Skip to content

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

5. Fieldwork - service coordination study and partnership model study



5.1 Introduction and methodology

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: Bendigo, Cairns, Frankston North, Inala/Ipswich, Launceston, Miller, Mirrabooka, Palmerston/Tiwi Islands, Salisbury and Shellharbour. Appendix B provides an overview of the main features of each fieldwork site.

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. In total, 97 face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted across the 10 sites. Appendix C contains the interview schedules used.

Table 34 and Table 35 show the breakdown of interviews by site and contact type. Each interview took approximately one hour to complete.

Table 34: Number of interviews by CfC site
CfC site Number of interviews
Bendigo 12
Cairns 9
Frankston North 7
Inala/Ipswich 11
Launceston 7
Miller 8
Mirrabooka 9
Palmerston/Tiwi Islands                                        8
Salisbury 9
Shellharbour 9
FaCSIA STOs 8
Total 97


Table 35: Number of interviews by contact type
Contact type Number of interviews
FP Senior managers 8
FP Project managers 8
CfC Committee members 26
Frontline managers of CfC funded services 15
Early years contacts in local government 10
Interagency group chairpersons 9
Relevant stakeholders and community members 11
FaCSIA State and Territory Officers 10
Total 97

Interview notes and voice recordings formed the basis of our analysis, which was conducted thematically and responds to the following evaluation questions:

The findings presented below are structured around the main themes emerging from the interviews, while considering the above questions. The report considers the implementation of CfC, changes in service coordination, delivery and quality, the different approaches taken by the sites to engage Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) people, and issues relating to the location of the sites.

back to top

5.2 Implementation of CfC

The following section outlines the main findings regarding the implementation of CfC. Findings are grouped into major themes relating to the choice and roles of the FP agencies; the relationship between the FPs and FaCSIA - both the department's State and Territory Officers and its national office; the structures and processes in the CfC sites, particularly the Communities for Children Committee (CCC); and different phases in the life of the CfC Strategy.

All themes also relate to the Facilitating Partner model. Unlike most other government programs, which are funded and implemented directly by government agencies, the implementation of CfC in each community was delegated to an NGO. This is a fairly new model and a central aspect of CfC and its implementation. Therefore each of the main findings reported in this section relate not only to the implementation of CfC in general, but also give insight into the strengths and limitations of the FP model.

The Facilitating Partner agency

In all the sites visited, a high level of support for the community-based nature of CfC existed. In most sites where a local NGO was chosen as the FP, the organisation was seen as an integrated part of the community. Their local experience and connections to other agencies and community members enabled them to quickly identify local needs and draw different stakeholders into the CfC project. Sometimes local experience seemed essential. In one site with a large Indigenous population, interviewees felt that the FP manager was accepted by Indigenous people due to their previous experience of working in the site.

In most areas interviewees felt that the choice of a local NGO as the lead agency for CfC gave the project credibility and instilled a sense of community ownership. For example, one state government representative commented:

It was a very good decision that the [FP] was chosen as the driver. It's very well resourced with administrative support…the FP is respected and known in the area. And we know they do good quality work and they are an organisation that is willing to work with others.

However, in one site some interviewees felt that the NGOs lacked the transparency of a public sector provider and were more likely to be subject to conflicts of interest. In this case, the FP agency was criticised for not contracting partner agencies on an equitable basis and not providing culturally appropriate services5.

The FP agency's effectiveness in working with other service providers and stakeholders rested heavily on the skills, experience and personality of its staff, in particular the CfC Project Managers. Unsurprisingly, CfC Project Managers with a history of working in the local area had the advantage of community knowledge and already established relationships and partnerships in the site. In most sites we visited, the FP agencies seem to have chosen the CfC staff well. Many interviewees commented on how widely connected the CfC Project Managers were in the community, how skilled they were in supporting existing networks and developing new relationships, that they operated in a collaborative and inclusive manner, and that they energised others with their enthusiasm.

Two interviewees from two different sites said that choosing a local agency to lead the project created tension with other agencies in the community. One interviewee, an FP Project Manager, found that taking on the CfC leadership made them the voice of the Commonwealth government and created resentment from other agencies. This seemed more likely in sites where multiple organisations had tendered for the role of FP. Where community consensus was already established over which organisation would tender for the role of FP, there seemed to be less conflict between the different service providers. In one case, an organisation that had unsuccessfully applied to be the FP found they were in a better position to seek funding from CfC without the administrative burden of being the FP organisation.

