Theme 1: Program Operational Framework
1. Does the draft program operational framework and six key requirements identify all the key factors that will support the more effective delivery of FSP services?
Mission Australia supports the broad thrust of the operational framework and the six key requirements identified for the Family Support Program (FSP). Whilst each of the requirements is critical, of most significance and perhaps where the greatest challenge lies, is in the fifth requirement - namely an outcome based accountability framework. The other requirements whilst important, ought to be contributors to the outcomes being sought, rather than ends in themselves. The FSP sits within the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children and whilst this provides some indications of the type of outcomes that the FSP might seek to address, given its focus and its jurisdictional coverage it cannot be expected to cover all the outcomes that the community might see as important for children, young people and families.
Whilst welcoming the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, and acknowledging that it is beyond the scope of this discussion paper, Mission Australia would urge the Commonwealth in partnership with the states/territories to develop a clear national framework for Australia’s children and young people which is able to cross all domains, identify key outcomes for children and young people and by its very nature will require cross jurisdictional and cross sectoral collaboration to achieve. The United Kingdom’s Every child matters provides one example of such a framework and a number of the pieces of work already being undertaken by COAG would fit within such a framework.
Such a framework needs to acknowledge both the ‘downstream’ factors in a child’s immediate environment which may contribute to poor outcomes but also the broader economic, social and cultural ‘upstream’ factors which also play a major role in achieving positive or negative outcomes (see for example, Stanley et al, 2002). This approach is supported by researchers such as Borkowski (2007) who have noted the most effective programs have been those which have been most comprehensive, targeting multiple domains of development and combining several components in order to promote a range of positive outcomes across settings and contexts.
Whilst programs such as Communities for Children clearly acknowledge the importance of some of these broader environmental influences as evidenced by its place-based community capacity building framework, it has had relatively limited capacity to significantly impact on, for example, the economic environment of a community given its scope and funding. A national framework such as the one proposed would acknowledge the importance of these broader upstream factors and provide a more integrated way of responding to and shaping them. Such a framework would also provide a clearer basis for the development of an evaluation approach given it would articulate the range of outcomes that are being sought across portfolios. It would then be able to cascade down to programs such as the FSP.
Mission Australia has recently developed evidenced based and practice informed outcome hierarchies for the children and families, youth and homelessness areas . These provide a guiding lens for our work in these areas and highlight key operational requirements such as the need to collaborate with a very broad range of government and non-government agencies. The next step is to develop measures and indicators for the outcomes hierarchies and whilst still in the early stages of embedding this approach across all areas of service delivery, this framework is already significantly shaping our work. These outcome hierarchies are attached and Mission Australia would be happy to discuss this material further with the Department.
[ top ]
Theme 2: Program Design
2. How can we build flexible service models with improved service pathways that are consistent with the FSP principles and operational framework?
The recent evaluation of the Communities for Children (FaHCSIA, 2009) and other relevant research literature highlight the critical role of, challenges associated with and some of the key factors in successful implementation. The last include: organisational leadership and governance; adequate numbers of knowledgeable and skilled staff; financial and technical resources to support planning, implementation and ongoing program activities; organisational ability to adapt to or manage the external environment; and strong partnerships with stakeholders (Lesesne et al, 2008).
These factors will be particularly important in the FSP as a new range of providers both within and across streams are engaged. Critical to the development of flexible service models and improved pathways will be significant investment in a consultation and capacity building approach including with different sectors and with different professional groupings. The FSP is aiming, for example, to significantly engage educational institutions within at least two if not all three of the core service streams and over time it will involve those working in other areas such as family law, homelessness and employment coming together. Developing common understandings, goals and language, as well as new ways of working, new skills and the valuing of complementary skill sets, will be critical over time if flexible models and pathways are to occur. The original CfC program with its significantly smaller scope than the FSP or even the new CfC was described by the 2009 evaluation as a “transformative program. It was not merely another funding stream – it changed the way services were being delivered” (p 37). To be effective FSP will need to be similarly transformative and so the key learnings regarding the time required for such change to occur, the strategies and supports that build such change and the investment required needs to be built into the FSP from early on. FaHCSIA could play an ongoing leadership role in supporting the development of skills across the various players involved in FSP which facilitate such transformation. The key factors identified by Lesesne et al identified above should help shape what that leadership role might be.
