COMMUNITY SERVICES LEADERSHIP GROUP
Government of Western Australia
Early Years Collaborative Project
Final Report, July 2011
1
Table of Contents
Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
2. Process ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Project Team learnings about collaboration ................................................... 9
3. Report on Activities ...................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Outcomes Framework .................................................................................... 10
3.2 Principles for Collaboration ........................................................................... 12
3.3 A targeted, site-based approach to improve early childhood development
and learning outcomes ........................................................................................ 12
4. Sharing knowledge, research, information and learnings ........................................... 15
4.1 Governance and leadership ........................................................................... 15
4.2 Collaboration.................................................................................................. 15
4.3 Community engagement ............................................................................... 15
5. Directions for Development and Change..................................................................... 17
6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 19
7. Suggested Further Reading .......................................................................................... 20
8. References ................................................................................................................... 28
2
Glossary
Australian Early
Development Index
(AEDI)
The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a
national population measure of young children's
development run by the Centre for Community Child
Health
(at The
Royal
Children's
Hospital,
Melbourne, and a key research centre of the Murdoch
Childrens Research Institute) in partnership with
the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Perth.
Council of Australian
Governments (COAG)
COAG is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia,
comprising the Prime Minister, State Premiers,
Territory Chief Ministers and the President of the
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).
Community Services
Leadership Group
The Community Services Leadership Group (CSLG) is the
executive sponsor of the project with the Directors
General of the Departments of Health, Education and
Communities as project sponsors.
Outcomes Framework
The Framework is based on the COAG National Early
Childhood Development Strategy, Investing in the Early
Years, but is designed to be suited to the State context
and as accessible as possible to stakeholders in the
community sector.
Partnership Forum
The Partnership Forum brings together senior
representatives from State Government agencies and
the community sector to address issues of mutual
concern with a view to achieving better outcomes for
the community.
Project Team
Refers to the Early Years Collaborative Project Team. It
includes representation from the public and community
sectors.
3
Executive Summary
The Early Years Collaborative Project brought together key groups committed to
working together on early years in Western Australia to progress a collaborative
approach to achieving better outcomes for early childhood in Western Australia.
Consistent with the directions of the Economic Audit Committee’s Report Putting the
Public First: Partnering with the Community and Business to Deliver Outcomes (2009),
the Project involved representation from community and public sector organisations
engaged with various aspects of early childhood, from policy and planning to on-theground service delivery.
The Early Years Collaborative Project was established to build a partnership between
the public and community sectors, with the aim of promoting a culture of collaboration
in early years development and learning, and to support improved on-the-ground
coordination through a site-based approach. The Early Years Collaborative Project team
was tasked with a broad remit and a limited timeframe, which complicated the
challenging project aims. During the course of the project a broad range of issues
around the early years were discussed, focussing on collaborative approaches to
service delivery in the sector. This final report reflects the learning journey of creating a
foundation of collaboration within the Project Team from which to build a collaborative
and integrated approach to service delivery.
Through a series of workshops, the Project Team identified some directions for
development, including:

A collaborative approach to service delivery;

Improved governance, including community representation;

Improved sharing of information between services;

A community-driven approach, bringing together accessible and appropriate
services;

Initiatives linked to performance data; and

A focus on prevention and early intervention.
Drawing on these directions, the Project Team developed a number of key deliverables,
including:

A draft Outcomes Framework for Early Childhood Learning and Development in
Western Australia;

