Family Relationships Quarterly No.16

By Myfanwy McDonald

This article is a summary of a CAFCA Practice Sheet (McDonald, 2010), a new series of publications from the Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia. The Practice Sheet builds upon the findings from Engaging Hard-to-Reach Families and Children (Cortis, Katz, & Patulny, 2009), one of three themed studies undertaken as part of the national evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy.

Research has demonstrated that involvement in high-quality early childhood and parenting support programs benefits children and families (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009; Howes, 1997; Moran, Ghate, & van der Merwe, 2004), particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Melhuish, 2003). Parents with young children can also benefit from programs, such as parenting support activities, that enable them to socialise with other families, develop support networks and gain confidence in their parenting skills (Moran et al., 2004).

Although these programs and activities are clearly beneficial, service providers can find it challenging to engage families and often those families who are the most difficult to engage are also the families experiencing disadvantage and/or social isolation (Carbone, Fraser, Ramburuth, & Nelms, 2004; Statham, 2004). Similarly, in some cases families may find it challenging to engage with services and many of these factors can also be related back to disadvantage and social isolation. The reasons behind these difficulties with engagement are explored further below.

Due to the negative impact of disadvantage upon children's development and family functioning, and the relationship between disadvantage, social isolation and lack of engagement, there is a strong incentive for reducing the barriers that inhibit the engagement of families with child and family services.

Why do some families not engage with child and family services?

The reasons why families do not engage with services can be attributed to two overarching factors (Carbone et al., 2004, pp. 13-19). They are:

• Service level (structural) factors: For example, is the service affordable, welcoming and non-judgemental? Has the service been publicised? Is the service location accessible? Are the hours of operation suitable for families? Is the service culturally inclusive?
• Child/family specific factors: For example, are the parents/guardians able to plan and organise attendance at a service (i.e., are they experiencing extreme stress, mental or physical illness)? Does the family have transport to get to the service? Can they afford the service fee? Do they believe that the service is necessary or useful? Do they trust service providers?

What methods can child and family services use to engage disadvantaged and socially isolated families?

Go to where the families are

Effective methods for social inclusion of disadvantaged children during early childhood "must incorporate methods of outreach", according to Vinson (2009, p. 5). Yet not all service providers are able to deliver their services in this way. Therefore it may be more useful to think of outreach as a general philosophy, that is, instead of waiting for families to attend a service, go to where families are (i.e., outreach = reaching out).

 Questions for planning and delivering services

• Where do local families with young children gather (e.g., parks, shopping centres, religious centres)? When are they most likely to be there? For example:
• Local knowledge was used to establish a suitable location in the CBD where the most effective contact could be made with community members. A walk-through area in a shopping arcade was identified as a popular meeting place for young parents and the socially disadvantaged, so the van is regularly parked outside an empty shop in the arcade. (Mobile Family Resource Centre (Bernie on Wheels), CAFCA Promising Practice Profile)
• Where do local dads gather (e.g., sporting events)? Is it possible to provide information and/or promote your service at these venues?
• Is there a business in the area that employs a large number of local parents? Is it possible to engage with parents through that business?

Promote and deliver services in a non-stigmatising and non-threatening way

Research findings commonly report (and practice wisdom supports) that disadvantaged families are more likely to engage in services that are promoted and delivered in a non-stigmatising and non-threatening way (Flannery, Watson, & Tully, 2008; Statham, 2004).

Questions for planning and delivering services:

• In the minds of the community, is the program venue "universal" (e.g., health clinic or school) or is it associated with a "problem" (e.g., mental health service)? Can the program be held in a venue that is more "neutral"?
• How are you promoting your service? What message are the images in your promotion materials conveying? For example:
• We promoted the project using a photo of the young pregnant women, with their pregnant bellies out proud. It looked fun; they were having a laugh. Young people think, "It looks like me, it looks normal." There's [a] taboo [around] looking like you're getting help from a charity. (Participant, cited in Cortis, et al., 2009, p.20)
• Would a less formal word of mouth approach to promotion be more suitable to your target group?

Employ strategies that empower families

There is robust evidence to demonstrate that the empowerment of families within child and family services not only increases families' level of engagement but also enhances outcomes for participating families (Katz, Spooner, & valentine, 2006; Statham, 2004). By listening to families about what they need and implementing their suggestions, service providers not only empower families but also help to make their service more useful and relevant to families (Family and Parenting Institute, 2008).

Questions for planning and delivering services

• Are parents confident about expressing what they need and want from a program or activity? For example:

[The activity] needs to be focused on what the group wants to do. The facilitator can't impose what [they] think is a good idea. You have to tune in to deal with what is at the forefront of people's minds ... You also need to empower the group to be comfortable enough to tell you what they want. (Participant, cited in Cortis et al., 2009, p. 21)

• Are parents actively participating in decisions about the planning and/or delivery of services?
• Are parents encouraged to take on facilitation and/or leadership roles?

Develop relationships

Research strongly suggests that early childhood services working in isolation (often referred to as working in a "silo") cannot meet the needs of families as effectively as services that have relationships with other agencies (Centre for Community Child Health, 2006). This is because families using early childhood services often have complex needs - such as housing, employment, parent mental heath, and citizenship issues - that require the skills and expertise of a range of service providers (Family and Parenting Institute, 2008).

 Questions for planning and delivering services

• Does your service have a relationship with local Indigenous networks and/or Indigenous organisations? Who are the trusted representatives of Indigenous perspectives within the local community?
• Does your service have a relationship with local culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities? Who are the trusted representatives of CALD groups within the local community?

References

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2010). Mobile Family Resource Centre. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from <http://tinyurl.com/25x7z88>.

Carbone, S., Fraser, A., Ramburuth, R., & Nelms, L. (2004). Breaking Cycles, Building Futures. Promoting inclusion of vulnerable families in antenatal and universal early childhood services: A report on the first three stages of the project. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence.

Centre for Community Child Health. (2006). Quality in children's services (Policy Brief No.2). Melbourne: Centre for Community Child Health.

Cortis, N., Katz, I., & Patulny, R. (2009). Engaging hard-to-reach families and children. Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved from <http://tinyurl.com/39u2xkg>

Family and Parenting Institute. (2008). Hard to reach families: engagement in the voluntary and community sector (summary). London: Family and Parenting Institute.

Flannery, K., Watson, J., & Tully, L. (2008). Prevention and early intervention update: Trends in recent research. Sydney: NSW Department of Community Services.

Howes, C. (1997). Child outcomes of child care programs In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Issues in child care. New York: Teachers College Press (pp. 31-46).

Katz, I., Spooner, C., & valentine, k. (2006). What interventions are effective in improving outcomes for children of families with multiple and complex problems. Sydney: University of NSW and ARACY.

Melhuish, E. (2003). A literature review of the impact of early years provision on young children, with emphasis given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. London, UK: National Audit Office.

McDonald, M. (2010). Are disadvantaged families "hard to reach"? Engaging disadvantaged families in child and family services (CAFCA Practice Sheet). Melbourne: Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Moran, P., Ghate, D., & van der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parenting support: A review of the international evidence. London, UK: Policy Research Bureau, Department for Education and Skills.

Statham, J. (2004). Effective services to support children in special circumstances. Child Care, Health and Development, 30(6), 589-598.

Vinson, T. (2009). Social inclusion: Social inclusion and early childhood development. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved from <http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/Resources/Pages/Resources.aspx>.