Action Research
Final Project Report
for the Department of
Health and Human Services
Prepared by
DLA Piper Australia
140 William Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
PO Box 4301
Melbourne VIC 3000
Australia
DX 147 Melbourne
T +61 3 9274 5000
F +61 3 9274 5111
W www.dlapiper.com
DLA Piper Australia is part of DLA
Piper, a global law firm, operating
through various separate and distinct
legal entities.
A list of offices and regulatory
information can be found at
www.dlapiper.com
2
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Gateway services ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Midterm review ............................................................................................................................................ 7
This project ................................................................................................................................................... 8
DEMAND AND SERVICE UTILISATION............................................................................................................ 9
The epidemiology of disability .................................................................................................................. 9
The epidemiology of family support and child protection ............................................................... 10
Patterns in disability, family support and child protection service utilisation ............................. 11
RESPONDING TO INCREASED SERVICE DEMAND................................................................................... 16
Disability services ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Family Support and Child Protection .................................................................................................... 18
ACTION RESEARCH .............................................................................................................................................. 20
The action research methodology......................................................................................................... 20
Impacts of action research in human services settings ..................................................................... 21
THIS ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT................................................................................................................ 22
Action Research Forums ......................................................................................................................... 24
Action Learning Circles ............................................................................................................................ 25
Toolkit development................................................................................................................................. 27
PROJECT EVALUATION METHODS ................................................................................................................ 28
Qualitative methods .................................................................................................................................. 29
Quantitative methods ............................................................................................................................... 29
ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES OF THE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT .................................. 30
Participant aims at the commencement of the project .................................................................... 30
Action planning areas ................................................................................................................................ 31
Effectiveness of action research ............................................................................................................. 35
Toolkit 36
Action research and continuous improvement .................................................................................. 37
Barriers to effective participation in action research........................................................................ 39
Sustainability of action research methods............................................................................................ 40
CHANGES SINCE THE PROJECT COMMENCED ........................................................................................ 41
Limitations in information systems that support administrative data collection ........................ 41
Child protection – local trends .............................................................................................................. 42
Gateway / IFSS – local impacts ............................................................................................................... 42
Disability services – local changes ......................................................................................................... 43
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 45
3
APPENDIX 1: WORKING TOGETHER RULES .............................................................................................. 47
South-East / South-West Action Learning Circle Working Together Rules .............................. 47
North / North-West Action Learning Circle Working Together Rules ..................................... 47
APPENDIX 2: FEEDBACK FROM FORUM EVALUATIONS........................................................................ 48
APPENDIX 3: FEEDBACK FROM ACTION LEARNING CIRCLE EVALUATIONS .............................. 51
APPENDIX 4: FINAL EVALUATION SURVEY................................................................................................. 68
The Action Learning Process .................................................................................................................. 68
The Toolkit ................................................................................................................................................. 68
The Future ................................................................................................................................................... 69
About You ................................................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX 5: EXAMPLES OF ACTION PLANS CONDUCTED ACROSS MULTIPLE ACTION
LEARNING CIRCLES ............................................................................................................................... 71
4
BACKGROUND
Reforms in the disability, family support and child protection sectors are not only required for
improvement in the safety and quality of care. The need for reforms has also been stimulated by a
wide range of operational and strategic problems confronting the service system that limit the
capacity of providers to meet demand1 2. Challenges include:

stabilising the economics of service provision, sustaining responsible levels of growth and
development, and managing limited resources;

designing and engineering solutions to a broad range of problems;

embedding evidence-based care within complex and dynamic service systems; and

providing monitoring and surveillance of performance across a broad range of service
delivery areas that have varying levels of technological and service complexity3.
Community service providers are facing increasing pressure to improve the performance of their
organisations in terms of cost, time and quality. Costs associated with responding to growth in
demand and meeting increasing client and community expectation continue to rise4 5.
The traditional approach to improving capacity of services has been through increasing the
availability of resources and / or restructuring the entire organisation6. Increasing resources is not
sustainable in the long term and only provides temporary relief. Restructure serves to delay
progress, dislocate staff and produce an unsettled climate of fear, distrust and apprehension, with
little improvement in service quality7.
A series of service reviews of disability, family support and child protection services was conducted
in Tasmania in 2007 and 2008. These reviews found that traditional models of service delivery
dominated; there was inequity in access to services; and inconsistent assessment, prioritisation and
support of clients who are having difficulty accessing services8.
In response, the Tasmanian Government commenced a program of reforms in the way that family
support, child protection and disability support services were provided in Tasmania.
The objectives of the reforms were to9:

Better manage demand at a regional level;
1 COAG Reform Council. Disability 2010-2011. April 2012.
2 Council of Australian Governments. National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children. 2009-2020.
3 Barach P. Understanding the complexity of redesigning care around the clinical microsystem. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2006;
15: s10-16.
4 COAG Reform Council. Disability 2010-2011. April 2012.
5 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare series no. 9. Cat. no. AUS 117. Canberra:
AIHW.
6 Productivity Commission. Disability Care and Support. Commonwealth of Australia, 2011.
7 Productivity Commission. Disability Care and Support. Commonwealth of Australia, 2011.
8 Disability Service Reforms. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/disability/projects/review_of_disability_services
9 Disability Service Reforms. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/disability/projects/review_of_disability_services
5