Principles for Collaboration; and

Objectives, options and criteria for selection of sites for collaborative projects.
The Project Team discussed aspects of collaboration in depth and found that, even
between diverse stakeholders, collaboration can produce innovative and valuable ideas
regarding how to improve Western Australia’s early years outcomes.
4
This final report represents a significant investment and commitment by the Project
Team to commencing the journey of collaboration. The team acknowledges that
collaboration, both for Project Team and in integrated service delivery, does not happen
straight away but is rather an evolutionary process. As such, the team’s work to date is
viewed as the first phase of collaboration.
The discussions of the Project Team covered many aspects of early childhood policy,
planning and service delivery. While not all of the issues raised are included, either as
directions for change and development or recommendations, there were many matters
acknowledged as important areas by community sector members for further
consideration and development. These include the need for increased investment, the
potential for an Office of Early Childhood and the establishment of service standards.
The Project Team also agreed that the directions for change and development and the
recommendations contained in this report represent the work of the team through this
process and should not be considered as detracting from other previous or ongoing
work occurring in the early years space. The team agreed the context of the project is
important to note as the field of early years has been, and continues to be, the focus of
significant research and activity. Team members broadly agreed that the process of
collaboration is valuable and has resulted in valuable linkages, insights and learnings.
The Project Team has made seven recommendations based the Early Years
Collaborative Project in order to focus next steps.
We would like to thank all involved for their time, passion and commitment to early
childhood.
Organisations who participated in the Early Years Collaborative Project included:
 Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA
 CHILD Australia
 CLAN WA
 Department of Child Protection
 Department for Communities
 Department of Education
 Department of Health
 Department of the Premier and Cabinet
 Department of Treasury
 Investing in Our Youth
 Ngala
 Playgroup WA
 The Smith Family
 The Telethon Institute for Child Health Research
 Town of Kwinana
 WA Local Government Association
 Western Australian Council of Social Service
 YMCA
5
1. Introduction
Increasing evidence from both inter-jurisdictional experience and local success
supports a shift towards a more collaborative and integrated approach to the early
years in Western Australia. On this basis, a collaborative project was established to
explore new initiatives and directions in the early years space, with a view to achieving
improvements in the wellbeing of Western Australian children.
The early years (birth to eight years) are a crucial stage where children undergo
substantial physical, cognitive, language and social/emotional development. A wide
range of literature shows that developmentally appropriate learning opportunities and
positive experiences in the early years foster children’s’ holistic development and
greatly contribute to successful outcomes later in life (see references). However,
despite financial investment across a range of early years areas by both State and
Commonwealth Governments, Western Australia’s performance with regard to
developmental and wellbeing outcomes achieved by children from birth to eight years
lags behind other Australian jurisdictions1.
In 2009, the COAG-endorsed Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) revealed one
in four Western Australian children is developmentally vulnerable on at least one of the
five domains measured, and one-in-eight children are developmentally vulnerable on
two or more domains. Comparative results show that Western Australian children are
ranked sixth overall behind Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and
the ACT.
These results, combined with the State’s changing demographics and economic status,
are likely to cause a simultaneous increase in demand and gap in the ability to provide
early years services. This creates an imperative for a new approach to service planning,
design and delivery. This is critical to ensuring that further investment in early years is
targeted well and makes a difference at the level of service delivery.
Critical to improving early childhood care, education, and development is the principle
that early years services are most effective when delivered in an integrated, locallyappropriate way2.
The Economic Audit Committee (2009) noted that many people face difficulty in
navigating support systems to find what they need3. Difficulties may arise through a
lack of information or access to services due to inappropriate planning and
implementation of services. Additionally, individuals, families, and communities often
1
http://www.rch.org.au/aedi/index.cfm?doc_id=13051
Prichard, P, Purdon, S, Chaplyn, J, Moving Forward Together (2010), Murdoch Children’s Research
Institute, Melbourne, p.9.
3
Economic Audit Committee Report Putting the Public First: Partnering with the Community and
Business to Deliver Outcomes (2009), Chapter 3, Designing Services to Meet Citizen’s Needs.
2
6
find themselves unable to shape and influence policy, decision-making and the services
delivered to them4.
This evidence supports the need to ensure both policy development and service
delivery is accessible to individual consumers, communities and organisations. Each of
these stakeholders should be able to participate in decision making about policies and
service delivery including which services they access and how. All stakeholders must be
engaged as partners at the very least. According to Arnstein’s 1969 Ladder of Citizen
Participation5, anything less than this is tokenism at best. Service design and delivery
