Skip to content

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

3. Service provision

3.1 Community development approach
3.2 Service capacity and focus
3.3 Access and engagement by Indigenous families

3.1 Community development approach

The CfC initiative is based on a community development approach, which aims to increase community capacity through community-based consultation, planning and implementation around a community’s needs. Considering and planning around local issues—such as community boundaries, networks, existing services and resources, demography and geography—is an important component of community development. Theoretically, this approach enables communities to tailor CfC programs, activities and services around the local community’s capacity and needs. This aspect is crucial to Indigenous communities.

Many participants noted that a community development approach led to increased local ownership of the CfC program and ultimately made projects more sustainable. It allowed for flexible and innovative service delivery and provided opportunities for organisations to work collaboratively. Community-specific issues can, however, present challenges in service implementation (see Section 6.3).

Asset mapping and community consultation

Asset mapping and community consultation are important steps in the community development process and in CfC. Asset mapping helps communities understand the local demographics and resources in order to inform planning. While asset mapping did help communities understand services and resources, the CfC model with its four-year funding arrangement was not sufficiently flexible for communities that had limited existing services or resources.

CfC sites consulted community leaders, organisations and Indigenous service users in the planning, implementation and sustainability stages. For example, after consulting with Indigenous community members, a women’s educational health program incorporated a local ceremony and traditional birthing story into their education package. In other programs, Indigenous Elders translated English materials into the local Indigenous language. Local evaluators tailored their research to the local Indigenous community by consulting the community about the methodology and then adopting appropriate and relevant methods, using Indigenous or familiar non-Indigenous researchers.

Several respondents noted the benefit of obtaining community approval and of involving Indigenous Elders, service providers and service users in consultations. These consultations helped identify the needs of the community, inform service provision and funding allocation and, in turn, helped engage Indigenous families and children. According to participants, community consultation was beneficial, not only in increasing people’s awareness of programs, but also in designing and developing programs appropriate to community needs. The consultation process was more effective in urban and regional areas than in rural and remote locations because stakeholders were readily available and accessible. Limited resources and tight timeframes meant some remote communities were not consulted in the establishment and implementation phases of the CfC model. Consequently, funded programs and services in remote Indigenous communities sometimes only reflected the perceptions of service providers, not of service users, and were not necessarily sanctioned by the local community.

Despite this criticism, community consultations in remote locations were still important. A CP working in a remote area described the benefits of consultation:

We find that traditional Elders are the ones people go to with issues. Particularly in our consultation process prior to running [the program]. Once it’s up, the community owns it. [If] we get a strong community who wants to do it then we don’t have to worry about selling it which is great. At the early stage of [the program], we got a few locals to capture what it’s about and they sell it.

Many organisations might have actively engaged with stakeholders regardless of CfC. However, structures embedded within CfC ensured this was done rigorously. These structures included the CfC Committee, asset mapping and the community consultation process, which to some extent ensured a broad cross-section of stakeholders was consulted.

While consultation was a key component of the CfC model, the four-year funding period meant the initial time allocated to consultation was limited. This proved problematic in areas with high proportions of Indigenous families and children. CfC sites that succeeded in building trust and rapport with Indigenous people spent considerable time consulting the community, although this slowed the implementation of projects. However, if consultation periods were short, service providers had difficulty engaging Indigenous families. It was clear, therefore, that a four-year funding period is insufficient for conducting widespread, time-intensive community consultation, which allows for input by a diversity of community members and establishes trust and community sanction for programs and services.

Summary

[ top ]

3.2 Service capacity and focus

SFCS 2004–2009 increased the number and scope of services available to Indigenous families and children and improved the capacity of some services in a number of communities. Almost all those interviewed in the telephone consultations, focus groups and CfC fieldwork (approximately 80 per cent) believed that the availability of services in their communities had increased since the inception of CfC or LA. Many respondents reported that both the number and scope of services were noticeably greater, and they praised the strategy for this change. One CP, from an urban site with a moderate proportion of Indigenous children aged 0 to 5 years, reported that SFCS 2004–2009 had introduced ‘new’ programs and services to her community, which previously had ‘nothing’ for Indigenous families with 0 to 5 year-old children.

A number of CfC, ItG and LA programs funded by SFCS 2004–2009 were either developed or expanded specifically for Indigenous families and children. For example, preschool programs, antenatal fathering sessions, children’s therapy programs, a camping program for families, playgroups, health promotion resources and parenting skills programs were offered in different locations.

In remote sites, CfC FPs varied in their reporting of changes to the number and scope of services for Indigenous families. One FP reported considerable increase in service capacity in his community. Others felt that CfC had mainly served to increase people’s awareness of the services available. This is an important first step, given the time it can take to build awareness and trust. Another respondent, based in a remote location, reported that there had been no increase in specialist services in the area, despite an assessed need for specialist teaching and medical personnel.

