• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Service provision
• Service coordination
• Indigenous families and children
• Factors facilitating or hindering service provision and outcomes
• Sustainability
• Conclusion
• Appendix A: Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009 model
• Appendix B: SFCS 2004–2009 National Evaluation Indigenous Themed Study Reference Group
• Appendix C: Themed study methodology
• Appendix D: Stronger Families in Australia tables
• Appendix E: Indigenous themed study focus group guide
• Appendix F: Indigenous themed study phone consultation and Indigenous-specific CfC interviews questionnaire
• Appendix G: Interview schedule for CfC fieldwork sites
• List of shortened forms
• Endnotes
• References
• List of tables

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

• Previous: Table of contents
• Next: Introduction

Executive summary

Service provision
Service coordination
Indigenous families and children
Factors facilitating or hindering service provision and outcomes

This report, by the Social Policy Research Centre, is one of three themed studies undertaken for the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs as part of the national evaluation 2004–2008 of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004–2009. The themed studies are part of a cross-strategy evaluation of SFCS 2004–2009 designed to explore particular issues in-depth, and to identify common themes across the Communities for Children (CfC), Local Answers (LA) and Invest to Grow (ItG) programs.

The Indigenous families and children themed study aims to identify the impact of LA, ItG and CfC on service provision and coordination in communities with high proportions of Indigenous children. Through understanding changes to service provision and coordination, the study also seeks to identify the impact of the programs on the lives of Indigenous families and children.

A literature review, telephone and face-to-face interviews, focus groups and document analysis were undertaken to reach these aims. While limited information was available on LA projects, this study has found a number of common themes between CfC and ItG. Many findings throughout this report may be relevant to other community-based Indigenous programs, including LA.

The report examines service provision, service coordination, Indigenous families and children in CfC sites, factors that facilitate or hinder service provision and outcomes, and sustainability. The findings are summarised below.

[ top ]

Service provision

Community development approach

• The CfC model enables communities to assess resources, service capacity and community needs, and to plan to address these needs. This is especially important for communities with high proportions of Indigenous families and children.
• Program delivery is enhanced by consultations and partnership relationships with Indigenous organisations and community members.
• Effective community engagement takes considerable time, so projects which allow time for building trust and relationships may be the most effective way to engage Indigenous families and children.
• The four-year CfC model does not allow sufficient time or resources to consult and engage with Indigenous communities, especially in rural and remote areas.

Service capacity and focus

• Most respondents believed that the number and scope of services available to Indigenous families and children had increased since the inception of SFCS 2004–2009.
• All remote Facilitating Partners (FP) reported some new services and programs which were made possible as a result of CfC funding.
• Some CfC respondents reported considerable increases in service capacity due to the program, but others felt that, while the program had served to increase the awareness of services, there was little if any increase in capacity.
• Many respondents reported improvements in the relevance and quality of service delivery as a direct result of SFCS 2004–2009 funding.
• Respondents were in favour of the FP model because it gave them greater control over the types of services they provided and the ways in which they delivered them.

Access and engagement by Indigenous families

• Increasing the number, scope and capacity of services did not necessarily mean Indigenous families accessed and engaged with these services.
• Most CfC participants reported anecdotal increases in the participation of Indigenous families and children in programs and activities, but the extent of reported participation varied.
• Several respondents in urban, regional and remote sites commented that mainstream models rarely fit Indigenous service users.
• It is challenging for service providers in large, diverse communities to identify and target Indigenous families.
• If Indigenous access is going to increase, it is important that both Indigenous-specific and mainstream services are safe, comfortable and culturally appropriate for Indigenous families and children.
• Financial and attitudinal barriers to families’ access to services create a need for early intervention and prevention services for young children to:
  • educate Indigenous communities about the importance of the early years and the strengths-based nature of programs
  • encourage families to participate by using ‘soft’ engagement strategies
  • provide culturally appropriate and respectful services at low cost to families.

[ top ]

Service coordination

Referral system/coordination between services

• Referral and coordination between services are the most appropriate ways of meeting client needs and increasing service access.
• As an Indigenous family’s engagement with a child care service may be the only connection they have with service networks, referrals between early childhood service providers and other support services are crucial.
• Informal services are important to introduce Indigenous families to more formalised, specialist services.

