Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families [1 ed.] 9781443883955, 9781443874687

Citation preview

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families Edited by

Karl Brettig with the Children Communities Connections learning Network

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families Edited by Karl Brettig This book first published 2015 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2015 by Karl Brettig and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7468-X ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7468-7

If it takes a village to raise a child should it be a cyber-village, an urban village or should we all go back to the country?

About the Children Communities Connections Learning Network The Children Communities Connections Learning Network is a network of child and family practitioners, researchers, family and community groups who are learning together to build stronger communities for children. A range of related resources from the network can be found at: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/learningnetwork.php

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... xi Foreword ................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xiii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Karl Brettig Chapter One ............................................................................................... 5 Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families Karl Brettig We are living in a time of accelerating change. How are families coping with the rapid social changes in urban environments brought about by new technology, infrastructure and modern lifestyles? What is the perspective of children in all this? Can we recreate the kind of village that effectively supports children and their families in the urban sprawl? Chapter Two ............................................................................................ 21 Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads Lesley-Anne Ey Does electronic social media networking represent new way of connecting in place of the decline of other community organisations? How do child and family services engage with these new ways of connecting? We know that social networking sites can become a haven for anti-social behaviours but can they be used to build the kind of community interaction that supports good parenting practices and enhances child development?

viii

Contents

Chapter Three .......................................................................................... 36 Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse, Family Violence and Mental Health Karl Brettig with Michael White Many children who are in ‘out of home care’ are there because their parents have significant substance misuse, domestic violence or mental health issues or more likely a combination of these. How might we go about developing a more holistic, whole of family, integrated approach to working with children and families impacted by these issues? Chapter Four ........................................................................................... 51 Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery Karl Brettig If we are to optimize child and family support services so that families most in need of them receive the kind of support that will bring about better outcomes, then we need break down the barriers that stand in the way of this happening. We need to develop child and family friendly services in ways that engage those who need them on a scale and intensity that addresses barriers at every level. In Australia Communities for Children is a model that attempts to do this and this chapter looks at how it has been implemented in one of the sites. Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 68 Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach Karl Brettig The debate about universal and targeted support for families has continued because both are important. Whole communities, service providers and families need to work together in an integrated way in order to raise children effectively. This is particularly important in preconception care, in utero and in the first three years of life. Building on from the previous chapter we look at some encouraging developments in terms of implementing a whole of family, government and community approach.

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

ix

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 89 Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity Karl Brettig with Robert Taylor How do these principles work when viewed through the lens of other cultures? What do they say about working towards closing the outcomes gap for Aboriginal families? How do we work with differing cultural approaches to raising children? What have we learned and how do we move forward with this? Chapter Seven ........................................................................................ 104 Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms Elspeth McInnes, Alexandra Diamond and Victoria Whitington Without a doubt developments in neuroscience are changing the way we think about child development. Working with children in classrooms needs to be trauma informed if the kind of support that will optimise learning is to take shape. This chapter looks at how the education sector can implement changes in the way we go about facilitating learning experiences that include social and emotional learning as well as achieve academic progress. Chapter Eight......................................................................................... 128 Measuring Population Outcomes Jane Swansson with Margaret Sims and Susan Lane Implementing a whole of community approach presents us with a significant challenge in terms of how we measure the outcomes of such an approach. A traditional case management model has some clearly defined measures around which ‘client data’ can be readily collected and made available. However when it comes to using a community development based model of providing family support, more complex population measures are needed. How can we use such measures to track whether we are making a difference? Chapter Nine .......................................................................................... 145 Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan Karl Brettig What are the practical steps involved in implementing family support in local areas using a community development approach? This chapter goes through the steps used in planning and implementing the Communities for Children model, including some of the challenges likely to be encountered and examples of how they might be overcome.

x

Contents

Chapter Ten ........................................................................................... 164 Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services Karl Brettig How do we work across services? How do we go about implementing integrated services that incorporate a range of agencies and disciplines? Can governments really work together effectively with NGO’s, families and community groups? Do integrated service models really work? This chapter looks at some of the major challenges being encountered by those who are attempting to redesign the service system. Chapter Eleven ...................................................................................... 176 Growing a Community of Practice Michael White Communities of practice develop shared practice when practitioners interact around problems, solutions and insights. What are some of the key elements that make communities of practice work? What is needed for an effective interagency and interdepartmental consultative committee to function well? Chapter Twelve...................................................................................... 192 Building Child Friendly Communities Karl Brettig This chapter draws together various strands from previous chapters and outlines some of the changing characteristics of rural, urban and cyber communities. We look at child friendly urban planning and consider some key elements in need of development to build stronger communities with children and families. Contributors ............................................................................................. 213 Index ........................................................................................................ 216

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1-1 Challenges identified by families with young children 4-1 AEDI 2009 & 2012 results for the number of children vulnerable on one or more domains 4-2 Activity in the kitchen at FamilyZone 4-3 FamilyZone end of year celebration 5-1 Partnerships developed to deliver integrated services 5-2 The Family Place at Logan in Brisbane 8-1 AEDI 2009 & 2012 results for the number of children vulnerable on two or more domains 8-2 Percentages of children found to be vulnerable in the two amalgamated groups of suburbs in 2009 and 2012 8-3 Salisbury C4C’s population results and the corresponding performance measures from FamilyZone evaluation and reports 11-1Types of Community of Practice Structures 11-2 Principles to support flourishing Communities of Practice 12-1 Parent and child oriented learning gradient and key elements 12-2 Factors contributing to literacy development 12-3 Changes in characteristics of rural, urban & cyber communities 12-4 Critical periods for development of neural pathways Cover photo: Alan Steven

FOREWORD

The Building Stronger Communities concept of using a whole of community approach to supporting families is to be commended. The increasing destabilization of community networks, emerging variety in family formation and the changing face of society as a whole, often leave individuals and groups isolated, without basic support networks and feeling alone and hopeless in the face of life challenges. Add to this the evolution of technology and its impact on communication both personal and corporate and it’s time to create new and strengthened avenues of understanding and engagement for response to community need. How does today’s community educate children for the age they live in? How does a community rigorously create safe environments and respond to need; where a healthy, sustainable, cohesive, emerging culture and where the capacity to live life to its fullest is not a dream but a distinct possibility. The writers of this work provide some strong concepts for consideration. A challenge to present thought and process. I commend this thought provoking work for your reflection and response. Bravery is needed to inhabit a changing and demanding world with confidence and integrity. A willingness to evolve but not haphazardly - instead with wisdom and intentional strategic response to demand. These writers are showing us reason and possibility. How brave are we?

Geanette Seymour, Colonel Director The Salvation Army International Social Justice Commission

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A publication like this would not be possible without the contributions of many inspiring people who have shared our Communities for Children journey. Special thanks to the teams at the Salvation Army Ingle Farm and FamilyZone Hub, in particular Alan Steven, Kathlene Wilson and Jacquie Dell who have contributed unstintingly throughout the initiative. Also to Karen Stott, Jane Swansson, Naomi Thiel, Michael White, Janet Pedler, Mark McCarthy, Cathie Bishop, Michael Edgecomb, Robert Taylor, Katrina Shephard, James Lenigas, Lisa Wynne, Shonah Wright-Jones, Mary Fewster, Janet Kilford, Patricia Griffiths, Cathy Lawson, Joanne Menadue, Mario Trinidad, Carol Perry, Shirley Hallion, Kaye Conway, Paul Madden, Kirsty Drew, Lisa Osborne, Margaret Hunt, Helen Whittington, Rosemary Forgan, Angela Jolly, Geoff & Kalie Webb, Paul & Wendy Hateley, Dale Holman, Meryl Zweck, Paul Regan, Lynette Caruso, Mira Zivkovic, Susan Lane, Helen Lockwood, Yvonne Bentham, Greg Were, Cathy Haakmeester, Kylie John, Elizabeth O’Connor, Grant Pearson, Elaine Nitschke, Janet Muirhead, David O’Brien, Gerry Dillon, Lea Stevens, Julie Kalms, Nicky King, Kathryn Jordan, Nadia Caruzzo, Kerry Bowering, Tracy Buchanan, Gabrielle Kelly, Gael Little and Rebecca Pressler who have all made significant contributions. Also thanks to organisations who have partnered with us including the Department of Social Services, Lutheran Community Care, Relationships Australia, Centacare, Save the Children, the Schools Ministry Group, the City of Salisbury, UniSA deLissa Research Centre and the Department for Education and Child Development. Thanks also to South Australian C4C colleagues Helen Francis, Jan Oliver, Sue Christophers, Jan Chorley, Fiona Dale, Annie Adams, Teresa O’Brien, Craig Bradbrook, Sam Haskard and Janine Carger who have made the communities of practice ethos a productive reality. Thanks to the many other contributors from the national C4C community some of whose activities are documented in this book though there are many more that could have been. Special thanks to Margaret Sims, Elspeth McInnes, Alexandra Diamond, Victoria Whitington, Gerry Redmond, David Ludwig, Wayne Maddox, Anne Jurisevic, Dorothy Scott, Margy Whalley and Tim Moore for their commitment to practice based evidence and to all who have reviewed chapters and provided suggestions and feedback. Finally special thanks to Ruth, Daniel, Joel, Emma and all the families who work together for the benefit of children, their families and communities.

INTRODUCTION KARL BRETTIG

There can be little doubt that the early years of a child’s life are critical in relation to the kind of outcomes they will experience in later life. Evidence continues to accumulate that early childhood experiences, particularly between conception and around two years of age, have a huge impact on the lives of children in their later years. There is now an expanding body of literature on the determining influence of early development on the chances of success in later life. The first 1,000 days from conception to age two are increasingly being recognised as critical to the development of neural pathways that lead to linguistic, cognitive and socio-emotional capacities that are also predictors of labour market outcomes in later life. Poverty, malnutrition and lack of proper interaction in early childhood can exact large costs on individuals, their communities and society more generally. The effects are cumulative and the absence of appropriate childcare and education in the three to five agerange can exacerbate further the poor outcomes expected for children who suffer from inadequate nurturing during the critical first 1,000 days (Atinc & Gustafsson-Wright, 2013, p1).

The USA and Australia ranked 24th and 28th respectively in an Economist Intelligence Unit 2012 report on benchmarking early education across the world (EIU, 2012). In Australia 75% of child wellbeing indicators were in the middle or bottom third of all the OECD countries (Stanley, 2014). The UK ranked 4th while the Nordic Countries were rated at the top of the index. Nordic countries are prepared to pay higher taxes because they understand the significance of investing in the early years. Other countries are also beginning to translate what neuroscience is telling us about child development into policies that effect significant change in early childhood education. The differences between what western countries are doing in this space make interesting reading. The development of the current Finnish system began in the 1960s and has progressed to its current emphasis on outdoor education in the

2

Introduction

preschool years and away from computer games and screen time. Their class ratios are low with an average of eleven students per teacher and their teachers all have a three or four year bachelor’s degree in education. The proportion of male teachers is also significantly larger in Nordic countries. This is not an accidental statistic but rather an intentional policy based on an understanding of the significance of male and female role modelling. They only start formal schooling at age seven, believing that children need time to be children before we begin to ‘educate’ them to become citizens often ‘made in our own image’. The UK saw the implementation of over three thousand Children’s Centres between the launch of the Sure Start initiative in 1998 and 2010. They represent a bold attempt to recreate a child friendly ‘village’ environment in every urban community that provides the kind of support families need in the crucial early years. Despite some cutbacks resulting from the global financial crisis and the change to a conservative government, much of the initiative remains intact. The US began its Headstart initiative back in the sixties, however its impact has been limited perhaps by its tepid embrace of the social and emotional development domains in comparison to its focus on the physical and cognitive domains. The development of a population measurement tool in Canada that includes all of these domains, the Early Development Index (Janus and Offord 2000) has contributed significantly to our ability to better determine if real progress is being made. Australia has contextualised this instrument in the form of the Australian Early Development Census and implemented this nationally as it sets out to achieve a turnaround in terms of the levels of vulnerability of its children. It is lagging behind other countries in delivering improved outcomes for children (McKenzie et al, 2014) being somewhat hamstrung by having three levels of government which contributes to fragmentation in relation to service provision. An Education Indicators in Focus report rated Australia as having the lowest expenditure on early childhood educational institutions as a percentage of GDP of all the OECD countries (OECD, 2013). The states are seen as the providers of universal services for children but it is the commonwealth that realistically has the level of resources needed to make the kind of investment in early childhood that should make a significant difference. The Communities for Children initiative is one significant commonwealth investment, reliant on genuine partnership with the states, which aims to take up the challenge of

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

3

converting community services into community centric services (Fitzgerald, 2012). Complex early childhood trauma often leads to ongoing problems for generations with very significant economic implications if there is no effective intervention. The current ‘merry go round’ of services risks the re-traumatisation and escalation of symptoms of those seeking help. If those who seek support encounter an uninformed, fragmented service system that attempts to shunt them from one service to another, they can become more at risk of being re-traumatised than actually getting help. Experience is now known to impact brain structure and functioning and in the relational context of healing this includes experience of services. Neural integration is not assisted – indeed is actively impeded – by unintegrated human services which are not only compartmentalised but which lack basic trauma awareness (Kezelman & Stavropoulos, 2012).

While the political arm wrestling across the globe continues, just maybe it’s time to prioritise what children and families would like to see happening. Too often they are the neglected voices that fail to be heard amongst the noise being generated by everyone else with an agenda. Can we build stronger communities by also listening to what they have to say about what they would like to see rather than trying to do it without them?

References Atinc, T., & Gustafsson-Wright, E., (2013). Early Childhood Development: the Promise, the Problem, and the Path Forward, Brookings Institute, p 1. Retrieved from: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/11/25-earlychildhood-development-atinc-gustafsson Economist Intelligence Unit, (2012). Starting well: Benchmarking early education across the world. Retrieved from: http://www.lienfoundation.org/pdf/publications/sw_report.pdf Fitzgerald, R., (2012). Towards a National Agenda for investing in Child Development. Children Communities Connections 2012, Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFkXlI7wEug Janus, M. & Offord, D. (2000). Reporting on readiness to learn at school in Canada. ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1(2), 71-75. Kezelman, C.A., & Stavroupolos, P.A., (2012). Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Complex Trauma and Trauma Informed Care and Service Delivery pub. Adults Surviving Child Abuse, p xxxi.

4

Introduction

McKenzie, F., Glover, S., Mailie, R., (2014). Australia’s Early Childhood Development System. Retrieved from: http://www.australianfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AFPEarly-Childhood-Development-What-We-Know-141212.pdf Stanley, F., (2014). Australian children’s wellbeing in 2034:closing the gap between our aspirations and our effort. Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth. Retrieved from: http://www.aracy.org.au/documents/item/184

CHAPTER ONE BUILDING STRONGER COMMUNITIES WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES KARL BRETTIG

A forum with representatives from a range of disciplines including early childhood, local government, community services, town planning and architecture was convened in South Australia in 2012 to take a collective look at building child friendly cities. Participants were asked to bring something with them to the workshop. It involved taking time to remember a place we loved to visit as a young child and think about what it was that made this place so attractive. That simple exercise profoundly affected my view of the world from the perspective of a child as it did that of many others who participated in the experience. For me it had to be our quarter acre backyard in Lobethal. There were two places consisting of a couple square metres that were particularly important. The first one was a heap of sand about five metres from our back door. The second one was the crusty little dirt patch between the house and the shed. My memories about the heap of sand are a bit vaguer than the vivid memories of the dirt patch. I was about 2 years old when mum was quite happy to let me go outside the door to play in that sandpit. I know that because she often told me later that I was quite happy to play there for hours on end and that was highly acceptable for a mother with four children. The dirt patch was something else. The earth was much better to work with than the sand. You could use a makeshift grader and build roads. You could add water to dirt to make mud and introduce some sticks to build houses and sheds. You could build whole communities if you had enough time there before one of your brothers or parents came along and implemented their alternative plans for the site!

6

Chapter One

At a time when many families are imploding and communities are becoming increasingly chaotic we do well to reimagine the kind of childhood environment that might enable children to flourish when they become adults. This is particularly so in the light of what recent neuroscience is telling us about the importance of the early years as is summarised by the maxim ‘give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man’. According to Dietrich Bonhoeffer the test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. He also wrote about why we need to listen to what they are saying. The truthfulness of a child towards their parents is essentially different from that of the parents towards their child. The life of the small child lies open before the parents and what the child says should reveal to them everything that is hidden and secret, but in the converse relationship this cannot possibly be the case (Bethge, 1955, p326).

Very young children have an honesty that renders them able to make hugely important contributions to the development of strong families and communities. How many of us take time to listen to what children are telling us? How well do we accommodate their needs in terms of planning community architecture and the daily schedules of families? How well does our legislature take their needs into account? What values in relation to them do our workplace practices reflect? How well are our communities designed to support the needs, interests and rights of children? There is a village in Italy where a bell rings out across the valley every time a baby is born. The chimes announce to every member of the community that they all have a new responsibility. Each member of the village is reminded to think about what they can do to support the new arrival at the time of birth and as they grow and become mature members of the community (Pritchard, 2010). Strong communities are built around healthy child development and social planners recognise that children have the inherent capacity to bring people together. Most mixing across social groups takes place between children. It is these contacts - in nurseries, playgroups, schools and in public spaces – that provide opportunities for adults to meet and form relationships. Children provide a common ground and shared interest between people in different tenures. Moreover, people with children tend to be among the most active in community groups” (Silverman et al, 2005).

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

7

Can we recreate a child-friendly village within the urban sprawl? Can we redesign child friendly cities and meeting places as we collectively reimagine childhood? Can we see more functional families and communities come into being?

What has changed? During the past few decades we have seen momentous shifts in terms of the way communities function. Indications are that the next few decades will see even more changes as we roam deeper into cyberspace and experiment with family support structures. Most indicators point to a significant escalation of social problems in terms of child protection, family violence, mental health and substance misuse issues. To the wave of societal dysfunction we are adding cyber bullying, sexting, social network addiction and a whole new spectrum of psychiatric disorders. These include such diagnoses as Mixed Anxiety Depression, Social Communication Disorder, Sexual Sadism, Gender Identity Disorder, Binge Eating Disorder and Substance Related Disorders (American Psychiatric Association DSM V, 2013) In Australia it is estimated that 12 - 23% of children are witnessing domestic violence (Price-Robertson, Bromfield & Vasello, 2010), 13.2% of children live with at least one adult who regularly binge drinks (Dawe, 2006) and 4-8% of males and 7-12% of females experience penetrative child sexual abuse. These children are at risk of developing severe anxiety and social disorders. Most parents of children involved with child protection services have a history of family violence, substance misuse or mental illness and the severity and complexity of these problems is the highest among the children in out of home care (Scott, 2012). In addition to child abusive adult behaviour, the implications of child exposure to the plethora of often violent and sexualised electronic games, media and television programming are only beginning to emerge. Although the rate of teenage births in Australia has remained steady among teenagers aged 15-19 yrs since 2006 (Council of Australian Governments, 2012) in South Australia the number of children under fifteen having abortions increased from 16 to 26 between 2009 and 2010 (2012 Report). It is concerning that children are becoming sexualised at a younger age. The rise in occurrence of the autism spectrum disorders is also quite alarming. Estimated at 1 in 150 in 2000, it rose to 1 in 88 in 2008 (ADDM Network, 2000-2008). What has changed between 2000 and

8

Chapter One

2008? Do we need to wait years for clear links to be established before we act to stem the deterioration of the social and electronic media environment experienced by young children or are we content to put our faith in the development of new drugs to reorder their brain chemistry? The reality is that many parents and caregivers feel powerless to act as they become caught up in the multiple and complex effects of the enormous shifts in the way we have begun to think about family and community life. If children are fast becoming designer commodities is it any wonder communities crumble as insecure babies soon grow up to become very insecure adults? It’s not just the complexity of the issues families are having to deal with, the decline in neighbourhood social capital is also impacting on the kind of outcomes we can expect for children (Edwards & Bromfield, 2010). If adults do manage to negotiate our complex educational, economic and social systems we then put them under pressure to reach ever higher performance standards. This is seen in many elite sports programs and artistic institutions. Added to this we idolise wealth and prosperity as the measure of success. Under the pressure of it all is it any wonder depression and suicide rates are rapidly increasing?

Listening to children and families So back to the sandpit. We don’t have enough of them around these days. It seems there are too many occupational health and safety risks. We’re worried about needles and glass and litigation. At Penn Green in Corby UK we have what is widely regarded as one of the most advanced urban centres for children and their families in the world. It has a humungous sandpit – geographically distant from all coastlines, they have recreated a beach at the heart of their centre! A number of years ago Salisbury Communities for Children began to establish a child and family hub at Ingle Farm in Adelaide. We didn’t have a sandpit for all the aforementioned reasons until the site coordinator came up with a solution. A lockable sandpit: it literally has a big wooden cover that can be opened and closed. At Reggio Emilia in northern Italy an inspiring education initiative has been developed around learning to listen to the ‘one hundred languages’ of children. “Children are to be taken seriously and listened to,” says Reggio Children President Carla Rinaldi. “Learning from the learning processes of

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

9

children is the teacher’s role” (Rinaldi, 2012). Much of her thinking stems from consulting children using community development principles. We need to build not only a school for the children but a place for the community and the city… The first key element is to talk together. The second is to learn by doing. Document how the children interpret the space and change the space. Our responsibility is to observe what the children do in the space.

Here education is seen as a communal activity where children and adults explore together. This opens up new ways of looking at the nature of the child as a learner, the role of teachers and the way the school environment is organised and the curriculum is planned. Building communities with children and families means we need to take into account what children and families are looking for in terms of the kind of environment and supports they need. We need to draw on established community development principles and include the perspective of children. As adults we can easily become very caught up in our own wisdom and miss the insights that come through a child’s eyes. Indeed a certain well known Jewish rabbi is reported to have called a child to stand in front of his followers and said; Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Mathew 18:3)

At the 2012 Child and Youth Friendly City Forum one of the children came up with the suggestion that Adelaide needs to link its tram system with the airport as a top priority. How sensible is that if you are one of those who have tried to commute to and from the Adelaide airport and find a cost-efficient alternative to taxis and expensive car parks. Another suggested to his dad that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to store his toys at ground level rather than on top of a wardrobe. As ‘grown ups’ we are capable of missing things that should be obvious. Australian National Children’s Commissioner Megan Mitchell sought out the voices of children during a ‘Big Banter’ in 2013. One of the messages she received from a young person in relation to social media websites was incisive.

10

Chapter One I think that children under a certain, valid and mature age should NOT be permitted to go on social media websites, such as facebook and twitter because they are still children, yet they are flicking through inappropriate photos or videos of themselves or others. It's just not right! Students in my class are mainly all on social media websites, this is completely unheard of because they take photos in class, on the oval or during lunchtime, either without the teacher seeing or without other students knowing, it's unfair because the victim is oblivious to the damage that could be done on those websites. Some photos could include invading of privacy, nudity or inappropriate comments such as swearing. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014.p17)

Other messages she heard included expressions of concern about growing up with violence and drugs. Life would be better if nobody got hurt and children felt safe all the time – 4 year old child Life would be better for children and young people in Australia if there was no drugs and violence. I’ve been beaten up and bullied. I complained about it but it didn’t fix the problem - 13 year old child from the Northern Territory (Mitchell, 2014).

An Australian research project looking at what 108 middle school children (8-12 yrs) thought was important in their communities identified a number of key ingredients that contribute their vision for a strong community (Bessel, 2014). 1. Relationships: Family; Time with Parents; Friends; Good Neighbours; Caring People; Being Listened To; Community Get-togethers. 2. Safety: Positive Interactions; No Violence; No Bullying; No Drunkenness. 3. Physical Places: Home; A Good Environment; Inclusive Spaces. 4. Resources: Financial Security; Public Services.

Of course we can’t always give children what they want. They need boundaries as well as opportunities to explore. What they want their parents to do is not always wise but it should at least be considered. When their honesty brings disclosure of adverse circumstances in their families it is critical that everything possible is done to engage their parents and caregivers in the conversation as soon as possible. If we look at the list of ingredients identified in the research we can be very encouraged that children seem to have a pretty good idea of what they need for healthy development. Parents have the responsibility to nurture and train their

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

11

children but that does not preclude listening to their voices. In terms of caregiving in general, we also need to get better at listening to the concerns of children who may be experiencing abuse while in care. They are citizens in their own right (Hoffman-Eckstein et al, 2008) even when they are very young. They cannot flourish without adults to nurture them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to be heard and can’t make important contributions to our communities. And we need to listen to what families want. When the Australian Government came up with the Communities for Children initiative it stipulated that sites implement a comprehensive consultation before Community Strategic Plans were developed. So often the process is the other way around as governments and agencies develop plans and then put them out for consultation. The message that comes across is that such consultations are mere tokenism designed to establish that there was a consultation process prior to implementation. The problem is that if this process is not followed there will be little community ownership of whatever grand schemes governments and agencies may initiate. The consultation needs to happen at the beginning of the process. Families need to be asked what they would like to see developed. At Salisbury Communities for Children in the north of Adelaide parents and caregivers didn’t have too many problems articulating what they would like to see when they were consulted.

Challenges of Families Access to Services

Unemployment ADHD/Autism

Transport

Caring for Children

Parenting Skills Domestic Violence

No community Support

Drugs & Alcohol Mental Health

Family Conflict Financial Difficulties

Health

Isolation (feeling alone)

Fig 1-1 Challenges identified by families with young children

12

Chapter One

When 38 parents with young children were asked at a local shopping centre about the challenges their families were struggling to deal with, they identified the issues in Fig 1:1. In terms of improving services they also had some clear ideas about what needed to change. Parent’s needs in the community mainly focused on better medical services, better playground facilities and a ‘one stop shop’ where they could easily access information relating to young children and families (Nechvoglod, 2005).

Successfully engaging with the medical community seemed a long way off when we started but it began to happen once we had established some credibility as an initiative and the medical community began to learn that we really did want to make a difference. We had some limited success in the establishment of better playground facilities, though the risk averse driven processes of local council were something of a challenge. Probably our most effective strategy has been a ‘one stop shop’ child and family hub and satellite centres. It has continued to be driven by the invaluable perspective of what children and families wanted to begin with and continue to want to see happen. What families wanted was what they were keen to access when it was implemented. There have been very high participation rates of families since FamilyZone was launched in 2006. In 2011 a total of 3,119 adults and 2,368 children participated directly in eligible services. This level of participation has been consistent since 2008. A 2011 evaluation concluded: The evaluation data identify that positive achievements of FamilyZone Hub in terms of the benefits delivered to children and their families are substantial and significant (McInnes & Diamond, 2011).

Communities are not static they are fluid. Their level of functionality changes depending on the particular dynamics at work at any given point in time. What worked well at one period in time may easily fail as changing demographics and cultural trends emerge and new developments take shape. Good community developers need to be constantly attuned to what children and families are saying about their needs and aspirations.

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

13

Can we recreate a village among the urban sprawl? If it takes a village to raise a child can we recreate the village amongst the urban sprawl? In the seventies some tried to do just that. In the halcyon days of the counterculture about twenty of us tried living together in a very large double story house in Adelaide in South Australia. Our little community consisted of a few employed workers, students, ‘streetpeople’, bikers and drug dependant drop-outs we thought we were attempting to rehabilitate. Suffice it to say it was a very intense and, at times, harrowing experience. From Queen Street in Norwood our little community moved to Brompton in the inner west of Adelaide where we established some 15-20 community houses within a few kilometres of each other. The smaller groupings re-established some sense of stability and normality although, after about five years, the pressure of a few fairly naïve idealists trying to rehabilitate quite a few very traumatised young people took its toll and the urban village experiment ended. My partner and I then became involved with a number of families attempting to develop a semi-rural community in the Adelaide Hills. This time we collaborated with a few more experienced ‘middle class’ types, a number of individuals and families seeking respite from the vagaries of life and a vision to contribute to the community through spiritual retreats and various other activities. Over a ten year period we managed to rebuild a burnt out mansion which had formerly been the residence of one of the foremost members of the national convention of 1897, which framed the Federal Constitution. In the process we had a role in providing a retreat for quite a few who needed it and a movement that saw some renewal of spiritual life take place in faith communities across Australia… and we learned a whole lot of new ways to eat zucchinis, including how to turn them into cakes and muffins! Village life was challenging and while we were there we brought two children into the world. They both turned out pretty well which probably had a lot to do with the strong nurturing role of their mother in the early years, though the village also played its part. However it was far from perfect, including the fact that the unit we moved into when the children arrived was perched on a second story, so we had to locate the mandatory sandpit on the balcony. The children did however have about forty acres of bushland and garden to explore, some animals to enjoy and plenty of mud for mum and occasionally dad to scrape from their boots.

14

Chapter One

We can easily be idealistic about what a return to village life might look like and forget about the division and conflict between families and neighbours that is often inherent to village life and which eventually led to the dissolution of this community. A degree of independence may be preferable where too much interdependence causes debilitating disputes. Today however, most experience the challenges of living in large urban communities, which often results in isolation and is a far cry from village life. Before having children parents need to seriously consider the kind of environment in which they are most likely to flourish. No doubt others have been more successful at recreating the kind of village that significantly supports children and families living in the urban sprawl. At least one prominent social commentator presents a compelling case for a return to life in a rural community (Dreher, 2013). Generally however it must be said that times have changed and many of the protective factors of neighbourhood villages and towns we once knew have been largely eroded. Significant changes in the social environment, workplace practices and media accessibility are contributing to increased family breakdown and a significant loss of social and moral capital. Communities benefit from quality parenting but are adversely impacted when parents struggle with family discord, isolation, poverty and lack of support.

The advent of positive psychology If we are to see improvements in family functioning we need to significantly change the way we think about building stronger communities in which to raise children and we need to radically redesign the way support services are delivered. Our focus on specialist services, counselling and individualised case management has been expensive and limited in its effectiveness. The era of deficit-focussed, pathological psychology has in recent times been challenged by the rise of positive psychology and strength based approaches. Since the time Martin Seligman’s daughter challenged his grumpiness (Seligman, 2012) he became a pioneer in developing an alternative way of thinking about the human psyche. Has a century of pathological diagnoses resulted in much improvement in human wellbeing? Seligman’s daughter thought not. So he began to explore human virtue and character. Because in our wisdom we had deemed these to be outside the scope of measurable scientific investigation, the elements of wellbeing were largely ignored by the social science community for a couple of centuries. While non-western

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

15

communities have continued to value their significance, the lack of scientific investigation of their validity muted their significance. The voices of the children have continued to cry out and at least one eminent professor listened. In the western world we now have many different forms of community. We have virtual communities, school communities, faith communities and communities built around a variety of subcultures and ethnicities. Each has strengths and deficits. Healthy communities require “leadership with character, freedom with virtue, business with integrity and trust, the rule of law with the cultivation of habits of the heart, education with an emphasis not only on grades and credentials but on the meaning of life and medicine with human and ethical values as strong as the drives of science and technology” (Guinness, 2012). Without such elements communities become unsustainable and something that looks more like a ghetto emerges. How do we discover and develop strengths and protective factors in communities that will enable children and families to flourish in our increasingly complex societies? The Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) handbook (Peterson & Seligman 2004) has made some inroads into this task. As a Thinker in Residence in South Australia in 2012 Seligman engaged in an investigation into how positive psychology could impact whole school communities. He found that teachers particularly are impacted powerfully by this challenge and many have identified that this is why they went into teaching in the first place. Among other places, he developed this idea at a symposium on ‘Wellbeing before Learning’ facilitated by the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development. The theme captured well the intent of the impact of his residency on school communities and has resulted in an ambitious State of Wellbeing initiative. In 2013 Salisbury Communities for Children evaluated a ‘wellbeing classroom’ activity which involved developing the social and emotional wellbeing of children as a platform for improving learning outcomes. It included elements of positive psychology as well as opportunities for year 2&3 students to understand and process the impact of trauma in their lives. The enthusiasm and willingness to try new approaches such as typified by a teacher involved in the initiative, was a real key to its outcomes. We’ll look at this in more detail in a later chapter.

16

Chapter One

The advent of positive psychology with its emphasis on positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and purpose and accomplishment (PERMA) is a hopeful development that has the potential to lead to a more holistic, integrated approach to service delivery across education, health and community services sectors. This is particularly the case for older children although it’s potential for early childhood is now beginning to be explored.

Towards a framework for building stronger communities Although attempts of educators to address impacts of early childhood trauma are significant, clearly prevention and early intervention are the most effective strategies to improve outcomes for children and families (See Fig 12-1). Parents and caregivers are responsible for about 80% of the brain stimulation the first few years of a child’s life and all sectors of the community need to work collaboratively to achieve significant change. Mary Eming Young lists a number of imperatives that need to be included in any effective child development framework (Eming Young, 2010). The experience of many countries in acting to create building blocks for a comprehensive, integrated approach to early child development points to the need for a framework of collaboration across sectors and silos within countries. This overall framework must be grounded in the science of early child development, and both public and private sectors must be engaged. No one sector can do it all, and no single blueprint can possibly fit the specific needs of every country. Yet, the overall framework applies to all and reflects the experience of many. To build national ECD systems, all countries will need to do the following: 1. Shift the education paradigm and involve parents in children’s development. 2. Expand services to include children under age 3 and parent education. 3. Assure quality programming through training. 4. Institute a monitoring system to measure population-level outcomes of children’s development.

It’s all about children and families and the role of professionals is to support them in their roles. Children need to be included in all our planning. Parent education needs to be part of just about everything service providers do and it needs to become ‘liked’ on Facebook and other social media. Of course too much well-intentioned advice giving will end up confusing parents and we need to understand that very well. It’s much more about listening to parents and children and then perhaps responding with practical support.

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

17

One of the elements many of us are going to need to rediscover is the kind of parenting values that result in healthy childhood development. As well as economic and social capital we need to build moral capital and that becomes difficult if our moral compass is eroded. Future parents need to decide what their priorities are going to be. Is it preferable to have material prosperity or strong and healthy children? We’d like to have both but realistically sometimes this cannot be achieved. Building strong communities goes much further than just working with parents and caregivers. Governments need to decide if they really want to work collaboratively with non-government organisations through building respectful relationships (National Compact, 2011). Non-government organisations also need to learn to respect each other rather than allow competitive tendering instincts to override genuine partnering. Professionals need to respect other professionals even if they don’t share the same disciplinary mindsets. Volunteers need to have a measure of respect for professionals and vice versa. Workers of differing religious persuasions need to learn how to work together in a pluralistic society. We need to learn to live with each other. We need to understand when separation of powers is important and when it is not. We need to learn over which issues to separate church and state and how and when the two can work productively together to build social, economic and moral capital. We are all flawed human beings and shouldn’t be too surprised to find inconsistencies and corruption in both church and state, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work effectively together. To do this each organisation needs to be thoroughly accountable and we need to ensure adequate measures are in place for this to happen as best we can make it happen. To do this we need a well trained workforce that understands the issues of holistic, trans-disciplinary and integrated work with children and families. Professionals, para-professionals, volunteers and peers need to be trained in the implementation of such an approach and this should be given priority in any community capacity building initiative. For example early childhood Professor Margaret Sims identifies core knowledge that education, health and community services workers need includes such elements as attachment theory, mental health, family dynamics, social disadvantage and community development. Core skills would include strength based practice, counselling, crisis intervention, conflict management, working with addictions, family violence and reflective practice. Specialisations can then supplement these core skills.

18

Chapter One Specializations could include teaching (to work in preschools /kindergartens/child care centres as registered early childhood teachers for example), management (to run Parent-Child Centres and hubs as efficient, small, non-for-profit businesses), and family workers (to undertake support and education of more high risk families, and families with special support needs). There may be other relevant specializations such as child protection, mental health, addiction, counseling, financial management and inclusion support (Brettig & Sims, 2011 p 95).

And we need to know if what we are doing is working and not be satisfied if it isn’t. The Early Development Index developed in Canada is one population measure that governments are implementing in a number of countries. We also need performance measures. It is very rare that any one program can change an entire population (Friedman, 2005) although initiatives like Sure Start in the UK and Communities for Children in Australia can go a considerable way towards this. One major issue in relation to effecting whole of community change has been the debate over the use of targeted and/or universal approaches. This has been tempered by the notions of progressive universalism in the UK and proportionate universality in Canada (Hertzman, 2011). According to these we need to implement services at a scale and intensity that addresses barriers at every level. If we are going to see significant change all relevant sectors need to make a concerted attempt to first of all listen to what children and families are saying and then to implement the kinds of policies that will effectively address their needs and aspirations. The Australian Government is attempting to do this through the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, the Early Years Learning Framework and the National Compact for the not for profit sector. These documents provide the kind of authorising environment that is needed to get started. State Governments have also put forward related policy documents and need to work collaboratively with the Federal Government in order to access the kind of resources needed to do the job. We will need to see a reprioritising that reflects the importance of investing in children and families in the early years across all sectors (Heckman, 2009). We will also need to see significant changes in individual, community and government attitudes toward children and their families.

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

19

References Australian Human Rights Commission, (2014). Children’s Rights Report. National Children’s Commissioner. p17. Retrieved from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/childrens-rights-report2014 Bessell, J., & Mason, J., (2014). Putting the Pieces in Place: Children, Communities and Social Capital in Australia. Australian National University, University of Western Sydney, Benevolent Society, NAPCAN. Bethge, E., (1985) Dietrich Bonhoeffer Ethics, SCM Press, p326 Brettig, K., & Sims, M., (2011). Building Integrated Connections for Children, their Families and Communities, CSP, p95 Dawe, S. et al (2006). Drug Use in the Family: impacts and implications for children. Australian National Council on Drugs Dreher, R., (2013). The Little Way of Ruthie Leming: A Southern Girl, a Small Town, and the Secret of a Good Life, Grand Central Publishing. Edwards, B., & Bromfield, L., (2010). Neighbourhood influences on young children’s emotional and behavioural problems, Family Matters No 84, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Eming Young, Mary., (2010). International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 2010, Vol. 4, No.2, 25-32 Friedman, M., (2005). Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough, Trafford, p98 Guinness, O., (2012). A Free People’s Suicide, IVP, pps 26-27. Heckman, J., (2009). The case for in Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children. Retrieved from: http://www.heckmanequation.org/content/resource/case-investingdisadvantaged-young-children Hertzman, C., (2011)., Investing in our Children Investing in our Future, Australian Institute for Social Research, Retrieved from: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/wiser/docs/Clyde_Hertzman_Transcription .pdf Hoffman-Eckstein, J., et al. (2008). Children’s agency in communities: A review of literature and the policy and practice context. ARACY/ARC NHMRC Research Network. Mitchell, M., (2014). Children’s Rights in Early Childhood Education and Care. Early Childhood Australia Annual General Meeting. Retrieved from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/childrens-rightsearly-childhood-education-and-care

20

Chapter One

McInnes, E., & Diamond, A., (2011). Evaluation of a child and family centre: FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub. School of Education, University of South Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/FamilyZone_Ingle _Farm_Hub_2011_Evaluation.pdf National Compact - Working Together. (2011) Retrieved from: http://www.nationalcompact.gov.au/sites/www.nationalcompact.gov.a u/files/files/final_national_compact_web.pdf Nechvoglod., (2005) Report on the findings from the Salisbury Communities for Children Initiative facilitated by Ingle Farm Salvation Army regarding the ‘Community Strategic Plan’ - consultation with the community. P3. Retrieved from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/SC4C_de_Lissa_R esearch_Institute_Report.pdf Peterson, C., & Seligman, M., (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues a Handbook and Classification, Oxford University Press. PriceǦRobertson, R., Bromfield ,L.& Vassallo , S. (2010). What is the prevalence of child abuse and neglect in Australia? A review of the evidence. AIFS conference, Melbourne. www.aifs.gov.au Pritchard, P., (2010). Integrated Child and Family Communities. Presentation at Children Communities Connections 2010 Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Developing_Integr ated_Child_&_Family_Communities.pdf Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business (2012) Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2010-11. Rinaldi, Carla., (2012). Child and Youth Friendly City Forum, Adelaide, March 2012 Scott, Dorothy.,(2012). Protecting Vulnerable Children: Can South Australia Rise Again to the Challenge? Catherine Helen Spence Commemorative Oration. Retrieved from: http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2012events/2012CHS_Orat ion.asp Seligman, M., (2012). Inaugural Thinker in Residence Address, Retrieved from: http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/Thinkers/MartinSeligman/video.aspx Silverman, E., Lupton, R., & Fenton, A., (2005). A good place for children? Attracting and retaining families in inner urban mixed communities, Chartered Institute of Housing/JRF, p12. South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee Eighth Annual Report for 2010, February 2012, p6

CHAPTER TWO REACHING OUT TO GENERATION Y & Z MUMS AND DADS LESLEY-ANNE EY

Along with social, political and economic elements, the rise of new technologies have been influential in shaping generation Y and Z. We have seen the emergence of a technologically savvy population which has brought advantages and disadvantages to these generations. This chapter explores how social media is shaping children and families living in a digital world and examines implications around social media and digital technology. It then considers the importance of quality family relationships for children’s healthy development in light of the ‘UK Sure Start initiative’ findings that the most significant factor in determining positive outcomes for children is their home learning environment (Melhuish, 2010). Because children’s experiences, interactions and activities in their homes have a much more significant effect on child outcomes than group care or formal schooling (Eisenstadt, 2011), what parents do with their children is of great importance. We recognise that possessing technological skills is important for individuals to effectively function in our digital environment. As such engaging with digital technology has become a very time consuming activity for some. For generation Y and Z mums and dads, who have been immersed in digital technology since their early years, balancing digital technology with quality face-to-face family and community relationships needs to be highlighted as matter that needs consideration. This chapter aims to explain how to do this effectively and how to use such technology to build strong, healthy and supportive family and community relationships.

22

Chapter Two

Characteristics of Generation Y & Z Social researcher Hugh McKay identified these characteristics of what is called Generation Y back in 1997. “Gen Y was born between 1980 and 1995 and are also known as the Millennium or Net Generation. Millenials are very technology wise and are comfortable with ethnically diverse groups. They are optimistic, confident, sociable, and have strong morals and a sense of civic duty. Gen Y are not brand loyal and the speed of the Internet has led the Net Generation to be flexible and changing in its fashion, style, consciousness and where and how it is communicated with.” (McKay, 1997)

Industry analyst Naren Sivasailam described how the 21st Century exponential information explosion has impacted Generation Z or the Internet Generation in the following manner. They are thoughtful, aware and moral, but doubt their ability to change their world. This is Generation Z, born in the early to mid-1990s, and now aged 16-22. They are also known as Gen M (for multi-tasking), Gen C (connected), and the Net (or Internet) generation. They are the compassionate and tech-savvy generation. They are more cynical because they are so aware of being marketed to, but they are also empathetic because they are so much more aware of what is going on, not just in Australia but around the world. They have been exposed to a lot more. The IBIS World analysis found a level of disengagement, with 50.8 per cent of Gen Z feeling unable to have a say on important community issues (Sivasailam, as cited in Ife 2012).

These observations identify a growth in positive attitudes and behaviours in this group, such as an acceptance of diversity; however they also identify potentially damaging attitudes, such as a sense of disengagement from community.

Influence of technology Children are growing up in a world that is immensely different from previous generations. They are exposed to violence, sex, pornography, gambling, drugs and alcohol at an earlier age through television, electronic games and online media. We have laws for alcohol consumption and gambling access but there are insufficient regulations to manage children’s online access to adult themes. In this technological age, children are dealing with an online avalanche of information that can be useful or

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

23

harmful to their developing minds. Critical changes in the socio-historical conditions that afford children’s exposure to such themes include a rise in the diversity of technologies, allowing greater access to multiple media platforms (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2007). Young people and children’s access to online devices in recent years has increased dramatically. In the US, mobile media use of children aged 0-8 years, has almost doubled between 2011 and 2013, from 52 per cent to 75 percent, while the amount of time children spend using mobile devices tripled, from 38 per cent to 72 per cent (Common Sense Media, 2013). In Australia, in 2013, 75 per cent of children aged 6-13 years had access to mobile devices (Roy Morgan Research, 2014). This has increased by 46 per cent from the 2012 data which showed 29 per cent of children aged 514 years owned or had access to mobile devices (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). Some 40 per cent of Australian families owned tablets in 2013 compared to only eight per cent in 2011. Those owning or using tablets included 57 per cent of children aged 10-13 years and 49 per cent aged 6-9 years (Roy Morgan Research, 2014). With such technology at their fingertips, we have seen a rise in children’s engagement with social media. According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (2009) 37 per cent of children aged 8-9 years interact with social media. This escalates dramatically with age; 64 per cent of 10-11 year olds, 80 per cent of 12-13 year olds, 94 per cent of 14-15 year olds and by 16-17 years, 97 per cent of young people are engaged in this technology. The benefit of this high use of digital technology is the opportunity it provides for community services to connect with young people through devices familiar to them. Risks are associated with the overuse of such technology.

