Skip to content

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

2. Methodology

2.1 Ethics
2.2 Indigenous themed study reference group
2.3 Methods
2.4 Limitations of the study

The themed study methodology was designed to complement and align with other components of the national evaluation (2004–2008) of SFCS 2004–2009. The researchers obtained approval from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee, consulted a reference group of Indigenous policy experts, conducted a review of relevant academic and policy literature, undertook case studies of 20 CfC sites, conducted focus groups with remote service providers, analysed ItG reports, and conducted telephone interviews with some LA project staff. These activities are described below.

2.1 Ethics

The University of New South Wales Human Ethics Committee approved the research. Researchers were familiar with and conformed to National Health and Medical Research Council, Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies guidelines for conducting research with Indigenous peoples. The researchers will disseminate a summary of research findings in simple English to contributing communities.

[ top ]

2.2 Indigenous themed study reference group

The researchers consulted with a reference group, which included representatives from the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, the FaHCSIA SFCS 2004–2009 Program Review and Longitudinal Survey of Indigenous Children, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC), and an independent consultant with considerable knowledge and experience of issues concerning Indigenous families and children (see Appendix B).

[ top ]

2.3 Methods

Literature review

After obtaining ethics approval from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee and consulting with the Indigenous Themed Study Reference Group, the researchers conducted a literature review to inform the research and contextualise the results. Academic and policy literature was examined and analysed to ascertain what is already known about coordination and provision of early childhood services in Indigenous communities. The literature review helped identify gaps that might be addressed by the national evaluation and inform subsequent components of the themed study.

Case studies

Case studies were undertaken in 20 CfC sites, and a number of LA projects were also analysed for this component of the study.

Case studies comprised four components:

Case studies were undertaken at all SFIA sites, and additional interviews and focus groups were conducted with key informants at CfC sites with a high proportion of Indigenous children. Sites were chosen based on their high ranking in terms of proportion of Indigenous children, with at least one site from each state. Telephone interviews were conducted with project managers from LA projects working with Indigenous families. Table 1 shows which case study methods were used at each CfC site, and the proportion of Indigenous children in each area in the sample. More up-to-date data have recently become available, and revised population estimates for Indigenous children in CfC sites (based on 2006 Census data) can be found in Appendix C.

Table 1: Case study methods used in CfC sites with a high proportion of Indigenous children
CfC site 2001 Case study method
%(a) Telephone consultations Focus groups CfC fieldwork
Cairns 19.4 x x
Dubbo-Narromine 20.4 x
East Arnhem 65.7 x x
East Kimberley 39.4 x
Katherine 53.6 x
Mt Isa 22.9 x
Palmerston-Tiwi Islands 25.0 x x
Port Augusta 24.5 x
South East Tasmania 9.8 x
Swan Hill 7.3 x
Taree 10.1 x
West Pilbara 14.2 x
Sub-total: case study sample 22.4
Total: all 45 CfC sites 8.5
(a) Indigenous children in CfC site as a percentage of all children aged 0 to 5 years, based on CfC site aggregated areas. Data is enumerated (includes visitors).
Source: ABS data available on request, 2001 Census of Population and Housing.

Analysis of evaluation data relating to Indigenous families and children

Data from the various aspects of the CfC National Evaluation (site visits, coordination survey, SFIA, service mapping, local evaluations, reports to FaHCSIA) were analysed to describe Indigenous implementation issues and outcomes. The main source for this part of the study was analysis of SFIA data.

The methods used for this themed study are described in more detail in Appendix C. These components yielded a significant amount of information about how CfC, LA and ItG have affected service provision. While the research aimed to measure perceived outcomes for Indigenous families in the areas where fieldwork was undertaken, the availability of such information was minimal.

[ top ]

2.4 Limitations of the study

This study draws on interview data from key people involved in either a paid or a voluntary capacity with CfC or LA. It also draws on ItG local evaluation reports. However, as already noted, the majority of the evaluation focuses on CfC. Consequently, many sections of this report only refer to CfC. Where CfC, ItG and LA are referred to collectively, the report will state SFCS or SFCS 2004–2009. In other sections of the report, only CfC or CfC and ItG are discussed because of the limited data available from LA.

Moreover, many of the CfC contacts were drawn from lists provided by the FPs in each area. Individuals were then invited to volunteer to participate in an interview. Consequently, those interviewed cannot be regarded as a representative sample of key stakeholders.

Local evaluation reports on ItG projects were used to understand provision of service to, and engagement of, Indigenous families and children. While substantial information was collected from the reports, and while ItG and CfC share some similarities (focus on the early years, service coordination and capacity), they are inherently different models. Another reason for CfC-related finding being presented without reference to ItG is that ItG does not have a place-based approach or an FP model.3

For the LA component, only two project managers implementing Indigenous programs volunteered to be interviewed, although FaHCSIA recommended five. As already mentioned, the study findings are not specifically applicable to LA projects; nor can they be used to directly compare the three streams (CfC, ItG and LA). However, many of the findings throughout this report may be relevant to other community-based Indigenous programs (including LA).

Only three respondents openly identified as Indigenous. Others identified as non-Indigenous, but some respondents did not state their Indigenous status. Therefore, while Indigenous people’s perceptions are represented throughout the report, the researchers cannot accurately identify the exact number of respondents who were of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent. Furthermore, this study did not conduct qualitative interviews with Indigenous families and children across Australia. This was not feasible within the resources and timeframe available for this research. While there is a small section of the report on outcomes for Indigenous families and children, the research remains focused on the original aim of investigating the provision and coordination of services.

Nonetheless, the impact of SFCS 2004–2009 on the lives of Indigenous families and children is of significant interest. This report uses SFIA data to track community-based outcomes for Indigenous families living in 10 CfC sites, in comparison with Indigenous families living in control sites, and with non-Indigenous people in SFIA and control areas. A significant limitation of this study is that all information (other than that collected by SFIA) was gathered from service providers. The timing and resources for this study did not allow for interviews with community members or service users. The most serious implication of this is that the voice of the Indigenous population is not directly reported. The reliance on one group of stakeholders limits the extent to which these findings can be expected to reflect the true complexity of the issues raised in the report. While many participants had very good knowledge of the Indigenous members of their community, they were still reporting from a service provider’s perspective.

[ top ]