* Clare O'Brien and Mirella Wilson from the DEEYTA Evaluation and Monitoring Branch;

* Project Steering Committee members Jackie Puckeridge, Tony Dreise, Helen Kennedy, Joan Armitage, Cleve McKay and Bernadette McDonald;

* Former DEETYA officer Bill Casey;

* Merv Lea of Construction Training Queensland;

* other researchers in the project team: Allan Arnott, Wendy Brabham, Bronwyn Ellis, John Henry, John Wayne Parsons, Alitja Rigney, Anita Taylor, Elaine Thacker and Pat Torres, and

* colleagues Lenore Dembski and Marcia Langton.

The research was totally dependent on the free and generous participation of many informants from the Cherbourg Community. Their contributions are highly valued by the researchers.

Community goals include focii on:

• enterprise development;

• in-house contracting of building, construction and waste water management services;

• increasing school attendance and retention rates;

• enhancing literacy and numeracy skills;

• self-management skills enhancement;

• employment generation, and

• up skilling the community.

The Community has a kindergarten, a primary school and the Nurunderi College of TAFE. The closest state high school is in Murgon. The Cherbourg Council employs a full time training officer whose main role is to identify community training needs, access training funds and resources and facilitate training delivery.

Cherbourg Council secured funding for the AVTS pilot: Construction Industry (Fitout and Finish Certificate III) as part of its community housing project in November 1993. 25 trainees commenced in February 1994. It was the first trial of Competency Based Training (CBT) in the building and construction trades in Australia.

The housing project is considered by Council to be culturally appropriate as it enables participants to complete their training entirely within the community thus reducing attrition rates. Other perceived benefits of the project include:

• improving the community housing stocks in both quality and quantity;

• encouraging team work;

• reducing reliance on external contractors;

• promoting training, and

• providing positive role models for young people in the community.

The program has won a number of awards:

• Construction Training Queensland's Training Excellence Award for "Innovation in Training";

• A DEET Special Award for Innovation in Training, and

• An ANTA award for Best Practice: CBT Implementation.

The Council operates a joinery, emu farm, abattoir, dairy and cattle stud. It is currently constructing a motel, visitor information centre and an education and cultural centre.

The AVTS pilot: project Construction Industry (Fitout and Finish Certificate III) was the first trial of Competency Based Training (CBT) in the building and construction trades in Australia. It began with 25 trainees in February 1994 and finished in late 1997 by which time 13 participants had completed Stage 3, three had completed Stage 2 and one had completed Stage 1.

The main features of the project were:

• the development and trial of a CBT curriculum;

• the delivery of all aspects of the training in the community;

• the integration of on and off the job training components with actual building and construction work.

Cherbourg Community Council was the employer, on the job training provider and day to day manager of the project. Council employed a full-time training officer to promote and manage the project throughout its duration. Over the course of the project Council also employed a total of six tradespersons as on the job trainers.

An Industry Working Group comprising representatives of the Council, DEET, Construction Training Queensland (the ITAB), the CFMEU, the Queensland Department of Industrial Relations and Training, the Vocational Education Training and Employment Commission and Queensland Housing was formed to provide direction, assist with training, industrial and administrative matters and to monitor to the project. Construction Training Queensland provided technical advice and liaised with the National ITAB over the translation of competency standards into the training curriculum.

In the first year of the project some of the training was delivered off the job at the local TAFE College. During this time a TAFE carpentry lecturer of Aboriginal descent was seconded to the College to assist with training delivery. For the remainder of the project, the vast majority of the training was delivered by Council employed trainers on the actual building sites.

1.1 Gender: initially 25 trainees (22 males and three females) were selected from 65 applicants. During the first week the females elected not to continue with the traineeship. It was reported that family and parenting commitments were the main reasons for this decision. They were replaced with males.

1.2 Age profile: at the commencement of the traineeship in early 1994 the trainees ranged in age from 15 to 38 years. The distribution was:

Average age: 23 Median age: 23

1.3 Education background: most of the trainees had attended Cherbourg State School and Murgon State High School. School and post-school educational attainment records were not maintained by the employer. From conversations with trainees and the Deputy Principal of Murgon SHS, it appears that most of the trainees completed between nine and twelve years of schooling. There were insufficient records for the researchers to determine the final year of schooling attended by each trainee. Apart from the AVTS pilot, the only post-school training mentioned by trainees were a few work related courses such as truck driving and scaffolding.

No formal training leading to a recognised credential was reported by trainees as being in place at Cherbourg prior to the AVTS pilot. The Nurunderi College of TAFE opened in Cherbourg in April 1993. It offered courses such as Instructional Skills (CN404) which was undertaken by the on-the-job trainers for the AVTS pilot.

A few community members (2 or 3 per year) were reported to have undertaken traditional apprenticeships in trades such as motor mechanics, plumbing and carpentry which had required attendance at block release at TAFE Colleges in other locations such as Maryborough and Brisbane. Low completion rates for these apprenticeships were attributed to the stresses of block release away from the community. Only two completions were reported in the building trades in the ten years prior to the AVTS pilot.

Trainees reported that little information about training options was available prior to the AVTS pilot. However, the commencement of the pilot took place about 8 months after the opening of the Nurunderi College of TAFE and coincided with the appointment of a full-time training officer at the Cherbourg Community Council. These two events have greatly enhanced the availability of information about training options in Cherbourg.

Only conventional apprenticeships and traineeships

Prior to the AVTS pilots, Bill Casey (DEET) had tried unsuccessfully to obtain Commonwealth funding for a Skills Centre for Cherbourg. When the AVTS pilots were announced by DEET in Canberra, Bill immediately contacted the Cherbourg Community Council Clerk who made the application.

