1. funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer ... · (iii) fund unit standards,...

This document has been released under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Some information has been

withheld under section 9(2)(a) to protect the privacy of natural persons, including deceased people. These sections are

marked as [3].

1

Tertiary Education Report: Funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer training

Date: 13 August 2013 Priority: Medium

Security Level: In Confidence METIS No: 799498

Action Sought

Addressee Actions sought Deadline

Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment

Agree to the establishment of a ring-fenced fund for both CDEM (Civil Defence and Emergency Management) volunteers and Rural Fire volunteer training with the Community Education appropriation

Agree to the scope and nature of the ring-fenced fund

Forward this report to appropriate Ministers

28 August 2013

Enclosure: Yes Round Robin: No

Contact for Telephone Discussion (if required)

Name Position Telephone 1st Contact

Josh Williams Senior Policy Manager 463 7635 [3]

[3] [3] [3]

The following departments/agencies have seen this report: Other: MCDEM

TEC MBIE MoE IR NZQA MSD Treasury

SSC OAG Stats TPK MPIA MWA NZTE

Minister to Complete (please circle) 1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = acceptable

4 = good 5 = very good

Minister’s Office to Complete: Approved Declined

Noted Needs change

Seen Overtaken by Events

See Minister’s Notes Withdrawn

Comments:

Tertiary Group – TEP

2

13 August 2013


Executive summary

This report recommends changes in the funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer training. Recommendations are based on the findings from the review of funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer training which was recently undertaken by the Ministry of Education. The review focused on the training arrangements for Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) and Rural Fire volunteers within Vote Tertiary Education.

Both the funds that support emergency management volunteer training in Vote Tertiary Education have strong incentives for tertiary education organisations (TEOs) to deliver full qualifications. The focus on full qualifications is to develop skills for the workplace and labour force. Often, the volunteer does not need a full qualification to meet industry standards to fulfil their role as an emergency management volunteer. This may mean a volunteer may need smaller packets of “fit for purpose” learning, rather than a full qualification. TEOs involved in emergency management volunteer training may deliver more training than needed to volunteers to meet performance expectations with regard to the completion of full qualifications. Low qualification completion rates can have consequences for performance linked funding, reputations and future allocations.

The key issues the review addressed were:

whether Vote Tertiary Education is the appropriate funding source for emergency management volunteer training

whether emergency management volunteer training should be incorporated into an existing fund

how the funding should be managed with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)

the importance of a professional emergency management volunteer workforce.

This report seeks your agreement to support CDEM Management and Rural Fire volunteer training through a ring-fenced pool in the Community Education appropriation. We propose a new line in this appropriation be established, for “emergency management volunteer training” which includes this ring-fenced pool, and the existing ring-fenced pool for Search and Rescue (SAR) volunteer training. We are also seeking your agreement for this ring-fenced pool to:

allow for funding based on unit standards or credits towards qualifications on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) instead of funding solely for complete qualifications

as with SAR volunteer training, fund unit standards, qualifications, short awards and training schemes on the NZQF as well as sector owned qualifications not on the NZQF

3

be managed by both the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) with consultation from one single coordination body representing both CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training.

Recommended actions

We recommend that the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment:

a. note that the Ministry of Education undertook a review of funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer training, which focused on whether these arrangements were appropriate to meet the training needs of the CDEM (Civil Defence Emergency Management) and Rural Fire volunteers

b. note that the current funding arrangements are based on full qualification achievement, however CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers often do not need full qualifications to perform their volunteer role

c. note that emergency management volunteer training is currently funded through both Student Achievement Component and the Industry Training Fund, and that the rate established for SAR volunteer training is $8,400 per EFTS which strikes the balance between the two rates

d. note that the majority of sector stakeholders recommended supporting funding CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training through an Adult Community Education (ACE) funding mechanism, consistent with how Search and Rescue (SAR) volunteer training is managed

e. agree to establish a new ring-fenced pool within the Community Education appropriation, to be shared between both CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training

AGREE / DISAGREE

f. agree to the following conditions for the ring-fenced pool for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training. That this fund should:

(i) have the same funding rate (of $8,400 per EFTS) as the ACE ring-fenced pool for SAR

AGREE / DISAGREE

(ii) allow for funding based on unit standards or credits towards qualifications on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) instead of funding solely for qualification completion

