Skip to content

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

7. Communities for Children model: strengths and weaknesses44

7.1 Facilitating Partners
7.2 Funding
7.3 Community focus
7.4 Governance
7.5 Challenges for the CfC model
7.6 CfC costs and effects

The outcomes achieved by CfC were the result of three key components of the model—the Facilitating Partners, the funding, and the community focus. Issues of governance—both the relationship to FaHCSIA through the state and territory offices, and the organisational role of the CfC committees—were also critical.

A key objective of the national evaluation was to understand the effective aspects of the CfC model. What did and did not work? What circumstances contributed to its effectiveness or otherwise? This section of the report addresses these questions.

[ top ]

7.1 Facilitating Partners

The Facilitating Partners were essential to the development and implementation of the CfC model. The facilitation, coordination and support role played by Facilitating Partners was the major strength of the initiative. That role involved:

Facilitating Partners also acted as intermediaries between the government (FaHCSIA) and service providers, and helped numerous service providers to address reporting requirements, clarify funding arrangements and negotiate service delivery.

The Facilitating Partner model was perceived positively by a range of CfC stakeholders, including Facilitating Partners and Community Partners as well as local organisations. It was popular with Community Partners and community groups for a number of reasons. It gave communities a sense of ownership of CfC in those cases where the NGO was already well-established in the community and the selected CfC Committee was representative of the community; it operated as a buffer between community organisations and government; and, very importantly, it provided small agencies with funding, networks and opportunities to develop skills and track records.

In some sites, the Facilitating Partner was a consortium of two NGOs, and this was beneficial in that the Facilitating Partner had both local knowledge and respect, and strong administrative backing. However, these partnerships were effective only when both organisations made a strong commitment to the initiative, when roles and responsibilities were clearly understood and accepted, and when each of the organisations was working towards the same aim.

Facilitating Partner model

The Facilitating Partner model involved funding local NGOs to be the Facilitating Partners and act as brokers to engage the community in establishing and implementing CfC. This lead agency approach differed from traditional funding models where governments directly contracted service providers. It put Facilitating Partners, who subcontracted to other NGOs, into an intermediary position between government and the community sector.

The model was preferred to direct funding models by most interviewees from all stakeholder groups because it was community-based, allowed for flexibility based on the community's needs, and built on previously established local connections (rather than starting from a new base). It was felt that local Facilitating Partners had a better understanding of the community's needs than government. The model also helped to break down silos between local agencies and, in the long-term, may have been influential in improving the ways in which agencies work together.

Despite some limitations with funding (discussed below), the stakeholders reported that, in comparison with direct funding, the CfC model made it easier to negotiate changes in service delivery and funding allocations. The model also enabled the distribution of very small, effective grants for basic community-based activities or programs, such as $500 for resources for a playgroup.

In only a few cases was the Facilitating Partner model perceived to add an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy. This perception emerged in two related situations. In the first of these, stakeholders were opposed to the chosen Facilitating Partner (and would have preferred another NGO). In the second, an NGO that was not selected had a long history of service delivery and believed that, once programs and activities were running, there would be no need for the Facilitating Partner's role to continue.

Stakeholders who believed the Facilitating Partner role was too bureaucratic suggested either that a direct funding model be used, or that the role of the Facilitating Partner be discontinued during the implementation phase. It is likely that both of these options would affect the outcomes of the initiative. If a direct funding model was used to implement CfC, the benefits of the Facilitating Partner's role could diminish, as it would be difficult for a Facilitating Partner to be a lead agency without any real responsibility or community accountability. Discontinuing the work of the Facilitating Partner once services were running might be an option in sites which become sustainable within a short period of time. But administrative and contract management would then have to be handed back to government, and that would add complexity, confusion and expense. Furthermore, the qualitative research suggested that, in most of the cases where Community Partners advocated for the Facilitating Partner to discontinue their role, either relationships were less than effective between the Facilitating Partner and the Community Partners, or the Community Partners did not understand that the CfC model went beyond establishing new programs and assisting services to work together better. Both of these scenarios reinforce the importance of selecting Facilitating Partners that are well-known and accepted within the broader community, that invest time in developing and strengthening relationships with other community organisations, and that acknowledge and respect other organisations' skills and experience.

Relationships between the Facilitating Partners and other local CfC stakeholders were mainly positive, although there were some tensions. For example, organisations that had previously worked side-by-side were now placed in a hierarchical structure, with Community Partners made accountable to the Facilitating Partner in their area. In those cases where existing community-based NGOs were competing for the role as Facilitating Partner, this could cause tensions in the early stages of the program. In some communities there was resentment of the funding received by the Facilitating Partner, a fear that smaller NGOs would be made obsolete, and scepticism about introducing yet another layer of bureaucracy.