The program was consistent with the Cherbourg Council's 1993 Vision Statement (1993 Cherbourg Community Development Plan p16).

"Over the next 3 - 5 years Cherbourg will achieve:

1. increased participation of all Cherbourg people in the social and economic advancement of the Community and Community Life;

2. improvement in educational standards at all levels and an increase in the number of qualified Cherbourg people;

3. fully Aboriginal administered and operated local government administration and Community enterprises;

4. an increase in full-time employment as a result of financial stability and sound economic development;

5. an improved social and physical environment to a standard equal to, or better than, surrounding Shires.

These goals conformed with the ATSIC Gulburri Regional Council Plan which listed: education and training, enterprises, health, housing, social support and law and justice as its six priorities.

The program emerged from consultation with the community. Bill Casey of DEET had maintained close liaison with Cherbourg since 1982 and was very familiar with the community's training needs. When he explained the AVTS pilot scheme to Council, a number of Councillors were very keen to apply for it as they knew how previous apprentices had disliked going away from the Community for block release.

The researchers formed the impression that Cherbourg was perceived by DEET to be a deserving candidate for AVTS pilot funding. The community had shown interest in previous labour market and training initiatives, but had not always succeeded in its bids for larger scale projects. The Community Council were evidently very supportive of the AVTS pilot because it meant that trainees would not have to leave Cherbourg to undertake off the job training.

Cherbourg informants reported that the AVTS program was very closely linked to community development needs. The main needs were to:

• rectify an inadequate infrastructure base, especially the quality of housing;

• overcome skill shortages in building and construction (a lot of work was being done by external contractors);

• create employment and local private enterprise to keep wages and wealth in the community;

• do something about the problem of many young people leaving school after grade 8 or 9 and not going on with and further studies or training;

• reduce the high drop out rate among those who started traditional apprenticeships;

• provide positive role models in the community;

• instil pride, ownership and care for assets built by and for the community (this tends not to happen when the building is done by outsiders).

Prior to the pilot, Construction Industry Training Council Queensland (predecessor of Construction Training Queensland) conducted a skills audit at Cherbourg. There were a few people in the community with trade and training skills. Some of these had completed conventional apprenticeships and some had learned their skills on the job. The lack of people with formal trade qualifications in Cherbourg meant that a large amount of building and construction work, especially for new housing, had been contracted to outside firms. During 1994 nine Council staff (three supervisors and six on the job trainers) completed Instructional Skills (CN404) and the National Building and Construction Industry Assessor training courses.

9. Was there indigenous input into the development of the program?

The Council Training Officer reported that there had been a high level of indigenous input via Construction Training Queensland and the Industry Working Group (IWG). Non-indigenous local trainers also contributed via these channels. It was reported that TAFE were less receptive to local input and seemed to be stuck in the old (ie non-CBT) paradigm until resolved by Bill Casey of DEET.

A former DEET officer reported that all the key operational decisions were made by the community. For example, rules about issues such as absenteeism and drug taking were all made at the local level.

The researchers formed the view that there was relatively less indigenous input into the initial development of the new CBT curriculum, compared to the implementation and trial of the curriculum. This was probably because the curriculum was being developed for use by both indigenous and non-indigenous trainees. However, there was no suggestion from the trainees, employer or trainers that this lack of input gave rise to serious difficulties. On the other hand, close consultation at a local level assisted in resolving implementation problems. For example, training delivery, work and assessment were scheduled flexibly to accommodate the needs of the employer and individual trainees.

Generally this was seen to be high by informants both inside and outside Cherbourg.

Evidence to support this view included:

• IWG meetings were held at Cherbourg;

• Councillors were always invited to IWG meetings;

• Construction Training Queensland only provided technical support;

• local people became very interested in the progress of houses and buildings - they wanted to know things like who was working on what and what the trainees were learning.

Local ownership was not always easy to maintain. For instance, when the Community's Aboriginal Council Clerk first took over the position, the workload commitments of the new executive role prevented him and the new Deputy Clerk from attending many IWG meetings. This meant that the strong support offered by the previous Clerk who had intimate knowledge of the project from day one was lacking until the new officers became fully briefed. Council needed to continually assert its legitimate right as the employer to have the major input into decision-making about the project, especially in dealings involving government agencies.

Now that the pilot has received considerable external recognition, the level of community ownership and pride is high. Awards are displayed prominently in the Council Offices and almost every community member spoken to by the researchers know about the project.

The trainees reported that they did not really have a clear understanding of the objectives. A common response was "It was a bit of mystery at first." Those who had prior work experience had a better idea of what was expected. One informant commented that the project organisers didn't have much idea about what was going to happen. Employer and ITAB informants said that the pilot was started hastily in order to secure the funding.

Informants reported that apart from Councillors and council staff closely involved in the pilot, there was little understanding about the program's objectives in the community. A group of councillors and council staff had visited Group Training Schemes in Rockhampton (LEAD) and Brisbane, and an on the job training project in Inala prior to the AVTS pilot. The main feature of the training that was generally well understood was that trainees would not have to leave Cherbourg to attend TAFE. Since this approach to training was so new, it is hardly surprising that the community (and the trainees) reported relatively poor understanding about its objectives.

Trainees were told that while there were no job guarantees at the end of the training, there were considerable benefits in gaining a recognised trade qualification. This was appreciated by all trainees interviewed. Nevertheless there was considerable optimism among the trainees that the acquisition of formally certificated skills would lead to regular employment and further training opportunities. For those who completed the course, these aspirations appears to have been largely realised.

