Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Auditor-General

Effectiveness of the Navigator Program

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:37): I rise to speak on the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report Effectiveness of the Navigator Program: March 2022. The Navigator program is offered by the Department of Education and Training as a response to students with serious and chronic low school attendance rates and who are at risk of not completing their education. We know that for children where school attendance is an issue the gap widens as they progress through school. We also know that educational attainment is a predictor of a person’s future welfare and health.

Whilst I have great respect for the staff that deliver Navigator—and indeed one of them is my very good friend—I have always had concerns that Navigator is not reaching children early enough, and the VAGO’s report is fairly damning in its assessment of this very point. The Navigator program works with the most severely disengaged students in Victoria from 12 years of age. To give some context to this, if a student misses between 10 and 19 days of school they are at risk, if they miss between 20 and 29 days of school a year they are considered chronically absent and if they miss more than 30 days of school a year their absenteeism is considered severe. For students to be eligible for the Navigator program they have to miss at least 70 per cent of the previous school term—that is 27 days more than what is considered severe absenteeism.

There were 3210 students eligible for Navigator, but only 20 per cent of those children were actually referred to the program. My concern is: what is happening for those students who are not being referred to Navigator? Where are they being referred? Are they being referred anywhere? There were more than 2500 students who were not referred. There is an expectation that before a student is referred to the Navigator program they will have been provided with individualised support. The VAGO report concluded that three-quarters of children who were referred to the Navigator program had not received this individual support. My question, then, is: why not?

I had a briefing with the department recently about the Navigator program, and I would like to pass on my thanks for the time that they gave me to listen to my concerns and to answer some of my questions. There is a planned pilot for Navigator to include referrals for students who are 10 years of age. I spoke about this back at the time of the appropriation bill, because I firmly believe that at the age of 10, or ideally even much earlier, intervention is needed as well as family case management, and that they should both be in place to ensure that the whole family is right on track for that school attendance. I recognise this early intervention should not occur in a silo and involves other policy areas, including kinder and prekinder, mental health, family services and so on and so forth. The VAGO report acknowledged this too, saying that research literature is clear that intensive and individualised case management support is likely to help students return to education. The available Navigator data showed that most students who returned to education did so from case management.

Speaking of data, I was also pleased to hear from the department that work is occurring to improve data collection and data analysis. This VAGO report found that the department’s data collection meant it cannot clearly demonstrate Navigator’s effectiveness over time. This is concerning for multiple aspects, not least that we need to know whether programs designed to help people actually work and that public funds are spent for public benefit. Very few students who participate in Navigator achieve the program target of attending school 70 per cent of the time; however, many students who re-engage at lower rates achieve other positive outcomes which are not being measured. So while that 70 per cent remains a very important target, they are not being measured.

I could say a lot more, but ultimately the determination of the VAGO report that the department cannot demonstrate Navigator is an effective intervention at a program level or that it is delivered equitably cannot be overlooked. The government accepted the recommendations of the VAGO report to develop an engagement strategy to improve oversight and monitor demand. I hope future collection and more thorough evaluation will provide improved responses for these children and their families or alternative and earlier interventions so we can get students back in school and on more positive pathways for their future.