Minor tensions were overcome during the establishment and implementation phases as a result of open discussions and communication. They also tended to be diffused as other NGOs came to realise that the money received by the Facilitating Partner NGO was reasonable for their administrative processes, that funding for services was transparently distributed based on community needs, and that the Facilitating Partner role was complex, challenging and not necessarily enviable. Trusting relationships developed, were maintained or strengthened as Facilitating Partners demonstrated their worth and their open, collaborative processes, and as stakeholders came to understand the complexity of the model (in terms of its funding, administration, development, implementation and aims). This was the case in most of the 10 sites visited by the evaluators.

Overall the Facilitating Partner model was successful. This initiative was a transformative program. It was not merely another funding stream—it changed the way services were being delivered. This was inevitably going to create some tensions and challenges early in the program. Most Facilitating Partners managed the majority of these tensions and challenges and worked effectively in implementing the CfC model.

Requirements for a successful Facilitating Partner

Although the Facilitating Partner model was a strength, the success of individual Facilitating Partners depended on a number of factors. It was important for Facilitating Partner agencies to be well-known within their communities, and to have organisations with strong administrative supports and staff with distinct sets of skills and experience as well as broad support networks.

Local NGOs

The choice of well-established, respected, locally known NGOs as lead agencies for CfC sites was important for the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. This helped to give CfC credibility and instil a sense of community ownership. It also assisted Facilitating Partners to identify and engage key stakeholders within the community, build networks and facilitate service coordination.

As a consequence, the criteria FaHCSIA used to select Facilitating Partners were a crucial factor in the success of the model. These criteria included the agency's knowledge of the site, their experience in working collaboratively with local organisations, and their organisational capacity to manage the large, complex program. In most sites, a locally known organisation was chosen, although in a minority of cases, the NGO was not locally known. The selection was based primarily on the capacity of the local organisation. This caused tensions in some locations and hindered the success of CfC in these sites. Three to four years was an insufficient timeframe to conduct the initiative if these relationships and trust are not already well established before the program's implementation. From a government perspective, the full range of criteria is important and without sufficient skills and administrative supports in place, a Facilitating Partner may struggle in the role of lead agency. Possible solutions for future programs could be to form more consortiums or to fund larger NGOs to play a mentoring role to smaller local organisations. This would be particularly beneficial in communities with high proportions of Indigenous families, where the organisations that are well-known and accepted in those communities have limited experience or capacity, or are too small, to take on the full Facilitating Partner role.

Administrative arrangements

Those Facilitating Partners from NGOs with substantial administrative supports found their role greatly assisted. National organisations, for example, were able to supply their Facilitating Partners with contract management, administration, finance, legal advice, communication and marketing supports. This helped sites establish and implement CfC, and had the potential to increase the sustainability of individual activities and services. For example, a large NGO with corporate links could provide services with the opportunities to build local networks and negotiate with locally-based corporations for future funding.45 Large agencies are also better equipped to negotiate between FaHCSIA and local CfC sites over issues such as data collection and financial requirements. Facilitating Partners also benefited from other support networks, such as the supportive relationships with other Facilitating Partners.

Staffing

The successful implementation of the CfC model was highly dependent on the qualifications, skills, experience and personalities of the project manager, staff and volunteers. Across CfC sites, volunteers outnumbered staff for each activity by almost three to one. This heavy reliance on volunteers means that having trained volunteers and skilled and experienced staff to support them are vitally important aspects of CfC. An analysis of the CfC progress reports across the 45 sites revealed that it was not high staff and volunteer numbers alone that contributed to the perceived success of the program. Rather, the most important factor contributing to successful implementation was the level of skills and experience of the staff.

The Facilitating Partner project managers required an understanding and willingness to use community development approaches. They benefited from skills and experience in facilitating constructive discussions, openly communicating, setting-up and clarifying roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, planning, meeting timeframes and reporting deliverables, managing contracts and relationships, supporting other organisations, delivering services, managing finances, resolving conflicts, and liaising and negotiating with government.

Most project managers balanced their dual role of Facilitating Partner and contract manager because they came to the position with these skills or were supported by a large NGO with this type of experience. There were others who learnt these skills on the job and trained their staff in the area. Where project managers were less successful in acquiring necessary skills and establishing effective contract management procedures, implementation of CfC was delayed. Some training early in the program may have assisted these Facilitating Partners. A mentoring situation, with larger NGOs working with smaller ones, may have helped smaller Facilitating Partners develop the skills required and supported them in the processes of contract management and conflict resolution.

As already mentioned, it was also very beneficial if the project manager had connections to the community (local knowledge and established networks and relationships), and if they were able to adapt to a changing role over the different phases of the initiative.

