Skip to content

This report was published by the former Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Contents | Downloads

4. Service coordination study



The Service Coordination Study was built on the data collected in the baseline service mapping. It provides information about how services in CfC sites work 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.

4.1 Method

The service coordination study involved:

  1. A postal and email survey of contacts in relevant agencies in each CfC community, administered by the SPRC ('the snapshot questionnaire').
  2. Additional semi-structured interviews with approximately ten key personnel from those CfC communities in which the Stronger Families in Australia study was conducted. Most of these interviews were held face-to-face by the SPRC. Key personnel who were unavailable during the fieldwork period participated in a telephone interview. The findings from this intensive fieldwork stage of the service coordination study are reported below (see Section 5).

The lists of services collected in the baseline service mapping formed the sample for the survey.

back to top

4.2 The Snapshot survey

The snapshot survey was designed to assess how services in CfC areas are working together to achieve outcomes for children aged 0-5 and their families. The term 'snapshot' was used to denote that the survey was taking a picture of the extent of coordination at a particular time, with the intent of taking another picture after CfC had been in operation for some time. The survey was conducted in 2006.

Instruments

Initially two questionnaires were developed, one for assessing service coordination at the strategic level and one, at the operational level. The strategic level questionnaire was developed to establish the level of interagency working and cooperation in relation to planning, coordinating and commissioning services. The operational level questionnaire addressed how well services work together on the ground - do they know about each other? Do they find it easy to refer to each other? Are there information-sharing protocols, which allow services to know who else is involved with families? Are there ways of coming together to discuss cases that cause concern?

Questions were developed following a literature search of indicators for collaboration among agencies, and of questions and questionnaires used in similar studies, both in Australia and overseas. Several authors discussed indicators of successful collaboration and different types of collaboration among agencies. For example, Sullivan, Gilmore and Foley (2002) distinguished between three basic methods of collaboration: activity (e.g. multi-agency working groups); structural (e.g. co-location of offices); and financial (e.g. cost-sharing for services). Walker (2000) suggested that different forms of collaboration can be placed along a continuum from less to more collaboration, with a referral network as the least complex form and a collaborative alliance the most complex. Similarly, Himmelman (2001) grouped collaboration activities into four basic categories along a developmental continuum: networking, coordinating, cooperating and collaborating. A selection of indicators covering all methods and categories of collaboration were included in the questionnaires.

Questions relating to the current level, barriers and facilitators to collaboration were based on questions from the National Center for Family Support (2000) and the VicHealth Partnerships Analysis Tool (The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, hereafter VicHealth 2003). Other questions were based on those used by the SPRC in the evaluation of the Demonstration Projects in Integrated Community Care for the NSW Ageing and Disability Department.

Both questionnaires were piloted with strategic and operational level personnel in three CfC sites: Miller, East Gippsland and Mirrabooka. The Strategic level questionnaire was piloted with a total of nine people, and the Operational level one, with eight. Both questionnaires were then refined according to the interviewees' feedback. In addition, feedback from other researchers, including evaluators employed by CfC at a local level (Local Evaluators (LE)), was incorporated.

After the initial distribution of the questionnaires, it became clear that many services found it confusing to deal with two separate questionnaires (see below). Therefore the Strategic and Operational level snapshot questionnaires were condensed into a single 'Snapshot questionnaire' (Appendix A). This questionnaire explored different aspects of service coordination as outlined in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Snapshot questionnaire: domains and indicators
Domain Indicators
Better service coordination Involvement in joint activities (Q.10)

Ratings of joint activities (Q.10)

Level of staff involved in coordination (Q.11)

History, extent and ratings of service coordination (Q.15-21)
Facilitators of coordination Facilitating factors (Q.13)
Barriers to coordination Hindrances (Q.12)
Use of key principles of SFCS Use of information to guide planning (Q.9)

Incorporation of key principles (Q.14)

Sample

The sample for this study was based on the service networks in the sites, as defined in the service mapping exercise described above. The entire network of agencies providing services to children aged 0-5 and their families in CfC sites was included, not only those funded under CfC or involved in some other way so that changes in how services work together throughout the service network could be examined.

