1 percent of its total income was received in 'fees' or 'other income';
(ii) Community support programs for people with disabilities:
-According to DADHC records, the first respondent provides or has provided, one community support program, namely a "Behaviour Intervention Service";
-Funding for a "Behaviour Intervention Service" is provided by DADHC to enable the first respondent to deliver behaviour support services to specified clients with challenging behaviour living in the first respondent's group homes in order to ensure that risks posed by the clients' behaviour are minimised. Funding is governed by the Funding Agreement. It is DADHC's expectation that funding provided should cover the costs of this service delivery and, accordingly, that it be provided free of charge to the residents;
-In 2005-06 and 2006-07 for providing community support programs the first respondent received, on average, 0.7 percent of its total income from DADHC for the provision of this service. There is no other income recorded in this category.
(iii) Community access programs for people with disabilities, including day programs:
-The first respondent receives money in order to provide community access programs, namely day programs, a peer support program and a youth program, from two sources:
a) Funding from DADHC pursuant to the Funding Agreement between the first respondent and DADHC; and
b) Fees paid directly by the attendees.
-Access to DADHC funded community access programs may be determined by DADHC or the first respondent, but the first respondent must ensure that the attendee is in the 'target group' as defined in the Funding Agreement and generally the terms of the Funding Agreement must be complied with by the first respondent. DADHC monitors the provision of funded community access programs and ensures that the terms of the Funding Agreement are met;
-Day Programs provide people with a disability with meaningful day activities, usually from 9am to 3pm, which promote learning, skill development and support access, participation and integration in their local community;
-Day Programs operated by DADHC itself are provided free of charge, however, expenses incurred in running a particular activity may be passed on to the attendee, for example, paints for painting. Any amounts charged are to recoup the costs of the goods or services purchased for the activity. There is no profit component in the amount charged;
-So far as DADHC is aware, Day Programs run by non-government organisations such as the first respondent funded by DADHC operate on the same basis, that is, the program is provided to the client free of charge, save for activity fees to cover expenses;
-It appears that all of the first respondent's Day Programs are provided at "Edgar Street". The first respondent's Profit and Loss Statements by Class for 2005-06 do not record the receipt of any income other than the funds received from DADHC under the category "Edgar Street"; in 2006-07 an amount of $18,916.30 is recorded under this category as "Other Income". Cheryl Moore's evidence was that this amount represented "fees that a person (private client) [had] paid for services purchased from the first respondent". There was no evidence from the respondents that this was other than a one-off occurrence, and both parties conceded this amount because it was such a small proportion of income it could not be considered a sufficiently significant proportion of overall activities for constitutional purposes;
-Funding for "Peer Support" is provided by DADHC to enable the first respondent to provide a Saturday morning program to young people (aged 13-18) who have a disability to help them learn about the community through excursions, activities, and events. The program focuses on supporting young people to integrate into the local community and extend their social networks;
-It is DADHC's expectation that funding provided should cover the cost of this service delivery and that the only additional charge to the users of the service is the cost of particular activities, for instance entry fees;
-Funding for a "Youth Program" is provided by DADHC to enable the first respondent to provide a Saturday morning program to children (aged 6-12) who have a disability to help them learn about the community through excursions, activities, and events. The program is essentially the same as the "Peer Support" program, but is designed for children;
-It is DADHC's expectation that funding provided should cover the cost of this service delivery and that the only additional charge to the users of the service is the cost of particular activities, for instance entry fees;
-The first respondent received, on average about 3.8 percent of its total income from DADHC for the provision of community access programs. It received on average 0.1 percent of its total income from 'excursion fees' or 'other income' through the provision of these services;
(iv) Respite care for families and carers of people with disabilities:
-Respite care involves caring for a person with a disability for a short time, in order to give that person's family or other unpaid carer a break;
-The first respondent runs four respite care services: Bankslink, Roselink, Arablink and Vietlink;
-The first respondent is paid for the provision of respite care from two sources:
a) Funding from DADHC pursuant to the Funding Agreement between the first respondent and DADHC; and
b) Fees paid directly by the attendees or their families/carers.
