Executive summary

Key findings

The evaluation of Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) found:

The ICC Model (the Model), including the whole-of-government approach, is supported by all staff, ICC Managers, State Managers and line agencies. Community and government stakeholders acknowledge the Model’s ability to build targeted and flexible solutions to community-identified priorities by bringing together government and the community as partners.
Building partnerships with Indigenous communities and organisations is a core strength of ICCs. They are effective at building trust of communities, visiting communities and organisations, and managing community expectations. The community recognises this as a key aspect to receiving appropriate support and services.
The implementation of whole-of-government collaboration requires significant improvement in the areas of:
- information sharing;
- developing flexible funding solutions¹ ; and
- co-location of the appropriate line agency staff.
Currently, approaches to whole-of-government collaboration vary between ICCs. Opportunities for improvement include:

developing formal structures for sharing information between agencies at the local level;
developing a common understanding across agencies and within ICCs about flexible funding solutions; and
establishing a core complement of line agency staff within ICCs will lead to greater whole-of-government collaboration.

The role of Solution Broker is integral to connecting line agencies, ICCs and communities.

Any model to enhance whole-of-government work must be in-built with an inherent flexibility required by communities, but that is also balanced with government expectations regarding accountability. Such a model will provide ICCs with a clear mandate for action.

The implementation of developing flexible and responsive solutions to community-identified priorities requires clarity and improvement in the areas of:

the use of flexible funding solutions;
accountability processes (including reporting, delegations and assessment processes); and
reducing red-tape.

This will allow staff and ICC management to adopt a truly issue / community centred approach at a local level rather than a program-centric approach resulting in the availability of more flexible responses for communities.

Good practice is occurring in particular areas in particular jurisdictions. Given the high degree of variability in how ICCs and line agencies have implemented the Model, it is important to share and build upon the good practice to improve the implementation of the ICC Model overall. Examples of good practice include:

the development of formal mechanisms for Solution Brokers at the local level to discuss priorities and issues, how their agencies can respond, and design a collective solution;
assisting communities to build their capacity to engage in priority setting and negotiation of solutions by brokering training and development sessions with the Office of the Registrar for Aboriginal Corporations (ORAC);
the development of relationships between ICCs and State/Territory government agencies. In some cases, this relationship building extends to aligning policy and program priorities;
joint community visitation arrangements between line agencies within an ICC and feedback arrangements to relevant line agency staff regarding community need; and
“coordination” role of the ICC Manager who focuses on cross-linking communities and line agencies and facilitating appropriate processes to bring the relevant people together.

To address the findings, it is proposed that the Continuous Development Plan (CDP) focus on:

Developing an operating framework for ICCs to underpin the ICC Model and provide guidance on “how to” implement the ICC Model as well as provide a platform to enhance community understanding of the role and function of ICCs.

This will benefit all ICC stakeholders by clarifying the core elements of the ICC Model to ensure consistent practice across ICCs and jurisdictions while also allowing the flexibility for the operating framework to accommodate local need.
Improving information and knowledge flow regarding policy and program directions for the whole-of-government arrangements.

This will benefit:
- government stakeholders as they will provide, and be provided with, consistent messages regarding the new arrangements’ policy directions and the common standards for the operation of ICCs. Mechanisms for ICC Managers and State Managers to influence policy and programs should also be built to encourage this information flow; and
- communities and organisations as they will have more frequent access to the most relevant information about what funding exists and who to talk to in an ICC.
Further investment in the development of ICC Managers and Solution Brokers as leaders for the ICC Model and the whole-of-government arrangements.

This will enable the sharing of leadership responsibility and allow for championing of the ICC Model and whole-of-government collaboration within the ICC, outside the ICC (to communities, within FaCSIA and line agencies) and within line agencies.
Investing in improvements and monitoring the implementation of the Model and its achievement of outcomes.

This will ensure that the implementation of the ICC Model is refined and improved through a continuous improvement process. This will also ensure that the Model continues to improve the way government responds to community-identified priorities.

The strategies for improvement will be fully explored in the second stage of this project which involves the development of the CDP to improve the implementation of the ICC Model across all ICCs.

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation aimed to assess the progress of ICCs against the Secretaries’ Group ICC five-point plan and to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement in the implementation of the ICC Model.

The evaluation assessed these issues against the five dimensions of building partnerships with Indigenous communities, whole-of-government leadership, flexibility and responsiveness, whole-of-government collaboration, and ICC capacity. A sample of eight ICCs from around Australia were selected to participate in the evaluation.

Background and context

During 2004, the Australian Government commenced a number of significant changes to take a whole-of-government approach to Indigenous affairs, thus breaking down silos between departments, reducing red tape, duplication and harnessing a range of services for Indigenous communities across a range of government departments.

ICCs were established as the service delivery hub for the new arrangements. When first established, ICCs were intended to be a ‘one-stop-shop’ for coordinating and improving Indigenous services, while providing Indigenous people with a single-entry point to government.² ICCs work with Indigenous communities to determine their local priorities and needs through a range of funding and agreement-making processes.

The role of the ICC Manager is critical to the improving and coordinating service provision to Indigenous communities. The ICC Manager also provides whole-of-government leadership and day-to-day management of the ICC.

Bringing together these core elements of ICCs is the Secretaries’ Group five-point plan which requires ICCs to focus on building partnerships with Indigenous communities and organisations, whole-of-government leadership, whole-of-government collaboration, developing flexible responses, and building the capacity and governance of ICCs.
It is the implementation of these five components that have been examined through this evaluation.

1. Flexible funding solutions involves developing a range of funding options for a particular need taking into account the capacity of the organisation, the outcomes to be achieved and the nature of the issue to be addressed. Such solutions may include: Shared Responsibility Agreements, Regional Partnership Agreements, Flexible Funding Pools, mainstream program funding and/or Indigenous-specific program funding.

2. www.fahcsia.gov.au.

Return to top