Indigenous families and children: coordination and provision of services
Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009

Appendix C: Themed study methodology

Case study sample

The case study sample was based on the proportion of Indigenous children in CfC sites. The sample was drawn from customised data from the 2001 Census of Population and Housing. Data from the 2006 Census became available in 2008 and revised population estimates for Indigenous children in CfC sites are shown in Table C1.

All figures in Table C1 are based on customised Australian Bureau of Statistics data. The sites chosen were those that ranked high in terms of proportion of children who were Indigenous, with at least one site from each state and territory (except the ACT). The estimates provided here are based on more recent data than that available when the original estimates provided in the Indigenous themed study proposal were made. The original estimates were for children aged 0 to 5 years in Indigenous families as a proportion of all children aged 0 to 5 years, and excluded Indigenous children in non-Indigenous families (that is, adopted children) and visitors (original family data were not enumerated).

Alternative sites might have included West Townsville and Mirrabooka instead of Swan Hill and South Eastern Tasmania in 2001. However, the requirement of having at least one site in each state necessitated including Swan Hill (Victoria) and South East Tasmania in 2001.

Table C1: Proportion of Indigenous children in CfC sites (revised population estimates)
CfC site	Indigenous children aged 0–5 years
	2001	2006
	%^(a)	%^(a)
Cairns	19.4	24.1
Dubbo-Narromine	20.4	21.4
East Arnhem	65.7	62.8
East Kimberley	39.4	40.0
Katherine	53.6	60.4
Mt Isa	22.9	25.2
Palmerston-Tiwi Islands	25.0	23.8
Port Augusta	24.5	29.0
South East Tasmania	9.8	8.2
Swan Hill	7.3	6.0
Taree	10.1	9.6
West Pilbara	14.2	12.3
Sub-total: case study sample	22.4	23.7
Total: all 45 CfC sites	8.5	9.0
(a) Indigenous children aged 0 to 5 as a percentage of all children aged 0 to 5. Data is enumerated and includes visitors. Source: ABS data available on request, 2001, 2006 Census of Population and Housing.

Telephone consultations

Target program: CfC and LA
Timeframe: February–March 2008
Sites: Dubbo–Narromine, East Arnhem, East Kimberley, Port Augusta, Mt Isa, South East Tasmania, Swan Hill, Taree, West Pilbara and LA programs

Key informants working in nine CfC sites, and staff from two LA projects, were interviewed by telephone in February and March 2008. Service providers in relevant Indigenous organisations, FPs, relevant CPs, and LA project workers and coordinators were interviewed.

Interviews were conducted with selected LA stakeholders and key informants in CfC sites with high proportions of Indigenous children aged 0 to 5 years. Sites included in the telephone consultations sample all had a higher proportion of Indigenous children than the CfC average (see Table 1).

FaHCSIA state and territory offices and FPs were asked to identify three contacts in each of the nine CfC sites in the telephone consultations sample (see Table 1). These contacts could be categorised as:

mainstream services with high proportions of Indigenous clients
mainstream services in areas with high proportions of Indigenous families (may or may not have high proportion of Indigenous clients)
services specifically for Indigenous families run by Indigenous community-controlled organisations
services specifically for Indigenous families run by mainstream organisations.

State and territory offices and FPs contacted potential respondents to inform them about the research and invite them to participate in interviews, and provided their contact details to SPRC staff. SPRC researchers selected possible CfC and LA respondents from the lists provided and set up telephone interviews at times convenient to respondents.

Due to budget restrictions, it was necessary to conduct these consultations by telephone. Therefore, consultation was possible only with respondents who had access to a telephone and who spoke English with sufficient fluency to be able to participate in such an interview.

The researchers were able to interview respondents from all CfC sites in the target sample. The researchers ensured that respondents from the Mt Isa, East Kimberley and West Pilbara CfC sites were well represented, as these areas had the highest proportions of Indigenous children and were not represented in focus groups of CfC fieldwork.

The researchers were supplied with the contact details of five LA service providers and were able to conduct interviews with two LA service providers in this component of the research.