Implications around social media use Social media refers to ‘online services designed as platforms for communities of people who share interests’ (Australian Communication and Media Authority, 2009, p. 8). It is a tool that allows people to keep in touch (ACMA, 2011), connect with others (ACMA; 2009; 2011, Livingstone & Brake, 2010), share experiences and advice, and support one another (Livingstone & Brake, 2010). It also allows children and young people to express themselves and explore self- and social-identity (ACMA, 2011; Livingstone & Brake, 2010). Alongside the positives of using social media however, there are risks.

24

Chapter Two

One of the most widely recognised risks associated with social media is cyber-bullying. Cyberbullying is particularly destructive because the internet allows anonymity, is accessible 24 hours a day, can reach a broader audience, written and visual media can remain visible, and it can have a snowballing effect (Campbell, Slee, Spears, Butler & Kift 2013; Siegle 2010). This can lead to ongoing bullying at children’s schools or young people’s workplaces (ACMA, 2011; Cross, Shaw, Hearn, Epstein, Monks, Lester & Thomas 2009; Weeden, Cooke & McVey 2013), which may cause social isolation (Cross, Shaw, Hearn, Epstein, Monks, Lester & Thomas 2009) mental instability (Price, Chin, Higa-McMillan, Kim & Frueh 2013; Hinduja & Patchin 2010) and at the extreme end of the continuum, suicide (Hinduja & Patchin 2010). In Australia, in 2009, 63 per cent of children aged 8-15 years had either been a victim of cyberbullying or had cyberbullied others (ACMA, 2009). This has declined over the past five years to 36 per cent of children aged 8-17 years (Cross-Tab Marketing Services & Telecommunications Research Group 2014). Other concerns around social media, particularly for children, include exposure to strangers, predators or paedophiles, sharing of private information, being stalked, social media posts going viral and implications around children’s and young people’s digital footprint (ACMA, 2009). Developmentally children are not forward thinkers and young people are risk takers (Berk, 2012). Posting disparaging posts, such as racial slurs or sending and receiving sexual messages can work against their future employment prospects. Equally, they can go viral or may lead to cyberbullying. Digital footprints are also a method used by marketers to collect data about individuals which they use to market their products to them. Impersonation is another rising concern, which occurs when internet users copy an individual’s profile picture and construct other social networking pages, pretending to be the person whose picture they have hijacked (Siegle 2010). According to Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), (2011), checking in using social media can be a privacy issue, in that; savvy users can obtain addresses of where children have checked in. Possibly one of the most dangerous risks are children and young people meeting internet friends in the real world (ACMA 2009). In the United Kingdom, it was reported that 11 per cent of children aged 9-16 years were sexually assaulted by someone from their cyber-world whom they met with face-to-face (Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzig & Olafsson 2011).

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

25

Implications around other digital technology Other experts show concerns about the impact excessive use of digital technology has on brain structuring, arguing that the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember (Carr, 2010; Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009). A Stanford University study found that heavy multitaskers are more easily distracted and are much less able to concentrate on a particular task (Ophir et al, 2009). The professor who led the research described multi-taskers as “suckers for irrelevancy” as “everything distracts them” (Carr, 2010). Carr (2010) suggests that constant exposure to electronic media is causing users to think differently. The development of the printing press in the fifteenth century led to a culture of deeper reflection as books that engaged readers in more intense analytic thought processes were published. He suggests that those living in the world of Google and hyperlinks no longer gather information in the same contemplative manner. We click on links until we find what we are looking for without getting too involved in broadly analysing the information. He proposes that this may lead users to reach different conclusions than the more extended path of engaging with the whole text, which generates more in depth thinking about the issues involved. He also claims that our brains need time away from distractions to process information to be stored in our long term memory. Without such time we end up with a lot of short term information which quickly disappears from memory. Our capacity to ‘think things through’ is depleted and decision making becomes based on a very shallow analysis of the factors involved. Other concerns revolve around the impact of social media on building and maintaining healthy relationships (Seigel, 2013; Turkle, 2011).

The foundation of quality relationships The quality of family relationships is very important for children’s social, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Parents serve as role models in which children learn social and family values and how to develop relationships. Parents who work together as a team ‘are more likely to engage in effective co-parenting, mutually supporting each other’s parenting behaviours’ (Berk, 2012, p. 70). Teamwork is about working together to solve the solvable problems, manage the unsolvable ones and manage conflict when it arises. ‘Warm, gratifying family ties

26

Chapter Two

predict physical and psychological health throughout development’ (Berk, 2012, p. 69) Research identifies that strong parent-child relationships are a key factor in raising children. In an ideal world, healthy development occurs when parents and children experience healthy relationships. The foundation of these relationships occurs in early childhood. It is in these years that attachment is developed. The attachments formed in infancy are critical and have a lasting effect on future relationships, including friendships, romantic relations and parenting (Peterson, 2014). Factors that enhance attachment include caregiver sensitivity and parent-child synchrony. This basically means parents respond to their child in a happy and enthusiastic manner and who are sensitive and responsive to their child’s interaction cues (Peterson, 2014). From these attachments, children acquire working models through which the child’s brain receives messages about how relationships are conducted and is wired accordingly. Neurons are connected to each other according to the developing child’s experiences with their caregivers. Emotional self-regulation and social behaviour becomes deeply embedded in the lower parts of the brain during the first few years, and the patterns of behaviour developed during this time are highly resistant to change in later years (Perry, 2009). The emergence of neuroscience (the scientific study of the nervous system) has allowed us to map the impacts of parental nurture or the lack of it, on brain development, affirming the critical role of parents and caregivers in terms of physical, social, emotional, cognitive and spiritual development. Neuroscience presents compelling evidence that children’s early experiences, environment and the quality of parental relationships are significant to the structuring of children’s brains and have a greater influence on children’s learning and development than genetics (Winter, 2010). This emphasises the importance of the parent’s role in building and maintaining strong relationships. Successful relationships require extensive and open communication. Such communication needs to be nurtured and maintained. Before the escalation of technology as a form of communication most families talked to each other more and in a lot more depth. In a cyber-connected world the art of the in-depth conversation is waning. Social media does not easily support a deep sense of family connection. Cyber-connecting can end up creating more stress, less meaning and more loneliness in our world (Seigel, 2013), if not accompanied with face-to-face connections.

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

27

MIT Technology & Society Professor Sherry Turkle highlights the challenges of maintaining real relationships in an online world. Texting and e-mail and posting lets us present the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much, not too little — just right. Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we short-change ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference (Turkle, 2011).

We have highlighted the impact of technology and the information superhighway on the self and on quality relationships and the importance of obtaining a healthy balance. The prevalence of social media means it has now become a popular tool for connecting. This next section will explore how young parents can balance technology and parenting and how child and family services can engage with these new ways of connecting to support parents.

Balancing technology and parenting As identified earlier, quality parent-child relationships influence attachment (Peterson, 2014), social, emotional and psychological wellbeing (Berk, 2012), and brain structuring (Perry, 2009). This highlights the importance of parents nurturing strong and successful relationships with their children. From birth, it is essential that parents respond to and communicate with their babies. Infants who receive this type of quality parenting develop secure attachments and trusting relationships with the world and are likely to have better language skills, social skills and overall enhanced development (Peterson 2014). Besides responding to babies’ general needs it is important to interact with them. Talking to babies while you are holding them, feeding them and bathing them helps develop secure attachment and trust. As they get older, listening to them and giving them eye contact when they are speaking to you helps their language, social and emotional development. Talking to children as you are going about your general day-to-day duties helps develop their understanding of the world. This general interaction lets them know they are important and builds quality parent-child relationships (Berk, 2012; Peterson, 2014).

28

Chapter Two

It is important to play with children. Setting aside time to play with concrete materials and imaginative play such as blocks, puzzles, dress-ups or going to the park develops children’s fine and gross motor skills, alongside problem solving, imagination, creativity, cause and effect and other cognitive and social skills (Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward 2010). The interactions that occur through play tell children that parents are fully paying attention to them and help to build enduring relationships (Ginsburg, 2007, p. 183). Although digital technology is vast becoming a new avenue for children’s play, experts recommend that engagement with such technology before the age of 2 years should be avoided and from 2 years children should only engage with screen media for one to two hours a day, including television (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014). This does not mean that parents should spend their every waking hour doting over their children. To be constantly interacting with babies and toddlers in particular, will overstimulate them This can impact on their other general needs such as sleep and relaxation. Parents need to learn parent-child synchrony, which basically means that parents need to be available to interact with children when they want to socialise and withdraw when they want or need solitude (Peterson, 2014). To summarise, parents need to develop strong and nurturing relationships with their children and set aside quality time to read, play and interact with them giving their full attention. But what about the parents? How do they obtain support? As outlined above digital technology can provide parents with opportunities to gain information, socialise and feel a sense of belonging (Livingstone & Brake, 2010). However, these activities should be separated. Trying to engage with media and children at the same time limits the quality of engagement parents are able to provide.

Supporting families through the cyber-world In recent years there has been a significant gap between the way young people use technology compared with the lack of digital literacy of some community support services (Knight & Hunter, 2013). If we are to effectively connect with generation Y and Z we need to also use social media, online communication and web-based technologies. These technologies are the predominant language and culture of young parents and have the potential to generate social transformation if used positively.

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

29

A clear advantage of the cyber-world is that it provides multiple modes of communication opportunities that are accessible 24 hours a day. Child and family community services therefore need to implement media technology to reach parents more readily through web pages, Facebook pages, twitter accounts and other apps. In the past decade, consistent with the explosion of social media (ACMA, 2009), we have seen a lot of parenting websites, resources and courses developed for new parents. While this is encouraging, it can also be confusing for parents to identify which sources are valuable, reliable and credible. There are many bloggers who discuss personal parenting experiences, give advice and provide opportunities for some great parent discourse; however, the majority of these sources are opinion based. The best parenting resources are informed by evidence based research. A good model for parenting advice and guidance for developing and implementing child and family support programs has been developed through ‘The Engaging Families in the Early Childhood Development Story’ project. This document, A tool kit for working with families from pre-birth to 8 years: Engaging families in the early childhood development story, is also known as the Early Childhood Development Parenting Toolkit. The social marketing media strategy of the project envisages television and print media, website and mobile phone applications, social media and promotional events (Eleutheriou, 2012). According to the ‘Early Childhood Development Parenting Toolkit’, community services are essential for supporting and improving children and family outcomes. The challenge for such services is to provide services reflective of the needs of the community and nurture community engagement by ‘offering many ways to engage, and communicate regularly and clearly with parents’ (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, 2013, p. 22). Traditionally parents were referred to or sought community services and attended such services face-to-face, and obviously the continuation of face-to-face interaction and programs is supported. However, such services have limitations as they can only be accessed during particular hours, usually 9am-5pm Monday to Friday. So how do we support cyber-connected young parents? We enter their online world of social media and provide opportunities for parents to connect, seek help, explore and problem solve traditional and new issues that generation Y and Z parents are faced with, such as cyber-bullying,

30

Chapter Two

exposure to overtly sexualised images, and 1,000+ approaches to parenting. Current online community support services include Australian Council on Children and the Media’s (ACCM) ‘Know before you Go’, movie service, and ‘Know before you Load’ App review service. Others include Australian Communication and Media Authority’s (ACMA) Cybersmart service. Although such services are informative they do not provide opportunities for individual discourse. To assist parents in managing new issues and convey the importance of building family relationships and balancing media interaction, community services need to connect with families, providing opportunities for research based discourse, in language and through media that engages generation Y & Z parents and caregivers.

Social media and apps Recent research exploring multimedia mobile and video users found that approximately 89 per cent of adult smartphone users and 81 per cent of tablet users used apps with mobile web (Nielsen, 2014). These figures are likely to be similar for younger users such as adolescent parents. This means apps should be considered as a means to connect with parents. Apps afford the opportunity to connect with Generation Y and Z through social media, disseminating information and can even be used for productivity. With over 1,310,000,000 users (Statistic Brain, 2013), Facebook is a good avenue in which child and family services can connect with people. A Communities for Children staff member who worked with young mum’s found Facebook to be a primary means of connecting with vulnerable young mums. She set up a Facebook account in response to their request when some of them indicated that this was their preferred means of communication rather than phone contact. This page did not contain personal information other than her role as a young mums mentor working with Communities for Children. Young mums were made aware that the site was only for young mums and were given the opportunity to invite their parents to join if they thought this was going to be of benefit for them. This site provided opportunities for the Communities for Children mentor to match young mums with other members of this page, commonly mums a couple of years older, through which they were able to provide support for one another which also helped build their confidence.

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

31

Facebook has the advantage of offering instant support in a way that traditional community service models cannot. Weekly or fortnightly faceto-face visits can pose time, financial and other challenges and can exclude working mums. So although we value face-to-face programs and advocate for young mums to attend these, we also recognise that sometimes this may not be possible due to sickness or other matters, and having a Facebook community allows mums continuous access to support in times of need. Having instantaneous support can be beneficial for mums in times of crisis. The Communities for Children staff mentor reported that one young mum, who was 20 weeks pregnant, posted that she was in pain. The mentor called the client and offered to take her to hospital. The young mum was diagnosed with kidney problems, resulting in her being closely monitored and supported throughout the rest of her pregnancy. In another case a young mum posted “What the hell!” When the staff mentor contacted the young mum, she told her that she had had a fight with her boyfriend and he had come back during the night threatening to ‘trash’ her house. The staff mentor visited her immediately and together they established an action plan. These two incidents could have potentially been devastating, but such devastation was avoided through the timely support of community services. As well as crisis management, Facebook also gives young mums the opportunity to discuss child development, parenting skills and seek general support and friendship. Mentors can monitor discussions, giving them the opportunity to guide young mums, provide positive feedback and help build a strong online community. Mentors can also post research based information about optimal child development such as building quality relationships and the importance of such relationships on children’s general development. Such information can be summarised to provide some insight into better parenting and links to more in-depth information can be posted for mums who want to know more. If carefully crafted, to be short yet informative, such information will be read by young mums, adding to their understanding and knowledge base about children’s development and parenting. A limitation in using Facebook as a form of communication and support for families is it can be vulnerable to members bullying one another and posting abusive or inappropriate comments. When using this platform, clear guidelines about acceptable behaviour and netiquette must

32

Chapter Two

be a priority and explained to all members. Mentors would need to monitor this and ensure they have clear guidelines, policies and protocols, including consequences for those who abuse the system. Twitter offers a more abbreviated social media platform that is potentially useful when used to tweet links to more substantial communications such as websites or online videos. The implication of this for family support is that we need to make relevant information available through youth and family friendly websites and making family support videos available online. These sites can be easily linked to tweets. The Australian Government’s Raising Children Network website is an example of a comprehensive collaborative effort to make reliable parenting information accessible to families.

Conclusion Parenting is a ‘lifelong process and a reciprocal one’ (Peterson, 2014) often bringing joy and heartache to parents as they navigate the challenges confronting them on a daily basis. Digital technology has the ability to support and present risks for parents and children alike. Generation Y and Z parents use such technologies to socialise and seek information and support. Therefore it is important for child and family community services to take advantage of the cyber-world to connect with and support young families. Community service providers have not always engaged as well with the younger demographic as could be the case. In light of this many are beginning to take steps to utilise social media to reach the digital generation. Adapting to technological change is a slow and ongoing process but is a space child and family services need to occupy to improve support for modern generations.

References American Academy of Pediatrics., (2014). Media and children, Retrieved from: http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives /Pages/Media-and-Children.aspx Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). CensusATSchool. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Communications and Media Authority (2009). Click and connect: Young Australians’ use of online social media, Melbourne. Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

33

Australian Communications and Media Authority., (2011). Like, post, share: Young Australians’ experience of social media. Melbourne, Australian Communications and Media Authority. —. (2007). Media and communications in Australian families 2007: Report of the media and society research project. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Council on Children and the Media. http://childrenandmedia.org.au/movie-reviews/ Berk, L., (2012). Infants, children, and adolescents (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Campbell, M., Slee, P.T., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S., (2013), ‘Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health’, School Psychology International, pp. 1-17. Carr, N., (2010). The Shallows - How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember, Atlantic books, pps 142, 176, 182-193. Common Sense Media., (2013). Zero to eight children’s media use in America 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/zeroto-eight-2013.pdf Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L., (2009). Australian covert bullying prevalence study, Perth, Edith Cowan University. Cross-Tab Marketing Research Services & Telecommunications Research Group, (2014)., Online bullying among youth 8-17 years old – Australia, Redmond, Microsoft Corporation. Eleutheriou, K.,(2012). Engaging families in the early childhood development story, Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Engaging_Familie s_in_the_ECD_Story.pdf Eisenstadt, N., (2011) Providing a sure start – How government discovered early childhood. Policy Press Ginsberg, K.R., (2007). ‘The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds’ Pediatrics, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 182-191. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J., (2010). ‘ Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide’, Archives of Suicide Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 206-221. Ife, H. (2012). ‘Gen Z the most savvy bunch on earth’, Herald Sun, Melbourne, cited 13 April 2013 at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/gen-z-the-most-savvy-bunch-onearth/story-fn6bfkm6-1226325264533

34

Chapter Two

Knight, K, & Hunter, C., (2013). Using technology in service delivery to families, children and young people, Child Family Community Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Livingstone, S, & Brake, D., (2010). ‘On the rapid rise of social networking sites: New findings and policy implications’, Children and Society, vol. 24, no. 1 , pp. 75-83. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A., & Olafsson, K, (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings, London, EU Kids Online. McKay, Hugh., 1997. Generations, McMillan Australia Pty Ltd Melhuish, E., Belsky, J., MacPherson,K., and Cullis, A. (2010). The quality of group childcare settings used by 3-4 year old children in sure start local programme areas and the relationship with child outcomes. Nottingham: DfE publications. Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) (2013). A tool kit for working with families from pre-birth to 8 years: Engaging families in the early childhood development story. Retrieved from: http://www.aracy.org.au/documents/item/97 The Nielsen Company., (2014). An era of growth with the cross-platform report, New York, Nielsen. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A.D., (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers, Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 2009 106 (37) 15583-15587; published ahead of print August 24, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106 Perry, B., (2009). ‘Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics’., Journal of Loss and Trauma., pp 254-248. Peterson., C., (2014) Looking forward through the lifespan: Developmental psychology,6th edn: Frenchs Forest, Pearson. Price, M., Chin, M., Higa-McMillan, C., Kim, S., & Frueh, C., (2013). ‘Prevalence and internalizing problems of ethnoracially diverse victims of traditional and cyber bullying’ School Mental Health, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 183-191. Roy Morgan Research., (2014). Young Australians survey Retrieved from: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5486-tablet-computer-use-nowmainstream-among-young-australians-december-2013-201403132227 Seigel, D., (2013). March Newsletter, Retrieved from: http://[email protected] —. (2010). ‘Cyberbullying and sexting: Technology abuses of the 21st century, Gifted Child Today, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 14-17

Reaching Out to Generation Y & Z Mums and Dads

35

Statistic Brain, (2013). ‘Facebook statistics’, Statistic Brain: Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/ Turkle, S., (2011) Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books. Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward., (2010). Play at the center of the curriculum, 5th edn: Upper Saddle River, Pearson. Weeden, S., Cooke, B., & McVey, M., (2013). ‘Underage children and social networking’ Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 249-262. Winter, P., (2010). Engaging families in the early childhood development story: Final report, Education Services Australia Ltd., p7

CHAPTER THREE INTEGRATING PRACTICE ACROSS SUBSTANCE ABUSE, FAMILY VIOLENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH KARL BRETTIG WITH MICHAEL WHITE

Along with the various developmental, psychological and sociological issues that create challenges for parents to engage in healthy child raising practices, many parents also struggle with drug & alcohol, mental health and domestic violence issues. Children who have parents with complex issues have been found to be vulnerable to poor social and emotional development. Parent’s complex issues and associated behaviours often impact negatively on a child’s development. This can manifest as difficulties with self-regulation leading to a range of challenges in social, emotional, learning and language development. One of the key mechanisms associated with this effect on child development is the stress hormone cortisol. When a child is repeatedly exposed to stressors, such as inconsistent messages from caregivers, family violence or substance misuse the developing brain can be impacted with disrupted development of healthy neural pathways. This in turn can affect the child’s learning, socialisation and emotional regulation leading to negative outcomes. This chapter looks at how we might go about developing a more holistic, whole of family, integrated approach to working with children and families impacted by these issues. Prevention and reduction of the harmful impacts of parental behaviour requires ongoing policy changes, improved collaboration between services and expanded education and training aimed at building the workforce capacity of both adult and child welfare services (Scott, 2009, Evans, 2012). When child and family practitioners deal with drug and alcohol issues they are often also dealing with domestic violence and/or mental health issues. Children who grow up in families struggling with such

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

37

complex issues may often grow into adulthood suffering the effects of severe trauma. The younger the child the more serious the impact the trauma is likely to be as critical periods of brain development occur in the early years (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2010, Moore & McDonald, 2013) . While some children grow up with complex issues, some develop resilience and go on to have comparatively ordinary lives. Supporting parents to deal with their complex issues can have significant benefits for their children. Identifying what supports childhood resilience could also provide valuable insights into how to support children who have experienced trauma. Traumatised children who have grown up struggling with the ability to self-regulate, grow into adulthood and some become parents. They may engage in problem drug use in early adulthood and this can affect later parenting skills even if they no longer use when they become parents (Bailey et al, 2013). Thus the cycle of parent substance misuse, problematic parenting practices, family violence, challenging child behaviours and child protection issues continues to perpetuate from generation to generation (Bailey, 2009). This chapter explores some of the changes required at system, sector organisation and worker level to break the cycle of intergenerational risk and harm.

Policy Frameworks At the broadest level there is a requirement for the development of legislation, policy frameworks, practice guidelines and organisational policies and procedures to support child and family sensitive practice. Taken together these systems components can create an authorising environment which empowers organisations and workers to act collaboratively across sectoral boundaries (Winkwoth and White 2011). The development of such frameworks has commenced at national level. In 2009 the Australian Government endorsed the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009 - 2020. It was based on a public health model (Scott, 2006) with priority given to universal supports available for all families, secondary prevention interventions and tertiary child protection services as a last resort. The framework endorsed a wide range of existing federal, state and NGO initiatives, recommended improvements, expansions and redesign of some of these and the implementation of new initiatives such as the Common Approach to Assessment, Referral and Support (CAARS) and the Building Bridges Building Capacity initiative (ACCP,2011). It provided a platform for the

38

Chapter Three

delivery of timely, appropriate support and services to ensure children’s safety and promote their long term wellbeing. The framework identified domestic violence, parental alcohol and drug abuse and parental mental health problems as key risk factors associated with child abuse and neglect. Three year action plans are being developed and reported against and the framework has bipartisan support from both sides of politics. The 2012 -15 Action Plan incorporates more than ninety activities and includes strategies to enhance alcohol and substance abuse initiatives that provide additional support for families as well as strategies to reduce family violence and increase support for people with mental health illness. The framework provides a platform for the long term implementation of a whole of community, government and family approach to child protection and wellbeing. Within similar timeframes a number of adult service sectors have incorporated child and family sensitive practice into their policy frameworks. For example, the National Drug Strategy, the Natural Mental Health Strategy, the National Homelessness Strategy and the National Framework to Prevent Violence Against Women all incorporate constructs relating to child /and family sensitive practice. Most Australian states have also developed various policy documents addressing the need for integrated family support services. In South Australia the 2005 Virtual Village Report recommendations included building an integrated service system based on the development of a new concept of child and family centres in which all services are coordinated using a whole of government planning and management system that can meet the challenges of delivering joined up services (DECS, 2005). These recommendations were given impetus by the 2008 report of Canadian Thinker in Residence Dr Fraser Mustard who looked at the level of fragmentation of the various government departments, community and non-government organisations and observed that programs were “poorly integrated and confusing” (Mustard, 2008). There have been some concerted attempts to bring about integration with the federal government programs through the Council of Australian Governments. On the ground initiatives such as Communities for Children (C4C) represent systems based approaches to support families. In South Australia significant partnerships between C4C and a range of other services have sought to build bridges across the sectoral divide. Examples include the

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

39

development of relationships between C4C services and the Department of Education and Child Development forged through initiatives such as the planning and implementation of the Children Communities Connections conferences (2008, 2010, 2012) in Adelaide in partnership with organisations such as the Australian Centre for Child Protection. The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction partnered with the 2012 CCC conference adding the perspective of the alcohol and other drugs sector to the emerging discourse on family sensitive service integration. Other developments have included the integration of a number of other C4C initiatives with state education services including the FamilyZone Ingle Farm and Seaton Central child and family centres.

Family sensitive practice In developing a more integrated approach to understanding the causes, prevention and treatment of problems associated with alcohol and other drugs, family sensitive policy and practice is key to implementing a holistic public health approach (Battams & Roche, 2010). It involves raising awareness of the impact of substance misuse on the whole family and addressing the needs of each member (Addaction, 2009, p10). Family sensitive practice involves working with the whole family rather than just the adults or children. To address drug, alcohol and mental health issues in relation to parenting and caregiving from a child and family sensitive perspective we need to develop services that can support parents to adequately care for their children. This requires the provision of the right services at the right time to meet their needs. Child-focused services need to become ‘parent sensitive’ and adult -focused services need to become both ‘parent’ and ‘child sensitive’ and each needs to work collaboratively with the other (Scott, 2009, Francis & White, 2012). To do this effectively requires effective prevention and early intervention strategies, appropriately targeted secondary and tertiary services and ecological, evidence informed, family centred and relationship-based service delivery models. Effective delivery of such services requires integrated and collaborative service delivery models. At the family level, helping parents to understand the traumatic effects of problem drug and alcohol affected behaviours and associated issues, such as family violence on the developing brains of children can be a powerful motivator for parents and caregivers to initiate adult behavioural

40

Chapter Three

change. There are many ways for workers to support parents with behaviour change. Practitioners working with vulnerable parents ideally need to have a good understanding of trauma inducing behaviours and access to resources to support them to effectively communicate the potential impact of such behaviours on their client’s children. They need skills to be able to better assist parents to mitigate the risk of harm to their children. To do this they also need the skills to develop the kind of relationships with vulnerable parents that are strong enough for them to have significant influence on their behaviours.

Developing a collaborative and integrated approach Having successfully engaged at risk parents, practitioners need to assist them to transition into other services or to work with professionals from complementary disciplines in order to holistically address family issues in an integrated manner. For this to happen professionals need to work collaboratively as a committed team. This requires individual practitioners to have warm relationships with practitioners from a range of professions. These relationships form the basis of what Scott (2009) and others refer to as “warm referrals”. At a more advanced level this can be reflected in the development of inter-organisational and inter-sectoral teams. In their most productive form these teams need to be seen as entities in their own right, comprised of the sum of the professionals involved (Boshoff & Stewart, 2012). Without cohesive practice across the modalities necessary to support a particular family, it is highly likely that the vulnerable parents, lacking the necessary integrated support, will most likely continue to struggle with issues related to dysfunctional behaviours. One way that cross sectoral team and practice cohesion can be improved is through the development and availability of inter sectoral practice resources (White et al, 2014). Often the most salient factor that may motivate parents to work towards behavioural change is their desire to improve outcomes for their children. A key role for both statutory child protection agencies and other organisations working with families, is to support adults with complex issues to address their behaviours and mitigate risk to their children. While facing the possibility of losing contact with their children is a severe consequence, for some parents that risk may well lead to better lifestyle choices. Conversely, for some losing the hope of reunification can have a significant demotivating effect. Child protection and welfare services and adult services would do well to work in integrated ways that ensure that

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

41

the needs of both adult and child clients are met. Sometimes this requires the capacity to manage complex and often conflicting interests. Historically child protection and adult specialist services have struggled to share information (eg SA Child Death and Serious Injury Committee Reports). However, with adequate information sharing protocols in place, the team around the family can work together towards the best possible outcome for the children involved, with each professional contributing. Work done in South Australia on information sharing protocols is showing promise here. The inclusion of questions about parenting, child care responsibilities and protective factors for children, in adult service intake and assessment materials can create the capacity for services to identify and support adult clients who are parents. It also enables services to identify where the children of their clients who could be receiving support are living. This can assist adult services to identify children and families in need of additional support. A recent UK study on joint working between adult and children’s services with parents or carers who have mental ill health and/or drug and alcohol problems, found that drug and alcohol services had a much higher quality of joint working than adult mental health services in working with children’s social care needs (Ofsted, 2013). The researchers suggested that the better performance of the drug and alcohol sector in relation to joint working was related to the requirement of their local areas to report on the number of adults with children. This was not required of adult mental health services. The study recommended that mental health services be required to collect data regarding parents or carers who have mental health difficulties and that all services have a responsibility to consider the needs of any child in the family and refer them for support services. It is more likely that family sensitive practice will occur where the collection of relevant data related to family status is a requirement in the reporting process. The collection of data can start a conversation about potential impacts on children. Ofsted also noted that two mechanisms important to developing appropriate skills and knowledge necessary for family sensitive practice are joint training (that is training that engages workers from two more sectors) and supervision that ensures practitioners have a thorough understanding of the impact of these difficulties on children. Similar practices are emerging in Australia, however there is not yet a requirement on most adult services that they collect data on the children of their clients.

42

Chapter Three

Reciprocally, there would be value for child and family welfare services identifying the issues that parents have (e.g., mental health, alcohol and other drugs, housing, homelessness and family violence) and assisting those parents not engaged with adult support services to do so.

The importance of peer support Peer support is emerging as a possible potential source of additional support for families that may lead to more successful outcomes. Alcoholics Anonymous have understood this well and led the way in delivering effective peer support based interventions over many years. If we can gather positive peer support around vulnerable parents we will have gone some way to overcoming some of the seemingly intractable barriers to improving outcomes for families. The Family by Family initiative is an example of what can be done through peer support (Australian Centre for Social Innovation, 2012) as are effective children and family centres linked with volunteer home visiting programs. In many cases negative peer pressure may have the opposite effect. Australia has a culture which is at best tolerant of alcohol misuse and at worst actively encouraging of it, most visibly fuelled by advertising. All Australians but most importantly those with alcohol issues face a constant barrage of TV commercials advertising alcohol in insensitive ways which may contribute to the negative aspects of peer pressure. Faith communities can also provide positive peer support. They create social connectedness and meaning arising from shared spiritual practices and may also have a significant role in preventing adverse outcomes for families. There is mounting scientific evidence for positive impacts of spirituality on multiple indicators of health. Studies of adolescent behaviour have found that higher levels of religious involvement are inversely related to alcohol and drug use, smoking, sexual activity, depressive symptoms and suicide risk. Studies of Australian school students have also shown that religiosity is inversely related to a broad range of risk behaviours (Williams & Sternthal, 2007).

Spiritual practices can have a significant place in holistic work with vulnerable families. Loss of meaning and purpose almost inevitably leads to risky behaviours less likely to be contemplated by those who have a greater sense of identity and purpose.

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

43

Therapeutic approaches Those affected by drug, alcohol, family violence and mental health issues need to be supported to address the consequences, which may include grief and loss and, trauma-induced emotional pain. This may result in social disengagement and a lack of emotional self-regulation. A number of interventions show promise. Trauma Focussed Cognitive Behavioural Therapy offers considerable hope as do therapeutic techniques based on the Neuro-sequential Model of Therapeutics (Perry, 2006). This approach underlines the importance of therapy starting with the lower regions of the brain which relate to self-regulation, attention, arousal and impulsivity. It uses techniques such as music and movement, breathing or therapeutic massage (Perry, 2009). Once self-regulation has improved, CBT and mindfulness therapies are more likely to be effective. Dialectical Behavioural Therapy which includes dialogue around working out presenting problems in relationships with a therapist, when linked with CBT has also been found to be effective (NH&MRC, 2012). Parents need to understand the serious effect witnessing family violence can have on their child’s development. Domestic violence has no place in any relationship, at any time but more so when children are a party to, or present to see it occurring. Children who are subjected to or witness domestic violence need to be supported with some urgency to help them deal with the traumatic impact these experiences can have on their lives. Without supportive interventions their ability to self-regulate may be compromised by the elevated stress levels which can severely impact their developing brains, often leaving them hyper-vigilant to danger. They may feel a constant sense of fear, expecting a recurrence of danger or harm, even when it is unlikely. Hyper vigilance is in effect being in a permanent state of ‘fight or flight’ (Perry, 2004). The advent of therapeutic parenting programs as a means of providing high structure and high nurture parenting behaviours needed for a traumatised child to begin to heal, is a promising development. The Salvation Army in Tasmania have initiated an accessible early intervention resource using children’s books, puppets and other activities to help children process the experiences of feeling unsafe and insecure (Kuilenberg & Spinney, 2011). Sharon Dawe and Paul Harnett have developed a comprehensive integrated framework for working with vulnerable parents appropriately called Parents under Pressure (Harnett & Dawe, 2008).

44

Chapter Three

Tertiary prevention programs There are a range of organisations working on developing programs and resources to support workers or parents to provide better support to children affected by complex family dynamics. Australia’s National Research Centre on Education and Training in Addiction has developed a Family Sensitive Policy and Practice Toolkit to assist practitioners working with families with alcohol and other drugs problems (Battams et al, 2010). It outlines a range of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention programs being delivered in the alcohol and other drugs sector. In terms of tertiary prevention treatment programs, it suggests that they are typically delivered in one of four ways (or using a combination of these) including home visits, residential programs, non-residential programs and assertive outreach. x Home visits support parents with substance abuse problems in their parenting role. x Residential programs accommodate both parents and children in a residential treatment programs. x Non-residential services include community-based peri-natal support groups and supported playgroups. x Assertive outreach involves engaging people who misuse substances wherever they may be including street work. NCETA have also developed an excellent alcohol and drug clinician’s guide to addressing family and domestic violence. It includes information about strategies to identify and respond to FDV including responding to clients who experience violence as well as clients who may use violence (White et al, 2013). It provides clear and succinct guidance for AOD practitioners on the questions they should be asking, including questions about children, responding to disclosure, developing safety plans and guidelines for working with clients who are perpetrators. It also looks at issues around systems and organisational responses such as policy frameworks and provides links to other available resources. A highly accessible pamphlet called Walking a Tightrope for family members of people who use alcohol and other drugs and violence in their relationships has also been developed. Whilst it is important that all practitioners in the community services and health sectors become aware of and can work in child and family sensitive ways, it is also important that they are aware of their professional

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

45

limitations. All practitioners need to be careful about thinking we are suddenly experts because we have a little bit of information about such extremely challenging issues as responding to domestic violence, child abuse and neglect or alcohol and other drug misuse if these are not our area of expertise. It is helpful if practitioners are aware of not only the combination of the skills and expertise that may be needed for working with these families but also of the risks in moving beyond their expertise. Specialised training is needed for professionals engaged in such issues as addressing family and domestic violence and those untrained need to work in partnership with trained professionals rather than take matters into their own hands.

Home Visiting Effectively designed and delivered home visits are one way of engaging the most vulnerable families. The Salisbury C4C has begun a home visiting service focussed on engaging Aboriginal dads and are finding it takes intensive support through home visits (including court appearances and jail visits), to engage the most vulnerable. Salisbury C4C also facilitates an extensive home visiting program for vulnerable families connected to the FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub. They find that using trained volunteers is one of the most effective strategies to do this as the most vulnerable are often, initially at least, very wary of engaging with those they perceive to be professionals. There are significant challenges with this approach and it is vital that volunteers receive an appropriate level of training and considerable opportunities for debriefing, mentoring and support. This is particularly the case when they are working in some of the more challenging home environments. In such cases they will normally need to be accompanied by a professional.

Residential programs Currently there are very few residential programs for treating alcohol and other drug abuse that can accommodate children. Many clients will require residential care. However, the removal of a parent from the home or care of their children into residential care can have negative effects on the children and the parent child relationship. There is a clear need for more residential programs accommodating both parents and children that are well designed and effective. However to expand such services requires significant political and departmental support. Developing this support can be highly problematic as such services are expensive and may be seen to

46

Chapter Three

involve significant risk. However, they can play a vital role in bringing about significant change by creating an environment where parents can be supported to become motivated to change their behaviours. The development of integrated centres involving high levels of cooperation and coordination between government departments and the non-government sector could be a promising way forward (Connecting Services Report, 2012).

Community based support Community based perinatal support groups and supported playgroups are found to be particularly effective in working with large numbers of vulnerable families in a cost-effective manner. This is particularly so when dealing with mental health issues that parents often encounter in the perinatal period. A number of models of community based support exist. For example FamilyZone Ingle Farm has implemented three support groups for families in this time of their life. FamilyZone offers ‘Preparing for Baby’, ‘Being with Baby’ and ‘Post Being with Baby’ support groups which provide the kind of support vulnerable parents need during these crucial years. They offer professional and peer support and training around such issues as attachment and mindful child management. Groups of about ten parents are facilitated by two professionals over a ten week period and there is also support for the care of babies available during the sessions. Intensive supported playgroups are also facilitated to provide the kind of early intervention needed by young children living in vulnerable families. These playgroups focus on encouraging their social, emotional and physical development. Supported playgroups have also been delivered within a number of adult specialist services with promising outcomes (e.g., Odyssey House Victoria’s Counting the Kids Project, Gruenert & Broadway, 2005). Practice examples of some of these programs are considered in more detail in later chapters. Another program with a growing evidence base for its effectiveness is assertive outreach. It involves strategies developed by practitioners to identify and engage with clients who have not yet engaged with helping services. Assertive outreach is carried out by mobile teams such as those developed by the Community Alcohol and Drug Services Pregnancy and Parental Service in New Zealand. (CADSPPS, 2013). It provides case management and service coordination to socially marginalised substance using parents. Drug ARM, a NGO provider of AOD support services also

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

47

uses assertive outreach initiatives to reach out to teenagers involved in drug and alcohol abuse.

Secondary trauma and burnout When working with clients with trauma, there can be a social and emotional cost for the practitioner. If not well managed, this can result in the practitioner suffering similar effects to those suffered by clients. This can increase the risk of practitioners performing work roles poorly, leaving the workforce and developing physical and mental health symptoms. Therapists, counsellors and case workers dealing with trauma associated with the issues faced by complex families need to be aware of secondary or vicarious trauma. The term secondary or vicarious trauma describes the cumulative transformative effect on the helper of working with survivors of trauma (McCann & Perlman, 1990). Secondary traumatic stress, transference and counter-transference may lead to compassion fatigue and burnout in the helper and practitioners need to develop strategies to manage this. Workers with personal experience of trauma, those already under stress, those with few social supports and those who take on too much may be at significant risk. Such strategies may include recognising warning signs and applying mechanisms such as muscle relaxation, physical activity, setting appropriate professional boundaries and learning to transition well from work to home (Dutton & Bester, 2012). NCETA have produced a handbook on preventing stress and burnout for the AOD workforce that includes material on common irrational beliefs in the health and human services sector that may lead to burnout and what to include in an induction program (Skinner & Roche, 2005). They have also developed specific resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander AOD workers, as well as for those operating in mainstream services (Roche et al, 2010, Roche et al, 2013).

References Addaction, (2009). Breaking the cycle of substance misuse among families: The results of a three year Addaction pilot project. Bath: Addaction and MRDU, University of Bath. Australian Centre for Child Protection, (2011). Building Capacity, Building Bridges. See http://w3.unisa.edu.au/childprotection/projects/bcbb/

48

Chapter Three

Battams, S., Roche, A.M., Duvnjak, A., Trifonoff, A., Bywood, P. (2010). For Kid’s Sake: A workforce development resource for Family Sensitive Policy and Practice in the Alcohol and other drugs sector. Adelaide: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction. Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Guttmannova, K., Oesterle, S.; Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., McMahon, R J. (2013). The association between parent early adult drug use disorder and later observed parenting practices and child behavior problems: Testing alternate models. Journal of Developmental Psychology, May 2013. Bailey, J.A., Hill, K.G., Oesterle, S., Hawkins, J.D., (2009). Parenting practices and problem behaviour across three generations: Monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug use in the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behaviour. Dev Psychol. 2009 September; 45(5): 1214– 1226. doi:10.1037/a0016129. Boshoff, K., & Stewart, H., (2012). Collaborative Practice of the Allied Health Program in Children’s Centres, Retrieved from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Collaborative_Prac tice_of_Allied_Health_in_Children%27s_Centres.pdf Child Death and Serious Injury Committee Reports. Retrieved from : http://www.cdsirc.sa.gov.au/pages/publications/ Common Approach to Assessment and Referral Support, (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.aracy.org.au/projects/the-common-approach/thecommon-approach Community Alcohol and Drug Services Pregnancy and Parental Service in New Zealand (2013). See: http://www.cads.org.nz/Pregnancy.asp. Connecting Services Learning from child death inquiries when the coexisting parental characteristics of family violence, substance misuse and mental illness place children at risk (2102). Retrieved from: http://www.ccyp.vic.gov.au/childsafetycommissioner/downloads/conn ecting-services.pdf Dutton. S., &Bester, K., (2012). Bouncing Back from Vicarious Trauma, Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Bouncing_back_fr om_vicarious_trauma.pdf Department of Education and Children’s Services Report, (2005). The Virtual Village – Raising a Child in the New Millennium, DECS Publishing, p19. Drug ARM (2014). See https://www.drugarm.com.au/content/home.asp? Evans, K.,(2012). Developing Child and Family Sensitive Practice, Retrieved from

Integrating Practice across Substance Abuse…

49

http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Developing_Child _and_Family_Sensitive_Practice.pdf Francis, H., & White, M., (2012). Child and Family Sensitive Practice: an AOD case study Retrieved from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Child_and_family _sensitive_practice_an_AOD_case_study.pdf Gruenert, S., & Broadway, M (2005). Counting the Kids:Supporting Substance Dependent Parents and their children. Retrieved from: http: //www.acwa.asn.au/cafwaa/Symposium/DrStefanGruenertCounting.pdf Harnett, P., & Dawe. S., (2008). Reducing Child Abuse Potential in Families Identified by Social Services: Implications for Assessment and Treatment. Retrieved from: http://www.pupprogram.net.au/media/5053/harnett&dawe2008bt&ci.pdf McCann, I.L., Perlman, L.A., (1990). Vicarious Traumatisation: a framework for understanding the psychological effects of working with victims, Journal of Traumatic Stress Vol 3 pps 131 147. Moore, T., & McDonald, M,, (2013). Acting Early, Changing Lives: How prevention and early action saves money and improves wellbeing. Prepared for the Benevolent Society. Parkville, Victoria: Centre for Community Child Health at the Murdoch Children;s Research Institute and the Royal Children’s Hospital. Mustard, F., (2008) . Investing in the Early Years – Closing the Gap between what we Know and what we Do. p19. Retrieved from: http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/lib/pdf/Mustard_Final_Report.pdf National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2010). The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood, Centre on the Developing Child, Harvard University. National Health and Medical Research Council, (2012). Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Borderline Personality Disorder. Melbourne: National and Medical Research Council. Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), (2013). What about the Children? Ofsted Publications p7. Perry, B (2004). Understanding Traumatised and Maltreated Children Child Trauma Academy. Retrieved from: http://www.lfcc.on.ca/ Perry_Core_Concepts_Violence_and_Childhood.pdf Perry, B., (2006). Applying Principles of Neurodevelopment to Clinical Work with Maltreated and Traumatised Children, in Working with Traumatised Youth in Child Welfare ed Nancy Boyd-Webb, The Guilford Press.

50

Chapter Three

Perry, B., (2009). Examining Child Maltreatment Through a Neurodevelopmental Lens: Clinical Applications of the Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics, Journal of Loss and Trauma 14 pps 240-255. Kuilenburg, N., & Spinney, A. (2011). Safe from the Start: For Children who have Witnessed Domestic Violence, Building Integrated Connections for Children their Families and Communities CSP, pps 107-112. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), (2012). Indigenous Worker Wellbeing Resource, National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA): Flinders University, Adelaide, SA Roche, A.M , Nicholas, R. Trifonoff, A., & Steenson, T. (2013). Staying deadly: Strategies for preventing stress and burnout among Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander alcohol and other drug workers. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA). Flinders University, Adelaide, SA Scott, D., (2006). Towards a public health model of child protection in Australia. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 1(1), 9-16. Scott, D. (2009). "Think child, think family": How adult specialist services can support children at risk of abuse and neglect, Family Matters, 81; 37-42, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Skinner, N., Roche, A., (2005). Stress and Burnout – A prevention Handbook for the Alcohol and other Drugs Workforce, National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA) Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia The Australian Centre for Social Innovation, (2012). Family by family Playford Scoping and start up report, April 2012. White, M., Roche, A., Nicholas, R., Long, C., Gruenert, S., (2013). Can I ask? An alcohol and drug clinician’s guide to addressing family and domestic violence. NCETA. Retrieved from: http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/2713/6615/8232/EN488_2013_White. pdf White, M., Roche, A., & Trifonoff, A. (2014). Enhancing inter-sectoral practice between alcohol and other drug services and the child and family welfare sector. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Enhancing_Interse ctoral_Practice.pdf Williams, D.R., & Sternthal, M.J., (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: evidence and research directions, Medical Journal of Australia, 186 (10):47. Retrieved from: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/186/10/spirituality-religion-andhealth-evidence-and-research-directions

CHAPTER FOUR BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS TO INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY KARL BRETTIG

If we are to optimize child and family support services so that families most in need of them receive the kind of support that will lead to better outcomes, then we need break down the barriers that stand in the way. We need to develop child and family friendly services in ways that engage those who need them on a scale and intensity that addresses barriers at every level. The seminal UK Marmot report called for investment in proportionate implementation of early childhood services across the social gradient in the United Kingdom in 2010. We are therefore calling for a ‘second revolution in the early years’, to increase the proportion of overall expenditure allocated there. This expenditure should be focused proportionately across the social gradient to ensure effective support to parents (starting in pregnancy and continuing through the transition of the child into primary school), including quality early education and childcare (Marmot, 2010, p16).

