• 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: Sustainability
• Next: Appendix A: Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009 model

8. Conclusion

Service provision and coordination

Many research participants compared the SFCS 2004–2009 model favourably with other funding models noting that it gave service providers considerable control over the types of services they could provide and the way they could deliver them. Programs benefited greatly from consultations and partnerships with Indigenous organisations and community members, but effective community engagement takes considerable time, especially in rural and remote areas.

Partnerships, better coordinated services, and a focus on early childhood may be long-term outcomes of the SFCS 2004–2009 initiative in some areas. However, without ongoing funding, it is unlikely that SFCS 2004–2009 programs will be sustainable. Short-term interventions can fuel resentment and mistrust. Furthermore, preliminary positive program outcomes may diminish, and potential benefits remain unrealised without sustained funding.

Many respondents believed that SFCS 2004–2009 had increased the number, scope, quality and relevance of services available to Indigenous families and children in their areas. However, others felt that the main impact of the program had been simply to raise Indigenous people’s awareness of services and that not enough time had passed to expect Indigenous families to have engaged with or benefited from those services over a sustained period.

CfC increased the networking, coordination and collaboration between services but relationships were stronger and more effective where interagency cooperation predated CfC. Remote and rural sites were at a disadvantage because of the limited options for service coordination and partnerships compared with metropolitan locations. In most cases, a four-year program was too short for services to establish effective partnerships in the absence of pre-existing relationships.

The particular issues affecting remote sites could be partially addressed by ensuring that future national or state and territory-based programs have different funding formulas and timelines for remote areas; by encouraging fly-in/fly-out service providers to share flights to remote areas; by helping providers gain some understanding of local Indigenous languages; and by engaging trusted locals to support service providers.

Factors facilitating or hindering service provision and outcomes

The relatively short life of the initiative limited the number of reported outcomes for families. The greatest reported change was in increased access to services and first-time engagement by some Indigenous families. Some respondents believed families and young children were benefiting from SFCS 2004–2009 in the areas of health, wellbeing, parenting skills and young children’s preparation for learning.

Indigenous families did not necessarily engage with services unless they were accessible and tailored to their specific needs. It is important that both Indigenous-specific and mainstream services are safe, comfortable and culturally appropriate in order to improve their accessibility for Indigenous families and children. Strengths-based programs that used ‘soft’ engagement strategies providing non-threatening, informal and respectful services at a low cost to families were the most effective.

Effective services were also those that adapted information for Indigenous clients, included cultural identity as part of their curricula, and used Indigenous cultural artefacts in everyday activities. Programs relating to nutrition and those providing meals were also successful in encouraging attendance. It is recommended that, where possible, services are provided in Indigenous languages, community Elders are invited to participate in some service delivery, and parents are offered education and support.

Staff availability, skills, qualifications and enthusiasm are instrumental in supporting or hindering service delivery. The CfC model helped provide a supportive environment, and helped enable training, mentoring and staff development, and create Indigenous support roles and traineeships. These initiatives also improved staff recruitment and retention rates and made programs more sustainable. The model may have helped to partially address challenges in urban areas regarding pay, conditions, training and staff turnover and poor governance and management. In rural and remote locations, however, greater flexibility and longer-term funding may be necessary to address these issues.

Workers with skills specifically matched to the needs of the target population were considered more important in early childhood service delivery than were those with qualifications, in cases where both skills and qualifications were not available. Relevant skills for workers in Indigenous communities included cultural knowledge and knowledge of local kin, community and service networks. The combination of insider cultural knowledge and connections with an outsider perspective helped some SFCS 2004–2009 staff engage Indigenous families effectively. Gatekeepers or cultural brokers were also useful to service providers, but this is a challenging role and there is a risk that the task of facilitating communication can overburden gatekeepers.

Community context

Inappropriate venues within communities can adversely affect service provision, and simple interventions like making local council-owned properties available could increase service use in SFCS 2004–2009 sites. Community asset mapping and planning should consider transport as well as service provision. In addition, flexibility is needed in funding rules, such as permitting the purchase of capital assets like motor vehicles, to help facilitate transport and mobile services. If these programs are to be successful a number of social problems within Indigenous communities need to be addressed before (or in association with) implementation of early intervention and prevention initiatives. Service providers and funders should be mindful of the time needed to consult and develop trusting relationships, and of how historical and contemporary policies and practices can challenge trust and service use.

Despite considerable challenges, it appears many SFCS 2004–2009 programs made considerable progress in engaging and providing assistance to Indigenous families and children. The recommendations arising relate to funding models, set-up time, recruitment and retention of staff, and consultation and engagement. They include the need for effective community consultation and for sustained, long-term interventions that do not focus exclusively on early intervention, but address social problems in Indigenous communities holistically.

• Previous: Sustainability
• Next: Appendix A: Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009 model

[ top ]