Most Facilitating Partner project managers were well connected in the community and highly skilled in supporting existing networks, developing new relationships and engaging with different levels of government and community representatives. Most interviewees said that Facilitating Partner project managers operated in a collaborative and inclusive manner. They also commonly noted that Facilitating Partners were dedicated to achieving positive outcomes and encouraged others with their enthusiasm. The commitment of other Facilitating Partner staff was also important in the success of CfC.

In some locations, particularly rural and remote areas, the high skill levels required for project managers resulted in difficulties filling this position with appropriate staff. Staff at project officer level could also be difficult to find because of the short-term, part-time, limited-pay nature of the work, the competition from other industries, and a general lack of community service staff (especially in regional, remote and disadvantaged metropolitan areas). Difficulties employing staff slowed the establishment and implementation of CfC.

Retention of staff was also a problem. The demands on the role of the Facilitating Partner meant project managers were working long hours and investing substantially in their role (for example, part-time employees sometimes worked full-time to meet their workload). This resulted in some staff becoming burnt out and leaving their positions. Only a few project managers remained in their positions for the duration of the initiative. Each time a project manager left, valuable knowledge and skills were lost.

This finding is very important for any further development of place-based initiatives such as CfC. It indicates that without a coherent workforce strategy it will be extremely challenging to implement effective early years programs.

[ top ]

7.2 Funding

Funding allocated to CfC sites was critical to the work of the Facilitating Partner, the coordination of services and the provision of community-based services and activities. Specifically, funding was used for Facilitating Partners to coordinate CfC in the 45 sites, consult with local agencies and community representatives, build or strengthen networks that focused on supporting families and children (0 to 5 years), and to deliver programs and activities in communities based on local needs. The funding helped communities establish and implement the initiative, assess assets, consult with the community, strengthen existing service networks, fill service gaps, develop innovative programs, and provide access for people who are difficult to engage in services. The roles of the Facilitating Partner and the CfC Committee were crucial in ensuring that funding was used effectively.

Funding was critical to the success of CfC, but there were some funding limitations that hindered the model. Facilitating Partners were required to provide strategic plans and budgets stipulating funding allocations early in the establishment of the program. This committed Facilitating Partners to funding subcontractors (such as Community Partners) for approximately three years. A number of Facilitating Partners and Community Partners believed that they were locked into these initial contracts and plans. This meant that, despite increasing knowledge and experience gained during the establishment, implementation and evaluation of CfC, some Facilitating Partners and Community Partners felt trapped by contractual obligations and this affected the quality of services. By the second phase of the fieldwork (late 2007), Facilitating Partners had come to understand that the funding guidelines did allow changes to funding distribution after negotiation with FaHCSIA. Some Facilitating Partners were successful in negotiating extensive changes to funding distribution, but others found that the negotiation processes were cumbersome and difficult and that the changes sought were not always permitted. This highlights the need for programs such as CfC to keep funding allocation flexible, to ensure that lead agencies and service providers understand funding guidelines and the negotiation processes, and that governments have a system in place to assist agencies through this process.

The inability to use funding for capital purchases also limited service delivery for some sites. This was problematic especially in regard to funding for transportation, such as cars or minibuses. And yet these can be instrumental in increasing the participation of people from hard-to-reach groups or those who are unable to access public transport easily and affordably.

Finally, the timing and the proportions of funding allocations were also challenging. In a four-year program with three distinct phases—establishment, implementation and sustainability (or dismantling), CfC sites needed to vary the amount of funding each year. Some Facilitating Partners believed that FaHCSIA required the same amount of funding to be distributed each year (although this was not the case). This presented challenges for these sites. Flexibility was required to ensure funding was correctly allocated at the right times so resources were used effectively. More sites would have benefited from releasing small amounts of funding early in the establishment phase to build community momentum and enthusiasm. In most cases, it will be implementation that requires the most resources, while programs that are winding down may be better off having funding slowly diminishing, rather than a large amount of money being suddenly withdrawn from a community.

Where available, additional funding streams and resources provided via the NGO or other sources, such as local businesses, were of benefit to the community. This was useful not only to strengthen CfC and create broad community-based change, but also to help the Facilitating Partner gain respect from community stakeholders.

[ top ]

7.3 Community focus

The community focus of CfC involved asset mapping within communities, community consultation, and the use of locally-based agencies, the Community Partners, to deliver services.

Asset mapping

The CfC initiative is based on a community development approach, which aims to increase community capacity through community-based consultation, planning and implementation around a community's needs. Using asset mapping to consider and plan around local issues—such as community boundaries, networks, existing services and resources, demography and geography—is an important component of community development. This approach helped communities to tailor CfC programs, activities and services around the local community's capacity and needs.