There has been much debate regarding the efficacy of targeted or universal programs in bringing about change. Both are important. Naomi Eisenstadt who was responsible for the implementation of Sure Start from 1999 to 2006 argues that a universal platform is needed to effectively reach the most vulnerable. “We have learned that to ensure reach to the neediest, a universal platform is essential. About half of poor families do not live in poor areas and there will be a small number of families who are not poor but have complex problems and need support.” (Eisenstadt, 2011, p143).

However it is more cost effective if we are able to intensively support the most vulnerable who are usually also the hardest to reach. Many have

52

Chapter Four

become disengaged from the service sector and will often respond best if they are given soft entry points such as access to non-stigmatising activities like universal playgroups. ‘Wrap around’ services can then be gradually introduced which provide the kind of intensive support that is needed.

Proportionate universality In order to address this issue the concept of proportionate universality first proposed in the UK 2010 Marmot Review was developed in Canada (Hertzmann, 2011). Targeted programs may reduce vulnerability for targeted groups but the majority of vulnerable children receive no benefit. Universal programs can have barriers to access that prevent all from benefitting. Proportionate universality provides for universal access at a scale and intensity that addresses barriers at every level and results in a much greater number of vulnerable families receiving support. In effect proportionate universality focusses on reducing barriers to access in areas of high vulnerability which may be distributed over a range of socioeconomic status areas though there would naturally be a concentration at the lower end of the SES scale. Proportionate universality also reduces the stigmatisation that results from purely targeted services and over time leads to better engagement with ‘hard to reach’ families. The program logic developed for the Communities for Children initiative identified short term, medium term and long term outcomes. It stated that more targeted ‘hard to reach’ families would become more engaged in the longer term as trust develops. LONG TERM (3-5 years +): Community outcomes start to emerge. Expectations are that child and family outcomes will start improving within the whole community (eg. a more trusting and safer community willing to participate in community activities), and that service delivery changes will be mainstreamed. Those people hardest to reach will be more engaged. (SFCS Program Logic, 2004)

What are the barriers that stand in the way of the most vulnerable accessing services? The first one we need to look at is the infrastructure surrounding the way services are delivered. While communities used to be built around villages where each adult took some responsibility to ensure that children were in a safe environment, today more often than not we have an urban sprawl mixed with a cyber-community that is becoming more and more hostile to child safety. We have a large number of children

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

53

confined to their houses caught up in an endless pursuit of electronic wizardry often with seriously concerning content. We have parents inside those houses struggling to manage increasingly challenging behaviour of their children. In some areas challenging behaviours such as those associated with autism spectrum disorders have tripled in recent years (Autism SA statistics, 2012). When it becomes all too much frazzled parents may, usually after many months, find themselves at an appointment with a specialist. This may be instigated by chid protection authorities, school welfare workers or, hopefully, earlier by the concerned parents themselves. But the specialists become overwhelmed by the number of referrals and the waiting lists continue to grow. Meanwhile neuroscience informs us that sensitive brains are being wired to produce all kinds of dysfunctional behaviours, such as those classified in the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic manual DSM V, in the first few years of life. Wouldn’t it be so much better if we could prevent much of this from happening in the first place or at least intervene at the earliest possible opportunity? Children need to grow up with the infrastructure of a supportive community. If such communities don’t exist anymore the first thing we need to do is attempt to recreate something that resembles them. Many communities are trying to deal with significant and challenging family problems and need to be engaged with professionals who know something about the problems and what can be done to address them. So how do we develop child and family supportive communities at a scale and intensity that addresses barriers at every level?

Communities for Children In 2004 the Australian Government began rolling out the Communities for Children initiative to support vulnerable families in 45 clusters of suburbs throughout Australia. The initiative aimed to fundamentally redesign the way services are delivered through moving support away from costly individual case management and counselling toward building community capacity to support families. Responsibility to address barriers to accessing support was given to local community service providers designated Facilitating Partners who were required to use a whole of community, family and government approach. Facilitating Partners embedded in local communities were required to work with sub contracted

Chapter Four

54

Community Partners (usually NGOs) to develop integrated approaches to how services are delivered. A national evaluation of the first iteration of C4C completed in 2009 found that parents in C4C sites reported less hostile or harsh parenting practices and felt more effective in their role as parents. A service coordination survey found highly significant increases in collaboration between staff from different agencies from 34% in 2006 to 66% in 2008 (Muir et al, 2010). Of thirteen C4C projects validated as promising practices, six were from South Australia where Facilitating Partner project managers and some staff met together regularly and functioned as a community of practice learning from each other as activities were being implemented. The Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) data released in 2006 showed Ingle Farm in the northern suburbs of Adelaide had the highest proportion of children vulnerable in one or more domains of all the suburbs in the Salisbury C4C site (32.5%) which at that time did not include Brahma Lodge (added in 2009). AEDC results measured in 2009 revealed no significant change (32.9%), however in 2012 a reduction, by approximately one third, of children vulnerable in one or more domains (22.5%) was measured for Ingle Farm. Nationally the overall improvement across domains was 1.6% (AEDC, 2012).

Percentage of children vulnerable

One or more domains 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

2009 Ingle Farm

Para Hills

Para Hills West

Para Vista Pooraka

2012

Suburbs Fig 4-1 Salisbury C4C AEDI 2009 & 2012 results for the number of children vulnerable on one or more domains

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

55

By 2012 most of the 0-5 year olds and their families engaged in the site would have been part of the cohort assessed on entering reception. The 2009 cohort measured children who had experienced some early intervention activities but not any engaged in C4C activities during the perinatal period. This data lends support to the importance of intervention in the first three years and the notion that community capacity building initiatives such as C4C can be expected to take some time before their impact becomes measurable. The Salisbury site AEDC results also lend support to the importance of using of an approach based on proportionate universality. A lot of activities were concentrated on Ingle Farm and six years later AEDC results appear to indicate that the scale and intensity of activities being implemented are making a difference. In other nearby suburbs the proportion of children vulnerable in one or more domains also fell significantly in the order of 5-10%, however when it comes to those vulnerable on 2 or more domains Ingle Farm recorded a much more significant improvement in the 2012 results in comparison to other suburbs. Some of these suburbs have shown an increase in children vulnerable in 2 or more domains, adding weight to the importance of locating services within ‘pram pushing distance’ of the most vulnerable. A more detailed analysis of these results can be found in chapter eight. Communities for Children Facilitating Partners were required to conduct a community consultation and needs assessment prior to developing a Community Strategic Plan. A representative interagency community committee was to be gathered to facilitate this process and monitor progress. At the Salisbury site the C4C initiative was birthed at a time when there was considerable fermentation around the development of integrated early childhood services in South Australia. This was initiated principally by Thinker in Residence Dr Fraser Mustard as well as a number of other early childhood experts. Locally the Northern Early Childhood Steering Committee comprised mainly of executives and the Northern Children & Families Forum attended by local managers and key workers, had already spent considerable time investigating the kind of services that would be required for effective early childhood service provision in the north of Adelaide. When the community consultation was conducted many parents were enthusiastic about the concept of early childhood ‘one stop shops’ which they saw as having the capacity to alleviate many of their concerns about

56

Chapter Four

having to negotiate multiple service locations with babies and toddlers in tow. Parents indicated they would like a ‘one stop shop’ which provided unbiased information about children and services available for families in the community. These one stop shops should be located in convenient places in the community to allow the maximum number of parents to access information. One stop shops could act as an information store and direct parents to the appropriate service provider or government department (Nechvoglod, 2005).

This information came along with the finding that there were very few existing support services available for families with young children in the site, apart from the Salvation Army Ingle Farm’s extensive range of supported accommodation services and what local schools, childcare centres, sporting clubs and faith communities were able to offer. The C4C model did not allow for funding to be spent on physical infrastructure. Facilities needed to provide integrated support for families had to be sourced from existing community assets. As Facilitating Partner, the Salvation Army Ingle Farm decided to begin the process by taking out the pews from its worship facility for three days each week and making the space available for a continuous facilitated playgroup for families with toddlers. The First Steps Playtime initiative proved to be an excellent means of launching the site’s engagement with local families. From January to July 2006, it attracted 680 visits from adults accompanied by 859 from children. Some families from nearby Para Hills Primary attended, were encouraged by what they experienced and after six months went back to Para Hills Primary to reinvigorate their struggling playgroup. Having established the First Steps Playtime initiative the Salisbury site went about trying to find a place to locate a much anticipated family friendly ‘one stop shop’ with a range of integrated early childhood services. A number of possibilities were canvassed, mainly in schools, including a very suitable large area (approx. 1,000 sq metres) that was once an ‘open space’ learning area of a former high school which had been converted to a primary school. It was adjacent to easily the largest shopping centre in the site and had good access to public transport. The space was being used for storage and had recently had a large amount of asbestos removed making it more suitable for what was being envisaged.

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

57

It took several months to negotiate the labyrinth of what was then the Department of Education and Children’s Services bureaucracy, until the school principal decided to go ahead with the plans and in the spirit of partnership agreed to a reduced maintenance fee for the use of the building. After a flurry of meetings with stakeholders and federal government funding body representatives, minor alterations were made to the building to implement the wishes of the collaborating community partners contracted to contribute to the project. With some significant multi-tasking on the part of the site manager/coordinator including supervising the needed renovations, the FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub was born. One school deputy principal who first became involved when she attended the initial community consultation also offered the use of a disused canteen in her school as a site for parent and child development activities. The school was grappling with what was becoming a disturbing number of students with autism spectrum disorders. While this site didn’t have the obvious potential of the Ingle Farm site, her passion to see an expansion of early childhood activities at Para Hills Junior Primary resulted in a collaboration between school parents, the Salvation Army Ingle Farm and school staff to develop the former canteen into an area suitable for play activities. A few months later, FamilyZone Para Hills was launched.

Making inter-sectorial collaboration work The plan to co-locate multidisciplinary staff from four NonGovernment Organisations and a staff person from the City of Salisbury in a State Government school was good in theory but posed some challenges in implementation. The C4C committee that came up with the plan was comprised of early childhood stakeholders, parents and representation from NGO’s who were engaged in providing family support. They had spent a year meeting fortnightly to work through the issues and develop the vision and strategies for what we wanted to achieve together, as described in our vision statement and Community Strategic Plan. However staff who were employed to implement the plan were not involved in this process and it was not long before significant conflicts about how they were supposed to be going about their work began to develop. The July 2007 half yearly report included the following observation:

58

Chapter Four The project manager has participated in some 20 meetings with key line managers & staff to work through issues relating to the development of effective working relationships between staff of the 4 NGO's involved and performance management issues. (SC4C Report July 2007)

Essentially the project manager was attempting to deal with conflict between staff operating from differing disciplinary perspectives and agency cultures. Staff had different line managers from different agencies and each had different expectations regarding, at this point, the unenviable role of the Hub site co-ordinator/manager. Of course the usual personality clashes were also involved. The eventual resolution of these conflicts was to be found in building a common vision among staff of what we were attempting to do and an understanding of the differing disciplinary perspectives. For example social work, early childhood and adult education perspectives on working with children and families can be markedly different. Had it not been for all the preceding work embarked on by the stakeholder committee in developing the vision and, more importantly, building relationships, the vision of a child friendly community may well have collapsed in the first twelve months. However relationships between managers of the organisations involved were strong enough to enable the issues to be navigated and strategies to be put in place to develop a functional staff team at the hub. We initiated a series of meetings between line managers and staff, put in place regular staff and manager’s meetings, provided a series of training workshops to crystallise a shared vision of what we were aiming to do, initiated a values workshop which came up with shared values, developed a better understanding of multi-agency teamwork and initiated some team building exercises. A family and staff-friendly kitchen was also established around this time which provided a space for much worthwhile debriefing and relationship building to happen. Some similar conflicts also emerged at the satellite centres however the resolution of these was less complex as fewer organisations and disciplines were involved. By February 2008 some 21 new services to support families in the early years had been introduced into the site and the available support for these families has continued to increase as more community capacity is developed.

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

59

Engaging vulnerable young families Traditionally Ingle Farm Primary School, in contrast to Para Hills Primary, did not have very much engagement of parents with the school. Sub-contracting Lutheran Community Care as the Community Partner to manage the Hub proved to be strategic. This organisation had developed strong engagement with humanitarian entrants in the north-east of Adelaide. New arrivals predominantly from Africa and Afghanistan soon found what they saw as a safe haven at the hub and by the time it was launched in August 2006 the hub had already begun engaging with a large number of vulnerable families from CALD communities. Engaging vulnerable young families who had become disengaged from traditional family support services provided by the Department of Families and Communities and various school initiatives did not occur so easily at first. The Salisbury C4C July - December Report made the following observation. Families accessing the Hub for the first time are reluctant to provide personal information. We have had difficulty ensuring that all parents sign the 'sign in' book which simply records their attendance at the Hub on a particular day. A number of parents have refused to complete a registration form, which simply records name and address information and name and ages of children. Others have completed it reluctantly and only after reassurance about how the information will be used. (SC4C January 2007 Report)

Fig 4-2 Activity in the kitchen at FamilyZone

60

Chapter Four

By and large these families had become very wary of engaging with support services they no longer trusted and new relational bridges needed to be built. They were very reluctant to be labelled as ‘at risk’, join a ‘support group’ or attend a ‘parenting class’. Only after some 18 months of engagement with FamilyZone were some of these prepared to commit to such groups. Transitioning the role of the friendly receptionist (a trained social worker) to parent educator in June 2008 proved a master stroke as this person had developed enough strong relationships with parents to successfully engage many to take part in parenting courses. Prior to that, successful Post Natal Depression groups had been facilitated at the hub by Lyell McEwen Hospital staff who had previously connected with vulnerable parents from the area at the hospital. These groups took on another dimension by 2009 when ‘Managing Motherhood’ groups were being facilitated by psychologists from Child & Youth Health and ‘Being with Baby’ groups conducted in conjunction with perinatal psychiatric services from Modbury Hospital. By 2009 groups being facilitated at the hub included: 1. A Support Group for women with mental health issues “Being with Baby” – run in conjunction with Psychiatric Services from Modbury Hospital. Crèche services provided. Two groups of seven sessions each. 2. “Managing Motherhood” – a group facilitated by psychologists from Child, Youth and Women’s Health for mothers with ‘attachment issues’ and their babies run weekly during term time. 3. Afghani Women’s Support Group runs weekly during term time. Crèche offered for children. 4. African Women’s Support Group: offered weekly during term time. Crèche provided. 5. Conversational English: classes offered weekly and supported by qualified volunteers. 6. Two Mother and Baby groups meeting weekly. 7. TAFE English Language classes running three days a week due to demand from the community. 8. Family Day Care providers playgroup running weekly and facilitated by the group itself. 9. “Mini Me’s” Parenting Group running weekly during term time. “Mini Me’s” secured funding from Parenting SA grant and is now financially independent.

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

61

10. “Move and Groove” – a music and movement group for preschoolers and their parents continues. This group is facilitated by parents. 11. Placements for onsite learning for 4 social work students (Uni SA; Flinders University; University of Calgary and Wartberg University Iowa) 400 hours each; 4 Diploma of Community Services students (TAFESA) 120 hours each. 12. School Holiday activity days for families held in January and April 2009 school holidays. 13. Seminars held on “Applying for Funding” attended by parents from the Hub. 14. Information session for parents and health care professionals on Foetal Alcohol Syndrome – education and prevention. 15. A resource room further improved after grant from Premiers Initiative Fund was expended. The Resource Room is available to all families at the Hub and includes Talking Books (used predominantly by CALD families to read with their children); Picture Books; Parenting Resources – including DVDs, books and manuals – and toys for borrowing. 16. A series of excursions available to families. These included a low cost shopping trip; family excursions to the beach and swimming centres; excursions to other community organisations to discuss resources available – e.g.; gambling and alcohol related services at Relationships Australia. Engagement with local families from a range of cultures was immediate and strong. In 2007 FamilyZone hub recorded 3,707 visits from families with at least one child and in 2008 there were 4,505 visits. Much of this could be attributed to partnering with organisations who had established strong links with local communities. Activities developed at the hub also fanned out into the community through the various satellite centres and outreach initiatives. Examples of this included the implementation of Mobile Supported Playgroups for Vietnamese at Pooraka, Africans at Ingle Farm, Indigenous and generic groups at Ingle Farm Kindergarten, professional support for existing playgroups in the site and the roll out of the Let’s Read and Lapsit early childhood literacy programs. Between January and June 2009, 552 adults and 775 children participated in mobile supported playgroups and 15 local playgroups received additional professional support. A resource folder was developed containing a sensory activity pack, animal activity pack,

62

Chapter Four

community service guide, and a Christmas activity pack. This folder was constantly adapted to the needs of each playgroup and proved a great way to maintain strong relationships with playgroup participants and leaders. Playgroup leaders and families often approached the Centacare worker to request support or information.

Fig 4-3 2007 End of Year Celebration

Information was provided during facilitated playgroup sessions and different child development topics were discussed e.g. parenting skills, behaviour management, nutrition, health, cultural support etc. In addition, families were encouraged to take on a more active role in the playgroup routine to support playgroup leaders. An example of this has been working with the families who attended the African playgroup, preparing them to become active participants in song and story times. Active engagement with parents and children was an ongoing challenge in this playgroup. The worker revisited the guidelines and expectations around involvement in this activity and focused on the interests of this group. Group time became a time that involved a lot of excitement, active participation and time for parents and children to share in the enjoyment of songs and stories. Save the Children has since prepared a curriculum program on a quarterly basis to design and document structured play-based approaches to foster children‘s psychosocial development and facilitate school readiness. Curriculum programming employs the Early Years Learning Framework as a foundation to direct intended learning outcomes, against

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

63

the Australian Early Development Census indicators to ensure that the domains of physical health (fine and gross motor skill play), social competence (imaginative and shared play), communication skills and general knowledge (social inclusion and connecting to community play), emotional maturity (mat and group time) and language and cognitive skills (story and sing-a-long time, mat time and language learning) are developed through structured play. The curriculum is also segregated by age group to ensure that play is age-appropriate and children are able to learn in a physically and emotionally safe environment. These playgroups value the importance of the Early Years Learning Framework Outcome 1: Children have a strong sense of identity; and EYLF Outcome 2: Children are connected with and contribute to their world. Therefore key community events, celebrations and awareness days, such as Reconciliation Week, Harmony Day, Mother’s Day etc. are acknowledged and programmed within playgroup curricula. Culturally aware and inclusive play and group time activities that reflect the cultural and language background of participants, also help foster the development of a strong sense of identity amongst participating children. In order to ensure that playgroups are of high quality and that the objectives to foster children‘s psychosocial development and enable school readiness are achieved, it is vital that staff have good curriculum knowledge combined with understanding of how young children learn. Therefore all staff involved in the delivery of the universal playgroup have at a minimum, a Certificate III ECEC qualification, or equivalent, consistent with the National Quality Standard. Integral to the outreach aspect of the FamilyZone approach has been the development and integration of the home visiting services. These services have provided a means of engaging families who, for various reasons, do not access centre-based services. Between January and June 2009, a time when we were unsure about whether funding would continue beyond June, 51 adults and 73 children used this hub-based service. Many of these were experiencing parenting difficulties, needing to improve parenting skills, enhance parent/child interaction and/or needed protection against post-natal depression and child maltreatment. It is very pleasing to see how effective basing this service at the hub has been in facilitating seamless transitions into hub-based support groups. On many occasions this has happened quite quickly and freed up home visitors to be able to reach more families than was previously the case. An evaluation of

64

Chapter Four

FamilyZone was conducted in 2011 which concluded that “the evaluation data identify that the positive achievements of the FamilyZone Hub in terms of the benefits delivered to children and their families are substantial and significant” (McInnes & Diamond, 2011). Another initiative which proved valuable was the Let’s Read initiative developed by the Centre for Community Child Health in collaboration with the Smith Family. A Let’s Read community launch was held in July 2008 attended by over 200 people. Ten organizations were represented. Parent/caregivers with children aged 0-3 years were targeted. Let’s Read selectively aimed at children aged between 18 and 42 months because the Lapsit program was available to those under 18 months. Activities included training of professionals and volunteers to ‘deliver’ Let’s Read materials, establishing literacy support groups to community members and identifying activities to promote early literacy. Some 930 adults and 1,200 children participated. In South Australia several of the Communities for Children sites notably North West Adelaide and Port Augusta also developed children and family centres. Onkaparinga focussed more on engaging with and developing existing services, as a number of children and family centres were already in existence in that site. The Murray Bridge site had an emphasis on introducing coordinated training and developing virtual hubs. Inherent to the C4C model is the fact that each site is different as is also evident with the sites developed in other states.

Integrating research, policy and practice Consultation with families identified that a significant barrier to engaging vulnerable families was having access to the kind of professionals who were child and family sensitive and had the ability to not come across as experts who made them feel like bad parents. The notion of ‘clients’ for example carries with it a culture of ’us’ doing things for ‘them’ rather than working together with each other in genuine partnership. Research is able to come up with considerable understanding of what is best for child development but how we communicate these insights is also critically important. Lectures from experts don’t do it and neither does unsolicited advice giving. What matters is most often the quality of relationships that enable partnerships to develop and information to be shared.

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

65

Clearly professionals don’t have enough time to build quality relationships with every vulnerable family that comes through the door or that they may visit in their homes. The ability to work on a transdisciplinary and trans-agency environment becomes very relevant here. When trust has been established with a family they are more likely to accept a worker’s recommendation that they speak with another professional whom they are able to introduce, preferably face to face, in order to facilitate a ‘seamless’ transition. That means family support professionals know each other’s areas of expertise and capacity and have a commitment to good working relationships. Another practice skill that links with this is using a community development approach to support families. Unless we are able to develop community capacity to effectively support significant numbers of vulnerable families, professional services are going to ultimately fail because they don’t have the capacity to do it alone. Inherent to success is the ability to work with community members and develop their mentoring and leadership skills. Without this ingredient the wonderful insights of researchers will largely remain on the bookshelves and in the Kindles gathering dust and static. The ‘Family by Family’ approach developed by The Australian Centre for Social Innovation has articulated this principle well (Schulman et al, 2011). Families prefer to be mentored by other families with whom they have a meaningful relationship and who have worked out some of the challenges of parenting children. Effective ‘sharing families’ develop the ability to engage and communicate well with families who want something to change by intentionally blurring the professional-personal divide. Professionals involved are designated as family coaches and work with the families involved every week for a ‘yarn over dinner’. Such professionals clearly need skills in working collaboratively as a team in much the same way effective parents are able to do for the sake of their children. Researchers can assist with insights into how this can be done better as, for example, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth have done with its Advancing Collaboration Practice series. Collaborative team members need as much knowledge as they can get and as many relevant personal skills as they can develop. In order to better develop the critical skills of working collaboratively as members of a team, practitioners need practice based evidence (Green, 2012), practice

66

Chapter Four

experience and the supervision of mentors who well understand the issues involved. In all that we do the welfare of children needs to be safeguarded and promoted. If this isn’t happening parents will become unsure about using services. In South Australia the Department of Education and Child Development has adopted two guiding principles to bring about desirable change. The principles are ‘Children are at the centre of everything we do’ and ‘We are there for every child, all of the time, without exception’ (James & Ward, 2012). Clearly this is no easy aspiration in an age of ever increasing family vulnerability and one that can only come near to being achieved with significant investment. The department is attempting to do this with its roll out of Children’s Centres. These centres aim to provide collaborative targeted prevention and early intervention activities in the early years of children’s lives. Allied health professionals partner with teachers to address barriers to collaboration such as past experiences, organisational priorities, personality differences, personal baggage, differing agendas and vision in providing early intervention and prevention activities (Boshoff & Stewart, 2012). They are also engaged in assessing developmental delay and early intervention through screening, consultation with parents and education staff, assistance with educational programming and advice regarding modifications to the physical environment (Clark et al, 2012). By working collaboratively in a school setting the expertise gained from years of study and research in various health disciplines can be better communicated with those most in need of these services. It is only through such collaboration that services can be provided at the kind of scale and intensity that is needed to bring about significant improvement in family life.

References Australian Early Development Index, (2012). Community results table, Salisbury community, South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.rch.org.au/aedi/ Boshoff, K., & Stewart, H., (2012). Collaborative practice of the Allied Health Program in Children’s Centres. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Collaborative_Prac tice_of_Allied_Health_in_Children%27s_Centres.pdf

Breaking Down Barriers to Integrated Service Delivery

67

Clark, M., Boshoff, K., & James, D., (2012). Learnings from the Evidence Base on Integrated Practice for Allied Health in Children’s Centres, Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Integrated_practice _for_Allied_Health.pdf Eisenstadt, N., (2011). Providing a Sure Start - How government discovered early childhood, Policy Press, p143. Green, L., (2012). Implementation Research and Practice: If we want more Evidence Based Practice we need more Practice Based Evidence. First Biennial Australian Conference on Implementation, Melbourne Hertzman, Clyde., (2011). Investing in our Children Investing in our Future, Human Early Learning Partnership, University of British Colombia. James, K., & Ward, H., (2102) . Working in Partnership Children Communities Connections Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Working_in_Partn ership.pdf Marmot, M., (2010). Fair Society Healthy Lives, p16. Retrieved from: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/fair-society-healthylives-the-marmot-review McInnes, E., & Diamond, A., (2011). Evaluation of a child and family centre FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub, Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/FamilyZone_Ingle _Farm_Hub_2011_Evaluation.pdf Muir, K. et al (2010). The national evaluation of the Communities for Children initiative, Family Matters 2010, No.84, p39 Nechvoglod, Lisa. (2005). Report on the findings from the Salisbury Communities for Children Initiative facilitated by Ingle Farm Salvation Army regarding the ‘Community Strategic Plan’ consultation with the community. de Lissa Research Institute, p14 Stronger Families and Communities Strategy Program Logic (2004). Retrieved from: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/sfcs__evaluati on_program.pdf Schulman. S., Curtis, C., & Vanstone, C., Family by Family Co-designed and Co-produced Family Support Model. In Brettig, K., & Sims, M., (2011). Building Integrated Connections for Children, their Families and Communities, CSP, Chapter 2.

CHAPTER FIVE USING A WHOLE OF FAMILY, GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY APPROACH KARL BRETTIG

Integrated services don’t develop very well without the whole of government, community and family committed to working together. This is not easily achieved in an age which is defined more by individualism than collectivism. It takes a village to raise a child because each element of the village impacts on the development of children. As well as the input of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles, such elements as community values, institutions, infrastructure and legislature also impact profoundly on children. Added to the mosaic is the reality that the village has become global and innovations such as highly engaging and potentially addictive electronic games, the information superhighway and the social media phenomenon have enormously impacted the complexity of raising children in recent years. No single department or organisation has the capacity to resource what is needed to bring about significant change in family functioning. State governments do not really have sufficient levels of funding to develop children and family centres as comprehensively as is needed for them to provide the level of services that may be needed. Non-government organisations can contribute significantly through their level of engagement with local communities and expertise in family support. Bringing established organisations together to make a significant difference in addressing social problems through prevention and early intervention as Fraser Mustard has suggested is difficult. Silos do not break themselves down. "Rationalizing the range of programs and services, layers of tradition, and the mosaic of funding patterns of the governments for the support of a variety of activities in early child development will be difficult and

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

69

requires legislation and specific funding for the children’s centres. Different South Australian government departments, federal government, community organizations and non-government organizations support diverse non-integrated programs in early child development. Establishing integrated programs for early child development from this mixture will be difficult and slow". (Early Childhood Development the Best start for all South Australians, p38)

In 2012 the South Australian government initiated widespread consultations to frame the development of new early childhood legislation in response to these recommendations. It initiated a bold ‘Brighter Futures’ blueprint to co-produce and co-construct integrated services and interdisciplinary ways of working in and for local communities (Bartley, 2012). Bringing together education, early childhood development, child protection and elements of primary health to work together is a slow process and involves some huge paradigm shifts. Service providers were being asked to move from child-centred approaches to a child and family centred paradigm, from welfare to productivity, from siloed services to integrated services, and from multi-disciplinary working in parallel to trans-disciplinary working together (Jordan, 2012).

Towards a national framework The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (2009) attempts to provide a coordinated national approach to addressing issues around child development and has been followed up with three year action plans triennially. The framework has an emphasis on strong collaborative work between governments at all levels and the non-government sector. The Second Action Plan (2012) increased the focus on strengthening families, early intervention, prevention and collaboration through joining up service delivery with mental health, domestic and family violence, drug and alcohol, education, health and other services. It also emphasised the development of local partnerships for local solutions, recognising the diversity across Australian communities. The plan, for example, advocated joined up service delivery between federal Communities for Children sites and state-based initiatives such as Children’s Centres as outlined in the National Collaboration Framework for Family Support Services (2011-2013). The process of implementing this at a local level is complex and it is difficult to know how it can be achieved outside of a Facilitating Partner Model of implementation which

70

Chapter Five

offers considerable dedicated time to establishing the kind of collaborative partnerships needed to facilitate joined up service delivery. For example the Salisbury C4C site facilitated by the Salvation Army contracts NGO’s Lutheran Community Care, Save the Children, Relationships Australia and the Schools Ministry Group to deliver integrated services for families. To do this effectively it has developed strong partnership arrangements with the state Department of Education and Child Development for the necessary infrastructure and links with schools, the Department of Health for professional perinatal services, the City of Salisbury for child friendly outdoor spaces and the University of South Australia for evaluation services. Most importantly it has also had to develop strong partnerships and a high level of engagement with local families and community groups. Some of these relationships involve collaboration at the level of contractual arrangements while others involve coordination between local service providers. In order to function effectively these relationships need to be based on a genuine partnership model that significantly benefits all parties involved. This is not easily achieved and can be undermined by overconfidence and hubris, nihilism and despair or corruption and incompetence (Bammer, 2012). It involves delicately balancing the activities of the interest groups involved, which can be complex. In the Facilitating Partner model funding is allocated to a local NGO who is well established in the site. A project manager, preferably with a high level of communication, project management, family support, community development, strategic planning, consultation, staff supervision and mediation skills is sourced and appointed. Project officers with an understanding of community development, activity planning, information technology and report writing skills are also sourced by the Facilitating Partner (FP) and appointed. It is the role of Facilitating Partner to coordinate services and establish collaborations that will build community capacity and provide early intervention through delivering holistic, integrated services for vulnerable families. This may involve formal contracts with Community Partners to deliver services, service agreements with organisations that provide infrastructure or less formal agreements that improve coordination between related service providers. The following flowchart illustrates the

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

71

often complex network of partnerships that may be developed to deliver place-based integrated services.

Fig 5-1 Partnerships developed to deliver integrated services

How is collaboration developed using the Facilitating Partner Model? The initial responsibility of the FP is to bring together a strong Committee composed of an appropriate cross section of stakeholders from the sector and convene relevant meetings to deliver a Community Strategic Plan within a specified timeframe. Representation would normally come from the community services, education and health sectors as well as parents, federal, state and local government agencies. Ideally it needs to be a group capable of working together over an extended period of time with complementary skills. If the group is too large, over time it may easily become unwieldy and dysfunctional or, if it is too small, it may become incapable of effectively performing its role. Activity Work Plans derived from the strategic plan need to be developed primarily by relevant staff and managers to articulate the process of implementing the plan. Expressions of interest to implement the plan are then sought from potential Community Partners (CPs). The FP project management team

72

Chapter Five

decides on successful applications and negotiates sub-contracts with CPs to implement the proposed activities. The FP is required to manage the partnerships and report twice yearly against performance indicators in the Activity Work Plans. The committee continues to support the initiative with their expertise and experience and to communicate widely about the project through their networks. It may set up subgroups for specific tasks and invite outside experts to attend meetings as required. Its principal function is then to work in collaboration with the FP to develop the project and guide its implementation. Such collaboration involves working with partners in decision making, including the development of alternatives and preferred solutions to wicked problems. The Facilitating Partner commits to look to the committee for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporates the advice and recommendations of the committee into project decisions to the maximum extent possible. It is the FPs role to ensure that the committee understands relevant contractual requirements in order for it to make appropriate decisions. It needs to have a permission giving, empowering role that provides guidelines and accountability rather than a ‘top down’ bureaucratic ‘gatekeeping’ role that impedes initiative. People responsible for implementing decisions need to be the ones predominantly empowered to make these decisions in a ‘bottom up’ process which is monitored by the committee. Once the Community Strategic Plan and Activity Work Plans have been developed it is the role of the FP and CP’s to continue to consult with parents and services to keep the community engaged. The role also requires maintaining relationships, managing conflict and developing new relationships to respond to emerging needs. It needs to monitor the levels of stress and burnout of dedicated staff who often work with survivors of traumatic life events. One of the principal challenges in the Australian context is getting the three levels of government, NGOs and community groups to work together effectively. Short termism which has characterised many previous initiatives will not achieve significant change and sustainable long term partnerships need to be established. A strength of the C4C Facilitating Partner model is that it strongly promotes movement from organisational silos toward mutually beneficial partnerships. One effect of the development of such a culture can be found

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

73

in the willingness of participating sites to share expertise and resources with each other and function as communities of practice. There are many challenges in each community and all have much to learn from each other. When the Salisbury site was looking to establish terms of reference for its committee it sourced expertise from the Gold Coast C4C site. When FamilyZone Ingle Farm was developed insights from the North West Adelaide C4C site as well as the CAFÉ Enfield Children’s Centre were pivotal. When we needed contracting expertise the Onkaparinga C4C site shared their template. When we wanted to learn more about Aboriginal issues much was gleaned from the Port Augusta and Murray Bridge C4C sites. When contemplating our first conference, participation in the Logan C4C site prior to our conference proved to be very helpful. Conflict between organisations with differing values and understanding of issues is inevitable. We have experienced a deal of it within our site and with other sites. Conflict can be creative as healthy debate challenges misconceptions and flawed strategies. It can also be destructive. In all of this FPs need to maintain composure and learn to live with criticism and mitigate the challenges of human nature, without becoming embittered. A good understanding of human frailty and regular use of physical, emotional, social and spiritual disciplines can be helpful, as well as a willingness to consider the interests of others.

Engaging Families and Community Groups We have already looked at the importance of including the perspective of children and families at the planning stage and this continues to be important as we proceed with implementing activities. Margy Whalley from Pen Green Centre puts it this way: We began to see that teaching and learning and curriculum issues which had been the fairly uncontested domain of professional staff, needed to be opened up for a wider discussion with parents and the early years community. What we needed was a rich and relevant dialogue between parents and nursery staff which could be sustained over time, a dialogue which focussed on the children’s learning and achievements and our own pedagogic practice. (Whalley, 2007)

In their work with children the Pen Green team constantly emphasise the importance of co-producing services with children, families and

74

Chapter Five

communities rather than doing it ‘for’ them. This strategy had some important side benefits for them when their community resourcing came under threat. Parents and supporters quickly responded to a call for action on Facebook. We had our own experiences with this a number of years ago when our funding was uncertain and local politicians began to receive a raft of barely decipherable letters of intense disapproval! What is most important is the quality of the services that are being delivered and these are far more effective when families and community groups are involved in their production and continue to shape their development. More than that services need to recognise that they have significant limitations. There is a growing movement of people with a different vision for their local communities. They know that real satisfaction and the good life cannot be provided by corporations, institutions or systems...no matter how hard they try, our very best institutions cannot do many things that only we can do. And the things that only we can do as a family and a neighbourhood are vital to a decent, good, satisfied life. (McKnight & Block, 2010)

Services are precisely that. They are designed to support families and communities and can never provide all that is needed for them to flourish. They cannot raise our children for us. The movement from citizen to consumer needs to be challenged. We cannot buy all the services we need for our children to do well in life. Institutions have limitations. They cannot be entirely blamed for the child protection crisis, decline in social and moral capital and spiritual malaise that is often found in urban communities. There are many other elements to human existence apart from consuming services. Speaking of the disintegrating social fabric in the US, while conceding that futurism is a ‘quack science’, cultural observer Os Guinness suggests that: One foreseeable crisis is the shock created by the collision of three trends: the radical relativism of anything-goes relationships that will create a harvest of singles, loners and quietly desperate people; the deepening economic crisis; and the absolute inability of the guardian state to take over the emotional roles and social functions of the collapsed family. (Guinness, 2012)

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

75

We need to recognise that the serious breakdown in family relationships that is becoming normative in many western countries cannot simply be repaired by our service systems. A community is the sum of the values and actions of individuals. Our western liberal democracies offer many opportunities and great freedom for individuals but, as Nelson Mandela put it, “with freedom comes responsibilities” (Mandela, 1995). The decline of formal religion and permanent workplaces has left many urban communities with what sometimes amounts to a choice between schools and supermarkets as centres for the connectedness of communities (Fitzgerald, 2012). But each of these meeting places have their limitations. Supermarket interactions are usually very minimal these days and in some instances schools can be seen as hostile to families and actually work against community values. Services can mitigate against the establishment of bridging social capital, for example, where schools that reflect the value of the dominant culture may be antithetical to the values of the sub-culture of the child and make some families feel unwelcome. (Arney & Scott, 2010)

Communities need to develop the kind of heart and soul that is often found in community groups which don’t present as ‘service providers’. For some it is local sporting clubs or arts groups that motivate them to relate and work together. For others it is the spirituality of formal or informal faith communities. A whole of government, family and community approach needs to look at what all local community groups have to contribute to better engaging and supporting families. The beachside Semaphore community in Adelaide has hosted a highly successful Playgroup in the Park which has attracted thousands of families with young children each year over several years as part of Children’s week activities. It is hosted by local faith communities and began in collaboration with North West Adelaide C4C. It provides a large variety of free activities for children and information for parents. A lot of service providers and community groups are represented and the event is a great example of government, family and community working together to engage families in the local community. In 2012 The Playford C4C Plus site in the north of Adelaide implemented the innovative Family by Family program developed by the Australian Centre for Social Innovation. This initiative attracts and engages families through understanding the local context and working

76

Chapter Five

with families to co-design the methodology and take ownership of the mode of delivery. ‘Sharing families’ are recruited and trained to link up with ‘seeking families’ including referrals from seven Playford organisations (Family by Family, 2012). Stressed and isolated families are given opportunities to interact with supportive families and discover new possibilities for their quality of life. Coaching is provided by professionals facilitating the initiative and family camps are a feature. This initiative is facilitated by Anglicare in partnership with Families SA, Uniting Communities and Playford Alive. At Campbelltown in Sydney the Benevolent Society in partnership with the YMCA has developed a successful community café offering low cost healthy food, a place for children to play and a venue for C4C courses and workshops. Appropriately named the Yummy Café, it provides a space for families to meet and connect and a mobile book and toy library. It has also been used for children’s birthday parties and weight loss programs. It has been developed as a social enterprise in a location in between disadvantaged and more affluent areas in order to allow these disparate communities to mix with each other (Benevolent Society, 2010). The Salvation Army Logan C4C site in Brisbane has developed the Family Place to support families and their children to become connected with the help they need in the way that they need it. It is based on a community development model with co-located, co-delivered wrap-around services for families and staffed by a Family Empowerment Team from multidisciplinary fields. They work closely with over 60 agencies both onsite and through outreach. Onsite activities include a Dads Playgroup, Have Fun Be Healthy, Sing & Grow and a training program for practitioners. These examples illustrate how families and community groups can partner effectively with government and community organisations in implementing whole of community, government, and family approaches. They highlight the kind of innovative and engaging activities that can be developed when organisations work collaboratively with families and communities. But they point to more than improving a system. They are examples of activities that facilitate positive interactions and build relationships among members of a community. One involves the facilitation of an event that engages families who may well be isolated in suburbia while another develops the kind of relating among families that encourages better parenting skills and improved family functioning. It

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

77

engages families to co-design and co-deliver family support, while other examples provide community spaces for ongoing interaction, peer and professional support. Though service providers are involved in facilitating these activities, it takes strong elements of thoughtful personal relationships, kindness and care from community members for these activities to function effectively and lead to significant behavioural change.

Fig 5-2 The Family Place at Woodridge in Brisbane

The issues families caught up in generational poverty have to deal with on a day to day basis are often highly complex and demanding. A whole of community, family, and government approach needs to offer practitioners the flexibility to be able to respond to immediate needs of vulnerable families if they are to become engaged with service providers. One school in North Western Victoria came up with a flexible response to student absenteeism which saw rates decline sharply (Walker, 2012). When they concluded from experience that in nine out of ten cases absenteeism had nothing to do with school issues, the student welfare coordinator was given carte blanche to be creative in assisting families with whatever issues she encountered in her interactions. Instead of asking why Suzie wasn’t at school she would simply say ‘Just wondering if everything is OK’. That often led to the sharing of a wide range of different crisis issues that were impacting on the family at the time. She found that assisting these families to link with relevant service providers by providing

78

Chapter Five

practical assistance such as transport was highly beneficial. The school also found that such assistance did not lead to co-dependence as families often managed to find their own transport or whatever else was needed to access support, once the link had been established. Of 76 students out of 500 being absent 80-120 days per year previously, 70 reduced absenteeism rates to between 2 and 9 days per year with the advent of this flexible approach to intervention. We don’t need professionals to solve every problem. A culture of specialists is not what it takes to raise a child. In fact our reliance on professionals to replace communities can sometimes create more headaches for families than solutions. We may manage to develop a good range of professional services able to intervene in a crisis but to neglect community capacity building is to significantly place the healthy development of our children at risk. Parenting practice needs to be supported by the broader community. School staff may have a major role in this but they cannot be expected to do it all. They need to work with parents as first educators of their children. Parents and caregivers need to work with school staff if they want to see more positive outcomes for their children. In addition to being used as community hubs, many public schools are now giving increasing attention to student wellbeing. Martin Seligman argues that “wellbeing should be taught in school because it would be an antidote to the runaway incidence of depression, a way to increase life satisfaction and an aid to better learning and more creative thinking (Seligman, 2011). Positive psychology includes the importance of developing character strengths and finding meaning and purpose in life as important contributors to wellbeing. The search for meaning is not without many challenges but for many who engage on this journey the rewards suggested are significant. As well as physical, emotional, social and cognitive development we also need to consider the spirit of the child (Hay, 2006). Most faith-based schools have always included these aspects of wellbeing as part of their curriculum based on the beliefs and worldview of their founders. While some of the less palatable expressions of community life have been faith-based, so also have some of the better ones. In some areas, such as in northern Adelaide, networks of faith based community leaders work collaboratively with each other and the local community to implement activities with children, youth and families that

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

79

sometimes includes a look at issues relating to meaning and purpose in life. They also work in partnership with schools and community service organisations to support the general wellbeing of children. One highly disadvantaged northern suburbs school has been immensely impacted by just one wonderfully dedicated local volunteer who has worked with the school, faith communities and community services to support students and their families in whatever way they need it.

Nobody said it was going to be easy Implementing a ‘no wrong door’ approach has huge implications for the way services are delivered and requires considerable flexibility on the part of service providers. Collaborative efforts between agencies, government departments and community groups have resulted in some excellent initiatives that significantly benefit families, though the process has many challenges along the way. A ‘can do’ attitude and a willingness to share responsibilities and resources is required. It’s not easy for government departments to work collaboratively and it takes a high level of co-operation across all levels of management to do it well. It doesn’t come easy for most of us to decline to take part in power struggles and give everyone a ‘fair go’. Most attempts to bring about change in society haven’t come unstuck because the groups involved lacked the funds or the numbers. Most have fallen apart because of power struggles that caused the groups to selfdestruct. The people involved lacked the power to change themselves, let alone their society.” (Andrews, 2009).