must also be accessible, even for the most vulnerable families and communities.
Similarly, there is a strong need for service delivery reform that brings together
government and community sector service providers and gives them the devolved
responsibility and authority to make decisions across a range of agency services at the
local level. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests this approach will lead to
improved outcomes for children and the families that care for them (for example,
Moore and Skinner (2010, p. 26); Toronto First Duty (2005); Dunst and Bruder (2002);
National Evaluation of Sure Start (2008)).
Increasing local level decision making and creating cultures of collaboration which
translate into integrated service delivery and improve the wellbeing of children was the
impetus for bringing together the key stakeholders in the Early Years Collaborative
Project.
2. Process
The Economic Audit Committee set out a vision for how Government could best
respond to the growing and increasingly complex needs of the Western Australian
community.
On 28 September 2010 the Community Services Leadership Group (CSLG) endorsed the
proposal to initiate a collaborative project to improve early childhood development
outcomes in Western Australia. It also agreed to serve as the executive sponsor of the
collaborative project with the Directors General of the Departments of Health,
Education and Communities as project sponsors.
The Early Years Collaborative Project involved a cross-sector Project Team from public
sector agencies, community sector and research organisations with a focus on early
years. This diverse team brought broad experience across key areas of policy, planning,
delivery, engagement and evaluation, with the aim of modelling a collaborative
approach to policy development that allowed all stakeholders to be involved. The
4
Economic Audit Committee Report Putting the Public First: Partnering with the Community and
Business to Deliver Outcomes (2009), Chapter 3, Designing Services to Meet Citizen’s Needs.
5
Arnstein, S, A ladder of citizen participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224, quoted in A
ladder of citizen participation-Sherry R Arnstein, http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-ofcitizen-participation.html accessed 2 June 2011
7
Department of the Premier and Cabinet provided a Project Scoping Brief, which is
included at Attachment B.
Key objectives for the Project included:
 Promoting a culture of collaboration, partnership and shared learning around
the early years;
 Progressing an outcomes framework for the improvement of early childhood
development in Western Australia, as envisioned in recommendation three of
the Economic Audit Committee’s Putting the Public First report (2009, p. iii); and
 Identifying and promoting collaboration on-the-ground through a site-based
approach.
Key deliverables for the project included:
 The development of an Early Years Outcomes Framework focused on the child
and recognising the roles of family and community in children’s lives. The draft
Outcomes Framework is based on the COAG Framework (part of the National
Early Childhood Development Strategy) and reworked to include a wide range
of stakeholders, particularly community service providers and organisations,
and uses plain language for broader access and ownership.
 Suggested key performance indicators to support the outcomes framework;
 Draft principles for successful collaboration on-the-ground, based on examples
of successful collaboration on-the-ground and lessons learnt; and
 Development of a set of objectives, options and criteria for the identification of
sites where collaboration on–the-ground might be of the greatest benefit.
The main vehicle for the Early Years Collaborative Project was a series of meetings and
workshops which aimed to draw together the team members’ collective expertise in an
open and robust discussion of early years issues in Western Australia, and present a
coherent, united framework for developing collaborative policy and service delivery
responses in the best interests of children from birth to eight years in Western
Australia.
Two independently facilitated workshops were held during February and March 2011.
The first workshop focused on the development of an early years outcomes
framework. The group discussed the needs and wants of children, families and
communities and identified areas of action relating to support, service, collaboration,
workforce and technology.
The second workshop focussed on what makes a collaborative approach work from a
range of perspectives including planning, services, and working with families and
communities. The group discussed definitions of community, guiding principles for
collaborative approaches, examples of existing collaboration and how to identify
potential sites for integrated service delivery in vulnerable and disadvantaged
communities.
8
A third workshop was held in April to progress some of the tangible outputs of the
project, namely the principles for collaboration and criteria for integrated service
delivery site selection.
This process has represented one stage of the collaboration process. Using Tuckman’s
Team Development Model6, it could be said that the group has been in the ‘forming’
and ‘storming’ phases of the four phase model. Stakeholders came together with a
common goal and valuable discussions occurred in order to identify key areas of focus.
All stakeholders acknowledge that work in this space must continue from these early
stage discussions into the ‘norming’ and ‘performing’ phases in order to formulate
practical solutions.
2.1 Project Team learnings about collaboration
Bringing together a range of early years practitioners, stakeholders, and professionals,
enabled an ongoing discussion for sharing knowledge and experience of lessons learnt
and examples of best practice. It also highlighted some of the challenges involved in
creating a sustainable environment of collaboration and partnership.
The Project Team offered varied learnings and perspectives about the collaborative
process:




Reflecting on the process, the group agreed the Early Years Collaborative
Project was an example of collaborative practice at work and documenting the
challenges and learnings from the process for future projects was important as
a way forward.
The importance of a team development model such as Tuckman’s in developing
collaborative and successful working relationships should not be
underestimated. Partnership and collaboration need time for relationships to
develop, even when participants have the same goals in mind.
In its review of the literature, the group identified the establishment of clear
decision making processes as a critical factor in successful collaboration. Upon
reflection, the group considered that the tight timeframes did not allow for
such processes to be sufficiently worked through, particularly in the context of
many new relationships.
Groups need to devote sufficient attention to developing their own
collaborative processes in order to establish clear agreement on topics,
particularly if partnerships are to be enduring and successful. Some members of
the Project Team expressed concern at the project’s outset about what would
6
Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399,
quoted in Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing team-development model;
http://www.lx.nhs.uk/kms/Trafford/Trafford%202006%20%202007/PPI%20Forum%20South%20Manchester%20University%20Hospital/Tuckman%20Group%20De
velopment%20Model.pdf accessed 2 June 2011.
9




be feasibly achievable in the prescribed timeframe, given the broad range of
early years issues.
It is crucial that project scope and aims and resources are realistic. This is critical
in developing agreed objectives and options that are achievable within
specifically defined timeframes.
All parties involved in the process must be equal partners. Any sense of power
imbalance, real or perceived, can undermine the effectiveness of the process
and have an impact on the deliverables. The group also agreed that an
independent chair or co-chair arrangement would ensure equality and remove
any potential power imbalances.
Practical considerations are crucial to fostering good collaboration and
partnerships within groups. Consideration must be given to ensuring that
venues meet the needs of participants and that the room set-up is conducive to
sharing ideas and engaging in discussion and debate.
Timeframes and goals should be clearly articulated from the outset and group
size should be carefully monitored to ensure a diverse range of participants, and
that all voices are heard.
3. Report on Activities
3.1
Outcomes Framework
The draft Outcomes Framework for Early Childhood Development and Learning in
Western Australia represents the shared values of the Project Team and a clear vision
for early childhood learning and development in the State. It is based on the COAG
National Early Childhood Development Strategy, Investing in the Early Years, but is
designed to be more suited to the State context and as accessible as possible to
stakeholders in the community sector.
The Framework includes a vision statement, a series of overarching outcomes, and a
matrix of aims that children, families and the broader community may adopt in order
to achieve the stated outcomes.
In order to support the Framework’s deployment as a tool for results-based
management and evaluation of early childhood education and development, the
Project Team nominated a series of key performance indicators that correspond to the
aims listed in the Framework, included at Attachment B.
Whilst happy with the progress made, the Project Team acknowledges the limited time
for detailed discussion and debate about the framework and recommends further
sector consultation occurs to ensure sector engagement and to model principles of
true collaboration and participation.
10
Outcomes Framework for Early Childhood Development and Learning in Western Australia
Vision
Outcomes
Children
All Western Australian children realise their potential
Children are born healthy and
thrive
Children live in environments
that are safe from harm
Children enjoy, learn, play and
achieve
Physical and emotional health
Freedom from physical and
emotional harm
Cognitive, emotional and
social development
A feeling of safety and
security
Development of language and
communication skills
Having their basic needs met
Resilience
Families
Accessing services need for
their child’s health and
development
Positive behaviour is modelled
A secure family with adequate
income and housing
Home life is linked with school
Confidence in their parenting
role
Involvement in community
activities
Children belong to a
supportive environment
A feeling of being nurtured
and loved
Acceptance and respect
Be heard
Friendship
A stable and supportive family
with positive parent-child
relationships
Quality time with their children
A sense of belonging in the
community
A sense of optimism and hope
A say in what they want for
their child
Communities
Services that are accessible,
connected and relevant
Services are promoted formally
and informally
Safe public spaces
An environment for play,
exploration and learning
Safety within the home is
promoted
Inviting opportunities for
family recreation and leisure
Children who are in danger are
assisted
Quality care and education
with strong community
involvement
Strong networks and
organisations
Planning and policy that
responds to children’s needs
A collective voice
Economic sustainability
Respect for diversity
This framework was developed based on feedback from the Project Team in Workshops 1 and 2 of the Early Years Collaborative Project.
11
3.2 Principles for Collaboration
The Project Team endorsed the following principles to engender true partnership in
policy, planning and local delivery of early childhood development and learning.

A shared vision and common objective for children as a foundation for working
together;

A shared understanding and commitment to substantive equity;

Relationships and communication based on trust and respect for differences;

A commitment to the involvement of parents and care givers and respect for
their roles as the primary experts in relation to their children;

A commitment to hearing and responding to the voice of the child; and

An enduring commitment to working together which recognises that it is an
evolving process and may take time.
3.3 A targeted, site-based approach to improve early childhood development
and learning outcomes
Considering a site-based approach to improve early years outcomes proved a complex
task given limited development of scope, resources and timing. The Project Team
identified broad key objectives, possible options, and criteria for selection from the
approach.
3.3.1 Objectives
Site-based approaches for improved coordination and collaboration of the early years
should focus on:

Efficient and effective use of resources;

Workforce skills development;

Genuine engagement with the community;

Accessible and appropriate services;

Improved flow of information, data and service mapping; and

Links between prevention, early intervention, and services.
12
3.3.2 Options
Options for individuals and organisations working together in a site-based approach to
enable improved early years outcomes include:

Cooperation, where participants remain autonomous but share information;

Coordination, where participants remain autonomous but plan some projects or
services together;

Collaboration, where participants unite under a single auspice to share
resources and plan particular services together; and

Integration, where parties develop a continuous approach to service delivery
and / or merge to form a new entity.
Each of these options may take the form of co-location, shared facility / resourcing or
virtual links between services. The best option for meeting community need in the
most effective way will depend on the nature of the community and its needs, the
resources and infrastructure available and the types of services being provided. These
options should be considered in conjunction with community and stakeholder
consultation to determine the way of delivering services that best meets community
needs. Consideration should be given to the roles of the collaborating partners, for
example, whether the collaboration is across the early years sector, government
agencies or the community sector.
The Project Team acknowledged that collaboration and integration have direct costs in
addition to service delivery costs. Clearly, the extent of collaboration and integration
adopted for a particular project must be viewed in relation to the costs of the
collaborative activity, the value of the proposed outcomes and the complexity of the
collaboration required. Program reporting structures can be narrowly defined, which
makes capturing, reporting on and justifying the benefits achieved through
collaboration difficult, particularly where the benefits may not directly relate to the
outcomes they are funded to achieve.
13
3.3.3 Criteria for Site Selection
Potential criteria for site selection for increased coordination or collaboration of early
childhood services include:

The community’s performance, measured by early years indicators;

The availability of services or readily identified gaps;

The level of coordination between existing services;