-DADHC does not charge children for the provision of respite care. There is, however, no sector wide policy for the charging of respite fees;
-Bankslink is a respite care service for children. The service provides either community based respite, where the client attends organised community activities and events, with carer support; or family-based respite, where the client is cared for by a host family in the client's own home or in the host family's home;
-Bankslink was originally funded by DOCS, however, in December 2005 responsibility for funding this service was transferred to DADHC. The service is funded completely by DADHC (previously by DOCS), as shown on the 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' for 2005-06 and 2006-07;
-Roselink is an 'in-home' respite care service for adults with a disability who live at home. The service is funded completely by DADHC, as shown on the 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' for 2005-06 and 2006-07;
-Arablink is a respite program very similar to the Bankslink program detailed above. The main focus of this program is the support of people with a disability from Arabic communities, who reside in the Bankstown and Auburn local government areas. The service is funded by DADHC, however, the 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' record a very small amount of 'Other Income' as having been received in relation to the provision of this service;
-Vietlink is a respite program provided to people from the Vietnamese community with disabilities and their families. It does not receive DADHC funding and is run using volunteers. A very small amount of 'Other Income' is recorded in the 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' as having been received in relation to the provision of this service;
-The first respondent received, on average, about 5.4 percent of its total income from DADHC/DOCS for the provision of respite care. It received less than 0.007 percent of its total income by way of 'other income' through the provision of these services. It is not clear if it is, in fact, income, or merely a contribution by those using the service to meeting a cost.
(b) Activities which resulted in the receipt of monies from DOCS.
(i) out-of-home care for children and young people:
-'Out-of-Home Care' ( " OOHC " ) is a term defined in s 135 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 . In summary, OOHC is any residential care and control of a child or young person in any place other than the usual home, by any person other than a parent or relative for any period over 28 days (or 14 days, if subject of a Court order);
-The first respondent provides accommodation for children requiring OOHC under DOCS' direct supervision. DOCS retains all parental responsibility and case management functions for the children and young people placed with the first respondent;
-The first respondent is paid for the provision of OOHC by DOCS. A very small amount of 'Fees' and 'Other Income' is recorded in the 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' as having been received in relation to the provision of this service;
-The first respondent is not required to acquit unexpended funds received pursuant to this agreement;
-Funding received by the first respondent from DOCS is governed by a 'Header Agreement' which is a pre-contractual statement of the terms and conditions, upon which the first respondent will provide OOHC services to DOCS and upon which DOCS will pay for such services; and by an 'Individual Client Agreement' ("ICA"), being a contract for the provision of the services listed in the ICA to an individual child or young person requiring OOHC. Once an ICA is entered into, the services contracted for are to be provided in accordance with the overarching terms of the Header Agreement;
-The Header Agreement contains a service price list, which details the service types that the first respondent will provide for DOCS and its respective fee for doing so. The first respondent determines the actual prices for the services it will provide, however, DOCS requires the Service Price List to be set out according to a certain template, to allow ease of reference by DOCS staff. Clause 6.9 of the Header Agreement provides:
"You must not charge or require any payment from the child/young person or a member of their family for the provision of any service provided in the ICA during the term of the ICA or Interim ICA, unless agreed to by DOCS in writing. For example, this may relate to young people over the age of 15 who receive a Centrelink payment."