The NC21 collaboration in Northern Adelaide is an example of how senior managers from different government departments and nongovernment organisations can work together. Convened by the Director of Northern Connections, a state government initiative, this group brings together local councils, state and federal government departments, community and business organisations. It provides a circuit breaker in relation to many of the protracted stalemates and power struggles that can occur in developing collaborative work between large bureaucratic organisations and has been a conduit for some encouraging developments. Some 150 representatives are involved in a number of sub-planning groups including literacy and learning, engagement and aspiration, coordinated career development, schools wellbeing and workplace development. The Northern Children & Families Forum also operates in the northern suburbs at a grass roots level and has provided a platform for

80

Chapter Five

practitioners and managers of family support initiatives to network together, advocate for children and families and provide information about opportunities for professional training. This group has been instrumental in developing improved coordination of services including new child & family support initiatives. The state government Thinkers in Residence Program has also given considerable impetus to a number of significant developments including early childhood initiatives. Residencies over a number of months with thinkers such as Fraser Mustard, Carla Rinaldi and Martin Seligman have made major contributions toward a brighter future for South Australian children. Another initiative that contributes to keeping service providers up to date with the latest research developments is a group called Healthy Development Adelaide. Based at the Robinson Research Institute it is a collaboration of the major South Australian universities and a number of sponsoring organisations. It facilitates free quarterly seminars open to academics, service providers and policy makers. To be sure many challenges lie ahead if social indicators are to be turned around but such developments as these do offer significant hope as they advocate for and facilitate systemic change in the way we go about delivering services. Collaboration often requires facilitating partners to ‘go the extra mile’ such as sharing funding, in order to build trust. The success of interagency collaboration requires initially giving more than one gets, which means taking some risks. As the collaboration process gets under way, the level of trust among would-be partners is usually quite low, while the fear of what one’s agency might stand to lose through collaboration is quite high. I have found that a willingness to share grant dollars among agencies and encouraging other financial options for blending dollars can go a long way to help assuage fears and build trust among partners (De Carolis, 2005).

Gary De Carolis has some useful things to say about leadership challenges in systems of care from the perspective of the US experience. His book A View from the Balcony emerged from the work on adaptive leadership of Cambridge Leadership Associates and Harvard Kennedy School. There is a major difference between technical problems such as replacing a heart valve during cardiac surgery and adaptive challenges which require “changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties” (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009). Interagency collaboration involves a radical redesign of the way services are delivered and requires leaders who

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

81

are able to take on a different mindset and skillset in order to break from traditional fragmented service delivery approaches. Building relationships and trust through meaningful communication and actions is indispensable to the process and collaborative work becomes difficult when this begins to break down. Stephen Covey (2004), talks about the speed of trust and how easy it is to communicate when a high level of trust exists. It is also much easier to make timely decisions and implement new initiatives where good working relationships have been established and communication flow is maintained. Dennis and Michelle Reina of Reina Trust Building Institute identify actions that lead to a decline in trust. They include withholding trust in others, failing to acknowledge effort, missing deadlines, arriving late for meetings, not admitting mistakes, spinning the truth and behaving badly (Kabik, 2013). Simple honesty is clearly a character strength needed to avoid many of these pitfalls. Acknowledging the efforts of others is vital to building trust as is not allowing partners to be exploited. If leaders are able to admit their mistakes it frees others to do the same and opens up the kind of communication that leads to increased trust. Mutual benefit from collaboration is axiomatic. If you have the capacity to not mind who gets the credit you can do almost anything. The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth have developed fourteen useful fact sheets which can be accessed online on advancing collaborative practice. They consider such issues as management, leadership, competencies and facilitation. Geoff Aigner points to owning and working with rank, understanding role and hearing the ‘no’ as three most important skills in implementing collaborative work (Aigner, 2012). Owning and working with rank identifies the importance of understanding who needs to be making what decisions. It’s something many feel uncomfortable to talk about but relieved when they eventually do because they know it needs to happen. Understanding role involves communicating the implications of the dual roles of representing stakeholders while at the same time trying to build the collaboration. Some honesty can be disarming in this arena as most of the managers sitting around the table understand exactly what it is like to juggle conflicting interests. The third skill, hearing the ‘no’, involves not allowing the ‘no’ to form an impasse but understand what it means to not get involved in “the cult of the ‘yes’ where everyone agrees and seeks consensus”. It means responding creatively and working through issues

82

Chapter Five

raised by the ‘no’ and allowing the tension it may cause become creative of something better. Given the challenges of collaboration, partnering agencies need to consider when it is the best strategy to implement and in what circumstances. The sectors working with homelessness and poverty have found it to be effective over several decades. At present it is being more fully explored to address the needs of vulnerable and at risk families who have multiple and complex problems (McDonald & Rosier, 2011). The nature of the information sharing that needs to happen here is such that colocation of services can be a major contributor to optimising collaboration for the benefit of vulnerable families. Co-location demands the kind of functional collaborative relationships that are needed to successfully deliver integrated services. Without the development of such relationships a co-located service environment becomes unworkable.

So why do we do it? Kathlene Wilson, the FamilyZone Ingle Farm coordinator, provides us with an answer to this question as she examines some of the partnerships that have been developed to support vulnerable families through home visits that subsequently link families to other services. Some 503 clients including 139 vulnerable and socially isolated families with children at risk were home visited in the period between June and December 2013 through this initiative. Home visitors providing this service are mainly trained volunteers, some community services students on placement and professional staff. We asked Kathlene some questions about how it all works. How is this activity integrated into your other activities? Home visiting must have sustainable outcomes. With this in mind family support workers/home visitors work with families to attain goals ultimately leaving them connected to services within their community and/or Family Zone. Here are some examples. x A hearing impaired mother of a 6 month old son was referred for assistance to overcome social isolation. A family support worker assisted N. to plan bus timetables and accompanied this young mother with her son to attend a supported playgroup facilitated by

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

83

Save the Children, through travelling by bus. The family support worker alerted the playgroup leader to this referral. N. is now comfortable to travel alone on the bus and she (along with her child) has a connection to the supported playgroup. x A first time mother of a Downs Syndrome child has struggled to acknowledge her child’s diagnosis and has become reclusive. A Family Support Worker accompanied B. to swimming lessons, medical appointments, playgroup at Family Zone and encouraged her to explore child care as well as connect to Disability SA. Through home visiting this family has become integrated with playgroup at FamilyZone and also the broader community. Most of the women who attend ‘Being with Baby’ and ‘Preparing for Baby’ educational and support groups are home visited. Two specific family support workers are engaged in home visiting these women. They closely link families with resources at Family Zone and the broader community. Examples of this include: x Women who attend Preparing for Baby are flagged for careful assessment following delivery. Should the need be evident, they are referred to ‘Being with Baby’ and are home visited. They may also be linked with their local G.P. for medication and/or a mental health plan, with child care, a psychologist or other services deemed appropriate for them. They may also be connected to playgroups, relationship counselling, budgeting etc. at Family Zone. x Family support workers, volunteer home visitors, students and staff have a regular training session the first Friday of each month. This session is used to keep workers aware of current services within our community as well as up-skill workers with specific training often conducted by other service providers and always supported by F.Z. staff. An up to date folder of current service provider's programs is maintained in the office at FamilyZone along with lists of phone numbers and names to better assist workers when contemplating a referral for a specific purpose.

84

Chapter Five

What are the sources of referrals? 1. As a part of the Commonwealth perinatal initiative, all women who attend antenatal clinics complete the Edinburgh Depression test. Women who are identified as depressed or anxious at antenatal visits having completed this test are referred to services. Child and Family Health Services conduct a universal home visit with all newborn babies ideally before the baby is 6 weeks of age. Whilst this is a check on the baby's health and well-being, women again complete an Edinburgh Depression test. If women score highly on this test, they may be referred to the FamilyZone home visiting program. 2. Social workers at Lyell McEwin Hospital, Modbury Hospital, the Women's and Children's Hospital and Glenside Hospital each refer to external services as part of their discharge plan. These social workers do not work outside of the hospital and pass referrals to services who work within the community. The FamilyZone home visiting service meets this criteria and receives referrals from these hospitals. 3. By attending Northern Footprints (convened by the statutory authority), FamilyZone staff are actively engaged in assessment of families who have had a Child Abuse Report Line report made about them but no child has been removed. Referrals to home visiting result from this. 4. As a consequence of building networks within our immediate community such as connections with female/child friendly G.P.s, in order to make referrals on behalf of a family being home visited, G.P.s are now also making referrals to us for home visiting and connection to a particular family's community. 5. Particularly over the last few years FamilyZone has worked hard to build greater bonds with Ingle Farm Primary School and other schools within our community. As a consequence of this strengthening relationship, schools (particularly Ingle Farm primary) refer families for added support and referral. 6. Families are able to self-refer to services at FamilyZone. This is becoming more apparent as women who have previously accessed the service either have another baby or experience a hiccup requiring top-up support.

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

85

What would a typical support period look like? Firstly a family needs to agree to a referral. Once the paperwork is received, a phone call is made to the family and a time made for a family assessment by the co-ordinator of home visiting. At this visit the house is checked for workplace safety according to Lutheran Community Care policy and procedures. Also at this visit, although points noted on the referral are addressed, more information is drawn from the family (usually mother) and a goal for home visiting is set. Goals are very individual and remain the focus of visiting for the first six weeks of visits. At six week intervals, the family support worker/home visitor will review contact and reset goals, consult with the co-ordinator of the program, or close off with the family as appropriate to each situation. x Extra support for a new mum might look like goal: time out for the mum to attend appointments, i.e. dentist duration: 1 visit of 2 hours per week over a six week period. objectives: take the opportunity to explore other options for mum to have this type of support in the future i.e. introduction to occasional care, family day care. This might take 6 visits x Extra support for a new mum with 3 sets of twins under 4 years of age goal: respite for mum and support with children duration: 1 visit of 2 hours per week where two workers facilitate a playgroup at the home + 1 visit of 2 hours per week where two workers accompany mother to a park, shopping or appointments. objectives: support mother during a particularly difficult period and build in as many sustainable resources as possible, support the growth of children as individuals. Visits to this family might continue for 6-12 months, at least until the older two children commence kindergarten or school. Many of the mothers referred to home visiting and other programs at FamilyZone were pregnant at the time of referral. These women experienced a significant level of depression identified during perinatal screening. Some were also identified at Footprints meetings - a meeting of Families SA, Lyell McEwin Hospital antenatal mental health midwives, police and agencies that provide support services.

86

Chapter Five

Presentation of families at Footprints indicates a level of concern for the unborn child which often results in removal of the new born from the labour ward. Home visitors have been partnered with the expectant mothers to encourage them to make regular prenatal care visits, quit smoking and drinking alcohol and eat a balanced diet - all behaviours which dramatically decrease the chances of having a low birth weight or substance exposed baby. By matching pregnant parents with trained volunteers and/or family support workers to provide information and support during pregnancy and beyond and by helping parents learn how to care for their children and themselves, families reap significant benefits. Children are safer, healthier, better prepared to learn and more likely to become successful adults. The ever-changing demands of being pregnant and raising a child can prove a challenge for even the best prepared parent. By supporting the mother's mental health, by helping parents understand their child's development, by setting realistic expectations for behaviour and improving safety in homes, home visiting programs have been shown to cut incidences of child abuse and neglect (Pew Report, 2010). The length of commitment to each family is very individual. The program is about sustainable outcomes rather than the allocation of time to a family.

References Aigner, G., (2012). Collaboration: Getting beyond the magical thinking, Australian Policy Online Arney, F., & Scott, D.,(eds) (2010). Working with Vulnerable Families A partnership approach, Cambridge University Press, p17. Andrews, D., (2009). Compassionate Community Work, Piquant editions, pps 52-53. ARACY Research Papers and Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/categories?id=6 Bammer, G., (2012). Bridging the Know-Do Gap. Children Communities Connections, Adelaide 2012. op cit. Bartley. K., (2012) Where to with early childhood and family support services? Children Communities Connections 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Where_to_with_E arly_Childhood_Family_Support_Services.pdf

Using a Whole of Family, Government and Community Approach

87

Benevolent Society, (2010). The Communities for Children Jigsaw – all the pieces matter. Evaluation of the Benevolent Society’s Communities for Children Programs. Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business, National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009 -2012. —. (2009). Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business, National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children – Implementing the first three year action plan 2009 -2012. —. (2012). Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business, National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children – Second three year action plan 2012 -2015. Covey, S., (2004). The 8th Habit, Free Press, p162. De Carolis, G., (2005). A View from the Balcony – Leadership Challenges in Systems of Care, Brown Books, p142. Fitzgerald, R. (2012). Towards a National Agenda for investing in Child Development, Children Communities Connections 2012 keynote address. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFkXlI7wEug Family by Family Playford, (2012). Scoping and start-up report, The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. Guinness, O., (2012) A Free Peoples Suicide, IVP, p169. Hay, D., & Nye, R., (2006). The Spirit of the Child, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Heifitz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M., (2009), The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Harvard Business Review Press, p19. Joint Commonwealth and State Territory Family Support Services Panning and Design (2011). Family Support Services National Collaboration Framework 2011-2013. Jordan, K., & Brettig, K.,(2012). Implementing Children and Family Centres, Children Communities Connections 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Implementing_Chi ldren_and_Family_Centres.pdf Kabik, M., (2013). Seven reasons your coworkers don’t trust you Retieved from: http://www.aits.org/blog/seven-reasons-your-coworkers-dont-trustyou/ Mandela, N., (1995). Long Walk to Freedom, Back Bay Books. McKnight, J., & Block, P., (2012). The Abundant Community Awakening the power of families and neighbourhoods. Berrett Koehler Publishers pps 1-2.

88

Chapter Five

McDonald, M., & Rosier, K., (2011). Interagency collaboration, Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, NO. 21-A 201, p8. Pew Report (2010) The Case for Home Visiting Strong Families Start with a Solid Foundation Retrieved from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/St ate_policy/067_10_HOME%20Moms%20Brief%20Final_web.pdf?n= 9905 Playgroup in the Park information retrieved from: http://semaphoresa.com.au/whatson_item.asp?newsid=42 Seligman, M., (2011). Flourish A visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Wellbeing, William Heinemann, p80. Walker, N., (2012). Working with children from challenging homes, Children Communities Connections 2012 conference oral presentation. Whalley, M., (2007). Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning, Paul Chapman Publishing, p9.

CHAPTER SIX CLOSING THE GAP AND ENGAGING WITH CULTURAL DIVERSITY KARL BRETTIG WITH ROBERT TAYLOR

How do these principles of integrated practice, service integration and collaboration between different sectors work when viewed through the lens of other cultures? What do they say about closing the outcomes gap for Aboriginal families? What have we learned and how do we move forward?

Worldviews in conflict Actions most often come out of what people believe. Different cultures often have differing worldviews, different ways of looking at the basic questions of how life has developed and how it is to be lived. For example it could be argued that in Western societies the two dominant worldviews since the eighteenth century have been naturalism and secular humanism (Poplin, 2008). Alongside of these, in more recent times, pantheism and spirituality has gained ground. Many of the conclusions we arrive at are related to our existing worldviews in terms of how we evaluate what is happening in communities. Naturalism is the belief that the natural, physical and material world is all there is and that the life we know came from much more primitive life forms that evolved on their own over time from random processes. Secular humanism came out of renaissance humanism with its optimistic view of human nature, achievement and possibilities. Humanism was previously more compatible with other worldviews however with the arrival of the twentieth century in many academic circles it morphed into secular humanism which excluded recognition of a spiritual dimension of life. In contrast pantheism, which emerged from Eastern countries and has been

90

Chapter Six

popularised in the West, held the view that man is spiritual and can become one with nature or divine like God/gods. Animism, a related view, extended this idea with the view that natural world also possess a spiritual essence. A fourth view, the Judeo-Christian worldview articulated in the Old Testament/Torah and New Testament, has also been widely held over many centuries. The predominantly held Aboriginal view has a focus on relationship to the land and to each other and an inherent ontology of the spirit or the sacred. It may be summarised by the axioms ‘the land is the law’ and ‘you are not alone in the world’. The land is the great mother of all humanity and Aboriginal people have a kinship system which holds the view that a person finds their individuality within the group. How Aboriginals and westerners view money is an interesting example of how conflicting worldviews shape conflicting values. From an Aboriginal perspective, spirit or the sacred has been reified by Westerners as ‘money’: Western behaviour as we have observed it over the last two hundred years is consistent with that of a community for whom money is sacred. In Aboriginal society money has the same status as other useful resources like food, clothing, transport and housing. These resources are there for the benefit of the family group firstly and after that for the community (Graham, 1999).

Aboriginal worldviews shape, or have in the past shaped, stronger family and community values than we see emerging from current popular western worldviews. This is often not the case with urban and remote Aboriginals as they embrace western influences, however it is worthwhile to reflect on what has underpinned Aboriginal society for centuries in the light of disturbing current trends. In the kinship system aunties and uncles and grandparents had a much greater role in raising children than in a typical western family. Aboriginal culture embraces involving the village community in childrearing much more than contemporary westerners who are becoming increasingly reliant on services, as relationships among relatives no longer fulfil the supportive functions they did in former generations. Much the same as for Aboriginals can be said for most new Australian communities who have a much more collectivist approach in contrast to the individualism of many older Australians (Taylor-Neuman, 2012). The very significant roles of aunties, uncles and grandparents in raising Aboriginal children, add strength to the fabric of the family structure. Interestingly children in Aboriginal and CALD groups rank community second to family while more westernised children appear

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

91

confused about its significance and place it much lower down the scale in terms of influencers of wellbeing (Scattelbol et al, 2014). It must be said however that this does not often translate well when families move from rural to urban communities. This is especially the case when families who have issues such as substance abuse share accommodation with extended family in urban settings. Some families move to urban areas with the hope of establishing a new home and lifestyle. This aspiration can be thwarted when they feel obligated to accommodate their extended family relatives arriving in suburbia, sometimes with very disruptive results.

Delivering integrated services Given the predominant collectivist worldview of Aboriginals, the delivery of integrated services using whole of government, family and community approaches, should fit quite well with Aboriginal communities. Adding to this is the reality that the delivery of a plethora of fragmented services in recent times is having little effect. As one Aboriginal service user put it recently, “I’ve got 15 services in my life and look at me” (TACSI, 2013, p8). An Aboriginal community representative at a recent C4C committee meeting made it very clear that the trauma of the stolen generation has made many Aboriginal families extremely wary of engaging with services because they are afraid of losing their children. A recent options paper looking at integrated Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islanders children’s services points to the need for new models to be community and not service focussed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders services are about meeting the needs of all children in the community. Services do not focus solely on children attending the service but seek to reach all children who may be in need in the community. This is achieved through outreach, mobile services, and provision of care to children visiting the community. This ‘community approach’ to child care is consistent with a ‘traditional’ Indigenous approach. (Brennan, 2013)

Clearly the Aboriginal community need to be the key players involved in redesigning a service system that works for them using a community capacity building approach. The Australian Northern Territory Government has begun the journey of implementing an integrated service

92

Chapter Six

delivery approach. It has developed an Integrated Family Services Initiative Handbook and a workforce development pilot project to train staff for integrated early childhood service delivery through children and family centres, the Families as First Teachers program and maternal and child health services (Race, 2012). The project includes such capacity building principles as trainer/educators living in and delivering services in the community and school, engaging the community in the project and increasing understanding of working in an integrated way. Integrated children and family centres can offer powerful support to vulnerable families around the critical perinatal period and in the early years of a child’s life. For Aboriginal families the facilitation of seamless transitioning for families engaged with these centres is a huge bonus. Some thirty-eight Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and family centres have been rolled out across Australia with 23 centres in regional and remote areas and 15 in urban areas. They aim to provide integrated services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families that are responsive to community needs. Services include antenatal services, child & maternal health services, parenting and family support services and early learning and child care (SNAICC, 2012). The hope is that the establishment of these centres will do much to improve child development in the critical antenatal and early years and that these children will be much better prepared to cope with school. Critical to their success will be their ability to involve parents in their children’s learning and effectively support them in their parenting roles. In order to better prepare the Aboriginal community to more readily engage with children and family centres some additional strategies may be worth consideration. The first of these is to look at how to better begin the process of preparing for parenthood well before it happens. Clearly one of the most powerful elements for this is the role modelling that happens in the home environment. Schools can also play a key role through facilitating initiatives such as the Core of Life National Indigenous Program. This initiative is designed to empower male and females from adolescence with information on pregnancy, birth and parenting newborns. It targets youth from the age of twelve, especially those at risk of early pregnancy and parenthood. Secondarily it targets pregnant women and young mothers as well as young men and fathers. Core of Life Education programs have

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

93

been developed in Australia and are delivered by trained facilitators in secondary schools. Another key strategy is to engage with new parents at the time of birth through maternity hospitals. Aboriginal Family Support Workers can partner with perinatal education initiatives in building cultural sensitivity into programs and offering support and education at the time of birth. One such initiative is being delivered at the Lyell McEwin Hospital in the north of Adelaide through the Playford Communities for Children site. Not all cultural practices are helpful as is the case in most cultures. There is much westerners can learn from other cultures and can benefit a lot by taking a serious look at their practices. Some cultural practices are useful though others may not be. The suggestion that a return to past cultural practices is all that is required is too simplistic. For example, it is important that the neuroscience evidence base be taken into account in developing support for Aboriginal parents. Evidence informed practices or practices drawn from other cultures should not be excluded simply because they are not part of a traditional belief system. Trauma informed practice has been a major part of the work of the Healing Foundation funded by the Australian Government in 2009 following the apology to the stolen generations (Healing Foundation, 2014). A downside to overemphasising past atrocities in developing a cultural awareness curriculum is that it may serve to increase intensity of anger among disenfranchised young Aboriginals. Children growing up with violence and neglect often struggle with trust issues and are vulnerable to becoming aggressive as young adults (Perry, 2004). In some cases this may lead to disenfranchised youth grouping together in gangs in local neighbourhoods. Such groups may easily justify anti-social behaviour on the basis of past atrocities committed against Aboriginal people. In one sense, everybody in society belongs to a ‘gang’. The nature, notoriety or image of each group contributes to how they maintain their existence and how they are accepted or rejected by society. It is the issue of violence that is most concerning here and we need to take a holistic view of all the factors that may contribute. The Australian Centre for Social Innovation has done an analysis of the challenges and opportunities that enable change with Aboriginal families and services. It makes the following observations (TACSI, 2013, p7).

94

Chapter Six Cultural appropriateness came from a good place. Overdue developments in Indigenous rights in the late 1960s sparked the movement towards cultural appropriateness. It was a response to racism, exclusion and convenient amnesia about the past. It was intended to ensure respect and recognition of Aboriginal culture and make service delivery sensitive and relevant. Part of the purpose was to understand what is different- and how to best work with those differences- to increase respect, understanding and to develop more effective approaches. It was well intentioned and has resulted in significant change and improvement. But one of its unintended consequences has been that in attempting to understand difference we’ve ended up seeing Aboriginal families in such a different category from other families that it has created a huge distance - in empathy, in standards and expectations, in approach, in possibility. Aboriginal people have become other people. Their families are other people’s families. Their children are other people’s children. In focussing on difference and in falling over ourselves to be ‘appropriate’, we’ve created a way of interacting that babies Aboriginal families, that sets a different standard from what we’d want for our own family. Focussing on difference has inadvertently resulted in less, not better. “Whenever the words culturally appropriate are invoked, it is inevitably in defense of some poor standard - the words are never associated with something that is excellent and better than those things which are presumably culturally inappropriate”(Pearson 2009)…. …Being culturally appropriate has made it possible to avoid hard conversations, and honestly ask why change isn’t happening. Why (individual success stories notwithstanding) are we still working on the same problems of this generation’s grandparents?

It may well be that more effort needs to be put into addressing closing the gap issues within mainstream services instead of creating entirely separate services or agencies. We need to find that balance of meeting the needs of communities’ cultural requirements and the need to prepare people to live within mainstream society. Some cultural practices however have been particularly useful in developing whole of family and community responses to family issues. Family Group Conferencing originally developed from Maori practices in New Zealand is widely used worldwide in working with child protection issues. It is particularly helpful as a “cornerstone of practice” with Aboriginal families (Arney & Scott, 2013, p141). Healing Circles originated in Canada with First Nation peoples and are used with a whole of community approach which includes accountability, acknowledgement of harm, learning, provision of support, respect and expectation of change (Young, 2006).

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

95

The Australian Government has produced a toolkit for indigenous service provision which addresses potential barriers to accessing services, ways of engaging the broader indigenous community, strategies organisations can implement and partnerships that can be explored (Australian Government, 2009). Governments are now attempting to engage in ways that were once only dreamed about. In previous generations it was left to anyone who cared enough to do what they could. It was people like Sir Douglas Nicholls, the first Aboriginal to be honoured with a knighthood, and his partner Gladys who took up the challenge of supporting the most vulnerable. Their house was the refuge of the needy and the cast off. Many of them were girls and women coming out of prison, from Fairlea of Winlaton. When they were released, Doug would be waiting at the gate for them. He would take them home, Gladys would fit them out with clothes; then Doug would put them on the train and send them back to their own people. Or if they had no one, he would try to find a job for them and shelter them as long as he could. And there would be people coming from the country to go into hospital, or people coming out of hospital who needed temporary care. At this time the Nicholls were almost alone in this field of work. The Welfare Board was not functioning actively on these lines, and the Aborigines Advancement League had not come into being. They were contacted at all hours of the night (Clark, 1965).

It’s easy to forget the times when the vulnerable were just left to fend for themselves unless they were picked up by individuals or fledgling organisations brave enough to offer interventions. The amazing compassion of some of these people cannot be wholly replaced by the sophisticated policies and practices governments have developed in recent years. We still need a lot of caring individuals and communities, albeit supported by informed policies and practice.

Engaging with Aboriginal dads In many urban communities there has been a lack of services offering support and education for young Aboriginal fathers many of whom have not been taking a very active role in parenting. A need for positive role models and better support for fathers has been identified as a priority in the indigenous community.

Chapter Six

96

Port Augusta Communities for Children developed an Aboriginal dads initiative that has proved effective in supporting young Aboriginal fathers in positive parenting and community involvement through mentoring (AIFS, 2010). It resulted in dads strengthening their relationships with their children including involvement in playgroups and improved sharing of parenting responsibilities with their partners. The dads have also become involved in mentoring others and working together to give something back to the community. Key elements include, a peer (project) worker, mentoring support, capacity building and leadership development, promoting community development activities, getting people out bush to chat with them, family focused activities, teaching about culture and strong partnerships. Initiatives such as this are not easily put in place and require dedicated time to foster the kind of mentoring relationships that lead to improved parenting.

Rural and remote initiatives Children and family centres are being developed in a number of rural settings. At Kununurra in the Kimberly region of Western Australia a purpose built centre was planned and developed by the Western Australian Department of Education under the Closing the Gap: National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development. Activities include early childhood learning and childcare, pre-pregnancy and antenatal programs, and maternal and child health assistance. The Kununurra building was designed in consultation with the community, as well as social service agencies to meet cultural requirements, and in doing so created open-air facilities, clinics with private entrances, and toilets which are separated accordingly. As part of the planning process the Save the Children C4C site initiated a national scoping trip in which key stakeholders looked at integrated children and family centre developments in the Northern Territory and South Australia. Their report identified preferred elements regarding infrastructure, management structure, services and staffing. They also looked at key elements of the Reggio Emilia approach with its focus on the use of resources found in the child’s natural environment and concluded the following were key to implementation. x

Being built on a genuine strengths based community development approach

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity x x

Facilitated collaboration –building and maintaining relationships with all sectors Ensuring ongoing funding (Save the Children, 2010).

97 genuine

An intensive supported playgroup that runs five days a week and includes a transport service for families from the town camps and mobile playgroups for Aboriginal families, has been developed in a C4C site in Alice Springs. This promising initiative delivered by Lutheran Community Care offers a simple healthy breakfast on arrival and a program of play experiences in a friendly, family focused and stimulating environment. Activities designed to support children with learning, social and emotional development and resources relating to children and families are available to parents and cares. They also offer mothers the opportunity to interact with other mothers and participate in art and craft activities. Most of the children come from town camps but others visit from remote and wider communities near Alice Springs.

The shape of things to come In 2013 the Lowitja Institute in Melbourne invited key leaders involved with Aboriginal communities in Australia to a series of workshops around the country to consider current issues and trends and come up with a range of possible scenarios for life in 2030. It aimed to identify the kind of research that is needed to address current emerging issues and create a healthy future. The inspirational and empowering answer – perhaps not surprisingly – was not simply a list of research topics. Instead participants articulated a strong and widely shared desire for a profoundly different system of research. A vision emerged of a research system in which research and practice are closely interwoven and which would enable greater integration of health services, policy and research (Brands, 2014).

Workshop participants expressed the need for a shift from describing problems to doing and improving what works, which often requires more complex multidisciplinary, whole of community and collaborative methods. It’s one thing to know what the problems are and another to come up with ways of doing something that will bring about significant change. It is also easy to be too dismissive of what has, as well as what hasn’t worked well in previous generations.

98

Chapter Six

Cultural practices in raising children Much can be gleaned from consideration of the way other cultures raise their children. Child discipline is an interesting case in point. Past physical disciplinary practices range from the perceived severities of sharia or tribal law, through the African frequent use of smacking, to the current move towards the avoidance of all forms of physical discipline in western societies. It is the subject of much discussion among African parents and other nationalities arriving in Australia. Is there still some validity in what we now consider to be inappropriate or have we discovered something significantly different from the practices of previous generations and other cultures about how to raise children in a manner that doesn’t encourage a culture of violence? Other interesting practices can be found in different cultures in terms of approaches to the concept of play learning. It has been quite foreign in some African countries where more pressing priorities such as survival take precedence. At FamilyZone, playgroup was a new concept for African humanitarian entrants who were very happy to leave their children in the care of others. In contrast the Afghani women were failing to access English classes because they did not want to leave their children in childcare. We managed to find a compromise for these families by establishing a crèche area adjacent to their English classroom where they gradually learned to entrust their children into the care of others. The proximity of the crèche to the English classes was sufficient to allow the children’s ‘transition to independence’ process to begin, but much learning was yet to happen in terms of understanding differing cultural expectations of parents and carers. Clearly it is important that carers in multicultural settings develop cultural competence regarding families in their care. Australian Occupational Health and Safety standards and insurance issues also need to be understood by new arrivals. Much stress on all partners can be avoided if mutual understanding of differing expectations can be achieved and strategies to manage these put into place. Parents and carers have diverse expectations and beliefs regarding parenting and acceptable behaviours in different cultures and there are also differing expectations in relation to developmental milestones. For example one study found that Somali parents expect children to achieve obedience/self-regulation milestones later than other cultural groups, including Anglo parents and carers, while the same could not be said for

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

99

Vietnamese parents (Wise & da Silva, 2007). Vietnamese traditionally believe that the patriarchal family is the ideal human institution. Confucian ethical values frame morality in terms of the obligation of children to parents, wives to husbands, younger brother to elder brother and of all to the fathers as the senior representatives of the family group (Lee, 2007). As well as parents from different cultures having to learn about local expectations, it is important that carers also learn about differing expectations of such things as behavioural milestones expected in other cultures. The same applies to teachers in junior primary school settings. A study of white, African American and Hispanic families found some interesting differences in terms of what parents consider important for their children entering school. There is also an intriguing set of contrasts that emerge in the kinds of social and emotional skills parents think are important for school entry, with each population emphasising slightly different skills. Hispanic and white parents are more likely than African American parents to think that the ability to play well with others is important, African American and white parents are more likely than Hispanic parents to think that respecting adults is important, and African American and Hispanic parents are more likely than white parents to indicate that the ability to sit still and pay attention is important (Spicer, 2010).

Parenting challenges in a new culture In 2010 the Australian Centre for Child Protection conducted a study looking at how to better support refugee parents settling in South Australia (Arney & Scott, 2010). Parents identified the following challenges they had to deal with in a new culture. x x x x

The changing expectations of their children in regard to their roles and responsibilities Understanding Australian laws and norms about parenting The perceived influence of schools and police on their children’s behaviour and attitudes Changes in the source and structure of social support

Different cultures have significantly different expectations in terms of the roles and responsibilities of children. Africans have a strong communal focus while Europeans tend to have a strong individual focus. As humanitarian entrant children get to know their local counterparts at

100

Chapter Six

schools, major family conflicts can develop regarding their roles and responsibilities at home and in relation to their extended families. African children are expected to obey their parents in a way that Europeans are not and that can be a source of confusion and concern for some while it is cautiously welcomed by others. Africans also have a lot of concerns about the practice of physical discipline which in some cases is considered criminal activity in Australia. Many feel strongly that physical discipline has worked for them back in their own countries and banning it leaves them powerless to control their children. They also feel that their children use Australian laws to challenge their authority and there is a perception that schools and the police encourage this practice (Lewig et al, 2009). Practices of government agencies such as youth allowance provision can also cause significant conflict for parents. Many refugee families experience an isolation that has been completely foreign to their previous experience when they find housing in suburbia. This is particularly the case for mothers at home with children who find themselves disconnected from the kind of extended family and community support they once knew. Experiences of isolation are related to their proximity to community members or relatives from their countries of origin and their ability to engage with communities and agencies outside of their families. A lot of attention needs to also be given to the trauma experienced by humanitarian entrants before their arrival and, particularly in the case of children, experienced on arrival if they have been exposed to detention centres (Chilcott, 2012). Living in detention has to be considered to be a major child protection issue and much attention needs to be given to providing children with an environment that does not seriously compromise healthy development. Where this has been the case, intervention strategies need to be employed as early as possible depending on the level of trauma experienced. A child’s physical development is impeded by being subjected to confined spaces but even more significant for their emotional development is the impact of growing up in a very stressful environment. Aspects of this will be considered in more detail in the next chapter.

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

101

A whole of family, government and community approach Ultimately a whole of family, government and community approach is needed in working with children and families from CALD backgrounds. This approach builds community capacity as all children and families are supported, peer learning is facilitated and agencies can creatively go about providing needed professional support that is identified by the communities. All agencies need to ensure their staff are culturally competent and understand that competence begins with values congruent with high quality service delivery for all children and families. Agencies need to ensure their community and agency partnerships give them access to the knowledge and support they need to make sure community members experience seamless service delivery. That means actively seeking relationships with services and programs relevant to the needs of their constituents. These are likely to include supports for different languages, transport assistance, school-based programs, supports for youth socialisation and employment, family support, nutrition and health programs and advocacy. The exact combination of supports and programs will be unique to each community and will change across time as communities develop. Above all staff at all levels within agencies need to have the heart and mind to deliver services in a way that enhances capacity, builds on strengths and supports communities to achieve their dreams and aspirations (Sims et al, 2008).

References Arney, F., & Scott, D., (2010). Working with Vulnerable Families – A partnership approach, Cambridge, p167. Arney, F., & Scott, D., (2013). Working with Vulnerable Families – A partnership approach, 2nd Edition, Cambridge pps 130-141. Australian Government, (2009). Toolkit for Indigenous Service Provision. Department of Families Housing and Indigenous Affairs. Australian Institute of Family Studies (2010). Aboriginal Dads Program, Promising Practice Profile, p3. Retrieved from: http://www.aifs.gov.au/cafca/ppp/profiles/pppdocs/cfc_aboriginal_dad s.pdf Brands, J., (2014). The Shape of Things to Come – Visions for the future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research, Lowitja Institute, p 1. Brennan, D., (2013). Joining the Dots – Program and Funding Options for Integrated Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander Children’s Services, SNAICC. Retrieved from:

102

Chapter Six

http://www.snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/03244.pdf Chilcott, B., (2012). Welcome to Australia, Children Communities Connections Conference, Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRadGd94_Uw Clark, M., (1965). Pastor Doug - The Story of Sir Douglas Nicholls: Aboriginal Leader, Seal books 1975, p135. Graham, M., (1999). Some Thoughts about the Philosophical Underpinnings of Aboriginal Worldviews, Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 3, p 185. Healing Foundation. (2014). Journey to Healing. Vol. 2. Retrieved from: http://healingfoundation.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/files_mf/ 1409112136TrainingEducationVol2.pdf Lee, H., (2007). How to Become more Sensitive to Differences in Race and Culture. Paper presented at the Salvation Army Ingle Farm, p10. Lewig, K., Arney., F., & Salveron, M., (2009). The Working with Refugee Families Project, Australian Centre for Child Protection, p67. Pearson, N., (2009). Radical Hope, Education and Equality in Australia, Quarterly Essay 35, p79 Perry, B., (2004). Understanding Traumatised and Maltreated Children, Child Trauma Academy. Poplin, M., (2008). Finding Calcutta – What Mother Teresa taught me about meaningful work and service, Intervarsity Press, pps 166 - 177. Race, K., (2012). Building stronger NT Indigenous Communities through reforming the child and family service system. Children Communities Connections Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Building_Stronger _NT_Indigenous_Communities.pdf Save the Children, (2010). Integrated Children & Family Centre Scoping Report. Retrieved from: http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/isd/Integrated_Chil dren_and_Family_Centre_Scoping_Report_October_2010.pdf Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, (2012). Caring for Children and Families- Profilin the set up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Family Centres, SNAICC, p4. Sims, M., Guilfoyle, A., Kulisa, J., Targowska, A., & Teather, S., (2008). Achieving Outcomes for Children and Families from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Topical Paper. pps 28-29. Skattebol, J, et al. (2013). Understanding children’s perspectives on wellbeing: Phase One Report for the Australian Child Wellbeing

Closing the Gap and Engaging with Cultural Diversity

103

Project, Flinders University, the University of NSW and the Australian Council for Educational Research. p74 www.australianchildwellbeing.com.au Spicer, P., (2010) Cultural Influences on Parenting, Zero to Three, March 2010, p29. Taylor-Neuman, N., (2012). Cultural Intelligence with New Australian Communities. Children Communities Connections Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Cultural_Intelligen ce_with_New_Australian_Communities.pdf The Australian Centre for Social Innovation, (2013). Enabling change with Aboriginal families and services, Government of South Australia, Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. Young, S., (2006). What is the best modern evidence guide to Building a Community? Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth Wise, S., & da Silva, L., (2007). Differential parenting of children from diverse cultural backgrounds attending child care. Research Paper N. 39, Australian Institute of Family Studies, p xii.

CHAPTER SEVEN EMBEDDING WELLBEING AND CREATING COMMUNITY IN CLASSROOMS ELSPETH MCINNES, ALEXANDRA DIAMOND AND VICTORIA WHITINGTON

Recognizing the importance of the early childhood years to later development, Australian state and federal governments have increasingly focused on improved support for families with young children at home, in child care and at school. Early childhood is the period of most rapid brain growth. Recent neuro-developmental research has emphasised that young children’s daily environment shapes biological pathways that set life trajectories for physical and mental health, learning and behaviour (Mustard 2008). Beyond the family context, schools provide the environments where children over five years of age spend most of their time. Children’s ability to cope with the social, emotional and behavioural demands of schooling is thus significantly shaped by their experiences in the home and in the early years of school. This chapter reports on a project of Salisbury Communities for Children to develop teacher resources and skills to proactively support children’s social and emotional development in a year 2/3 classroom. Salisbury Communities for Children (C4C) was established in the north of Adelaide in 2005 with funding from the Australian Government. The initiative aimed to support families with children in the first five years living in the eastern suburbs of Salisbury. The Socio Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) scores based on Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data for these suburbs range from 903.16 to 996.25 (Australian Early Development Census [AEDC] 2010), indicating that these suburbs are more disadvantaged than the average Australian suburb (SEIFA IRSD score 1000).

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

105

The AEDC results for 5-year-olds in the south eastern suburbs of the City of Salisbury in 2009 (the cohort most applicable to the project) indicated that 34.1% were developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains (Diamond, McInnes & Whitington 2013, p. 13). To illustrate, as many as 13.4% were not doing well on measures of emotional maturity (Diamond, McInnes & Whitington 2013, p. 13); that is they had trouble concentrating, managing their negative emotions and were not ready to help others. In 2009 the Australian Government funded Salisbury C4C to extend its support for children’s development into the primary school years. Following consultations with primary school teachers and children (Diamond & Willoughby 2009), SC4C funded the employment of a children and families support coordinator (referred to as the outreach worker in this chapter) by the Schools Ministry Group. The outreach worker liaised with counsellors, chaplains, Aboriginal liaisons and other school staff to create networks between agencies concerned with children and their families, and to provide holistic support in complex cases affecting children aged five to 12 years. As part of this initiative a year 2-3 class teacher at a primary school in the eastern Salisbury suburbs volunteered to participate in a project in partnership with the outreach worker. The teacher learnt about young children’s wellbeing, with a specific focus on the effects of stress and trauma, and implemented classroom pedagogical strategies to assist children’s development and resilience. Two programs used to make classroom social and emotional culture more supportive of these vulnerable children were Play is the Way and Kimochis. Another local resource referred to was Making Space for Learning: Trauma Informed Practice in Schools (Australian Childhood Foundation 2010). This chapter describes the initiative and its outcomes. The following sections briefly review the research literature on children’s exposure to stress and trauma, and the impact of such exposure on children’s schooling experience.

Definitions and sources of chronic stress and trauma in early childhood The term “chronic stress” refers to experiences giving rise to persistent high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol. Stressors arising from

106

Chapter Seven

negative family interactions, parental separation, family poverty, child neglect, family violence, parental chronic illness and substance abuse, neighbourhood violence, racism and discrimination threaten children’s healthy emotional development (Stien & Kendall 2004). These stressors are of particular concern when consistent nurturing and comforting responses are not provided by competent adults (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child [NSCDC] 2005). In this chapter, the word trauma refers to a response to an overwhelming event or events where survival is threatened. Common contexts of trauma include family violence, rape and sexual abuse, vehicle crashes, serious illness diagnosis, or witnessing violence, injury, death or disaster (Stien & Kendall 2004). Traumatic stressors arising from deliberate violence, betrayal or neglect are likely to have more severe outcomes than do traumatic accidents or natural disasters (Courtois & Gold 2009). Experiencing or witnessing family violence (ie. domestic violence and child abuse) can cause major post-traumatic symptoms (Courtois & Gold 2009). It is estimated that one in four Australian children has witnessed violence against their mother (Indermaur 2001). Traumatic stress experienced by children living with domestic violence is often exacerbated by the compromised emotional state of a parent who cannot offer protection (van der Kolk 2005) and /or the betrayal involved when the traumatic experience is perpetrated by a trusted person (Levine & Kline 2007). Exposure to familial violence is usually characterised by repeated traumatic stress events over time. Complex trauma results from severe stressors that are (1) repetitive or prolonged, (2) involve harm or abandonment by caregivers or other ostensibly responsible adults, and (3) occur at developmentally vulnerable times in the victim’s life, such as early childhood…(when critical periods of brain development are rapidly occurring or being consolidated) (Ford & Courtois 2009, p. 13).

Effects of chronic stress and trauma on brain development and function, including learning The neuroscience of learning has established that school children who experience chronic stress or trauma have difficulties learning and integrating new information (Australian Childhood Foundation 2010). Chronic childhood stress and complex trauma impact on the development and function of the brain, affecting children’s emotional, cognitive, social, physical and behavioural functions (NSCDC 2005). Trauma in early childhood can “change the structure and function of key neural networks,

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

107

including those involved with regulating stress and arousal” (LudyDobson & Perry 2010, p. 29). Trauma “interfere(s) with normal patterns of experience-guided neurodevelopment by creating extreme and abnormal patterns of neural and neuro-hormonal activity” (Perry 2009, p. 241). Continuing exposure to stressors creates chronic stress responses because the hippocampus, which normally operates to lower cortisol production, becomes damaged, allowing high cortisol levels to cause neural injury (Monk & Nelson 2002) and to threaten the development of cortical receptors (Gerhardt 2004). Significantly smaller hippocampuses have been found in adults with histories of early abuse (Bremmer 2008, p.26). As the hippocampus normally supports the integration of memories in the context of time and space, dysfunction can result in inability to recall (Bremmer 2008, p.32). Other brain outcomes of complex childhood trauma include increased amygdala function, associated with amplified fear responses, and decreased medial prefrontal cortex function, associated with inability to turn off the fear response (Bremmer 2008). When young children are exposed to chronically high stress environments, their use-dependent pathways become highly sensitive to detecting and responding to alarm stimuli (Gerhardt 2004; Monk & Nelson 2002). This focus on threat and survival means that when these children do not feel safe, effective learning of new information, like that presented at school, is diminished (Goswami 2008, p. 44). Memory problems, including intrusive thoughts and a state of heightened arousal disrupt the “collaboration between the emotional and cognitive parts of the brain – the limbic system and the neo-cortex ….often lead[ing] children to develop an emotion-based coping style aimed at managing overwhelming feelings rather than thoughtfully tackling the challenges at hand” (Van der Kolk 1997 cited in Stien & Kendall 2004, p.75). The brain physiology responding to “alarm” sensory inputs is mobilised when either the situation is traumatic or there is one or more trauma-associated triggers present. This survival response has priority over language, thinking and problem-solving areas of brain anatomy that normally regulate emotional expression (Stien & Kendall 2004, p. 75). For children who have survived complex trauma, even minor stressors can be experienced as extremely stressful (Margolin & Vickerman 2007). Traumatised children may experience new events or activities as threatening, and they may not feel safe enough to take in novel information such as new words. The hyper-arousal or dissociative states experienced by chronically traumatized children impede access to the

108

Chapter Seven

brain pathways for cognition, language, reflection and abstraction (StreeckFischer & Van der Kolk 2000). Complex trauma is statistically related to problems with paying attention and maintaining focus (both necessary for information processing and learning) (van der Kolk 2005) and memory loss (Abercrombie, Kalin, Thurow, Rosenkranz & Davidson 2003).

