Skip to content

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

6. Communities for Children outcomes for families, children and communities

6.1 SFIA findings
6.2 Child, family and community outcomes: discussion

According to the logic model of the SFCS 2004–2009, changes in the nature and number of services for families and children, together with seamless coordination, should have produced effective outcomes for families, children and communities. The SFIA study confirmed that this was generally the case. CfC has had a positive effect (albeit small) on a number of outcomes for families, children and communities.

The SFIA findings come from surveys in 2006, 2007 and 2008 of 2,202 families living in 10 CfC sites and five contrast sites (locations that do not have a CfC program, but are comparable with the CfC sites). The findings apply to all the children living in the communities containing the CfC sites, and not just to those who may have been involved in a CfC program or activity. Including contrast sites enabled the SFIA study to investigate outcomes for people who lived in CfC sites but who did not receive the early intervention.39

Two different analyses were conducted on the SFIA data to understand the impact of CfC on families, children and communities. Firstly, the Wave 3 survey findings for CfC and for non-CfC were compared using a regression analysis to control any observable differences between the sites. This showed the differences between the CfC and the non-CfC sites at a single point in time, in 2008, at least 12 months after the CfC intervention was implemented. Secondly, a difference-in-difference model was used to understand the differences between the CfC and the non-CfC sites over time (that is, between Wave 1 and Wave 3).40

Positive and negative outcomes are indicated by statistically significant differences between CfC and non-CfC sites (Table 8). In addition, trends in outcomes are indicated where the Wave 3 data or data over time show consistent positive or negative findings across the different cohorts (the full SFIA sample, the hard-to-reach families and children,41 the not-hard-to-reach families and children, the households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less), the households with mothers with higher education (Year 11 or more), the low-income households, and the higher-income households) within CfC sites compared with non-CfC sites (Table 9).

The trend data is reported only where there is at least a small effect (that is, an effect size of 0.1 or above—Cohen in Edwards et al. 2009). The trends are evident where the majority of the different cohorts consistently show change in the same direction, whether positive or negative. Like the significance outcomes, trends are available both at Wave 3 and over time. As the trend findings are not yet statistically significant, they should be used cautiously. Future waves of the SFIA study would determine whether these trends become statistically significant changes over time.

[ top ]

6.1 SFIA findings

Overall, there are some small statistically significant findings indicating that CfC is having a positive effect on some outcomes for children, families and communities in CfC sites. These changes are encouraging because of the short time period since the initiative was implemented. Trend data for the majority of outcomes is also consistently positive, suggesting that CfC families, children and communities may be generally faring better than those in non-CfC sites, even though the CfC and contrast sites were comparable prior to the CfC intervention. The findings also suggest that CfC is beneficial both for families overall and for families and children from groups considered hard-to-reach. Further waves of the SFIA study are required to assess whether the short-term effects continue into medium and long-term outcomes and to confirm whether the trend findings become significant.

Positive outcomes and trends

The strongest positive findings regarding the impact of CfC are in relation to the priority areas: supporting families and parents, and child-friendly communities. Table 8 shows outcomes where families, children and communities in CfC sites fared significantly better or worse than the contrast sites. Of the 29 statistically significant findings, 19 are positive.

Table 9 shows six consistent positive effects (of at least 0.1) of CfC across the different cohorts. For the full SFIA sample, 14 of the 29 outcome measures (75 per cent) are better for CfC sites compared with non-CfC sites at Wave 3, and nine out of 15 possible outcome measures (60 per cent) are more positive over time.

Supporting families and parents

Parents in CfC sites were faring better than their counterparts in non-CfC sites in regard to parenting practices and parenting self-efficacy. They had significantly less hostile and harsh parenting practices than those in contrast sites at Wave 3. This was the case for:

The trend data also strongly indicate that there is less hostile and harsh parenting practices among all groups in the SFIA study.