Asset mapping within CfC sites involved conducting a needs assessment of young children and their families, and examining current service availability and provision. This assisted communities to understand the local demographics, people's needs, and the resources available, in order to inform planning. A range of CfC stakeholders believed that this grassroots approach contributed to the overall success of CfC in improving services and service coordination in the sites. However, it was a challenge for local CfCs (and the national evaluation) to build a comprehensive picture of local needs and services, and of the service gaps. Information about these issues is patchy and fragmented and not held in any one place. Thus despite their best efforts during the early phase of the initiative, many sites did not uncover needs that became apparent later in the process.

Community consultations

As a place-based program with a community development approach, CfC aimed to involve community members in the design and implementation of the local CfC program. The structures embedded in CfC ensured consultations were conducted, and these consultations were a key strength of the initiative. They were conducted by the Facilitating Partner project manager and were a core component of the program via the CfC Committee.

Consultations helped CfC stakeholders to understand the needs and aspirations of community members, fund and design programs and services that supported these needs, increase awareness of programs, and help engage families. Community consultations were especially critical in communities with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians.

The consultation process worked well when project managers or other CfC staff spent substantial time consulting with the community, when a wide range of members from the community were attracted to meetings and other consultation forums, and when the needs and values of specific groups in the community were taken into account. Community members were most likely to be engaged in the consultation process when a community development officer was employed by the Facilitating Partner.

Substantial time was required for effective consultation to ensure that services were effective and appropriate for community members. However, as the CfC program progressed, a shift in focus from community consultation to project management of CfC services resulted in some community members becoming frustrated, disillusioned and disengaged. To ensure that the community remains engaged for the duration of the service or activity, future programs could incorporate 'quick wins'—well-profiled services that meet immediate needs and demonstrate the commitment of the program to the community.

The period of time for community consultations was limited by the three to four year timeframe, which meant some communities with extensive, complex needs or high proportions of Indigenous Australians, were unable to complete the consultation process adequately in the time available. For example, CfC sites that were successful in building trust and rapport with Indigenous Australians spent considerable time consulting with the community, but this slowed the implementation of activities and services. In contrast, if consultation periods were short, service providers had difficulty engaging Indigenous families. In remote communities, the problem was compounded and, consequently, some remote communities were not consulted at all in the establishment and implementation phases of the CfC model.

The three to four year funding period was inadequate for CfC sites to achieve widespread, time-intensive community consultation with Indigenous Australians that would have resulted in input from a diversity of community members, and established trust and community sanction for CfC programs and services.

Community Partners

Community Partners were agencies funded through CfC to deliver particular services or activities. The agencies included NGOs of various sizes, state and local government departments, and volunteer-run community groups. Analysis of CfC progress reports showed that the majority of these agencies were reportedly successful in delivering the activities for which they were funded. Between July 2006 and December 2007, over 2,000 CfC funded activities were conducted by Community Partners.

A major advantage of the CfC model was that Community Partners were appointed by Facilitating Partners—with input from the community via the CfC Committee (discussed in more detail below)—to undertake activities based on their expertise and skill sets. This method enabled smaller NGOs to deliver services in areas which fitted their experience. Some of these smaller organisations, however, did not have the capacity and skills required for managing and delivering the CfC services they had been contracted to undertake. Some struggled with the contractual requirements, and that meant that they needed to recruit staff, provide progress updates to FaHCSIA and deliver services within tight timeframes.

Staff were difficult to find and retain because of the short-term, part-time nature of the work and the intense workloads required. In a few situations, a Community Partner had to employ unqualified personnel to fill positions. A shortage of volunteers in some areas compounded the staffing problem. During the last year of the CfC program, the staffing problems were exacerbated with talented, qualified staff leaving for stable, longer-term employment conditions the program could not provide.

Although small, community-based service agencies experienced challenges in CfC, the initiative provided them with the opportunity to build organisational capacity and develop proposal writing, project management and report writing skills. These benefits stemmed from shared training between organisations, and from training, mentoring and support from the Facilitating Partner. In some cases, CfC funding was used to help develop community agencies. Facilitating Partners provided extensive support to help some Community Partners deliver their contractual obligations.

[ top ]

7.4 Governance

Government administrative arrangements

FaHCSIA's state and territory offices were the main government contact for Facilitating Partners. The state and territory offices acted as contract managers and provided advice and support about CfC. This role was particularly important at the outset of the initiative, when expectations, structures and processes were still unclear. Most Facilitating Partners reported having a positive relationship with their state and territory officer throughout the initiative, which reflects the effectiveness of this governance structure. However, the roles of state and territory offices and their relationships with Facilitating Partners were hindered in sites with a high turnover of state and territory officer staff. In the first phases of implementation of CfC there were also some tensions between FaHCSIA and Facilitating Partners because there was ambiguity about the program requirements and accountability mechanisms.