Initially, both questionnaires were sent to a single contact in each agency listed in the baseline service maps completed by FPs. That single contact was then requested to forward each questionnaire to two relevant staff members in their agency (an operational level manager and a strategic level manager). Follow up with FPs and LEs indicated that this step in the process was confusing for some services, especially for small services, which may have only one relevant staff member performing both ‘strategic’ and ‘operational’ roles. In response, the strategic and operational snapshot questionnaires were condensed into a single ‘Snapshot Questionnaire’. The refined distribution process and format of the questionnaire made it easier to understand and quicker to complete, reducing the burden on respondents. Note, however, that the completed strategic and operational versions were still used in the analysis.

To further improve the survey response rates, FPs and LEs were actively involved in the distribution process. Distribution of the survey was tailored according to the advice and preferences of the FPs and LEs in each site. The questionnaires were administered either by post or email (in some sites, both), and in some cases accompanied by an introductory letter from FPs and LEs. Many FPs and LEs also played a role by distributing the questionnaires in person throughout their communities and at interagency or other meetings.

The snapshot questionnaires were distributed to services in 41 of the 45 CfC sites. Consultations with the FPs and LEs of four sites containing remote Indigenous communities (Palmerston & Tiwi Islands, Katherine, East Kimberley and East Arnhem) indicated that the survey instrument was not culturally appropriate for the service providers of those areas. Consequently, the surveys were not distributed in Katherine, East Kimberley, East Arnhem and the Tiwi Islands. They were, however, distributed to services in Palmerston, an urban area with a mainly non-Indigenous population.

back to top

4.3 Results

Sample Description

Data was collected from staff of agencies that were identified through the CfC Baseline Service Mapping. The sample included staff from agencies that were not in any way involved with CfC, as well as staff from agencies involved with the initiative.

More than one-third of respondents (36%) did not record their position within their agency in any of the categories prescribed by the questionnaire (Table 7). Instead, some respondents wrote down their profession, for example teacher, GP, social worker or librarian. Of those respondents who did tick one of the prescribed positions, the highest proportion worked as Service Coordinators or Service Managers (32%) within their agencies, followed by Frontline Workers (15%), Senior or Area Managers (11%) and CEOs (5%).

Table 7: Respondents' position within their organisation
  Per cent
CEO 5
Senior or Area Manager 11
Service Coordinator or Service Manager 32
Frontline Worker 15
Other 36
Missing 2
Total 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Most agencies with which respondents were affiliated employed at least some full-time equivalent staff (Table 8), but they tended to be small enterprises. Only 12 per cent of respondents’ agencies had no full-time equivalent staff employed in the Local Government Area (LGA)/CfC site. Most agencies had a small number of full-time equivalent staff: 42% had less than five, and more than 55% had less than ten full-time staff.

Table 8: Full-time equivalent staff employed by agencies in the LGA/CfC site
  Per cent
0 12
0.1-0.5                                                3
0.6-0.9 2
1-1.9 8
2-2.9 7
3-3.9 5
4-4.9 5
5-5.9 3
6-9.9 11
10-49.9 13
50-400 6
Missing 25
Total 100

(N = 482)

Table 9 shows that only 27% of all agencies provided services solely to 0-5 year old children and their families. Just under half of all agencies devoted at least half of their activities to services for 0-5 year olds and their families.

Table 9: Agency activity in the LGA/CfC site specifically devoted to services for 0-5 year olds and their families
  Per cent
All of it                                              27
Most of it 14
About Half 9
Some 26
Very little 9
Missing 16
Total 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Overall, survey respondents had a high level of recognition of CfC. The results in Table 10 show that 70 per cent of all respondents had heard of the initiative.

Table 10: Respondents' knowledge of CfC
  Per cent
Yes                                                 70
No 8
Missing 22
Total 100

(N = 482)

Level of Agency Involvement in CfC

Although many agencies in CfC sites had some role in relation to CfC, Table 11 shows that two thirds of survey respondents were from agencies that were not involved with the project in any way. A sizeable minority (36 percent) of respondents came from an agency that was a member of the CfC committee and only 28 percent came from an agency that provided services funded under CfC. Since the defined criteria are not exclusive, the agency roles can overlap.

