Skip to content

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

5. Indigenous families and children

5.1 Indigenous family demographics and outcomes in CfC sites
5.2 Perceptions of change for Indigenous families and children

The main aim of this themed study was to focus on service provision and coordination, but it also investigated preliminary outcomes for Indigenous families and children (within time and financial resource constraints). This section provides socio-demographic characteristics of Indigenous families compared to non-Indigenous families, in 10 CfC sites across Waves 1 and 3 of the SFIA study. Preliminary outcomes for Indigenous families engaged in SFCS 2004–2009 are also based on the perceptions of key informants involved with SFCS 2004–2009 and ItG evaluation reports.

5.1 Indigenous family demographics and outcomes in CfC sites

The SFIA data provide an insight into the community-level changes experienced by Indigenous families living in 10 of the CfC sites between 2006 and 2008 that participated in the SFIA study. The findings outlined below illustrate the changes experienced within Indigenous families and non-Indigenous families between Wave 1 (2006) and Wave 3 (2008). The changes for Indigenous families cannot be directly attributed to the CfC intervention, as they could not be compared to changes experienced by Indigenous families in the five control sites (because of the small sample size).

In Wave 1, 8.3 per cent of families in the SFIA sample identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. The representation of Indigenous families remained high throughout the study and 7.6 per cent of families in the study in Wave 3 were Indigenous. Of the 6,051 interviews conducted for the SFIA study, 479 (7.9 per cent) were with Indigenous families. The demographic characteristics and outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous families who participated in all three waves of the study are described below (Indigenous n=134; non-Indigenous n=1,690). Table D1 (Appendix D) compares the repeat participants with all Indigenous and non-Indigenous families involved in SFIA. The outcomes described below cannot be attributed to CfC because the sample size of Indigenous families living in non-CfC control sites was too small.

Demographics

Age and sex distribution of children

The mean age of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in the SFIA sample was 2.8 years in Wave 1 and 4.5 years in Wave 3. Half of the children were male and half female in both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups (Table D1).

Sole parent households

Almost half of the Indigenous participants in SFIA were living in a single-mother household in Wave 1 (47.8 per cent), compared to around one in five (19.5 per cent) non-Indigenous participants (p<0.001). Indigenous families experienced a 3.8 per cent decrease in single-mother households by Wave 3 (this was not a significant change), while the proportion of non-Indigenous single-mother households remained constant (20.0 per cent; Table D1).

Education

There was a significant difference between the proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers who had completed Year 10 or a lower level of schooling. In Wave 1, one in three Indigenous mothers in the study (33.6 per cent) had completed Year 10 or lower, compared to 16 per cent of non-Indigenous mothers (p<0.001; Table D1).

By Wave 3, education rates had improved for Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers (27.6 per cent of Indigenous mothers had completed Year 10 or lower, p<0.01, and 14.3 per cent of non-Indigenous mothers, p<0.001; Table D1). These increases can be accounted for by small numbers of mothers continuing to participate in education during the study (Indigenous mothers n=8; non-Indigenous mothers n=30).

Employment

Indigenous children were significantly less likely to be living with an employed parent. Just over one in three (35.1 per cent) Indigenous children were living with an employed father (35.1 per cent), compared to almost three in four (72.2 per cent) non-Indigenous children in Wave 1 (p<0.001). While the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children remained significant at Wave 3 (p<0.001), more Indigenous children were living with an employed father at Wave 3 than Wave 1 (41.0 per cent; the proportion of non-Indigenous children living with an employed father remained consistent at 72.6 per cent; Table D1). Therefore paternal employment increased by almost 6 per cent for Indigenous families.

Non-Indigenous mothers were also more likely to be employed than Indigenous mothers at Wave 1 and Wave 3 (41.9 per cent of non-Indigenous and 31.1 per cent of Indigenous mothers were employed in Wave 1, p<0.05, and 49.9 per cent and 38.5 per cent were employed in Wave 3, p<0.05). While the gap between the employment of Indigenous and non-Indigenous mothers remained significant, Indigenous mothers were more likely to be employed, more likely to have entered the labour force and less likely to be unemployed at Wave 3, compared to Wave 1 (Table D1).

Income

Indigenous and non-Indigenous households’ incomes improved between Wave 1 and Wave 3. While the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous household income was significant at both Wave 1 and Wave 3, it had started to close at Wave 3. Almost one in three Indigenous households (32.8 per cent) were earning $500 or less per week, compared to just over one in seven non-Indigenous households (14.9 per cent; p<0.0001). By Wave 3, one in four Indigenous households were earning $500 or less per week, compared to just over one in eight non-Indigenous households (p<0.0001). Therefore, Indigenous households experienced a 7.4 per cent decrease in the proportion earning $500 or less a week, compared to a 2.2 per cent decrease for non-Indigenous households (Table D1).