ARACY (2009) has identified the key elements of a collaborative model as being:
- Articulation of a shared vision
- Building a supportive culture
- Integrated governance arrangements
- Legislative support.
The first three in particular will be critical for FSP.
Important components of building flexible service models and improved pathways will also include:
- a) ensuring local program design is consistent with local demographics, assessed community need, and local infrastructure.
- b) strong and ongoing community input and outcomes monitoring.
- c) a focus on the standard of delivery and the outcome measures whilst simultaneously supporting local autonomy in service delivery and program design.
- d) flexibility in accountability which encourages reflection in service delivery model within funding periods, and allows for relevant adjustments to agreements, outputs, budgets etc if required, to achieve improved outcomes.
- e) flexible funding models that encourage, facilitate and provide appropriate infrastructure for local service collaboration.
3. How can we ensure the service system is able to adequately support and engage both universal and targeted client groups in a region?
Building the knowledge across the range of stakeholders involved in FSP around the available evidence regarding prevention, early intervention and the continuum of responses required to effectively achieve improved outcomes is an important component of creating a service system which will achieve the overall outcomes of the program. Embedding an evidence based culture across children, young people and family services is an ongoing process in which FaHCSIA could take a leadership role. This role could for example include the development of mechanisms which draw together existing and new knowledge and evidence and ensure its greater availability to those involved in the FSP. Whilst there are some existing mechanisms in Australia they are not being sufficiently tapped into, yet they are a starting point for understanding for example a broad whole of system response to community needs. The recently released Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems for protecting children (ARACY, 2009) provides some material which might stimulate thinking regarding this area.
This enhanced knowledge base will provide a solid foundation for local collaborations to better identify what the appropriate service mix will be in a particular community and how this mix of services comprehensively knits together to meet the needs of the whole community. The collaborative processes adopted should enable the community to be seen as a whole ‘system’ and shared planning to be undertaken based on that understanding. This will enable a focus that reduces duplication and identifies service gaps. It will require significant skills and knowledge for those both planning and undertaking these collaborations, especially as over time a more diverse range of stakeholders, including from across the three core service streams, are likely to be involved within one area. These local collaborations also need to be complemented by broad agreement ‘higher up’ the administrative chain – strong agreement for example from a local principal regarding a particular approach unless supported by regional and state departmental structures and personnel is ultimately likely to falter despite the best of intentions. Such approaches need to be built into the ‘system’ at multiple levels to ensure they are not reliant on key individuals who at some point in time will move on.
[ top ]
Theme 3: Service delivery and innovation
4. How can we improve service delivery so that clients requiring services in any of the core FSP streams can enter through any FSP service (ie no wrong door approach)?
This is relatively new ‘service thinking’ in the Australian context so it will be important for FaHCSIA to pay early attention to what is working (and not working) on the ground regarding this approach and to share those learnings quickly and efficiently with others involved in the FSP.
Supporting each of the three service streams to act as a soft entry point for the other streams can contribute to a ‘no wrong door’ approach. This requires the establishment of planned referral pathways, planned awareness raising of each others services to client groups and communities, planned networks amongst service providers. It also requires deliberate measurement of the outcomes of such referral pathways, networks and awareness raising activity in order to acknowledge the value of such activities. Ensuring ongoing dialogue at staff level across the services will be important so that there is clarity regarding what is available and on offer. Similarly knowing the limitations of services is important so that clients aren’t referred inappropriately. Consideration might be given to funding which supports in particular (especially over time) cross-service stream interactions.
For some models of service common intake forms-assessments could support the development of a no wrong door approach. Over time some consideration might be given to whether approaches which attach funding to clients rather than to ‘programs’ have merit in some areas.
5. How can we better link with other community services (eg FaHCSIA and other Commonwealth programs, state/territory services such as child protection services and mental health)?
The outcomes framework identified in question 1 provides the conceptual framework that would identify the importance of linking with other community services as it would identify shared community wide goals and outcomes for children, young people and communities. Australia’s experience with ‘integrated’ models would suggest the need to build in some shared levels of accountability, say for example between various programs. Otherwise this relies on the goodwill of particular services or indeed individuals to link with others and is not built into the over-arching system. Approaches such as Mark Friedman’s Results Based Accountability provide some indication of how this might be done.