In a program that is based on a new model, it is expected that some processes and policies will require development and change during the establishment and implementation phases. Furthermore, as the CfC model was driven by community needs, certain levels of flexibility are required and are a distinct, important advantage of the model. However, flexibility and the ability to further evolve and develop needs to be balanced with a sufficiently completed and clear framework of governance to avoid unnecessary tensions, and to help develop an effective working relationship between government and lead agencies.

The CfC Committee

The CfC Committee was a central body within each site, which played an important role in planning and implementing the local CfC program. CfC committees were involved in consultation, coordination, management and supporting the Facilitating Partner. The committees consisted of stakeholders from the Facilitating Partner, other NGO and government service agencies and community groups, and parents.

Most CfC Committee members benefited from their involvement because the committee provided an opportunity to interact with other services, share knowledge and gain insight into how others work in the sector, and develop new networks and strengthen existing relationships. The effectiveness of CfC Committee meetings was facilitated when there was a diversity of members, when meetings were regular,46 when meeting venues were accessible and appropriate, and when there was joint decision-making. The attendance of guest speakers involved in the initiative also contributed to the effectiveness. The role of the Facilitating Partner was essential in running professional and democratic meetings.

There were also a number of factors that potentially weakened the effectiveness of the CfC Committee. Its momentum could be stalled when key stakeholders became disengaged from the committee, and when it did not represent the full range of community members.

CfC Committee processes were not always effective when they did not match the needs of the community, or when they were not given the opportunity to make decisions. Most CfC committees operated like management committees with decision-making responsibilities. These committees worked well and helped to empower community members. In some sites, however, committees only operated as advisory groups with little influence on decisions. This limited and obstructed their effectiveness.

Some key stakeholders became disengaged after the establishment stage or early in the implementation stage. While this may have been largely because it was easier to attract key stakeholders to CfC Committee meetings prior to the allocation of funding, some committee members became unsure of their role and believed that their time was no longer best invested by attending meetings. It was important for Facilitating Partner project managers to reassess the role of the CfC Committee, refocus and reinvigorate it and help committee members understand their changing roles after funding decisions had been made. This also meant that the CfC Committee needed to be flexible enough to adapt to the changing needs of the program as it matured.

Finally, CfC committees may have been affected by the lack of widespread representation of community members. Some smaller service providers did not have the resources to attend meetings regularly and, in most sites, local businesses and most private child care providers did not join the committee. Many sites had difficulties recruiting parents of young children or other community members who were not service providers. It was even more difficult to engage representatives from disadvantaged populations, such as new migrants, Indigenous Australians or people with disability. Where parents and other community members did become involved, the formality and structure of meetings sometimes presented barriers for active participation and future attendance. This was reinforced by a CfC Committee member:

I know that [the Facilitating Partner] tried incredibly hard to get people from the local community to participate on the committee. And people just don't come ... They just don't want to do it . These are the people that we are trying to assist. If they had the confidence, the self-esteem, the social skills, they'd be able to do it. And then we wouldn't be setting-up [CfC] in this area. That's the whole point.

The formal meeting structures were required to meet timelines and contracts and to effectively govern and implement the program, so changing the structure of meetings is not a feasible solution. Where possible, community members should be included in CfC committees, but other options of informal consultation should also be available and ongoing. This could be as simple as asking people for their input and opinions when meeting them in the street, at community events, or during or after service delivery. Some sites successfully established neighbourhood groups in suburbs of the site and considered their input in CfC Committee meetings. It is important to tailor these informal consultations to the cultural and social situation of community members.

[ top ]

7.5 Challenges for the CfC model

Timescales

CfC struggled with the three to four year timeframe. The timing matched other community development processes, which are generally funded for three to four years with the expectation that the community will take responsibility at the end of the funding period. For very disadvantaged communities however, this timeframe was inadequate. Three to four years was not a realistic timeframe for disadvantaged communities, nor for CfC sites with limited pre-existing infrastructure or networks.

The community consultation phase was particularly time-consuming, especially in areas with high proportions of Indigenous Australians, and new services could take six months or more to be established (especially if staff recruitment was difficult). Limited time was then available to develop trust and relationships with target groups, deliver services and work towards sustainability.

In many disadvantaged sites, implementing an innovative model such as CfC without longer-term commitment risked raising false expectations and damaging the trust of community members. This would make it more difficult for governments and NGOs to engage these communities in future projects.

Future place-based programs should make more realistic assessments of the time taken to establish, implement and sustain complex programs in disadvantaged communities. Timelines would need to take into account the size of the site, the extent of pre-existing agency relationships, the resources within the community, the skills of the project manager and the effectiveness of the service delivery network. In establishing timelines, it is also important to allow for the possibility of changing circumstances and evolving community needs, which are difficult to identify at the start of a program.