AGREE / DISAGREE

(iii) fund unit standards, qualifications, short awards and training schemes on the NZQF as well as informal sector-owned qualifications as with SAR volunteer training

AGREE / DISAGREE

(iv) be managed by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) in consultation with a single coordination body for both CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training

AGREE / DISAGREE

4

g. agree to a new line in the Community Education appropriation “Emergency Management volunteer training”, that includes the ring-fenced provision for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training, and the existing ring-fenced pool in ACE for SAR volunteers

AGREE / DISAGREE

h. note that we recommend that employees who have emergency management responsibilities in their job description may continue to access Vote Tertiary Education support for emergency management training, including provision for emergency management volunteer training

i. forward this report to Hon Nikki Kaye Minister of Civil Defence, Hon Chris Tremain Minister of Internal Affairs and Minister of Local Government and Hon Jo Goodhew Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector.

Roger Smyth Acting Group Manager, Tertiary Education

Ministry of Education

NOTED / APPROVED

Hon Steven Joyce

Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment

__ __/__ __/__ __

5


Purpose of report

1. This report recommends changes in the funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer training. We are proposing you support Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) and Rural Fire volunteer training through a ring-fenced pool in the Community Education appropriation.

Background

2. As part of your decisions regarding the funding arrangements for Search and Rescue (SAR) volunteer training, you agreed that the Ministry of Education conduct a review of the wider emergency management sector and the suitability of similar Adult and Community Education (ACE) funding arrangement [S/12/00807 refers].

3. In March, the scope of the review was defined as emergency management volunteer training funded through Vote Tertiary Education, and focused on CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers [METIS 748171 refers].

3. The review analysed the current funding arrangements for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training, and its fit for purpose for the training needs for the sector. Emergency management volunteer training through Vote Tertiary Education is funded through both the provider-based system (Student Achievement Component (SAC)) and the workplace-based system (Industry Training Fund). Table 1 overleaf sets out the estimated spend of Vote Tertiary Education on emergency management training in 2012.

4. Both SAC and the Industry Training Fund have strong incentives for tertiary education organisations (TEOs) to deliver full qualifications. The focus on full qualifications is to develop skills for the workplace and labour force. The review considered whether this was inconsistent with the training needs of emergency management volunteers and if this was a problem for government.

5. Often, the volunteer does not need a full qualification to meet industry standards to fulfil their role as an emergency management volunteer. A volunteer may only need a smaller package of “fit for purpose” learning or skills training, rather than a full qualification. TEOs involved in emergency management volunteer training may deliver more training than needed to volunteers to avoid being adversely affected by low qualification completion rates with consequences for performance linked funding, reputations and future allocations.

6. The key issues the review addressed were:

whether Vote Tertiary Education is the appropriate funding source for emergency management volunteer training

whether emergency management volunteer training should be incorporated into an existing fund

6

how the funding should be managed by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)

the importance of a professional emergency management volunteer workforce.

Table 1: Estimated volunteer funding of CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training in Vote Tertiary Education in 2012

Fund

EFTS/STMs

Delivered Funding

CDEM

volunteer training

SAC 85 $568,588

Industry Training 23 $10,490

Total 108 $576,078

Rural Fire

volunteer training

SAC 61 $613,403


Total 268 $1,274,387

Total Spend CDEM and

Rural Fire volunteer training

SAC 146 $1,181,991


Grand Total 376 $1,853,465

Note: These calculations are likely to include training also undertaken by paid or career emergency management personnel, as these estimations were based on enrolment in qualifications that CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers are likely to undertake which are also likely to be accessed by paid and career personnel.

CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training in relation to the rest of the Sector

7. The emergency management sector is diverse and includes more than just CDEM, Rural Fire and SAR volunteers. Emergency management also includes partner organisations such as New Zealand Police, New Zealand Defence, Ministry of Health, Lifeline Utilities (Engineering etc), Ministry of Social Development, NZ Red Cross and a number of Non-Government Organisations. As this review has focused on Vote Tertiary Education support for emergency management, both CDEM and Rural Fire have been the focus of this Review.

