Skip to content

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

8. Local Answers

8.1 Local Answers participants
8.2 Local Answers objectives, outcomes and success factors
8.3 Engaging marginalised and very disadvantaged groups
8.4 Conclusion

Background

Project description and aims

Local Answers (LA) funded local, small to medium-scale, time-limited projects as part of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004–2009. Its overarching goal was to help strengthen disadvantaged communities by funding projects that supported children and families, developed the skills of community members, and fostered proactive communities. It aimed to use local knowledge and experience to develop effective, practical solutions that met particular community needs, to build community capacity, and to develop connections between community organisations, local government and business.

The initiative funded a diverse range of projects, some of which focused on early childhood, parenting and family relationships, while others concentrated on mentoring, leadership, volunteering and community-building. In total, over $90 million of funding was distributed to local organisations to implement over 600 projects.

LA aimed to:

FaHCSIA conducted five funding rounds on an open competitive application basis to select projects that best met the above aims. The rounds were conducted throughout the duration of SFCS 2004–2009. Both new and already existing projects were funded in each round (for varying durations). The length of time a project had been running, and the number of reports submitted in time for this evaluation, differed for each project. Projects funded through rounds 4 and 5 had generally not been running long enough to submit any reports, and very few of these projects are represented in the data in this report.

Evaluation

LA was a difficult component of the SFCS 2004–2009 to evaluate, as the projects were individual, discrete and occurred within a direct-funding model. Generally, projects received the level of funding requested in their applications, and for the duration requested. This resulted in projects ranging from less than $10,000 spread over one or two years, to over $1 million over a similar period. Unlike CfC, LA projects were not required to have a local evaluator (most project budgets were too small).

LA has been incorporated into this national evaluation through an analysis of the LA progress reports, and through the cross-strategy evaluations, that is, the three themed studies and the promising practice profiles (PPP).49 Because these latter data sources have a number of limitations, the progress reports were the main source of information for evaluating LA. The themed studies could use only a few of the LA projects, due to ethical restrictions which precluded the evaluators from contacting LA projects directly. The few that were used were identified by FaHCSIA. As a result of a validation process, the PPP identified 18 LA projects with promising practices (out of 26 proposals submitted by the projects). But this is not an accurate representation of the prevalence of promising practices within the projects, because the lack of local evaluators limited the ability of LA organisations to submit proposals.

The progress reports contain administrative data and performance indicators determined by FaHCSIA in consultation with organisations funded in the first round. They were submitted to FaHCSIA by LA projects, at first quarterly, and later half-yearly, throughout the duration of the funding.50 Data was collected in hard copy and transferred by FaHCSIA into a database, and it was this information that was used in this evaluation. Of the 616 LA projects, 214 were part of rounds 4 or 5 and hence were not scheduled to submit their first reports until after this evaluation.

Of the remaining 402 projects, the reports from 360 projects had been entered into the database. Reports from the 42 remaining projects had not been entered because they were funded only for small amounts and were not required to submit extensive reports. The figures below indicate the scope of reports that are included as part of this evaluation:

Data contained in the progress reports were supplied by the funded organisations themselves. FaHCSIA project officers had oversight of the reporting process and monitored the quality of the data and the satisfactory completion of the reports. Nonetheless, sometimes data is missing and there are obvious discrepancies.52 As a consequence, the findings reported here may not be representative of all LA projects.

[ top ]

8.1 Local Answers participants

The LA projects funded in rounds 1, 2 or 3 provided 121,506 occasions of service and support between 2004 and 2007.53 Projects engaged an average of 53 participants each.54 These participants represented a diverse group of people, of both sexes and varying ages, cultural backgrounds and other characteristics.

Many LA projects had a strong child and youth focus. The majority of occasions of service/support (70.3 per cent, n=85,530) were delivered to people who were 19 years or younger (Table 12). The 20 to 34 years age group of (presumably) parents was also strongly represented, with over 17,000 occasions of service/support for people within this group, representing 14.2 per cent of the total. This indicates that LA was successful in involving young parents in various strategies.

LA projects attracted slightly fewer males than females (43.3 per cent, or 52,647 instances of service provision, across the 214 projects that reported sex of the participants).