Stakeholders that contributed to the ARACY 2009 report identified a range of mechanisms effective for building a collaborative culture between agencies and services. A number of these could be explored over time through the FSP and they include:
- Joint training between professionals
- Liaison officers embedded in another agency who can reflect the values, practices, concerns and ideas of their home agency
- Common assessment frameworks and integrated case management
- Co-location and integrated services
- Training from professional groups that work with children and families to showcase their role and practices. (p xii)
6. Should we have a set of standards for staff delivering any FSP service?
Standards provide a platform from which services can develop innovative and locally relevant practice in consideration of their geography, client groups, community infrastructure, and their own aims and objectives.
In addition to any ‘standards’ that might be set for staff it is important to note the contribution that consistency of staff at all levels of program, policy and delivery can play in enhancing or limiting the child and family outcomes that the program achieves. Workforce development and retention have been identified as a key issue in the community services area and cross-government strategies are required to address this. In addition the high turnover of staff within FaHCSIA state-territory and Commonwealth staff can have a demonstrable impact on programs such as FSP. Whilst acknowledging the need for organisations such as FaHCSIA to re-structure and redeploy staff for a range of reasons it is important to note that there are consequences ‘downstream’ of such changes. Programs such as FSP are complex, multi-level initiatives that are conceptually challenging, innovative and reliant on relationships built at a range of levels. Mission Australia would urge that the possible impacts of re-structuring and staff changes should be more effectively taken into account in order that such changes do not adversely affect outcomes achieved at a community level.
7. What service quality standards do you think the FSP should have and are there existing standards that might apply?
The quality standards should cover the following key areas:
- Client service delivery
- Service Management / Business Management
- Community Collaboration
The standards should offer tailored benchmarks to services working with families as a client unit and offer practice and evidence examples to augment their stand-alone validity. Some potentially relevant standards with which Mission Australia is familiar include:
- The SA SAAP Standards
- Family Relationship Services Approved Provider Requirements
- SAAP Case Management Principles
- Code of Practice for Specialist Family Violence Services for Women and Children : ‘Enhancing the safety of women and children in Victoria’ - published in 2006 by Domestic Violence Victoria. Although specialist in nature these are practice standards with a strong on children and parents.
With respect to data standards, consideration should also be given to those already existing through for example the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
8. In what circumstances would providers benefit from sharing information/data/resources (including offices, administrative processes, workers, products) and how could this be facilitated?
Areas that should easily be shared include:
- Individual and aggregated service outcomes measurements
- Community needs analysis
- Community demographic data
Community planning forums could be one of the means by which this information is shared amongst local providers across all family services streams. Community plans can be derived from collaboration amongst providers.
As identified in response to another question, a shared intake / assessment and service linkage approach or system (electronic or otherwise) would necessarily require shared client information, at least entry information. This could be warranted if the benefit of the “no wrong door” approach is to be realised, but this would need to consider the legal, ethical and systems implications of information sharing, client consent and so forth. It will also not suit some of the more diffused community wide initiatives that have been a feature of CfC for example.
Mission Australia has developed and is in the process of implementing MACSIMS – Mission Australia Community Services Management Information System. MACSIMS is a web based client information management system and it may provide some useful learnings on systems that support information collection, analysis and sharing. Mission Australia would be happy to provide further information on MACSIMS if required.
There are a number of hub-type models emerging across the globe and in Australia which also provide some potential pointers to what are the appropriate circumstances for sharing of information and resources. These models should be monitored and the findings fed into the ongoing development of the FSP.
The CfC evaluation identifies the challenges many small providers faced in investing in the infrastructure required to deliver parts of that program. Such providers however can play an important role in high quality service delivery, particularly in smaller or more remote communities. There is thus a range of opportunities for smaller organisations to share on-costs either with larger or smaller organisations. FaHCSIA could potentially play a role in facilitating the development of such arrangements.