In another area some CfC funded services felt that having an NGO as the FP created tensions, regardless of which NGO undertook this role. This resulted from the NGO assuming the conflicting roles of a funding body that they reported to, and an organisation that worked alongside them in the community.

Internally, some FPs struggled with the organisational and managerial tasks required of them as facilitators of a complex, multi-million-dollar project. In some sites, FPs and their project staff did not have enough experience in developing or managing the tender process. In hindsight, some local FP staff felt the corporate services branch of their national organisation could have handled this aspect of CfC better. This had also prompted them to reflect on their core business and their organisational strength, which they felt was service provision rather than administration. They were concerned that in taking on the role of FP they may be compromising their own service provision. One FP felt they needed to acquire legal understanding to manage contracts with the CfC service providers. Staffing problems such as difficulties recruiting qualified staff and high turnover exacerbated these problems.

In one site local government agencies criticised FaCSIA's requirement that only an NGO can be a Facilitating Partner. They felt that they should have been allowed to tender because they were heavily involved in providing child and family services. Selection criteria stipulated that local governments could be a Facilitating Partner in a consortium capacity, but not the lead agency in the consortium. In many of the other sites, local governments were closely associated with the strategy from its very early stages. In most sites local government representatives were members of the CCC, although their level of engagement varied from site to site. In one site a local government Project Manager was seconded to the FP organisation.

The relationship between FaCSIA and the FP

FaCSIA's State and Territory Officers (STOs) were the Department's contact points for the FPs. STOs manage the contract between the FPs and FaCSIA, for example by assessing the sites' Community Strategic Plans (CSPs) and service delivery plans (SDPs). They were also a two-way conduit for information flowing between the FPs and the FaCSIA national office, which has overall responsibility for CfC. In practice, the STOs role included answering FPs' questions about CfC and their responsibilities, and generally managing the contract between FaCSIA and the FPs.

In the sites we visited, FPs had developed good working relationships with their STOs. FP Project Managers appreciated the support and advice they received from the STOs. The level of input required by CfC sites, particularly in the initial phases of the Strategy, varied greatly. While STOs felt it was important to support the FPs, one STO described the relationship as:

More challenging than the usual project management relationship because you have built up quite an intensive relationship, so when they aren't performing and when things are proving to be a bit difficult it is not as easy to address those concerns - especially in relation to a committee, which can see you as being aligned with the FP.

Some STOs felt that this was not their role, and that such close involvement challenged the FP model. Others argued that very close management was appropriate given the size and complexity of the program, particularly when they experienced poor FP compliance to financial and operational reporting.

STOs reported that their role changed somewhat as the CfC projects developed. During the establishment phase in the sites, STOs spent the majority of their time on contract management. Once services had been rolled out STOs were also able to provide additional support to the FPs, such as feedback on good practice in other sites as well as their contract management role.

While relationships with FaCSIA STOs were cordial, many interviewees directed considerable criticism at FaCSIA's reporting requirements. In all ten sites FPs and many CfC-funded services complained about the extent of FaCSIA's reporting requirements for CfC and the time taken for FaCSIA to respond to submitted reports.

Agencies found the reporting requirements at times unclear, overly bureaucratic and more onerous than for other government programs. Participants maintained that the reporting requirements and expectations should have been developed and resolved before the program was implemented. Several sites that were established early in the CfC program, commented on what they saw as a lack of clear guidelines on progress reporting. They felt that the delay in receiving FaCSIA's progress reporting template contributed to this. Some FPs felt that services blamed them, for the lack of clarity in reporting guidelines.

Participants felt that the administrative reporting tasks took resources away from community-based activities. As one participant stated:

I guess it's the red tape that comes with the Department and the reporting requirements and … the shifting almost of the goalposts. And we write a report and the next report is a different template or you get a report back and they say we need this ... but they haven't put it in the report that they require that… And it's systems that are really time consuming and too elaborate and really have an impact on how much time we can dedicate to doing our job.

One FP had streamlined the reporting processes required from community partners. When a community partner was appointed, the FP developed a work plan in partnership with them that reflected their service delivery plan. The community partners attended regular project worker meetings where all requirements were openly communicated. Community partners were also supported in writing their reports so that they conformed to the department's requirements.

