Executive summary
This report contains a description of the methods and baseline results of the process evaluation of the Communities for Children (CfC) program, which is part of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS). The process evaluation reported here represents a subset of the National Evaluation of the SFCS and includes information from:
- Demographic profiles
- Service mapping
- Service coordination survey
- Field work relating to partnership model and service coordination.
Demographic profiles
A demographic profile of each community was compiled using data from the Census of Population and Housing, 2001. The key purpose was to provide contextual information about the social and economic characteristics of CfC sites, and the demographic characteristics of children aged five and under and their families. This provides a backdrop that helps to understand the different contexts in which CfC has been implemented.
Populations in CfC sites were more disadvantaged than the Australian population on most relevant indicators. CfC sites had higher proportions of children aged 0-5 years who lived in lone parent households than the national average, higher proportions with a parent unemployed, and higher proportions who lived in low-income families. Families with children aged 0-5 years in CfC areas were also more culturally diverse. Although the same proportion of the overall population was born outside the main English speaking countries in Australia and in CfC sites, there were higher proportions of children in CfC sites with mothers who did not speak English very well. CfC sites also had higher proportions of children who were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent, compared with Australia as a whole. Populations in CfC areas were also less likely to have attained Year 12 or equivalent levels of qualifications.
Service mapping
In the CFC sites at the commencement of the initiative, education services were the most prevalent services for children aged 0-5 years and their families (39%), followed by general child and family services (23%) and health services (20%). An additional 12% of services targeted population groups with a high risk of disadvantage. Nearly all FPs reported the existence of relevant networks in their site.
There was substantial variety in the number and type of services and networks available in each site. Overall, the number of services in the sites ranged from 39 to 227. Looking at the range in numbers of specific service categories, the number of educational services ranged from 11 to 87, the number of general child and family services ranged from 6 to 56 services, the number of general health services ranged from 2 to 61, and the number of services for population groups with a high risk of disadvantage ranged from 0 to 36. The number of supportive networks in each site ranged from 0 to 22.
Service coordination survey
The Service Coordination Study was built on the data collected in the baseline service mapping. It provided information about how services in CfC sites worked together. The logic model of the SFCS indicates that outcomes for children and families depend not just on service output, but also on how services and other initiatives are coordinated and work together at a strategic and operational level.
Most services used a combination of information sources to plan, allocate resources and identify service gaps in their communities. Just over three-quarters of services used feedback from service users, while many also used client information from services and community-level information. Just over half of all agencies involved with CfC used the SFCS Outcomes Framework data, compared with 5% of those without any involvement in CfC.
Respondents who held senior positions were significantly less involved in interagency arrangements than service delivery staff who responded to the survey. Respondents in frontline and service coordinator positions were most often the ones carrying out interagency activities. Agencies most commonly collaborated by referring clients to one another, exchanging information and conducting interagency meetings.
Respondents most frequently believed that the lack of integration between different levels of government, staff problems and competition for funding between agencies were the factors most likely to hinder effective partnerships. The factors most likely to be reported as promoting effective partnerships were 'respect and understanding of the needs of families' and a 'willingness to work together'. Many respondents also called for more commitment to interagency cooperation from senior staff, with many believing that strong leadership from agency administrators and a common goal of cooperation could facilitate effective partnerships.
Most respondents believed that there was a good understanding of the importance of the early years and were moderately confident that there was a shared vision about the needs of young children in their agencies.
The majority of respondents did at least some work with other service providers (70%), with about one-third saying that their service worked closely with other services most of the time. However, relatively few respondents (12%) thought that services currently worked together as a well-coordinated team and 58% thought that services were only partially coordinated at present.
A similar picture emerged when respondents were asked how often they believed services were provided in partnership with other agencies. About half of all respondents believed that services were provided though interagency partnership 'quite often' or 'sometimes' and very few said that services were 'rarely' or 'never' provided in partnership (11%).
Respondents were generally positive about providing services in partnership with other agencies, with 63% of respondents finding it 'very helpful' or 'mostly helpful'. Respondents working in agencies that currently provided services in partnership with other agencies most or all of the time were even more positive, and 96% of these respondents found interagency partnerships to be 'very helpful' or 'mostly helpful'.