Develop new practice approaches underpinned by the best interests of the client;

Develop the capacity of the workforce; and

Better measure service effectiveness.
Gateway services
One of the outcomes of the reforms was to establish a community based intake service for clients
that was located in each of the Disability, Child Youth and Family services ("DCYFS") areas.
These were named Gateway Services. In 2009, four Gateway sites were established across
Tasmania, one in each local DCYFS area. DHHS selected two service providers for the Gateways.
Each provider covered two of four regions: Mission Australia (South East, North West), and
Baptcare (South West, North). The Family Services Gateway Services commenced operations in
August 2009, and the same providers then commenced operations of Disability Gateway Services
in July 2010.
Gateway Services is the single entry point to all family and disability services in each area of the
State - South-East, South-West, North and North-West.

South-West, incorporating Glenorchy, Hobart, Huon Valley and Kingborough

South-East, incorporating Brighton, Central Highlands, Clarence, Derwent Valley,
Glamorgan/Spring Bay, Sorell, southern Midlands and Tasman

North, including Break O’Day, Dorset, Flinders Island, George Town, Launceston, Meander
Valley, Northern Midlands and West Tamar

North-West, incorporating Burnie, Central coast, Circular Head, Devonport, Kentish, King
Island, Latrobe, Waratah/Wynyard and West Coast
The functional relationships between services are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Functional relationships between Gateway services10
The Gateway service provides intake and referral and coordinates services.
10 DHHS. Gateway Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/36038/Gateway_Fact_Sheet_2008-
11-17_2.pdf
6
The purpose of Gateway Services for people with a disability is to provide11:

a visible and transparent point of entry into appropriate specialist disability services;

information and advice;

intake and assessment;

monitoring needs registers;

complete referrals to other agencies which can best meet the individual’s need;

short term crisis response when required;

data collection for future planning; and

active monitoring and local area coordination services.
The purpose of Gateway services for clients with family support and child protection needs is to:

protect children’s rights and promote children’s development (taking into account a child’s
age and stage of development); and

establish partnerships, collaborative practice arrangements and localised solutions within a
consistent and jointly agreed state-wide framework.
Family services and child protection clients also receive the following benefits from Gateway
services12:

a single community intake point in each area, to provide a visible entry point and referral
pathway for families and other professionals to access family services. Gateways provide
information, identify needs and refer families to appropriate services, and can avoid
notifications to CPS where family support services are most appropriate; and

access to an Integrated Child and Family Support Service in each of the four areas to
coordinate a range of service responses to vulnerable children, young people and families in
a coordinated and integrated manner.
It is anticipated that Gateway services will, over time, continue to develop a strong profile within
the local areas with a strong focus on establishing productive relationships with key local services
and professionals, to support a more integrated and coordinated approach to intake into Disability,
Family Support and Child Protection Services.
Midterm review
A midterm review of the Gateway service for family support demonstrated that Tasmania is well
served by the Gateway and family support services model, and that the service system is
11 DHHS. Gateway Services Flyer. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/58260/Gateway_brochure_-
_new_cover_image.pdf
12 DHHS. Gateway MOU 2009. Available at: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/51055/CP_Gateway_MoU_2009-
11-27.pdf
7
functioning as intended. The service was shown to be working effectively and clients and their
families reported the value of the services13.
A midterm review of the Gateway and disability services is currently underway.
This project
DLA Phillips Fox (now DLA Piper) was appointed by the DHHS to lead an action research project
aimed at supporting the reform process, particularly the transition in practice to Gateway services
as the single entry point to all family and disability services.
The purpose of using action research as part of the reform program was to ensure that the new
service arrangements and processes support a culture of continuous improvement and to evaluate
the effectiveness of the processes and actions undertaken as part of the action research project to
embed the culture of continuous improvement. The project supports the “Continuous
improvement, reflective practice” pillar of the reformed state service system structure,
represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Reformed State Service System Structure
Area
Children
Families
Community
Directors
Area
Advisory
Group, Cochaired by
Area
Directors
and Sector
Nominee
Statewide
Advisory
Group
Gateway
Community Based Access & Assessment Services
Early Years
Integrated Family
Support Services
Children & Youth
Services
Targeted
Youth Support
Services
Disability Services
Other Services for
Children & Families
Other DHHS funded
Services
Continuous improvement,
reflective practice
Quality Assurance
Cross Sector Training
Consistent practice, standards, evaluation
The project has included the following activities:

Literature review and background analysis;

Stakeholder consultation;

Forum facilitation;
13 DHHS. Gateway and Family Support Services: Midterm Review. Available at:
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/disability/projects/gateway_and_family_support_services_mid-term_review
8