Table 12: Occasions of service/support from Local Answers projects by age
Age (years) Number of projects with
recorded occasions of
service/support 		Total occasions of
service/support 		% of total Project mean Project
standard
deviation
0 to 2 149 10,935 9.0 73.39 181.80
3 to 5 156 11,416 9.4 73.18 233.60
6 to 11 154 35,882 29.5 233.00 1,084.75
12 to 14 146 15,217 12.5 104.23 411.28
15 to 19 189 12,080 9.9 63.92 113.87
20 to 24 172 6,771 5.6 39.37 57.36
25 to 34 178 10,413 8.6 58.50 107.58
35 to 44 171 9,625 7.9 56.29 109.64
45 to 54 154 4,981 4.1 32.34 65.52
55 to 64 117 2,942 2.4 25.15 47.82
65+ 80 1,244 1.0 15.55 24.10
Total 286(a) 121,506 100 424.85 1,175.00
(a) 71 per cent of projects and 79 per cent of total projects with available reports in the database reported occasions of service/support data by age.

LA projects were targeted to and attracted high proportions of people from marginalised or disadvantaged groups (Table 13). Over one in four participants were from a culturally and linguistically diverse background (31,762 occasions of support, 26 per cent). There were also high numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people engaged across LA projects. Of the 132 projects with reported data in this area, 14,528 or 12 per cent of occasions of service/support were for people from an Indigenous background.

Other prominent groups were:

There was also strong participation from people living in remote and very remote locations, despite the small number of projects based in these areas. This shows that projects in these areas were very successful in attracting participants.

Table 13: Occasions of service/support from Local Answers projects by demographic categories
Demographic category Number of projects with recorded occasions of service/support Total recorded occasions of service/support% of total
Men 214 52,647 43.3
Women 220 68,859 56.7
Unemployed or underemployed adults 157 10,041 8.3
Remote/very remote location 53 6,835 5.6
At risk or having experienced significant abuse, neglect or trauma 122 10,221 8.4
Adults/parents/carers with disability 130 1,433 1.2
Unable to work due to disability 82 1,850 1.5
From an Indigenous background 132 14,528 12.0
From a diverse cultural and linguistic background, new arrival 201 31,762 26.1
Children demonstrating challenging behaviours, or with challenging temperaments or behavioural problems 150 7,787 6.4
Children with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment, or with health related issues 23 187 0.2
Lack access to formal or informal child care in 81 5,700 4.7
Lack close or appropriate family or social 136 12,532 10.3
Mental health 19 409 0.3
Expectant, new or young parent/carer 188 10,812 8.9

[ top ]

8.2 Local Answers objectives, outcomes and success factors

Objectives

As expected, the project objectives reflected the original aims of LA but they did not all receive equal representation. The aim of 'building effective parenting and relationship skills' was the most common one, listed by 59 per cent of projects (n=109 of 186 with sufficient data available). 'Building partnerships between local services', 'assisting involvement in community life through training and leadership initiatives' and 'building economic self-reliance' were objectives listed by approximately one in 10 projects (13 per cent, 11 per cent, 9 per cent respectively). Only 4 per cent of LA projects were devoted to volunteering, and 3 per cent to mentoring.

Outcomes

It is not possible for the evaluators to test the success of LA projects in meeting these objectives. Quantitative data explicitly relating to outcomes, whether objective or self-assessed, was not requested by FaHCSIA and cannot be obtained from the LA progress report dataset.

Projects with stated objectives of concentrating on building parent skills and relationship skills correlate with those with higher numbers of participants aged 6 to 14 years, which suggests that many of the projects aimed at building parenting and relationship skills are attracting parents with primary school and early high school aged children rather than 0 to 5 year-old children.

Some outcomes can be postulated from the PPPs and the themed studies. Of the 26 LA projects submitted to PPP, 18 were validated as having promising practices. These projects were assessed as being 'locally responsive, involved the participation of local stakeholders and/or demonstrated impacts (either significant or micro-level change)'.55

Success factors

As part of their progress reports, LA project staff reported factors they believed made their projects successful. The most common success factors listed were:

Other success factors widely mentioned were:

Also mentioned were:

Those 18 LA projects whose promising practices had been validated either had a social inclusion focus or were designed to enhance service provision. They used a range of practices that they reported resulted in positive outcomes for parents and families, young parents and at-risk youth. These practices, which were similar to those described in the progress reports, involved organisational matters, service provision and partnership initiatives.