No

N/A

Formal links with Murgon State High School were proposed, but have not eventuated so far. In 1996 Murgon SHS accessed Australian Student Trainee Funding to develop links with industry. At present about 24 grade 11 and 12 students are undertaking school based apprenticeships in metal trades, construction and meat processing, but these are not linked to the Cherbourg AVTS pilot.

A local TAFE lecturer undertook professional development in the area of credit transfer and RPL. All trainees were told that RPL was available at the outset. Even though some trainees had basic trade skills, most declined RPL. Only one (a painter) opted for RPL believing he would progress to Stage 2 immediately. When he was unsuccessful he cancelled his training agreement. Given this very limited case, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the application of RPL. One may have expected more trainees to have applied for RPL since several had already been working in the building industry. However, it seems that most did not want to miss out on any part of the training, even if this meant covering old ground. This may due in part to trainees wanting to reinforce their learning, and in part not wanting to be seen as knowing more than their colleagues.

Very little. Those few trainees who already had some trade skills were able to progress more rapidly.

There was no formal assessment of literacy or numeracy skills before the commencement of training. There were some major difficulties with skills such as calculations and plan reading. While it is preferable to embed these skills into the on the job training, some special classes were provided through Cherbourg TAFE using Aboriginal teachers. One young trainee who had severe problems was only able to complete Stage 2 and didn't get his Silver Card. Another older trainee was reluctant to undertake written tests. This wasn't considered to have been a major difficulty, though, as most assessment was oral or skills based. No trainee was reported as having poor oral communication skills.

Not applicable: all trainees became Cherbourg Council employees.

According to a DEET informant this was negotiated between the on the job trainers, Council's building and maintenance supervisors, TAFE and the trainees. The on the job trainers said they attempted to maximise on site training, but recognised that some skills (eg plan reading, technical drawing, learning by-laws, colour exercises and testing wallpapers) were learned more effectively off the job.

The Council's Training Officer said that Council lacked a Quality Assurance System and therefore did not apply to become a Registered Training Organisation (RTO). This meant that it decided to contract delivery via Southern Queensland Institute TAFE.

A TAFE lecturer of Aboriginal descent was seconded to the pilot project full time for the first year. The Council's Training Officer claimed that initially the TAFE lecturer did not fully appreciate that the AVTS required flexible delivery and wanted trainees to have set timeslots for off the job training sessions. Eventually this was resolved.

There is a history of close consultation between Cherbourg and DEET going back to at least 1982. The AVTS pilot embraced a number of other stakeholders into the consultation process. These included the ITAB Construction Training Queensland (CTQ), VETEC, Queensland Department of Housing and the CFMEU.

At the local level the key players were the Council Clerks, the Council Chair, the Council Training Officer, six Council workplace trainers, three Council and a local TAFE lecturer. Day to day administration of the project has rested throughout with the Council Training Officer. In the first year delivery was shared between the on the job trainers and the full time TAFE lecturer. In the later part of the project an increasing amount of the training has been delivered on the job.

Key external players were the Manager - Training Development CTQ (Merv Lea) who provided expert technical and training advice throughout and Bill Casey of DEET who ensured the continuation of funding. Merv and Bill reported having contact with Cherbourg almost every day during the lead up to and first year of the pilot. Cherbourg informants report that the assistance provided by these two officers was crucial to the project's success. The IWG was also recognised as a major driving force behind the pilot being used to cut through red tape and fast track decisions.

During the first year of the pilot Council elections were held and there was also a change in Council Clerks. This caused a hiatus in Council input into the project as new Councillors were brought up to speed. The Council training officer took on increased responsibility for the project during this time.

No trainees reported adversely on either of the on job trainers or the TAFE lecturer. One said: "a few of the trainees liked to argue." Only one of the on the job trainers reported having no previous experience working with indigenous people. The trainees reported that the trainers were sensitive to the needs of the group and did not try to impose mainstream values on them.

The Cherbourg Council is an Aboriginal elected and controlled employer with a predominantly Aboriginal workforce. No trainees reported adversely on the employer in the context of the AVTS pilot.

Two Cherbourg Council informants commented that certain Canberra based bureaucrats lacked cultural awareness in the early days of the project. This was reinforced during examination of the project files which revealed one instance where the Cherbourg Council Clerk formally complained to DEET about bureaucratic insensitivity. The Queensland Building Services Authority were praised for waiving registration fees and deferring annual fees for graduates. In general terms, state government department and state based officers of federal agencies were seen to be more in touch with the needs of the community than Canberra based officials.

No formal training was reported, but the Cherbourg Council through its training officer provided some basic ground rules and guidance. The TAFE lecturer, who is of Aboriginal descent, said that he has a special interest in vocational education and training for indigenous people. He reported that during his formal studies he concentrated on indigenous learning issues.

No specific training.

It is understood that non-Aboriginal field staff who worked in Aboriginal program areas within DEET were encouraged to undertake cultural awareness training. A former DEET officer reported that he had been working in Aboriginal program areas since 1980.

Four Aboriginal tradespeople (a tiler, a carpenter and two bricklayers) were employed by Cherbourg Council to deliver parts of the on the job training. An Aboriginal Council supervisor assisted with on the job training and assessment. A TAFE lecturer who has an Aboriginal background was seconded to the project full time for one year, mainly to deliver the off the job training.