Some CfC parents had significantly higher levels of parenting self-efficacy than comparable parents in non-CfC sites at Wave 3 (the full sample and parents not considered hard-to-reach). There were also positive (although not significant) trends for parenting self-efficacy across the majority of cohorts (full sample, not-hard-to-reach parents, households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) and higher education (Year 11 or more), and those with low incomes).42

Child-friendly communities

Community-based outcomes signify whether or not CfC was beneficial in helping to improve communities for young children and their families. In three areas, CfC sites were found to be performing better than non-CfC sites: employment, participation in community service activities, and social cohesion.

Children living in CfC sites were significantly more likely to be living in a household where at least one parent was employed than children in non-CfC sites. This was the case across the full sample (at Wave 3) and for children from hard-to-reach groups (at Wave 3 and over time), for those from households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) and higher education (Year 11 or more)—over time, and for those from both low and higher-income households (over time and at Wave 3 respectively).

The trend data suggest that most groups that did not experience significant positive outcomes over time or at Wave 3 for employment may be approaching significance. This is the case for the full sample, for those from households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) and higher education (Year 11 or more, and low-income households, all of which experienced at least small effects.

Trend data also strongly indicates that most of the CfC cohorts in the SFIA study were more likely to be participating in community service activities than their counterparts in non-CfC sites, both over time and at Wave 3 (this was the case for all groups except those from households with higher educated mothers (Year 11 or more) and high-income households, which were better than the contrast sites only at Wave 3).

The differences in levels of participation in community service activities between CfC families and non-CfC families reached significance in the case of households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less; Wave 3) and from low-income households (over time).

Finally, there were some indications of better social cohesion. Low-income families living in CfC sites were significantly more likely to report higher levels of community social cohesion than low-income families living in non-CfC sites (over time). Positive (although not significant) effects were also evident in regard to this outcome (compared with the contrast site) in the trends experienced by households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less).

Early learning and care

Positive early learning and care was only evident in the case of one outcome, child receptive vocabulary and verbal ability. The trend data suggest that CfC children from all groups are faring better in receptive vocabulary achievement and verbal ability than their counterparts in non-CfC sites at Wave 3.43 The difference is significant at Wave 3 for children from not-hard-to-reach groups and for those from families with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less).

Healthy young families

There were only two positive changes in regard to the health of young families. Both those changes were small, although the difference did reach significance in the case of CfC children from not-hard-to-reach groups, who had fewer emotional and behavioural problems than their counterparts in non-CfC sites at Wave 3. In addition, the trend data show that CfC children living in households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less), and those from low-income households, had fewer reported injuries requiring medical attention (at Wave 3 and over time).

Negative outcomes and trends

Significant negative outcomes appeared in only two priority areas (Table 8): supporting families and parents (one outcome—service needs met), and the health of young families (overall).

Supporting families and parents

Service needs were significantly less likely to have been met at Wave 3 for CfC parents from not-hard-to-reach groups, than for similar parents in non-CfC sites. Interestingly, while trend data suggest that service needs were less likely to have been met in the case of the full CfC sample and of CfC mothers with higher education (compared with their equivalents in non-CfC sites), there were positive trends for having service needs met for the hard-to-reach, households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less), and for low-income groups. This trend is important because it suggests that CfC may be engaging families who were previously not accessing services.

Healthy young families

Overall, CfC families reported more health problems than their counterparts in non-CfC sites. In the case of child physical health, the difference between CfC sites and non-CfC sites reached significance for children:

The poorer physical health outcomes for children in CfC sites, compared with those in the contrast sites, were also evident in the trend data. Children from all groups except one had poorer health at Wave 3 and over time (households with mothers with higher education, Year 11 or more, had poorer effects only at Wave 3). The possible reasons for these findings are discussed in Section 6.2.

Parental health was also poorer for particular groups. Parental general health and mental health were significantly worse for households with mothers with low education (Year 10 or less) living in CfC sites than their counterparts in non-CfC sites (over time). Hard-to-reach parents were also significantly more likely to report poor general health, and for parents from low-income households the trend was negative (at Wave 3 and over time).