Number of times moved

Indigenous parents were significantly more likely than non-Indigenous parents to have moved during their child’s life (p<0.001) at Wave 1 and Wave 3. At Wave 1 (when their children were an average age of 2.8 years) Indigenous families had moved an average of 1.7 times, compared to 0.9 times for non-Indigenous families. By Wave 3 (when the average age of children was 4.5 years) Indigenous families had moved an average of 2.0 times, compared to 1.3 times for non-Indigenous families.

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 (Table D1). The higher mobility of Indigenous families should be considered in the provision of place-based initiatives. For example, this could involve referrals between service providers in different geographic areas.

Outcomes

Health: self-reported parental health

Indigenous parents’ self-reported general health improved slightly between Wave 1 and Wave 3 and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents decreased (although it remained significant at both waves; p<0.0001 and p<0.01 respectively). In a score from 1 to 5 (with 1 representing very poor health and 5 excellent health), Indigenous parents reported a mean of score of 3.4 in Wave 1 and 3.5 in Wave 3, compared to 3.7 for non-Indigenous parents in both waves (Table D2).

Mental health improved for Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents between Wave 1 and Wave 3 (based on the Kessler-6 instrument of self-reported psychological distress). On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 representing very poor mental health and 5 very good mental health) Indigenous parents’ reported mental health improved significantly from a mean of 4.16 to 4.28 (p<0.0001). Similarly, non-Indigenous parents reported mental health improvements (the mean increased from 4.34 to 4.41; p<0.0001). The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents remained significant at Wave 1 and Wave 3, but had decreased slightly by Wave 3 (p<0.001 at Wave 1 and p<0.05 at Wave 3; Table D3).

Self-reported parenting skills (parental self-efficacy)

On average, Indigenous parents reported a significant decrease in their parenting skills between Wave 1 and Wave 3 (a mean of 3.84 and 3.74 respectively, with 1 representing ‘a very good parent’ and 5 representing ‘not a good parent’, p<0.05). Indigenous parents had lower levels of self-efficacy than non-Indigenous parents at Wave 1 (not significant) and at Wave 3 (p<0.05). Therefore, the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parenting skills increased between Waves 1 and 3. Non-Indigenous parents’ self-reported parenting also declined over time, but not significantly (3.90 in Wave 1 to 3.87 in Wave 3; Table D4).

Hostile parenting

Hostile parenting was measured based on parent self-ratings on the frequency of irritable and hostile behaviour directed at their child. Parent self-reporting was validated by the researchers’ observations during the interviews. Scores range from 1 to 10 (with 1 representing no hostile parenting and 10 representing hostile parenting all the time). There were no significant changes or differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents or between Waves 1 and 3 in relation to hostile parenting. Indigenous parents scored a mean of 3.41 in Wave 1 and 3.47 in Wave 3, compared to 3.34 in Wave 1 and 3.33 in Wave 3 for non-Indigenous parents (Table D5).

Home learning environment

The home learning environments significantly declined for Indigenous and non-Indigenous households. On average, parents from both groups reported conducting fewer home learning-based activities, such as reading books, drawing and/or art and craft throughout the week. On a scale of 1 (no learning activities) to 4 (activities every day), Indigenous parents scored 2.83 in Wave 1 and 2.64 in Wave 3 (p<0.0001) and non-Indigenous parents scored 3.05 in Wave 1 and 2.87 in Wave 3 (p<0.0001). The gap in the home learning environment in Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous households remained significant at both waves (p<0.0001; Table D6).

Support in child rearing

Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents reported significant decreases in the amount of support they generally receive from their partner/spouse, families, friends, neighbours and communities to raise their children (p<0.0001). Although Indigenous families reported receiving slightly less support than non-Indigenous families, the gap was not significant at Wave 1 or Wave 3 and had almost closed by Wave 3 (Table D7).

Despite the general decreases in support, Indigenous families and non-Indigenous families reported significantly improved levels of support when they most needed it between Waves 1 and 3 (p<0.01 and p<0.1 respectively). While 15.7 per cent of Indigenous families reported not having support available when they needed it in Wave 1, this had decreased to 7.5 per cent by Wave 3. Non-Indigenous families experienced a smaller decrease. Consequently, by Wave 3 there was no longer a significant difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families in the availability of support when they needed it (Table D10).