The Council Training Officer is credited with signing up most of the trainees. She placed handwritten A3 posters around the community with the caption "Do you want to get a trade?" It mentioned that carpentry, tiling, bricklaying and painting trades were available, said that high school education was not required and invited both men and women to apply. People who could not read were given the message by those who could. The poster generated 65 responses. A selection panel, which included an Aboriginal ACTU representative and comprised of people external to the community, interviewed all the applicants. The IWG took a conscious decision to use an external panel in order to avoid problems of bias or favouritism. The panel initially selected 25 trainees and ranked the remaining applicants in order of merit. During the first year seven of the original 25 dropped out and were replaced by the next person on the list.

No major involvement was reported. CTQ mentioned that the Aboriginal Housing Branch of the Queensland Department of Housing provided useful support. ATSIC was kept informed of developments with the pilot.

There was greater emphasis of on the job training and real project work. This allowed better integration of theory and practice and encouraged positive work habits. There was little need to modify training materials as most were actual building supplies and tools. It was more a case of scheduling the training so it aligned with the type of work that was being done at the time. On site training posed fewer distractions. In terms of assessment and RPL, a translation sheet was developed by CTQ to move between content in the old course and competencies in the new.

A TAFE informant said that the project started with just a syllabus and old (CNJ) learning materials. He considered that DEET criticism directed at TAFE for failing to adopt new materials and learning strategies quickly enough was unfair as "this was a completely new program and we had to develop the new materials as we went".

There is compelling evidence that training and work became wholly integrated into community business. This occurred in a very deliberate fashion with the meshing of training into the community council's work plan. In this way training was scheduled to fit in with the type of work at hand. Also by providing all aspects of the training in Cherbourg, there were no absences or interruptions caused by attendance at TAFE Colleges in other centres. Talking to the graduates revealed that this sort of training was well suited to their family and social needs. It was evident that the type and quality of work that has been undertaken by the trainees is held in high esteem in the community. It was highly visible and has clearly added value in terms of the quality and quantity of housing stocks and other community assets such as the motel, council offices and cultural centre.

Council informants said that in the first year TAFE tried to retain the "old" classroom based approach to training. "CBT was a big learning experience for them." By the end of the first year things had been sorted out with most of the training being delivered on site and only a small amount at TAFE. The IWG was influential in bringing about this change.

A TAFE informant said that TAFE was only able to influence the training in a minor way during the first year of the project. Trainees were initially provided with off the job instruction at the local Nurunderi TAFE College between 0730 and 0930 daily. After smoko they returned to the building site.

Comments from several respondents indicated tensions between local TAFE staff and Council and between TAFE and DEET bureaucrats in the first year of the project. There was evidently a lack of shared understanding about the way in which the training was to be delivered (ie on versus off the job) and how funding should flow. While this gave rise to frustration on all sides, there was no suggestion that training outcomes were adversely affected.

Yeronga TAFE provided advice and support to both Cherbourg Council and the local Nurunderi TAFE College throughout the original pilot. For the second round of the Construction Industry (Fitout and Finish Certificate III), Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE is the designated Registered Training Organisation. With the introduction of User Choice, this Institute is supposed to provide a Training Plan which details each trainees' training. Because SQITAFE lacks detailed knowledge about the Council and its resources it had been unable to do this at the time of this report.

The researchers came to the conclusion that despite criticism of TAFE, there is recognition by both the employer and trainees of a continuing, albeit diminished role, for TAFE in the Fitout and Finish Certificate III course. This role will be restricted to monitoring, quality assurance, recording trainees' results and delivery of very limited parts of the training. Under these conditions TAFE is unlikely to exert great influence over delivery and the training outcomes.

There was no formal or funded mentor. In the first year an Aboriginal carpenter provided some informal support for trainees. Of the original 25 trainees, 11 failed to complete their training. Social problems (eg relationships, alcohol, drugs) were a major contribution to attrition. Senior DEETYA officers Russell Paterson and Tony Greer strongly recommended a mentor on the basis of experience gained in the NT. A mentor has been engaged for the current cohort of civil operations and housing trainees as a condition of the funding. The employer is confident that the mentor will be able to provide sufficient support to at least halve attrition compared to the pilot.

Senior level support for the pilot was crucial. DEET, VETEC, TAFE and CTQ gave vital support to Cherbourg Council and the IWG via senior officers including John Herbert, Bob Marshman, Stan Sielaff and Merv Lea. While such support may not always be recognisable as a true mentoring processes, the researchers formed the view that timely interventions from key senior players were very important in term of maintaining the project's momentum and direction.

The major source of funding for trainees' wages was from DEET via TAP funding which was used to supplement CDEP funding. Cherbourg Council also received some funding from TAFE Queensland for delivery provided by the Council's on the job trainers. The community is also allocated on average funding for two new houses a year by the Aboriginal Housing Branch of the Queensland Department of Housing. Due to a backlog, funding was available for five or six houses in 1995-96. Theiss donated two dongas for on site training. The CFMEU arranged for scaffolding and donated achievement awards (eg a $30 bonus was paid to all trainees when they completed Stage 1). Monier assisted by helping the project to put its work and training schedule on to computer.

TAP funding was used to top up CDEP to the award rates. Because of the large amounts involved, there was some concern expressed by former DEET officers about the skewing of TAP resource distribution in Queensland. It was not established whether this concern proved to be significant problem for DEET.

Two carpentry trainees got within one module (stairs) of Stage 3 but were delayed by TAFE's inability to deliver it for 18 months. These blokes got bored, lost interest and left the program 99% completed.

Seven dropped out very early in Stage 1 all within a few weeks of the pilot commencing.

