Skip to content

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

4. Service coordination

4.1 Referral system/coordination between services
4.2 Service coordination within CfC sites

4.1 Referral system/coordination between services

The literature on good service delivery practice for Indigenous people recommends that individual services be integrated and holistic, and also that they coordinate, share knowledge and refer clients between services (Higgins & Butler 2007; OATSIHS 1998; SNAICC 2004). It is particularly important for services operating in more remote locations to operate in a holistic manner. Generally, more populous areas have a greater number of services and those services are consequently more specialised. While holistic service provision should be encouraged in both urban and rural contexts, service providers may encounter issues with which they are unable or unqualified to deal. Referral and coordination between services should be encouraged to ensure the most appropriate provider supports client needs, and to give more widespread service access.

This is particularly important among Indigenous people, since many Indigenous families and children are largely disengaged from the service network. In many cases, a family’s engagement with a child care service is the only connection they have to service networks and for this reason, referrals between early childhood service providers and other support services are crucial. Informal services are also important to introduce families to more formal, specialist services (FaCSIA 2007b). Indigenous-specific services may also be an entry point for Indigenous clients into mainstream services.

Summary

[ top ]

4.2 Service coordination within CfC sites

A major focus of CfC was to increase the coordination and collaboration between services within each of the 45-sites, and increased collaboration was one of the most significant achievements of the initiative. The following observations are made with Indigenous contexts in mind even though the issues raised may not be specifically Indigenous issues, since the benefits of coordination and collaboration were experienced across the initiative.

Almost all respondents in this study noted that networking had increased considerably since the introduction of CfC. While a number of those interviewed noted that CfC in particular had established strong new interagency partnerships where none existed before, many stated that some interagency cooperation had predated CfC, but that the program had strengthened and enhanced existing partnerships.

A number of respondents described the increase in coordination and collaboration as a ‘cultural change’. The partnerships and collaboration fostered by the initiative had created a culture where services were committed to a common cause. The response of one CP in a regional centre was typical:

Cultural change is taking place ... The community is more cohesive [since the introduction of CfC], not as segmented. We’re all working together, coordinated. [Service providers in the area] are all working towards a common purpose.

Numerous FPs and service providers reported the benefits of increased networking and collaboration. These included increases in organisational, service and individual capacity as a result of cooperation, resource sharing and brokering. Services shared skills, administrative capability, resources and service-delivery strategies.

Most respondents reported an increase in interagency support and referrals since the introduction of CfC and improvements in coherence and coordination. One CP noted:

Coordination has definitely increased. [Our] programs unite services ... Services come together and plan. That wouldn’t have had happened before [CfC] ... We celebrate each other’s successes and promote each other ... There’s a holistic point of view [now], the whole community is getting involved.

Importantly, referrals between Indigenous organisations and mainstream services increased, which meant mainstream services were able to work with some Indigenous families for the first time:

The [CfC] funding has strengthened linkage and developed partnerships with Aboriginal organisations. I can see it working. The fact that there can be crossover [between Indigenous and mainstream organisations] opens it up a lot. Indigenous families are becoming more comfortable using mainstream services. Aboriginal families are comfortable as long as it’s a partnership.

Another CP in a remote site described the increased service capacity that arose from working with another CfC partner organisation:

I work directly with another interesting project. It’s more time-efficient. We’re [relatively close to] each other and we [both] get resources [from CfC]. We’re an early childhood organisation and they’re a parenting program. They don’t have much time and all that sort of stuff so [the other program manager] calls out to me. She has much more experience working in communities with Aboriginal adults.

As illustrated in this example, enhanced partnerships can be mutually beneficial and lead to increased efficiency through resource and information sharing. Partnerships reduce service duplication, and increase organisational and community capacity by enhancing the skills, knowledge and confidence of program workers.

The coordination that occurred as a result of CfC changed the nature of the relationships between the local and the fly-in/fly-out services from a ‘colonial’ to collaborative and supportive approach. As one CP in a remote site said:

[Now] they come out to [visit] us, saying ‘What do you need?’, rather than ‘Why aren’t you ...?’.

In remote areas, coordinating visits from fly-in/fly-out service providers has minimised disruption to service users, saved services money on transport and provided service providers with other contacts and resources while in the remote community:

If I hadn’t connected with her [another CP], I’d be flying in by myself each time. [There is] safety in partnership and resources. We both have connections and different resources and networks (CP).