8. Both CDEM and Rural Fire training have strong relationships to organisations at the local government level. This is because the role of a CDEM volunteer involves coordination of multiple local organisations. For both CDEM and Rural Fire training, volunteers are more likely to have a well-defined role, with limited formal training requirements (between 1-10 credits for CDEM, and 8-15 credits for Rural Fire) compared with other parts of the emergency management sector. At least a third of emergency management volunteers volunteer for two or more emergency management organisations. The training of these volunteers at each organisation needs to be “fit for purpose” to prevent duplication of training for the individual.

7

The Review

9. The review of funding arrangements of emergency management volunteer training focused on the training of CDEM and Rural Fire within Vote Tertiary Education. The review was completed in August 2013, and included consultation with the sector. Initial feedback on the Review (CDEM Group Managers Forum 25 March, and EMQUAL AGM 28 March) noted that an ACE-based funding mechanism based on the existing arrangements for SAR had merit. However, consideration was needed of the differences between CDEM and Rural Fire training, and SAR, namely a more fragmented sector, with no national coordinating body, and multiple training providers.

Consultation Process

10. An external stakeholder panel was established for this review (membership is attached in Appendix 1). This Panel met twice during the review. First on 6 June, to discuss the principles underpinning the review, and possible funding mechanisms, and to help develop an online consultation survey. On 26 July to develop a collective submission to the review and discuss the practicalities of an ACE-based funding mechanism for the sector.

11. We received 58 completed submissions to the review from the online survey. Four written submissions were also received to the review, from EMQUAL (the emergency management Industry Training Organisation), from the Auckland Council, from Lincoln University and from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM). A summary of these submissions is provided in Appendix 2. 46% of survey responses considered the current funding arrangements inappropriate, and 20.3% considered them very inappropriate. 37% of responses considered a ring-fenced provision in the Community Education appropriation appropriate, and 22% considered this very appropriate.

Principles of the Review

12. The external stakeholder panel were asked to review the principles used for the TEC-led review of SAR volunteer training, and to consider whether these would be appropriate principles for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers. The group agreed the principles aligned with the principles used for the SAR review1 that are listed below:

delivery of training is “fit for purpose” and at no cost to volunteers

funding is sustainable and future-proofed

funding is good value for money

funding is based upon community needs

training arrangement enables training of volunteers side-by-side with career or professional emergency management personnel.

1 There was one principle used in the SAR Review that the panel agreed that was not needed for this

Review, this principle was “based on SAR operational needs". The panel agreed that issue was internal to the SAR sector issue and did not need to be included in this Review. Instead this Review focused on funding based on community need.

8

13. These principles were used as the basis of the consultation survey, to define what terms such as “fit for purpose” volunteer training, is for the sector.

Consultation feedback

“Fit for purpose” delivery of training

14. Feedback from the sector was very clear that the current funding arrangements were not incentivising training provision that was fit for purpose for the training needs of most volunteers. This is because most volunteers do not require full qualifications to perform a volunteer role. CDEM volunteers usually only require between 1-10 credits and Rural Fire volunteers usually only require between 8-15 credits.

15. The requirement to enrol in a full qualification discourages engagement in this training as a full qualification has more training than most volunteers require. Training should “fit for purpose for volunteers”, and volunteers should not engage with unnecessary training to meet the requirements of funding. Consultation noted that volunteer training must value the volunteers’ time, and support them in developing appropriate and transferable skills. Many of the organisations expressed concern at an ageing volunteer workforce. The sector has a desire to become professional, but they also note they feel the public has expectations from the sector as well, due to recent emergency management events. They believe appropriate training arrangements will help support the sector to have a sustainable and professional workforce.

16. Suggestions for “fit for purpose” training for volunteers included:

funding on credits towards qualifications instead of solely for qualification completion

funding for both qualifications on the NZQF (New Zealand Qualifications Framework) and ‘informal’ sector owned qualifications

funding for refresher and maintenance training.

17. Below is the summary of relevant survey questions related to “fit for purpose” delivery of training. Analysis tables can be found in appendix 2.

Appropriateness of current funding arrangements

18. 46% of overall survey responses considered the current funding arrangements inappropriate, and 20% considered them very inappropriate. There was no significant difference between the CDEM sector response and the Rural Fire sector response.