At an organisational level, high-quality staffing was deemed to be essential to delivering effective LA projects. Aspects involved multidisciplinary teams, qualified staff, trained volunteers, peer support, networking, and opportunities for professional development and training, as well as staff who can form positive relationships with clients.

Most of the promising practices identified involved techniques for delivering services. 'Soft entry' approaches were the most popular method, followed by using accessible locations for the provision of services, and providing transport. A number of projects used strengths-based, inclusive, needs and participant-driven approaches. Projects were both universal and targeted, worked at both an individual and a group level, and in both formal and informal settings. Activities that were reported to work well with clients included:

These promising practices demonstrate that LA structures, processes and funding were successful assisting some organisations at least to deliver innovative and effective services, both targeted and universal (Soriano, Berlyn & Wise 2008).

Partnerships

Partnerships were among the promising practices validated in the PPP process. These LA projects had collocated services, worked with partners, and integrated services with other agencies. The LA progress reports demonstrated that partnerships had played a large role in the development and implementation of most LA projects.

Most LA projects were conducted in partnership with other organisations or between individuals. Round 1 to round 3 projects (n=225) reported working with a total of 3,211 partners. These partners were generally perceived to be making an important contribution to the project (45 per cent of the projects that recorded partner contribution). An additional third found partners had made at least a small contribution (31 per cent). The remaining projects were still waiting on the contributions from partners to flow through to the project. No projects reported that partners had made no contributions at all.

Partnerships were perceived to be beneficial because they resulted in new approaches for 43 per cent of projects (n=114), and in the provision of new services or the meeting of unmet needs for 33 per cent of projects. Almost one in four projects (24 per cent) that responded to the question also believed that sustainable positive changes had been achieved as a result of partnerships.

The partnership results suggest that the management styles and structures were sufficiently open, flexible and communicative enough to facilitate new links, services and positive changes between partners in the LA areas.

[ top ]

8.3 Engaging marginalised and very disadvantaged groups

Findings from the LA progress reports and the Engaging hard-to-reach families and children study, suggest that LA funding did assist projects to develop strategies and programs applicable for people from marginalised or disadvantaged groups.

As shown in Table 13, LA projects recruited a high proportion of people from marginalised and very disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, interviews with 14 LA project managers (as part of the Engaging hard-to-reach families and children study), indicated that most LA projects (12 of the 14) were successful at recruiting and engaging their target audience.

Like some CfC services, it was the subgroups of specific populations that LA projects had difficulty engaging. For example, two universal parenting programs had difficulty recruiting Indigenous families, a program for young Indigenous parents found young fathers challenging to engage, and a pregnancy education and support program for young mothers had difficulty recruiting women who do not access mainstream services. Even with targeted services, providers have to develop a range of strategies to recruit and engage diverse community members.

It is not possible to draw overall conclusions from the interviews with project managers about the success of LA projects in supporting Indigenous stakeholders, as only two managers volunteered to be interviewed as part of the Indigenous families and children: coordination and provision of services study. Both managers reported that LA had assisted either in increasing or in strengthening services for Indigenous families in their area. They said they had used a number of the strategies and practices listed in the literature to facilitate cultural appropriateness, and emphasised the importance of delivering flexible, needs-based services.

Strategies used to engage people who were difficult to recruit and engage were very similar to those used by CfC services (discussed in Section 4.4). The LA individual-funding model was important in supporting organisations to tailor specific programs to target groups. However, the short-term, one-off nature of the funding may cause resentment and mistrust among people from very disadvantaged or marginalised groups, with negative repercussions for future programs and service providers.

[ top ]

8.4 Conclusion

Overall, the LA initiative shows some promising features, although limitations in reporting and evaluation mean it is not possible to accurately assess LA outcomes, strengths or weaknesses. Nonetheless, LA engaged 475 local organisations to implement 616 projects over five funding rounds, and the 360 projects represented in the LA database provided over 121,500 occasions of service/support.

LA projects were strongly youth-focused, with 70 per cent of participants being 19 years or younger. The funding enabled agencies to deliver services to people from very disadvantaged or marginalised groups, with high numbers of people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It also engaged people lacking social support, expectant or new young parents, people at risk of abuse, neglect or trauma, and the unemployed. Partnerships were reported as a key factor in this success. Other success factors involved organisational matters, staffing, and client recruitment and service provision techniques.

[ top ]