From a governmental perspective, comprehensive accountability arrangements are necessary whenever substantial funding is committed to a new model. In response to FPs' concerns, FaCSIA decreased the frequency and complexity of the reporting requirements. Reporting templates have been streamlined and refocused in response to the feedback provided by FPs. The frequency of reporting required each year has also decreased from four to two reports.

Many FPs complained about the time FaCSIA took to respond to their submitted reports. In their view, FaCSIA had strict deadlines for the delivery of CSPs and other documentation, but its responses to these reports were delayed. For example one FP reported that they met a tight deadline for the delivery of their CSP, only to be left waiting for several months for FaCSIA's approval. Several FPs said that such delays had led to a loss of enthusiasm in the community, thereby reducing the effectiveness of CfC. One site reported that delays in receiving already allocated funding from FaCSIA resulted in the CfC initiatives losing several months of service provision. FaCSIA reported that they are working to reduce red tape and streamline approval processes.

The next stage of fieldwork (to be conducted in October/November 2008) will assess changes in perceptions of reporting requirements.

The Communities for Children Committee (CCC)

Many of the participants were very positive about the concept of a committee where local stakeholders meet to plan initiatives for children and families in their community. In most sites FPs had successfully created such a committee. Interviewees in all fieldwork sites reported that their FP had made a genuine effort to invite all relevant stakeholder organisation as well as community members to participate in the CCC. The committees were generally regarded as open and inclusive.

However, there appear to be differences in the extent of decision-making authority that FPs confer to their committees. Most CCCs operate like management committees, with members involved in decision-making. One CCC member commented:

I think the committee is broad enough …so there is a good measure of accountability, making sure that the programs are delivered the way they're meant to be.

However, a few CCCs were more like advisory groups making recommendations that were subject to the decision of FPs. In these sites, some CCC members complained that they had to rubber-stamp the FP's decisions. They felt either that they had no time to understand what they were agreeing to, or that the FP did not consider their opinions enough. In one site, both the FP and other committee members were unsure about the function of the CCC.

Overall, most CCC members said how useful and rewarding their involvement was. Their own services and organisations benefited because the CCC provided a forum to interact with other services, share knowledge and form new connections. They learned how similar services operate, and gained insight into the work of different fields in the early childhood sector. In one site, the service system was so fragmented that many providers met for the first time at a CCC meeting. In most sites, providers felt that the CCC had reduced segregation and competition among services and created mutual respect. On the other hand, in two sites interviewees said that their pre-existing networks remained pivotal in producing a coherent sector and that the local CCC had contributed little.

The success of CCCs is largely due to two factors: the willingness of stakeholders to work together, and the skill of the FPs to harness and enhance good will. FPs were generally praised for running CCC meetings in a professional and democratic manner. This helped the stakeholders to put their differences aside, display community spirit and plan initiatives for the benefit of local children and families.

However, most sites had not managed to get all stakeholders on board. Firstly, some service providers did not have the resources to attend meetings regularly. Secondly, most sites have had difficulties recruiting parents of young children or other community members to the CCC. According to FPs and CCC members, parents felt alienated by the formal structure of the meetings and found the language inaccessible. In at least two sites, however, parent and community representatives regularly attended meetings. In one site a community representative chaired one of the committees.

Thirdly, getting representation from some disadvantaged populations, such as new migrants, Aboriginal people or people with a disability, has proven difficult. And lastly, in most sites local businesses and most private child care providers have not joined the CCC.

Some FPs found other avenues to engage these stakeholders. Two sites successfully established CCC-style committees in the different suburbs belonging to the CfC site. These neighbourhood groups included services and community members who did not attend CCC meetings. In one suburb, for example, the group brought together representatives from child care and preschool services, playgroups, a parenting program, the public library reading program, some larger NGOs delivering services in the suburb, and resident parents. The neighbourhood groups report to the CCC, so their views are incorporated into the ongoing work of CfC.

One site tried to engage child care centres, which for the most part did not attend CCC meetings, through a common objective - namely transition to school - in a Transition Network that was partly funded by CfC. Another site's CCC approached a local Aboriginal organisation to deliver one of the services proposed in the community strategic plan. Local businesses were engaged only in very small ways. In one site, for example, shopkeepers were asked to display posters and pamphlets for parents, and to refer them to CfC-funded services. However, in one site a representative from the Chamber of Commerce was a member of the CCC.