Table 11: Agency's role in relation to CfC
 

Per cent

  Yes No Missing Total
Member of Communities for Children Committee 36 50 14 100
Provides services funded under CfC 28 58 14 100
None 19 67 14 100

(N = 482)

The proportion of activities devoted to services for 0-5 year old children and their families was similar for agencies with and without involvement in CfC. Table 12 shows that 62 percent of agencies with some involvement with CfC devoted 50 percent or more of their activities to services for 0-5 year olds and their families. In comparison, agencies with no involvement in CfC devoted 58 percent to such services.

Table 12: Proportion of services devoted to 0-5 year olds and their families by Agency Role in CfC
 

Per cent

  All of it Most of it About Half Some Very little Total
Member of CfC Committee 24 17 18 34 7 100
Provides services funded under CfC 36 18 11 28 8 100
None 37 15 6 26 15 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 13 shows the extent to which information sources such as the SFCS Outcomes Framework were used as a guide to plan services, allocate resources and identify service gaps in the community. Most services used a variety of information sources, with feedback from service users being the most popular method. More than three quarters of services (76 percent) used service user feedback, followed by client information from services (used by 68 percent), community-level information (62 percent), and population-level information (52 percent).

Relatively few services (28 percent) used SFCS Outcomes Framework data. A fairly high proportion of respondents (16 percent) stated that they did not know whether or not this data was used, perhaps reflecting many respondents' limited involvement with CfC and a lack of communication about the SFCS Outcomes Framework.

Table 13: Information used to guide service planning, to allocate resources and to identify service gaps in the community
 

Per cent

  Yes No Don't Know Missing Total
Population-level information (e.g. census data) 52 18 6 24 100
Community-level information (e.g. from council or non-govt organisations, or from Australian Early Dev Index) 62 11 5 22 100
Client Information from services 68 7 4 21 100
Feedback from service users (parents of small children) 76 3 3 18 100
SFCS Outcomes Framework data 28 28 16 29 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 14 shows the use of SFCS Outcomes Framework data by agencies that have a role in CfC. The results show that 54 percent of agencies involved with CfC used the SFCS Outcomes Framework data, compared with 5 percent of those without any involvement in CfC.

Table 14: Use of SFCS Outcomes Framework data by agency role in CfC
 

Per cent

  Yes No Don't Know Total
Member of Communities for Children Committee 47 31 22 100
Provides services funded under CfC 61 22 18 100
None 5 71 24 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Strategic Level Coordination

The Strategic Level Coordination component of the study was intended to establish the level of interagency cooperation relating to planning, coordinating and commissioning services, and to measure changes during the funding period.

For the purposes of the Snapshot Survey, interagency working and cooperation in the planning, coordinating and commissioning of services was refined into the range of activities shown in Table 15. The activities were grouped into five categories: planning, service delivery, shared information, professional development and other.

Respondents were also asked which interagency activities they believed were most helpful. The helpfulness score was recorded on a scale from 1 (least helpful) to 5 (most helpful), with a midpoint of 3 (neither helpful nor unhelpful).

Table 15: Interagency involvement in various activities, and helpfulness score
 

Agency involvement
(per cent)

 Average helpfulness score
(from 1 [low] to 5 [high])
  Yes No Missing Total  
Planning:          
Joint planning 66 27 8 100 4.0
Ensuring strategic plans reflect common goals 55 27 19 100 3.9
Coordinating planning cycles between agencies 26 54 20 100 3.6
Sharing membership of one another's organisational structures
(e.g. boards of directors or management committees)		 27 54 19 100 3.7
Service delivery:          
Referring clients between agencies 82 13 5 100 4.1
Joint monitoring or quality assurance of services 28 53 19 100 3.7
Joint service delivery 60 33 0 100 4.0
Joint case management 44 48 8 100 3.9
Sharing costs for services provided to shared clients 25 55 19 100 4.0
Shared information:          
Exchanging information (about projects, funding sources etc.) 80 14 6 100 4.0
Joint promotional campaigns 52 41 8 100 4.0
Sharing client information 49 43 9 100 3.9
Professional development:          
Interagency staff training 53 40 7 100 4.1
Joint recruitment of personnel 16 70 14 100 3.9
Other:          
Interagency meetings 79 17 4 100 4.0
Co-location (where services may share the same premises) 41 51 8 100 4.0

Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

As Table 15 shows, each of the interagency activities listed was performed by at least some agencies. The interagency activities with which agencies were most commonly involved were:

Respondents believed that the following interagency activities were the most helpful:

Three interagency activities - referral of clients between agencies, the exchange of information, and joint service delivery - were among the most common interagency activities and were, at the same time, seen to be among the most helpful.