The community’s level of engagement with existing services; and

Local leadership or support for change.
Available data and information to support assessment according to these criteria can
be found at Attachment C.
In addition, the Project Team noted that the weighting of these variables would vary
according to the type of collaboration activity being proposed. Further work is required
to develop assessment criteria for specific types of collaborative work.
As highlighted earlier, the intent of the proposed objectives, options, and criteria is to
assist in the identification of potential sites for collaborative projects. However, a sitebased approach must also be fundamentally driven by community engagement.
Appropriate identification of community needs, and meaningful engagement with
communities to best meet those needs, are essential factors in improving outcomes.
Improved service delivery which is facilitated by collaboration and co-ordination will
not be effective if this engagement is not facilitated.
14
4. Sharing knowledge, research, information and learnings
Some of the shared learnings and experiences in local level collaboration and
integration highlighted by the Project Team are included below.
4.1 Governance and leadership

Leadership is a key success factor for collaborative service delivery and
governance structures and should ideally support local planning.

Good examples of leadership and governance already exist around the State.
Good leadership and governance is often unique to the local community and its
needs.

Education is key to shaping public attitudes about good early years
development.7
4.2 Collaboration

Collaborative projects benefit from the use of creative methods to engage
communities.

A flexible environment that allows things to happen on-the-ground is necessary
for collaborative projects to work.

Collaboration can disintegrate and is difficult to maintain over the long term,
therefore a shared vision and governance support are needed.

Collaboration can result where services are located at a centre and a variety of
additional services subsequently co-locate in the same centre.

Some regional areas were given as examples of lasting early childhood
collaborations. Key success factors in these examples include that service
providers stayed and kept the collaboration alive, and that local government
had early involvement. These factors resulted in continuity of workforce and
sustained relationships.
4.3 Community engagement

Community consultation during the planning stage results in better-targeted
services.
7
For example, a number of community-based domestic violence initiatives have placed emphasis on
education, which has led to integrated service delivery, policy-making, partnership of community and
government, and a major shift to recognise domestic violence as a social justice issue.
15

Communities should be encouraged and supported to participate in
collaborative service delivery models, as opposed to only being consulted.

The roles and expertise of all key stakeholders should be articulated and shared.

‘It takes a village to raise a child’, so it is important to build the capacity of
communities in consideration of the power and resources of a community and
whether the community has a say regarding service design.

Community ‘wants’ and capacity should be incorporated into the planning
process (issues of affordability, access and services being welcoming can affect
outcomes).

Using and developing evidence-based practice, innovation and choice for
consumers is important.