Social-emotional effects of chronic stress and trauma Social-emotional outcomes of chronic stress and trauma include risky behaviours and relationship difficulties (Ko, Ford, Kassam-Adams, Berkowitz, Wilson, Wong, Brymer & Layne 2008), problems with emotional self-regulation, poor self-concept (e.g. shame and guilt), lack of behavioural self-control (e.g. aggression) mistrust in interpersonal relationships (van der Kolk 2005), and depression (Lueken & Lemery 2004). Trauma-based behaviours include internalising symptoms such as social withdrawal, pessimism about the future and anxiety, or externalising symptoms such as irritability, avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, and explosive outbursts (Stien & Kendall 2004). In the classroom context, as well as impacting on the traumatised child, these behaviours can negatively affect their peers. Self-management of emotions and impulses is a key component of successful social interaction (Cillessen & Bellmore 2004). Trauma-affected children can alter “the experience of the whole class group and change the shape of the school day” (Australian Childhood Foundation 2010, p.64). As a result, traumatised children are likely to find it difficult to make friends. Because traumatized children find it hard to tolerate uncertainty and tend to avoid novel experiences and social contact, their exposure to new social expectations and cultural contexts is inhibited (Streeck-Fisher & Van der Kolk 2000, p.912), leaving gaps in their socialization. In the primary school context, children who are identified as socially and emotionally vulnerable are at risk of being rejected by their peers (Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Pettit & Bates 2001). Peer acceptance in the primary-school years is related to later healthy psychological adjustment (Pederson, Vitaro, Barker & Anne 2007) and successful learning (Laird et al. 2001). Children rejected by peers in primary school are more likely than others to perform poorly at school; to avoid or drop out, become involved in substance abuse and delinquent behaviour in adolescence, and have mental health problems or criminal convictions in adulthood (Laird et al. 2001).

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

109

The potential of school-based interventions to support chronically stressed and traumatised children Chronically stressed and traumatised children require environments tailored to meet their needs so they can develop new adaptive responses, which may enable them to become socially and academically competent (Australian Childhood Foundation 2010). Teachers are instrumental in creating classroom environments to support children’s learning and development. Therefore teachers must understand the difficulties faced by traumatised and chronically stressed children, and what can be done in the learning environment to support them. Assisting children to become aware of their emotional and physical states and to learn strategies to selfregulate when they are feeling stressed or reacting to past traumas, provides pathways to improved social and emotional well-being, and enables effective learning (McCaskill 2007). Children who succeed in life despite adversity or stress are considered “resilient” (Naglieri & LeBuffe 2005). Resilience in childhood stems from warm, supportive, stimulating, trusting relationships with a competent adult such as a parent, grandparent, mentor, elder or teacher (Masten & Reed 2002), or with siblings or competent peers (Werner 2006). Children who have competent caring adults in their lives benefit from the healthy models of effective coping and the buffer such adults provide. Such adults act as knowledgeable guides by listening and assisting children to rise to challenges, solve problems, remain persistent, manage stress and succeed despite their life circumstances. Positive interactions with safe and familiar others help to regulate and repair stress response systems and trauma-associated difficulties (Ludy-Dobson & Perry 2010). Masten, Herbers, Cutuli and Lafavor (2008, p. 76) highlight the role of effective schools and teachers in supporting children’s emotional resilience. The World Health Organisation (2010) recommends “mental health promotional activities in schools”, and the current Australian National Mental Health Plan (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) identifies as a key action, working “with schools…to deliver programs to improve mental health literacy and enhance resilience”. The Review of Funding for Schooling in Australia commissioned by the Australian Commonwealth Government argued that “Australian schooling needs to lift the performance of students at all levels of achievement, particularly the lowest performers” (Gonski, Boston,

110

Chapter Seven

Greiner, Lawrence, Scales & Tannock 2011, p. xxix). It recommended that “school leaders should… make local arrangements to respond to particular needs related to student welfare, mental health and school readiness, and work directly with local public or not-for-profit providers of human services more broadly” (p. 219).

Project Activity The Salisbury C4C outreach worker’s role in schools involved working with staff, children and families, linking them with local family support services. The partnership between the outreach worker and the Year 2-3 classroom teacher in a local primary school, aimed to support the wellbeing of children in that class. The strategy was evaluated by University of South Australia researchers to determine whether this approach could improve children's wellbeing, their ability to identify their own and others’ feelings, their social relationships at school and their school attendance, whilst maintaining academic progress. Children were expected to know more words naming feelings after the implementation of the Kimochis program than before, and to be reported as more cooperative in the classroom by their teacher after Play is the Way had been integrated into the teaching program. By the end of the year it was also expected that children would nominate higher numbers of their class peers as friends, and that more of those nominations would be mutual, that attendance would be improved and academic progress maintained. Strategies to improve the class learning environment included the provision of teacher professional learning about brain development and the emotional and behavioural impacts of chronic stress and trauma, attention to the room contents and layout, class activities and daily routines promoting cooperation with others and emotional understanding of self; and opportunities for supported teacher reflection on practice, along with connection to relevant professional and service networks supporting children and families. The classroom teacher was assisted by the outreach worker whose role included forging relationships with school staff and its communities, and identifying resources to support children’s improved capacity to learn at school. Data collected included teacher and outreach worker interviews, children’s knowledge of feeling words, reading and spelling achievements, socio-metric records and school attendance across the school year. Researchers also interviewed parents of participating children 12 months

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

111

after the project, about their views on whether their children had benefited from the experience and whether any such benefits persisted over time.

Summary of outcomes The project identified improvements in children’s social relationships, their abilities to identify their own and others’ feelings and school attendance. Reading and spelling development trajectories were maintained, indicating that attention to social and emotional learning at school does not adversely affect children’s academic achievement. No parents felt their child had been adversely affected. Parents who identified that their child had benefitted noted improved willingness to try new things, increased confidence in identifying and expressing their feelings, increased recognition that others may feel differently about events, better relationships with peers and improved ability to respond proactively to bullying behaviours. Parents also reported improved family interpersonal interactions. The project demonstrated that activities by the outreach worker from the Schools Ministry Group assisted children’s well-being at school by supporting and resourcing the teacher, directly supporting highly vulnerable children and their families, and growing parental involvement in their child’s school experiences.

Data from participating children This section presents results of the analysis of relationships data, the numbers of feeling words provided by the children, children’s reports about what was important to them at school, results of reading and spelling tests, and children’s school attendance.

Relationships data Children were asked by their teacher, “Name three people in the class who are important to you,” in Terms 2, 3 and 4. In Term 2, 18 participants were chosen 35 times by other classmates, rising to 50 times for 19 participants by Term 4. Across the whole class, the number of mutual relationships increased threefold from 8 to 25 over the three terms of intervention activities. Despite this, five participants finished the year with no mutual relationships in the class, and most of these did not have any

112

Chapter Seven

mutual relationships during the year. The data suggested that Year 3 students were more successful in improving their social relationships than Year 2 students. This may be a feature of their age and development and longer experience in the school environment.

Numbers of feeling words before and after Kimochis intervention Before the Kimochis intervention, the children produced between 4 and 11 feeling words. After the intervention the children produced between 5 and 22 feeling words. A paired samples t-test was conducted to test whether children would score higher on the number of feelings words after the Kimochis intervention than they did before. As expected, children provided significantly more feelings words after the Kimochis intervention (M= 11.33, SD= 4.94) than before (M = 6.75, SD = 2.22), t(11) = -3.298, p = .004 (one tailed), showing that the intervention significantly improved their knowledge of feeling words. As the children produced significantly more feelings words after the Kimochis intervention we can infer that the Kimochis interventions improved the children’s emotional literacy, as measured by number of feeling words recalled. The intervention appears to have been more effective for some children than for others. Further support for the finding regarding children’s increased emotional and social literacy came from the teacher interview data.

What children reported as important for them at school In Term 4 the children were individually asked by the outreach worker “What is important to you at school?” The question sought to provide insights about what the children valued at school. Twenty-five anonymous responses were recorded. The most common single response was “friends”, nominated by six children. Eight children nominated various academic activities. Two liked maths, two liked science, two liked reading, one liked painting and the other liked writing. Sport and play activities were named by seven children. Two liked the playground, two liked football, and other single nominations were variously the sportsshed, the sandpit and basketball. One child liked the shady trees at the school. Two children said school made them feel brave, and one child liked “not getting into trouble”.

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

113

The children’s responses reveal that classroom based activities, play and sport activities and friends were the three most highly valued aspects of school. It is interesting that two children said that feeling “brave” was important to them at school. “Brave” is a word prominent in both the Kimochis resource and Play is the Way activities, with emphases on trying new things and being willing to take a risk. Its use by children in the class is evidence of their awareness and use of a feelings vocabulary.

Attendance Children’s school attendance was logged, with principal-approved exemptions included as attendances. The percentages of days each child attended school in Term 1 and in Term 4 were calculated. A paired samples t-test was conducted to test the hypothesis that the percentage of days children attend school would be greater in Term 4 than in Term 1. As expected, the percentage of days children attended school was greater in Term 4 (M = 92.25, SD = 9.21) than in Term 1 (M= 86.3, SD= 14.62), t(25)= -1.711, p= .0495 (one tailed). Children’s attendance did improve between Terms 1 and 4, however without comparative data (eg with the averages for Year 2/3 classes in the state), we cannot assert this result is an outcome of the project. Although there is no evidence that the project improved academic outcomes, because school attendance is reliably found to be associated with school achievement over time (eg Morrissey, Hutchison & Winsler 2013), we argue that consistently strong attendance along with emotional readiness to learn would set the stage for future learning.

One year later Teacher interview 2013 The teacher was interviewed again in the 4th Term of 2013 to reflect on his practice and insights arising from the 2012 project. Four key themes were identified: “Changing use of Play is the Way and Kimochis”, “Impacts on children’s behaviour and learning”, “Impacts on the teacher’s own learning and practice”, and “Importance of some ongoing support and a school wide approach to social and emotional learning”.

114

Chapter Seven

1. Changing use of Play is the Way and Kimochis. The teacher explained that in the year following the project, his use of Kimochis had become more flexible and responsive to children’s social situations, and required less planned class time. I’ve moved on to taking a bit more control about how I deliver [Kimochis and Play is the Way] …I still think the support for the Play is the Way stuff is crucial, particularly early in the year when you’re trying to get your class to gel and work together… I think my understanding of it has been a lot better, and because of that the delivery is a bit better as well, and we can tailor it to what the students need. Last year…I was still learning the programs… doing everything by the book…. In the first half of [this] year…we did a few regular lessons there, but in the second half of the year it’s probably dropped off a little bit. It’s mainly to do with the needs of the class rather than sort of losing interest in the program as such.

2. Impacts on children’s behaviour and learning. The teacher described the benefits experienced by the children as a group, as well as by individual children who had experienced particular social and emotional difficulties. Whether it’s Kimochis or the Play is the Way, they’re starting to understand that they have more control over their emotions and how they choose to react in a situation, whereas early in the year there was a lot of comments like, Such and such made me push in the line, or, Such and such made me do that. I’m not getting those excuses anymore … they’re taking responsibility for their own choices and behaviours. The Kimochis has been a good starting point for [child 1]. I guess heavily reliant on the Kimochis as…last time around….She’s shifting away from those [Kimochi] characters and internalising it a little bit more….[child] has taken more responsibility for her own reactions. She won’t run off as much. She was doing it almost on a daily basis last year, and now…it’s [less than] once every two weeks, so there’s definitely been a shift in her behaviour. While it’s not cured, yeah, we can see progress being made. … it did help her talk to her doctor, like she was able to say, Oh, we’ve done Kimochis, and sort of talk about that. Mum and dad had said that that helps them sort of get started with that, and she had a bit more, emotional vocabulary than she ever had before, so that’s a clear sign of where it has helped. [Child 2] was the one that would always run away when things got tough. I don’t think he runs as much this time, but he will still come up to me in the yard and seek me out, and say hello, and have a chat. If I’m kicking the footy with a couple of kids he’ll come over and sort of have a chat… So I think part of this Kimochis thing has allowed me to show a bit

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

115

more empathy to the kids as well,…and someone like [child 2] has really responded.… You just know it’s more than just saying hello, he’s sort of using it as a bit of comfort I guess…I had to tell [child 2] off quite a lot last year about being off task, and all that sort of stuff, but there’s been enough of a relationship maintained through the other activities that he still feels comfortable enough to come up and talk.

3. Impacts on the teacher’s own learning and practice. The teacher spoke of how his learning about trauma, its effects on behaviour and about how to support stressed and traumatised children in his classrooms, had given him confidence and informed his responses to children and families. The year-long project had led to deep learning that he said he would carry forward through his career. Having an understanding of trauma is essential. In the past, I guess for me it was easy to write off a student as…just a naughty kid, [or] they just don’t like me as a teacher, [or] they don’t like the class they’re in….Whereas with doing this “trauma in classroom” stuff, and having a bit more research behind it, I do have a greater appreciation that it may not be anything I’m doing personally, it may not be anything that anyone is doing to them in the class. If they’re carrying this baggage from home, it’s then going to come out in different ways and forms. [Child 3] came to us on an exclusion from another school, and he’d been done for assault and things like this… he was only eight years old and he was right up there with the most extreme kids.…but definitely having an understanding of, “Yes, there has been some sort of trauma in his life, how can we sort of work around that to help him move forward?” has helped. I guess it’s easy for teachers to say, “Yes, I have an understanding of trauma”, but how do you actually then change your practice to help those kids? That’s where I feel like I’ve been able to improve this year. I’ve put a bit more time in now with parents, particularly there’s a girl in my class, [child], she would be one of these trauma kids that we talked about last year…we had two or three discussions with mum and dad about just how [child] is going socially in the classroom….I suppose it has changed the...discussions...trying not to blame [child] …but it’s more explaining to mum and dad….about the social consequences of her behaviour.… having the confidence to back your judgement on these things as well. It’s not always easy, like parenting is a hard enough job without having somebody else telling you what you should be doing, or what you shouldn’t be doing, but it’s about giving them enough information that they can start making some choices as well about how they…behave at home in front of their kids.

116

Chapter Seven

4. Importance of some ongoing support and a school wide approach to social and emotional learning. The teacher referred to the value of a second educator’s support when introducing Play is the Way to a new class, of having a mentor to observe sessions and share ideas, and of a whole-school approach. [Final year early childhood education student in 2013] came in and did the Play is the Way games with us, and it was just like last year. The first couple of sessions I was still chasing kids that were running off when things didn’t go their way, so if I was doing that on my own it would have been very tough, like being stuck outside having three or four kids running off at once. It’s pretty intimidating as a teacher … We were able to get through all those teething problems, and play a few more games and things later on, and use that as a discussion point down the track. I haven’t had the people to bounce ideas off this time around [2013]. No one else in the school has taken on the Kimochis stuff... because no one else is doing it I haven’t been able to just go up to them and say, What do you think about this? How can we do it here? So it’s been a bit trickier that way around…If it’s a whole-school, and … everybody is on board, the language becomes more ingrained around the school.

The teacher’s reflections highlight that over time the resources offered dynamic opportunities to adapt to the needs of the class and to particular children. His growing experience in using Play is the Way and Kimochis enabled him to be more innovative and flexible in their implementation, although additional support was still important to introducing the games of Play is the Way. The teacher identified that while the children in his class generally benefitted from taking increasing responsibility for their actions, the children with the most challenges were most assisted by the resources. Children with autism, those with high emotional reactivity, those who lashed out violently at others and those who were socially excluded were seen to have developed greater social competencies and an improved ability to express their feelings. Having an understanding of trauma, its impacts on children’s behaviour and emotional state and effective strategies to support children, enabled the teacher to develop increased confidence in dealing with children with challenging behaviours. He was more able to form positive relationships with children, even if he had to discipline them, and more able to talk to parents about how their child was faring socially at school.

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

117

The teacher also identified that extended engagement with the 2012 project enabled him to engage more meaningfully over time than was usual for professional development activities. One day of exposure to training materials was not as effective at generating sustained change as the implementation of programs over the course of the year, with opportunities to talk to others about the process. He noted that the school wide implementation of the Play is the Way resource provided a shared basis of understanding of key concepts and language of the program, but Kimochis was only used in his classroom, and was thus little understood by other school staff. Having a resource in only one class inhibited the development of shared understandings and the capacity to workshop strategies with other professionals. The data confirms the efficacy of sustained intervention for changes in children’s social and emotional learning and for teachers’ capacity development in delivering trauma informed classroom strategies.

Parents’ views about the project’s impact Parents of participating children were approached by researchers at a Play is the Way barbecue in the Term 4 2013, around 12 months after the project concluded, to explore their views of any benefits to their child and whether any such benefits had persisted over time. Six parents were interviewed. Four were parents of nine year old children, one had an 8 year old and the other a 10 year old. Two had boys and the remainder had girls. Only one child had the same teacher as in 2012. None of the six parents interviewed felt their child had been adversely affected by the classroom interventions. Parents variously noted their child’s improved willingness to try new things, increased confidence in identifying and expressing their feelings, better relationships with peers and improved ability to respond proactively to bullying behaviours, as well as improved academic outcomes. All parents indicated that their children felt happy about coming to school in 2012, but one parent explicitly linked her child’s improved happiness to the classroom activities. I have noticed from after we [attended the barbecue last year] to this year, he is happier… because he knows values, he actually is able to express

118

Chapter Seven what he learned the values, you know like treat others like the way you like to be treated.

Two parents commented that their child particularly liked attending school. He just loves coming to school, it’s amazing. She liked that [the teacher] was able to teach her things that she wasn’t able to understand with other teachers so she had a better understanding of the subjects overall.

Parents were asked to identify anything their child did not like about school last year. Although some parents raised sport or homework, most parents identified social relationships as the aspect of school their child had found most challenging. He used to cry when I pick him up from school, cry, because nobody wants to play with him. .. I come and speak to the teacher. We sort out the problem….it’s like he didn’t know how to defend himself if somebody bully him. Her best friend left the school and moved to Perth, and after that she really struggled, so yeah, just finding that friend I suppose. Well she didn’t like bullying. She had a lot of bullying issues.

When asked if their child was helped by being in [the teacher’s] class, some parents felt that their child’s experience of the 2012 year was linked to the child’s personality. She got a bit of extra help, because she needs it. .. She’s a bit of a shy person. She keeps to herself and… other times she’ll just join in.

Parents identified the Kimochis resource as a specific aspect of their child’s enjoyment of school and as helping their child. She had a good year, she enjoyed her teacher… she got on well with him, and they did some good things… like Kimochis, she enjoyed that. She did enjoy doing the Kimochis….Just something different I think….I don’t know what else – probably everything!!. The good thing that I think [the teacher] did help with and Kimochis as well, was for [my child] to share her feelings, and show the feelings….We definitely enjoyed last year when they did the Kimochis thing. I think it

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

119

was great ... [My child] did benefit from it. They helped to also understand her feelings, how she was feeling, and I mean the thing that [my child] was dealing with at school was obviously the friend issues, and the hormone issue, and we do it at home as well. With the Kimochis it really helped her to understand her feelings and other children’s feelings and how to respond. She’s a little bit on the autistic scale so the Kimochis program really helped her. I was really pleased about that and Play is the Way as well. It helped too, definitely. She’s made more friends. She made some really good friends last year which continued on into this year. He has been a really good teacher for her and knows where she is coming from and helped her to understand a lot of situations that happen at school and school work and she has definitely improved academically. She has always been really switched on academically but she has really come on in the last year with [teacher]. We’re happy that she is in his class again this year.

Parents were asked if the benefits to their child had continued into the current year. All parents felt that their child had developed socially. Two parents again referred to the Kimochis as particularly valuable and had purchased Kimochis to use at home to complement the school activities. It was very hard before….It breaks my heart when I remember, but he has improved from that. Now he tells me everything….He doesn’t do something when he knows that there is consequences, and that’s what he’s learning now. I think as well Kimochis lets them see that it’s normal, that it is normal, the way you feel. I don’t know if [Child] maybe struggled with working out her feelings and why she felt that way. We have been using the Kimochis at home. We actually bought a couple of them. She’s got Bug and Cloud and we really used them at home and asked her which one do you feel like today? It has really helped her communicate to us about how she is feeling and helping us to get a better idea of how she works emotionally and helping her in social situations as well. She’s a very emotional little girl. We have had a couple of down bumps at the beginning because there are different children in the class but she has continued growing with [Teacher]. He has been using the Kimochis again this year. We asked him at the beginning of the year if he would be using them again and he said yes definitely. It has really helped her. Hopefully he can talk to her teacher for next year and it continues on.

When asked to specifically comment on the Play is the Way and Kimochis resources, all parents were supportive of these.

120

Chapter Seven They were good. I even bought Kimochis, I bought them for home… the kids sleep with them every night actually. They really wanted them, and I gave them to them at Christmas time, and that made their Christmas. Sometimes they keep it [their feelings] inside, and other times they open up. He’s not one that’s come home and talked about it, but he’s always been polite and all that way, sharing and that, so it would have helped him in a sense, but he has always been like that, so I think it will help my next one, he’ll do it next year. It has changed everything, and he is able now, if somebody is doing something … prepared to come and speak... he wouldn’t be able to do that last year. Well she does talk a lot about the Play is the Way stuff. She liked the games and team work I suppose, the play and stuff. .. I think even like with the Kimochis, I mean she talks about stuff about how people are different, feel differently. OK, so you think she now understands a bit more now how people feel? I think she got stuff out of it. What I’m teaching [child]at the moment is dealing with the way you feel, so it’s alright to feel that way but you have to learn to not spend the whole day feeling that way, which she doesn’t. They [Kimochis and Play is the Way] were definitely useful. A lot of the kids used to be really hyper and have settled down a little bit more but she has definitely started talking to kids she didn’t use to talk to and playing with new people so it has definitely been useful. Both were important hopefully more schools use Play is the Way and Kimochis because they are just fantastic.

Parents’ comments show they were generally positive about the 2012 classroom interventions, with two of the six parents buying the Kimochis resource to use at home. Parents of children who did not experience social difficulties were more inclined to attribute their child’s progress during 2012 as a part of their temperament or personality. In contrast, parents whose child had been bullied, excluded, or who were emotionally withdrawn or emotionally labile attributed positive changes to the program activities. Parents of children who were experiencing such difficulties noted that their children were better able to express and manage their feelings and more able to interact positively with others. This echoes the teacher’s comments that the resources most benefitted those children who were struggling socially.

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

121

Parents who purchased Kimochis for their children did so not only because their children loved them, but also because they found them useful to use at home to better understand and communicate with their child. Even those parents who did not buy the resource expressed how they were further developing the values and key concepts expressed in Play is the Way and Kimochis to help their children understand consequences and to take responsibility for their choices. Parents welcomed the opportunities for their child to be involved in the 2012 classroom program, as well as opportunities to share the activities with their child at school at barbecues. They welcomed the exposure to new resources and strategies to help them better understand and respond to their child’s feelings and behaviour. The alacrity with which these resources were taken up by parents points to a potential need to make social and emotional development education resources more visible and accessible to parents. The needs and interests of parents wanting to assist their child to have better social experiences at school were not a focus of this study, but the data show that Play is the Way and Kimochis, in particular, were valuable to parents. Parents were only able to gain access to these resources by listening to their children about what was happening at school, coming to the school barbecues and participating in the activities. Each time parents were invited to a barbecue, there was a high turnout of families wanting to be involved in the activities. Parents were keen to see what their children were doing in a context which involved fun and games and no judgements about their child’s abilities or behaviour. Involving parents as active partners with the school in their child’s social and emotional learning, would mean a conscious outreach to parents to be involved in the implementation of Kimochis and Play is the Way resources from the beginning. Such opportunities may not be significant to parents whose children don’t get bullied and are socially popular, but this study gives indications that some parents struggle to assist their children to cope with their feelings. Bullying, trauma and toxic stress, autism spectrum disorders and social rejection leave children struggling to express and manage their feelings and parents do not instinctively know how best to help them. Making Play is the Way and Kimochis available to parents enabled them to extend the activities of the school and work with the resources, concepts and language of the activities at home.

122

Chapter Seven

Empowering parents would also have flow on effects to their other children and to wider family networks.

Conclusion The data provides promising indicators of positive change in participating children’s social relationships at school and their ability to identify their own and other’s feelings. Given that social withdrawal, lack of trust and inability to identify feelings are some common consequences of chronic stress and trauma, these positive changes can be recognised as indicators of increasing well-being for children in the classroom. The selected resources, Play is the Way and Kimochis, provided effective tools to promoting improved social relationships and a wider vocabulary of feelings words which children used to relate to their own and other’s experiences. A whole-of-school approach and assistance with implementation of the resources proved important to successfully embedding the Play is the Way program in classroom activities. The gradual implementation of the activities through the school year allowed all participants to practise working with the selected resources and to become more confident in their use over time. The gradual implementation of activities also allowed time for children to develop new relationships with others in their class community. There were positive changes in children’s school attendance. Reading and spelling progress was maintained over the course of the year, indicating that the classroom interventions did not adversely affect children’s academic progress. The data also shows that some of the children who had been experiencing the greatest difficulties achieved the greatest changes in their relationships at school. The teacher’s strategies of providing a predictable routine, forming and sustaining individual relationships with children in the class, of leading and modelling a sense of community and revealing and modelling his own management of his feelings, enabled children to develop a sense of trust, of being valued and able to contribute to their classroom community. Again these strategies addressed some of the negative consequences of chronic stress and trauma which include difficulty trusting others, low self-esteem and a sense of loss of control.

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

123

The outreach worker played a key role in identifying resources, providing training in their use and assisting with their implementation. The role included one on one interaction with children experiencing difficulties as well as follow-up with families. The strategy of inviting parents to three barbecues to share the games with their children allowed parents to make connections between school and home activities and to adopt some of the concepts and language which their children were learning through the class activities. Staff observed that parents were using children’s learned vocabulary from the games. Coming to school for food and fun activities with their children allowed parents to positively engage with the school environment. Some parents actively implemented the programs at home, with the greatest benefits for those children who had been experiencing social difficulties at school. Some parents noted that the Kimochis resource had enabled them to better understand their children. Future opportunities include seeking greater parent involvement in implementing the resources and making them more directly available to parents. The teacher confirmed the utility of Play is the Way and Kimochis resources, finding that he could adapt them to class needs as learning opportunities arose as he became more familiar with them. Children who had been repeatedly excluded or suspended, or who ran away, or who were bullied or rejected by others became more able to express and safely manage their feelings, and to take responsibility for their choices and actions. He affirmed the efficacy of sustained implementation of the resources over time, shifting the emphasis from short term professional development training to changes in daily practice and growth in awareness of trauma impacts on children. Being able to draw on the whole of the school community in implementing resources such as Play is the Way, also enabled a more effective and sustained change in school culture. Given the complexity of contemporary classrooms and the widespread incidence of chronic stress and trauma in children’s lives, inclusive classroom-based interventions involving daily routines and activities offer an effective avenue for supporting children’s social and emotional development and recovery. The potential benefits flow to individual children and their families, teachers, school staff and the wider community as children change from being isolated, unhappy and “in trouble” to becoming valued members of the communities which they help to create.

124

Chapter Seven

References Abercrombie, H., Kalin, N., Thurow, M., Rosenkranz, M., & Davidson, R. (2003). Cortisol variation in humans affects memory for emotionally laden and neutral information, Behavioural neuroscience, 117(3), 505516. Australian Childhood Foundation (2010). Making Space for Learning: Trauma Informed Practice in Schools, Victoria: Australian Childhood Foundation. Australian Early Development Index (2010). Salisbury – ABS: SEIFA Index of relative socio-economic disadvantage, retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://maps.aedi.org.au/IA/2011/region/42/atlas.html Bremmer, J.D. (2008). The neurobiology of trauma and memory in children. In M.L. Howe & G.S. Goodman & D Cicchetti (Eds.),Stress, trauma, and children's memory development; neurobiological, cognitive, clinical and legal perspectives, (pp. 11- 49) New York: Oxford University Press. Cillessen, A.H.N. & Bellmore, A.D. (2004). Social skills and interpersonal perception in early and middle childhood. In P.K. Smith & C.H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwood handbook of childhood social development, (pp. 355-374) Malden: Blackwell. Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Fourth national mental health plan: an agenda for collaborative government action in mental health 20092014, Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/360EB 322114EC906CA2576700014A817/$File/pla2.pdf Courtois, C., & Gold, S. (2009). The need for inclusion of psychological trauma in the professional curriculum; a call to action. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 3-23. Diamond, A., McInnes, E., & Whitington, V. (2013). Family services in suburbs; do they make a difference in children’s development? What 2009 and 2012 Australian Early Development Index results reveal about the efficacy of Salisbury Communities for children. Adelaide: Salisbury Communities for Children. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Salisbury_C4C_20 13_Evaluation.pdf Diamond, A. & Willoughby, L. (2009). Report on the findings from Salisbury Communities for Children Consultations with Primary

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

125

School Children, Adelaide: Salisbury Communities for Children. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Salisbury_C4C_C onsultation_with_Primary_School_Children.pdf Ford, J. & Courtois, C. (2009). Defining and understanding complex trauma and complex traumatic stress disorders. In C. Courtois & J. Ford (Eds.), Treating complex traumatic stress disorders: An evidencebased guide, (pp. 13-30). New York: Norton. Gerhardt, S. (2004). Why love matters. How affection shapes a baby’s brain, Hove: Brunner Routledge. Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K, Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of Funding for Schooling – Final report, Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.schoolfunding.gov.au/readreview-panels-final-report Goswami, U. (2008). Neuroscience and education. In Jossey-Bass Publishers (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass Reader on the Brain and Learning, (pp. 33-50) New Jersey: Wiley. Indermaur, D. (2001). Young Australians and Domestic Violence, Trends and Issues Paper No. 195. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Kimochis (2011). Kimochis Teacher's Curriculum. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from http://www.spectronicsinoz.com/product/kimochisteachers-curriculum Ko, S.J., Ford, J.D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S.J., Wilson, C., Wong, M, Brymer, M., &, Layne, C.M. (2008). Creating traumainformed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396-404. Laird, R., Jordan, K., Dodge K., Pettit G., Bates, J. (2001). Peer rejection in childhood, involvement with anti-social peers in early adolescence, and the development of externalizing behaviour problems. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 337-354. Levine, P. & Kline, M. (2007). Trauma through a child's eyes: Awakening the ordinary miracle of healing. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Ludy-Dobson, C., & Perry, B. (2010). The role of healthy relational interactions in buffering the impact of childhood trauma. In E Gill (Ed.), Working with children to heal interpersonal trauma: the power of play, (pp. 26-43). NY: Guildford. Lueken, L., & Lemery, K. (2004). Early caregiving and physiological stress response, Clinical Psychology Review, 24(2), 171-191.

126

Chapter Seven

Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. (2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: I. Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(6), 613-619. Masten, A.S., & Reed, M.J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, (pp. 7488). New York: Oxford University Press. Masten, A.S., Herbers, J.E., Cutuli, J.J., & Lafavor, T.L. (2008). Promoting competence and resilience in the school context. Professional School Counselling. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Promoting+competence+and+resilience +in+the+school+context.-a0191213587. McCaskill, W. (2007). Play is the Way. Greenwood WA: The Game Factory. Monk, C., & Nelson, C. (2002). The effects of hydrocortisone on cognitive and neural function. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26(4), 505-519. Morrissey, T. W., Hutchison, L., & Winsler, A. (2013). Family Income, School Attendance, and Academic Achievement in Elementary School. Developmental Psychology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0033848. Mustard, F. (2008). Investing in the Early Years - Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do, Adelaide: Department of Premier and Cabinet. Naglieri, J., & LeBuffe, P. (2005). Measuring resilience in children. In S. Goldstein, & R. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children, (pp. 107-124). USA: Springer. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005). Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from http://www.developingchild.net/pubs/wp/Stress_Disrupts_Architecture _Developing_Brain.pdf . Pederson, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E.D., & Anne, I.H. (2007). The timing of middle childhood peer rejection and friendship: Linking early behavior to early adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 78, 1037-1051. Perry, B.D. (2005). Maltreatment and the Developing Child: how early experience shapes child and culture. Margaret McCain Lecture Series. Retrieved July 28, 2012, from http://www.lfcc.on.ca/mccain/perry.pdf. —. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14, 240-255. Rodd, J. (2006). Leadership in early childhood (3rd ed.). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Embedding Wellbeing and Creating Community in Classrooms

127

Stien, P. & Kendall, J. (2004). Psychological trauma and the developing brain: neurologically based interventions for troubled children, Binghamton: Haworth Press. Streeck-Fischer, A., & van der Kolk, B. (2000). Down will come baby, cradle and all: diagnostic and therapeutic implications of chronic trauma on child development. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 903–918. Van der Kolk, B. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 401-408. Werner, E. (2006). What we can learn about resilience from large scale longitudinal studies. In S. Goldstein, & R. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children, (pp. 91-105). USA: Springer. World Health Organisation (2010). Mental health: strengthening our response, Fact sheet N°220. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/

CHAPTER EIGHT MEASURING POPULATION OUTCOMES JANE SWANSSON WITH MARGARET SIMS AND SUSAN LANE

As a background to this chapter, the Department of Social Services provides a useful summary of the Communities for Children Facilitating Partner model: “Under the Communities for Children Facilitating Partner model, services develop and facilitate a whole of community approach to support and enhance early childhood development. Services provide integrated family focussed early intervention and prevention support to disadvantaged communities. Communities for Children Facilitating Partners establish local service provider committees, develop and implement community strategic plans, fund other organisations to provide services including parenting support; group peer support for children, families or carers; case management; home visiting services; and other supports to prevent child abuse and neglect.” Source: http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2012/partc_ communities_for_children.pdf downloaded 20/03/14, p6)

This chapter considers the use of population measures within communities, how this has played out in the Salisbury Communities for Children site (Salisbury C4C), what we have learnt and how we will use this for future planning. For consistency and clarity the terminology used and their definitions are taken from Mark Friedman’s work; Trying Hard is not Good Enough (2005); x

population result (or outcome or goal) “is a population condition of well-being for children, adults, families and communities, stated in plain language. Results are conditions that voters and taxpayers can

Measuring Population Outcomes

x x

129

understand. They are about the well-being of people in a community, city, county, state or nation” (p 19). population measure (or indicator or benchmark) “is a measure that helps quantify the achievement of a [population] result” (p 19). performance measure “is a measure of how well a program, agency or service system is working. The most important performance measures tell us whether program customers are better off” (p 20).

The use of population measures comes out of working together with a range of stakeholders in the community and developing a vision of wellbeing for families and children. This will be referred to in this chapter as a “population result”. For this purpose the Communities for Children Facilitating Partner model aims to bring together a committee with a broad representation of community groups and individuals. In 2006 the Salisbury committee developed the following mission statement; “Facilitating the development of families and local communities to provide children with holistic opportunities to experience wellbeing and achieve their potential”. The committee continues to have responsibility to maintain focus on the mission and vision and whole of community level thinking, and to continually involve a broad representation of the community in planning processes.

Population Results Population results are “a condition of wellbeing for families, children and communities in a geographical area” (Results Based Accountability Guidelines, p 10). By identifying population results and recognising the population data trends we want to change, we discover a common purpose for meeting, which is relevant to all stakeholders on the committee and also extends beyond Salisbury C4C into the wider community. The population results that can be measured from Salisbury C4C’s mission and vision include: x x x

Children experiencing wellbeing: o Children achieving their potential o Children experiencing the best in parenting Parents supported and empowered to be the best parents: o Parents who are connected to a community o Parents building & maintaining positive relationships Community services, agencies & institutions working together

Chapter Eight

130

x

People who are valued, their contribution and uniqueness is valued (including Indigenous and multicultural groups)

By considering population results we can ask the following question; “What would these conditions look like if we could see or experience them?” This leads us to identify the relevant population measures to use. For example we could say that we would see physically healthy children as the first population result of “Children experiencing wellbeing”. We may choose a population measure such as incidence of obesity in children. We also want to connect individual activities to the population results. The activities, or services we provide, can be assessed in terms of ‘performance measures’. And “the most important performance measures tell us whether program customers are better off” because of what we do (Friedman, 2005, p 20). At an activity level we might create a measure of whether children are eating more healthily as a result of cooking groups at FamilyZone Ingle Farm (a child and family centre in the Salisbury site). Then we can say that this contributes to the population result in relation to incidence of obesity in children. If the number of families and children accessing the cooking groups were to become very large and approach a good representation of the population, we could suggest that our services are having an impact on the population results. Caution is required in assuming responsibility for changing a population result because there are so many factors impacting on this. Communities are not static as, for example, people move in and out of work and their financial circumstances may fluctuate which in turn may affect outcomes that have nothing to do with service delivery. People also move in and out of communities and that may contribute to difficulties in interpreting population measures

The Australian Early Development Census Another population measure of ‘Children experiencing wellbeing’ (specifically in the 0-5 age group) could be the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC, previously AEDI). The University of South Australia looked at what it tells us about the development of children in our local area. “The AEDI is a population measure of young children’s physical, social, emotional, language and cognitive development, their well-being, communication skills and general knowledge recorded shortly after school entry. These developmental areas are referred to as ‘domains’ [for more

Measuring Population Outcomes

131

information about domains see http://www.aedc.gov.au/about-theaedc/about-the-aedc-domains]. Statistics for vulnerability in one or more domains and in two or more domains are used as summary indicators of vulnerability. AEDI results predict NAPLAN (National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy) results through primary school (Brinkman et. al. 2013), and ‘can be a valuable resource to demonstrate community-wide outcomes’ (McDonald 2011, p. 5). Results for 2009 and 2012 are available on a public website that allows communities to see how local children are faring compared with children in other communities across Australia. ‘Vulnerability’ refers to ‘children who score in the lowest 10 per cent of the national AEDI population’ (AEDI 2013a).” (Diamond, McInnes & Whitington, 2013, p 4).

With our example of ‘children are eating more healthily as a result of cooking groups at FamilyZone’ we could consider that this performance measure contributes to the population measure of the AEDC domain of ‘Physical health and wellbeing’. As we consider all of the activities of Salisbury C4C, the number of children, families and carers increases and we can suggest that we are making a larger contribution to the population measure of the AEDC. The AEDC could be a population measure that we choose to use to create a baseline over time. We have access to 2006, 2009 and 2012 results and will have another set of results in 2015. When we chart these results using the baseline we can create a ‘forecast’ of where the measure is headed. This becomes the curve that we want to turn (or work at maintaining) and can provide a common motivator for our work (Friedman, 2005). We can look at each domain across the suburbs of our local area or consider the number of children vulnerable on one (or two) or more domains or even look at the trend of a specific suburb across the domains. Because the AEDC is assessed by the reception teachers at each school the results are reported for each suburb location of the school/s. Therefore it is also useful to know which suburb the children and families are from when they attend our activities. If families who attend FamilyZone, for example, are predominately from Ingle Farm, then we could suggest that our largest contribution is to the results of the Ingle Farm area. Or if we see an increase in vulnerability of children in another suburb then we may want to know whether our services are reaching families in that area. Although several Salisbury C4C activities had been recording this information over time, some had not. Our partners are now collecting data on family’s suburb of residence at the initial or first intake visit (Diamond et. al., report recommendation 2, p 14). We had previously developed a common intake form with partners from three different organisations who

132

Chapter Eight

work in an integrated way to provide services at FamilyZone. Because of this prior work the additional requirement of specifying the collection of suburbs of residence was not difficult. The report provided by Diamond, McInnes & Whitington (2013) made recommendations regarding the location of services based on whether there had been an increase or decrease in vulnerability in that suburb. Figure 8-1 shows that Ingle Farm and Para Vista saw a significant decrease in the percentage of children vulnerable on two or more domains from 2009 to 2012.

Figure 8-1: AEDI 2009 & 2012 results for the number of children vulnerable on two or more domains

Diamond et. al. found that Ingle Farm’s significant decrease in vulnerability in both AEDC summary indicators (vulnerable in one or more domains, or vulnerable on two or more domains), indicated that the range and number of services and programs provided at FamilyZone Ingle Farm had noticeably positive effects on children’s development in Ingle Farm (Diamond et. al., 2013, p 15). This is supported by findings of the 2005-2009 national evaluation (SFSCNEC, 2008), combined with the AEDI implementation in 2006, 2009 and 2012. Baseline data collected in

Measuring Population Outcomes

133

2006 and again in 2009 as part of the national evaluation (Muir et. al., 2009) showed that 18 new child and family support services were introduced into Ingle Farm during this period through the FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub and the First Steps and Playtime initiative (at Ingle Farm Salvation Army). The impact of activities that began in the site in 2006 to support families with children in the perinatal period (0-2yrs) would not yet have been measured in the 2009 implementation as these children would have been too young for the AEDI assessment made at reception level, age 5. AEDI data identified no significant change in vulnerability of children in Ingle Farm between 2006 and 2009 but there was a significant change between 2009 and 2012. It is possible that the significantly increased number of services added to the area through Salisbury C4C (cf SFSCNEC, 2008) may have contributed to the reduction of vulnerability of children in the 2012 AEDI cohort. This data lends strong support to continuing the work of FamilyZone at Ingle Farm. Another comparative standard used in this study was to consider a cluster of neighbouring suburbs that were assumed to not access Salisbury C4C activities due to their location across a main road and about nine kilometres away from the nearest Salisbury C4C suburb. The researchers used the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD), which can be accessed on the AEDC maps, and includes measures of relative disadvantage such as low income, low educational attainment, overcrowding, unemployment, single parent families with children and no car ownership (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] 2013). Both the Salisbury C4C and the non-Salisbury C4C amalgamations of suburbs had SEIFA IRSD scores below the national average score of 1000. The scores were from 903.16 to 996.25 (M=939.99) and 906.38 to 951.37 (M=927.87) respectively. Therefore as a comparable cluster of suburbs the researchers found that: “From 2009 to 2012 the amalgamated Salisbury C4C group had statistically significant improvement in more domains than the amalgamated group of non-Salisbury C4C suburbs. In 2012, the nonSalisbury C4C had a significantly higher rate of vulnerability on the communication and general knowledge domain than in 2009, while the Salisbury C4C group did not experience significantly higher rates of vulnerability in any domains than in 2009.” “The Salisbury C4C group’s significantly lower rates of vulnerability in one or more domains and the communication and general knowledge domain (compared to the nonSalisbury C4C group) in 2012, indicate that the 2012 cohort of 5 year old children living in the Salisbury C4C suburbs had experienced more

Chapter Eight

134

developmental support than the same aged children living in the nonSalisbury C4C group” (Diamond, McInnes & Whitington 2013, p 19).

The comparison study of the amalgamated C4C suburbs with comparable non-C4C suburbs in Salisbury is encouraging and suggests that “children living in the SC4C suburbs had received more developmental supports than children living in the non-SC4C suburbs” (op cit., p19), see figure 8-2.

% of children vulnerable

Comparison of SC4C and non-SC4C suburbs SC4C 2009 SC4C 2012 Non-SC4C 2009 Non-SC4C 2012

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Domains Fig 8-2: Percentages of children found to be vulnerable in the two amalgamated groups of suburbs in 2009 and 2012

Overall there was a significant reduction in vulnerability in one or more domains of 8.4% in the SC4C suburbs in comparison to a reduction of 0.6% in the non SC4C suburbs, while in 2 domains there was a significant reduction in both amalgamated groups. Pooraka and Para Hills saw an increase in the % of children vulnerable on two or more domains from 2009 to 2012 (Fig 8-1). Report recommendations based on this were that Salisbury C4C consider the location of services and “attempt to discover what challenges to children’s development (including problems in family functioning) are faced by the

Measuring Population Outcomes

135

most developmentally vulnerable children and their families in Pooraka and Para Hills” (Diamond et. al., 2013, p 16). According to the Salisbury Community Profile (AEDI 2012, p. 13), just over 97% of children surveyed from Para Hills and Pooraka have been in early education or care. So the recommendation was given that “Salisbury C4C build partnerships with the kindergartens and child care centres used by Para Hills and Pooraka families to strengthen children’s development” (Diamond et. al., 2013, p 16). The recommendations can form part of the ‘story behind the baselines’ (Friedman, 2005) and give us some direction for our work. The researchers also drew on the considerable evidence base to support the effectiveness of integrated child and family centres as another important part of the story (pages 25-29). A challenge in using the AEDC as a population measure is that it is only measured every three years and there is also a delay in the data being accessible via the AEDC website. This also shows the need to acknowledge that verifying population level change requires a long-term approach as trends can take a while to become visible in the data. It also highlights the need to consider more than one population measure because we also want measures that will give regular (at least yearly) indicators of population changes to inform our direction.