Interviewees in one site observed tension within the CCC once its members started competing for CfC funds.

In one site a state government representative on a CCC felt that government agencies should be allowed to vote in the committee. In their view this would increase accountability of CfC; they felt governments should have a voice if they are an active player in the site. Nevertheless there was consistent active participation in CCCs of state government departments providing early childhood and family health services.

Phases in the life of the strategy

A strong theme common to all sites we visited was a series of pronounced changes in the work and attitudes of people involved in CfC as the project went through different stages in its life cycle. We identified three distinct stages: the establishment phase, the implementation phase and the sustainability phase.

The establishment phase

This was the initial phase of CfC. The FPs established their internal structures for managing CfC, they set up the CCC and possibly other committees in the sites, led the development of a community strategic plan, the development of tenders and expressions of interest, and funding of CfC services and initiatives. Virtually every interviewee who was involved with CfC during the establishment phase, including the STOs, commented on how time-consuming and labour-intensive it was.

This applied especially in sites that did not have a history of working groups for the early years. The consensus seemed to be that it takes between one and two years to build a stakeholder network. It also required a lot of effort and skill from the FP personnel. We often heard that the establishment phase was very tiring and draining, and that FP personnel burned themselves out. High staff turnover in the FP agency's coordinator role in the first year of CfC was criticised by partner agencies in one site as being very disruptive. In some sites putting the CCC together took so long that there was little time left to develop the CSP and consult with the community. One FP commented that the limited time available to adequately develop and establish some services, on the basis of sound research evidence and local needs, created challenges and problems that continued throughout the implementation of the program.

Once the CSPs were finalised and approved by FaCSIA, the FPs' attention shifted to selecting agencies that would provide CfC services. FaCSIA required that FPs ensured transparent and merit-based processes for the selection of sub-contractors, who then entered into an agreement with the FP. Generally, FPs awarded CfC services through an open, competitive tendering process. Only in a few instances did FPs ask agencies directly to provide a CfC service or develop a proposal. This usually happened where no tenders were received for a CfC activity proposed in the CSP, or where time or resources were not available for undertaking a tender process. The interviews showed that going through an open tendering process always required extensive administrative effort, was usually protracted, and sometimes led to tensions among local agencies. However, FPs pursued this option because of FaCSIA requirements and to ensure their processes were open, cooperative and democratic.

The implementation phase

The implementation phase began when tenders had been awarded and the CfC initiatives and services started their work. In all sites we visited, this was a positive time. Finally seeing CfC engaged on the ground and impacting directly on children and families energised the FPs, committee members and local services, and it made all the initial effort seem worthwhile. FPs and service providers told us that they were now free from intense negotiations among themselves and had more time to go out into the community, engage families and develop trust. However, a few interviewees said that a shortage of qualified staff had made it difficult to start new programs.

It was a common experience that during the implementation phase the CfC structures in the sites needed to be adjusted. This concerned the CCC in particular. Its original functions were to bring stakeholders together, identify the needs of children and families in the site, and devise a community strategic plan. Most sites also chose to involve their CCC in tender selections. Once all this had been accomplished and the work shifted to the agencies that deliver CfC services in the community, the CCC's role also changed. The new focus included contributing to annual service delivery plans, monitoring progress and reviewing performance, and contributing to FP progress reports. At that stage, many sites found some CCC members lost interest in meetings, and the network that had been built with so much effort and enthusiasm was compromised. In one site for example, attendance at CCC meetings was falling, there were no agendas, and the frequency of meetings was dropped from monthly to every three months.

FPs dealt with the problem in different ways. One site devised a new focus for their CCC. The committee now receives reports from the CfC services, supports the services and tries to develop sustainability strategies.

Several sites had reviewed their entire CfC governance structure. At the time of our fieldwork, one site was planning to disband the CfC executive, which consisted of the FP and two other major stakeholders in the site, and replace it with a group comprised of 7-8 key agencies and community representatives with different skills and types of expertise. The CCC would be a project reference group with an advisory role. Another site also established working groups of senior staff of all CfC projects in the site.