Neighbourhood social cohesion

A composite neighbourhood social cohesion indicator was created using combined scores based on a number of indicators. An index was created based on participants’ levels of agreement with the following statements:

Responses to these statements were combined and the mean scores were ranked on a scale from 1 (very low perceived social cohesion) to 5 (very high perceived social cohesion): the higher the score, the higher the perceived level of social cohesion in respondents’ local communities.

There was a significant increase in perceived neighbourhood social cohesion for Indigenous and non-Indigenous families (p<0.0001). Non-Indigenous families were significantly more likely to report higher levels of social cohesion in Wave 1 (3.35) and Wave 3 (3.42) than Indigenous families (3.12 and 3.15; Table D8).

Neighbourhood as a place to bring up children

Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous families were more positive about their neighbourhood as a place to bring up children in Wave 3 than in Wave 1 of the study. On a five-point Likert scale, with 1 representing ‘very poor’ and 5 representing ‘very good’, significant increases occurred for Indigenous (Wave 1=3.67; Wave 3=3.75) and non-Indigenous (Wave 1=3.92; Wave 3=3.99) children. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families decreased slightly by Wave 3, but remained significant (p<0.01; Table D9).

Summary

The SFIA data provide an insight into the community-level changes experienced by Indigenous and non-Indigenous families who participated in the SFIA study, were living in one of 10 CfC sites and were eligible to receive CfC services between 2006 and 2008.

Demographic details
Outcomes

[ top ]

5.2 Perceptions of change for Indigenous families and children

Many CPs and FPs reported a limited number of large-scale program outcomes, mostly due to the relatively short period of time since the establishment of SFCS 2004–2009 in many areas. Some of the projects had only recently been set up and many respondents noted the considerable time needed to establish program momentum and gain community trust. In some cases, entirely new programs had been established where no services of their kind had previously existed, and many of the changes observed in remote communities were related to increased participation and first-time access rather than to program content.

Other respondents postulated that first-time participation was the reason that young children experienced positive outcomes in the key areas of SFCS 2004–2009: health, wellbeing and nutrition; parenting skills; and preparation for early learning. For example, 15 young children attending a CfC-funded playgroup in a remote location were learning how to interact in a structured early learning environment for the first time; and parents and carers were able to access information and learn basic parenting skills. While it is too early to assess the results of these interactions, SFCS 2004–2009 programs have the potential to have a profound impact if support is sustained.

In areas where outcomes were not yet evident, respondents believed contact was an important achievement. Many families and children who had been engaged by CfC programs in remote areas had had no previous contact with any health or social service professionals and so the establishment of contact constituted significant progress:

[Some] families are seeing health professionals for the first time. It’s made a big change. Developmental screening is happening now. Developmental delays and disabilities are being getting picked up where they weren’t before.

Respondents suggested that while mainstream programs in urban and regional centres could be expected to yield outcomes such as increased participation in preschool education, improved health outcomes and improvements in social and organisational networks, the changes observed in remote communities were not about ‘improvement’. Rather they were about first-time participation, first-time access and first-time opportunity. This reflects the context within which CfC is delivered, where there are few services for Indigenous families.

Although the change in service capacity or uptake in some areas may appear fairly insubstantial, the impact of small changes can nevertheless be significant. One respondent in a remote site noted that children’s awareness of child protection and abuse had increased significantly since the inception of a CfC program. Several others described the growing awareness of preventative health and increased understanding of child health and nutrition that had been created by CfC program participation.

Many conceded that increased awareness would not necessarily produce long-term behavioural change, but noted that the initial outcomes were promising. Increased nutrition and preventative health had already caused some participants to change their eating habits. A number of respondents said they had observed improved parenting practices among Indigenous clients as a result of program participation and education. Respondents reported increased parent–child interaction and more frequent parent–child play in a number of families. One CP noted:

I’ve seen improved parenting among Indigenous parents [I work with]. [I’ve observed] more playing with children ... There’s more awareness of early engagement ... [Parents are] having conversations with children now. [That was] not traditionally a thing to do.

At a local level, observing and measuring outcomes for families and children posed a challenge for program staff and local evaluators. The isolation of many communities and the lack of permanent staff on the ground made data collection difficult in a number of areas. In many cases, there was no one else to run programs when service providers took time to collect data, and seasonal variations and low literacy and numeracy of program staff could also affect data collection. In addition, data collected by traditional methods like psychological tests did not effectively translate into local languages and alternative evaluation tools were needed.

Summary

[ top ]