Service coordination within CfC sites

• CfC increased the networking, coordination and collaboration between services.
• Relationships were stronger and more effective where interagency cooperation predated CfC.
• Partnerships and collaboration:
  • fostered a culture where services were committed to a common cause—improved early childhood outcomes
  • increased organisational, service and individual capacity
  • increased interagency support and referrals (which resulted in some mainstream services working with Indigenous families for the first time)
  • resulted in the sharing of promising practices and problem solving.
• Developing service coordination and collaboration is very time consuming and requires individual commitment, significant communication and transparent problem solving.
• In most cases, a four-year program is too short for services to establish effective, strong relationships with each other (where there was no pre-existing relationship).
• Remote and rural sites were at a disadvantage within the CfC model because of the limited number of services to coordinate with and/or the limited number of pre-existing relationships, in comparison with urban locations.

[ top ]

Indigenous families and children

Perceptions of change for Indigenous families and children

• Many Community Partners (CP) and FPs reported limited numbers of outcomes for families, and attributed this to the short period of time the initiative lasted, and the extensive time required to consult and build trust with Indigenous families and communities.
• The greatest reported change was in increased access to services and in first-time Indigenous family engagement with services.
• Some respondents believed families and young children were benefiting from SFCS 2004–2009 in the areas of health, wellbeing, parenting skills and practices, and young children’s preparation for learning.
• Remote communities had substantial difficulties observing and collecting data to measure outcomes for children and families.

Indigenous family demographics and outcomes in CfC sites

• The average age of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children who participated in the SFIA study and were living in a CfC site and eligible to receive services when the program commenced was 2.8 years at Wave 1 and 4.5 years at Wave 3.
• Almost half of the Indigenous children in the study were living in single-mother households, compared to only one in five non-Indigenous children at Wave 1. By Wave 3, the proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children living in single-mother households had decreased slightly, although this change was not significant.
• During both waves, Indigenous children were less likely to be living with an employed parent. However, the proportion of Indigenous children living in households with an employed father increased between Wave 1 and 3 and remained constant for non-Indigenous children.
• Indigenous families had a lower income than non-Indigenous families at Waves 1 and 3, but both groups experienced a significant increase in income between 2006 and 2008.
• Indigenous parents were significantly more likely than non-Indigenous parents to have moved during their child’s life at Wave 1 and 3. By Wave 3 almost one in three Indigenous families (30.9 per cent) had moved three or more times since their child’s birth, compared to approximately one in five (19.1 per cent) non-Indigenous families.
• Indigenous parents’ self-reported general health improved slightly between Waves 1 and 3 and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents decreased.
• Mental health improved for Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents between Wave 1 and Wave 3.
• Indigenous parents reported lower levels of parent efficacy than non-Indigenous parents at both waves.
• Indigenous and non-Indigenous families were more positive about their neighbourhood as a place to bring up children at Wave 3 than Wave 1.
• Indigenous families and non-Indigenous families reported significantly improved levels of support when they needed it between Waves 1 and 3. By Wave 3 there was no longer a significant difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families in this area.

[ top ]

Factors facilitating or hindering service provision and outcomes

Cultural appropriateness

• To be culturally competent, services need to consider both the organisation’s structure, practices and strategies, and the level of cultural competency among individual staff members.
• Both the literature and the SFCS evaluation 2004–2008 suggest that culturally appropriate services are those which have structures that:
  • are non-threatening, informal and low cost
  • are flexible about where and how services are provided
  • offer access to services away from formal, institutional settings, for example, in a person’s home
  • consult with and involve family and extended kin networks and community members in service delivery.
• Both the literature and the SFCS evaluation 2004–2008 suggest that culturally appropriate services are those which have practices and strategies that:
  • adapt the teaching and dissemination of information as needed
  • include cultural identity as a part of the curriculum
  • culturally tailor specific programs offered
  • use Indigenous cultural artefacts in everyday activities
  • teach Indigenous language(s)
  • invite Indigenous Elders to participate in service delivery
  • offer education and support to parents
  • offer incentives, like providing meals.
• Both the literature and the SFCS evaluation 2004–2008 suggest that culturally appropriate services are those which have individual staff who have appropriate knowledge, skills, values and a long-term commitment to building trusting relationships and engaging with families.