Table 8: Significant effects of CfC on families, children and communities: families living in CfC sites compared to contrast sites(a)
Outcome variable Full sample Hard-to-reach Not-hard-to-reach Mothers with Year 10 or less Mothers with Year 11 or more Low income Higher income
Supporting families and parents Less hostile parenting tick(W3**) tick(W3*) tick(W3**)   tick(W3*)   tick(W3*)
Parenting self-efficacy tick(W3*)   tick(W3**)        
Service needs are met     x (W3**)        
Child friendly communities Involvement in community service activities       tick(W3**)   tick(DD**)  
Community social cohesion           tick(DD*)
Living in a household with a job tick(W3**) tick(DD** & W3*)   tick(DD**) tick(DD**) tick(DD**) tick(W3**)
Early learning and care Child receptive vocabulary and verbal ability(b)     tick(W3*) tick(W3**)      
Healthy young families Child has no/few emotional and behavioural problems     tick(W3**)        
Child physical health x(W3**) x(W3** & DD*)   x(W3**) x(W3**) x(W3**) x(W3**)
Parental general health   x(DD*)       x(DD**)  
Parental mental health       x(DD**)      
(a) Effect sizes are listed in Edwards et al. 2009.
(b) Outcomes only tested at Wave 3 and therefore are not available using difference-in-difference.
Note: W3=result based on regression at Wave 3; DD=result based on difference in difference; *p<0.1; **p<0.05;
tick=CfC result is ‘better’ than the control site; x=CfC result is ‘worse’ than the control site.
Table 9: CfC outcome trends for families, children and communities in CfC sites compared to contrast sites, by cohort and 'small' to 'medium' effect size
Outcome variable Full sample Hard-to-reach Not-hard-to-reach Mothers with Year 10 or less Mothers with Year 11 or more Low income High income
Supporting families and parents Less hostile parenting ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Parenting self-efficacy ↑ – ↑ ↑ –
No/few parent relationship conflict – – – – –
Service needs are met ↑ –
Child-friendly communities Support in raising children – – – ↑ – – –
Involvement in community service activity ↑ ↑
Neighbourhood as a place to bring up children – – – – –
Community social cohesion – – – – –
Community facilities – – ↑ – ↓ –
Living in a household with a job – ↑↑ ↑
Early learning and care Child receptive vocabulary achievement and verbal ability(a) ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Quality of the home learning environment – – – ↓ – ↓ –
Healthy young families Fewer number of child injuries requiring medical attention – – – – –
Child physical health (PedsQL)
Child has lower levels of emotional and behavioural problems (SDQ)(a) – ↓ ↑ ↓ – – –
Child pro-social behaviour (SDQ)(a) – – ↑ ↓ – – –
Child is not overweight(a) – ↓ ↑ ↑ – ↓ –
Parent general health – – – –
Parent mental health – ↑ – – ↑(b) –

(a) Outcomes only tested at Wave 3 and therefore are not available using difference in difference.

(b) At Wave 3, low-income parents in CfC sites had better mental health than low-income parents in contrast sites. The difference in difference result decreased because parents in the contrast site experienced a higher rate of improvement between Waves 1 and 3, than parents in the CfC sites.

Note: ↑=Wave 3 result is ‘better’ than control site; ↓=Wave 3 result is ‘worse’ than control site; –=Effect size is too small to determine direction of change for Wave 3 and difference in difference; =Difference-in-difference result is ‘better’ than control site; =Difference-in-difference result is ‘worse’ than control site. Findings are only presented where the effect size is 0.1 or larger (that is, effect size is ‘small’ or greater, Cohen in Edwards et al. 2009). Effect sizes are available in Edwards et al. 2009.

[ top ]

6.2 Child, family and community outcomes: discussion

Positive outcomes

The improvements in parenting practices may have been directly or indirectly related to the high proportion of CfC activities which aimed to support parenting (one in five, or 22 per cent, Table 4). Overwhelmingly, the CfC stakeholders who were interviewed believed that CfC had substantially increased families' awareness of services, both new and existing, and of the importance of parenting skills and the early years.

Reports from CfC stakeholders also reinforced the positive findings in relation to child-friendly communities. This is not surprising since CfC activities were more likely to be focused on child-friendly communities than any other priority area (Table 4).