Reporting

FaHCSIA's reporting requirements for the Facilitating Partners were a major source of tension. Facilitating Partners found the reporting burden excessive in comparison with other government programs, including other programs funded by FaHCSIA. They spent considerable time completing these reports and supporting Community Partners to do so. FaHCSIA state and territory offices oversaw and supported this process. The reporting templates that Facilitating Partners and Community Partners were required to complete were complex and detailed. FaHCSIA changed the content and format of these templates during the course of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004–2009 in an effort to ease the reporting burden and complexity. While service providers appreciated FaHCSIA's responsiveness to their concerns, overall the reporting requirements were generally described by Facilitating Partners and Community Partners as challenging.

Comprehensive accountability arrangements, including reporting, are required in any government-funded program. But the difficulties experienced with the reporting template meant that the quality of data varied between organisations and sites. Where data was of limited quality (such as large numbers of missing data or inconsistencies between questions and responses), it was not used in the evaluation. It is recommended that in future, the reporting requirements of similar programs be kept to the minimum necessary for accountability and evaluation purposes.

Geography

The place-based approach of CfC allowed a community-development approach and strong service coordination (the strengths of these are discussed earlier in the report). Where there were well defined and agreed communities, this approach was very successful and added much value to the model. The importance of matching a community to the specific type of place-based funding should not be underestimated.

Some geographic issues within the 45 communities selected for CfC were not accounted for in the development of the model. These included:

CfC sites were selected by the Australian Government based on consultations with state and territory governments, analysis of indicators of disadvantage (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas), the number of children in the community, and the number of families receiving the Family Tax Benefit. Other factors considered included the existing level of physical infrastructure to enable the implementation of CfC, the level of similar existing services in the community, and a national spread of urban, regional and remote sites. Despite the thoroughness of these considerations, problems emerged with some of the areas selected.

Selection of CfC sites

The outcome indicator framework demonstrates that all CfC sites were disadvantaged on most relevant indicators, compared with the Australian population. Children (aged 0 to 5 years) in CfC sites were more likely to be living with a sole parent, in a low-income household, to have a mother who did not speak English well, to have parents who did not finish high school, and to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent, compared with the general population of Australian children aged 0 to 5 years. So CfC sites were indeed socioeconomically disadvantaged. However, there were many other communities which experienced comparable or even greater disadvantage than the 45 communities which were selected. Some interviewees believed that other areas could have benefited more from the additional funding brought into communities by CfC.

Arbitrary community boundaries

Most sites experienced difficulties in coordinating agencies and delivering services in their CfC communities because they were determined by arbitrary administrative boundaries defined by government, which consisted of several distinct suburbs or regions. Irrespective of their geographic location, there were some stakeholders in each of the 10 fieldwork sites who reported that these artificial boundaries impeded service delivery.

The problem tended to be less acute in metropolitan areas and in regional towns when the suburbs were adjacent. In rural, remote and some geographically diverse CfC sites, however, it was a significant problem. One site, for example, included outer metropolitan suburbs, a separate mostly Indigenous community, and a rural area. Another, a metropolitan site, consisted of three suburbs, which were very different in character and socioeconomic composition. There were also problems when site boundaries spanned multiple local government areas and area health services. These artificially defined CfC communities increased the level of difficulty, time and expense for establishing, promoting and implementing CfC, and made the task of engaging community members more challenging.

There was some scope for communities to expand boundaries, but no additional funding was available for sites if they opted to do so. One CfC site requested changes to the boundaries at the outset of the program, which FaHCSIA agreed to. Aligning boundaries with other local government and health services may assist in the delivery of services within communities. Having a consultation process between communities and different levels of government to determine boundaries for place-based models therefore could help overcome the challenges experienced within a number of CfC sites by the artificial boundaries.

Working in remote communities

CfC was very difficult to establish and implement in remote areas. Limited infrastructure, high costs, short timeframes, difficulties in recruitment and retention of staff, and extreme seasonal weather (in northern Australia), all proved challenging in remote areas.

Remote CfC sites had to cover large geographic areas if they were to include the minimum number of families and level of services. Many small, remote townships had very limited resources and very few potential Community Partner organisations. Even where a number of agencies were available, they were often spread across large distances, making planning, meetings and other coordination activities time consuming and expensive.

The high costs of establishing and implementing services in remote locations (living costs, and the costs of transportation and delivering services to a small number of people) were not factored into CfC funding. Internal and external travel within remote locations was not only expensive, but also time consuming. This was particularly frustrating for service providers when families did not engage with the service.