Communities can be defined in many ways, considering:
o
o
o
o
Each family is part of numerous communities;
One community may have numerous communities within it;
A community might be defined as ‘where you shop’;
A community can be defined in terms of local government boundaries;
and
o A community may even choose to define itself in its own unique way.
16
5. Directions for Development and Change
In addition to developing targeted tools to facilitate greater focus on improved
outcomes for Western Australian children, the Project Team also identified a number
of elements of service delivery within the early years sphere in Western Australia which
may benefit from increased focus and on-the-ground practice. Further information and
references to support these key directions are at Attachment D.
The emphasis of the project was on collaboration through the different areas of policy,
planning and service delivery to achieve better outcomes. However, the Project Team
was cognisant of the costs of collaboration and the need for costs to be transparently
factored into collaborative activities. While collaboration was a key focus of the
process, many other issues were also raised but not explored in sufficient detail by the
Project Team due to time constraints. Some of these issues are not included in this
section but are regarded by community sector members of the the team as important
and requiring further consideration and development. These issues are: increased
investment and funding in the early years, the potential for an Office of Early Childhood
and the development of service standards.
1. A collaborative and flexible approach to service delivery.
The benefits of collaboration are well established, but more work needs to be done
on implementing collaborative projects. A more flexible approach to service
delivery is required. This will lead to more responsive and interconnected early
years services. Improved collaboration at the local level can be engendered through
processes such as capacity-building, effective consultation and community
involvement, needs-identification, and genuine involvement from line agencies
with delegated authority to collaborate.
2. A focus on prevention and early intervention.
Working with children at risk can have a positive impact on their development and
school-readiness. Adoption of a public health model for child health and
development, focused on prevention and early intervention, would promote this
approach. Early intervention services will also be able to fill health service gaps (eg.
the lack of crisis services in child mental health).
3. Improved governance, including community representation, and a
community-driven approach bringing together accessible and
appropriate services.
In the Investing in the Early Years report, by the Council of Australian Governments,
it is argued that services should be ‘linked in different ways, depending on local
needs and circumstances, to promote a holistic response to each child and family
situation’ (2009, p.18). Likewise, the Economic Audit Committee’s Putting the Public
First report (2009) presents the argument that greater community control will
improve outcomes in all areas of service delivery. One way to enable this control is
to provide capacity for a hub to ‘buy in’ services where appropriate.
17
Collaboration at the community level is not considered sustainable unless there is
consistency with public sector arrangements. Greater collaboration within
government on early childhood would support the development of collaborative
activities in the community sector. The Project Team agreed that public and
community sectors would benefit from increased collaboration within and between
sectors.
4. Improved sharing of information between services.
Collaborative planning and information-sharing across sectors and levels should be
promoted.
5. Community-building, engagement and support.
Support for children, parents, carers and communities is needed. This should take
the form of practical measures to grow social capital and contribute to community
building, such as providing affordable stress relief for parents (i.e. family-friendly
workplaces, occasional child care). Services may also use social networking to
connect with families that, in the past, may not have accessed nor had access to
services.
6. Initiatives linked to performance data, evidence and best practice.
Sources like the AEDI are not only useful as diagnostic tools; they also function as
indicators of performance. Analysis of key performance indicators makes evidencebased project evaluation possible, and thereby makes it easier to identify both
achievements and areas for improvement.
7. A targeted approach.
It is critical to note that any targeted work should build on a solid universal
platform to maximise return on investment. State and Commonwealth
governments should also work together to identify and target service delivery
towards vulnerable children and communities, especially with regards to funding
for remote service delivery.
8. Focus on workforce innovation and leadership for early years service
delivery.
Important for further work and consideration.
18
6. Recommendations
This report will be considered by the Community Services Leadership Group (project
executive sponsor), the Directors General of the Departments of Health, Education and
Communities (project sponsors) and the Partnership Forum.
The Project Group makes the following recommendations in good faith based on the
experiences of the Early Years Collaborative Project:
Recommendation 1: A high-level advisory group with a clear remit, reporting to the
Partnership Forum, should be established to progress collaboration agendas across
government and non-government operations.
The project group recognises the value of an on-going process. In the short-term the
Early Years Collaborative Project may be used to finalise the first phase. However in the
medium-long term, the Project Team recommends the establishment of an Early Years
Roundtable which includes appropriate membership of consumers, members of the
community, officers from government departments and representatives from
community organisations.
Recommendation 2: Collaborative and flexible approaches to early years service
delivery, based on prevention and early intervention, should be developed and
implemented.
As tools for service providers and communities, service delivery approaches must
recognise the evidence indicating that early intervention can have positive impacts on
child development.
Recommendation 3: The draft early years outcomes framework should be subject to
wider sector consultation prior to public release by the advisory group.
Recommendation 4: The final early years outcomes framework should set out