FamilyZone Evaluation and Partner Reports The evaluation of FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub briefly considered the 2010 AEDI results and McInnes & Diamond (2011) recorded that “There are high percentages of vulnerable children in key catchment areas when compared with the national percentages, indicating a continuing need for family support and integrated children’s services. These services are required to counteract the negative impacts on children’s development of rising levels of economic hardship in low-income households, migration of low-income households and vulnerable families into low-cost housing areas and increased complexities of combinations of issues such as poverty, domestic violence, homelessness, parental substance misuse and parental mental health problems (Bromfield, Lamont, Parker & Horsfall 2010, p 24).” However, this evaluation (McInnes & Diamond, 2011) primarily focused on the experiences of families at FamilyZone and so most of the data was based around measures of our performance (primarily asking parents and caregivers if they thought they were better off because of their

136

Chapter Eight

involvement at FamilyZone). The report showed that “there is clear evidence that FamilyZone Hub is meeting its objectives of providing an environment which is supportive of child-friendly and inclusive communities, effective service coordination for children and families and improvements in children’s development and well-being and positive family relationships” (McInnes & Diamond, 2011, p6). The report noted the Communities for Children outcomes of the Family Support Program at that time, line up with the population results we listed above. We can look at the findings of this report and connect them to the population results of Salisbury C4C (Fig 8-2). C4C community partners, across all activities of Salisbury C4C, are required to report annually against a set of objectives of the DSS Family Support Program (this is part of the Family Support Program Performance Framework). See http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-andchildren/programs-services/program-guidelines-and-related-information /family-support-program-performance-framework). This is done using a variety of assessment strategies, predominately through conversation with parents/carers or via a short, written survey. During May/June 2013 two hundred parents/carers were surveyed across FamilyZone and First Steps Playtime, an early years initiative at the Salvation Army Ingle Farm (Salisbury Communities for Children, 2013). This data is presented in Fig 8-2 and related back to the population results. This table shows that the activities of FamilyZone and First Steps are contributing to the population results of Salisbury C4C’s mission and vision. It also indicates that we can make good use of our reporting requirements as we cyclically re-evaluate how we are doing against our population results. Where there are gaps of information we can consider additional/other means of performance measurement to meet this need.

Measuring Population Outcomes Population result

Children experiencing wellbeing including: x Children achieving their potential x Children experiencing the best in parenting

Parents supported and empowered to be the best parents including:

x Parents who are connected to a community

x Parents building & maintaining positive relationships

137

Performance measure (is anyone better off through their involvement in Salisbury C4C?) Evaluation of child and family Annual reporting of centre: FamilyZone Ingle Farm First Steps Playtime Hub (McInnes & Diamond, 2011, and FamilyZone p51) against DSS objectives (2013) 92% (n=22) agreed that their children had learnt things through play and socializing, 88% (n=21) agreed that their children had improved socially and emotionally, and 58% (n=14) agreed that their children are healthier (physically). 79% (n=19) agreed that they have 88.5% (n=177) agreed a stronger relationship with their with statements like: child, and 75% (n=18) that they “I feel better able to have time with their children. cope or deal with my children’s emotions”. 75% (n=18) agreed that they are 83% (n=166) agreed feeling better about themselves or with statements like: being healthier, 71% (n=17) that “I know more about they have improved their skills as a how to help and parent, and 71% (n=16) that they support my child to have a better understanding of develop” or “I have what makes families work well, learnt skills I could what keeps them safe and how to use at home” or “I support their child as he/she grows. know more about my kids”. 75% (n=18) agreed that they have more people to share their good and bad times with. 79% (n=30) said that they had made new friends at the site 79% (n=19) agreed that they are keeping up good family relationships.

138

Chapter Eight

Community services, agencies & institutions working together

58% (n=14) agreed that they have better access to services in the community, outside of Family Zone.

People who are valued, their contribution and uniqueness is valued (including Indigenous and multicultural groups)

The African and Afghan groups at FamilyZone Hub effectively provide opportunities for mothers to develop social networks and reduce social isolation. As such they provide services for socially isolated families with young children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (McInnes & Diamond, 2011, p51.

87% (n=174) agreed with statements like: “I can find services when I need them” or “I have an increased awareness of community services and activities”. 97% (n=194) agreed with a statements like: “I feel that I was treated with respect” or “I would invite others to come” or “Has the Home Visiting Service been of value to you?”.

Fig 8-3: Salisbury C4C’s population results and the corresponding performance measures from FamilyZone evaluation and annual reports

The process of preparing our Community Partners (local agencies who are providing services under the Salisbury C4C Facilitating Partner model) to collect information for the Performance Framework was useful. Discussions were held with a focus on re-stating our mission and vision and gaining a common understanding of performance measures. Two meetings were spent ensuring there was clarity around the difference between ‘showing how much we have done’ and ‘how well we have done it’ versus ‘is anyone better off?’ This has proven to be a vital understanding to moving forward in useful data collection. Our partners are becoming increasingly enthusiastic and thoughtful about collecting information about this question of ‘better off’; which is the most important performance measure and the one that will connect with how we contribute to the population result. One challenge arises when community partners are changed or staff replaced. This creates a need to revisit and develop a good understanding among the new staff. This need to continually revisit the beginning stages of our collaboration and refresh our minds as to our shared vision and purpose is recognized in the model of collaborative practice developed by Mill (2013) for the Benevolent Society. If we see performance measures as an ongoing and cyclical process as discussed by Mill (2013), then we will regularly check that there are common understandings in language and revisit the 7

Measuring Population Outcomes

139

performance accountability questions (Friedman, 2005) to check our direction and the difference we are making.

Looking back and looking forward It is always valuable to take a fresh look at how we can build on our experience and knowledge from the past. We have strengths that can be built on and, through evaluations sought by Salisbury C4C, we have gathered data over time regarding population results, performance measures and the stories behind the baselines. One strength of Salisbury C4C’s partners has been their ability to listen to families and hear every day about the issues, strengths and struggles of the community and individuals. This is valuable information as we look at the story behind our baselines and consider steps to move forward. They have also built valuable connections to hear about strengths and issues within our local area, and we have retained a committee with representation from different non-government agencies, school and children’s centre, and community representatives. We are looking to redevelop the committee to include more community, local government and health representatives. Our community is bigger than what we as a service provider are able to reach with our activities. There is value in each of the various roles within the community; teachers, scout leaders, people of faith, parents and families (and others) who may all recognise a common issue and may have a unique way of responding. Not all roles will be government funded, some may not be funded at all. If we are serious about dealing with complex issues in our communities (such as drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence, abuse of children, mental health of parents, children and babies) then we benefit from all working together and thinking broadly about the various roles in the community; which we see as made up of partners in our doing better together (Friedman, 2005). Government hierarchies may hold most of the funds but some government services, community organisations and NGOs are more closely connected with the local community. Once we know this, as a community with common interests, then we can combine “forces” in an effort to overcome the obstacles our community is facing. As we work together with the whole community we need to ensure we are hearing from as many voices as possible and developing processes to input their thoughts into our planning and evaluation.

140

Chapter Eight

One area we need to further develop is in hearing the voices of children and implementing their contribution. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC - http://www.unicef .org/crc/) established the theory of children’s agency: of the importance of children having input into decisions that impact on their lives. Since that time (25 years) agencies have struggled with how to make this a reality. Hoffmann-Ekstein et al (2008, p1) argue: “Children are often a focal point of these community-based initiatives. However, they are generally conceived in policy and much of the theory around social capital as being objects who reflect the outcomes of low or high social capital in communities. Many interventions focus on the parents as participants and use their experiences as proxies for those of the children.” We will benefit from thinking about how to better involve children in our strategic planning. Methods such as drawing and mapping, photography, role play, and participatory rural appraisal techniques have all been used successfully when consulting children (Clark & Statham, 2005; Harris & Manatakis, 2013; Hoffmann-Ekstein et al, 2008). Harris & Manatakis (2013) provide helpful hints on how to undertake these consultations with young children that we can use. A collective impact approach to dealing with complex problems in the community could be a good strategy for making sure we are hearing from a broad representation of community. Collective impact was first spoken about by John Kania & Mark Kramer in 2011 and they state that: “Unlike most collaborations, collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants.” (p 37). Collective impact would have a larger scope than the Salisbury C4C site but would feed into our decisions regarding strategic planning, population results and measures. In South Australia support for developing a collective impact approach could be sought from Together SA; which is auspiced by Community Centres SA, has the support of the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Partnership and Participation Unit, the Department of Communities and Social Inclusion, and a range of community, philanthropic and other partners. It is placed to work with government, local organisations and community members as a backbone organization “to support real community engagement, authentic conversations and results for entire communities” (downloaded from http://together sa.org.au).

Measuring Population Outcomes

141

As we continue to listen to each other and work together as a community, we can consider whether the same quality of life conditions (population results) continue to be our areas of focus as Salisbury C4C. Also, we may be able to agree on common population measures (among our local community) to see how we are all contributing to population change through complementary activities. Perhaps through engagement in a collective impact strategy we will see a common alignment of population results and measures. The population measures chosen should communicate with a broad and diverse audience, say something of central importance about the result, and be available on a timely basis and be reliable and consistent (Friedman, 2005). As we source these as a community we could borrow from sources such as The State Strategic Plan and Children’s Centre plans. We need to be honest about the measures we are using to really know that we are making a difference through our activities, so having data that accurately reflects this is crucial. It may take time to seek out the most accurate measures and there may be instances where no measures are available and we may need to create our own. For example if the focus of the community is for children to feel safe then we may want to consider data relating to child abuse. This may be looking for data on the number of tier 1 and 2 responses1 Another option may be a measure of whether children and families are safe in the local streets and this may be the numbers of children who walk themselves to school. This is an example of creating your own data, partnering with a school to ask the children whether they walk to school and who they walk with. It’s good to remember that some data is not a perfect reflection of the condition we are looking for but can still provide a useful baseline for the curve we are looking to turn. Most likely, no two communities will choose the same population measures. For this reason the stories behind the data are valuable to communicate an understanding that the data is not able to provide. While it initially requires effort to determine valid and relevant population measures, their ongoing value is that they can be used as a measuring stick of how we are doing as a community (more broadly that Salisbury C4C alone) to bring about change.

1 Tier 1: child is in immediate danger and Families SA responds immediately. Tier 2: child is at risk of significant harm and Families SA responds within a short timeframe, sourced from: http://www.dcsi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/5361/addendum-to-dfcannual-report-2009-10.pdf

142

Chapter Eight

Measuring results This chapter has focused on how population results and measures can be used to unite partners around a common issue and help us to see how everyone has a role to play in doing better and for each party to decide what action they will take. The other significant effect is that we all have a clear and complementary way to share our learnings and celebrate successes with those in the community, including families, and those holding decision making power. Mark Friedman (2005) demonstrates this using a “results scorecard”; a brief (could be one page) summary that shows the population results and measures we have chosen (for example information from Fig 8-2 could form part of this). We can see a baseline that we are working to change (or maintain), and present a story behind that baseline. Population accountability measures can be added by each partner and therefore the scorecard can demonstrate how we are individually, and as a collective group, contributing to changing the wellbeing of a community. We have used our experiences in Salisbury C4C to illustrate the realities of measuring program impact. Measurement is a key element of our work: if we cannot demonstrate success we not only cannot plan effectively, we also run the risk of losing funding. Working together to develop and implement effective and realistic measures supports the development and maintenance of our partnerships, the clarity of our vision and our ability to work together effectively to the benefit of our community.

References Addendum to Department for Families and Communities Annual Report 2009Ǧ10. Retrieved from: http://www.dcsi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/5361/addendum -to-dfc-annual-report-2009-10.pdf downloaded 28/08/14. AEDI Community Profile (2012). Salisbury,SA Retrieved from: http://www.aedc.gov.au/ClientData/CommunityProfiles/2012_47140.p df downloaded 6/08/14. Australia National Audit Office (2013). Administration of Communities for Children under the Family Support Program; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian National Audit Office. Clark, A., & Statham, J. (2005). Listening to Young Children: Experts in Their Own Lives. Adoption & Fostering, 29(1), 45 - 56. doi: 10.1177/030857590502900106

Measuring Population Outcomes

143

Department of Social Security (2012). p6. Retrieved from: http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2012/partc_co mmunities_for_children.pdf downloaded 20/03/14 Diamond, A., McInnes, E., & Whitington, V. (2013). Family services in suburbs; do they make a difference in children’s development? What 2009 and 2012 Australian Early Development Index results reveal about the efficacy of Salisbury Communities for Children. Retrieved from http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Salisbury_C4C_20 13_Evaluation.pdf Friedman, M. (2005). Trying hard is not good enough: How to produce measurable improvements for customers and communities, Trafford Publishing. Harris, P., & Manatakis, H. (2013). Children’s Voices: A principled framework for children and young people’s participation as valued citizens and learners. Adelaide, SA: University of South Australia in partnership with the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development. Hoffmann-Ekstein, J., Michaux, A., Bessell, S., Mason, J., Watson, E., & Fox, M. (2008). Children's agency in communities: A review of literature and the policy and practice context. (pp. 30). Paddington, NSW: NAPCAN, SJSC Research Centre and Benevolent Society. Kania, J & Kramer, M (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review McInnes, E., & Diamond, A., (2011). Evaluation of a child and family centre: FamilyZone Ingle Farm Hub. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/FamilyZone_Ingle _Farm_Hub_2011_Evaluation.pdf Mill, D. (2013). Connect for Kids: Collaboration in Rural Communities (pp. 26). New England: Benevolent Society. Muir, K., Katz, I., Purcal, C., Patulny, R., Flaxman, S., Abelló, D., Cortis, N., Thompson, C., Oprea, I., Wise, S., Edwards, B., Gray, M., Hayes, A., (2009). National evaluation (2004–2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004–2009, p8 Results Based Accountability Guidelines. Retrieved from: http://www.familyservices.govt.nz/documents/working-withus/funding-and-contracting/rba/rba-guidelines.pdf, downloaded 05/07/2014 Salisbury Communities for Children (2013). Communities for children and community playgroups performance report for the Family Support Program, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and

144

Chapter Eight

Indigenous Affairs, Jan-June 2013, Salisbury Communities for Children. Stronger Families Stronger Communities National Evaluation Consortium, (2008). Stronger Families and Communities Strategy: National Evaluation Baseline Report on Communities for Children Process Evaluation, SPRC Report 1/08, report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, November 2007. p11.

CHAPTER NINE DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN KARL BRETTIG

The debate about universal and targeted support for families has continued because both are important. Whole communities, service providers and families need to work together in an integrated way if we are to improve outcomes for vulnerable families. This is particularly important in preconception care, in utero and in the first three years of life. Researchers, economists and practice experience tell us that well considered targeted intervention and prevention initiatives in the early years will have a significant impact on child development (Schweinhart, 2003). So how do we go about developing and implementing the scale of family support that will lead to better outcomes for children? The Communities for Children Facilitating Partner model and similar initiatives have some common elements that are proving effective in implementing a whole of community, government and family approach to supporting families. While no one model does everything and much depends on how well and by whom it is implemented, encouraging outcomes are beginning to emerge from this model. We now look at some of the key steps involved in its development and implementation.

1. Establish a Facilitating Partner/ leadership group The 2004-2009 national evaluation of the Communities for Children initiative established that the Facilitating Partner Model was the major strength of the initiative (Muir et al, 2009). Facilitating Partners were generally local NGO’s who acted as brokers in engaging community partners to implement the model. Traditional funding models involved governments directly contracting service providers. The C4C model engaged Facilitating Partners who were required to subcontract mainly

146

Chapter Nine

other NGO’s to deliver family support activities and act as intermediaries between government and the community sector. The role included: x Conducting community based asset mapping x Identifying appropriate service providers and other key stakeholders x Establishing a C4C committee x Developing a Community Strategic Plan x Coordinating community consultations, service networking and collaboration x Allocating and managing funding x Overseeing program implementation x Implementing reporting requirements x Negotiating service provision x Managing collaborations x Advocating for sustainable partnerships x Evaluation planning Locally known and respected agencies are invited to take on the Facilitating Partner role by government. Successful implementation is dependent on the skills, experience and qualifications of the project manager, staff and volunteers (Muir et al, 2009 p xi). Balancing the roles of Facilitating Partner and contract manager is not without its challenges and it is vital that managers have some relevant training early in the initiative as well as access to mentoring support. Continuity is also important as valuable knowledge and significant relationships are lost when project managers or key staff, leave their positions. Managers and staff need to be empowered to make decisions without too many unwieldy bureaucratic constraints impeding the process of implementation. Mission Australia have developed a helpful approach to evaluating Facilitating Partner roles as funder, support organisation, purchaser and provider (Spiker & Earles, 2012).

2. Convene a representative local committee/ partnership group The first key task that needs to be accomplished by the project team is to convene a local committee with representation from government, nongovernment and community stakeholders. Representation needs at be as broad as possible without creating a committee that may, for example,

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

147

become dysfunctional because it has too many members. The voices of parents and caregivers, who aren’t intimidated by too many knowledgeable sounding experts, also need to be clearly heard. The C4C model is built around partnerships between equals while at the same time requiring leadership from the Facilitating Partner team to find a balance between sharing power and being able to make timely decisions to meet performance targets. The committee needs to be an effective sounding board for the Facilitating Partner and be able to monitor developments effectively through a workable shared decision making process. Representation from state government health, education and community service sectors, non-government agencies, business, local and federal government is important as well as parents and community groups. Ideally the committee should have a good mix of the kind of skills knowledge and attributes that are needed to successfully implement the project. At Salisbury we were able to source members of the initial committee with considerable skills in community services, social planning, community development, parenting, child development and integrated service provision. Members need to understand the kind of commitment involved in implementing the model. Initially the committee will need to meet often to develop a Community Strategic Plan based on genuine community consultation, asset mapping of the local community and the evidence base regarding what works. The Salisbury site opted for fortnightly meetings over several months while some other sites went with a number of whole days or retreat weekends. Once the plan is established and agreed on, meetings need not be so frequent as the committee takes on more of a monitoring, seeking out of emerging issues and developing sustainability role. Key to the success of the initiative is the vision and strategies that come out of the planning process. This is the time for key stakeholders to dream about the kind of community they would like to be involved in developing. Committee members need to contemplate the possibilities and agree to a common vision that they can be passionate about and prepared to invest time in to see it become a reality. At Salisbury we found the process of developing a mission & vision statement that satisfied all parties, involved some robust dialogue. Our efforts to include the views of all members resulted in it being a little too wordy and we later revised the statement to make it simpler and more appealing to a wider audience.

148

Chapter Nine

Nevertheless having a vision in place was vital in the months that followed as new community partner staff came on board, often with alternative ideas about what we ought to be doing. It is also important to develop effective working relationships and include time to cultivate these through facilitating such things as shared lunches and other networking opportunities. It is no simple thing to work collaboratively and it is imperative that there be ‘thick’ communication flows and information sharing among collaborators (Keast & Mandell, 2009). Relationships will be subject to significant tensions as commitment and accountability to individual agencies needs to be juxtaposed with commitment and accountability to the collaborative network. The chapter on communities of practice will have more to say about some of the dynamics involved.

3. Consult with families, services and community groups The consultation needs to be a respectful two-way discussion with parents, children, service providers and community groups. It is important that decisions are not made until a genuine consultation has taken place. We shouldn’t be surprised if activities are not supported down the track if we fail to engender ownership via proper consultation during the initial stages. Parents can be consulted in informal settings such as talking with pram-pushers in shopping centres or more formal settings such as parent groups attached to primary schools. It’s important to offer options including written questionnaires and recording oral responses as well as translation resources for CALD community members. Consulting with children has received increasing attention in recent years and a number of effective strategies have been developed. Some of these include inviting children to talk about, write about, take pictures of, or draw what is important to them about what they see as a child friendly community and what initiatives they would like to see happen. Interviews with key stakeholders and community leaders are critical to the consultation process. The committee has an important role in identifying people who know the community well and can make a significant contribution to the process. The project team needs to be given adequate time to identify and interview significant community influencers as thoroughly as possible. Other strategies that can be used include

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

149

community forums and focus groups including particular groups such as CALD or Indigenous communities. Existing community forums or other relevant regional networks should also be included in the consultation. Questionnaires are instruments that can be widely distributed to ensure as many interested persons as possible are given an opportunity to contribute to the process. It is also important to develop a demographic profile of the site with information about families in the local community with children in the relevant age bracket. Socioeconomic indicators such as education, language and place of birth, income, labour force status, unemployment rates and transport availability are also helpful. Much of this information can be obtained from the Bureau of Statistics. Additional information such as local teenage pregnancy rates can also be helpful. The SEIFA Index for Disadvantage and the Early Development Census are very useful in terms of determining areas of greatest need. These key instruments provide important information about the vulnerability of families and children in local areas.

4. Develop a Community Strategic Plan The Community Strategic Plan itemises the vision by outlining key strategies to be developed in the site. It documents the baseline data, the story behind the baseline, the consultation process and the evidence base that has underscored development of the plan. In doing this the plan also articulates the curve we are trying to turn and the measures we will need for population accountability. It also includes milestones for the project management and governance of the initiative. The process involved in putting this together will take some time over several meetings but it is time well spent if it results in a plan that changes the life outcomes of children in the community. The C4C initiative developed a template for CSP’s and many of its features are outlined in this chapter. Key to the plan are the strategies developed that have potential to transform the community. In determining the story behind the baseline much attention needs to be given to looking at the evidence base that has come from previous efforts around the globe to enhance the lives of children and families as well as the guidelines that the funding body has put together to guide the project. Having said this, each community is different. That is why it is critical to map existing assets in the local community and identify gaps that still exist. A community development

150

Chapter Nine

approach is all about building on existing strengths and resources within the community. The process of discovering the strengths and resources that exist in communities is also really important. It must be a participatory process that highly values what local families, children and community leaders have to say. It will also involve listening to the views of partners responsible for disciplines such as health, education, cultural practices, spiritual life and community services. In many ways families are the most valuable resource in any community. Parents usually care much more about their children than any other stakeholder and are more committed to do whatever it takes to improve their lives. In assessing the views of a broad group of parents some may be misguided, perhaps due to their own life circumstances particularly if they have been traumatised in the early years, but they are generally highly motivated to do what is best for their children. They are experts regarding their children, may have good skills and may also be professionals in their own right. That is why it is so important to listen to their views and incorporate what they are saying into the strategic plan. Then there are the community leaders who have invested heavily in the lives of members of their local communities. In Aboriginal culture they are the community elders and it was interesting to hear the view of one local early childhood leader in the Salisbury area that every community needs a group of elders to monitor what is happening and strategize for change that is needed. It is important that C4C Facilitating Partners identify such people who have the best interests of the community at heart, build relationships and consult regularly with them in developing the strategic plan and during its implementation. Local service providers will also have much to contribute to the process of developing the plan, particularly with the skills and expertise they bring in articulating strategies and activities that address identified gaps in service provision. The plan will be much more comprehensive if the committee has members with strong skills in identifying emerging needs, service delivery and overall strategic planning. It is also important that a significant number of disciplines be represented in the planning process in order that a more holistic perspective might be incorporated into the plan. Strategies generally need to be limited to about four or five and each needs to be broken down into activities that will implement the strategy.

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

151

These should list the guiding principles that underpin the strategy, the desired outcomes in the performance accountability framework and how they will be achieved. This needs to include whether or not they build on existing activities which is an essential element of a community development approach. Target groups and timelines need to be identified as well as key risks and approaches to managing these risks. A sustainability plan should also be included. .

The planning group will also need to consider project management and governance of the initiative including details of how this will be done. The CSP needs to address staffing requirements, financial and contract management support, data management and reporting, communication and coordination structures, partnerships and specifications about committee representation. Terms of reference for the committee should also be developed and appended to the plan.

5. Develop Implementation / Activity Workplans Each of the activities identified in the CSP will need to be broken down into a work-plan which will guide its implementation. Key elements of the Activity Work Plan (AWP) should include its objectives and outcomes, milestones and a timeframe, the target group, collaboration and service integration involved, an evaluation plan and information about the organisation delivering the activity. The objectives/outcomes section outlines what the activity is intending to accomplish. This may include statements about outcomes such as improved knowledge & skills about children’s development, healthy attachment, creation of a child friendly community, resilience etc. Practice in the C4C model has been to articulate how the outcomes link with the overall aims and objectives of the project. Sometimes a significant challenge for staff has been having a clear understanding of the difference between outcomes and outputs. Outputs have more to do with the mechanics of the operational plans. They include tasks such as ‘facilitate a 5 week X 2 hrs parenting group’, whereas desired outcomes could include such measures as ‘parents develop improved skills in setting boundaries’. The milestones/timeframe section could include items such as the age group and number of participants expected, the number of sessions to be delivered and the timeframe in which this is planned to happen. It is preferable that these err on the conservative side in developing the plan, as

152

Chapter Nine

it is better to have more participants than expected within the timeframe than the other way around when reporting on the activity. The target group should specify exactly who the activity is aiming to engage, with some details that make identifying who they are as clear as possible. If we are using a whole of community integrated approach there will need to be collaboration with other agencies, departments etc. This may include specific partnerships or referral agencies to be engaged if additional needs for support are identified in the process of delivering the activity. Including a section on the collaborations anticipated requires those delivering the activities to consider a more holistic approach to what they are doing in order to achieve better outcomes. Evaluation measures that link back to baseline data should be put in place for each activity preferably both quantitative and qualitative in order to demonstrate whether we are achieving what was envisaged. It is vital to engage in reflective practice as we look to improve the way services are delivered. It is good to have the satisfaction of delivering great activities and it is also good to be able to sustain these because what made them successful is documented and made available to funding bodies and the broader community.

6. Implement the plan The Community Strategic Plan and AWP’s will need to be developed by the project staff in consultation with the committee and approved by the committee. In the C4C model once the CSP has been developed the Facilitating Partner develops project specifications/activity work-plans around activities that are to be subcontracted to other agencies. These are put out for expressions of interest which are assessed by the FP management team and subcontracts are negotiated with successful applicants. Community Partner staff and volunteers then implement the plans with support from the Facilitating Partner. The kind of support provided will depend on the existing qualifications, skills and experience of the Community Partner agencies and staff as well as their connections with the local community, other service agencies and government departments. Community Partners don’t need big brother looking over their shoulders and they don’t need to be left to flounder due to lack of support. There may need to be some negotiated modification of the work-plans by

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

153

Community Partner managers & staff delivering the activities with assistance from Facilitating Partner staff at least in the initial stages. Once contracts are in place it is best if CP managers and staff be the ones primarily responsible for developing AWPs in consultation with FP staff as they are the ones who will be implementing the activities and need to ‘own’ the AWPs. Regular meetings will need to be put in place to ensure good communication flow continues. At the same time it needs to be said meetings for the sake of meetings can become a real impediment to getting things done. Just about everyone involved in the initiative will have their own take on the value of meetings in relation to on the ground service provision. It will be a challenge to get the balance right and, just when you have it right, circumstances may change and you will need to make further adjustments. Phone, email and less formal contact between the managers involved all need to be proactively used as potential hiccups are much better ‘nipped in the bud’ than allowed to fester. In the process of this happening issues will be identified that need addressing through one on one communication, group sharing or staff development initiatives. Managers will have to make decisions on the relative merits of each of these means of addressing challenges. Staff particularly will need to look at issues around what they are aiming to achieve, how this can best be implemented and how it can be measured in the reporting and evaluation process. Facilitating Partners need to find staff who are good at facilitating this process with Community Partner staff who will generally need support in reporting to ensure an accurate picture of the outcomes of their activities are documented.

7. Continue to consult with parents and services Communities are dynamic. They may initially flourish in a kind of honeymoon period but it will not be long before relationships wear thin and activities grow tired if they fail to adapt to changes. Pen Green’s Margy Whalley and organisations like the Australian Centre for Social Innovation have continued to beat the drum of the importance of coproducing services with parents. The Pen Green Centre for Children and

154

Chapter Nine

their Families, since its early days, has maintained a high degree of involvement of parents in their day to day activities. All families who wanted nursery places were to be home-visited before a decision was made about who should be offered what. This was irrespective of whether the family had been referred to us by a health visitor and a social worker or whether they had simply walked in the door enquiring about the nursery. All parents were given the same application form, which asked them what they wanted in terms of hours, how much time they would like to spend with their child in the nursery and what activities they might like for themselves. We realised fairly quickly, when parents failed to fill in this section, that because they were unaccustomed to going into schools (one of the local schools still had a line parents weren’t supposed to cross), we would need to outline the type of activities that could be made available, such as parent’s discussion groups, a drop-in and baby clinics (Whalley, 1994).

Many parents are not used to being consulted. They are more used to being told what to do by intimidating professionals who fail to take into consideration the experience and knowledge parents have of their children. Just because some have personal issues they are trying to deal with doesn’t mean that their considerable observation of their own children amounts to nothing in the eyes of ‘experts’. A toxic kind of professionalization, in the sense identified by Ivan Illich and others, can disempower parents to somehow feel they have little to contribute to their child’s development. Healthy professionalism encourages listening to the views of parents without giving them a blank sheet on which to write their own curriculum for their children. As do professionals, they also need guidance and options to consider when they are making decisions about what is best for their children and families. One thing we can be sure of is that if we don’t continue to engage with parents in ongoing consultation our best laid plans will quickly implode on their own self-importance. Parents, educators and caregivers all have their theories about child development. This may lead to misunderstanding and conflict if differences are not brought out into the open. For the most part theories of child development held by caregivers and parents are implicit – privately held and rarely talked about. In the process of establishing shared goals however it is important that implicit theories be discussed openly and constructively so that each partner understands the other’s point of view (Sims & Hutchins, 2011).

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

155

It is the same with service providers. Each has a unique contribution to make to the children and family communities we are developing together. If communities are to continue to be healthy, ongoing consultation and guidance will be needed with each of the services involved. That is what partnerships are all about. They are not to be dictatorships but rather dynamic relationships in which each partner contributes the expertise, skills and knowledge they have for the benefit of the whole community. They are relationships that need to be nurtured and maintained if the collaborations are to be successful in the long term. The more vulnerable the families we are working with, the more integrated the support will need to be. Families impacted by generational poverty and dysfunction often become very adept at maximising the services they receive in order to have their needs met. They may have learned to do this as a survival strategy when they were vulnerable children growing up in dysfunctional families and communities. Providers of emergency financial assistance made significant systemic progress when they managed to implement a co-ordinated approach to service delivery which largely prevented consumers from accessing multiple agencies at the same time. Similarly social and emotional support needs to be integrated in a way that encourages vulnerable families to address presenting issues rather than play agencies off against each other. This can be very easy to do where unhealthy competitiveness and duplication of services exists. Service providers need the kind of communication flow and service agreements that inhibit the propensity of consumers to manipulate. Where they can easily do this they will continue to be able to shift the blame to service providers for their personal issues and avoid the kind of support that may lead to personal growth and improved family functioning.

8. Manage conflicts and maintain relationships Having a great plan and putting it into effect with a flawless implementation process is aspirational but not very likely to happen. There will be challenges along the way as long as people are involved and we need to anticipate this or we may easily become dispirited. We have previously looked at some of the challenges experienced on the Salisbury C4C journey particularly in the chapter where we considered such elements as infrastructure issues, interagency collaboration, engaging

156

Chapter Nine

vulnerable young families and negotiating bureaucracies. We now look at some of the issues around implementation from a broader perspective. First of all we need to think about the level of relationship we are aiming to achieve. Is it simply co-operation or is it co-ordination, is it collaboration or is it integration? Developing genuine collaboration and moving towards integration involves increasing interdependence, risks and rewards, commitment and contribution, tacit information sharing, pooled resources, shared goals and shared power (McDonald & Rosier, 2011). This is not easily achieved or as Sure Start’s Naomi Eisenstadt once put it at a gathering in Adelaide, ‘It’s not rocket science … it’s harder’. It’s hard because not only will there be potential conflict across professional boundaries and personality differences, it is also likely to occur across organisational boundaries at the same time. Tensions similar to those that can occur in a multidisciplinary team within an organisation (eg demarcation disputes, power struggles and different values), can also occur when professional and organisational boundaries are crossed at the same time. The difference is that when inter-professional tensions occur within an organisation, there is a leadership structure that can potentially address the problem, but this is typically lacking between organisations (Arney &Scott, 2010).

Collaborating partners need to first recognise the complexities of engaging in the provision of integrated services and prepare for inevitable tensions. This will take some dedicated time and effort and is a key reason to use a Facilitating Partner model to implement collaborations that are likely to deliver effective integrated services. Project facilitators need considerable skills to help partners balance the conflicting interests involved and maintain effective working relationships. Staff need be selected, mentored and trained to be skilled in working in an integrated service delivery environment. Collaborating partners need to be committed to wanting the joint services to be successful. The C4C model involves Facilitating Partners subcontracting Community Partners to deliver activities to support families. An added complexity to interagency working is the allocation of finance to the activities being delivered. It is very easy for service providers to make comparisons in relation to who is getting what limited funding is available and readily jump to conclusions that may well be wide of the mark. This can be an added source of tension which Facilitating Partners have to work

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

157

with. They need to have a high level of consultation with their staff, committees and funding bodies to ensure the funds available are being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Fiscal Policy Studies Institute has developed a helpful contract reform agenda for funders and non-profit organisations (FSPI, 2013).

9. Work with all levels of government, NGOs, the community and private sectors We need to continue to work with all levels of government, NGO’s, the community and the private sector if we are going to make a major difference in outcomes for families. It has been encouraging to see an increasing will to do this in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. Having to work with the high level of complex needs that have been identified in this community adds motivation to the desire to work together. Child protection issues, drug and alcohol misuse, family violence, sex abuse, sexualisation of children, child obesity, mental health issues, cyberbullying, screen addiction, loss of meaning and purpose and youth suicide all contribute to a toxic cocktail. Most recognise it will take the combined efforts of all sectors to arrest the downward spiral and build stronger, more resilient communities. In the northern suburbs initiatives such as C4C, Northern Connections and DECD Children’s Centres are learning to work together to develop effective strategies for the early years. They have grasped economist James Heckman’s posit of a 10% return for investment in early childhood, which far outweighs the return gained from working with older children. Policy makers need to be continually reminded of this as governments grapple with prioritising limited resources. The national implementation of the Australian Early Development Census provides us with a measure of how well we are doing and it is telling us there is much room for improvement. We need to continue to measure the collective impact of family support strategies that are being implemented and ensure that those proving to be effective are not terminated by short-sighted, opportunistic policymaking or penalised because they work. In Australia, state governments have been traditionally considered to be responsible for universal services, with the federal government filling in identified gaps. The need for co-ordination of services is obvious. In the case of family support most state governments are developing networks of children and family centres but lack the level of resourcing to do it as

158

Chapter Nine

effectively as they might. Significant investment from the federal government in partnership with state governments is needed if we are to deliver the kind of family support services that will have a significant and lasting impact on the wellbeing of families as well as the economy. We’ll also need local government to contribute, for example by developing inviting, family-friendly environments for outdoor play activities. Non-government organisations need to build community capacity through implementing initiatives that strengthen families by improving quality parenting. Community groups facilitated by volunteers provide the heart and soul of a community. They consist mainly of people doing what they really want to do and are hopefully gifted to do. We need the business sector to become involved. It was interesting to see the Australian Centre for Social Innovation sponsor an event with Sir Richard Branson who has famously urged his business colleagues worldwide to “screw business as usual” and invest in social change rather than focusing purely on profit (Curtis, 2013). The advent of Social Impact Investment initiatives is also adding considerable strength to this movement (DuncanSmith, 2013). We need the private sector to seriously invest in social change that strengthens families and builds stronger communities.

10. Develop teamwork Much of this cannot be done without the exercise of considerable collaborative leadership skills. A lot of wicked problems will need to be tackled along the way as change is usually resisted by those with entrenched ideas about what is possible and the constraints of agency agendas. Silo mentality and the competitive instinct are highly resilient. The implementation of integrated services requires partners who understand that it is all about individuals and organisations contributing their pieces to the jigsaw and all the pieces are needed. Leadership is not the exclusive realm of those in positions of authority. An effective collaborative leadership team will need most members to exercise leadership at times. It will also need leaders who don’t mind who gets the credit for what, as long as families and communities are doing better. Leaders need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and to share responsibility for developing integrated services. Initiatives need to be built by collaborative leaders with honest and independent judgement who are able to identify elephants in the room such as professional biases and organisational agendas. Such leadership requires considerable courage

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

159

and the ability to take risks while at the same time maintaining effective working relationships with stakeholders. It also needs to be said that leaders will need to build collaborative relationships based on both truth and grace. Often when new players arrive on the scene they are very keen to establish themselves and score some goals. They can behave at times like junior footballers trying to kick all the goals themselves rather than assist the rest of the team. Sometimes we will need to extend grace to such players for a time until hopefully the truth eventually dawns that doing what is best for the team produces the kind of results everyone wants to see. We all do a whole lot better when partners work together for the benefit of families. Leaders need to be provided with mentoring support as well as time for reflection and continuous learning if they are going to exercise the kind of leadership needed to see the dream of building healthy communities become significantly realised. It is not easy work and involves a lot of time dealing with tough issues as well as the more positive experiences of inspiring others through visionary leadership. Good mentors can be a great help in supporting leaders to maintain equilibrium in times of conflict as can wise colleagues. Personal reflection, spiritual disciplines and the use of learning opportunities can also help team players process the angst that is often encountered in their roles and remain focussed. Leaders with a strong sense of vocation and a high degree of resilience are often the ones able to go the distance required to produce the outcomes we all want to see. Albert Einstein reportedly once said “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer”.

11. Evaluate activities It’s good to develop useful activities that make real differences for children and families and have the satisfaction of knowing that what you did was worth doing. An observant departmental officer and a university lecturer pointed out to us in our embryonic days that, if we do not engage in significant evaluation and reporting of activities, key stakeholders won’t know whether what we are doing is having any impact. Funding bodies are required to make decisions based on reliable evidence about the effectiveness of programs they are funding. At Salisbury we were involved in the initial national evaluation of C4C however our use of local evaluation was less than it could have been. We

160

Chapter Nine

needed to know more about what we could contribute toward a better outcome from evaluation in partnership with local evaluators. Researchers are good at such things as quantifying problems, gathering rich stories and examining cause & effect but they are not always as good at dealing with systems, synthesising different knowledges, dealing with values conflict and unknowns and understanding context (Bammer, 2012). In developing a productive partnership with local evaluators we need to look carefully at how we can best use their services to evaluate what we are hoping to achieve. Examining collective impact over time was really at the heart of the initiative but that was too expensive for local evaluators to measure within the budget available. We needed to come up with an evaluation agenda that was more achievable. We opted to do this by evaluating specific activities rather than using a more generalised approach. The 2011 evaluation of FamilyZone Ingle Farm alerted us to the need for a more comprehensive focus on the most vulnerable which was addressed through initiatives such as expanding the home visiting program and the perinatal support program for mothers identified as being at risk of developing PND. It also pointed to the benefits that could come from an extended focus on more quality childcare, support for fathers, increased engagement with Aboriginal families and emergent needs for new arrivals playgroups. C4C was built around a program logic approach as well as having an outcomes-based framework. The program logic approach articulates how we might go about attaining program objectives and lends itself to having an outcome evaluation of program implementation objectives and participant outcome objectives (Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2010). The Results Based Accountability approach described in chapter eight, begins with deciding on what outcomes we are wanting to see and works back from that to develop the strategies we might need to put in place to get there. The C4C National Evaluation measured some positive changes over time on a macro scale for the first four years of the project while the implementation of the Australian Early Development Census has capacity to continue to measure population outcomes in the 0-5 age group over the life of the initiative. The AEDC (formerly AEDI) was first implemented in some parts of Australia in 2006 and a number of C4C sites facilitated its implementation. In South Australia it was administered again in 2009 and 2012 by the Department for Education and Child Development and, as we

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

161

have seen, has provided valuable data in our context for some encouraging trends to be identified as well as some persistent challenges. The notion of ‘evidence based practice’ has almost become the new dogma of community services practice although its methodology is being questioned. Randomised controlled trials for example, measure what they measure and often not what they aspire to measure, Today some prefer to use the term ‘practice based evidence’ which recognises that good practice has not been, or cannot be expected to be, established simply by randomised controlled trials. The notion of ‘evidence informed practice’ is more realistic in most cases as among other elements, it does not necessarily exclude the research wisdom of communities and cultures that have functioned well prior to the eighteenth century evolution of the scientific method. The debate around evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence highlights the need for evaluators and practitioners to work closely together. Here the concept of Evaluation Capacity Building in which stakeholders work with evaluators to develop an evaluation culture is useful. Developmental Evaluation can also be a useful platform assisting evaluation in complex environments like C4C initiatives. One C4C site has effectively used it to explore families’ connection with and movement through an area-based service system (Earles et al, 2013). Combining evaluation tools with the use of reflective practice enables individual practitioners to focus on the need for continual self-assessment in order to improve service delivery for the benefit of families.

12. Participate in preparing professionals to work in integrated services Working in integrated services requires a new kind of professional capable of working across disciplines and engaging effectively with professionals from other disciplines and agencies. Child development has a well-established body of knowledge that is common with health, education and community services professionals. Advances in neuroscience and attachment theory point to the critical role families have to play, particularly during pre-birth and the early years, in giving children the best possible start in life. No longer can we cannot really talk about child development without including parent’s/primary caregiver’s roles in establishing physical, emotional, social and spiritual foundations in the lives of their children.

162

Chapter Nine

How well have we developed a profession capable of optimising child development by up-skilling families to play their critical roles? How can we better go about doing this? How can paediatric, social work, education and pastoral care professionals be better trained in family sensitive practice? How can we develop systemic change that encourages these professions to work in collaboration in supporting families in the early years? What role does peer support have to play? The answers to some of these questions might lie in training professionals who have some understanding of all of these professions and are knowledgeable and skilled in how to effectively support child and family development. Such practitioners will have the capacity to engage vulnerable families and to link them with holistic professional and peer support. We currently have professionals in the health and education sectors who are skilled in understanding and supporting child development however when it comes to parenting, perhaps the most important skill of all, professional support has been limited. There are a range of service providers trying to do this, operating with limited budgets and often lacking the kind of resources needed to effectively engage the most vulnerable. The need for integration of family education/support professionals with child development professionals is paramount. Might we develop a new emerging profession and call it child and family development?

References Arney, F., & Scott, D., (2010). Working with Vulnerable Families A partnership approach, Cambridge, p83. Bammer, G., (2012). Bridging the Know-Do Gap. Children Communities Connections Conference, Adelaide 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Bridging_the_Kno w_Do_Gap.pdf Curtis, C., (2013), Be Bold as Branson, The Australian Centre for Social Innovation, 15/5/13 [email protected] Duncan-Smith, I., (2013). Address to 2103 London G8 Summit. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WngTtpblPVM Earles, W., Harmer, K., Magdalena, L., & Spiker, S., (2013). Exploring Families’ connection with and movement through an Area-based Service System: Creative Clinical Data Mining within a Developmental Evaluation Process. Retrieved from:

Developing and Implementing a Community Strategic Plan

163

http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Exploring_Familie s_Connections.pdf Fiscal Policy Studies Institute (Draft, 2013). Next Generation Contracting. Retrieved from: http://resultsaccountability.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/03/Next-Generation-Contracting-2013-11.pdf Illich, I., (1973). Celebration of Awareness, Penguin Muir, K., Katz, I., Purcal, C., Patulny, R., Flaxman, S., Abello, D., Cortis, N., Thomson, C., Oprea, I., Wise, S., Edwards, B., Gray, M., & Hayes, A. (2009). National evaluation (2004- 2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004 – 2009, Occasional Paper No. 24, Social Policy Research Centre University of New South Wales & Australian Institute of Family Studies. Keast, R., & Mandel, M., (2009). What is collaboration? Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth Topical Paper p2. McDonald, M., & Rosier, K., (2011). Interagency collaboration – What does it look like, when is it needed and what supports it? Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse Briefing no 21-A Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, (2010). The Program Managers Guide to Evaluation. Administration on Children Youth and Families, p7. Schweinhart, L., (2003). Benefits, Costs and Explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Society for Research in Child Development. Sims, M., & Hutchins, T., (2011). Program Planning for Infants and Toddlers, Pademelon Press, p 58. Spiker, S., & Earles, W., (2012). A practice model for the Communities for Children facilitating partner process. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/C4C_Facilitating_ Partner_Model.pdf Whalley, M., (1994). Learning to be Strong Setting up a neighbourhood service for under- fives and their families, Hodder and Stoughton, p 33.