Funding on credits instead of qualifications

19. The majority of survey responses considered funding on credits would be very appropriate (46%), and appropriate (21%) for their sector. Many comments stated that funding on credits instead of funding on full qualifications would allow for the development of course modules, that while in themselves did not represent qualifications, but could count towards other sector-based qualifications or NCEA, where appropriate

20. Those who did not support the funding on credits instead of qualifications were concerned that removing the link to qualifications could undermine the professionalism of

9

the training. Concern was also noted with regard to ensuring the ongoing coherence of training and the need to avoid jeopardising the pathways of those volunteers who need full qualifications.

Sector-owned qualifications on the NZQF

21. 62% of overall survey responses agreed that Vote Tertiary Education should support sector-owned training not on the NZQF, as well as emergency management qualifications on the NZQF. Survey comments included that professionalism is more than just credits, and many considered the current standards unsuitable for the needs of volunteers.

22. The sector stakeholder panel commented that they valued qualifications on the NZQF as it provided transferable skills between the different emergency management sectors. However, since the current qualifications are outdated, the qualifications are often not providing the training needed for volunteers so some training is sector developed and delivered outside Vote Tertiary Education. The group hoped that through the Targeted Review of Qualifications (TRoQ) process, the qualifications and related unit standards would become more fit for purpose for the current training needs of emergency management trainees, so more training would occur linked to the NZQF.

23. Some members of the stakeholder panel were enthusiastic about the possibility for emergency management unit standards, to help a trainee gain NCEA, and to investigate how the new Vocational Pathways could be used to promote the sector.

Refresher training

24. The sector commented that refresher or maintenance training is essential for the training needs of emergency management volunteers. 35% and 27% of survey responses thought that it was appropriate or very appropriate for Vote Tertiary Education to support refresher training. The CDEM sector particularly commented on the need for refresher training due to the low frequency of civil defence emergencies.

25. The external stakeholder panel reiterated the importance of refresher and maintenance training - that without refresher training, emergency management volunteers will not be able to be deployed. However the panel discussed that it is not solely the responsibility of Vote Tertiary Education to fund refresher training, and it may be more appropriate for Vote Internal Affairs to fund this form of training. The panel also noted that opening the fund to refresher training could compromise the availability of funding for initial skills acquisition. They also noted that organisations already have processes in place for the funding and provision of refresher training.

Sustainable and future-proofed funding

26. The CDEM and Rural Fire sectors expressed similar concerns to the SAR sector with respect to sustainable and future-proofed funding, i.e that funding resistant to changes in Government priorities, and associated Budget changes, to enable long-term planning for the sector.

27. The sector also defined a sustainable system as a flexible system. Respondents referred to the current performance indicators and their relationship with fit for purpose training for volunteers (as discussed above). There was one additional comment about having longer timeframes for qualification completion timeframes for volunteers.

10

28. The stakeholder panel agreed that an ACE-based funding mechanism would enable this flexibility. Feedback from the SAR sector suggested that the ACE-based funding approach is working well. 37% and 22% of consultation survey responses agreed that an ACE-based funding mechanism for CDEM and Rural Fire training would be appropriate and very appropriate. When this was filtered for CDEM sector responses: 38% and 21% said this was appropriate and very appropriate, and for Rural Fire sector responses 44% and 28% said this was appropriate and very appropriate (see figure 1 below).

29. Those who did not support an ACE-based funding mechanism for their sector were concerned that the funding would be limited to one provider, which would not meet the regional demand for the CDEM and Rural Fire sectors. Other comments were concerned that there was no single coordination body for the TEC to consult with to allocate the ring-fenced pool (the New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat (NZSAR) provides this role for the ACE SAR fund).

Figure 1: Appropriateness of an ACE-based funding mechanism

n= 68 (overall response)

Funding based upon community needs

30. The sector was very clear in conveying that the emergency management sector works for the community. Readiness, reduction, response and recovery, or the “four Rs”, are the cornerstones of emergency management. 39% of survey respondents agreed that was very appropriate that funding reinforce these outcomes. When discussed with the stakeholder panel, consensus was reached that it was not sensible or practical to reflect this in the funding arrangements. Instead relating training to the “four Rs’ was a matter for the Targeted Review of Qualifications (TRoQ).