Despite these reservations, all remote FPs reported some new services and programs that were made possible by CfC funding and were not available before the initiative. Some of the increases in services were the result of re-establishment of services that had run out of funding and been disbanded before CfC. In other cases, programs were not so much new as complementary to existing programs. For example, CfC funding enabled a parenting and life skills program to be used by other organisations to support their own activities. This example shows that all sites experienced increases in service provision as a result of CfC. While some increases were a result of newly developed services, others were related to an increased rollout of existing programs or services.

Many CfC respondents reported improvements in the relevance and quality of service delivery as a direct result of CfC funding. This was because it enabled services to collaborate, implement cultural change, and listen to and focus on community needs. Services were reportedly more aware of and focused on the early years, more child-friendly and strengths-based, and increasingly proactive and holistic.

FPs believed that the greater flexibility in terms of service delivery was one of the key benefits of the CfC model. They reported that the model gave them and the CPs with whom they worked greater control over what services were delivered and the manner in which this was done. They also saw a greater opportunity to negotiate more meaningfully with communities because they had a better understanding of the local context than did governments. A CP described a situation where deaths in a community prevented them from meeting anticipated outcomes. Because the project manager lived in the area and understood the situation within the local context, there was no need to explain why the program was behind schedule. The relationship between the FPs and CPs also protected CP organisations. Many FPs considered themselves a buffer between the requirements of the government and the operational constraints of smaller CPs. Further, FPs felt they mitigated the potential risks of CPs by providing administrative support and adding to their skills and capabilities.

Because of insufficient knowledge and/or evaluation, a few of those interviewed across all fieldwork methods (about 10 per cent) were unsure whether the number and scope of services had increased since SFCS 2004–2009.

Summary

[ top ]

3.3 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. The literature clearly states that accessibility is a key factor in encouraging use of support services by Indigenous families and children (FaCSIA 2007b; OATSIHS 1998; Penman 2006a; SNAICC 2004; Turner, Richards & Sanders 2007). Access and engagement is critical if policies and programs are to improve the status of Indigenous children, families and communities with the highest needs.

Government records indicate that access to early childhood services by Indigenous families and children is poor. According to the Australian Government Census of Child Care, non-Indigenous children used Australian Government-supported child care services at more than twice the rate of Indigenous children (8 per cent of Indigenous children compared to 19 per cent of non-Indigenous children—ABS & AIHW 2005).

Most CfC participants gave anecdotal reports of increases in the participation of Indigenous families and children in programs and activities.4 However, a number of respondents reported that SFCS 2004–2009 did not increase the access and engagement of Indigenous families and children. In general, it appeared that the type of service affected the participation of Indigenous families.

Mainstream and Indigenous-specific services

Several respondents noted that Indigenous families and children are generally more likely to access Indigenous-specific services than mainstream ones. This is supported by the literature, which finds that many Indigenous Australians are not accessing mainstream human services (ATSISJC 2007). Indigenous children were underrepresented in most early childhood service categories and comprised 1.8 per cent of all children engaged in all forms of child care in 2004, despite the 2001 Census of Population and Housing estimate that 4 per cent of children aged 0 to 4 years were Indigenous (FaCS 2005).

Community demand for Indigenous-specific services for young children resulted in establishment of numerous playgroups or activity centres throughout Australia that have been well used. For example, Aboriginal Playgroups and Enrichment Services and Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services (MACS) attract very high proportions of Indigenous children (88 per cent and 79 per cent respectively) to their preschool, long day care, playgroup, out of school hours, and holiday care services (FaCSIA 2007b).

While Indigenous-specific services likes MACS are clearly popular with Indigenous parents, 6 per cent of children using mainstream multifunction centres are also Indigenous, indicating a demand for both Indigenous-specific and mainstream services that cater to the needs of Indigenous children.

Although data are available about the range of services individual MACS provide, the Australian Census of Child Care Services does not itemise the uptake of specific services provided by MACS. Consequently it is difficult to directly compare Indigenous families’ use of specific MACS services with their use of the same services offered by mainstream providers. However, the proportion of Indigenous children attending mainstream vacation care and occasional care services was comparatively low (1 per cent and 2 per cent respectively). Indigenous children were more likely to use Mobile Toy Library Services; 10 per cent of children using these services were Indigenous (FaCS 2005).

While these figures may indicate that Indigenous Australians are unaware of the mainstream services available to them or are not motivated to use them, their service-use patterns may also reflect the fact that they are more likely to live in remote areas and come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than other Australians.