Table 16 shows the positions of staff involved in interagency arrangements. Most commonly, staff close to the ground level of service delivery - service coordinators/managers and frontline staff - were the ones carrying out interagency activities. For example, 33 per cent of frontline staff and 29 per cent of service coordinators/ managers collaborated with other agencies when delivering services. By contrast, senior staff - CEOs and senior or area managers - were significantly less involved in interagency arrangements.

Table 16: Level of involvement in interagency arrangements
 

Per cent

  CEO Senior or
Area
Manager		 Service
coordinator
or service
manager		 Frontline
Staff		 Not
Involved		 Missing Total
Planning (e.g. joint planning, coordination, membership of management committees etc.) 11 20 28 21 9 11 100
Service delivery (e.g. joint service delivery, joint quality assurance, joint case management, sharing of costs; referrals between agencies) 5 12 29 33 10 12 100
Shared information (e.g. exchange of information about projects and funding sources, sharing client information, joint promotional campaigns) 9 17 31 28 6 10 100
Professional development (e.g. interagency staff training, joint recruitment) 7 15 27 26 14 12 100
Interagency meetings 9 17 31 27 7 10 100
Co-location (where services may share the same premises) 6 11 20 19 27 16 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Factors that could hinder effective partnerships and barriers to service coordination are presented in Table 17. Respondents were asked to rank a number of statements relating to partnerships in their site on a scale from 1 (not all accurate) to 5 (highly accurate). In other words, the higher the score, the more a statement was seen to be a hindrance to cooperation.

Table 17: Factors that may hinder effective partnerships among agencies providing services to children aged 0-5
  Scale: 1 to 5

Per cent

  Average Score Don't know Missing Total
'Turfism' or territoriality among agency administrators 2.8 17 17 100
Competition for funding among agencies 3.3 16 17 100
Differences in funding sources across agencies 3.5 18 17 100
Historical differences between agencies (e.g. terminology, service mandates or practices) 3.2 18 17 100
Different levels of government - local, state, federal - working separately 3.5 10 17 100
Staff problems (e.g. shortages, high turnover) 3.4 9 17 100
Long distances between services 2.7 10 18 100
Absence of a common vision for how to meet the needs of young children and their families 2.6 8 18 100
Absence of effective leadership in promoting interagency working 2.8 13 17 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Respondents believed the following factors were most likely to hinder effective partnerships:

The factors that are likely to promote effective partnerships and facilitate better coordination are presented in Table 18. In a similar manner to the previous question, respondents were asked to rank a number of statements relating to partnerships in their site on a scale from 1 (not at all accurate) to 5 (highly accurate). In other words, the higher the score, the more is a statement seen to be promoting cooperation.

Table 18: Factors that may promote effective partnerships among agencies providing services to children aged 0-5
  Scale: 1 to 5

Per cent
  Average Score Don't know Missing Total
Respect for and understanding of the needs of families 4.3 2 16 100
Common philosophy that includes the goal to cooperate 4.0 4 17 100
Leadership among agency administrators 3.8 7 18 100
Leadership from the Facilitating Partner 3.9 13 18 100
Willingness among stakeholders to work together 4.1 4 17 100
Government mandates for more efficient and effective service provision 3.4 11 17 100
Common goal among agencies to secure funding 3.5 12 17 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

From the results in Table 18, respondents thought that the following factors were most likely to promote effective partnerships:

Respondents were asked to rate the accuracy of statements regarding the commitment of local agencies to work together for the benefit of young children in their communities on a scale form 1 (not at all accurate) to 5 (highly accurate). Results are presented in Table 19. The higher the score, the more a particular attitude or procedure was seen to be an accurate description of local agencies. Overall, respondents reported that there was a good understanding of the importance of the early years (4.2). Respondents moderately agreed that there is a shared vision about the needs of children aged 0-5 in their agencies, that 'senior managers are committed to improved services and to agencies working together' (both 3.6) and that there is a 'shared commitment to involving community members in developing services for 0-5 year olds' (3.5). Attitudes and procedures which were reportedly least prevalent in the communities were 'agreement on the priorities for service development' and 'agreed procedures for identifying children or families at risk' (both 3.2), and 'agreed procedures for ensuring that families are offered appropriate interventions' (3.1).