The sustainability phase

As a site moved towards the end of its CfC timeline, sustainability became the main focus - sustainability of both the services funded through CfC, and the partnerships that had been established. Although it should be noted that some sites have already put in place or were in the processing of developing sustainability and exit strategies in the establishment and implementation phases. The fieldwork indicated that some CfC services might continue to operate for a time after the program finishes. On the other hand, maintaining networks and cooperation among agencies and community members will probably require continued funding from other sources. A further concern of one FP was that the capacity of the private sector for corporate philanthropy was also restrained (by economies of scale) and it was unrealistic of FaCSIA to expect they could achieve corporate refunding of their activities.

In several sites, FPs and CfC service providers were developing strategies to keep direct services operating beyond the funding period. In some cases, CfC money was used for the establishment cost of a program that could continue with little financial input. In one site, a community centre used CfC money to start new playgroups, a parent drop-in and library reading groups. It offered these services for free. Once the groups are firmly established and CfC money runs out, the facilitator expects that they will be able to keep the groups going through charging parents a small fee. In another site, a playgroup facilitator who was paid with CfC funds was training parents to run playgroups by themselves. Some services tried to move families from CfC-assisted playgroups into community playgroups, while other agencies will receive ongoing state funding, if only for a reduced service. Several FPs were trying to engage local businesses to sponsor services after CfC funding ends. However, several interviewees feared that, once CfC programs finish, community morale would falter and the enthusiasm and good faith created through CfC may disappear.

Some fieldwork participants were also concerned about the difficulties of sustaining infrastructure once CfC funding ceases, for example child and family centres established under CfC. One site, which has located their centres on school grounds, hopes that the schools will continue to maintain the building and supply materials. In another site, CfC has convinced the local council to lease a building that can be used in the future for CfC-type services.

The most important goal of CfC, however, is not new service provision but better cooperation among existing agencies and changing practices in the local community by improving the levels of skills. As reported above, setting up partnerships in the sites required much time and enormous effort by FP personnel, and it was dependent on CfC funding. The question remains whether local partnerships will continue to operate after CfC, if there is no one to drive them or no other funding to support them.

In one site, for example, stakeholders felt that after three years of CfC the local service providers would be well connected. However, ongoing funding for personnel or a committee to hold the partnership together when CfC funding ends was not in sight when we visited. In another site the situation looked more promising. Here the FP was a member of a local early years network that was established previously under a state-funded initiative similar to CfC. This network included mostly agencies from different government levels, but also representatives from universities and key NGOs. It provided policy direction for several early years services and programs operating in the community, including CfC. Fortunately, both state and local governments have committed funds to keep the network operating in the future.

In one case a state government has already committed itself to an early years agenda which was incompatible with the CfC. However, in other sites the state government's early years agenda was an integral part of CfC and added impetus to the promotion of the importance of early intervention for children 0-5 and their families.

This latter point illustrates that the long-term sustainability of interagency working in the five-and-under age group is dependent on States and Territories and the Commonwealth working together and integrating their programs. Whilst NGOs are in a good position in many local areas to draw agencies together, and to focus resources on the needs of the local community, they cannot set the overall policy and funding context on which sustained service delivery and coordination is dependent.

back to top

5.3 Service coordination, delivery and quality

Impact of CfC so far

In the sites where CfC services had already been established at the time of the fieldwork, FPs and service providers felt they were meeting the needs of their community and ensuring seamless provision. Receiving a substantial amount of funding specifically earmarked for young children and their families provided a great boost to the communities and was much appreciated by our interviewees. CfC funding gave the sites opportunities to:

Many interviewees told us how excited they were about such opportunities, and that they felt CfC could make a real difference to individual families and the community. As discussed earlier, CfC has also helped agencies to cooperate more, specifically through meeting each other in the CCC and developing a Community Strategic Plan together. One interviewee said that CfC was:

… breaking silos. There's more willingness to work together. … It's given us a chance to learn more about other agencies and how we can connect our clients with others. There's more of a concerted effort to do more and embrace connectiveness between agencies.

It is too early to say, however, whether CfC has succeeded in building sustainable partnerships among agencies and in improving services and service delivery long-term. As mentioned above, it seems that continued financial support by state and federal governments is essential to achieve lasting change.