31. The ACE SAR fund is allocated by the TEC in consultation with the New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat (NZSAR) to ensure training is targeted to community needs. The consultation asked whether such an arrangement (i.e. a single body working with TEC to allocate the fund) would be appropriate for the CDEM and Rural Fire sector. 31% and 28% of consultation survey responses agreed that a single coordination body CDEM and Rural Fire training would be appropriate and very appropriate.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Overall Response

CDEM Sector Response

Rural Fire Sector Response

11

32. The external stakeholder panel also agreed that a single coordination body would be beneficial to maximise the benefits of commonality of training across the two sectors. It was also noted that a single coordination body could improve access to marketing of training. The panel did not nominate a single organisation for this role, but did not disagree that EMQUAL or MCDEM could perform this role.

Training side-by-side with career or professional emergency management personnel.

33. The sector informed us that CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers are expected to have the same level of competence as paid or career personnel. Therefore it is important for the funding arrangements not to exclude volunteers participating in the same training as career or paid personnel. However survey feedback from organisations showed most of their trainees were volunteers.

34. However, it is difficult to differentiate the difference between when somebody is a volunteer and when they are an employee, making the sector wary of the term “volunteer training, and restricting access to emergency management volunteer training. Volunteers in Rural Fire include personnel who in their 'day jobs' can be self-employed, contractors, staff, and others from within various related employer organisations (including Department of Conservation, Regional Councils and Forestry). In the CDEM sector, often city or regional council staff have CDEM responsibilities as part of their job description.

35. 39% and 29% of survey responses said that it was appropriate and very appropriate for Vote Tertiary Education to support training for paid employees.

36. The SAR funding mechanism allows the support of training for those in employment, such as Police staff who need SAR training. The external stakeholder panel requested that any decision to restrict the funding to volunteers only should be discussed with the Minister of Civil Defence and the Minister of Local Government.

Ministry comment

37. After analysis of the consultation survey, and consideration of the discussion of the external stakeholder panel, the Ministry considers the following as the key conclusions of the Review.

Vote Tertiary Education as the appropriate funding source for emergency management volunteer training

38. The Ministry agrees with the sector that the majority of emergency management volunteer training should be linked to the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) to recognise the professionalism of the sector and allows for the transferability of skills from this training to other emergency management organisations and to employment.

39. It is most appropriate for Vote Tertiary Education to support training on the NZQF. Funding via alternative Votes outside Vote Tertiary Education (such as Vote Internal Affairs) would be inefficient and create unnecessary duplication of processes and systems, and the management of new relationships with the sector. The majority of survey responses also agreed that CDEM Group, Rural Fire Authority should continue to have a role in supporting the costs of training of emergency management volunteers.

40. The NZQF is supported by a quality assurance system that provides assurance of the quality of training linked to the NZQF. This is important for the continued national and international deployment of emergency management volunteers. When informal training

12

is taken up as an alternative to the NZQF-linked training (in response to perceived inflexibility of funded training due to requiring completion of full qualifications) the same level of training outcomes cannot be assured.

Incorporating emergency management volunteer training into an existing fund

41. An ACE-based funding arrangement would be consistent with the current arrangements for SAR volunteers. Maintaining the current funding arrangements for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers within SAC and the Industry Training Fund with reformed Educational Performance Indicators to account for the fact that the trainees are volunteers (such as longer completion timeframes, would not address the overconsumption of training for volunteers that only need smaller packets of learning instead of full qualifications.

42. Overconsumption of training can only be addressed if the funding was incorporated into an appropriation such as the Community Education appropriation where training does not need to lead to a full qualification, and could be funded on credits. By making the funding arrangements “fit for purpose” by funding on unit standards and credits, this would provide disincentive of the attainment of full qualifications where they are not needed.

43. A funding rate of $8,400 per EFTS would be consistent with the rate paid for SAR under ACE, and is similar to the rate paid for this training under the SAC rate, but lower than the Industry Training rate. We believe a funding rate of $8,400 per EFTS would be appropriate.

How the fund should be managed by the sector with TEC

44. There are many organisations with CDEM and Rural Fire volunteers across the country, with at least the 16 CDEM Groups, and 76 Rural Fire Authorities that could access a ring-fenced fund for CDEM and Rural Fire training. As training provision is not easily accessible or well marketed at present, it would be inefficient for the TEC to fund the organisations’ volunteer training directly. A single, sector-owned coordination body to be consulted when the TEC allocates funding to sector organisations would make it easier to allocate. The funding arrangements should enable cooperation between the sector, so it would be better for a single organisation to allocate the fund on behalf of the CDEM and Rural Fire sector together, than separate organisations for the two different sectors.