Table 19: Perceived accuracy of statements describing circumstances in communities
  Scale: 1 to 5

Per cent

  Average Score Don't know Missing Total
There is understanding among agencies of the importance of the early years. 4.2 3 15 100
There is a shared vision among agencies about the needs of children aged 0-5 in this community. 3.6 6 15 100
Agencies agree on the priorities for service development. 3.2 13 16 100
There is understanding among agencies of evidence-based practice. 3.4 14 15 100
Senior managers are committed to improved services and to agencies working together. 3.6 11 15 100
There is mutual respect between senior managers in different agencies providing services to 0-5 year olds. 3.7 16 16 100
There is a shared commitment to involving community members in developing services for 0-5 year olds. 3.5 9 15 100
Services work together to reach out to the most disadvantaged families in the community. 3.4 6 16 100
There are agreed procedures for identifying children or families at risk. 3.2 13 15 100
There are agreed procedures for ensuring that families at risk are offered the appropriate interventions. 3.1 13 16 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Operational Level Coordination

The Operational Level component of the service coordination study addressed how services worked together in practice. It measured how well services were collaborating, whether they knew about each other and whether services found it easy to refer to one another. The Operational Level Coordination component also investigated whether or not protocols existed for sharing information between agencies.

Respondents had a relatively high level of awareness of the services available to 0-5 year olds and their families in their community (Table 20). Almost two-thirds of respondents believed that they were either fully or mostly aware of the full range of services.

Table 20: Awareness of services for 0-5 year olds and their families
  Yes, fully Mostly Somewhat Not really Not at all Missing Total
Per cent 16 44 17 9 1 13 100

(N = 482)

Pre-existing interagency groups or committees

The survey investigated whether any relevant cooperative structures among agencies existed in the sites before CfC. Table 21 shows that 39 per cent of respondents knew of interagency groups designed to meet the needs of children aged 0-5 years in their area before CfC was established. A further 35 per cent of respondents did not know whether any such groups were in existence before the establishment of CfC. Only 12 per cent could definitely assert that there were no interagency groups prior to the establishment of CfC.

Table 21: Pre-CfC interagency groups or committees designed to meet the needs of children aged 0-5
  Per cent
Yes                                                   39
No 12
Don't know 35
Missing 14
Total 100

(N = 482)

Respondents were asked to rank how helpful they believed interagency groups or committees were in conducting a range of joint agency arrangements (Table 22). Possible answers ranged from very helpful (1) to not helpful at all (5). This question had a very high non-response rate, perhaps reflecting many respondents' limited knowledge of interagency groups and the difficulty of assessing the impact that past groups may have had. Those who did respond found interagency groups that pre-dated CfC to be moderately helpful in all aspects of working together, especially in sharing information and interagency meetings (3.7 and 3.6 out of 5 respectively).

Table 22: Helpfulness of pre-CfC interagency groups or committees
  (Range: 1 to 5) Per cent
  Helpfulness of pre-CfC
interagency groups or committee		 Non-response
Planning (e.g. joint planning; coordination; membership of management committees etc.) 3.4 72
Service delivery (e.g. joint service delivery; joint quality assurance; joint case management; sharing of costs; referrals between agencies) 3.2 72
Shared information (e.g. exchange of information about projects and funding sources; sharing client information; joint promotional campaigns) 3.7 71
Professional development (e.g. interagency staff training; joint recruitment) 3.2 73
Interagency meetings 3.6 72
Co-location 3.0 77

(N= 482)


Table 23: Statement which best describes how respondents see the assistance provided to individual clients for whom they are responsible
  Staff from different services work closely together most of the time Staff from different services work closely together occasionally Staff from different services know little about each other's work Missing Total
Per cent 29 41 14 17 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Table 23 shows that only 14 per cent of staff from different services had little knowledge about each other's work. Almost 30 per cent of respondents said that their service worked closely with staff from other services most of the time and 41 per cent said that staff from different services occasionally worked closely together.