The SFCS 2004–2009 increased the number and scope of mainstream and Indigenous-specific services that aimed to support children and families generally or specific-needs groups (such as teenage mothers). Consistent with the literature (FaCSIA 2007b), while some mainstream CfC, ItG and LA programs appear to be engaging Indigenous families and children, several identified particularly low Indigenous participation rates. In some sites, CfC respondents reported that despite an increase in the number and scope of available services, there was no corresponding increase in Indigenous families or children accessing services. This was apparent when mainstream programs did not develop strategies for including Indigenous people or communities. Service providers commented that although Indigenous families were aware of new programs, many did not believe these services were accessible or welcoming.

The uptake of mainstream services by Indigenous families was particularly poor in sites with lower proportions of Indigenous children than the CfC average (8.5 per cent). However, even where the proportion of Indigenous children was higher than the average, Indigenous families could still be hesitant to access new mainstream services. A CP in a regional site with a moderate number of Indigenous children described the contradiction between service scope and uptake:

There are new buildings, [and] ever increasing services. The [available] support has changed and improved, but I’m not sure whether Aboriginal families are comfortable using them [services].

Several respondents in urban, regional and remote sites commented that mainstream models do not always fit Indigenous service users. It is not surprising, therefore, that service providers who did little or nothing to specifically target Indigenous families and children typically reported difficulties engaging Indigenous clients. A number of respondents spoke about the barriers that existed between mainstream services and Indigenous people and the courage required for many Indigenous families to access services. This was especially noted in particular subgroups, such as engaging Indigenous men in mainstream preschools, and engaging Indigenous teenage mothers in prenatal health services.

A report published by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (ATSISJC 2007) notes that ‘there is a tendency to substitute rather than to complement and supplement programs within portfolios’ and that Indigenous-specific programs often bear the sole responsibility for delivering services to Indigenous families and individuals. The report goes on to say that improving access to mainstream services in urban locations is particularly challenging: this conclusion was confirmed by the evaluation findings.

Respondents noted that it was challenging for service providers in large, diverse urban and regional areas to identify and target Indigenous families. Indeed, a number of mainstream service providers interviewed did not know the ethnic background of the families they supported. This suggests that Indigenous families were either participating in services and service providers were unaware of their backgrounds, or that they were largely not attending mainstream services in ethnically diverse areas. The second explanation seems more likely as findings from the literature and SFCS evaluation 2004–2008 show that Indigenous families are less likely to engage with a service that is not culturally tailored.

Respondents generally agreed that Indigenous-specific services offer Indigenous families a safe, comfortable, culturally appropriate environment that is easier to access and engage with. However, this is not always the case. An ItG project found that Indigenous clients in suburban areas did not necessarily prefer to participate in Indigenous-only programs. Consequently, the service provider adapted the mainstream program to be more culturally appropriate (by engaging with Indigenous people and liaising and working with Indigenous services) to attract a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants. This option was perceived to offer a less stigmatising and more culturally appropriate environment.

A number of respondents reinforced the importance of multiple entry points to access both Indigenous-specific and mainstream services. Participants mentioned that family feuds, local issues or personal preferences prevented some families accessing specific Indigenous-run or mainstream services. As a consequence, the choice between multiple services improved access to families that might otherwise be disengaged. A regionally-based service provider believed that the existence of both mainstream and Indigenous-specific services in the area facilitated access for a larger number of Indigenous families than either service would have done in isolation. Furthermore, research has found that while Indigenous parents want services and education that reinforces cultural identity, they also want their children to participate in mainstream educational services (FaCSIA 2007b).

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.

Family constraints

Families were also hesitant to access services for attitudinal and financial reasons (see also Section 6).5 Participants in different communities reported that a widespread lack of understanding of the importance of early childhood hindered service access and outcomes. Another respondent believed that despite the strengths-based approach of CfC programs, they were perceived as too negative and interventionist and only for children with explicit problems. Others said that Indigenous families were often shy and ashamed to ask for help (see Wingard & Lester, cited in Briskman 2007).

Financial constraints also hindered some families’ participation. This is consistent with the literature, which has found that even ‘token’ fees of $20 per week or $10 per day are too much for many Indigenous families (SNAICC 2004, p. 12). Financial constraints are further exacerbated in some families where parents are unaware of government benefits to which they are entitled, such as the Child Care Benefit and Grandparent Child Care Benefit (FaCSIA 2007b). Many Indigenous families’ reluctance to use services could also indicate that some might not place a high value on early childhood services. However, as many Indigenous families have had little contact with early childhood service providers, it is important to remove any possible barriers to service uptake in order to introduce as many families as possible to services and demonstrate their value.

These constraints highlight 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, to actively encourage families to participate by using ‘soft’ engagement strategies, and to provide culturally appropriate and respectful services at a low cost for families.

Summary

[ top ]