It was difficult to attract, recruit and retain staff with appropriate skills and qualifications in remote areas. This was further compounded in areas where mining companies and government interventions other than CfC competed with CfC for staff. Delays in employing staff and staff turnover slowed the establishment and implementation of the program.

In northern Australia, the wet and cyclone seasons also significantly interrupted service provision. Yet, like the other CfC sites, these communities were expected to complete the program in a three to four year timeframe.

As most remote sites contained high proportions of Indigenous Australians, challenges in completing the program in three to four years were further compounded by the need to invest extensive time in consultation and relationship-building. Finally, communication could also be difficult in remote areas where many Indigenous families spoke little or no English.

Facilitating Partners in remote areas responded to these challenges by reducing the number of CfC Committee meetings, communicating by telephone, varying the location of meetings, setting up parallel services and CfC structures in different parts of their sites, and providing outreach services to isolated communities. These efforts were limited however by the money available for travel and service provision. A number of respondents providing fly-in/fly-out services in remote sites occasionally shared flights with other service providers. This saved on transport costs and caused less disruption to communities. This practice was not widespread and there is scope to expand it.

Consulting with communities, delivering services and collecting evaluation data was logistically complex and expensive in remote sites. If there is to be any future development and implementation of the model in rural and remote areas, longer-term resources would be required to allow more time and opportunity to engage community members and coordinate services. Communities also need to be closely assessed for their existing resources and capacity to take on complex programs.

Local evaluation

The intention of SFCS 2004–2009 was to increase the evidence base for early childhood initiatives. An important part of collecting this evidence was the involvement of local evaluators, who reported directly to Facilitating Partners and worked with them to establish evaluation plans. They had no direct link with FaHCSIA or the national evaluators (Social Policy Research Centre). This process was established to facilitate openness between Facilitating Partners and Community Partners.

The role of local evaluators was diverse and differed according to the evaluator, the Facilitating Partner and the community. Local evaluators developed program logics for CfC sites, collected, managed and analysed data, wrote reports, and supported and educated Facilitating Partners and Community Partners in regard to debriefing, supervision and evaluation. The approaches used by local evaluators depended on their skill sets, what they were contracted to complete, the community, and Facilitating Partner and Community Partner resources (budgets, timeframes, capacity and skills). Relationships between Facilitating Partners and local evaluators worked well when there was a clear understanding of what was required, when what could be achieved was feasible, and when the resources available balanced with the needs of the Facilitating Partner.

The success of the local evaluators cannot be measured because of the limited availability of reporting outputs.47 Moreover, the role was undermined by a lack of clarity, limited budgets (approximately $15,000 a year per site) and high expectations. Local evaluators were contracted by Facilitating Partners, and this made sense at a community level, but it also created a number of challenges for some Facilitating Partners. Most Facilitating Partners or Community Partners did not have the skills or capacity to effectively manage or support the local evaluation. In some cases local evaluators committed their own additional resources to complete the evaluations.

It was originally intended that the local evaluators collaborate with the national evaluation in collecting and analysing data for the overall evaluation effort. Ultimately this was not possible for a number of reasons, including the relatively low levels of resources devoted to local evaluators, the heterogeneity of their skill base, the length of time many sites took to commission their evaluations, and the fact that there was no line of accountability to the national evaluation or to FaHCSIA. Local evaluators were engaged in a small number of CfC forums and through the Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia website, but even these only engaged with the local evaluators in a limited way.

Future models of programs like CfC should take into account the management processes for local evaluators. In addition, clear expectations need to be established from the outset, funding should match expectations, evaluators should have the capacity to conduct applied research, and Facilitating Partners and Community Partners should be supported in the evaluation processes.

Sustainability

Sustainability is a key outcome of community-development models, including CfC. To make CfC sustainable, Facilitating Partners and CfC committees need to develop strategies to maintain outcomes and processes, and to secure ongoing funding where appropriate (Department of Family and Community Services 2005). Most participants reported that expecting all aspects of CfC to be sustainable within the short timeframe was an unrealistic goal, especially considering that the program was new, innovative and funded over a relatively short timeframe.

Services

Services appeared more likely to be sustained if provided by Community Partners that were large, stable and had capacity to spare. Local public libraries and playgroups, for example, could continue to host services. However, it was believed that most CfC-funded activities and services would cease at the end of the CfC funding period. Very few sites had identified any future funding possibilities by the end of 2007, despite having looked for them. Local businesses very rarely joined CfC committees, and corporate financial support of CfC activities was scant, at best, in all the fieldwork sites. At the end of the evaluation period, only one NGO was positive about the possibility of securing future funding from corporations for some (although not all) of the CfC services and activities. The ability to attract funding from corporations requires not only local businesses in the area with the capacity and willingness to support social programs, but also NGOs with the resources, knowledge and staffing expertise to attract this type of funding. Remote sites had few, if any, possibilities of finding alternative funding sources.