Table 24: Current working relationship with other services
  A well coordinated team of services A partially coordinated team of services A group of separate, uncoordinated services Missing Total
Per cent 12 58 16 14 100

(N = 482)

Table 24 shows that while relatively few respondents (12 per cent) thought that services currently worked together as a well-coordinated team. Most (58 per cent) thought that services were partially coordinated and 16 per cent thought that services were completely separate and uncoordinated at the time of the survey.


Table 25: Providing services in partnership with other agencies
  All the time Mostly Quite often Some-times Rarely Never Missing Total
Per cent 11 14 23 28 7 4 12 100

(N = 482)
Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding

Regarding the provision of services,Table 25 shows that about half of all respondents (52 per cent) believed that services were provided in partnership with other agencies 'quite often' or 'sometimes'. Only 11 per cent said that services were 'rarely' or 'never' provided in partnership with other agencies, compared to a quarter of respondents who said that this happened 'mostly' or 'all the time'.


Table 26: Helpfulness of providing services in partnership with other agencies
  Very helpful Mostly helpful Sometimes helpful Rarely helpful Missing Total
Per cent 29 34 18 2 17 100

(N = 482)

Respondents were generally positive about providing services in partnership with other agencies (Table 26), with 63 per cent of respondents finding it 'very helpful' or mostly helpful. Only 2 per cent of respondents found the provision of services in partnership with other agencies to be rarely helpful.

To assess the relationship between the frequency of working in partnership and perceived helpfulness of working in partnership, the variables were cross-tabulated against data about how consistently agencies provided services in partnership with other agencies (Table 27). Of those respondents working in agencies that provided services in partnership with other agencies most or all of the time, 18 per cent found that these partnerships were 'very helpful' and 11 per cent found them 'mostly helpful'. A relationship is apparent, with ratings of helpfulness higher among those who used partnerships more often. The direction of causality is not known. A Spearman Rank-order Correlation also shows significant correlation between these factors. In other words, respondents who perceived partnerships to be more helpful were more likely to work in agencies that provide services in partnership with others.

Table 27: Cross tabulation of the provision and the perceived helpfulness of services in partnership (percentages)
 

How helpful overall do you find these partnerships?

 

Per cent

Very helpful Mostly helpful Sometimes helpful Rarely helpful Total
Does your agency provide services in partnership with other agencies? All the time 10 3 1 0 14
Mostly 8 8 1 0 17
Quite often 10 14 4 0 27
Sometimes 6 15 12 2 34
Rarely 2 1 5 1 8
Never 0 0 1 0 1
Total 35 41 22 3 100

Spearman rank-order correlation = 0.470, p value = 0.00

Note(s):Tthe total observations are 400 due to a total of 82 missing observations in both variables.
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

(N = 482)

Day-to-day Coordination and Effective Partnerships

To compare the level of service coordination between SFIA sites, two composite indicators, Day-to-day Co-ordination and Effective Partnerships, were created using four questions from the survey. The day-to-day co-ordination indicator was compiled from Question 15 and 16 of the Service Coordination Survey. It captures the extent to which respondents believed assistance to individual clients was coordinated and how they perceived their current working relationship with services.

The effective partnerships indicator was compiled from Questions 17 and 18 of the Service Coordination Survey. It captures the extent to which respondents believed that services to 0-5 year olds and their families were provided in partnership with other agencies and their perceptions of how helpful these partnerships were.

Based on the combined responses to the relevant questions, each SFIA site was assigned to one of the following categories for Day-to-day Co-ordination and Effective Partnerships:

The frameworks by which sites were coded are shown in Table 28 and Table 29.

