Skip to content

Engaging hard-to-reach families and children

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the themed study
1.2 Study aims
1.3 Research question
1.4 Qualitative methodology

1.1 Background to the themed study

This report documents one of three themed studies undertaken by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) as part of the national evaluation (2004–2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004–2009. As set out in the national evaluation framework, the themed studies are part of the cross-strategy evaluation which is designed to explore particular issues in depth across the Communities for Children, Local Answers and Invest to Grow programs. Two other studies address how SFCS has addressed the needs of fathers and Indigenous populations. As this report is about hard-to-reach populations generally, it encompasses material relating to fathers and Indigenous families. However, issues for these groups are explored more thoroughly in the national evaluation themed study reports prepared specifically about these groups, using different methodologies (see Berlyn, Wise & Soriano 2008; Flaxman, Muir & Oprea 2009).

[ top ]

1.2 Study aims

This research establishes how Communities for Children, Local Answers and Invest to Grow services and activities have engaged—and sought to engage—families and children considered hard-to-reach, the challenges encountered, and how additional supports might enhance reach and engagement. Exploring these problems was important for SFCS 2004–2009 and other community-based initiatives, as this provides insight into the appropriateness of services and access for those populations most in need. Access and appropriateness matter because initiatives such as SFCS may have achieved goals of strengthening families and communities by focusing support on those easiest to help rather than populations with more severe vulnerabilities, risking exacerbating inequality and marginalisation of those most in need (Milbourne 2002). Assessing how initiatives engage the hard-to-reach also helps clarify what works with varying populations and in different service and community contexts, which groups of SFCS users are most likely to achieve outcomes and who may be missing out, and how targeting and engagement might be improved in future interventions. One of the specific goals of the SFCS evaluation is to establish—for Communities for Children—the extent to which the initiative helped the most disadvantaged children, and hard-to-reach families and children often fall into this category.

[ top ]

1.3 Research question

The research explores the key question of ‘how, and how effectively have services receiving SFCS funding engaged and sought to engage hard-to-reach families and children?’ After reviewing relevant research in Section 2, the report explores the following questions in the context of SFCS 2004–2009:

Rather than being designed as a rigorously controlled effectiveness study, an exploratory approach was adopted, using qualitative data to capture the experience and practice wisdom of key informants. In addition to the qualitative study, which includes Invest to Grow and Local Answers as well as Communities for Children, the Stronger Families in Australia (SFIA) dataset was analysed (see Section 8) to provide insight into how effective Communities for Children had been for families who could be considered hard-to-reach compared with families who were not hard-to-reach.

[ top ]

1.4 Qualitative methodology

After obtaining ethics approval from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee, a review of background academic literature, program documents and evaluation studies was conducted to identify documented benefits and challenges of engaging hard-to-reach groups in child and family services, the engagement strategies used, and how these can be improved (see Section 2).

The qualitative component of the study involved interviews with key stakeholders in a sample of Local Answers, Invest to Grow and Communities for Children projects and sites, to establish how initiatives have sought to engage with hard-to-reach groups in practice. The methodology differed between the SFCS programs, to reflect the uniqueness of the Communities for Children model and to allow data to be collected about Communities for Children at the same time interviews were taking place for other components of the evaluation, thereby minimising participant burden.

For Local Answers and Invest to Grow, telephone interviews were conducted with representatives from 20 projects, including six funded under Invest to Grow. Participants were from a mix of projects, including those explicitly seeking to target a hard-to-reach group or groups, and those not specifically seeking to do so (who may, in the course of their activity, have found particular groups were hard-to-reach).

In all interviews, participants were asked to explain:

Methodology differed slightly for Communities for Children. To minimise the burden on respondents, relevant questions were embedded in the interview schedules used in the 120 interviews conducted in the 10 sites used for the fieldwork component of the national evaluation’s Service Coordination Study (Purcal et al. 2009). While participants from Local Answers and Invest to Grow included managers, coordinators or project staff, Communities for Children informants held a wider range of roles, including Facilitating Partners, members of Communities for Children Consultative Committees, service providers and other stakeholders (see Appendix B for interview questions).

[ top ]