Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The first three years of national VET regulation


Published on

Presented at the ASQA national information sessions, these slides outline the national VET regulatory journey over the last three years and where it's headed, the three strategic reviews (aged and community care, marketing and advertising and the white card) and ASQA's risk-based approach. Find our more at

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

The first three years of national VET regulation

  1. 1. The regulatory journey so far and VET regulatory reform Presentation Title Subheading Presenter’s name 00.00.2013
  2. 2. 2 ASQA activity to date ASQA more than 820 VET course accreditation applications almost 23,000 provider applications Completed more than 3,900 audits more than 3,700 complaints more than 124,000 calls over 42,900 emails *all figures are approximate as at 30 September 2014
  3. 3. 3 ASQA-regulated RTOs ACT - 123 NSW - 1144 NT - 48 QLD - 1423 SA - 254 TAS - 83 VIC - 661 WA - 193 ACT 3% NSW 29% TAS 2% NT 1% QLD 37% SA 6% VIC 17% WA 5% *Total number of ASQA-regulated RTOs as at 30 September 2014 = 3,929
  4. 4. The national regulatory journey so far Focus in the first three years on • processing applications from RTOs • evolving risk-based regulatory approach to identify poor quality providers • establishing higher entry bar for new entrants Between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2014: • 16.5% or 112 applications to setup a new RTO refused • 6.8% or 113 applications to renew an existing RTO’s registration refused o still too high • 2.2% of change of scope applications refused 4
  5. 5. The national regulatory journey so far • To date the main regulatory trigger has been an application • Of 3,900+ audits completed by ASQA o only 10% have not been triggered directly or indirectly by the assessment of an application • Between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2014 targeted (non-application based) regulation led to a decision to cancel or suspend the registration of a further 130 existing RTOs, even though only 10% of total audit activity to date is not applications-based 5
  6. 6. The national regulatory journey so far • Most RTOs are not compliant at audit o only 20% fully compliant o 80% have at least one non-compliance • Most RTOs are able to achieve compliance after 20 days rectification o 77% fully compliant after rectification o 23% still not compliant 6
  7. 7. 7 Conclusions from the first three years of national VET regulation • Three distinct groups have emerged in the Australian VET sector: o High-quality providers who fully comply with the required national standards (around 20% of providers) o providers who want to comply with the national standards but who experience some difficulties, at least when audited (around 60% of providers) o providers who do not provide quality training and are unwilling or unable to comply with the national standards (around 20% of providers)
  8. 8. Conclusions from the first three years of national VET regulation • Most providers – some 80% – are experiencing some difficulties with conducting assessment properly • At least one-third of providers appear to be offering courses that are far too short to enable sufficient delivery to ensure the required skills are obtained • The transactions-based regulatory approach is too slow a way to focus adequately on poor quality providers 8
  9. 9. ASQA Strategic Reviews ASQA undertook its inaugural Strategic Reviews in 2013. They examined: • training for aged and community care • training for the construction industry White Card, and • marketing and advertising practices of registered training organisations Strategic Reviews being undertaken in 2014: • training in early childhood education and care • training for the security industry • equine training programs All three reviews will be completed by early 2015. 9
  10. 10. Aged and community care review The findings 10 • The quality and quantity of training in the sector varies widely. • Training programs are largely too short and include insufficient time in a workplace for sufficient skills development. • Most RTOs have difficulty complying with assessment requirements. • ASQA found 87.7% of RTOs in the sample group not compliant with at least one standard when audited. • Given time to respond to the non-compliance found, 20.8% of RTOS remained non-compliant.
  11. 11. The findings 11 White Card review • State requirements for work health and safety regulation vary greatly. • Most registered training organisations have difficulty complying with assessment requirements. • Training programs delivered online are largely too short and do not include time in a workplace for sufficient skills development. • ASQA identified concerns about student identification verification.
  12. 12. Marketing and advertising practices review The findings 12 • Up to 45% of the RTOs were marketing and advertising misleading information. • Some practices breach the standards providers must meet to offer national training qualifications. • Organisations that are not RTOs are acting as brokers for those that are, which in many cases is misleading consumers. • Consumers, including students and employers, are often provided with ambiguous and/or insufficient information to make informed training choices.
  13. 13. ASQA’s risk strategy 13  ASQA has adopted a risk-based approach to regulation since its commencement.  ASQA’s risk approach has evolved and is transitioning from application-based to data/intelligence led proactive regulation.  Some key milestones that have occurred: o strategic industry reviews o development and implementation of risk-based complaints process o provider risk ratings based on ASQA sourced data o relative increase in compliance monitoring audits rather than application triggered audits, and o VET reform package.
  14. 14. 14 Provider risk ratings Data sources 2014 contributing data: • recent non-compliant audit outcome/s (or no ASQA audit conducted) • recent complaint submission/s requiring detailed investigation • registration for less than five years • recent changes to CEO or senior management • regulatory sanction imposed in response to identified non-compliance • incomplete quality indicator data submission–competency completions, surveys • recent expansion of registration into new industry areas • registered for scope items that lead to industry licensing • record of defaulting on fee/charge payment requests, and • specific CRICOS factors.
  15. 15. 15 Provider risk ratings Method and results • Method o likelihood and impact factors o weightings applied o a tool for further scrutiny (not a quality statement) • As at 31 October 2014 o high risk = 398 = 10% o medium risk = 912 = 22.9% o low risk = 2230 = 56% o no rating = 443 = 11.1% (= newly registered but post-initial audit not yet finalised)