Family commitments (especially for women), social problems (eg relationships, drugs). Informants were reluctant to elaborate on these reasons.

Yes, but only for one or two. For instance, one trainee was restricted to Stage 2 even though highly motivated and having good trade skills.

Eight Stage 3 graduates are now working as contractors to Council. One of these has commenced a flat panel joinery apprenticeship and another is considering a one year landscaping course. One wants to train other bricklayers.

Their credentials are nationally recognised and should be portable. One trainee left after Stage 1 and got a construction job in Gladstone. There is a general expectation among the trainees interviewed that their skills will be portable. Although a TAFE informant expressed some doubts about this, this reservation was made at the end of Stage 1, well before the completion of the pilot.

Five: two have joined the police force, two have left and are currently not working and one has recently passed away.

Informants were reluctant to speculate on the exact reasons. General reasons like career opportunities and family/personal matters were mentioned.

Graduates were unanimous in reporting that the training met their expectations. Their comments included:

• "amazed that we lasted all the way";

• "it was good not having to go away";

• "good to have local trainers";

• "exceeded my expectations...never thought I'd get a Silver Card".

A TAFE informant said that one of the trainees found the off the job training sessions in the first year were too long and that he had difficulty maintaining concentration.

No adverse comments were made by the on-the-job trainers. A TAFE informant thought that the assumed drop-out rate was set too low and that 40-50% was more realistic. He said that some trainees saw the project as an easy option compared to CDEP work. He considered that this gave rise to problems for the Aboriginal works supervisors who found it hard to deal with poor performance among a few of the trainees (ie trainees were seen to have special status).

The Council Clerk and Chairman both expressed satisfaction and said that the first round success had made it much easier to secure a second round of funding. The Training Officer was disappointed that some graduates had failed to pay the BSA annual roll fee and had their Silver Cards suspended. She asked whether this indicated that part of the training had failed or whether it was just disinterest.

The community is proud of the many awards that it has won as a result of the AVTS pilot. These exceeded community expectations and the attendant publicity has made Cherbourg a showcase.

Council has secured extra contract work and is embarking on new projects that may not have otherwise been possible (eg motel, Education and Cultural Centre and Big Emu visitor centre). The training has increased the quality and quantity of community owned housing stocks and allowed extension to be added to the Council Offices at reduced labour costs. The employer hopes that some of the graduates will become workplace trainers after about two years work experience.

Some of the specific needs reported as being met include:

• better quality houses;

• bigger houses;

• increased community input into housing design eg: layout, siting, choice of materials, fittings, colour schemes;

• increased pride in houses leading to a marked reduction in repair and maintenance costs, even those with gyprock walls!

Trainees reported that these were work-related, realistic and effective.

There was minor criticism of TAFE delivery during the first year made by Council officers and on the job trainers. It mainly related to a reluctance by TAFE to shift from college-based, time-tabled training to on building site delivery. This was sorted out during the first year and an effective balance was achieved. The flexible approach to delivery had some unexpected benefits eg: one trainee had to go to prison during the program but was able to catch up easily when he returned. It was considered that under a time based training system he would have been left behind the rest of the group and may have dropped out. By the end of the pilot the role of TAFE had diminished, although it continued to provide quality assurance through Yeronga Institute and trainee records and limited off the job delivery through the local Nurunderi TAFE College. The on-the-job trainers were considered to have been crucial to the success of the delivery of the training.

Trainers reported that they adopted a team approach to competency based assessment. They discussed any borderline cases with the work supervisors and used the criterion: "could the trainee do it alone?" A TAFE informant had strong reservations about the reliability of the competency based assessment used during Stage 1 of the pilot. He expressed doubt as to whether all graduates would be able to perform consistently in the long term, especially if they left Cherbourg where he perceived standards to be more flexible. The trainees interviewed did not make any negative comments about the assessment. The employer was keen to use a similar approach to assessment in the second round of the training.

(d) recording and reporting methods?

Recording of enrolments and module completions was provided by TAFE using the CAP system. The National ITAB issued the statements of attainment. DETIR were notified at the end of the completion of each stage to trigger the next progress payment.

The Council was adamant that this style of training was cost effective, provided they received at least 75% of the delivery funding under User Choice. In the second round of the project wage costs are being factored into the price of the buildings so as to more accurately reflect the total cost of construction. Although not directly stated by the employer, the researchers formed the view that "cocktail" funding from multiple sources for projects like this one have hidden costs in terms of extra administration, reporting requirement and cashflow management. As a consequence, it would be difficult to see how a project with these complexities could be successfully could be managed without a full-time project officer. This plus the requirement for a full-time mentor for the trainees would add considerably to the project overheads. While these may reduce cost-effectiveness on paper, there will be likely savings in terms of better financial control and reduced labour turnover.

Since this was the first time that the construction trades had been delivered in CBT format and predominantly on the job, the CTQ reported great difficulty in getting the new courses developed. Cross referencing national competency standards to the old, non-CBT documentation was described as "a nightmare". A TAFE respondent questioned whether trainees really had the ability to progress beyond ASF level 3 after the end of the first year. Project outcomes appear to disproved this concern, at least for those trainees who successfully completed the entire course.

The IWG, CTQ, DEET, DETIR and the CFMEU collaborated to make it happen. However much of the detailed negotiations related to translating national competency standards into the curriculum was carried out by Merv Lea of CTQ. It was reported that the National ITAB was very cautious in its approach to the pilot and required substantial supporting evidence from its state counterpart, CTQ.