Networks

Some interviewees believed that the collaborative culture fostered by CfC was well established in the sites and would continue to grow. However, others were less confident. They felt that, after only a few years, collaborative practice was not yet entrenched. The overwhelming sentiment was that a facilitator was needed to ensure the continued functioning of CfC service networks, and many doubted that the strong collaborations established during the program would endure without a funded coordinator such as a Facilitating Partner.

Skills and professional development

A number of interviewees were quite optimistic that skills attained by service providers through funded training and professional development would be sustainable. However, if staff left the sector, these skills would go with them. Lessons from CfC would need to be implemented in organisational policies and practices for them to continue to be beneficial.

Infrastructure

The CfC program did not include direct investment in infrastructure. However, it gave sites an impetus to find ways of establishing a focal point, usually a building, where CfC services and activities could be delivered. The biggest infrastructure gains through CfC were community centres on public school grounds, often called hubs, which were established in several of the fieldwork sites. Ongoing use of these schools would require continued support from school principals and some ongoing funding support from governments and NGOs.

Families, children and communities

Parents and children could experience sustained benefits from CfC, but too little is known about the outcomes from CfC at this stage to comment on sustainable outcomes. It is also unknown whether positive outcomes will be sustained if the CfC program is withdrawn from the 45 communities. There is concern that short-term early interventions, which do not include sustained follow-ups, may have a more detrimental effect on disadvantaged and Indigenous communities than no intervention at all. This is because short-term programs have the potential to fuel resentment and mistrust. Community-level outcomes were generally judged to be less sustainable than person/family-level outcomes because of the relatively short-term intervention.

[ top ]

7.6 CfC costs and effects

This section compared the effectiveness of CfC with the costs of achieving them, using the most appropriate methods available. The community level outcomes are measured using SFIA and the Service Coordination Study. Costs for the program have been provided by FaHCSIA. Understanding the benefits and costs of CfC can assist in drawing conclusions about the value of early intervention programs such as CfC.48

Cost of CfC

Total cost

FaHCSIA provided financial expenditure to CfC sites over four financial years (2004–05 to 2007–08) for each of the 45 CfC sites, and more detailed data on the 10 SFIA sites. Over $100 million was spent on CfC during this time. Expenditure in the SFIA areas was broadly equivalent to expenditure in all 45 CfC sites over time (Table 10).

Table 10: Financial expenditure by financial year, CfC sites
Financial year All 45 sites 10 SFIA sites
Total 2004–08 Proportion of total (%)(a) Total 2004–08 Proportion of total (%)(a)
2004–05 $4,016,026 4 $1,598,974 7
2005–06 $24,116,615 24 $5,639,161 23
2006–07 $35,088,155 35 $8,306,853 34
2007–08 $37,015,013 37 $8,540,911 35
Total $100,235,809 100 $24,085,899 100
(a) Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Funding was provided to CfC sites for four broad purposes. For:

  1. Community Partners, to fund their services and activities
  2. community resources, for direct outlays and costs associated with developing and implementing projects, including staffing, infrastructure, governance and promotion
  3. Facilitating Partners, to deliver services and activities for children and their families
  4. local evaluation of the CfC initiative.

As expected, almost all the funding (60 per cent) across CfC sites was allocated to Community Partners to deliver services and activities, and to the community resources to support these projects (30 per cent). Facilitating Partners received 7 per cent of the funding, and 3 per cent was allocated for local evaluation.

Cost per child

Based on 2006 ABS demographic profile of each SFIA CfC site, it is possible to calculate the approximate funding invested per child. In total, $24,085,899 million was spent on the 28,810 children aged 0 to 5 years living in the 10 SFIA sites over the four financial years 2004–05 to 2007–08. When the costs are converted into 2006 Australian dollars, this equates to $840 per child.

Table 11: Cost of CfC for four years by child population 0 to 5 years, SFIA sites
Total 2006 AUD equivalent
Total expenditure in SFIA sites $24,085,899 $24,191,537
Total persons aged 0 to 5 years, 2006 Census 28,810 28,810
Expenditure per child aged 0 to 5 years $836 $840

Costs and outcomes

The positive outcomes demonstrated in the SFIA study and total cost of the CfC program between 2004–05 and 2007–08 indicate that CfC has achieved a number of positive outcomes for a relatively low cost. For $840 per child over the four-year period, there have been significant positive outcomes for families, children and communities in the areas of parenting practices and self-efficacy, joblessness, community social cohesion and children's vocabulary and verbal ability. The overall trend of findings within SFIA communities compared to contrast sites is positive, which indicates that CfC is an effective intervention. It is unknown whether these positive outcomes would continue if CfC programs are discontinued in the current locations.

[ top ]