CHAPTER TEN INTEGRATING MULTI-AGENCY AND TRANS-DISCIPLINARY SERVICES KARL BRETTIG

How do we go about taking up the challenge of implementing integrated services that incorporate a range of agencies and disciplines? In some ways it’s a bit like building a building. First you need a vision of what the building is going to provide. Then you need a team of architects to draw up a plan. A building company needs to be engaged and a project manager put in place to manage the sub-contracts needed to complete the project. The sub-contractors need to employ staff who have expertise in their fields and have the skills to do their part in putting the building together. Once we have the building however the analogy breaks down rather dramatically. A building is static as long as it remains standing. A multiagency interdisciplinary team is far from static because it is made up of people. Each time a new person or new agency joins the collaboration a whole new set of dynamics come into the system. This becomes much more pronounced in a setting where staff from different agencies and disciplines are co-located. These staff need to be able to be able to communicate very well with each other if their activities are to provide effective trans-disciplinary services in a seamless manner. This can be complicated by the fact that each agency may well have potentially conflicting cultures, policies and practice that add to the, large enough, challenges of trans-disciplinary work. Can government institutions really work together effectively with NGO’s and community groups to support families? Can integrated service delivery models really work? Clearly the process of implementing integrated services involves very significant challenges and major paradigm shifts. Successful implementation requires leadership that is

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

165

prepared to take some risks in order to bring about changes in the way services are delivered. Does the process necessarily have to alienate those who are resistant to change or can leadership be exercised by multiple stakeholders and managers at a number of levels to minimise the sense of loss and maximise the rewards of making these changes? We should not underestimate the magnitude of the task as was the UK Sure Start experience when it attempted a similar challenge. The conclusion is that we vastly underestimated the difficulty of the task. Given that we either should have made the task less challenging by more specification on how to do it, or thought more about the kind of support and training new programme managers would need. In fact we should have done both. (Eisenstadt, 2011, p 145)

J Hudson Taylor once suggested there are three stages to any highly challenging work, ‘impossible’, ‘difficult’ and ‘done’. If we contemplate the complexity of bringing together different agencies with different philosophies and values and staff from different disciplines with different philosophies and values the word ‘impossible’ seems entirely appropriate. If we manage to bring different stakeholders together and come up with a common vision and an agreed strategic plan ‘difficult’ is a good way to describe the implementation process. In order to deliver integrated services we need to be ready for a challenge. We also need to remember that integrated services for their own sake are not the outcome we are trying to achieve. It’s about improving services for the families who will benefit. Interestingly we’ve noticed families continue to benefit appreciably even when tensions between staff and agencies are at a relatively high level. Gary De Carolis suggests leaders involved in implementing change in systems of care need to be schooled in system change. Effective leadership and policy development are two intangibles crucial to system of care development and sustainability. Given the extent of change that will take place, leaders who understand and are schooled in system change are far more able to withstand the inevitable pressures and challenges. Are you ready? I think you are if you fully understand the personal commitment and difficulties this undertaking will require. I think you are if you know in your heart the benefits this work will bring to children and families… What in life has real meaning that is not accompanied by risk and is not difficult? (De Carolis, 2005, pps 24-26)

166

Chapter Ten

When we started out at Salisbury we were not really schooled in system change. In some ways our naiveté helped us make the decision to proceed to attempt to facilitate what families were asking us to provide. In hindsight a better understanding of system change would have alleviated some of the discomfort we experienced in our early days. Considerable reassurance was to be found from reading about some of the challenges Margy Whalley described in her account of the early days of the Pen Green Centre for Children and their Families in Learning to be Strong – Setting up a neighbourhood service for under-fives and their families (Whalley, 1994). How do we manage to negotiate the rocky road to integration without being overcome by the challenges? How might we go about building a platform that is likely to contribute to improved outcomes for families?

1. Identify skilful, experienced, knowledgeable and passionate leadership Implementing effective integrated service delivery requires a level of adaptive leadership that goes beyond traditional concepts of organisational leadership. We are generally dealing with people who well understand the limitations of the respective organisations involved and will not enter into collaborative partnerships without considerable thought. This includes not only the service providers we would like to partner with but also the consumers we want to engage. Many parents and caregivers have become very disillusioned with the service systems that have been in place over past decades. Some have come to see them as a threat to their comfort zones and lifestyle rather than an avenue for support and encouragement. As well as having leaders who know how to deal with government departments and non-government organisations we need passionate leaders who are able to negotiate barriers with consumers, that have been put in place by a dysfunctional service system. A fascinating, anything but traditional, approach to this emerged from the streets of Brownsville in the eastern part of Brooklyn, one of the most destitute suburbs of New York City. Between 2006 and 2011 robberies were reduced by 80% after Joanne Jaffe, a police officer, took over as head of a group with primary responsibility for housing developments in Brownsville. She put together a task group of police officers “who loved kids”, compiled a list of 106 families of juvenile offenders and set about

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

167

implementing some innovative strategies which included engaging with their families. It wasn’t too successful at first until she realized that police were seen as the enemy. They weren’t seen as legitimate supporters of families. The tipping point came when she managed to persuade her superiors to let her give each of these families a turkey for thanksgiving! Her little speech on that first Thanksgiving – I know sometimes you hate the police. I understand all that. But I just want you to know, as much as it seems we’re harassing you by knocking on your door, we really do care, and we really do want you to have a happy Thanksgiving – was a plea for legitimacy. She was trying to get families who had been on the wrong side of the law – sometimes for generations – to see that the law could be on their side (Gladwell, 2013 p 215).

Changing the service system involves something akin to reestablishing such legitimacy on the eyes of potential consumers who usually do not ask for more of the same when they are consulted. Passionate dedicated leaders who really want to make a difference for marginalised families will be acutely aware of this and look for creative ways to negotiate the barriers. They will need to have a strong sense of vocation that enables them to stay a course that potentially leads to significant change in the service system for vulnerable families (Scott, 2009). As well as engaging consumers they will also need to be able to work with other service providers as partners and it is often the case that leaders are usually good at either one or the other, but seldom both. Those who really care about families tend to have a healthy disregard for bureaucracies, or if accommodating partnerships is their strength, they can be less than sensitive to the needs of the families. It’s a good argument for developing what Margy Whalley calls ‘leaderful’ teams whose capacities include encouraging risk taking, accepting mistakes, dealing with issues fairly immediately and the ability to say sorry when we get it wrong (Whalley, 2009). We need to develop leadership teams with a mix of skills that will enable them to see beyond the status quo and negotiate the rocky road to integration. That will mean learning to work together with a team of leaders with complementary skills and sufficient resilience to implement the kind of change needed to deliver truly integrated services.

168

Chapter Ten

2. Develop a collaborative leadership team In 2004 the UK introduced a National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership taught at the Pen Green Research, Development and Training Centre with 354 participants in 2005-6 and 408 in 2006-7. An evaluation of its impact showed that the greatest change reported in its first year of operation related to the organisation and training of its staff teams. Leaders who did the course spent more time listening to their teams and in team building and training (Pen Green, 2007). Not only did participants better develop their staff leadership teams but they also reorganised their senior management teams to include people across the campus from different professions. Leadership teams that work well collaboratively are at the centre of any effective integrated service delivery model and much thought, mentoring and training needs to be invested in their development. The implementation of integrated services requires partners who understand that it is all about individuals and organisations effectively contributing their strengths to the service for the benefit of families. Leadership in collaborative teams is not the exclusive realm of those in positions of authority. An effective collaborative leadership team will need each member to exercise leadership at times. It will need leaders who don’t mind who gets the credit for what, as long as families are doing better and communities are becoming more functional. A common pitfall in implementing this style of leadership is that it can result in a decision making paralysis if members feel that they need to consult with every other leader in the team before they do anything. An expectation of such micromanaging is primarily the result of a lack of trust and lack of understanding of the need to take initiative where appropriate. Collaborative leadership cannot function well if leaders do not have a healthy respect for each other’s strengths and respective spheres of authority. If trust is lacking we need to ask why and work on the relationships involved to re-establish it, or our collaborative team will soon become highly dysfunctional. If lack of initiative is a problem, staff need to be mentored and encouraged to take a lead when and where this is appropriate. Leaders need to be empowered to make necessary decisions in a timely manner or the process of working together can become laborious, overly bureaucratic, unwieldy and ultimately unproductive.

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

169

Strategic plans, job descriptions and work-plans identify much of the scope of authority team members have in their respective roles though each needs some freedom, but not complete freedom, to develop new initiatives. An effective team player will learn the level of consultation they need to engage in with other members of the team to do this well. This often comes with experience and the inexperienced will be prone to exhibit some clumsiness here. Supervision, mentoring relationships and leadership training can contribute significantly to meeting this challenge. Stephen Covey has some useful insights to offer on the key relationship between levels of trust and initiative (Covey, 2004). Another issue may be a lack of shared vision and values in the team which needs to be acknowledged and addressed if it is to continue to function. A lack of commitment to co-design, co-education and training will also impact potential outcomes. Dedicated planning time and appropriate mentoring and training activities need to be put in place to work on these issues.

3. Develop communities of practice If we are going to wait for randomised controlled trials to establish an evidence base before we proceed with anything then we are going to become significantly incapacitated. Implementing integrated services is a highly complex undertaking and it will be many years before all of its intricacies have been researched. In fact that will never happen as cultural practices, demographics, technological innovations, beliefs and values are all in a state of constant flux and emerging trends have usually had a huge impact on the lives of families well before they are ever formally researched. So we also need to find additional avenues for the kind of information and skills that are needed to implement integrated service delivery for families. Communities of practice through which we draw on the collective practice wisdom of other practitioners engaged in similar challenges are one such avenue. Communities of practice, are networks of practitioners who share a common concern about something and interact regularly to learn from each other how to better go about doing what they do. They help us align our endeavours with the views of other relevant stakeholders. This is not to say that our own views are not adequate or the views of others need to be taken as directives. Etienne Wenger who pioneered the concept puts it this way.

170

Chapter Ten Our engagement in practice is rarely effective without some degree of alignment with the context – making sure that activities are coordinated, that laws are followed, or that intentions are communicated. Note that the notion of alignment here is not merely compliance or passive acquiescence; it is not a one-way process of submitting to external authority or following a prescription. Rather it is a two-way process of coordinating perspectives, interpretations, actions, and contexts so that action has the effects we expect. Following directions or negotiating a plan are forms of alignment as are enlisting a colleague’s collaboration or convincing a manager to change a policy. Whichever way they go, these processes of alignment give rise to relations of identification: applying the scientific method, abiding by a moral code, joining a strike, or recycling can all become very deep aspects of our identities (Wenger, 2012).

Wenger’s concept of alignment embodies the characteristics of what two-way partnerships that effectively incorporate divergent philosophies and values are all about. They are not about compromising identities and values rather they are about coordinating efforts to achieve better outcomes for those we serve. Productive partnerships are critical to the development of integrated services. We are not talking about creating an amorphous mass of compromise. That would be of little benefit to anybody. Rather we are talking about finding ways diverse stakeholders can work together effectively for the benefit of vulnerable families. Inevitably such communities will have to learn to deal with conflict as they work at finding ways of effectively working together towards the goals they share. Sometimes that will mean following directions of others and other times it will mean changing policies. Clearly the evidence base will guide the conversation as will practice wisdom. An effective community of practice will include a healthy mixture of contributors with complementary knowledge and skills. A real strength of C4C in South Australia is that the collective C4C sites have functioned in this way since the inception of the initiative. Site Facilitating Partner managers have met regularly, usually bimonthly, to share practice experiences and explore ways of working together. After the initial round of professional development opportunities implemented by the federal government ended, the SA sites have hosted a number of national good practice forums. In some ways it has been easier to do this in South Australia than other states, because of the concentration of the sites within a reasonable distance of each other. Nevertheless the effort to maintain the CoP network has enhanced the impact of the initiative.

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

171

Another CoP that has functioned productively in South Australia has been the Children Communities, Connections Learning Network. The CCC conferences in Adelaide, have engaged with key professional development personnel from education, health and community services sectors as well as the Australian Centre for Child Protection, the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction and the Australian Council on Children and the Media. These conferences have attracted delegates from relevant sectors involved from most parts of the country. The publication Building Integrated Connections for Children, their Families and Communities (Brettig & Sims, 2010) came out of the 2010 conference, while many of the themes explored in this book came from conversations and material presented at the 2012 conference. We’ll explore communities of practice in a lot more depth in the next chapter as we have found they can be a significant factor in successfully implementing a whole of community approach to supporting families.

4. Aim for what is practical and reasonable Integrated service models vary according to a number of factors, including local governance options. The resulting model created will depend on the extent to which local early childhood services are ready and able to change. The level and intensity of service integration reflected in a community may change over time. In the beginning, given the significant change required, it may be more practical or reasonable for a community to aim for a model reflective of “collaboration” with a view to moving forward to a truly integrated service model over time. However, if services are moving into a building together, the aim should be for the elements of true integration to be in place when service delivery begins. In other words, a cultural shift (towards integration) has to happen prior to moving in, otherwise the new building may be the only change that occurs. (Prichard et al, 2011, p82)

There are plenty of examples of services that have been co-located for years with very little collaboration or integration happening. A lot of thoughtful planning and relationship building needs to be put in place and it is better to do this at the beginning before a lot of irritation begins to accumulate. This is particularly the case if different service providers are to be co-located in the same building where there is a lot of potential for energy sapping conflict over who is responsible for what. It may well be that before contemplating such a move, service providers collaborate together using a less intensive model to enable

172

Chapter Ten

working relationships to develop and key players to become familiar with each other’s strengths and potential challenging behaviours and philosophical differences. Much of the kind of conflict that comes down to professional biases and personality differences can be alleviated by a process of establishing the vision and values that partners can own early in the life of the initiative. Willingness to accept some of the inconveniences which may result from delivering an integrated service may then follow. Such willingness is not always present and it may be that some staff would be better redeployed in another capacity. This consideration is also practical and reasonable given that integrated service delivery can be very difficult without a good level of understanding of collaborative practice and of priority being given to the needs of consumers. It is also a particularly important consideration when new staff persons are recruited into the service.

5. Name the elephants in the room If we start getting too precious about sensitivities and no-go areas in our management meetings then we are most likely becoming significantly dysfunctional as a leadership group. In any meeting in any organisation there are really four meetings taking place at once. First there is the public explicit conversation the ostensible reason for coming together. Second there is the informal chat or premeeting that took place before the meeting but did not include everyone who was at the meeting itself. Third there is the set of internal conversations unfolding within participants’ heads relating to the meeting agenda. These internal interpretations about what is being said about the difficult issues that have not been openly acknowledged, those elephants in the room that no one is mentioning. Fourth there are the meetings after the meeting….In a highly adaptive organisation no issue is too sensitive to be raised at the official meeting and no questions are off-limits. (Heifetz et al, 2009 p102)

The problem with a lot of ‘car-park discussions’ is that the subject of the conversation is often the stakeholders who are no longer present after the meeting. Only one side of the story is usually presented and the result is often more fragmentation, new factions being created and the decision making process being compromised. It is usually much better to air differences in the meeting in a constructive manner and make a genuine attempt to listen to each other. Sometimes it is more appropriate for adversaries to try and gain a better understanding of where each other is

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

173

coming from by meeting separately, possibly with a third party present to mediate if necessary. When faced with years of bitter conflict between generations of black and white South Africans Nelson Mandela demonstrated the kind of grace that is often necessary in challenging situations. Treated contemptuously by a white minority South African Government and subjected to the humiliation of 28 years of imprisonment he was eventually released and became president. During those long years of internment he had to make choices about allowing himself to become bitter and resentful or choosing to forgive those who badly mistreated him. He had to learn to deal with some very strong feelings against those who were threatened by his convictions and actions and who orchestrated his imprisonment. The factionalism and competitive pettiness we may have to deal with in developing integrated services will pale into insignificance in comparison to what Mandela experienced but nevertheless there is much we can learn from his attitude. When he became president he knew he had to govern for all the people including the white minority who had treated him so contemptuously. Not only did he have to find the resources to forgive but he had to actively pursue policies and strategies that would break down the entrenched prejudices of years of apartheid. You could argue that the apartheid policy of separate development has some discernible parallels with entrenched siloed service delivery. Years of professional elitism, one-upmanship and competition for funding inherently tends to create resentment among agencies and their champions and we need to learn to let go of this if we are to effectively facilitate integrated service delivery. That is not to say we become naïve about the actions of others but that we actively attempt to break down the barriers of competition, control and competing commitments (Benevolent Society, 2013). Inevitably this means we need to find resources that enable us to let go of accumulated resentment. We cannot constructively name elephants in the room if our perspective remains clouded by unresolved resentment and prejudice against other stakeholders.

6. Monitor the level of disequilibrium For any stakeholder, having to disappoint their own constituencies is immensely difficult. Disequilibrium between the competing agendas of partnering organisations have a level of elasticity but at times the elastic is

174

Chapter Ten

in danger of breaking. The role of the Facilitating Partner is often like that of being the proverbial meat in the sandwich, trying to be a friend to each partner in dispute. Such occurrences are not infrequent and continuous assessment of just how strained the relationships involved are becoming is a part of the Facilitating Partner role. Sometimes it is necessary for the elastic to break when competing agency priorities become unmanageable. For this reason recontracting partners every few years is not neccessarily bureaucratic time wasting but can be an opportunity for partners to go their separate ways amicably. If communication flows are being maintained there will most likely be times when partners see mutual benefit in pursuing other options. Facilitators need to be very aware of a lot more than the priorities of the people sitting in the committee meeting room. In leading adaptive change broaden your focus beyond just the people in the room, the players most directly involved. Take into account the people outside the room about whom the players care. And consider how you might help each stakeholder in the room to engage their constituencies outside the room in the questions and solutions you are exploring at the table. (Heifetz et al, 2009, pps 93-94)

Participants who are no longer contributing to the conversation may well be grappling with the permutations of what the impact of the subject being discussed may have on their constituencies. The rest of those sitting around the table need to be aware this may be happening and initiate appropriate questions that may help to resolve potential conflicts. Or it might be wiser to leave that to another time ‘in the car-park’ as not everyone feels at liberty to disclose all in a stakeholder meeting. Car-park discussions can be useful if their intent is on gaining a better understanding of adversaries and resolving differences. Sometimes it is helpful to bring conflict to the surface and sometimes it is premature to do so, though it must be said most of us tend to err on the side of not doing it and continuing the procrastination. There will be times when facilitators need to temporarily reclaim responsibility for issues at hand and seek out other perspectives before trying to negotiate resolutions. That can be frustrating because it involves slowing down the decision making process but in the long term, may well lead to better outcomes.

Integrating Multi-agency and Trans-disciplinary Services

175

References Benevolent Society, (2013). Collective Impact – The Theory in Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.benevolent.org.au/~/media/Benevolent/Events/CollectiveI mpactPaper%20pdf.ashx Covey, S., (2004). The 8th Habit- From Effectiveness to Greatness. Free Press. De Carolis, G., (2005). A View from the Balcony – Leadership Challenges in Systems of Care Brown Books, pps 24, 26 Eisenstadt, N., (2011). Providing a Sure Start How Government Discovered Early Childhood, Policy Press, p 145 Gladwell, M., (2013). David and Goliath – Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants. Allen Lane, p215. Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M., (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Harvard Business Press, p 102 Prichard, P., Purdon, S., & Chaplyn, J., (2011). in Building Integrated Connections for Children, their Families and Communities. Brettig & Sims (eds) CSP. P 82. Pen Green Leadership and Research Base Team, (2007). Realising Leadership: children’s centre leaders in action. National College for School Leadership, p32. Scott, D., (2009). Values and Vocation: the essence of working with fragile families presented at the Australian Association of Maternal, Child and Family Health Nurses Conference in Adelaide on 4 April 2009. Wenger, E., (2012). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. Retrieved from: http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/09-10-27CoPs-and-systems-v2.01.pdf Whalley, M., (1994). Learning to be Strong – Setting up a neighbourhood service for under-fives and their families. Hodder & Stoughton. —. (2009). Leadership and Leaderful Teams, Practitioner Inquiry Project Presentation. Adelaide April 2009

CHAPTER ELEVEN GROWING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE MICHAEL WHITE

In the community services and health sectors there is a growing recognition that no one service can meet all clients’ needs, especially those with multiple and complex needs. Clients may require or receive services from multiple providers to address specific needs, because of changes in the clients’ circumstances (changes in client needs/complexity, location) or due to service provider issues (i.e., the service is no longer available, suitable, or due to changes in organisational circumstances). Where a client requires continuing care, but has to move between services and these services are provided from disparate service models, clients can experience poor outcomes. The community service sector broadly, and the child welfare sector in particular are under a number of stresses. Most notably the workforce is aging, with a significant proportion approaching retirement age. At the same time there is an increasing demand for workers in the broader economy (mining, tourism, hospitality) whilst the community service sector is also aging along with the general population. There are also changed government policy settings (e.g., the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Aging in Place programs) driving significant demand for carers in the aged and disability sectors (Productivity Commission, 2013). Hence, the ability to develop a comprehensive, effective and efficient training system is critical to developing and retaining staff with the appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes to work in the community sector (CSHISC, 2013). Changes in government policy over time have shifted service delivery expectations and increased recognition that community service organisations providing government funded services should work collaboratively with each other, and for this collaboration to occur across a range of

Growing a Community of Practice

177

organisations from both the community and government sectors, especially in the area of working with children at risk (COAG, 2009, Winkworth and White, 2010). However there are many challenges in achieving collaborative practice as we have considered in earlier chapters including but not limited to: distrust engendered by competitive tendering; different values and professional practice frameworks; time and capacity issues; communication issues; and skills in collaboration and integration (Scott, 2009, Winkworth and White, 2010). One mechanism for improving collaboration has been the establishment of reference groups and networks to address complex, inter-organisational issues such as service delivery design and learning and development (Mandell et al., 2009). One such model is the community of practice.

Theoretical concepts of communities of practice (CoPs) Wenger (2001 p. 1) states that ‘communities of practice are a specific kind of community. They are focused on a domain of knowledge and over time accumulate expertise in this domain. They develop shared practice by interacting around problems, solutions and insights, and building a common store of knowledge’. Communities of practice are defined as ‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (Wenger et al., 2002 p.4). CoPs operate as social learning systems where practitioners connect to solve problems, share ideas, set standards, build tools, and develop relationships with peers and stakeholders (Snyder et al., 2003). Communities of practice are characterised by shared learning and teaching, collegial relationships, non-hierarchical structures and commitment to change. Essential to communities of practice are three elements: 1) the community, which consists of a self-motivated and voluntary group of people who find innovative and dynamic ways to generate knowledge (including tacit knowledge); 2) the domain, or areas of interest to create a sense of identity and cohesiveness of the community or group and; 3) the practice, which is the common knowledge (including tools, protocols, etc.) that the community or group develops to work together effectively (Wenger, 1998, Wenger et al, 2002 cited inWhite et al., 2008).

178

Chapter Eleven

Van Winkelen (2003) further suggests that communities of practice are mechanisms within which collaboration can occur across organisations. CoPs can be an effective tool for collaboration in that they bring together a range of professionals from multiple organisations and engage them in developing common strategies that address service improvement, facilitate innovation, reduce duplication and enhance client outcomes (Wenger et al., 2002). Since the early 1990s communities of practice operating interorganisationally have been identified as a significant strategy for addressing the challenge of collaboration (Lave and Wenger, 1991, Moingeon et al., 2006). Specific research has looked at inter-organisational communities of practice (IOCoPs). Moingeon et al (2006) posit that IOCoP members do not perceive the market to be suited, adequate or sufficiently powerful to ensure the coordination or pooling of the specific competencies required to address the complex learning needs of the participating organisations. Individually members cannot provide a solution to the requirements of collective learning. However they identify that IOCoPs are an organisational form that can rectify the failure of a market system to adequately address the issues of knowledge management. They note however that this research is emergent and in an exploratory phase. Hildreth, Kimble and Wright (2000 p. 29), cite Manville and Foote, who define a CoP as ‘a group of professionals informally bound to one another through exposure to a common class of problems, common pursuit of solutions, and thereby themselves embodying a store of knowledge’. Wegner and Snyder (2000) defined structures similar to communities of practice for the purposes of differentiation. These definitions have been adopted by a number of other researchers, including van Winkelen (2003) and Moingeon (2006) adding the additional category, the interorganisational community of practice (IOCoP). Table 11-1 consolidates these definitions into a readily comparable format.

Growing a Community of Practice Structure

Purpose

Constitution

Community of practice

To develop members capabilities; to build and exchange knowledge

Involuntary self-selection

Formal workgroup

To deliver a particular product or service To accomplish a specific task

Everyone who reports to the group manager All employees assigned by senior management Members tend to be friends and business acquaintance s Voluntary individuals from different organizations

Project team

Informal network

To collect and pass on business information

Interorganisational community of practice

To develop individual expertise in an area of practice

Held together by Passion, commitment, and identification with the group's expertise Job requirements and common goals Milestones and goals

179 Duration As long as there's an interest in maintaining the group

Until the organisation restructures Lasts until the project has been completed

Mutual needs

For as long as people have a reason to connect

Mutual benefit in the form of members acquisition of social capital*

Has autonomous governance and persists for as long as it provides value to members

Fig 11-1: Types of Community of Practice Structures (after Moingeon et al. 2006) *Social capital - a way of describing the collective strength of the relationships within a group, where members of the group can include individuals, teams, communities, business units and discrete organisations. It is developed as a result of the structure and configuration of the connections between the group members, their shared understanding and ability to communicate, and the quality of their relationships as shown by the levels of trust, shared norms of behaviour and alignment with each other’s values and objectives (van Winkelen, 2003). Social capital is considered a key benefit of operating as a community of practice (Smith, 2003, 2009).

Chapter Eleven

180

Historical, current and emergent research There has been significant research undertaken on communities of practice and their use in addressing service improvement in complex service delivery environments. Wenger contended that such communities did not take knowledge in their specialty to be an object, rather it is a part of their practice, and that the capacity for knowing arises from participation (Wenger inLesser et al., 2000). Much of the early CoP research is focused on the use of CoPs within individual organisations. However, more recent studies have been undertaken in the use of communities of practice inter-organisationally (van Winkelen, 2003). Lathlean and LeMay (2002) looked specifically at inter-organisational communities of practice. They cited the emergent authorising environment for inter-disciplinary, inter-organisational practice as a driver for its development as ‘recent public enquiries of poor practice have emphasised the critical nature of communication and cooperation both within and between disciplines’ (Lathlean and le May, 2002p. 394). Whilst this study was located in the National Health Service in the UK, similar enquiries and research in Australia have emphasised the need for professionals involved in the care and protection of children to develop the same capacities for interaction and collaboration (Scott, 2009).

Inter-organisational groups as CoPs To assess whether or not an inter-organisational group is or could be developed into a CoP it was necessary to identify the key components of a CoP. A number of authors have addressed this issue and most have based their evaluation process on early work by Wenger, who was one of the first to identify the key characteristics of a CoP (Roberts, 2006). The identified characteristics of a CoP included: • • • •

Sustained mutual relationships. These may be harmonious or conflictual. Shared ways of engaging or doing things together. A rapid flow of information between members and the propagation of innovative solutions to shared problems. The absence of introductory preamble. It is as if conversations in interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process.

Growing a Community of Practice

181

•

Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed. That is that people have a shared language and understanding that assists in creating effective shortcuts to understanding when explaining issues. • There is substantial overlap in members’ descriptions of who belongs to the community. • Members demonstrate knowledge of what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise. • Members mutually define each other’s identities. • Members have an ability to collectively assess the appropriateness of actions and products. • The community produces specific tools, representations, and other artefacts. • The community has a shared body of local lore, shared stories, inside jokes and knowing laughter. • The community develops its own jargon and communication shortcuts and easily produces new ones. • Members display certain styles of interaction that are recognised as displaying membership. • There is a shared discourse in the group reflecting a shared or certain perspective on the world. (Source: Roberts (2006), based on Wenger). Wenger and Snyder (2000) also developed a useful framework of seven principles that they suggest generate ‘aliveness’ and energy within a community of practice. These acknowledge that while communities of practice need to be spontaneous and self-directed, guidelines can be helpful in creating the conditions for them to flourish (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). The principles are summarised in the following table:

182

Chapter Eleven

Principle

Behaviours

Designed for evolution

The community allows new people to become involved and new interests to be explored. Members accept that there will be different activity levels and different levels and kinds of support needed at different times. The community encourages discussion between those within the community and those outside about what it wants to and can achieve. For example, members develop and encourage links with communities in other organisations. Some people will be active in the community and some people will appear passive. Accept that contributions and learning take place in different ways. Relationships formed during informal community events and person-to-person communications are the purpose of the community. Formal organised events and discussion spaces are needed to help people feel part of the community. Both are important. The true value of the community may emerge as the community develops. Community members should be encouraged to be explicit about the value of what is being delivered. This may initially help raise awareness. Over time, value from participating should become more apparent and more concrete measures can be collected. Familiar community spaces and activities help people to feel comfortable in participating. Introducing new ideas to challenge thinking also stimulates interest and keeps people engaged. Regular events, planned to avoid overload, create points in which activity can converge. They encourage people to keep coming back, rather than gradually drifting away.

Open dialogue between inside and outside perspectives

Invite different levels of participation Develop both public and private community spaces

Focused on value

Combined familiarity and excitement

Create a rhythm for the community

Fig 11-2: Principles to support flourishing Communities of Practice (Wenger & Snyder 2000)

The literature demonstrates that communities of practice can, when operating within defined parameters, enhance the capacity of groups or networks to implement systemic improvements. This can be achieved both inter- and intra-organisationally depending on the nature of the community. The literature provides a framework for identifying if a particular group meets the criteria for a community of practice. Further,

Growing a Community of Practice

183

the literature identifies characteristics of communities that enable them to evolve or thrive. Below are a number of key indicators drawn from work by Roberts (2006) who drew heavily on the work of Wenger and others (Li et al., 2009, Moingeon et al., 2006, van Winkelen, 2003). Roberts (2006) cites fourteen characteristics that identify a group as a community of practice. Sustained mutual relationships - harmonious or conflictual A CoP has sustained mutual relationships. Over time, whilst people leave and new members join, an effective CoP remains a stable entity. Over time a CoP can experience both harmonious and conflictual relations. Importantly conflict should be viewed not as a negative, but a natural process and resolved through negotiation and discussion without long-term damage to relationships. Shared ways of engaging/doing things together Members of a CoP share a common pleasure in communicating, discussing problems and resolving them. To be self-sustaining it is important that members regularly come together at events, for meetings, at forums and with their wider stakeholder group. The importance of working/doing things together and collaborative engagement across a number of levels cannot be over-emphasised. A rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation Information is seen as critical. It is a commodity to be shared. Where information is incorrect this can be a major cause of conflict. However, where problems arise and members work as a group to solve them, this strengthens the relationships and enhances the long term outcomes. Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed A CoP is characterised by the ability of the members to understand the problems brought to the table by others and to define the salient issues quickly. Substantial overlap descriptions of who belongs Members are able to easily identify who belongs to the CoP and what their roles, including their particular strengths are within the group. Members can identify the reasons particular individuals or organisations are represented. Sometimes people might be identified as not belonging at the beginning of their tenure, but become a full member over time. It is

184

Chapter Eleven

important to note that some people will join but might not stay. They selfselect off the group. This is generally considered to be healthy, so long as it is not the majority of people invited to join. Knowing what others know, can do and can contribute to an enterprise Members’ knowledge of others’ abilities is an important characteristic of CoPs. Each member will bring specific skills and knowledge that add value to the group and enhance its capacity to ‘contribute to the enterprise’. It is important that as the group goes through renewal, new members are identified for skills to fill any gaps in the group’s capacity. It is also important that individuals are recognised for their skills. The value of members’ contributions are distributed across the group. No one person or sub-group is seen as being the holders of all knowledge or skills. This diversity is seen to be an important aspect of a CoP. Mutually defining identities Membership of a CoP should also reflect on a person’s identity within the wider professional environment in which they operate. Membership should give some status and recognition. Members also defined others in relation to the unique position they held in the group (referencing specialist skills, knowledge, network engagement, authority etc.). There is a sense of significant loss when people leave. The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products A successful CoP will have clearly developed and articulated goals. Considerable thought is put into the planning and delivery of activities. A CoP has an internally driven process of self-reflection that assists it to assess the appropriateness of activities and products. Specific tools, representations, and other artefacts The purpose of a CoP includes the development of a range of tools, representations and other artefacts. This may include (but is not limited to) terms of reference, a logo (independent of the logos of originating organisations) for used on all CoP communication, an annual forum or conference, educational resources, policy and procedural manuals, conference presentations, an awards process, a scholarship program, and professional development activities. The specific activities of the CoP change over time with changing priorities as issues emerge or are addressed.

Growing a Community of Practice

185

Absence of introductory preamble Meetings tend to be informal and not a great deal of time is spent on meeting processes. Rather, meetings are generally discursive and discussions wide ranging. Whilst the work drives the conversations, the conversations are also seen to drive or be essential to the work. Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter. Humour is identified as an important aspect of a successful CoP. The time spent engaging is not only productive but enjoyable. Successful CoPs meetings are often described as informal and discursive. Humour is intrinsically linked to the outcomes the CoP achieves by ensuring members remain motivated and engaged. All members share a consistent history Members share a common narrative about the CoPs inception, development, challenges and successes. Members are able to cogently discuss the history and importance of the CoP with non-members and promote its value. In particular, members are able to identify key benefits for a range of stakeholders. There is internal jargon and shortcuts to communication Over time members of a CoP develop a common or shared voice. There will be a range of terms that are incorporated into the language of the group. A successful CoP often develops an internal shorthand or language used to describe the issues that it is dealing with. Over time these can be adopted by the wider stakeholder group the CoP services. Certain styles recognised as displaying membership There are certain recognisable styles or traits displayed by members. This includes respect for other members, supportive interactions, being focused on the problem not a person when conflict arises and working from a strengths base. However, there is also an expectation that discussions can be robust, there is an expectation that they are on task and there is an implicit expectation that they will be productive. Shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world Members of a CoP often share a distinct commonality of expression when discussing the group. Members also demonstrate a shared desire to work persistently over long periods of time to resolve the issues the CoP was formed to address.

186

Chapter Eleven

Moingeon et al., (2006) propose that the purpose of a community of practice is to develop member’s capabilities and enable them to build and exchange knowledge. Moingeon et al., (2006) maintain that a community is held together by a shared passion and commitment. Wenger et al (2002) developed a conceptual model relating to the design of communities of practice for evolution. They posit that for a community to survive long term it must meet a number of characteristics. If it has these characteristics it will be able to ‘evolve’ or ‘thrive’ over time. Using these seven criteria to analyse a group or network will provide an indication as to whether the group meets the definition of an evolving or thriving community of practice. Designed for evolution The first criterion is that the group is designed for evolution. Wenger et al (2002) maintained that critical to this is that the group can change and adapt over its lifetime. To do so it needs to allow new people to become involved or a new interest to be explored. Wenger et al (2002) also posit that members need to accept that there will be different activity levels, and different kinds of support needed at different times. The level of activity of the community changes with the program of work being undertaken at the time. Different members engage in different activities on an as needs basis. Dialogue between inside and outside is open Wenger et al (2002) suggest that a community of practice must encourage a discussion between those within the community and those outside, about what it can achieve. Wegner et al (2002), state that it is important that communication is also encouraged with communities in other organisations. Different levels of participation are invited Wenger and Snyder (2000) posit that some people will be active in the community and some people will appear passive. Community members should accept that contributions and learning take place in different ways and that members will take on different roles at different times, dependent of the demands they face in their non-CoP roles. This may also be related in part to their specialist knowledge and skills, other work demands or length of time in the CoP.

Growing a Community of Practice

187

Both public and private community spaces are developed Wenger et al (2002) maintain that relationships formed during informal community events and person-to-person communication is the purpose of the community. Formal organised events and discussion spaces are needed to help people feel part of the community. Both are equally important. They also identified the importance of the development and maintenance of inter-personal relationships. Focused on value Wenger et al (2002) suggest that the true value of the community may emerge as the community develops. To identify value, community members should be encouraged to be explicit about the value of what is being delivered. This may initially help raise awareness. Over time, value from participating should become more apparent enabling concrete measures to be collected. It is important that a CoP test its value to its stakeholders through evaluation and research. Concrete measures should be identified through training needs analysis, evaluations and regular reviews of stakeholder satisfaction. The use of external consultants to undertake evaluation of programs may be considered to obtain objective feedback over time. Familiarity and excitement are combined Familiar community spaces and activities help people to feel comfortable in participating. Introducing new ideas to challenge thinking also stimulates interest and keeps people engaged. Regular meetings are familiar spaces. The community has a rhythm Regular events, planned to avoid overload, create points in which activity can converge. They encourage people to keep coming back, rather than gradually drifting away. Over time key activities planned on recurrent basis can develop. These events create momentum. For example, an annual calendar of training events may ensure that members and stakeholders are constantly engaged in activities with the group. The inclusion of events that recognise the value of and celebrates the group’s success is important. This may be as simple as providing a shared or catered lunch, or a Christmas event each year.

188

Chapter Eleven

Can a CoP be ‘seeded’ or must they develop organically? In the early work on communities of practice, it was considered that they always arose organically. However in subsequent work Wegener working with other theorists developed a model for seeding communities. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002). In ‘Creating Communities of Practice’ they provide a framework for ‘seeding’ communities of practice. That is rather than leaving communities of practice to develop organically, they looked at what it may take to ‘plant’ and ‘grow’ a community of practice for a specific purpose. Where an organisation or organisations choose to develop a community of practice as a conscious response to an identified need it can be helpful to provide it with a number of supports. These include the identification of a clear need that the CoP is established to address. It is also important that establishing organisations create an authorising environment (Winkworth and White, 2010) where power and authority is ceded to that group to drive change. Participating organisations, in the early stages of the community’s development also need to identify people with high levels of skills in a range of areas as required to drive the identified change. Finally as and when people leave, they need to be replaced by others with complimentary sets.

Conclusion The theoretical underpinnings of communities of practice enable a better understanding of what constitutes an effective inter-organisational learning and development strategy. For an inter-organisational community of practice to succeed it needs to engage a range of stakeholders from funding bodies, service providers, learning and development providers, peak bodies and industry leaders. A number of components are necessary to effectively ‘seed’ a community of practice. Most critical are establishing a core group of individuals from key stakeholder bodies. These individuals require a diverse set of skills and knowledge about the problem the group has been formed to address. Critically the individuals need to have a positive, ‘can do’ attitude to the resolution of problems. The skills mix of CoP members should encompass individuals who can see the larger picture, understand the political and policy environment and

Growing a Community of Practice

189

create effective links with other stakeholders. These stakeholders may be in their auspicing organisations or in wider professional and community networks. Members of the CoP may require effective advocacy and representation skills to progress the work of the community in the broader community. To be successful and sustainable a CoP also requires individuals who can do the day to day work of the community. All members may take on this work as part of their ordinary work role, or over and above their ordinary role. Members therefore require the support of their organisation of origin, including immediate line management support. Over time the community will need to develop the support of the sector in which they work. For the community to develop over time, it needs to develop a rhythm to its activities. This may include regular meetings, planned activities and events. This should include celebratory events that acknowledge and promote the work of the community. Whilst the demand placed on the group by these activities may be high at times, the burden of participation should not be such that people burn out. Over time the community needs to develop strategies for renewal. This may include members leaving and new members joining. New members will benefit from initial support and guidance, with their involvement being allowed to develop over time. The community needs to be able to produce tools, artefacts and representations that are of value to the wider community in which they are operating. Solutions to the defining problem need to meet the needs of the wider user group (usually the auspicing organisations). To be able to work effectively the community needs to be able to identify the skills and attributes of its members and put them to best use. Members need to know what each other can do, respect each other’s specialisations and work collaboratively to resolve conflict where it arises. The strength or capacity of the community will be defined by the strength of the relationships that people within it develop. These relationships should allow for robust and forthright discussions giving rise to consensus based decisions. Where most of these criteria are met it should be possible, with good will and adequate resources, to consciously ‘seed’ a community. As the

190

Chapter Eleven

demonstrated outputs of a CoP can be much greater than the sum of its parts, there could be significant value in adopting community of practice based strategies to enhance the productivity of existing or emerging networks or reference groups charged with complex tasks in community service settings. Moingeon et al., (2006) also theorise that social capital is a key benefit of membership of a community of practice. Social capital is defined as the collective strength of the relationships within a group, whether the relationships are between individuals or organisations. It is developed as a result of the structure and configuration of the connections between the group members, their shared understanding and ability to communicate, and the quality of their relationships as shown by the levels of trust, shared norms of behaviour and alignment with each other’s values and objectives (van Winkelen, 2003).

References COAG, (2009). The National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020 ([COAG], 2009). In: FAHCSIA (ed.). Canberra: Government Printing. CSHISC (2013). Training Packages Review. Sydney: Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council. Hildreth, P., Kimble, C. & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of Practice in the Distributed International Environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, 27-38 Lathlean, J. & LE May, A. (2002). Communities of practice: an opportunity for interagency working. J Clin Nurs, 11, 394-8. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lesser, E. L., Fontaine, M. A. & Slusher J.A. (2000). Knowledge and Communities, Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann. Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C. & Graham, I. D. (2009). Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review. Implement Sci, 4, 27. Mandell, M., Keast, R. & Brown, K. (2009). The importance of a new kind of learning in collaborative networks. European Group of Public Administration Conference. Malta. Moingeon, B., Quélin, B., Dalsace, F. & Lumineau, F. (2006). InterOrganizational Communities of Practice: Specificities and Stakes. Les Cahiers de Recherche [Online]. Retrieved from:

Growing a Community of Practice

191

http://www.hec.edu/var/fre/storage/original/application/cf1ffa47b2611 bb7e196ca06bf3e0bf7.pdf [Accessed 12/01/2011]. Productivity Commission (2013). Report on Government Services 2013 Child Protection and Youth Justice Services. Report on Government Services 2013 Canberra: Productivity Commission. Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to Communities of Practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43 pp. 623-639. Scott, D. (2009). Think child, think family: How adult specialist services can support children at risk of abuse and neglect Family Matters. Smith, M. K. (2003). (2009). ‘Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice’, [Online]. Retrieved from: www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm. Snyder, W. M., Wenger, E. & Briggs, X. D. S. (2003). Communities of Practice in Government: Leveraging Knowledge for Performance. CIO Council of the US Federal Government. Van Winkelen, C. (2003). Inter-Organizational Communities of Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?page=doc&doc_i d=1483&doclng=6 [Accessed 11/01/2011]. Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting Communities of Practice. A Survey of Community Oriented Technologies. How to make sense of this emerging market understand the potential of technology and set up a community platform [Online]. Wegner, E. Retrieved from: http://go.webassistant.com/4u/upload/users/u1000471/cop_technology _2001.pdf 2012]. —. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice, A guide to managing knowledge, Boston, Harvard Business Press. Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000, 139-145. White, D., Suter, E., Parboosingh, I. J. & Taylor, E. (2008). Communities of practice: creating opportunities to enhance quality of care and safe practices. Healthc Q, 11, 80-4. Winkworth, G. & White, M. (2010). May Do, Should Do, Can Do: Collaboration between Commonwealth and State Service Systems for Vulnerable Children. Communities, Children and Families Australia, Volume 5.

CHAPTER TWELVE BUILDING CHILD FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES KARL BRETTIG

A fragmented, siloed and excessively risk averse approach to supporting families demonstrably fails to reverse the decline in family functioning and key social indicators have continued to give rise for serious concern for the future of our children (Stanley et al, 2005). We cannot continue to squander finite resources on inefficient services that inherently focus on self-preservation at the expense of improving outcomes for families and communities. Investing in a whole of community, family and government approach to supporting families, particularly in the early years, is crucial if we are to see significant change. In order to be effective our strategic planning needs to be co-designed with families and children and our implementation co-produced with them as well. What are the implications of this for our understanding of what it means to invest in the early years? What would 0-3 year olds tell us about their preferences for their early years’ experience? What are their cries telling us about how they would like to be nurtured in those critical years when their neural pathways are being formed as they develop socially, emotionally, spiritually, cognitively and physically? To think that investing in the early years simply means we need more childcare provision is way too simplistic. At Pen Green in the UK, one of the most progressive centres for children and their families, babies are not admitted into childcare during their first year. They understand childcare to be a partnership with parents who continue to be highly involved in their children’s learning both at the centre and at home. The following diagram illustrates the kind of balance of parent involvement in their children’s learning in relation to their age that is optimal for any family.

