Skip to content

Engaging hard-to-reach families and children

9. Conclusion

Across the Local Answers, Invest to Grow and Communities for Children programs, interview participants found Indigenous families to be the most challenging to reach and engage, although young parents, fathers and people who do not use mainstream services were also hard-to-reach. While hard-to-reach groups are comprised of populations that are underrepresented, invisible and service-resistant (Doherty, Hall & Kinder 2003), an important finding from the study is that, to a large extent, context determines who is considered hard-to-reach. Community context, service type and approach, and targeting and engagement strategies all matter.

In non-metropolitan settings, for example, isolated families and those with transport difficulties were identified as particularly hard-to-reach. Those recruiting participants through other services found groups who do not traditionally use services or who do not use mainstream services, to be hard-to-reach. Invest to Grow and Local Answers services that targeted their activities to the mainstream tended to find several groups underrepresented, including Indigenous people, young mothers and fathers.

Those aiming their services at particular populations tended to find subgroups of their target groups to be hard-to-reach. Those with a liaison officer or outreach worker and adequate staffing reported less trouble engaging populations who would otherwise be considered hard-to-reach.

In terms of the factors that make a difference to engaging hard-to-reach groups, stable, secure, and adequate funding emerged as critical, especially for Invest to Grow and Local Answers participants. As found in previous studies (McCurdy & Daro 2001; Unger, Cuevas & Woolfolk 2007), adequate, stable and long-term funding was considered important for promoting smooth service delivery and reducing staff turnover. Short-term funding was considered to risk disrupting critical processes of relationship building both with hard-to-reach groups and other services. Indeed, this reflects previous findings that short-term funding arrangements may enhance pressures on services to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, risking compromising the flexibility required to meet diverse needs (Unger, Cuevas & Woolfolk 2007).

Staffing is also important, and emerged as a strong theme in all Invest to Grow, Local Answers and Communities for Children sites. Strategies for engaging underrepresented, invisible or service-resistant populations include employing community members who are themselves from hard-to-reach groups, especially as liaison or outreach workers. However, some participants find it is the skills of staff and their practice approach that makes more of a difference than workers’ demographic characteristics. This is in tandem with resources that mean staff can provide the time necessary to work through complex problems with vulnerable families.

In terms of intervention design, soft entry points and the use of natural gathering places were key strategies especially in Communities for Children sites. Ensuring interventions fulfil relevant needs in the community also emerged as an important strategy, along with outreach and promotion, provision of food and incentives, and spending the required time to build relationships with vulnerable groups.

Networks and partnerships were also important for identifying needs, finding and reaching clients, building capacity and ensuring continuity.

Despite the strategies that projects had in place to reach and engage hard-to-reach populations, challenges remained. These related to client circumstances, including poor literacy and isolation, a lack of access to transport, staff shortages and staff turnover, short timeframes and the time required to develop interorganisational relationships. Many of these challenges prevail across the child and family services sector in Australia and elsewhere, and are documented in existing literature. While the challenges of reach and engagement have not been fully resolved by the SFCS 2004–2009, they are unlikely to arise specifically from the strategy itself.

Moreover, while it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of Local Answers, Invest to Grow and Communities for Children due to differences in methodology used for each, evidence did not emerge suggesting Communities for Children, with its place-based and collaborative ethos, is superior for reaching and engaging hard-to-reach groups. The recommendations arising relate to all activities within the SFCS 2004–2009 programs, and to child and family services in general.

This includes the need for longer-term, more sustainable funding arrangements to minimise disruption to relationship building processes, staffing stability, employ outreach workers, and more time to build relationships with relevant services and with hard-to-reach community members themselves.

[ top ]