Skip to content

National evaluation (2004–2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009

Endnotes

  1. Community partners were local service providers subcontracted by Facilitating Partners to deliver the activities identified in local community strategic and service delivery plans.
  2. A select purposive sample was used for this study and therefore findings can be generalised. However, response rates differed by CfC sites so the broad findings may not be indicative of the outcomes for all individual locations.
  3. Trend data is based on consistent change (whether positive or negative) in measured outcomes. They are included as trends when the effect size is at least ‘small’ (equal to or greater than 0.1 or above, Cohen in Edwards et al. 2009). As the trend findings are not statistically significant, they should be used cautiously. Future waves of the SFIA study would determine whether these trends become statistically significant changes over time. Nonetheless, the consistent positive pattern provides support for the conclusion that CfC has had some positive impacts in the short term.
  4. This was the case for the full sample and for the hard-to-reach group, the not-hard-to-reach group, households with mothers with a higher education (Year 11 or more), and parents with high incomes.
  5. This was the case for the full sample and for parents who were not-hard-to-reach. The trend for parenting self-efficacy across the majority of cohorts was also positive (full sample, not-hard-to-reach, households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) and higher education (Year 11 or more), and those from low-income families).
  6. This was the case for the full sample (at Wave 3), and for children from hard-to-reach groups (at Wave 3 and over time), households with either mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) or higher education (Year 11 or more; over time), and those from both low and higher income households (over time and at Wave 3 respectively). The trend data suggest that the findings for groups that did not experience significant positive outcomes for employment (over time and at Wave 3) approached significance.
  7. This was the case for all subgroups of the sample, except households with mothers with a higher education (Year 11 or more) and high-income households, and both of these were better than those in the contrast sites only at Wave 3. In the CfC sites, the households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less; Wave 3), and the children from low-income households (over time), were significantly more likely to be participating in community service activities than their counterparts in non-CfC sites.
  8. Positive effects in this outcome in the CfC sites were also evident in the trends for the group of households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less). Changes seen over time are measured using the difference-in-difference method.
  9. This was the case for children in the full sample (at Wave 3), those from hard-to-reach groups (at Wave 3 and over time), those from both lower and higher income households (at Wave 3), and households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) and higher education (Year 11 or more; at Wave 3).
  10. The initial funding was to run for four years: 2004–2008, with an additional year (2008–09) added in early 2008. The first seven CfC sites were funded in July 2004 and hence had the full four (later five) years of funding. The remaining sites were funded in January 2005 (28 sites) and July 2005 (10 sites), and hence had three (four) and three and a half (four and a half) years respectively before their contracts ended. The National Evaluation covers the first four years.
  11. The Choice and Flexibility in Child Care initiative was not part of the national evaluation.
  12. Web appendixes are available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au. This report builds on the baseline evaluation report (Stronger Families and Communities Strategy National Evaluation Consortium 2008).
  13. This was originally funded for the financial years 2004–2008. An additional year of funding was added in early 2008 to include the financial year 2008–09. The evaluation was designed to be conducted for the years 2004–2008.
  14. Further details of SFCS and CfC activities are available from www.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/sfsc-sfcs.htm.
  15. See Section 7.1 for further discussion.
  16. See Web Appendix B, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  17. Some methodologies were adjusted from those envisaged in the original framework in response to the complexities and practicalities of conducting such a large, long-term evaluation involving numerous stakeholders in communities all across Australia.
  18. Sources are as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Early Development Index; Vinson; Healthwiz; Public Health Information Development Unit; National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling; Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics; Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development; and eight state/territory crime institutes and departments.
  19. See Web Appendix E, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  20. See Web Appendix C, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  21. See Web Appendixes B and D, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  22. Consultations with the Facilitating Partners and local evaluators in four sites containing remote Indigenous communities (Tiwi Islands, Katherine, East Kimberley and East Arnhem) indicated that the survey was not culturally appropriate for the service providers in those areas.
  23. The methodology was changed between Waves 1 and 2 because of poor response rates. Postal/email questionnaires were used in Wave 1, whereas computer-assisted telephone interviewing was conducted in Wave 2 to collect a similar sample within a short period of time.
  24. Fieldwork interviews were conducted in the same sites as the SFIA study.
  25. Outcome data came from the Outcome Indicators Framework and the Community Profiles.
  26. Evaluation reports were not provided for the other four ItG projects.
