3.1 Sustainability
How can we build flexible service models with improved service pathways that are consistent with the FSP principles and operational framework? Sustainable 'mission focussed' organisations embedded in local communities are well placed to deliver effective integrated family support services that adapt over time to changing needs. The majority of organisations that deliver family support services have been a part of their local community for a long time. They have developed insight and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their community and they are well placed to understand the nature of support services most likely to be effective.
New organisations and new collaborations between providers – such as consortia arrangements, add a vibrancy and renewal to the sector that is important to foster. There is a long tradition in the community sector of new organisations being auspiced or sponsored by larger more established organisations. This is more likely to occur when organisations are not competing with one another or their own viability is not under threat.
The development of the Family Support Program is an opportunity to better understand the dynamics and driving or restraining forces that operate in the community sector. For example, assumptions that competition drives efficiency are not valid in non-market economies where there is a single purchaser who sets the price. Instead efficiency can be increased by building on existing capacity, supporting collaboration and sharing information. Likewise assumptions that larger organisations are more successful or more efficient warrant critique – smaller, local organisations can be better placed to harness local resources and target supports to local need within a specific community. Larger organisations contribute value in ways that are beyond the capacity of smaller organisation such coordinating activity across multiple sites or undertaking large scale research and evaluation projects that inform practice and decision-making. Neither large nor small organisations are inherently more successful, there is strength in having a diversity of providers that is often not well recognised by government.
Building on the work being done to develop a National Compact between the community sector and the Australian Government the FSP can lay the foundation for a new partnership approach to the delivery of family support. This might include recognition that the viability of organisations involved in the delivery of family support services is important. The collective capacity of the service system is enhanced by having organisations that can focus on achieving outcomes for families and communities over the long-term.
One of the challenges to sustainability has been the short term nature of funding agreements. Moving from 1 year to 3 year funding cycles was an important step towards a longer term commitment. However, increasingly the research literature identifies that real impact occurs over much longer timeframes. For example the work by Vinson (2007) identifies that geographic disadvantage is inter-generational and warrants sustained funding commitments over periods of 10-15 years. More recently the Evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (2009) concludes that 3 years is a relatively short timeframe for developing new approaches and determining impact.
[
top ]
Community organisations with a strong community presence and connection are an important asset to the FSP. This deserves recognition and may warrant a commitment to long-term 'core' funding and/or investment in infrastructure that builds the capacity of these organisations to sustain a focus on 'turning the curve' on family and community wellbeing. This would secure ongoing capacity in the service system while packages of funding linked to specific outcomes might be transferable between providers.
Long term sustained investment is not at odds with flexibility. Pathways through the service system can be enhanced by allowing greater flexibility in the use of funds across service types – enabling organisations to work holistically with clients and tailor support to their needs rather than piecing together rigid 'packets' of support that must comply with narrow service delivery requirements.
One of the most significant restraints on flexibility is the historical nature of funding agreements that lock providers into a mode of delivery that may no longer be ideal. Opportunities for renegotiating funding levels, operating guidelines and output requirements have not been readily available and are sometimes inconsistent with the use of competitive selection process. This can be addressed by seeing service delivery as a partnership which can be informed by all those involved and adapt to changing circumstances. Understanding the full cost of service delivery and the impact of changing service models underpins this approach.
In summary, strategies to support the development of flexible service delivery include:
- Services are fully resourced and properly costed to be delivered flexibly from a variety of locations or alternate modes of delivery.
- Program administrators and service providers are informed by research and evaluation on service costs and effectiveness when making decisions about service delivery arrangements.
- Mechanisms exist for re-negotiating service models and performance measures overtime so that options are not restricted to historical arrangements.
- Innovation is supported and disseminated to the broader service network.
- The viability of organisations is recognised as core to sustainable service delivery.
- Invest in infrastructure and capacity building at a 'systems' level as well as an 'organisation' level.
Recommendation 2: Recognise and adopt strategies that support flexibility in service delivery as part of a long-term partnership between government and sustainable community based provider organisations. Recommendation 3: Value and support the diversity of the family support sector.
3.2 Getting the mix right
How can we ensure the service system is able to adequately support and engage both universal and targeted client groups in a region? Service delivery systems must target resources appropriately along a continuum of self-help, low-level and intensive supports to meet the needs across the population, balancing a proactive early intervention approach with responding to assessed or articulated needs. This is a process of continual review and adjustment as community needs change over time. The diagram below identifies the generic components of any service delivery system.
[
top ]
Figure 2: Components of Service Delivery Systems 
At the macro or national level the design of service systems can be usefully informed by research, practice wisdom and an understanding of the diversity of need across disparate communities. There will be some elements of community need, patterns of behaviour, effectiveness of existing service models that are common across locations and target groups. There will be other elements that are unique or highly variable. System design can also allow for components of the system to be locally tailored or adapted to understand and respond to the specific needs of local communities.
A national advisory council with a diversity of expertise would be best placed to inform decision-making on system design and the relative emphasis on each of the system components (eg gateway services, self help resources). However, local wisdom can inform the way that the service system is implemented on the ground and substantially enhance their effectiveness.
At the local level the service delivery system could be informed by local advisory groups that understand the local needs and priorities particularly relevant to the design of targeted or intensive support services. This would potentially bring together service providers and stakeholder representatives in a process of consultation about current and future responses to local needs and will help generate goodwill and buy-in on the part of organisations who in many cases have worked side by side for many years.
There is also a role for the national peak organisations that represent FSP providers and understand the driving and restraining factors that impact on program effectiveness. Peaks including FRSA, Families Australia, SNAICC, Playgroups Australia and ACOSS have practical experience in supporting program design and implementation. In addition, there are a range of groups representing the interests of children, parents, families and population groups as well as professional networks that can inform program design.
FRSA believes that there is value in the Family Support Program recognising and developing 3 tiers of advisory mechanisms to inform system design and local decision-making:
- Local Planning Networks consisting of provider organisations, stakeholder representatives and local community leaders;
- Peaks and professional networks that provide expertise and input on issues that impact on system design and service delivery;
- National Advisory Council to weigh and balance the range of factors to be considered in service design and provide national leadership.
Figure 3: Proposed Layers of Advisory Mechanisms 
Recommendation 4: Recognise and develop 3 tiers of advisory mechanisms to inform system design and local decision-making – national, local and expert.