Staffing availability, skills, qualifications, background and enthusiasm

• Staffing availability, skills, qualifications, background and enthusiasm play an instrumental role in supporting or hindering service delivery.
• Generally, early childhood services, including Indigenous-specific ones, face staffing challenges in regard to pay, conditions, training, staff turnover and poor governance and management.
• The funding and flexibility of the CfC model may have helped to partially address some of these problems in urban areas.
• Workers with diverse skills, and skills specifically matched to the needs of the target population, were considered more important in early childhood service delivery than qualifications (when people with both skills and qualifications were not available).
• Recruitment and retention problems were addressed by employing, training and mentoring locals, offering flexible hours and secondments, creating Indigenous support roles, and offering traineeships.
• Employing Indigenous locals in SFCS 2004–2009 programs and providing training and mentoring support, helped to increase local capacity and skills, and improved staff retention rates and program sustainability.
• The CfC model was found to provide a supportive environment, and helped facilitate training, mentoring and staff development.
• Cultural knowledge, understanding local kin, having community networks, and knowing what other services are available, are all important in recruiting and engaging Indigenous families and delivering culturally appropriate services.
• Staff can be categorised as: ‘insiders’, ‘outsiders’, and ‘gatekeepers’. Staff from all these groups could work well with Indigenous families, if they had the appropriate knowledge, skills and values. But insiders and gatekeepers had distinct advantages in pre-existing connections, local knowledge and trusting relationships, which helped to engage Indigenous families.
• In practice, the combination of ‘insider’ cultural knowledge and ‘outsider’ perspective helped some SFCS 2004–2009 staff to effectively engage Indigenous families.
• Gatekeepers or cultural brokers can be very useful to service providers, but they can become overburdened with the management of communication and relationships between service providers and community members.

Community context

• Inappropriate venues and limited physical spaces within communities could affect service provision.
  • Changing venues and making council-owned venues available for services are simple, inexpensive interventions that could increase service use in SFCS 2004–2009 sites.
• Lack of transport hinders many Indigenous families’ access to SFCS 2004–2009 early childhood services. Services offering community transport (pick-up/drop-off services) and mobile services were successful in increasing access and engagement of Indigenous families.
  • Community asset mapping and planning should look at transport as well as service provision.
  • Services need flexibility in funding rules, so that funds can be used for needs as they arise, such as the purchasing of capital assets like motor vehicles.
• The CfC model is substantially hindered in remote sites because remoteness implications were not factored into the funding or the model.
• The remote issues could be partially addressed by:
  • ensuring that future programs have different funding formulas and timelines for remote areas
  • encouraging fly-in/fly-out service providers to share flights to remote areas (this decreases disruption to communities and offers savings and support networks for service providers)
  • assisting providers to gain some understanding of the local languages
  • engaging a trusted local to support the service provider.
• Severe socioeconomic disadvantage and social problems (poor living conditions, transient populations, family disputes, tenancy instability, mental illness, domestic violence and substance misuse) make it difficult for families to prioritise early intervention and prevention service use.
  • Social problems need to be addressed before early intervention and prevention initiatives (or in association with them) if these programs are to be successful.
• Service providers should be mindful of the time needed to develop trusting relationships and of the ways in which historical and contemporary policies and practices can jeopardise trust and service use.
• Projects need to incorporate some flexibility to adapt to community contexts.
• There is no ‘one way’ to adapt programs to Indigenous contexts. Each community is different, and programs need to be adapted to local needs.

Sustainability

• Services attempted to increase the sustainability of programs by seeking to attract, train and retain quality staff.
• In some cases, partnerships, service coordination and a focus on early childhood may be long-term outcomes of the SFCS 2004–2009 initiative.
• Unless funding continues for the employment of staff members and actual service delivery, SFCS 2004–2009 programs are not sustainable in Indigenous communities.
• Preliminary positive program outcomes will diminish if SFCS 2004–2009 programs are not refunded, and potential benefits will remain unrealised without sustained, long-term interventions.
• Short-term interventions, which do not include sustained follow-ups, could have a more detrimental effect on local Indigenous communities than no intervention at all, as they can fuel resentment and mistrust.
• Future, long-term funding for early childhood services in Indigenous communities is essential if Indigenous outcomes are going to improve.
• CfC, which has a four-year funding cycle, is not sufficient to result in long-term positive outcomes for young children and their families in disadvantaged Indigenous communities.
• Government funding is needed because corporate funding is difficult to attract for community development projects (because of the problems associated with measuring outcomes); and in remote areas there are limited or no options to attract corporate funding.

Despite considerable challenges, it appears many SFCS 2004–2009 programs made substantial progress in engaging and providing assistance to Indigenous families and children. The evaluators found that programs benefited from consultations and partnerships with Indigenous organisations and community members, but effective engagement takes a significant amount of time, especially in rural and remote areas. CfC increased the networking, coordination and collaboration between services but in many cases, the four-year SFCS 2004–2009 program was too short for services to establish effective partnerships in the absence of pre-existing relationships.

The greatest reported change was in increased access to services and first-time engagement by some Indigenous families. While many respondents believed SFCS 2004–2009 had increased the number, scope, quality and relevance of services available to Indigenous families and children in their areas, others felt the program had mainly raised Indigenous people’s awareness of services in their communities.

• Previous: Table of contents
• Next: Introduction

[ top ]