While coordinated fly-in/fly-out service visits have increased as a result of CfC in some remote sites, there is still considerable scope to expand this practice.

Other sites also shared promising practices with services in their communities. A CP in a regional site explained how the organisation had worked hard to increase service access to difficult-to-engage groups for some time. They partially solved this problem by providing community transport pick-up and drop-off services. Since the increased collaboration in the area and the sharing of promising practices like these, other CPs had begun to employ similar techniques.

ItG projects have also sought to engage and support Indigenous families and children through service collaboration, particularly by establishing and strengthening networks with Indigenous services. A fathers’ support group, for example, established relationships with the local Aboriginal Corporation to provide support and referrals where appropriate, and attended Indigenous cultural events. Another collaborated with Indigenous Elders, performance groups and organisations to increase their reach and their cultural appropriateness and strengthen their service capacity. A health promotion ItG project collaborated with Indigenous community members to develop locally appropriate resources, training and programs. Finally, a child nutrition program was grounded in Indigenous community-controlled organisations.

In general, respondents agreed that referrals, and information and resource sharing went both ways, and that colleagues in other agencies gave them at least as much support as they themselves gave to others. However, a few participants noted that, despite considerable progress in many areas, there was not enough networking taking place in their sites and others generally expected them to initiate collaboration. One noted dejectedly:

There’s still lots of bunkering down. It’s very hard work. [Other service provider agencies] often don’t make the effort.
The initiative always comes from me.

This reinforces the finding that substantial time is required for the CfC model. Time is needed, not only to consult with community members, but to also build working relationships between service providers. It also demonstrates that one party may have to invest more time and energy before all parties commit to the relationship and are convinced that it is of benefit to them. This was further reinforced in another area, where there was a striking contradiction between the level and extent of coordination and networking reported between different CPs.

The time limitations and effort required to develop strong working relationships meant that areas with pre-existing connections were likely to be more successful in collaborating within the relatively short CfC time period. This was recognised as a difficulty within the CfC model and therefore a number of participants gave priority to strengthening existing partnerships, rather than trying to establish entirely new collaborations. This may put remote and rural sites at a distinct disadvantage because of the limited number of services to coordinate with and/or the limited number of pre-existing relationships.

It is important to point out that, irrespective of geographic location, relationships took considerable time to establish and partnerships were not always conflict free. They required a significant investment of time and resources and a commitment to formal and informal communication processes. One service provider in a regional centre described the partnership that her organisation had formed with a local Indigenous organisation as ‘difficult and time-consuming’ with a need to ‘negotiate and compromise’. Yet once the relationship was established, it was perceived as ‘very worthwhile’.

FPs played a key role in facilitating service coordination. A CP believed that the assistance of the FP had enabled the organisation to work with the Indigenous community it was targeting:

Our Facilitating Partners, they have a history of working in this community. It was our Facilitating Partner who took us out and introduced us to the people in the community. That was really great because if we had gone in there ourselves it just wouldn’t have worked.

By virtue of their position as lead agencies, FPs operated as brokers, accessing and providing skills and resources in a way that added to the shared capacity of the organisations within their sites:

Recently in conjunction with one of our community partners, we had a grant writing workshop. [Organisations were invited] from inside the site and outside the site. We had 36 calls of interest and 35 turned up (FP).

Another comment by the same FP reinforces the idea of brokering. The respondent described their role in terms of being a ‘translator’:

One of the roles that we came across was as a translator of government business. We’re now being seen as a resource to the community. People come to us, to our committee meetings [and] mix with other people. You’ve got that cross-fertilisation which wasn’t happening in the informal sense.

These responses demonstrate a degree of cooperation between FPs and CPs. However, the extent to which this is a direct result of the FP–CP model is difficult to gauge. There were a few instances, for example, where CPs felt that the ‘middle man’ role the FP played was an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. This may have reflected the relationship between the CP and FP, a lack of understanding of the model, or the capacity of either the FP or the CP.

Overall, however, respondents described the way they worked together positively in terms of cooperation, resource sharing, building relationships and brokering. It is clear the mutual benefit of improved coordination and cooperation has a positive impact on service delivery.

Summary

[ top ]