Professional development will be particularly important in the ongoing development of FSP and this is an obvious example of where sharing this function across organisations and sectors would be valuable. Mission Australia’s CfC site in Cairns for example was involved in a number of cross sectoral and cross discipline learning circles which proved to be highly valuable.
Consideration might also be given to how organisations with multiple sites for similar service provision might be best supported to gain maximum leverage for this broader coverage.
[ top ]
Theme 4: Needs and location
9. What factors should be taken into account in determining the range of FSP services required for a region or community?
Identifying the appropriate range of services required is a complex and ongoing process which should not be seen as merely taking place at a particular one off point in time. Whilst some communities may remain relatively static for example with regards to population, others may experience significant growth even over a relatively short timeframe and planning, implementation and funding arrangements need to be able to reflect and respond to this. Factors to be considered include geography, population distribution and demography, range of social exclusion and disadvantage indicators, identification of risk factors for poor outcomes of children, existing service system and gaps, the need for a mix of services including universal and targeted, transport and infrastructure factors as well as the overall economic wellbeing of the community.
10. What is the best way to specify catchments/service delivery areas? For example in delivering services should your delivery area be identified by statistical sub-divisions, local government regions, postcodes or by other means?
One of the major challenges identified by organisations such as Mission Australia and confirmed by the 2009 external evaluation of CfC was the community boundaries identified for each site. As the evaluation notes: “Most sites experienced difficulties in coordinating agencies and delivering services in their CfC communities because they were determined by arbitrary administrative boundaries defined by government” (FaHCSIA, 2009 p 44). These boundaries impeded service delivery and “increased the level of difficulty, time and expense for establishing, promoting and implementing CfC and made the task of engaging community members more challenging” (FaHCSIA, 2009, p 44). Australia’s geography, population distribution, and diverse administrative and legislative arrangements makes the specifying of catchments/service delivery areas a very difficult task and one where it is not reasonable to expect a single approach to work, even though this may be bureaucratically appealing. This is particularly apparent given the significant diversity between communities in large metropolitan areas and those in remote areas or in communities which are experiencing significant population growth compared to those that are not. The expanded age and program focus of the new FSP will add an additional dimension to the identification of catchments/service delivery areas as schools, for example, may have different administrative boundaries from children and family services or health services. Over time the administrative arrangements of family law services and other relevant services such as homelessness and employment may also need to be taken into account.
The CfC evaluation provides some insights on what might be the ‘best way’ to specifying catchments/service delivery areas and it is process based rather than suggesting a one-dimensional lens will be appropriate. The evaluation notes and Mission Australia would endorse that “having a consultation process between communities and different levels of government to determine boundaries for place-based models could help overcome the challenges experienced within a number of CfC sites by the artificial boundaries”. Mission Australia would also urge that such consultation include diverse departments within each level of government given the range of portfolios which will impinge on the effectiveness or otherwise of the FSP and that those with expertise in understanding community specific data are involved in the consultations.
[ top ]
Theme 5: Selection and Retention of providers
11. How should a balance be achieved between giving providers funding security, managing performance and ensuring services are allocated in areas of need?
A number of the community based families, parenting and children’s services which are being brought together under the FSP are operating in communities which have experienced significant and long term disadvantage. Change in such communities, particularly achieving significant improvements in child-family outcomes, takes significant time and investment (both financial, organisational, etc) over the longer term. Three year agreements given the ‘lead in’ and ‘wind down’ periods which can occur at the beginning and end of such programs is too limited to make the impact on child and family outcomes which is required.
The recent initial evaluation of CfC notes that the ‘effect sizes of Communities for Children were comparable to, if not greater than, many programs that provide direct services…(this) seems to point towards an additional effect over and above the provision of new services. Indeed, (the) positive change…supports the idea that ‘community embededness’ may have an additional effect on children and families and that provision of increased services on their own would not have achieved this aim’ (p 33). Such embededness does not happen quickly or without significant attention to building and sustaining relationships (including at inter and intra-organisational levels). Thus Mission Australia would strongly argue that for programs to be more effective a significantly longer term funding term is required and proposes that this term should be ten years in line with the United Kingdom’s approach in a number of similar areas. This would ensure that not only can a greater level of community embededness is achieved but that investments organisations make in staff, training, infrastructure etc are likely to have greater return and are in fact more likely to be made in the first place. Mission Australia is highly aware that recommending significantly longer funding term than the political cycle may not be palatable in some areas, however the potential impact programs such as FSP can make is seriously hampered by shorter funding periods. A long funding cycle does not equate with lower levels of accountability or the capacity for Government to appropriately manage and review performance and approaches. Regular review processes against a clearly articulated outcomes framework etc can be instigated with providers to ensure that outcomes based accountability is achieved.