Building Child Friendly Communities

193

Fig 12-1 Parent and child oriented learning gradient and key elements

In the perinatal period and the first three years, science informs us that parents are around 80% responsible for stimulating their children’s brains and over the next three years this gradually reverses. Other caregivers also have a highly significant role to play in the early years before children become more independent. Quality childcare and time spent in preschool contribute to the proverbial village. As we consider the kind of village we need to raise our children the following graph gives us some perspective on where our focus needs to be. Each of the elements listed are key contributors to the development of a child’s reading proficiency. Low birth-weight is something perinatal health services need to address while the social environment is the domain of the whole of community and government. Preschool is the domain of education providers but it is the home environment that has the greatest influence even on literacy outcomes. The influence of the home environment on social, emotional and spiritual development is probably even more significant. Parents may not be the best educators in some other domains but they have a huge influence on the wellbeing of their children.

194

Chapter Twelve

Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons , Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, Effective Preschool and Primary Education study Fig 12-2 Factors contributing to literacy development

Parents are their children’s first educators and a child friendly community will do all it can to support them in that role. That doesn’t mean that parents need to be sitting inside reading books or engaging their children with e-learning tablets all day but they do need to do it frequently. Much early years learning also happens through play and the Nordic countries emphasise that outdoors is the preferred option for this to occur despite their adverse weather. Parents and caregivers as well as communities and governments have a vital role in providing opportunities for children in their care to develop through maximising play, e-learning and reading opportunities in the early years. At Salisbury we invited primary school children to sketch what they valued about their communities on clay tiles which were then fired and cemented to the pathway of a local playground. This generated a sense of ownership and contributed to Unity Park becoming a well-used playground in the area. Some of their illustrations revealed how they

Building Child Friendly Communities

195

valued open spaces, their families and themselves. Elements of their social and emotional developmental stages were also evident in the etchings they produced. The end result was that this exercise encouraged families to make greater use of the playground because their children were involved in co-constructing its environment. In 2014 the South Australian C4C sites worked collaboratively to develop an engaging calendar based on entries from a 2013 C4C Children’s Art Exhibition under the theme ‘What’s important to me?’ It offered children from schools and community organisations in all of the SA C4C sites an opportunity to describe and illustrate what they valued in their communities. Families in these communities then had the opportunity to be reminded of the voices of the children in the following year. In previous years the Anglicare Frankston C4C site initiated a similar project and the SA sites learned much from their experience and willingness to share it with us. The City of Gawler to the north of Adelaide in South Australia is developing a child and youth friendly cities initiative based on a number of key drivers. These include the UNICEF Child Friendly Cities agenda, early year’s education initiatives, implications of neuroscience research, the SA Child Friendly State Reform Agenda, the Australian Early Development Census, the changing profile of the Town of Gawler and the need for community and infrastructure development for all ages. They have set up a steering committee which includes cross-sectional membership from the Department of Education and Child Development, developers Lend Lease Communities, the Gawler Awakening Network and the City of Gawler. Their aims include creating communities which are stronger and, in particular, responsive to the needs of all families with young children (Pedler, 2012). These days in suburbia I regularly walk the dog around the local neighbourhood and constantly wonder at the lack of visibility of residents. Recognisable meeting places are few and far between except for the playground at the end of the street which occasionally gets used by some children usually accompanied by mum or dad. But for a neighbourhood of its size you’d have to say the number of times it gets used is less than it could be, given the importance of play. A few children can sometimes be seen kicking a footy on the street, riding their bikes or walking their dogs but not as often as you might expect. So where is everybody?

196

Chapter Twelve

Apparently TV, electronic games, social media and web based activities are all the go inside the houses and rarely do children venture out into the local neighbourhood. When affluenza (an epidemic of affluence) and the fear of paedophiles and other potential dangers lurking in the neighbourhood takes hold, time poor parents become too worn out to worry about the importance of outdoor play for child development. Hopefully they are playing and reading together inside as a family. Most of my childhood was spent playing in the dirt, climbing trees, kicking a football or playing cricket with brothers and neighbourhood kids. Other activities included conflict resolution with brothers and neighbours kids, going to the dump to find spare parts for our bikes, experimenting with bows and arrows, doing gardening for dad, catching tadpoles, finding mushrooms (we somehow all learned which ones were OK to eat) and racing soapboxes downhill at significant speeds. One of my mother’s favourite sayings was ‘go and play outside’ as our house was far too small for four noisy, messy kids. But times have changed and if there is to be more outdoor play we need to see change in the design of play areas, backyards and community meeting places. The UK department for children, schools and families has developed a manual for the delivery of environmentally sustainable Sure Start Children’s Centres which includes information about designing garden spaces, architecture that enables young children to see outside, solar shading and panels, rainwater harvesting, natural light, recycling options, wildlife corridors to encourage biodiversity, trees and landscape options and maximising areas for external play (DCSF, 2010). Australian Children’s Centres are incorporating many of these features into their design. The idea of children being a part of consultations involving their spaces is beginning to take hold. Of course this does not mean that their opinions must be implemented at all costs. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child states that: When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their parents what to do. This Convention encourages adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making – not give children authority over adults.

Building Child Friendly Communities

197

It’s a bit like how it is generally with raising children. As adults we need to learn to listen to them and hear what they are saying before coming to conclusions about what might be an appropriate action to take. Their views are not necessarily the most informed but sometimes their perspective can add a really important dimension to the conversation.

Creating a child friendly urban village We have looked at some of the ways we can build a supportive village around children in the early years and some of the issues of the cyber village of digital natives in their teens but what about those in between? Most of these children spend their time at school or in the local neighbourhood. They are the ones we may potentially see playing in the streets because they have lots of energy which can’t be very well expended inside. One group of neighbours came up with the following strategies to develop a neighbourhood village that enhances safe outdoor play. x x x x x

First we have to know the children. We have to decide to know the names of each child in the neighbourhood. Second, we have to know the parents of the children who are around us. The children in most neighbourhoods are better organised and connected than the adults. We have to catch up with them. Third we have to know that each adult has a gift or passion that can be connected to young people. Fourth we need to know what each child knows, cares about and wants to learn about or teach adults or other children. Finally our goal is to have each child know what they are good at. This becomes a collective purpose of the family and neighbours (McKnight & Block, 2012).

Not a bad set of strategies that individuals in any neighbourhood could start thinking about. Whether we like it or not our children need to play with other children and when they become teenagers they will be doing it regardless of adult attempts to shield them from the challenges of a teenage life that pushes against the boundaries. But they cannot be left to their own devices; the adults in the community need to be involved in what they are doing. As well as important protective functions, such as developing safety houses and awareness of potential ‘stranger danger’, neighbours can have a proactive role in bringing out the best in children through helping them develop their emerging talents. Consulting with children and listening to their opinions will be a critical part of this process if it is to be effective. Adults have a tendency to encourage children to do

Chapter Twelve

198

what they themselves like to do. Not many of us are very good at listening to children and need to learn what it means to consult with them and also help them identify their areas of giftedness. Onkaparinga Communities for Children has developed a child friendly charter which includes a list of simple things that make a community more child & family friendly. It includes the following items: x x x x x x

Warmly welcome children and their families Provide safe spaces for children to relax, play and learn Provide a service that everyone can access Respect children and their families at all times Support our staff to have a healthy balance between work, voluntary and family activities Welcome feedback from children and their families

The charter invites residents to reflect on how services for children and families could be improved and how to communicate that with relevant community organisations. The country village had its strengths but it also had its limitations. Urbanisation and new technologies have opened up new possibilities for child and family development as well as a host of new challenges. Over the past several generations we have seen some massive shifts in the way communities operate and most of these have impacted significantly on young families. Each of the paradigm shifts illustrated in the following, rather speculative and by no means definitive table, can in some way impacts on child development. Whether the impact is positive or negative depends a lot on how responsible adults adapt to the changing environment in terms of the way we nurture our children. For example W. Kim Halford documents the changing context of marriage relationships over the past fifty years including the trend towards cohabitation and factors such as life expectancy, socioeconomic changes and declining thresholds for initiating separation and divorce and how these may impact on developing children (Halford, 2011). The impact of cyber technologies reaches far beyond our present understanding. As digital immigrants we need to look closely at what children are absorbing from the culture around us and ensure that we respond in a way that will support optimal child development. It would be too laborious to consider and debate each of the paradigm shifts in

Building Child Friendly Communities

199

community characteristics suggested here and no doubt the many more that could be added. Suffice it to say that they are quite vast and have far reaching implications with regard to the changing landscape families need to negotiate. The jury is still out on the full impact of life in the cybercommunity.

Rural Community

Urban Community

Cyber Community

‘Semi arranged’ marriage Romantic relationship

Co-habitation

Local hospital

Google health

Maternity hospital

Children’s Health Clinic Child & family hub

Parent blogging

Stay at home mothers

Optional childcare

Childcare

Relatives nearby

Relatives interstate

Relatives online

Outdoor play

Indoor play

Electronic play

Savings

Loans

Credit

Recreational sport

Elite sport

Spectator sport

Church community

Mega church

Cyber church

Farm

Backyard garden

Patio garden

Friend

Counsellor

Social networker

Kind actions

Donations

Likes/retweets/ favourites

Citizens

Consumers

Online participants

Fig 12-3: Changes in characteristics of rural, urban & cyber communities

We now turn to five key areas as we prospect the future of building child friendly communities. • • • • •

Parents/carers have a critical role in nurturing children Parents/carers need to be connected to all the support they can get Early Childhood is Really REALLY important Social, emotional & spiritual development of children needs to be considered Little children are our future

200

Chapter Twelve

Parents/carers have a critical role in nurturing children There is and will continue to be a lot of debate about the best way to care for and nurture children, particularly in the early years of life. No-one doubts that primary carers (usually parents) have a critical role to play but what does that look like in practice? The perception that investing in early childhood simply means more childcare or early learning centres, in some way suggests that parents are not the best people to nurture babies and toddlers. No doubt with some of our more vulnerable families that is an accurate assessment, however in the majority of cases the bond between parents and their children and the desire they have to see their children reach their fullest potential, most often outweighs the kind of commitment we could expect from paid professionals working in childcare. It is true that the well trained professionals we aspire to develop today offer considerably more than has been the case in the past and most children will benefit from some time spent with them in the early years. However it is work/life balance that is critical here and we have yet to understand where the pendulum needs to settle. Infants are entirely dependent on their mothers while four year olds have been well and truly weaned and need to explore what preschool has to offer. The debate regarding what needs to happen in between is not yet over. The question of the appropriate age at which early childhood education and care can be of benefit to children is one of the most controversial issues in the child care debate. Many see nothing wrong with out-of-home child care beginning at three months –providing that the care is of an acceptable quality. Others consider that the critical developmental needs of the first year of life demand nothing less than the constant, loving, one-to-one interaction of parental care. And for millions of working parents in OECD countries, this is a question that must be answered under pressure of career demands and household budgets…Most experts and most long-term studies agree that the effects of early childhood education and care, for most children, become unequivocally positive at some point between the ages of two and three – providing that the hours are not too long and that the quality of care can be assured. (Unicef, 2008)

What each family comes up with as they weigh the competing priorities of mortgage repayments/rental against spending time with infants and toddlers in the early years is ultimately their decision. Governments attempt to mediate the demands of employers, families and childcare operators with policies and legislation that is hopefully designed to support families in their endeavours to nurture their children. It is

Building Child Friendly Communities

201

unrealistic to expect they will ever give families the resources that best serve their needs, so the debate over what constitutes child and family friendly policy continues. Some employers will offer more flexible options than others and the same can be said for childcare operators. In the UK parents with children up to six years of age have won the right to request flexible working hours. In its first two years of implementation 25% of parents made requests and 81% were granted them (Eisenstadt, 2012). Each child is different and parents, in consultation with professionals, are the ones best placed to recognise the individual needs of their children. Decisions they need to make may conflict with employer expectations or childcare provider requirements and it is imperative that governments formulate policies and legislation that support parents critical role as primary caregivers. If we go back to the Source of Brain Stimulation graph we looked at earlier in this chapter, we see that toddlers need to be gradually transitioned into being responsible for their own learning over the first years and parents gradually weaned in their role. Ideally that means children being gradually transitioned into early learning and away from parental ‘helicoptering’ (Pritchard-Dodge, 2011) over the first three year period and that may look different for each child depending on their individual needs. The other big issue here is that primary caregivers need to be much better informed about how to go about nurturing their child’s development in the first years of life and be supported to do so. Clearly the socio economic divide impacts this area and we need significant investment in low socio economic areas if we are to have anything approaching equal opportunity for children. In urban settings this is where the concept of implementing child and family hubs is so important. It is also important that hubs maintain a functional mix of consumers that provide peer support as well as providing access to professional support. This also keeps them from becoming stigmatised. Regular ongoing monitoring and forward planning is needed to achieve such an outcome. At the Ingle Farm Primary School the South Australian Government have now added a Children’s Centre, relocating the nearby kindergarten and adding Child and Family Health Services. Integrating this development with FamilyZone has resulted in a very promising new model of comprehensive integrated early childhood services on one campus. Initiatives such as providing perinatal education and support, supported playgroups, early reading projects, online learning, early childhood

202

Chapter Twelve

awareness media campaigns, parenting groups and preparing for parenthood training in secondary schools can all contribute to improved outcomes for children in low socio economic areas. However there is nothing quite like developing an urban village hub with a mix of professionals and peers and a ‘no wrong door’ and ‘seamless transitions’ philosophy to optimise the raising of healthy children in the early years. In some communities that can happen without government investment but that seems to be rare in the case in lower socio economic communities. However it needs to be said, that in order to be effective, such government investment must be accompanied by serious community consultation and co-design of services with families.

Parents/carers need to be connected to all the support they can get The demands and responsibilities of bringing up children cannot be underestimated and new parents need all the support they can get. This is particularly so at the time of birth and in the early years. Maternity hospitals are increasingly attempting to provide more perinatal education and support as are child and family health services. However a key issue here is how much support is currently being accessed from family, extended family and friends who have traditionally stepped up at this critical time to assist young mothers. It is in this area that we most keenly see the impact of the changing characteristics of the once village. The reality is that many relatives no longer live in close proximity to each other. Interstate relatives, particularly grandparents, can be quite supportive if they have the financial resources to do the travelling or are able to work out the accommodation issues. Online friends can offer plenty of immediate advice although the quality has to be questionable given that around 90% of communication is non-verbal and online communication is at best highly abbreviated. The kind of support young mums need is intensely practical as well as emotional. They need assistance to be able to maintain the mundane eating, sleeping, washing and cleaning routines and at the same time be physically and emotionally available to their new babies. That kind of support is difficult to achieve online and from interstate. So in many cases a new paradigm for connecting new mums with support is needed. FamilyZone gets a lot of referrals from the Child and Family Health Services antenatal PND screening program. These mums

Building Child Friendly Communities

203

are considerably at risk and clearly need extra support during the perinatal period. We have found the best way to facilitate this is through perinatal support groups linked with home visiting. These groups, Preparing for Baby, Being with Baby and Post Being with Baby are run over ten sessions each and look at issues like attachment, bonding, mindfulness, self-care and parenting. Something of what new mums once experienced as emotional and physical support from relatives and friends can be found in these groups facilitated by trained professionals, but not all of it. The groups offer the extra dimension of what findings in social & neuroscience have to offer our understanding of child development, which does add a lot to the traditional village knowledge base. Some new parents opt for less face to face professional support and are content with support from relatives and friends. They may be able to access a lot of the emerging social/neuroscience findings from the information superhighway and may have some of the necessary skills to decipher it. However they may also appreciate opportunities to learn more from their peers and for their children to gain social skills from interactions with other toddlers and physical skills through access to quality play equipment. A facilitated playgroup that offers something like this is needed in every neighbourhood, hopefully within pram pushing distance. Commercial play cafes and shopping centre play areas are rapidly emerging but they can lack the kind of warm and caring environment that may be better developed by not-for-profit community service organisations. As they grow children need spaces where they can play with other children in environments where positive connections with neighbourhood parents can be made. If we are going to reclaim anything of the rural village in our urban settings then we need town planners to develop suitable places where children can play together close to adult supervision. Family friendly playgrounds are needed for the early years and spaces where older children can play sports together should be in every neighbourhood. That may seem quite obvious but it is only spasmodically the case in urban settings. Many children have to walk long distances to find play spaces and that creates significant issues for parents with concerns about neighbourhood safety. Electronic games and hours in front of screens is the default option that many end up taking. The result is more childhood obesity, developmental delay and potential exacerbation of such conditions as the autism spectrum disorders. Children’s brains appear to be being wired in different ways than has been the case in the past and this is

Chapter Twelve

204

not always proving to be healthy in terms of their social and emotional development. Internationally there is a movement gaining momentum away from profit-driven urban apartment building development mentality towards reinventing village life in an urban context. An example of this can be found in the Sungmisan Village model being embraced in South Korea. It started as a childcare co-operative movement and moved into developing community cafes, libraries, media projects and shared spaces such as community gardens. Its proponents hope is that this initiative will not just spawn a few isolated examples but be a conduit for creating urban village communities that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Needless to say this will not be without some tensions and the need for productive negotiation between competing interest groups (Rim, 2013). A whole of community approach involves linking together a combination of government, non-government and community based initiatives to support families. Much can be learned from the broader perspective of the international community to do this. Many ‘developing’ countries do not have social services and their village communities manage to function quite well without them. A global analysis of the kind of support needed by those experiencing family violence lists the following strengths likely to be found in a healthy community (Asay et al, 2014, p254). x x x x x x

A supportive social environment that genuinely values families A general willingness and natural generosity infused in the community to help when families are in need An effective educational delivery system Religious communities for families seeking this kind of support Family service programs developed by government and nongovernment organisations for families who cannot find the help they need from their own extended family, friends and neighbours A safe secure and healthful environment

Early Childhood is really REALLY important The message about the importance of the early years is beginning to filter into the general community but there still remains much to be done. Decisions parents make about the kind of developmental environment they provide for their children reflects their understanding of the significance of

Building Child Friendly Communities

205

the early years. With this in mind we’d have to say that much more needs to be done in terms of raising awareness of the developmental trajectory of children in the early years. What is often must crucially misunderstood is the development of the limbic system which regulates emotional responses to, for example, new ideas, challenges, opportunities and frustrations. It develops very early in the developmental trajectory during pregnancy and the first three years. The following graph illustrates how these key emotional and social pathways are developed very early in life (McCain et al. 2011).

Fig 12-4 Critical periods for development of neural pathways

Once these neural pathways are constructed they are very resistant to change. This is not to say that other important skills such as language, inquiry, critical and reflective thinking developed later in childhood and during adolescence are not important, but ultimately much of their development is impeded if the limbic system is such that self-regulation, relationship skills and shared attention are lacking (Perry, 2006). These critical skills developed in the first few years of life greatly influence the kind of outcomes we can expect from children. Their development, or the

206

Chapter Twelve

lack of it, dramatically affects subsequent development in the group learning environment of preschool, primary, secondary and tertiary education. It also hugely impacts the kind of relationships they are likely to form and the functionality of the families they may parent later in life. Much of our education system works well for those who have been well nurtured in the early years but it is a major rollercoaster experience for those who have not. Some schools are beginning to come to terms with what they can do to alleviate the classroom disruptions that result from early childhood trauma, as we looked at in chapter seven, but these challenges are not easily addressed. Clearly as much prevention and early intervention as possible is the key and that means aggressively promoting the importance of the early years with parents. Such a strategy may also prove to be the best way to motivate, for example, perpetrators of such trauma inducing behaviours as alcohol fuelled rage in the presence of babies and toddlers, to dramatically change their behaviour. How can we do it better? Educators and policy makers can work more closely with media outlets to raise awareness of the importance of the early years. The LOVE2LEARN campaign initiated in Adelaide was an example of this (The Advertiser, 2013). The campaign included weekly resources for parents and caregivers with information about how they can better support their child’s development. The campaign was strongly supported by the State Premier, the Department for Education and Child Development and the Little Big Book club which distributes children’s books to new parents. While collapsing on the couch might be the preferred option at the end of the day for a lot of parents, the fact that a bedtime story is very, very important for their child’s development was one strong message effectively conveyed during the campaign. Of serious concern is the detrimental impact partnerships between brewers, gambling organisations, fast food operators and media outlets are having directly or indirectly on child development. While their activities are quite legal, a community that is focussed on wellbeing will actively attempt to turn this around. Sadly those who exploit human weakness generally have the finances to monopolise the media with messages promoting their products. It will take legislation, significant goodwill from media outlets and some well thought out and resourced media strategies from educators to make a significant impact against this tide of exploitation. More than this it will take grass roots action from community organisers to create environments that will encourage families to prioritise

Building Child Friendly Communities

207

nurturing their children and build on the impact any media campaign might contribute.

Social, emotional & spiritual development of children As well as physical and cognitive development in terms of language and communication skills, it is important that social, emotional and spiritual development be part of the child development agenda. As we have explored, neuroscience has confirmed that social and emotional skills are developed very early as the limbic system is wired in the first few years. The place of spiritual development in the public discourse has been the subject of much discussion over past decades. It has been suggested that issues such as meaning and purpose in life cannot be measured, are therefore unscientific and should not be included in public education. For many centuries before that issues of faith and science coexisted, albeit in some creative tension, with each having significant influence on public education. Einstein’s famous aphorism ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ captured it well. Communities in the past have functioned on the basis of principles and laws that have stood the test of time over many centuries. It is 21st century hubris to suggest that this body of accumulated wisdom should be dismissed simply because we have arrived at a better method of collecting evidence. The primary argument against including spiritual development in academic discourse has been that it cannot be measured. The development of positive psychology championed by academics such as Martin Seligman over the past decade has challenged that assertion. Meaning and purpose is one of the key elements of positive psychology as it seeks to measure such concepts as character strengths rather than focus on the pathological psychological constructs of recent decades. Raising children to believe that we are living in a material, nihilistic, meaningless world can be very detrimental to their moral and spiritual development. The debate about the existence of a just and benevolent Supreme Being is far from settled (Lennox, 2009, Lewis, 2012). As a former South Australian attorney general put it recently, “I find it difficult to understand how anyone could look around at the marvellous world we have, with all its beauty and not accept that it was made by a conscious hand. It is against common sense to think that it happened by chance. It must have been made in all its complexity by a conscious hand moving with intent. Any other explanation is ridiculous (Jory, 2014).”

208

Chapter Twelve

The reality is that despite the claims of a few vociferous opponents, the majority of citizens continue to affirm theism (ABS, 2013). Related issues of meaning and purpose remain part of the conversation in terms of holistic child development, with parents being responsible for decisions about how their children are to be raised, hopefully in consultation with their children. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests that spiritual development is in fact the right of every child. “States Parties recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development” (Article 27.1).

Those who believe spiritual development will help their children become better prepared to navigate the challenges of life ought to be able to access opportunities for this to occur in government as well as private education settings. Similarly families committed to atheism or agnosticism ought also to be able to opt for alternative pathways. Spiritual development initiatives can be implemented in a non-sectarian manner without proselytization or compromising the principle of separation of church and state as long as they remain optional for both children and their parents.

Little children are our future For all the changes we have seen in social policy and legislation over the past several decades, current social indicators show that we are not making a lot of progress. In fact the continuing plethora of reports and royal commissions suggest families and communities in most localities are being weakened rather than strengthened. Child abuse has continued to be uncovered at disturbing rates in families and institutions. We are learning from the field of epigenetics the enormous toll that inadequate nurture from, and lifestyle choices of, parents (including fathers) is inflicting on future generations of children (Norman, 2014). We need a radical rethink about what we are doing as we look to reverse the trends. Many media messages the current generation of parents are receiving direct them toward a lifestyle that fails to understand and prioritise the care of children. Violent electronic games, proliferation of sexualised images, alcohol advertising, gambling promotion and affluent lifestyle aspirations are in effect being imposed by wealthy magnates from previous generations in pursuit of profit. Excessive electronic screen time may well be making our brains less able to focus attention and give newborn babies

Building Child Friendly Communities

209

and toddlers the attention they need. The impact of such factors does not project an encouraging scenario of what may be ahead for families and communities. We have looked at some promising attempts to redesign the way family support services are delivered in order to improve outcomes for children. They offer significant hope for future generations raising families in a consumer driven world, if governments and the communities that elect them, prioritise serious investment in their implementation. But they cannot greatly reverse the trends in child neglect as stand-alone services, even if they are integrated, offer ‘seamless transitions’ and ‘no wrong door’ approaches. If we want to see significant change whole communities need to reprioritise the care of children, redesign education, health, welfare and community services where necessary and implement legislation that prioritises child protection. At Reggio Emilia, children learn from an early age the values of what Robert Putnam calls ‘civic community’ (Putnam, 1993). They learn that “citizens are bound together by horizontal relations of social solidarity, reciprocity and cooperation as opposed to vertical relations of authority and dependency” (Edwards et al, 2010). Community connectedness is an objective for children of all ages, beginning in the early years. Such values have been learned over several decades from early childhood and the city is becoming known as one of Italy’s most liveable with low levels of unemployment and crime, honest and effective local government institutions and high quality social services. The change began when their child education system was redesigned after World War II with contributions from administrators, teachers, parents, community members and thousands of children. The Reggio Emilia system signalled a break from traditional Roman Catholic education in Italy and left it up to children to try to discover their own authentic spirituality. It was a needed correction but it is questionable whether strongly held views at either end of the adult/child centred educational spectrum provide the kind of balance needed in the pursuit of functional and meaningful lives. In many western countries we now have public and faith-based private schools co-existing in most communities. Each has significant strengths to offer and we continue to debate their relative import on child development. Some private schools now incorporate principles such as those articulated by Reggio Emilia while still retaining the spiritual, moral and ethical framework of their founders.

210

Chapter Twelve

Some state schools incorporate spiritual support initiatives in their educational framework while at the same time remaining decidedly secular. The reality is that families themselves need to shape a lifestyle and choose educational pathways that enhance physical, emotional, social, cognitive and spiritual development. Schools, child & family centres, playgroups, quality early learning centres and outdoor play facilities offer environments in which this can happen. They also offer parents and children opportunities to build meaningful relationships with members of the wider community. We need to continue to develop integrated environments that put our relationships with children at the centre. Carla Rinaldi puts it this way: If early childhood services are considered just as places that meet the needs of working families, and the right of children to build strong and constant relationships is not taken into consideration, there is a risk of environmental, cognitive and affective fragmentation that could disorient children. It must be possible for early childhood services to be places where educational quality and the rights of children rather than the needs of workforce participation of their parents and families are at the centre of attention (Rinaldi, 2013 p 40).

In a country village residents may either encourage or stifle the aspirations of their children in the same way this can happen in a populous urban village or the all-pervasive cyber-village. Whatever the environment may be, parents need people around them who support their family life and contribute to developing the gifts and talents of their children. Such support, encouragement and mentoring will ultimately contribute to building stronger communities with children and families. Little children are our future. What is important to them is very VERY important to all of us. We need to learn to listen to their words, study their drawings, hear their cries and enjoy their laughter. The kind of community we will have in the future depends on it.

References Asay, S. M., DeFrain, J., Metzger, M., Moyer, B., (2014). Family Violence from a Global Perspective A Strengths Based Approach, Sage, p 254. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2013), Australian Social Trends November 2013. Retrieved from

Building Child Friendly Communities

211

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Feature s30Nov+2013 DCSF., (2010). Delivering environmentally sustainable Sure Start Children’s Centres Part B – Design, Retrieved from: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00286 -2010DOM-EN.pdf Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G., (2012), The Hundred Languages of Children The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation Praeger, p9. Eisenstadt, N., (2012). 12 years of early years policy, practice & research in Britain - What have we learned about all three. Presentation in South Australia, p19. Halford, W.K., (2011). Marriage and Relationship Education – What Works and How to Provide It. The Guilford Press, 6-15. Jory, R., (2014). Robin Millhouse’s Regret. Retrieved from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/sa-lifestyle/robin-millhousesregret/story-fnizi7vf-1227024598593 Lennox, J., (2009). God’s Undertaker Has Science Buried God.? Lion Hudson. Lewis, C.S. (2012). The Problem of Pain. Originally published 1940. Collins, Signature Classics Edition. McCain, M., Mustard, J.F., & McCuaig, K.,(2011). Early Years Study 3 Making Decisions Taking Action, Margaret & Wallace McCain Family Foundation, p32. McKnight, J., & Block, P., (2012). The Abundant Community Awakening the power of families and neighbourhoods. Berrett Koehler Publishers, p 144. Norman, R., (2014). Destiny’s children and fortunes’ orphans – lessons from the start of life. HDA. Retrieved from: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hda/news/HDA%20oration%202014.pdf Onkaparinga Communities for Children, (2009). Child Friendly Charter. Retrieved from: http://www.anglicare-sa.org.au/child-friendly-charter/ Pedler, D., (2012). Child and Youth Friendly Gawler – Our Journey. Presentation at Children Communities Connections 2012 Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.salisburyc4c.org.au/resourcedownloads/Child_and_Youth_ Friendly_Gawler.pdf Perry, B., (2006). Applying Principles of Neurodevelopment to Clinical Work with Maltreated and Traumatised Children. From Boyd Webb, N., Working with Traumatised Youth in Child Welfare, The Guilford Press.

212

Chapter Twelve

Pritchard-Dodge, E., (2011). Seven Keys to Help Grow Your Child’s Emotional Resilience. Retrieved from: http://www.education.com/magazine/article/seven-keys-emotionalresilience/ Putnam, R. D., (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press. Rim, S.J. (2013). From Gangnam style to Sungmisan style creating village communities in South Korea, Retrieved from: http://urbantimes.co/magazine/2013/06/from-gangnam-style-tosungmisan-style-creating-village-communities-in-south-korea/ Rinaldi, C., (2013). Reimagining Childhood Adelaide Thinker in Residence Report, Government of South Australia, p40 Stanley, F., Richardson, S., & Prior, M., (2005). Children of the Lucky Country? How Australian society has turned its back on children and why children matter. Pan MacMillan. The Advertiser, (2013). Advertiser/Sunday Mail/Messenger LOVE2LEARN Campaign, Retrieved from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/education/quality-time-canmake-clever-kids/story-fn3o6nna-1226603830054 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, (1989). Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Report Card 8, (2008). The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries, pps 14, 17.

CONTRIBUTORS

Karl Brettig Karl is Manager of Salisbury Communities for Children, a community development initiative of the Australian Government facilitated by the Salvation Army at Ingle Farm in South Australia. Together with a collaboration of child and family support stakeholders he also convenes the Children Communities Connections Learning Network which brings together practitioners, policy makers and researchers to resource integrated and holistic support for children and their families. Network publications include Quality Play and Media in Childhood Education and Care in partnership with the Australian Council on Children and the Media. With Professor Margaret Sims he coedited the precursor to this book, Building Integrated Connections for Children their Families and Communities. based on proceedings from the 2010 Children Communities Connections conference. Much of the content of this publication has been developed from material presented at the 2012 conference though there are some significant additions. Alexandra Diamond Alexandra is a lecturer in leadership, advocacy, and child development, in the School of Education at the University of South Australia. Her research interests include parenting, children’s development, children’s safety and community supports for young children and their families. She is currently completing her doctorate titled ‘An investigation of the challenges and supports for very young children’s language development in a rural IndoFijian community’. Lesley-Anne Ey Dr Lesley-Anne is an Early Career Development Fellow at the University of South Australia where she teaches in child development learning and cognition and child protection. Her research interests include the influence of media on children’s learning and development, sexualisation of children through media and cyber-safety.

214

Contributors

Susan Lane Susan is the Deputy Director of Lutheran Community Care. She has had extensive experience in all aspects of leadership and management and her work has touched areas such as cultural diversity, health, housing, employment, education and politics. Elspeth McInnes Dr Elspeth McInnes is a Senior Lecturer and Research Degree Coordinator in early childhood at the University of South Australia who is currently researching the effectiveness of integrated early childhood services. Her other research interests include social policy and social inequality, families and separation, gender and violence, child abuse and child protection and women in small business. She is a past president of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and convenor of Solomums Australia for family equity. Margaret Sims Margaret is Professor of Early Childhood at the University of New England. She edits the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood and is well known internationally for her research into quality care in early childhood. Her extensive publications include Designing Family Support Programs, Program Planning for Infants and Toddlers, Social Inclusion and the Early Years Framework and Building Integrated Connections for Children their Families and Communities. Jane Swansson Jane has been involved with the planning, implementation and evaluation of Salisbury Communities for Children since 2009. Previously she has worked in both government and non-government agencies in various case management, mediation training and research roles. She has degrees in science and social administration. Robert Taylor Robert is a Ngarrindjeri man who has had extensive community involvement including work as an Aboriginal Education Worker, a Personal Helpers and Mentors Program Officer and an Aboriginal Dads Family Support Worker. He currently links with a range of organisations supporting Aboriginal families and enjoys connecting with people through a diverse range of musical genres.

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families

215

Michael White Michael is the Executive Officer of the South Australian Alcohol and Other Drug Services Network (SANDAS). Previously he was Senior Project Manager Workforce Development at the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction and has had more than 20 years of experience in the community services sector. Michael's roles have included: Workforce Development Leader, Australian Centre for Child Protection; Executive Director of Victoria’s Community Services and Health Industry Training Board; and, Learning and Development Director at the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare in Victoria. Victoria Whitington Dr Victoria Whitington is Program Director of the Bachelor of Early Childhood Education at the University of South Australia program. She is senior lecturer in child development within the School of Education and a staff member at the de Lissa Institute of Early Childhood and Family Studies. Victoria is also the Chair of the Board at Gowrie SA and a Deputy member of the Ministerial Board, The Education and Early Childhood Services Registration and Standards Board.

INDEX

A abandonment, 106 Aboriginal dads, 45, 96 Aboriginal worldviews, 90 absenteeism, 77 access to online devices, 23 activity levels, 186 Activity Work Plans, 151–52 affluenza, 196 Alice Springs C4C, 97 alignment, 170 Anglicare, 76 apps, 30 assertive outreach, 46 asset mapping, 146 attachment, 26 attendance, 113, 122 Australian Centre for Child Protection, 99, 171 Australian Council on Children and the Media, 30 Australian Early Development Census, 54, 63, 105, 130, 157, 160 Australian National Mental Health Plan, 109 Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, 65, 81 authorising environment, 18, 188 autism, 116, 121 B baseline data, 149 bedtime story, 206 Benevolent Society, 76, 138 bottom up’, 72 brain structuring, 25

Brownsville, 166 bullying, 31, 117, 120, 123 C CAFÉ Enfield, 73 CALD communities, 59, 101, 148 case management, 14, 46 Centacare, 62 challenging behaviours, 116 chid protection, 53 child abuse, 141, 208 Child Abuse Report Line, 84 child and family centres, 135 child and family hubs, 201 child and family sensitive practice, 38, 201 child development, 154, 161 child development framework, 16 child friendly charter, 198 child friendly cities, 5, 195 child friendly communities, 199 child protection, 40, 209 childcare, 193, 200 children and family centres, 42, 64, 68, 92, 96 Children Communities Connections Learning Network, 39, 171 Children’s Art Exhibition, 195 Children’s Centres, 66 Children’s Commissioner, 9 chronic stress, 107 citizens, 74 classroom environments, 109, 110 closing the gap, 94 Closing the gap, 96 co-design, 76, 169, 192 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, 43

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families collaboration, 66, 69, 70, 81, 155, 171, 176, 178 collaborative leadership, 158 collective impact, 140, 157, 160 co-location of services, 82, 171 committee, 57, 71, 129, 139, 146– 48, 152, 174 Common Approach to Assessment, Referral and Support, 37 communication, 26, 29, 186 communication flow, 81 communities, 75 Communities for Children, 30, 38, 52, 53, 64 communities of practice, 54, 73, 169, 176–90 community, 139 community café, 76 community capacity building, 17, 58, 65, 78, 91 community development, 9, 65, 96, 149 community forums, 149 Community Partners, 54, 59, 72, 138, 152 community services, 23, 29, 30, 31, 176 Community Strategic Plan, 55, 149– 51 compassion, 95 complex needs, 157 conflict, 72, 73, 156, 170, 174, 185 constant exposure to electronic media, 25 consultation, 11, 148, 154, 196 consulting, 197 consumers, 74 coordination, 70 co-producing services, 73, 153–55 Core of Life, 92 core skills, 17 cortisol, 36, 43 crisis management, 31 critical periods of brain development, 37 cultural competence, 98

217

cultural practices, 93, 100 curriculum, 9, 62 cyber-bullying, 24 cyber-community, 26, 199 D dads playgroup, 76 data, 141 demographic profile, 149 detention, 100 developmental trajectory, 205 Dialectical Behavioural Therapy, 43 digital technology, 21 disequilibrium, 173 diversity, 184 domestic violence, 7, See family violence DSM V, 7, 53 E Early Childhood Development Parenting Toolkit, 29 early childhood trauma, 16 Early Development Index, 18 early intervention, 16, 39, 66, 69 early years, 193, 200, 204, 206 Early Years Learning Framework, 18, 63 emerging needs, 150 emotional literacy, 112 emotional maturity, 105 evaluation, 12, 54, 63, 152, 159–61, 168, 187 Evaluation Capacity Building, 161 extended family, 100 F Facebook, 31, 74 Facilitating Partner, 53, 55, 69, 71, 145–46, 147, 150, 156, 170, 174 Facilitating Partner model, 128 factionalism, 173 faith communities, 75 Families SA, 76, 85

Index

218 family breakdown, 75 Family by Family, 42, 65, 75 family connection., 26 family development, 162 family friendly playgrounds, 203 family group conferencing, 94 Family Place, 76 family relationships, 25 family sensitive practice, 39, 41 family support worker, 83 family violence, 7, 43, 44, 106, 204 FamilyZone, 46, 60, 64, 83, 98, 132, 135, 160, 202 feelings, 122 finance, 156 forgiving, 167, 173 fragmentation, 38 Frankston C4C, 195 friends, 112 G Generation Y and Z, 21, 30 generational poverty, 77, 155 global analysis, 204 global village, 68 goals, 184 Gold Coast C4C, 73 good practice forums, 170 governments, 68 H Healing Circles, 94 Healing Foundation, 93 healthy childhood development., 17 Healthy Development Adelaide, 80 holistic, 16, 17, 40 home environment, 193 home visiting, 45, 63, 82 I impersonation, 24 implementation, 57 information sharing, 41, 82, 183 information superhighway, 203

integrated service delivery, 55, 172 integrated services, 68, 70, 71, 91, 92, 155, 156, 161, 164, 165, 168, 176 intensive supported playgroup, 97 inter sectoral practice resources, 40 interagency collaboration, 80, 88, 163 internet friends, 24 Internet Generation, 22 inter-organisational practice, 180, 188 investing in children, 18 isolation, 100 J joint service delivery, 69 joint training, 41 K Kimochis, 110, 112, 114, 118, 119, 123 kinship system, 90 Know before you Load, 30 Kununurra C4C, 96 L Lapsit, 64 leadership, 158, 159, 164, 167, 168, 172 leadership teams, 168 leadership training, 169 legislation, 69 Let’s Read, 64 levels of government, 157 levels of relationship, 156 limbic system, 107, 205 listening to families, 139 local government, 158 Logan C4C, 73, 76 Lowitja Institute, 97 Lutheran Community Care, 85, 97

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families M marriage relationships, 198 meaning and purpose, 78 media campaign., 207 meetings, 187, 189 mentoring, 96, 159, 169 mentors, 31 micromanaging, 168 milestones, 99, 151 Mission Australia, 146 mission statement, 129 mobile devices, 23 Murray Bridge C4C, 73 Mustard, Fraser, 38, 55, 68, 80 N National Collaboration Framework, 69 National Compact, 18 National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, 18, 37, 69 National Research Centre on Education and Training in Addiction, 44, 47 Nelson Mandela, 75, 173 netiquette, 31 neuroscience, 6, 26, 106, 205 Neuro-sequential Model of Therapeutics, 43 new technologies, 21 no wrong door, 79 North West Adelaide C4C, 73, 75 Northern Children & Families Forum, 79 Northern Connections, 79, 157 O obesity, 203 one stop shops, 55 Onkaparinga C4C, 73, 198 outcomes, 51, 52, 82, 117, 192 outdoor play, 196

219

P paedophiles, 24 paradigm shifts, 69, 198 parent-child relationships, 26 parent-child synchrony, 28 parenting skills, 31, 98 parenting values, 17 parenting websites, 29 parents, 117, 119, 121, 123, 150, 154, 194 Parents under Pressure, 43 partnership model, 70 partnerships, 61, 70, 152, 155, 158 passion, 166, 186 peer support, 42, 108 Pen Green Centre, 73, 153, 168, 192 performance accountability, 151 performance measures, 18 perinatal education, 93, 202 perinatal support, 202 PERMA, 16 permission giving, 72 play, 28, 194, 197 play cafes, 203 Play is the Way, 110, 114, 123 play learning, 98 Playford C4C, 75, 93 playgrounds, 194, 195 Playgroup in the Park, 75 playgroups, 61 population measure, 130 population measures, 129, 141 Port Augusta C4C, 73, 96 positive psychology, 78, 207 practice based evidence, 65, 97 practice wisdom, 170 predictable routine, 122 prevention, 16, 39, 66, 69 professional boundaries, 47 professional development, 161–62 professionalism, 154 program logic, 52 project management, 149, 151 project manager, 58, 70, 146 proportionate universality, 52, 55

Index

220 protective factors, 14, 15 public health model, 37, 39 Q quality of relationships, 64 quality parenting, 14, 27 R Raising Children Network, 32 reading and spelling, 122 recontracting, 174 reflective practice, 152, 161 Reggio Emilia, 8, 96, 209 reimagining childhood, 5, 7 relationship building, 171 relationships, 148, 156, 180, 187 relatives, 202 reporting, 153 resilience, 109 rights of children, 6, 208 Rinaldi, Carla, 8, 80, 210 Robinson Research Institute, 80 S safe outdoor play, 197 Salisbury C4C, 45, 55, 59, 104, 128, 147 Salvation Army Ingle Farm, 56 Salvation Army Tasmania, 43 Save the Children, 62, 96 scale and intensity, 18, 51, 52, 53, 66 school attendance, 111 school readiness, 62 schools, 206 Schools Ministry Group, 105, 111 seamless transitions, 63, 65, 92 Seaton Central, 39 secure attachment, 27 seeding communities, 188 self-regulation, 26, 36, 98, 108, 109, 205 Seligman, Martin, 14, 15, 78, 80 service coordination, 54

service providers, 155 sexual abuse, 106 sexualised images, 30 short termism, 72 significant change, 16, 18, 97, 209 silos, 68, 72, 158, 173 Smith Family, 64 social and emotional development, 36, 121, 123 social and emotional learning, 113 social capital, 179, 190 social competencies, 116 social isolation, 24, 82 social media, 21, 23 social relationships, 118, 122 social-identity, 23 spiritual development, 207–8 staff development, 153 state of wellbeing, 15 stigmatisation, 52 Strategic Plan, 192 strategic planning, 140 strategies, 149, 150 strengths, 183 strengths based, 96, 185 substance abuse, 108 suicide, 24 Sungmisan Village, 204 supervision, 41, 169 supported playgroups, 46, 82 Sure Start, 2, 18, 165, 196 sustainability, 151 system change, 162, 165 T target group, 152 targeted or universal programs, 51 teamwork, 159 technology and parenting, 27 The Australian Centre for Social Innovation, 65, 93, 158 therapeutic parenting, 43 Thinkers in Residence Program, 80 toddlers, 201 Together SA, 140

Building Stronger Communities with Children and Families training, 162 trans-agency, 65 trans-disciplinary, 65, 164 trauma, 47, 100, 105–8, 115, 122 trauma informed classroom, 117 trust, 81 Turkle, Sherry, 27 twitter, 32 U UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 196, 208 UNICEF, 195 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 140 Uniting Communities, 76 universal and targeted, 145 University of South Australia, 70, 110 urban village, 202

village life, 13 Virtual Village Report, 38 vision, 58, 142, 147, 169, 172 vocation, 159 voices of children, 6, 9, 15, 140, 195 vulnerable families, 51, 64, 155 W Walking a Tightrope, 44 websites, 32 wellbeing, 78, 105, 110 wellbeing classroom, 15, 108–11 Whalley, Margy, 73, 153, 166, 167 whole of community approach, 18, 38, 53, 94, 139, 145 whole of government, 68 whole-school approach, 116 workforce development, 92 workplace practices, 6 worldviews, 89 wrap-around services, 52, 76

V values, 169, 172 village, 90, 197, 204

221

Y young mums, 30