One curious finding from the SFIA analysis was the decrease in jobless households in CfC sites compared with non-CfC sites. It is difficult to assign causal explanations for this, although the increase was significant across the full sample and almost all of the subgroups (except the not-hard-to-reach). Anecdotal evidence from interviewed CfC stakeholders suggests that CfC assisted some parents to increase their broader participation in the economy by supporting them to access education and employment. Improvements in social capital may have also contributed to a decrease in jobless households.

Although community outcomes were less tangible and more difficult for CfC stakeholders to observe than outcomes for children and families, interviewees maintained that communities had become more child-friendly. This was attributed to CfC because of increases in the general awareness of the needs of young children and their families, in the number of events for families with young children, and in publicity for these events, and because of the fact that the early years was increasingly on the agenda for local government and NGO service providers. Interviewees also believed that CfC had improved social networks and community connectedness by bringing together families that had not previously interacted.

Tangible outcomes such as infrastructure were further community gains reported by CfC stakeholders. Community centres, or hubs, were established in public locations (such as school grounds) in a number of CfC communities. These hubs were reported to help integrate schools into the broader community, and some stakeholders believed they would assist in sustaining improvements for children and families.

Negative outcomes

Respondents suggested a number of possible reasons for the SFIA finding that CfC might not have been successful in addressing health outcomes for children and parents. The consistently poorer health outcomes for children and parents in CfC sites compared with the contrast sites may be because CfC was not the most appropriate way of addressing health needs. Alternatively, these outcomes could be the result of increased parental exposure to services that helped identify health problems in themselves and their children, and as a consequence parents were more likely to report health problems. If this is the case, insufficient time would have passed for these problems to be addressed. The negative health outcomes may also have been the result of difficulties CfC sites experienced working with statutory authorities like state and territory health services, or of the limited early intervention services publicly available to families requiring therapies.

For which children, families or communities is CfC effective?

The SFIA study found that, for most outcomes, the hard-to-reach and the socioeconomically disadvantaged families and children were just as likely to benefit from CfC as other families and children in CfC communities. There were consistent trends suggesting that all groups were faring better than their counterparts in non-CfC sites in relation to effective parenting, involvement in community service activities, and child receptive vocabulary achievement and verbal ability. Almost all groups were also faring better in regard to parenting self-efficacy (except hard-to-reach) and living in a household with a job (except not-hard-to-reach).

It is not possible to use the CfC progress reports or the interviews to investigate the extent to which particular groups (sex, cultural diversity, disadvantaged status) participated in CfC activities. However, the consistent findings from the SFIA study suggest that CfC is successfully assisting some families and children from a range of groups within CfC communities. Furthermore, the three themed studies suggest that, under certain circumstances, SFCS has been successful with fathers, families and children from traditionally hard-to-reach groups, and some Indigenous families and children (Berlyn, Wise & Soriano 2008; Cortis, Katz & Patulny forthcoming; Flaxman, Muir & Oprea 2009; Soriano, Berlyn & Wise 2008).

From the findings of the SFIA study, it is not possible to determine whether or not, or to what extent, CfC is effective for Indigenous families and children. The number of Indigenous families in the contrast sites was too small for a comparison between Indigenous families living in CfC sites and those in non-CfC areas. However, Indigenous families are highly mobile (almost one in three families had moved at least three times by the time their child was 4 years of age), and that should be considered in the provision of place-based initiatives (Flaxman, Muir & Oprea 2009). Furthermore, the difficulties of implementing CfC in remote communities has implications for supporting Indigenous families and children. CfC may not be suitable for Indigenous families and children in these geographic locations because of the challenges experienced in implementing CfC. Children and families living in very complex circumstances of disadvantage may also be less likely to benefit from a program like CfC. As discussed in Section 4.5, unless families receive long-term support for serious social issues such as homelessness, housing instability or poor living conditions, domestic violence, substance use and mental illness, they will be unlikely to access early childhood intervention and prevention services.

[ top ]