Importance of a professional emergency management volunteer workforce

45. The emergency management sector itself, alongside the Government, wishes requirement to become more professional. This is evident in such reports as Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission and the Review of the Response to the 22 February 2011 Earthquake. An actively engaged and sustainable volunteer workforce is essential to these growing demands for greater professionalism. The current funding arrangements are discouraging engagement of emergency management volunteers with training on the NZQF. which is a loss for both the sector and the wider economy.

46. There is also some dissatisfaction with the current emergency management qualifications on the NZQF. Some sectors are choosing to provide their own developed qualifications instead of NZQF qualifications. The current qualifications on the NZQF are currently being reviewed in the TRoQ process. This is expected to result in up to date emergency management qualifications with sector backing. We expect that this will reduce demand for non-formal qualifications not linked to the NZQF.

13

47. We agree that funding for emergency management volunteer training should not only be the responsibility of Vote Tertiary Education. This is especially true for funding refresher or maintenance training which is often very hard to define and monitor and does not fit with the skills acquisition focus of the Vote.

Establishment of a ring-fenced provision within Community Education appropriation for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training

48. We recommend that you establish a ring-fenced provision within Community Education appropriation for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training.

49. We propose that this ring-fenced provision should have the same funding rate as the ACE-SAR provision of $8,400 per EFTS.

50. Furthermore, we propose that within this fund, and again in line with the ACE-SAR funding mechanism, training would primarily focus on skills-based short awards and training schemes (on the NZQF), but also allow informal sector-owned qualifications, not on the NZQF to be funded where appropriate. We note that to date only formal qualifications have been funded through ACE-SAR funding mechanism.

51. We recommend that any funding direction express a strong preference for training linked to the NZQF. Both the sector and the Ministry support emergency management qualifications on the NZQF as this allows for the transferability of skills to other emergency management sectors and employment in other areas.

Funding on credits towards NZQF qualifications instead of solely funding for qualification completion

52. We also recommend, that funding can is based on credits towards NZQF qualifications instead of completion of the course itself. This would be “fit for purpose” for the needs of volunteers themselves, as training could be easily modularised for commonality between training and would recognise the achievement volunteers make in progressing towards qualifications.

53. Making emergency management qualifications (or parts of emergency management qualifications) on the NZQF more accessible, provides opportunity for those in the sector to re-engage with formal learning, and this may help contribute to the Government’s Better Public Services targets, particularly the NCEA Level 2 target.

A single co-ordination agency to manage the fund with the TEC

54. We consider that a single co-ordination body is desirable to ensure the appropriate allocation of funding, and to encourage co-operation between the sector.

55. The SAR sector claim that under the revised funding arrangements, the SAR sector has had to behave more like an “industry” when defining their needs through the New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat (NZSAR). This was important to consider and convey to the wider emergency management sector, when discussing what organisation would be suitable for performing the role NZSAR plays for CDEM and Rural Fire. A national CDEM Capability Development Strategy is currently being developed by MCDEM, so the coordination body will need to operate in line with the strategies and objectives, which will be written into in legislation (and a revised National CDEM Plan).

14

56. EMQUAL (the emergency management industry training organisation) or MCDEM would be the most appropriate for this single co-ordination role for both CDEM and Rural Fire together, based on their existing relationships with the sector. The strength of choosing EMQUAL as the single coordination body over MCDEM is that EMQUAL already performs a similar training coordination role as an ITO. However EMQUAL has only recently been granted standard setting responsibility for the Civil Defence domain, so the management of the CDEM side of the fund would need to be monitored, a position in which MCDEM has strength. MCDEM is represented on the Board of EMQUAL.

57. The Rural Fire Sector is presented by a national body the National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA). NRFA has existing legislative requirements to keep their trainees/volunteers current and competent, and would be in a position to provide this training coordination role. Some survey responses from the Rural Fire sector, however also supported EMQUAL performing this role for the Rural Fire sector instead.

58. There is no current existing group with the mandate or funding to perform the coordination role on behalf of the CDEM sector. Survey responses suggested that a representative body on behalf of CDEM Groups could be funded for this co-ordination responsibility.