For example, in one site the state health department received CfC funding to establish a speech pathology outreach service. This initiative has been driven by one individual in the health department. It has proven highly successful at accessing children who would otherwise not use the service, at providing treatment early, and at educating parents of children with language difficulties. At the time of the interviews, it was a full-time service and still over-stretched because the need for speech pathology in the site was so great. However, when CfC funding ends the state government will continue the outreach service for only four hours a week.

Changes in service coordination, delivery and quality varied among the sites. At the time of the fieldwork, agency networks and services were more established in some sites than in others and therefore more likely to show the changes resulting from CfC. However, we observed a number of general factors that facilitated or inhibited changes to service coordination, delivery and quality in any of the sites. These factors are discussed in the two sections below.

Facilitators of improved service coordination, delivery and quality

We found a number of factors helped to improve services, and coordination among agencies, in a CfC site. An important factor seemed to be the presence of other successful interagency groups around child and family services. If CfC built on, or was integrated into, the work of such a group, the effectiveness of CfC would be enhanced. Less time and effort were needed to establish a service network, and resources could be maximised. In one site, for example, CfC started at the time as a similarly focused state-funded project was finishing. CfC piggy-backed on the partnerships, good will and services created under the state project.

CfC effectiveness was also enhanced where other substantial early years initiatives were being implemented simultaneously. In one site, CfC coincided with several substantial state initiatives to improve outcomes for young children and their families. Key stakeholders, including the CfC Facilitating Partner, formed a group to consult with the community and develop a common vision for children and families, and to link new with existing services.

Other factors that facilitated improved service coordination, delivery and quality included:

Barriers to improved service coordination, delivery and quality

Since the factors mentioned above facilitated the effectiveness of CfC, an absence of those factor inhibited the successful implementation of CfC. For example, in sites that had no pre-existing interagency group for the early years, the FP had to put in considerable effort into forming partnerships and developing common goals. Where existing inter-agencies were concerned with a broader age group of children, or participating agencies were drawn from a much larger or different geographical area, CfC could not capitalise as easily on pre-existing networks. In sites where other early years networks or initiatives existed, some interviewees expressed concern about duplication and confusion, and about multiple committees taking up people's time. Interviewees in several sites said that services were already over-stretched. In addition, qualified staff shortages and high staff turnover inhibited the effectiveness of CfC activities.

A substantial barrier to improving services and coordination existed where the boundaries of CfC sites did not correspond to locally defined natural communities, but rather contained an artificial grouping of towns or suburbs. Usually these were geographically dispersed: either situated next to one another forming a string, or one suburb or town being geographically distant from the others. Interviewees stated that it was difficult to engage services and families from isolated, diverse communities because they did not see themselves as belonging to the CfC site. In geographically dispersed sites, sheer distance and restricted transport options could limit access to CfC services, especially for disadvantaged families.

In one case, the suburbs belonging to the CfC site were situated well away from the regional business centre and therefore not regarded as a home base by many service providers. One interviewee felt that this contributed to delays in CfC establishing itself and linking services.

The selection of sites was a government decision based on a range of information including consultations with State and Territory governments, indicators of disadvantage (using SEIFA and other ABS data), the number of children in the community, and significant numbers of families receiving Family Tax Benefit. Also considered was the existing level of physical infrastructure to enable the implementation of CfC; the level of other similar existing services in the community; and a national spread of urban, regional and remote sites.

In addition to site boundaries, interviewees reported two other important factors they felt inhibited better service quality and coordination in the sites: FaCSIA funding restrictions and CfC time constraints. Interviewees in several sites criticised that all CfC funding had to be allocated at the start. They felt that sustained commitment by agencies to collaboration was often dependent on the possibility of future funding:

Another challenge is about the requirement by FaCSIA … about committing the money at the very beginning. Because for some of the committee members and the community and the agencies, once you've committed all your money there's a bit of "what's in it for me, then so what's the point of being involved?" And it doesn't matter how much you talk about collaborative work and the need for that, money helps.

Concerns were also voiced about perceived FaCSIA restrictions to adjusting service content and delivery in light of experience or evaluations of service effectiveness. In other words, if a CfC-funded program did not work well, they did not believe they were able to easily stop and change or amend programs. However, according to FaCSIA's guidelines, funding can be adjusted if negotiated with the department. While funding allocations in each site's strategic plan show the spread of funding across the years and broadly across the site's strategies, the service delivery plans, which detail the activities and organisations funded, are reviewed and approved annually. In addition, FPs can submit varied strategic and service delivery plans to FaCSIA for approval at any time.