No major problems. The CFMEU struck a special agreement for the trainees which allowed them to progress to the next pay step as soon as they had demonstrated the required competencies.

N/A

This was not reported to be a problem by the trainees. However, Council said that completion of the final stage was deferred so that it could continue to receive project funding and keep the trainees employed until the end of the pilot. This raises a major issue for the funding of CBT projects. The present funding processes are time based and actually penalise trainees who achieve competencies inside the timeframe of the funding. Former DEET officers said this was the first time such a long term CBT project had been funded. Usually projects were funded by DEET for periods of 6 to 12 months, whereas this project ran over three years.

In this case the response by the employer was to delay trainees' completion of the final stage of the course until the specified end of the pilot project.

There have been many enquiries and attending to these has been time consuming. Communities to enquire have included Mornington Island, Hopevale and Yarabah. Prior to this study two other groups of researchers have visited Cherbourg to examine the pilot. The project also involved "educating the bureaucrats". A high turnover of state training authority and TAFE manager meant that new officers had to be briefed about the complexities and special aspects of the project.

Council informants said that in future they would minimise the use of TAFE and rely as far as practicable on industry based trainers. They also said that they wanted to sort out TAFE payment arrangements so that trainers weren't disadvantaged (eg when they used their own vehicles). Council believed that direct payment to the employer under User Choice would overcome some of these problems. A mentor to assist the trainees with personal problems would also be employed.

The short lead time for the project meant that planning was done on the run. Several informants said it would have been preferable to have a better developed plan in place before the project started.

Two respondents commented that community consultation and input via Cherbourg Council suffered during the first year of the project. As this was a critical time, it was seen as very desirable to rectify this for future initiatives.

A TAFE respondent believed that there had been unrealistic expectations about how quickly old practices and red tape could be dispensed with. He identified tension between achieving high quality outcomes for trainees on the one hand, and the introduction of CBT and flexible delivery on the other. He remains concerned about the development of enduring skills and expressed regret at not being involved in the planning phase of the project. This sentiment was echoed by the Council's Training Officer who expressed regret that the TAFE lecturer had not been able to attend the briefing in Rockhampton.

The Training Officer coordinated the Council's Monitoring and Assessment Committee on a monthly or as needed basis. The IWG met bi-monthly to review progress. Towards the end of 1995 it was reconstituted as a Joint Consultative Committee. It met quarterly and its role was critical in the early to mid stages of the project. Council conducted fortnightly site meetings with the trainees to review progress. At the end of Stage II of the project the Council's Training Officer prepared a report for the IWG and DEET. CTQ conducted a formal evaluation at the end of the project.

The AVTS pilot: Construction Industry (Fitout and Finish Certificate III) conducted at Cherbourg 1994 -1997 was successful in many ways. For example, completion rates of Stage 3 - 52%, Stage 2 - 64% and Stage 1 - 68% compare very favourably with mainstream rates. Conversely, attrition rates after the first year were much lower than had previously been experienced by Cherbourg apprentices.

A disappointing outcome was the early drop out of the three females who initially signed on and the decision not to take on any other females in the pilot.

Most of the community's objectives for the project were met. For instance:

• The AVTS pilot has given the community the confidence and skills to embark on a number of other commercial enterprises that are giving rise to training, employment, business and cultural opportunities. These include the construction of a motel, visitor information centre and education and cultural centre.

• Community housing stocks have increased and the size and quality of the dwellings constructed by the trainees are markedly superior to housing constructed prior to the pilot.

• Reliance on external contractors has diminished with jobs and wealth are being retained within the community.

• Trainees are working well in self-managed teams.

• The benefits of training have been promoted in very tangible ways.

• Positive role models have emerged with trainees gaining on-going employment in jobs that are seen to add value and prestige to the community.

• There is greater community input into housing design. This has meant more appropriately sited, sized and constructed dwellings which have already proved more economical to maintain.

It was not possible to ascertain whether the pilot had any effect on increasing school attendance and retention rates or enhancing literacy and numeracy skills.

The pilot provided a test bed for the development and flexible delivery of the first CBT Fitout and Finish Certificate Level III in the construction industry. Emerging from it are a number of characteristics of best practice in VET delivery for indigenous communities and trainees. There are also implications for the uptake of New Apprenticeships by indigenous Australians.

1. The role of the Industry Working Group (and later the Joint Consultative Committee) was vital in terms of providing ideas, support, a problem solving forum, communication channels and a fast track through bureaucratic and industrial red tape. It assisted key individuals who combined to keep the project progressing, even when major problems were encountered. Importantly the IWG/JCC always met in Cherbourg to maximise participation and input by community representatives.

This is considered to represent best practice insofar as it provided:

• a formal means of input from key stakeholders;

• a tangible link with the Cherbourg community;

• commitment at a high level to the project.

2. It was very useful for key people to visit other innovative VET project sites and meet with their participants before embarking on such a venture. This gave people confidence that they could succeed and enabled them to avoid mistakes made elsewhere.

This is considered to represent best practice in terms of establishing benchmarks from other projects and avoiding mistakes.

3. Continuity of support for training initiatives of this type is crucial. A number of key personnel provided this over a period of three years. For instance:

• Bill Casey of DEET who initiated the application process, guided the project through the bureaucratic maze and exhorted a range of agencies to provide special support;

• Jan Patterson, Cherbourg Council's Training Officer and the on-site project coordinator who remained as a constant link throughout the entire pilot;

• Merv Lea of Construction Training Queensland who liaised with the National Building and Construction ITAB over competency standards and undertook the complex task of developing the CBT modules, and

• the trainers who remained with the project throughout and translated a new concept into action and tangible outcomes.