-No fee is charged to the child or young person or their family for the provision of OOHC services;
-The Header Agreement does not commit DOCS to obtaining any services from the first respondent. Nor is the first respondent committed to supplying any services to DOCS. However, a Header Agreement must be signed before any agreement can be made about the services to be provided on behalf of DOCS to an individual child or young person;
-The decision to use the OOHC services offered by a service provider with a Header Agreement in place is made after a determination of the placement type required, the placements available and by an assessment of the needs and interests of the individual child or young person. Factors affecting the decision include the potential length of the placement, the child's age, any physical and/or intellectual disabilities and the location of the child's family and of any siblings that are or are not in OOHC. The price of the service is not considered a relevant factor when placing a child (a Service Provider's prices for services having been determined at the stage when a Header Agreement is entered into);
-In addition to the fee for OOHC services, paid by DOCS pursuant to the Service Price List annexed to the Header Agreement, the first respondent also receives reimbursement from DOCS for contingency items purchased for a child or young person, for example clothes, medical appointments, sporting fees and medications. These amounts are reimbursed at cost price. Pursuant to the terms of the Header Agreement, approval must be sought from DOCS before the expenditure is incurred if the first respondent wants to be assured of reimbursement;
-The income the first respondent received in 2005-06 and 2006-07 for providing OOHC services, including amounts received as reimbursement for contingency items (identified as 'support funding' in some of the first respondent's financial documents), was $3,525,343.90 and $3,578,223.52. The first respondent received, on average, about 35.7 percent of its total income from DOCS for the provision of OOHC services. Despite the prohibition on charging for the provision of OOHC services contained in the Header Agreement, in 2005-06 $8 in 'fees' and $50 in 'other income' is recorded in the first respondent's 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' against the category "OOHC". In 2006-07, $500 in 'fees' is recorded in the first respondent's 'Profit and Loss by Class Statements' against the category "OOHC". These amounts represent, on average, less than 0.003 percent of the first respondent's total income over the two years 2005-2007;
(ii) Child care services:
-The first respondent operates a child care service called "Bankstown Occasional Care";
-The first respondent receives money in order to provide occasional child care services from two sources:
a) Funding from DOCS, pursuant to a 'Service Agreement' between the first respondent and DOCS; and
b) Fees paid directly by parents.
-The first respondent also receives free accommodation for a child care centre, supplied by the Bankstown City Council;
-Funding from DOCS is provided to subsidise the cost of child care services. DOCS' funding is provided to the first respondent on the basis that it is a not-for-profit organisation. DOCS does not provide funding to private for-profit child care providers;
-Funding from DOCS is governed by the terms of a Service Agreement. The Service Agreement requires, inter alia :
a) The provision of defined services in accordance with a "Service Specification";
b) Rigorous financial reporting; and
c) the return of unexpended funds.
-Pursuant to the Service Agreement, DOCS exerts considerable control and supervision over the provision of the defined services, through extensive performance monitoring and review procedures, including visiting the premises of the funded project, accessing the service provider's records, conducting audits and collecting information to assess and improve performance;
-While DOCS has no control over the fees the first respondent charges parents for the provision of occasional child care, the funding provided by DOCS is conditional upon the first respondent providing the number and type of child care places listed in the Service Agreement, for the aggregate amount of time specified. Each year, the first respondent is required to submit a report to DOCS reporting on, inter alia , the average number of children who attended the centre each day and their ages; the fees the first respondent charged per hour and the total fees they charged per year; and the number of children who attended by the income levels of their parents for whom fees were reduced;
-In 2005-06 and 2006-07 the first respondent received, on average about 0.3 percent of its total income from DOCS for the provision of child care. It received on average about 0.6 percent of its total income by way of 'child care fees' including 'excursion fees' associated with child care.
AN OVERVIEW OF FUNDING OR REVENUE
13 The table below, which is taken from the Minister's submission, provides a comprehensive breakdown of the first respondent's income. We consider that it accurately depicts the positions of the parties as to the income of the first respondent. The columns headed "DADHC/DOCS" show the amount of money BHCC received, for the service listed, according to the records of those Departments. The columns headed "BHCC" show the amount of money BHCC received from either DADHC or DOCS for the service listed according to BHCC's records, specifically BHCC's Profit and Loss Statements by Class. The total income shown on the table is taken from BHCC's Profit and Loss Statements. In 2005-06 total income was $9,799,694. In 2006-2007 total income was $10,191,741.