In some areas problems arose because some community partners receiving CfC funding did not possess the capacity and skills required for managing and delivering the service. Additional resources were required to train and support staff to build capacity within the agencies.

Lastly, interviewees in every site we visited saw the short-term nature of CfC as a major barrier to its effectiveness. People from all stakeholder groups, including STOs, reported that four years was too short to get new services established, to break down the families' entrenched distrust of agencies and to install a commitment to early childhood in the community, especially in local government. Some interviewees feared that the community might be demoralised further if services were created and then reduced or withdrawn. Also, the time constraints might deter potential service providers from making the effort to develop a service that they have to wind up after a short while.

back to top

5.4 Engagement of Indigenous and CALD populations

Seven of the ten fieldwork sites had a sizeable proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or culturally and linguistically diverse residents (see site overview in Appendix B). Social and economic disadvantage was often more severe and more widely spread within these groups than within the general population in the sites, making CALD and Indigenous people important target groups for CfC interventions. This section reports in which ways and how successfully CfC has engaged with Indigenous and CALD populations in the fieldwork sites.

FPs commented that long-established links with Indigenous peoples had facilitated introducing CfC to the communities. One interviewee said the Indigenous residents knew and trusted her, and she respected existing networks and programs and was willing to fit in with them. The relationship was collaborative, to the point where the FP helped an Indigenous health organisation with restructuring and planning for sustainability.

Where links were not so strong, some fieldwork sites had made efforts to reach out to Indigenous and CALD communities. One site, for example, held a CCC meeting in an area with a large Aboriginal population to encourage people from the area to attend. One interviewee from an Aboriginal background appreciated that the FP had written an e-mail newsletter in plain language.

In another site, CfC had made a concerted effort to access hard-to-reach population groups such as CALD and Indigenous by creating so-called soft entry points: CfC took services to places and situations where people felt comfortable. For example, mobile playgroups operated in local parks and attracted families who otherwise did not access playgroups, speech pathologists and nutritionists visited playgroups, and CfC organised family days in community parks. A service provider commented:

Some of those community networking days have been really good (…). I saw a family there because I was working in one of the stalls that we have struggled to see and we know. I met the patriarch of this family (...) To see him there with all of those grandkids - they are really low socio-economically, lots of issues, Aboriginal, have all had child protection issues. To see them there connecting in with that community day - that's exactly what we want. (…) It was really, really lovely to see those masses of kids that we've been trying to get a hold of.

Other soft entry points in the site operated on an ongoing basis. These were family centres on school grounds funded through CfC and offering playgroups - including one specifically for Vietnamese children -, parenting information sessions and a host of additional services and activities, some in cooperation with other providers. Every interviewee in the site told us how successful these centres have been, particularly at engaging CALD and Aboriginal families. The centres were visited by parents of schoolchildren who had previously not been seen on school grounds, and teachers met young children from the community before they start school.

According to service providers in the site, the soft entry point strategy has raised families' awareness of issues and services provided in a non-intrusive, non-clinical and respectful way.

Apart from these successes, most of the sites we visited struggled with engaging CALD and Indigenous families. While CfC is a flexible model that is meant to enable appropriate responses to community needs driven by the local community, interviewees from all stakeholder groups talked about the difficulties of working with Indigenous communities in general. Remote Indigenous communities were found to be particularly difficult to work with and consequently, some interviewees raised concerns that the CfC model was not appropriate for these Indigenous communities. Cultural, technical, social and economic obstacles were mentioned. For example:

Other barriers to engaging Indigenous and CALD populations related to FaCSIA's guidelines and implementation of CfC. An Indigenous interviewee felt it was a problem that CfC was about a region, not individual communities. She noted that it was difficult to bring regional issues to the local level, especially in a geographically large site; and that information needed to be put into a local context to make individuals understand it and feel valued.

Although the model is designed to be flexible, there was a perception that the model was not sufficiently flexible to appropriately consult with and engage Indigenous people. On the other hand, one STO remarked that they had to actively encourage FPs to consider Indigenous residents so that this important target group was not overlooked in CfC planning.

back to top

5.5 Location of the CfC site

The CfC sites visited during the fieldwork spanned a wide range of locations - metropolitan suburbs, compact regional towns, dispersed outer metropolitan and regional communities, and remote areas. One of the aspects investigated during the fieldwork was whether there were any issues in the implementation of CfC, or in its impact on service coordination, delivery and quality, due to the location of the site.