Table 28: Day-to-day Co-ordination - Score/Colour Code
   
4 Very High
3.0-3.9 High
2.0-2.9 Moderate
1.0-1.9 Limited
0.0-0.9        Not at all


Table 29: Effective Partnerships - Score/Colour Code
   
8.0-9.0 Very High
6.0-7.9 High
4.0-5.9 Moderate
2.0-3.9 Limited
0.0-1.9        Not at all

The mean scores for SFIA sites were compared with the mean scores of non-SFIA sites (Table 30 and Table 31). The majority of the sites seem to have Moderate levels of Day-to-day Coordination and High levels of Effective Partnerships. The results also roughly corresponded to researcher observations in the fieldwork stage and appear consistent for most of the sites except for those with a small sample size, such as Launceston and Palmerston/Tiwi Islands. Caution should be used when interpreting the results of sites with low response rates, such as Launceston, Palmerston/Tiwi Islands and Miller. The standard deviations for these sites (which show the spread of reported scores) also indicate that data from these areas should be interpreted with caution. For example, when reviewing data from the 'day-to-day co-ordination' indicator for Palmerston/Tiwi Islands and from the 'effective partnership' indicator for Miller, both have standard deviations of 0.00. This reflects that the individual scores were the same for every observation in these sites and that there may be an upward bias as a result.

SFIA scores appeared higher than non-SFIA scores in both the measure of 'day-to-day co-ordination' and the measure of 'effective partnerships'. The difference between SFIA and non-SFIA sites was most marked in the 'effective partnership' indicator. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the low response rates within some of the SFIA sites. Indeed, applying a chi-square test showed that the variation between SFIA sites and non-SFIA sites as a whole was not statistically different (see below).

Table 30: Day-to-day Co-ordination - Site Mean Comparison
  Name of CfC Mean N Std. Dev
  Launceston 3.00 2 0.71
  Palmerston/Tiwi Islands 3.00 5 0.00
  Mirrabooka 2.70 10 0.95
  Miller 2.67 3 1.15
  Cairns 2.36 14 1.22
  Inala-Ipswich 2.24 17 1.30
  Shellharbour 2.13 8 1.25
  Frankston North 2.00 14 1.03
  Salisbury 2.00 16 0.96
  Bendigo 1.67 15 1.05
  SFIA 2.38 104 1.11
  Non-SFIA Sites 2.06 291 1.08
  Unlabelled Site 1.00 1  
  Total 2.16 396 1.09


Table 31: Effective Partnerships - Site Mean Comparison
  Name of CfC Mean N Std. Dev
  Launceston 9.00 2 0.00
  Palmerston/Tiwi Islands 7.20 5 1.30
  Miller 7.00 3 0.00
  Mirrabooka 6.75 12 2.01
  Shellharbour 6.29 7 0.95
  Inala-Ipswich 6.19 16 1.56
  Frankston North 6.00 15 1.36
  Cairns 5.80 15 1.97
  Salisbury 5.38 16 1.75
  Bendigo 5.17 12 1.70
  SFIA 6.48 103 0.89
  Non-SFIA 5.88 296 0.87
  Unlabelled Site 4.00 1  
  Total 6.00 400 1.73

As reflected in Table 32 and Table 33, a comparison of the SFIA and non-SFIA sites shows a similar spread between the indicator overall. Thus, the smaller group (SFIA) matched the responses of the larger group (non-SFIA) as a whole. It was only when the scores were averaged per site that difference emerged. Differences between the SFIA mean scores and the non-SFIA mean scores appear to have been based on the response rates for each site.

Table 32: Day-to-day Co-ordination - SFIA/Non-SFIA Group Comparison (Percentages)
Site Not at all Limited Moderate High Very High Total
SFIA (n=104) 9.6 12.5 37.5 28.8 11.5 100.0
Non-SFIA (n=291) 9.3 13.4 41.2 25.4 10.7 100.0
Pearson Chi-Square 0.717359     p-value 0.95

Note: May not add up to 100% due to rounding



Table 33: Effective Partnerships - SFIA/Non-SFIA Group Comparison (Percentages)
Site Not at all Limited Moderate High Very High Total
SFIA (n=103) 0 9 32 39 20 100
Non-SFIA (n=296) 0 7 33 39 21 100
Pearson Chi-Square 0.312461     p-value 0.96

Summary

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 SFIA 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.

Return to top

5. Fieldwork - service coordination study and partnership model study

3. Service mapping