aspirational standards for children, families and communities, and incorporate a mix of
outcome and causal indicators. It should be promoted by the Partnership Forum and the
community sector as the benchmark for early years policy and service delivery in
Western Australia.
Recommendation 5: The Partnership Forum should support opportunities for a range
of stakeholders to learn how to better collaborate together in the early years space.
Recommendation 6: A commitment should be made to conducting early years
leadership training for all allied professionals working or wishing to work in
collaborative partnerships.
Recommendation 7: The Partnership Forum note that the work detailed in this report
does not diminish the previous work and opinions of community sector Project Team
members.
19
7. Suggested Further Reading
The project team found the following research, which was circulated during the course
of the project, to be useful in informing discussions and the development of this report:
Economic Audit Committee Report Putting the Public First: Partnering with the
Community and Business to Deliver Outcomes (2009), Chapter 3, Designing Services to
Meet Citizen’s Needs.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, A practical vision for early childhood education and care
(2011)
John Kania and Mark Kramer, Collective Impact, Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Winter 2011, www.ssireview.org
20
Attachment A
Outcomes Framework and Key Performance Indicators
This document links the outcomes framework and its aims for children, parents and
families, with indicators that can be used to assess performance in delivering each
outcome.
The main source of data for the indicators is the Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare (AIHW), but data is also sourced from the National Assessment Program:
Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) and the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI).
It should be noted that, while most of the indicators drawn from to the AIHW are
currently supported by data, some are still in the process of development. There are
also some aims have not been linked to indicators at all at this stage. It is anticipated
that the addition of the planned AIHW data sources, and others, will allow for a
progressively richer view of our performance in achieving early childhood outcomes
over the coming years.
Notes on the indicators:
AIHW: Does not ordinarily provide data specific to Western Australia, but may provide
it upon request. The indicators have been carefully matched to the aims within the
framework but their names may suggest otherwise, so for full details on each indicator
see: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468252&tab=1
NAPLAN: For more information see: http://www.naplan.edu.au/
AEDI: Data specific to Western Australia might not be available. For more information
see: http://www.rch.org.au/aedi
21
Outcomes Framework for Early Childhood Development and Learning in Western Australia (With
Indicators)
Vision
Outcomes
Children
All Western Australian children realise their potential
Children are born healthy and
thrive
Children live in environments
that are safe from harm
Children enjoy, learn, play and
achieve
Physical and emotional health
Freedom from physical and
emotional harm
Cognitive, emotional and
social development
A feeling of safety and
security
Development of language and
communication skills
Having their basic needs met
Resilience
Children belong to a
supportive environment
A feeling of being nurtured
and loved
Acceptance and respect
Be heard
Friendship
Reading (NAPLAN)
Key
Performance
Indicators
Birth weight (AIHW)
Writing (NAPLAN)
Mortality (AIHW)
Language conventions
(NAPLAN)
Morbidity (AIHW)
Injuries (AIHW)
Mental health (AIHW)
Child abuse and neglect
(AIHW)
Obesity (AIHW)
Physical activity (AIHW)
Smoking and alcohol during
pregnancy (AIHW)
Smoking at home (AIHW)
Children as victims of assault
(AIHW)
Numeracy (NAPLAN)
Physical independence (AEDI)
Gross and fine motor skills
(AEDI)
Social competence (AEDI)
Emotional maturity (AEDI)
Communication skills and
general knowledge (AEDI)
22
Families
Accessing services need for
their child’s health and
development
Positive behaviour is modelled
A secure family with adequate
income and housing
Home life is linked with school
Confidence in their parenting
role
Involvement in community
activities
A stable and supportive family
with positive parent-child
relationships
Quality time with their children
A sense of belonging in the
community
A sense of optimism and hope
A say in what they want for
their child
Key
Performance
Indicators
Immunisation (AIHW)
Neonatal hearing screening
(AIHW)
Family economic situation
(AIHW)
Early learning (AIHW)*
Children in non-parental care
(AIHW)
Attending early childhood
education programs (AIHW)*
Parental health and disability
(AIHW)
Physical readiness for school
day (AEDI)
Teenage births (AIHW)
Communities
Key
Performance
Indicators
Services that are accessible,
connected and relevant
Services are promoted formally
and informally
Safe public spaces
An environment for play,
exploration and learning
Safety within the home is
promoted
Inviting opportunities for
family recreation and leisure
Children who are in danger are
assisted
Quality care and education
with strong community
involvement
Strong networks and
organisations
Planning and policy that
responds to children’s needs
A collective voice
Economic sustainability
Respect for diversity
Neighbourhood safety (AIHW)
Survival of leukaemia (AIHW)*
Social capital (AIHW)
Child protection
resubstantiations (AIHW)
23
Attachment B
COMMUNITY SERVICES LEADERSHIP GROUP
Government of Western Australia
PROJECT SCOPING BRIEF
EARLY YEARS COLLABORATIVE PROJECT
Lead Agencies:
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Department of Education
Department for Communities
Department of Health
Draft Date:
November 2010
24
Attachment C
Supporting Information on Performance and Services
Australian Early Development Index
The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a national population measure of young
children's development run by the Centre for Community Child Health (at The Royal Children's
Hospital, Melbourne and a key research centre of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute) in
partnership with the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Perth.
The purpose of the AEDI is to measure the health and development of populations of children to
help communities assess how well they are doing in supporting young children and their families.
The AEDI functions like a census, requiring teachers to complete a checklist for children in their
first year of full-time school. The checklist measures five key areas, or domains, of early
childhood development:





Physical health and wellbeing
Social competence
Emotional maturity
Language and cognitive skills (school-based)
Communication skills and general knowledge
These areas are closely linked to the predictors of good adult health, education and social
outcomes. The results are intended to help communities understand what's working well and
what needs to be improved or developed in their community to better support children and their
families.
The National Investment for the Early Years
The April 2009 NIFTeY Report focuses on the mapping of the range of services and programs in
Western Australia for children aged 0-8 and their parents. The inventory (name and address) is
broken down by local government area and by service type (i.e. universal, targeted and intensive,
and local government provided). While not exhaustive (e.g. family day care providers are not
included) provides a snapshot that is intended for use in local and regional planning.
In addition to providing a snapshot of early years activity the NIFTeY also projects early years
population growth for 2011, 2016 and 2021 that could assist in planning.
Application of Data and Information
Australian Early Development Index
Although the AEDI operates in the form of a census through the school system, an individual
child’s results are allocated to their place of residence, serving to provide an overview of
communities which may be succeeding or struggling in supporting families and early child
development.
25
A benefit of the AEDI is that one of the way the data is reported, Community Profiles, provides
detailed information (where available) regarding how children are performing against each AEDI
performance indicator, broken down by Local Government Area and then by suburb where
appropriate.
A drawback to using the AEDI is that as reporting occurs as children enter full time schooling, the
upper limits of the Collaborative Early Years Project definition of ‘early years’, those being 0-8
years, are unaddressed. Another is that data may be somewhat skewed due to participation in
the program being non compulsory and data not being collected for communities where there
are few children or less than two teachers.
However, as the aggregate data can be seen to reflect how well on average communities support
the early development of children, AEDI data can then be used as an indicator of which
communities in Western Australia may be in most need of assistance in terms of providing
services to children.
The National Investment for the Early Years
As an inventory of service providers, the NIFTeY report is valuable as a second order source of
information. Once a community has been identified as being in need of support in the area of
providing early childhood services, the report may be accessed to determine an initial indication
of existing service providers and range of services.
As the report provides contact details for providers by local government area, it is also useful as a
tool to gather further local information to inform a more current and exhaustive idea of available
services and to gather more detailed information regarding possible identification criteria as
listed above.
26
Attachment D
Directions for Development and Change –
Further Information and References
1. A collaborative and flexible approach to service delivery.
In their report on Early Years Services, Clark, Robson, Jackiewicz and Jackiewicz recognise
that this can be difficult, especially where administrative structures and funding conditions
limit an organisation’s flexibility, but a way forward can often be found if participants are
committed to working together and choose forms of collaboration appropriate to their
situation (2006, p. 37-43). Clark et al recommend that collaboration begin with a discussion
of the participants’ shared values and a stock-take of the skills each participant can bring to
the collaborative effort.
2. A focus on prevention and early intervention.
3. Improved local governance, including community representation, and a community-driven
approach bringing together accessible and appropriate services.
Press, Sumsion and Wong (2010, p. f) give a list of provisions for governance structures of
collaborative projects, including structures and processes that emphasise community and
family representation, collaborative tender-writing, strategic financial management, and
ongoing project evaluation. These features allow a collaborative project to capitalise on its
leadership resources.
4. Improved sharing of information between services.
Clark et al (2006 p. 44) argue that sharing of information about individual clients can enable
better coordination between services, reduced duplication of administrative processes, and
easier navigation of the system for clients. However, even if information is not shared on the
client level, services can still share operational information such as entry criteria and waiting
times, promote each other’s services with their clients, and even exchange information
about project design and governance (Ibid. p. 44-47).
5. Community-building, engagement and support.
6. Initiatives linked to performance data, evidence and best practice.
7. A targeted approach.
Clark et al. (2006, pp. 18-19, 28-36) recommend intensive programs for disadvantaged
families, including group-based parenting programs and family-centred programs for
children with disabilities. They also emphasise that early intervention involves contact with
high-risk families, and therefore requires a skilled workforce.
8. Focus on workforce innovation and leadership for early years service delivery.
27
8. References
Arnstein, S, A ladder of citizen participation, JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224, quoted
in A ladder of citizen participation-Sherry R Arnstein, http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherryarnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html accessed 2 June 2011
Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (on behalf of the
Council of Australian Governments) (2009) Belonging, Being and Becoming: The early years
learning framework for Australia Retrieved from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Documents/Final%20EYLF%20
Framework%20Report%20-%20WEB.pdf
Clark, K., A. Robson, S. Jackiewicz, T. Jackiewicz (Telethon Institute for Child Health Research)
(2006) Early Years Services: Rationale and design considerations Perth: Department of Health
(Western Australia)
Council of Australian Governments (2009) Investing in the Early Years—A National Early
Childhood Development Strategy: An initiative of the Council of Australian Governments
Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2009-0702/docs/national_ECD_strategy.pdf
Dunst, C. J. and Mary Beth Bruder (2002) Valued Outcomes of Service Coordination, Early
Intervention, and Natural Environments Exceptional Children, 68(3) pp. 361-375
Economic Audit Committee (Government of Western Australia) (2009) Putting the Public First:
Partnering with the Community and Business to Deliver Outcomes
Retrieved from
http://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/EconomicAuditReport/Documents/eac_final_report.pdf
Government of Western Australia (Economic Audit Committee) (2009) Putting the Public First:
Partnering with the Community and Business to Deliver Outcomes
Retrieved from
http://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/EconomicAuditReport/Documents/eac_final_report.pdf
McCain, M. and J. F. Mustard (1999) Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study: Final
Report Toronto: Ontario Children’s Secretariat
Moore, T. and Alexandra Skinner (2010) An Integrated Approach to Early Childhood
Development
Paddington
NSW:
The
Benevolent
Society.
Retrieved
from
http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/TM_BenSoc_Project_09.pdf
National Evaluation of Sure Start (2008) Impact of Sure Start Local Programmes on Three Year
Olds and Their Families Retrieved from http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/impact/documents/41.pdf
Press, F., J. Sumsion and S. Wong (2010) Integrated Early Years Provision in Australia: A research
project for the Professional Support Coordinators Alliance (PSCA) Retrieved from
http://www.pscalliance.org.au/Research/assets/FinalCSUreport.pdf
28
State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development) (2009) Victorian
Early Years Learning and Development Framework For all Children from Birth to Eight Years
Retrieved from
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/earlyyears/veyldf_for_children_from_birth_to_8.pdf
Toronto First Duty (2005) Informing Full Day Learning: Lessons from the TFD research at the
Bruce/WoodGreen Early Learning Centre Retrieved from
http://www.toronto.ca/firstduty/tfd_submission_to_ela.pdf
Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384399, quoted in Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing teamdevelopment model; http://www.lx.nhs.uk/kms/Trafford/Trafford%202006%20%202007/PPI%20Forum%20South%20Manchester%20University%20Hospital/Tuckman%20Grou
p%20Development%20Model.pdf accessed 2 June 2011.
29