  27. Available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  28. Information for this section of the report was drawn from: the CfC progress reports (July 2006 and December 2007) encompassing 641 CfC-funded activities; service mapping by Facilitating Partners in all 45 CfC sites in 2006 and 2007; service coordination survey results (744 total responses in 2006 and 2008; see Web Appendix C, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au); interviews with 222 stakeholders across 10 CfC sites in 2006 and 2007; and the three themed studies (Indigenous: 25 interviews, two focus groups; hard-to-reach: 20 interviews; father engagement: 59 survey respondents, 17 interviews and seven focus groups). Further information on these methodologies can be found in Section 3. Methodological information on the three themed studies can be found in Berlyn, Wise and Soriano 2008; Cortis, Katz and Patulny forthcoming; and Flaxman, Muir and Oprea 2008.
  29. This takes both the growth and discontinuation of services into account. These data rely on Facilitating Partners reporting the number of services in their community. The reporting differed greatly between CfC sites and should therefore be treated with caution.
  30. See Web Appendix C (available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au) for further information.
  31. See Table 3, Web Appendix C, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  32. Based on the 222 interviews with CfC stakeholders. The intention of CfC was also to deliver services based on solid research evidence. But while local evaluations may have helped service providers to focus on and demonstrate outcomes, the reports were not made available to the national evaluation.
  33. These findings are drawn from the 222 interviews with CfC stakeholders and the themed studies (Berlyn, Wise & Soriano 2008; Cortis, Katz & Patulny forthcoming; Flaxman, Muir & Oprea 2009).
  34. The exact number of these activities that were not implemented is unknown, as this problem was reported only by a small minority of the people interviewed in the 10 CfC sites.
  35. Further information on these methodologies can be found in Web Appendix C, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  36. See Web Appendix C (available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au) for further details and discussion.
  37. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest level of helpfulness and 5 being the highest, the ratings fell from 4.1 to 4.0 (for all agencies) and 4.1 to 3.7 (for repeated agencies). These changes were not statistically significant.
  38. The poor engagement of state and territory government departments may have affected the health-related outcomes for families and children in CfC sites (discussed in Section 6).
  39. The quantitative findings within this section are from the SFIA report (Edwards et al. 2009). The analysis and discussion is drawn largely from the 222 qualitative interviews with CfC stakeholders conducted in 2006 and 2007.
  40. For detail on the methodologies see Edwards et al. 2009.
  41. The full sample includes all families. The hard-to-reach populations were defined according to the following family characteristics, designed to capture the most disadvantaged groups within CfC sites: no father present in the household; jobless household (mother is unemployed or not in the labour force AND father not working or not present); poor parents (parental income is $500 a week or less); low education (householders with mothers with low education, Year 10 or less); Indigenous families; and parent born overseas (see Cortis, Katz & Patulny forthcoming).
  42. The trend for CfC parents from low-income households is the most promising, with both the Wave 3 data and the data over time indicating more positive outcomes than for low-income parents in non-CfC sites.
  43. This measure was only tested at Wave 3.
  44. The information in this section comes from the CfC progress reports and the 222 qualitative interviews with CfC stakeholders conducted in 2006 and 2007.
  45. The evaluators are not aware that this occurred during the period of the evaluation, but at least one NGO was exploring the possibilities of future funding for CfC projects/programs from corporations.
  46. Approximately once a month.
  47. As local evaluators were contracted by and reported directly to Facilitating Partners, the sharing of reports was not part of the Facilitating Partners’ contract with FaHCSIA.
  48. See Web Appendix D (available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au) for more detail regarding the costs and effects component of the evaluation.
  49. See Web Appendix A, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  50. See Table 1.1, Web Appendix A (available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au )for dates and reporting periods.
  51. There was a low percentage of projects submitting more than one report for this funding round because projects had been running only long enough to submit one report.
  52. This is discussed in further detail in Web Appendix A (available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au). During the development of the evaluation framework, FaHCSIA decided that most of SFCS national evaluation resources were to be directed into CfC.
  53. This is based on the 286 projects with completed data. This was calculated using the number of occasions of service/support in the age range section of the reports.
  54. This is based on 56,353 people participating in 196 projects. There were 90 projects that did not list participant numbers.
  55. Eighty PPPs were submitted across all three of the SFCS components assessed in the national evaluation. Submission of a PPP was open to all SFCS projects. Organisations self-selected to participate if they had a promising practice to profile and had the resources, skills and time to submit an application.
  56. Available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.
  57. This includes only the classification of the 22 ItG projects with evaluation reports.
  58. Funding details were available for analysis only for 25 of the 26 ItG projects. Funding was extended to June 2009 when the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy was extended.
  59. Further detail on the individual ItG evaluations is available in Web Appendix B, available at www.sprc.unsw.edu.au.

[ top ]