A major issue was that sites in remote areas had to cope with long distances between communities. One FP commented that they did a lot of work by telephone, but had to visit communities as often as possible to build rapport with local residents and services. Time and monetary costs involved in travelling have been considerable. In tropical areas, FPs pointed out that overland travel was possible only during the dry season. During the wet, even air travel was weather-dependent, as storms could ground aeroplanes at any time.

Otherwise, the interviews showed that most sites, regardless of their location, had some difficulty because they consisted of several suburbs or settlements rather than one locally defined natural community. Several participants were somewhat sceptical about the criteria that the government used to choose the CfC sites and felt that other areas could have benefited more from the additional funding. In addition it was noted by several participants that the available funding varied considerably from site to site.

In metropolitan areas or regional towns, the suburbs of a CfC site were usually adjacent to each other, but residents did not necessarily feel they belonged to the same community. This was even more pronounced in several sites that consisted of a string of discrete communities, often very different in character. The Cairns site, for example, encompassed outer metropolitan suburbs, a separate, mostly Indigenous community, and a rural area. In all sites, many child and family services established before CfC were provided either in the individual suburbs or communities, or in the nearest central business district, usually outside the CfC site.

The regional rather than local character of CfC made it difficult for FPs and their community partners to treat the site as one entity and to enhance service coordination long-term. Some sites incorporated a number of different local government areas and area health boundaries which made it difficult and time consuming for FPs to engage all relevant stakeholders and to actively promote CfC across all these organisations and departments. As a result, in some locations CfC operated as a collection of separate communities. Some sites have established neighbourhood groups at the community level to feed into the CCC, as mentioned above. Likewise, many CfC-funded services were provided at the local level, for example playgroups, family centres and community events in local parks. One FP commented that this drained resources.

back to top

5.6 Summary

The FP model forms a central aspect of CfC. Therefore the fieldwork findings reported above regarding the implementation of CfC and its impact on services in the sites also gave insights into the strengths and limitations of the FP model. These insights relate - as does the entire report - only to the initial stages of CfC. The repeat of the service coordination study will provide far better information about the impact of CfC in the sites and the extent to which they have been able to transform service provision for the early years.

The FP model represents an alternative method of funding government services. Most government services are provided directly, either through government agencies or through private or non-profit providers that have been contracted by the government to provide particular services to the population. Funding models such as the FP model have rarely been used, and evaluations are not yet publicly available. It is therefore important to assess the effectiveness of the FP model as a vehicle for distributing government funding.

Under the FP model, an 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 depended to a large extent 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.

FPs also received support from the government funding body, FaCSIA. The department's regional representatives, the STOs, provided interpretation as needed of FaCSIA requirements and guidance for the implementation.

Due to the flexible and new processes involved in rolling out this large scale program, there were some teething problems reported. These included the view that the implementation of CfC was inhibited by administrative burdens and tight timelines imposed by FaCSIA. In all fieldwork sites, FP's struggled with reporting requirements that they considered overly extensive and complicated. They felt that complying with the requirements diverted resources away from working in the community. In addition, many interviewees said the lack of clarity in the FaCSIA requirements and delays in responses from the department created difficulties. Nevertheless some of the respondents acknowledged the need for accountability and active engagement by FaCSIA. FaCSIA has also been responding to feedback and streamlining processes.

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.

However, the implementation of CfC was inhibited in some ways by the artificially constructed boundaries of some CfC sites, which were contrary to locally defined communities. The sites usually encompassed several suburbs or settlements, or even large rural or remote areas which were not always one locally defined natural community. This created significant obstacles to the FPs' ability in these cases 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, i.e. 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.

5. Such an approach is contrary to FaCSIA's CfC Service Provider Guidelines, which require FPs to establish a fair and transparent funding process. While FPs may approach service providers within their community who they are already familiar with, the selection of these providers must be supported by the CCC. Alternatively the committee may decide to invite submissions from the community. In order to promote and further improve cultural sensitivity, FaCSIA has conducted a number of forums for FPs on the topic.

Return to top

6. Discussion

4. Service coordination study