Theme 1: Program Operational Framework
- Does the draft program operational framework and six key requirements in the discussion paper identify all the key factors that will support the more effective delivery of FSP services?
Yes, but must at all levels consider and include what currently operates well in communities.
We do have concerns that any reallocation of money from existing resources is used to enhance existing services (including State funded Family Support Services ) address inequity of distribution of programmes like Communities for Children and does not establish new layers of middle management, flash office space services run from Sydney and time wasted in establishment when families needs are urgent.
In any policy development that attempts to identify and addresses needs of families and children the broader issues that impact on families that is transport housing health issues, employment , locational disadvantage, drought and other natural disasters or environmental issues must all so be taken into account.. Families live in the wider world and not just in the circle of services as illustrated on page 11 Appendix A.
[ top ]
Theme 2: Program Design
- How can we build flexible service models with improved service pathways that are consistent with the FSP principles and operational framework?
- How can we ensure the service system is able to adequately support and engage both universal and targeted client groups in a region?
Undertake a realistic service mapping of what is currently in place, what is working well and why. Seek localised consultation that allows for a ground up solution rather that a top down approach that suggests "We, in Canberra or Pitt Street, know what you need in Whoop Whoop". Seek local answers to local needs.
Make collaboration/partnerships/integration an indicator of good practice and effective service delivery.
Look at existing good practice examples (See attached documents )
[ top ]
Theme 3: Service Delivery and Innovation
- Can we improve service delivery so that clients requiring services in any of the core FSP streams can enter through any FSP service (i.e. a 'no wrong door' approach)?
- How can we link with other community services (eg FaHCSIA and other Commonwealth programs, state /territory services such as child protection services and mental health)?
- Should we have a set of standards for staff delivering any FSP service?
- What quality service standards do you think the FSP should have and are there existing standards that might apply?
- In what circumstances would providers benefit from sharing information/data/resources (including offices, administrative processes, workers, products) and how could this be facilitated?
Look at what is working already. Don't reinvent the wheel. It wastes time and money. Local linkages are a result of recognising the value of creating a strong referral network by managers. This level of work must be seen as a viable and valuable part of any model of service delivery. A process that is built on trust, respect , "getting to know people". Many of these local relationships have been undermined by the competitive funding processes and the lack of understanding and respect shown by government funders for the small, locally managed service providers who live and work in communities. Build on existing strengths.
FamS would be delighted if standards were introduced. We have developed a set of Principles in Practice which we believe, linked with DoCS NSW Good Practice Guidelines, give us a strong base from which to start. We are also aware the excellent work has been done in Victoria around Family Support Services standards and accreditation and we would be very keen to participate in development and implementation in NSW if funded and resourced to do so.
Any development of standards should be consistent across the sector and developed in consultation with organisations not imposed from above.
Ensure that services funded ARE meeting the identified needs of a community following a centralised agenda?
Providers can always benefit from sharing information, administrative processes and offices etc, but integration and collaboration has to be MORE than co-location (people can share toilets and a refrigerator but still have their own silo in a shared building based from my experience over 30 years in the sector). But it can be advantageous for families if there has been a process around integration that includes formulation of a common set of principle, ethics, protocols and a shared vision and shared outcomes. FamS have applied under the Child Protection Framework Funding to pilot in four areas of disadvantage the development of a better more collaborative set of service models that reflect locals needs and solutions. We will not know the outcome of this funding application for a few weeks.
Sharing information around individual families must always include permission of families. Permission of families to make a Child protection report of course would be dealt with differently. In some circumstances.
[ top ]
Theme 4: Needs and Location
- What factors should be taken into account in determining the range of FSP services required for a region or community?
- What is the best way to specify service catchments/service delivery areas? For example: In delivering services should your delivery area be defined by statistical sub-divisions, local government regions, postcodes or by other means?
What factors should be taken into account etc etc.
This should be done by FaHCSIA through regional project leaders before money is allocated and then you know WHAT you want to fund WHY and WHO should run project. These decisions developed and decided by regional/local service providers.
Identify what already exists, who it services, what is the geographic coverage of existing services, what are the demographics, level of disadvantage. Develop awareness of issues that impact of families such as transport, access to services cost of getting to a service, housing costs, or lack of affordable secure ,stable housing, unemployment, local and regional impacts of new policies (water rights/drought in Riverina area). Current waiting lists for all services, staffing difficulties (especially in rural areas) and so on.
Catchment area service delivery areas
We suggest catchment areas should reflect natural patterns of access and the experiences of families. Identify location of hospital (which may be over an electorate or LGA border) Centrelink, schools, work, bus routes etc.
Through consultation with our regional network we identified different needs in country and urban locales. Our country services prefer their catchment /service delivery area being based on federal electorate boundaries (with Local government as a strong player).
Our city services felt more connected to an identified local government area and Local Councils are part of their networks. Postcodes don't always reflect need on the ground.
[ top ]
Theme 5: Selection and Retention of Providers
- How should a balance be achieved between giving providers funding security, managing performance and ensuring services are located in areas of need?
- How should good performance in the FSP be identified?
- How should outcomes in the FSP be measured?
- What systems and processes could we use to support this?
Long term recurrent funding that allows for growth. NOT TIME LIMITED ONE OFF FUNDING. (How many parks can you build anyway and what does this do for people struggling with disadvantage poverty unemployment violence or generation dysfunction?)
Performance funding agreements should be based on the Friedman model of Results Based Accountability and include regular reviews against agreed outcomes, updating of information regarding community needs to ensure services are adapting to changing needs in communities. If the need in an area changes, implement a negotiated "change " timeframe to allow service delivery staff to alter service delivery strategies, and/or target group if required.
Use of a selective tendering process which emphasises the strength of local existing services knowledge and experience.
In response to Questions 12/13/14 in consultation paper Our services in NSW are working within the Friedman model of Results Based Accountability which enables us to identify "is any one better off as a result of our work? ""We believe this model which is widely adopted across the USA, the UK and NZ, is proving to be a valuable tool in identifying successful outcomes and is also a valuable format to adopt and follow to ensure continuous quality improvement in services/projects.
[ top ]
Theme 6: Funding
- What are the key features that providers consider essential in building a rational and transparent system for distributing available resources?
Honesty and openness about funding now and in the future.
A process for funding that reflects a belief that local community based service providers are valuable cost effective services and ensuring they have equal opportunity in any tendering processes that currently appear to favour large nationwide providers. Build strengths at the grass roots, not enhance a Pitt Street office in Sydney.
Funding must be recurrent, at a realistic level, have built-in growth provisions and be equitable across sectors and locations.
Ongoing links with funders that are based on mutual respect, timely communications, site visits, mutually realistic expectations.
Transparent processes should allow for criteria for decisions to be publicly available, quality feedback on reasons for unsuccessful bids, equity that reflects disadvantage (not just to enhance the election chances of local politicians).