In total, 25 telephone consultations took place; most interviews took between 45 and 60 minutes.

Focus groups

Target program: CfC
Timeframe: November 2007
Sites: Palmerston–Tiwi Islands, Katherine, East Arnhem and Cairns

In November 2007, two focus groups were conducted with FPs and CPs from CfC sites in the Northern Territory and Queensland, which included remote Indigenous communities. FPs and CPs from Palmerston–Tiwi Islands, East Arnhem and Katherine took part in the focus groups, which were conducted as part of a broader evaluation workshop for Northern Australian sites at Charles Darwin University in Darwin. SPRC staff designed the focus group questionnaire to ensure it was consistent with other evaluation components (see Appendix E).

John Gunther, the local evaluator for the Palmerston–Tiwi Islands, East Arnhem, South East Tasmania and Burnie sites conducted the focus groups and drafted a report based on the findings of the consultations.

To ensure the themed study sample was representative, CfC program delivery staff from remote CfC sites that were not represented in focus groups or CfC fieldwork (Mt Isa, East Kimberley and West Pilbara) were represented in the telephone consultations conducted in February–March 2008.

CfC fieldwork

Target: CfC
Timeframe: October–November 2007
Sites: Stronger Families in Australia (SFIA) sites: Bendigo, Cairns, Frankston, Inala, Launceston, Miller, Mirrabooka, Palmerston–Tiwi Islands, Salisbury, Shellharbour

The CfC fieldwork component of the case studies formed part of the second round of intensive fieldwork that took place in October–November 2007 in the 10 SFIA sites (Bendigo, Cairns, Frankston, Inala, Launceston, Miller, Mirrabooka, Palmerston–Tiwi Islands, Salisbury, Shellharbour).

The questionnaire used in the Round 1 SFIA fieldwork in 2006 was modified in 2007 to include prompts relating to service provision to Indigenous families and children (see Appendix F). All 125 respondents interviewed for this fieldwork were asked questions about what impact they believed CfC was having on families and children from specific groups, including those from Indigenous backgrounds; whether they had contact with specialist providers, including Indigenous services; and whether they believed the program would deliver long-term outcomes for families and children from specific groups, including those from Indigenous backgrounds.

In addition, the sampling of the CfC fieldwork was modified in 2007 so that Indigenous service providers could be identified.¹³ Respondents who identified as Indigenous were interviewed using the interview schedule for Indigenous service providers (see Appendix G).

Document analysis

Target: ItG
Timeframe: June—November 2007
FaHCSIA provided ItG interim reports to the SPRC and these were analysed between June and November 2007.

ItG funds 23 established and developing early intervention programs, and a number of resources to help families, professionals and communities improve outcomes for young children. In addition, ItG aimed to build the Australian evidence base about what works in early intervention and prevention, and to this end, projects are funded to engage local evaluators who help draft the interim reports. This component of the research assessed the scale and scope of ItG providers’ support for Indigenous families and children.

Document analysis included assessment of the details of services Indigenous families engaged in, and activity types; documented success factors and case studies; staffing and volunteerism; program promotion strategies; and client satisfaction.

Although the bulk of local evaluation reports were available only as draft interim reports, they provided an opportunity for the national evaluators to identify the main themes and lessons emerging for project design and implementation. Additional final ItG local evaluation reports became available after the evaluation was completed.

Analysis of evaluation data that relates to Indigenous peoples

Data from the various aspects of the CfC National Evaluation (site visits, coordination survey, SFIA, service mapping, local evaluations, reports to FaHCSIA) were specifically analysed to describe Indigenous issues in implementation and outcomes by Indigenous status in CfC.

The data analyses explore:

findings for Indigenous families and children relative to non-Indigenous peoples
findings in the context of diversity within Indigenous peoples especially in relation to location (remote/rural/urban location).

SFIA dataset review

The researchers undertook a quantitative analysis of the SFIA Service Users Study dataset, which contains data about children and families using the CfC services in the 10 SFIA sites. Indigenous children in the sample were compared to non-Indigenous children on a number of domains.

[ top ]

Indigenous families and children: coordination and provision of services Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009