12. How should good performance in the FSP be identified?
13. How should outcomes in the FSP be measured?
14. What systems and processes could we use to support this?
Fundamental to all of these questions is a clear agreement on what outcomes are being sought and a timeframe over which such outcomes are expected to be achieved. An outcomes framework is a critical piece of work which needs to be developed for the program as a matter of urgency. However in Mission Australia’s view it must be developed in light of program requirement one which indicates the need to strengthen collaborations between and amongst providers and Government and community. This framework must draw on the existing national and international literature across a broad range of areas but it must also be informed by practitioners and communities from across a broad range of communities and service areas. This is a very challenging task but a crucial step in being able to identify good performance, measurement of outcomes and systems and processes to support it. Whilst there have been outcomes identified for example in CfC and in some of the other programs now being drawn together under the FSP, the target group for the overall program has expanded considerably so a re-think and a more comprehensive high level outcomes framework is required as a first step. Such outcomes need to be relevant at a range of levels, including individuals, families, organisations and communities.
Outcomes measurement is a challenging and as yet embryonic area for many community services areas. FaHCSIA could play a leadership role in both developing an outcomes framework and a measurement approach that supports this framework as well as building the capacity of the sector to both contribute to the development of these and then implement them. The evaluation of CfC showed that few organisations (both Facilitating or Community Partners) had the capacity to effectively manage or support local evaluation – and this included a lack of skills. Such skills will be even more relevant given the stronger focus in FSP on outcome measures and hence the need for significant investment by FaHCSIA in this, particularly but in no way exclusively, in smaller regional and remote communities. The identification of common measurements and ways of measuring could contribute to this. Such measures would need to acknowledge that in some areas and for some individuals/families, change will be small, incremental and occur over the longer term. The measures and tools chosen for the various parts of FSP will need to be able to reflect this. Such measures will also need to reflect relative as well as absolute change and whilst noting the power of quantitative measures, these also need to complemented by qualitative measures if a true picture of progress is to be identified. Mission Australia is currently embarking on an Evaluation Capacity Building Project which has multiple sub-components including a Measures, Indicators and Tools project which supports the outcomes hierarchies discussed in question 1. We would be happy to expand further on this project with FaHCSIA.
Given that the CfC evaluation has noted the additional effect on children and families of the program and that provision of increased services on their own would not have achieved this, some weight and value must be placed on acknowledging the collaborations which have been core to this program. The value of these collaborations is clearly articulated in key program requirement one but it should also be built into the identification of good performance and outcomes measurement particularly in the short term. This will be particularly important given that there will be a range of new collaborations required both within and between the three core service streams.
Evaluation must be an essential part of supporting the ongoing development of FSP. This should occur both at a national and local level with systems put in place to ensure a strong relationship between the two and investment in staff’s capacity to contribute to such evaluation. Ongoing skills and professional development supported at a national level by FaHCSIA is an important part of the overall system required. Given the initial three year CfC evaluation already supported by FaHCSIA the value of continuing to invest in a national evaluation, particularly to identify longitudinal change in communities, would be very valuable. There is very limited long term community based data in Australia regarding the impact of children and family initiatives and there is an important opportunity to secure such data through FSP.