59. We do not recommend that establishment a new CDEM co-ordination body to act as complement to the NRFA. Our preference is for one body to represent both the CDEM and Rural Fire sectors as one. We will work with the TEC to decide what organisation should provide this co-ordination role for this fund.

Establishment of a new line in the Community Education appropriation for emergency management volunteer training

60. As part of Budget 2013 decisions you agreed to consolidate funds in a renamed the Adult and Community Education appropriation. This has resulted in three funds within the (now renamed) Community Education appropriation: ACE, Literacy and Numeracy Provision, and an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) fund. By consolidating the funds within the appropriation, it makes it possible for the TEC to more freely allocate funding towards the different provisions within the fund, such as reallocating between Workplace Literacy and Numeracy and Intensive Literacy and Numeracy to meet demand.

61. We recommend establishing a new line in the Community Education appropriation for emergency management training, that includes the existing provision in ACE for SAR volunteer training, as well as ring-fenced provision for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training.

62. The establishment of a new line in the Community Education appropriation will allow the funding of informal sector owned qualifications to be removed, if appropriate after the TRoQ process, without being inconsistent around the funding of informal qualifications within other Adult and Community Education funds.

Vote Tertiary Education supporting skills acquisition of those in employment with emergency management responsibilities

63. Vote Tertiary Education is currently funding some emergency management training for those who have emergency management responsibilities in their job description such as

15

council workers. It is often unclear whether a person with CDEM responsibilities in their job description is performing a “volunteer” role when they act in an emergency. This is because of unclear wording in job descriptions such as they “may” have CDEM responsibilities. Because of this uncertainty the Ministry of Education does not recommend precenting access to funded training for those who have emergency management responsibilities in their job description.

64. If training access was restricted for those who are in employment, this would affect the capacity of small regions to respond in an emergency management event. Restricting access to those in employment would be inconsistent with the funding mechanism for SAR volunteers. Within the SAR ring-fenced pool for ACE, the funding mechanism was designed to allow for employees of organisations such as the Police and the Department of Conservation to access the funding when they need the same SAR training as SAR volunteers.

65. In the CDEM and Rural Fire ring-fenced pool (in line with the SAR ring-fenced pool), volunteers will be the primary target of this fund, but those in paid employment with emergency management responsibilities can access the fund if recommended by the single coordination body for the sector. If you wish to remove this access, we would recommend further consultation with the sector and relevant Ministers involved.

Refresher and skills maintenance training

66. Skills maintenance or “refresher training” is essential for the capacity of the organisations involved in emergency management to have an adequate (and professional) response to events.

67. When this issue was discussed with the stakeholder panel, the panel agreed that the funding of refresher training is not solely an issue for Vote Tertiary Education because the outcome of refresher training is currency of skills. It would be complicated to establish guidelines for funding refresher training, due to the difficulty in defining refresher training which has multiple forms and purposes, including development of current skills, as well as the maintenance of taught skills.

68. Currently the funding of refresher training is primarily the responsibility for emergency management organisations themselves. Consultation feedback suggested that refresher training could be funded through Vote Internal Affairs. We propose no change in Vote Tertiary Education’s contribution to funding of refresher and maintenance training at present.

Risks and Issues

EMQUAL

69. EMQUAL has proposed to meet with you to discuss their role as an Industry Training Organisation. TEC recommended that you do not meet with EMQUAL until the outcome of this review is known. EMQUAL is potentially looking for support to take the role of the single coordination body consulting with TEC for the allocation of the ring-fenced pool for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training. If you agree to a single coordination body for both the CDEM and Rural Fire sectors together, MoE and TEC will consider the appropriateness of EMQUAL to perform this role.

16

70. In EMQUAL’s written submission to the review they propose EMQUAL works with MoE, TEC and NZQA to establish a three-year pilot programme to operate as a stand-alone Standard Setting Body with gazetted coverage for the CDEM and Rural Fire sector, where funding is delivered through a single stream.

71. MCDEM advises this proposal may work if they are committed to guidance from, and consultation with, MCDEM as the agency nationally charged with emergency management. This consultation will be essential given the CDEM Competency Framework Technical Standard that must be complied with under legislation effecting MCDEM.