While it is considered best practice to have one or more individuals to champion such a project, it is recognised that some successful pilot projects that rely heavily on a few, very committed individuals may not translate into viable, on-going training programs once these original advocates are unable to continue to provide the same level of support.

4. That all aspects of the training occurred in the Cherbourg community was a major plus. It overcame the very real problems that confront many Indigenous Australians when they are required to travel away from their home community to undertake training.

This is perhaps the most significant best practice feature of this case study and offers a model for other Indigenous communities whose trainees have encountered difficulties when they are required to leave their home to attend training institutions.

1. The successful integration of on and off the job training and work was another best practice feature of the Cherbourg project. Scheduling training to match the type of work being undertaken ensured congruence of theory and practice, kept the training relevant and maintained motivation.

2. The use of dedicated on the job trainers proved to be highly successful. They were able to pace the training to suit individual trainee's needs, check on the quality of the work as it was being carried out and were not overly distracted by other duties (eg supervision of other employees). The trainers were able to lead by example, provide immediate advice and were an integrated part of the work team rather than external experts.

3. The "real work" nature of the training had a very positive influence on the trainees' self esteem and motivation. Because the houses they were building were seen by the community as desirable and valuable assets, the trainees were seen to be making valid and valued contributions to Cherbourg. There is considerable evidence to support the integration of training into community business as best practice. This gives the training validity, confers special status on the trainees and produces tangible benefits for the community as a whole.

At the time of the Cherbourg project the relevant Queensland agency was the Vocational Education Training and Employment Commission (VETEC). While VETEC took a relatively low key role in the project compared to DEETYA, its officers were influential in securing a special industrial agreement covering trainees' wage rates and actively participated in negotiations with TAFE to bring about more flexible delivery of the off the job training components.

Further DEETYA funding has been secured by Cherbourg Council to run a second Construction Industry (Fitout and Finish Certificate III) program plus a Civil Operations program involving a total of 65 trainees. All training will be delivered on the job. As a condition of the new funding, Council has employed a full time mentor to provide pastoral care and support in personal matters for the trainees.

The Cherbourg Council is currently negotiating a User Choice agreement with Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE as the nominated RTO for these programs. Under the arrangement proposed by Council, the Council would receive 55% of the training delivery funding and provide most of the training on the job. TAFE would receive the remainder for providing a minor component of the training delivery, plus quality assurance and recording trainees' results.

1. High attrition rates in the early stage of the program was often related to non-training factors. The need emerged for a mentor to assist trainees to deal with non-training problems that impacted on their work and learning. It is very likely that support of this type could reduce attrition rates even further and facilitate the participation of under-represented groups (eg women, disabled).

2. Tensions between different stakeholder groups emerged at an early stage of the project. These were often a reflection of differences in organisational culture and priorities. Since all groups and individuals were evidently very committed to the success of the project, the problems were sometimes ignored or put aside instead of being directly confronted. While this may be expedient in the short-term, it does not address the underlying causes and the problems may recur later in the project or in new projects. Avoidance or deferral of conflict tends to be prevalent in businesses dealings involving indigenous Australians. Special skills are required to work through problems so that barriers to progress are overcome in ways that are culturally sensitive.

3. All parties involved in the development and delivery of the training program need to be involved in the planning and implementation process from the outset. In this case study the absence of a key stakeholder (ie TAFE) in the project's early stages gave rise to tensions that may well have been avoided.

4. Continuity of support for the project is crucial, especially when employers, training providers and sponsoring agencies undergo organisational and personnel changes. During the life span of longer VET projects, mechanisms need to be put in place to cope with such changes. If this doesn't happen, there is a real risk that both trainees and key project staff will fail to receive adequate support and drop out.

5. Since income support is a major concern for Indigenous trainees and apprentices, funding guidelines for CBT projects need to be structured so as not to penalise trainees or their employers for early attainment of competencies.

6. Female trainees appear much harder to recruit and more likely to drop out of traineeships and New Apprenticeships, especially in non-traditional areas for women such as the construction industry. Special skills and expertise are required to market, select and support training programs that seek to increase participation by indigenous women.

1. It would be helpful for evaluation purposes for trainee records to include basic information such as level of formal education achieved, prior work history and any post school training undertaken.

2. Longitudinal research into the retention of trainees' competencies would assist the validation of competency based assessment.

3. It would be useful to assess the true cost-effectiveness of this pilot and other similar training initiatives in terms of their total, identifiable inputs and outputs. For instance, it is clear that a number of people expended large amounts of time and energy to ensure this project succeeded. It is doubtful whether the project's formal financial reporting actually captures the extent or the true economic value of these inputs. On the other hand, it would be revealing to attempt to measure the value of some of the less tangible outcomes, such as the spin-offs from the considerable positive publicity that this project has attracted and the boost to the Cherbourg community's economy and spirit.

4. Mentors should be available to provide pastoral care and support for indigenous trainees who encounter personal difficulties that affect their work and learning.

The following observations are solely those of one researcher, Terry Clark, and should in no way be construed as representing a collective view of the project team or any other stakeholders. Indeed, in a project that involved:

• five case studies in four states;
• two commissioning agencies;
• two project advisory groups;
• 11 researchers from five different tertiary institutions;
• dozens of stakeholder organisations and communities, and
• hundreds of informants,

one might expect some diversity of views to prevail. Nevertheless, this writer has attempted to present factual information about the research process and environment that may be useful to others who attempt this sort of work.