[ top ]
Theme 6: Funding
15. What are the key features that providers consider essential in building a rational and transparent system for distributing available resources?
i. Flexibility of funding
The CfC evaluation highlights the importance of building flexibility into the funding streams. This was important given the newness of that program and will be equally important in FSP. The nature of FSP will require that funding distribution across the period of the contract be flexible and not ‘locked in’ too rigidly to specific timeframes and amounts, unable to respond to emerging or changing needs. Whilst organisations will need to have certainty of the total quantum of funding available there will need to be flexibility about how that is allocated and accounted for across the whole program contract timeframe. This flexibility also extends to the categories of funding which may be identified. Mission Australia’s experience with CfC was that whilst there was some level of flexibility having to spend particular quantum of money in certain prescribed categories did not promote maximum outcomes or best use of resources. The other learning from the CfC evaluation is that even when flexibility is built into such arrangements these may not be universally communicated to all relevant parties nor applied in the same way across providers-sites. This highlights the need for consistent messages and close collaboration between the funding body and community organisations and in the case of CfC between community organisations given the key facilitating role of NGOs in that program.
ii. Allocation of funding
Having an externally available rationale for the allocation of funding to particular areas-communities as part of the FSP could be helpful in reducing the lack of clarity which currently exists in some areas regarding why for example a particular CfC site receives a certain quantum of resources from the overall funding allocation and another receives a different amount. Community needs will clearly vary and as a consequence it is quite appropriate to expect that funding will vary. However such a variation should be publicly defensible and the rationale for such allocation should be available in order to ensure a rational and transparent system.
iii. Administrative arrangements
The sixth program requirements for FSP includes the aim of reducing red tape requirements with identified actions including the streamlining of financial management practices and data requirements. Mission Australia welcomes and strongly endorses the need for streamlining these arrangements and that this be done at multiple levels – both between FaHCSIA and organisations that they directly fund and then between community organisations as in the CfC approach. The CfC model of necessity will involve small community organisations as delivery vehicles for programs but the CfC evaluation has shown that the weight and complexity of reporting for these organisations was very onerous with a consequence being that Facilitating Partners had to take on a large support role in the accountability area than anticipated or reasonable.
iv. Sustainability
An important feature and consideration in building a rational and transparent system for distributing available resources is a realistic assessment of what is possible and achievable in particular communities and over what timeframe. This is simply common sense but as the CfC evaluation has shown, expectations of sustainability within a short timeframe are unrealistic. This includes the ability to engage local or larger businesses as possible sources of funding. The recommendation of longer timeframes for the overall program would potentially make sustainability a more achievable goal but not within a two to three year timeframe. The general failure of local businesses to engage in CfC committees and for corporates to support funding of CfC activities confirms that there is still a significant way to go in achieving funding sustainability and this fact should be built into funding arrangements for FSP.
v. Use of funds
In light of the CfC evaluation (FaHCSIA, 2009) some consideration might be given to what funds can be used for under the FSP. The evaluation notes that the “inability to use funding for capital purchases limited service delivery for some sites. This was problematic especially in regard to funding for transportation…(as) these can be instrumental in increasing the participation of people from hard to reach groups or those who are unable to access public transport easily and affordably” (p 39). Whilst noting the importance of wanting to direct the majority of FSP funds into ‘service delivery’ (rather than capital) this divide can actually inhibit the effectiveness of service delivery. Mission Australia would recommend that some consideration be given to broader flexibility on what funds can be used for or potentially ‘packaged’ with funding from other sources.
vi. Supporting the leverage of exemplary practice
In new program models, particularly those which are complex to implement, identifying and then sharing exemplary approaches is critical if maximum impact is to be made. The CfC evaluation identified a number of exemplary sites and going forward these are being asked to mentor other sites. Mission Australia is very supportive of this as it will enhance capacity across multiple communities and lead to stronger outcomes for families and children. Such mentoring, however, should be valued within the funding program, and support provided in order that it be undertaken systematically and well.
References
- ARACY (2009) Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems for protecting children. Canberra. ARACY
- Borkowski, J G, Smith L E, and Akai C E (2007). Designing effective prevention programs: how good science makes good art. Infants and Young Children, 20(3), 229 – 241.
- Lesesne, C. A, Wandersman A, White C P, Green D C, Duffy J L and Lewis K, M (2008). Promoting science-based approaches to teen pregnancy prevention: proactively engaging the three systems of the Interactive Systems Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (3-4), 379-392.
- Muir K et al (2009) National evaluation (2004-08) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-2009. Canberra. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
- Stanley, F., Sanson, A and McMichael T (2002). New causal pathways thinking for public health. In: A Sanson (ed) Children’s health and development: New research and directions for Australia. Melbourne. Australian Institute for Family Studies.