• 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: Executive Summary
• Next: Methodology

1. Introduction

1.1 Aims and research questions
1.2 Concepts and terminology

This report documents one of three themed studies undertaken for the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) as part of the national evaluation (2004–2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004–2009. As set out in the National Evaluation Framework, the themed studies are part of a cross-strategy evaluation designed to explore particular issues in depth, and to identify common themes across Communities for Children (CfC), Local Answers (LA) and Invest to Grow (ItG).¹ These studies aim to enhance understanding of what works and what does not work by exploring in more depth why and how some programs work. The other two themed studies investigated how SFCS 2004–2009 has addressed the needs of fathers, and how it has engaged hard-to-reach children and families. FaHCSIA selected these themes, in consultation with the national evaluation team.

1.1 Aims and research questions

Building on the experiences of other early childhood and early intervention programs engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families, this study aims to identify the impact of CfC, LA and ItG 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.

To explore these issues, the research considered the following questions:

• Is the Facilitating Partner (FP) model effective in developing and coordinating services for Indigenous children?
• How has the SFCS model changed service provision for services working with Indigenous families and children?
• What is the perceived impact of the SFCS model on Indigenous children and parents?
• What factors have facilitated or hindered the SFCS model having an impact on the lives of Indigenous families and children?
• How could the SFCS model be improved to better support Indigenous families and children?

This report examines changes to service provision for services working with Indigenous families and children by assessing the impact of SFCS 2004–2009 on changes to service availability, capacity and focus, and on access and engagement by Indigenous families. The report also explores the level and type of service coordination within CfC sites with high proportions of Indigenous families and children. It describes the ways in which services are coordinating, the benefits of coordination, and the role of the FPs in facilitating networking, coordination and collaboration.

The report examines the impact of SFCS 2004–2009 on Indigenous families and children through the Stronger Families in Australia (SFIA) study,² the perceptions of key stakeholders, and describes changes to service provision, engagement and coordination. The report also explores factors that have facilitated or hindered provision of services and outcomes within communities with high proportions of Indigenous families and children.

1.2 Concepts and terminology

The authors acknowledge the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who have different languages, cultures, histories and perspectives. For ease of reference, this report refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples collectively as Indigenous people.

Under Communities for Children (CfC), non-government organisations were funded as Facilitating Partners in 45 community sites around Australia to develop and implement a strategic and sustainable whole-of-community approach to early childhood development, in consultation with local stakeholders (see Appendix A).

A Community Partner (CP) is a non-government organisation contracted by Facilitating Partners to deliver the activities identified in the local Community Strategic and Service Delivery Plans (see Appendix A).

A Facilitating Partner (FP) is a non-government organisation in each CfC community that was responsible for bringing pre-existing and new services together with community members to develop new ways of addressing the needs of children and families in the community. The FP coordinated a CfC Committee (CCC) and distributed the CfC funding within their community. The CCC was responsible for drawing up a Strategic Plan that identified the strengths and assets, and the needs and service gaps of children in the community. Once the plan had been approved, the FP was responsible for implementing and monitoring it (see Appendix A).

Hard-to-reach groups, other than Indigenous Australians, including people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, tend to be defined in three ways: populations ‘under-represented’ in service provision; service users (or potential service users) who may be ‘invisible’ or ‘overlooked’ by service providers; and service users (or potential service users) considered, for various reasons, to be ‘service-resistant’ (Doherty et al. 2003). This is considered in more detail in the SFCS Engaging hard-to-reach families and children (Cortis et al. forthcoming).

Invest to Grow (ItG) provided funding for early childhood programs and development of tools and resource materials to be used by families, professionals and communities supporting families and young children (see Appendix A).

Local Answers (LA) funded local, small-scale, time-limited projects that helped communities identify opportunities to develop skills, support children and families and foster proactive communities. LA was committed to listening to local communities and using local knowledge and experience to develop effective, practical solutions specific to individual communities and their needs (see Appendix A).

Mainstream refers to the greater number or majority. It is used as a general term to identify the most prevalent or widespread culture in a country; for example, the culture that is prevalent in the national government, health and education systems.

• Previous: Executive Summary
• Next: Methodology

[ top ]