Potential increased demand for CDEM and Rural Fire Training

72. Access through the new consolidated fund for smaller packets of training may result in all CDEM and Rural Fire organisations seeking access to government funding for all previously self-funded training.

Continued disparity of funding arrangements across the emergency management sector

73. This review did not address the continued disparity of funding arrangements across the emergency management sector, as this review focused on training currently within Vote Tertiary Education. If a new line in the Community Education appropriation is established, those organisations such as Surf Life Saving that are currently excluded from Vote Tertiary Education may seek for similar arrangements for their training. Currently there is no additional money to support further emergency management training within Vote Tertiary Education, and it is recommended that only the current sectors receiving funding should remain.

Next steps

74. Following your decisions with regard to the funding arrangements of CDEM and Rural Fire Training volunteer training, we will draft a cabinet paper for your approval. This will seek agreement to the for the establishment of the ring-fenced fund for CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training, and a new line in the Community Education appropriation for emergency management volunteer training.

75. If you agree, that a single coordination body should be established to consult with the TEC on the allocation of CDEM and Rural Fire training. The Ministry will work with the TEC to determine what organisation will is in the best place to perform the role of the single coordination body.

76. If you do not agree that the CDEM and Rural Fire volunteer training ring-fenced pool should be funded at a rate of $8,400 per EFTS (inline with the ACE SAR funding rate) we will provide further advice on what this rate should be in the design of funding mechanism (159L), alongside who should perform the coordination role.

77. We will draft a Cabinet paper to reflect your decisions, and following this, a 159L for the emergency management volunteer training funds.

17

Appendix One – Organisations involved in the External Reference Panel

Auckland CDEM Group

Bay of Plenty CDEM Group

Chatham Islands CDEM Group

Wellington CDEM Group

National Rural Fire Authority

Forest & Rural Fire Association of NZ (Inc)

New Zealand Fire Service

NZSAR

Tai Poutini Polytechnic

Telford/Lincoln University

EMQUAL

New Zealand Coastguard

New Zealand Mountain Council

Surf Life Saving NZ

Timaru Council

Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand (RCCNZ)

Northern South Island Regional Rural Fire committee

Ambulance New Zealand

Department of Conservation

Tertiary Education Commission

Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management

18

Appendix Two – Summary of submissions to the consultation survey

A consultation survey was developed with the external stakeholder panel. This survey was developed on SurveyMonkey and distributed to the external stakeholder panel and through their networks. We also received four written submissions to the Review. Consultation closed on 2 August 2013. 58 completed survey submissions were received, from a total of 121 survey submissions. The majority of responses were from the Rural Fire sector (53.1%) followed by the CDEM sector (34.7%), other emergency management sectors that submitted towards the review were Search and Rescue (SAR) (and organisations associated with SAR such as the Coastguard), Urban Fire, Ambulance, Mountain Safety Council and New Zealand Response Teams. Submissions were received from all levels of personnel involved in emergency management from individual trainees, to trainers, training providers, training organisers and training standard setting bodies. Details of comments from the sector are included within the body of this report.

Figure 1: Appropriateness of current funding arrangements


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Overall Response



19

Figure 2 : Appropriateness of funding on credits instead of full qualifications


Figure 3: Appropriateness of Vote Tertiary Education funding emergency management qualifications not on the NZQF


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Overall Response



Vote Tertiary Education should only fund emergency management qualifications (and credits) on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF)

Vote Tertiary Education should only fund sector owned courses and qualifications not on the NZQF

Vote Tertiary Education should fund both sector owned courses not on the NZQF and qualifications as well as NZQF qualifications

20

Figure 4: Appropriateness of Vote Tertiary Education to fund refresher or maintenance training


Figure 5: Appropriateness of an ACE-based funding mechanism


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Overall Response



21

Figure 6: Appropriateness of a single coordination body to define sectors needs


Figure 7: Appropriateness of the term “volunteer training”


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

1 Very inappropriate

2 Inappropriate 3 Neutral 4 Appropriate 5 Very appropriate

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Overall Response



22

Figure 8: Appropriateness of Vote Tertiary Education to fund volunteer training for those who have emergency management responsibilities as part of their employment

n=59 (overall response)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

1 Very inappropriate

2 Inappropriate 3 Neutral 4 Appropriate 5 Very appropriate

1. funding arrangements for emergency management volunteer ... · (iii) fund unit standards,...

Documents