To compare the level of service coordination between Stronger Families in Australia (SFIA) study sites, two composite indicators, Day-to-day Co-ordination and Effective Partnerships, were created. These indicators suggested that the majority of the sites had Moderate levels of Day-to-day Coordination and High levels of Effective Partnerships at baseline. A comparison of the SFIA and non-SFIA sites showed a similar spread between the indicators overall and suggests that the indicators are quite robust.
It seems that while many services are currently cooperating with one another to provide services to young children and their families, more could be done to collaborate further. A stronger commitment from senior managers and an explicitly stated goal of coordination could bring about more meaningful cooperation between agencies and improve service provision.
Fieldwork relating to partnership model and service coordination
As part of the Service Coordination Study and the Partnership Model Study, in-depth interviews with CfC key personnel were held during October and November 2006 in the 10 CfC sites where the SFIA study was being conducted. In each site between seven and 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key personnel involved with CfC. Respondents included senior managers and Project Managers of the Facilitating Partner (FP) organisations, CfC committee members, service providers, community members, local government representatives and FaCSIA State and Territory Officers.
Under the Facilitating Partner (FP) model, a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) was chosen as the lead agency in each CfC site. Often the NGO was locally based and well integrated into the site's existing service network. Overall the community-based nature of CfC was regarded by participants as positive. Most interviewees found that it gave the project credibility and instilled a sense of community ownership.
However, the effectiveness of the NGO in implementing CfC varied depending on the skills of the FP personnel and the resources at their disposal. In sites where FP personnel were able to develop relationships with stakeholders easily and to spread enthusiasm about CfC the implementation process progressed more smoothly. Support from the NGO's state or national offices was also important in the implementation process due to the complex administrative, management and legal tasks required from them as the leaders of a multi-million-dollar project.
Facilitating Partners (FPs) also received support from the government funding body, FaCSIA. The department's regional representatives, the State or Territory Officers, provided interpretation of FaCSIA requirements and guidance for the implementation.
In addition, many interviewees said that they thought there was a lack of clarity in the FaCSIA requirements and also said that delays in responses from the Department created difficulties. However it should be recognised that CfC represented an entirely new format for Government funding of NGOs, and in addition was a relatively large initiative. From a governmental perspective, therefore, comprehensive accountability arrangements are necessary whenever substantial funding is committed to a new model. FaCSIA responded to feedback from FPs. This included streamlining reporting requirements and decreasing the frequency of reports.
The implementation of CfC appears to have been useful as a vehicle for increasing the level of service cooperation in the sites. Under the model, the FPs were required to establish the Communities for Children Committee (CCC), a working group of child and family services and other stakeholders in their site. Most interviewees regarded the CCC very positively. They reported that the FPs had made a genuine effort at being open and inclusive by inviting all relevant stakeholder organisations as well as community members into the CCC. Many CCC members said how useful and rewarding their involvement was, especially in sites where no other early years network existed. Service providers could interact with others in the field and share knowledge. Most interviewees felt that the CCC had reduced segregation and competition among services and created mutual respect.
However, most sites had difficulties in recruiting all relevant stakeholders to the CCC especially parents of young children or other community members and representatives from some disadvantaged populations, such as Aboriginal people or people with a disability. Also many found it difficult to engage local businesses and most child care providers. Some FPs developed other avenues to engage these stakeholders.
Due to its community-based nature, CfC appears to have facilitated some improvements in service delivery and quality in the sites. Local plans were developed that gave stakeholders the opportunity to build on community strengths and address some service gaps and put early years strategies in place that they felt were most helpful for their site.
The selection of sites was a government decision based on a range of information. Some FPs believed the implementation of CfC was inhibited in some areas by the constructed boundaries of the CfC sites. Sites usually encompassed several suburbs or settlements, or even large rural or remote areas. These sites were sometimes contrary to locally defined geographic communities. In these areas this created significant obstacles to the FPs' ability to engage all relevant stakeholders, improve service coordination long-term and deliver services to young children and their families in all parts of the site.
At this stage it is not clear whether the implementation of CfC, using the FP model, has had a strategic impact in the sites; that is, whether it has been able to build sustainable service networks and improved services. It appears that continued financial engagement by state and federal governments remains essential.