This project was characterised by a multiplicity of stakeholders including a range of different clients. The Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, represented by senior officers in the Evaluation and Monitoring Branch of the Department, was the principal client from a commissioning, funding, reporting and legal perspective. The WA Department of Aboriginal Affairs was also a major client so far as the Kimberely case study was concerned. The two project advisory groups were also clients in the sense that they were relying on the project team to deliver information and findings that was meaningful and appropriate. Organisations and individuals who had participated in the AVTS pilots were significant clients with a keen interest in the outcomes of the evaluation of the projects that were selected as case studies. This was especially so for those organisations and communities which were hoping for positive evaluations to enhance their access to further funding and training resources.

Not surprisingly some tensions arose because of the differing needs, expectations and priorities of the various client groups. Some of the more significant and problematic are outlined below.

1. DEETYA had undergone a massive downsizing (17,000 to 2,500 staff) and abolition of most of its labour market programs during the life of the pilot projects (1993 to 1998). This meant that many of the case managers were no longer employed by the Department and often the official records left behind contained little useful data, particularly about the earlier stages of the projects. In attempting to reconstruct the context and conditions surrounding the origins and progress of each project, the researchers were often reliant on secondhand accounts and opinions, rather than documented facts. Where possible, such accounts were triangulated and cross-referenced with other sources. Nevertheless, one sensed that because the AVTS had been an initiative of a previous government, there was little value placed by the current bureaucracy on the relevance of these accounts. Indeed the researchers were instructed by DEETYA not to use the term "AVTS" in their report, unless it was absolutely unavoidable. One got an uneasy feeling that history was being re-written to suit the victors! We were also advised at the outset that any report would have to receive ministerial approval before being distributed. Presumably this was to ensure that it was sanitised and couched in the prevailing politically correct jargon.
2. DEETYA was at pains to ensure that local communities, informants and other stakeholder groups formally approved the research reports by the way of signed releases prior to their acceptance by the Department. While this seems a fair and reasonable safeguard against misrepresentation of informants by the researchers, it led to a conflict in one case study where an organisation took exception to the inclusion of critical but factual information that had a direct relevance for the evaluation and recommendations. Although no one disputed the facts about this case study, a certain informant felt that a degree of shame would emanate from the researchers' description of aspects of the project's management. After further dialogue with the informant, the researchers were required by DEETYA to alter their wording in the case study to appease that particular informant. The consequence of not doing so would have been the exclusion of that entire case study from the overall project.
3. The project had two advisory groups: one convened by DEETYA for the overall project, and one convened by the WA Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the Kimberley case study. The main DEETYA advisory group met in person with selected researchers in Canberra on two occasions: once to negotiate the methodology and once to receive a progress report and to agree on the final reporting format. Teleconferences involving the advisory group and most of the researchers were held on five occasions during the project. While the frequency of meetings and teleconferences seemed sufficient, attendance was spasmodic leaving me with the concern that not all members of the advisory committee had engaged in a thorough consultative process. To help redress this shortcoming, the researchers sought informal advice from other Aboriginal people with expertise in vocational education and training. This shortcoming and the researchers' response, raise complex issues around project ownership and the integrity of the research process and design.

Given the competing needs and priorities of the various clients, the research team seems to have been successful in producing reports that are reasonably accurate and useful. Nevertheless, there is a lingering sense that the final reports are compromised in parts, and are couched in terms that bolster prevailing VET policies while understating some of the problems inherent in effectively implementing these policies in Indigenous contexts.

A positive aspect of this project was the collaborative partnerships forged between individual investigators and writers, between different institutions and agencies and between the researchers and their informants. The principal investigators took great care to ensure that Indigenous perspectives were embedded in the research design. This was particularly so in the data gathering and interpretation phases. Each case study involved at least one Indigenous researcher. These individuals were chosen not only for their research skills, but also because of their knowledge of particular communities and training projects. This assisted the identification of suitable informants, facilitated data gathering and helped to ensure that the findings were interpreted and reported in ways that were culturally appropriate.

Collaboration between the 11 researchers in five different institutions (Deakin University, NT University, Central Queensland University, University of SA and the Spencer Institute of TAFE) was made possible by extensive use of email and teleconferencing. Members of the project advisory committees were also linked in this fashion. It seems remarkable that a major piece of work was completed without the actual team of researchers ever having met. Much of the credit for the success of the project can be attributed to (a) the collective experience of team members who had previously collaborated on Indigenous research projects set in remote and geographically dispersed locations, and (b) the thorough project management skills of John Henry at RIPVET. It is hard to contemplate how an individual or a small research team could have successfully undertaken this work.

This type of research can be extremely demanding in terms of organisation, logistics and management. In an era of public sector downsizing, it is unremarkable that government agencies should elect to outsource this type of work. It is also not surprising that few organisations choose to tender for such work. This is a pity because despite the tensions and frustration, the research produces rich, fine-grained analyses with the capacity to better inform and customise VET policy development and implementation. While I would recommend careful scrutiny of the commercial terms before embarking on a project of this scope in the future, the nature of the research is fundamentally compelling, rewarding and utilitarian.

Cherbourg Community Council (1993) Community Development and Training Plan

DEET (1995) Training in Transition: Evaluation of the AVTS Pilot Phase 1993 and 1994 AGPS, Canberra

DEETYA (1996) Working Nation: Evaluation of the employment, education and training elements AGPS, Canberra

Lea, M. (1997) Best practices in training access & effective participation: building & construction industry training for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities Construction Training Queensland, Brisbane

Patterson, J. (1995) Report - AVC Pilot Cherbourg