Facilitation of action learning sets;

Project evaluation; and

Development of an action research tool kit.
The action research project supported the implementation of the reforms by:

providing opportunities to identify common barriers and opportunities for change;

providing participants with opportunities to reflect and learn from each other in the
quarterly action learning circles (South-East-South-West and North-North-West) using
action plans (action research projects) as a focus. This allowed participants to network and
develop stronger inter-agency relationships;

ensuring a trusting open environment existed so that participants could feel comfortable in
identifying issues and developing action plans around possible solutions;

providing an opportunity to connect and exchange ideas with a wider group through the
action research forums held every six months; and

developing a culture of continuous improvement in the participant sectors that were
working through the reforms i.e. family, children and disability services.
The project also led to the development of an Action Research and Learning Toolkit, which is an
ongoing resource for those interested in continuing to use action research and learning in their
workplace.
This is the report of the project.
DEMAND AND SERVICE UTILISATION
The following sections provide an overview of the epidemiology of disability, family support and
child protection trends and service demand. However, there are significant limitations in available
data. Information on unmet need for services is not always available. For example, there is no
national information on the number of children who did not enrol in quality early childhood
education programs or school, or the number of children who required but did not receive child
protection services. In addition, the impact of services on the outcomes for children who use them
is difficult to determine in the absence of good data14.
The epidemiology of disability
Estimates of the prevalence of disability are based on the most recent Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers ("SDAC")15.
According to the SDAC, in 2003:

there were approximately 3.9 million people (20% of the population) with disability;
14
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare series no. 9.
Cat. no. AUS 117. Canberra: AIHW.
15 ABS. Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2003.
9

2.6 million were aged under 65 years (15% of the population aged under 65 years);

1.2 million always or sometimes needed help with self-care, mobility or communication;
and

0.7 million were aged under 65 years and always or sometimes needed help with self-care,
mobility or communication.
The age-standardised rates of severe disabilities have not changed significantly in over 20 years.
However, because of population growth and population ageing, the actual number of people with
these disabilities (the crude rate) is increasing, resulting in increased service demand.
Data on disability among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples demonstrate that in 2002,
102,900 (37%) Indigenous Australians aged 15 years or over had disability or a long-term health
condition. Rates of severe disabilities among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are more
than double those of other Australians (2.1 to 2.4 times)16.
The epidemiology of family support and child protection
While most children and their families in Australia are doing well, there are some who face
significant difficulties and barriers in the short and long term and are in need of additional support.
Children who are raised in supportive, nurturing environments are more likely to have better
social, behavioural and health outcomes. A range of factors expose children and young people to a
greater risk of disadvantage, including financial difficulties, social isolation, domestic violence, mental
health problems, disability, alcohol and/or substance abuse and insufficient housing.
Families play an important role in ensuring that children and young people are supported as they
make the transition from one stage of life to the next. A number of significant social changes have
taken place in recent decades that have direct effects on families, including the increasing trend in
cohabitation before marriage, delaying marriage and childbirth until later in life, having smaller
families and increases in shared-care arrangements between resident and non-resident parents.
In Australia17:

most children live in couple families (83%) and of these, most live in intact families (90%),
with smaller numbers in blended families (6%) or step families (3%). A further 17% live in
one-parent families;

over half a million Australian children (15%) live in jobless families;

72% of children aged 3–6 years not in school usually attend preschool or a preschool
program in long day care;

one in fourteen (7%) children not in school have a current need for formal care or
preschool, and over half a million (39%) have parents who indicate a future need for formal
care or preschool.
16 Ibid.
17
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare series no. 9.
Cat. no. AUS 117. Canberra: AIHW.
10
Although the proportion of the population that are children and young people is decreasing over
time, in real terms the total number of children in young people has increased. Numbers are
expected to continue to increase into the future (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Number and proportion of children and young people in the Australian
population, 1958 to 203818
Population projections: ABS Series B (2008).
Patterns in disability, family support and child protection service utilisation
1.
Disability
People with disability receive care and assistance from a range of sources including:

unpaid care from family and friends;

income support;

disability support services; and

generic services, particularly those that specifically target people with a disability.
Australians with disabilities receive most of their assistance from family and friends. However,
almost 300,000 people each year use services provided under the National Disability Agreement
(NDA). This accounts for approximately $5.8 billion of combined government expenditure.
Service use is increasing over time. The number of disability service users increased by 47%
nationally between 2004–05 and 2009–10. The largest increases were observed in employment
services (increased by 83%) and respite services (increased by 50%)19.
18 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare 2009. Australia’s welfare series no. 9. Cat. no. AUS 117.
Canberra: AIHW.
19 AIHW 2011. Disability support services 2009-10: report on services provided under the National Disability Agreement. Disability
series. Cat. no. DIS 59. Canberra: AIHW.
11
Expenditure on disability services nationally has also increased over time. Between 2004–05 and
2009–10 there was an increase in real expenditure for all service groups, with the largest increases
in other support (82%), community support (81%) and employment services (53%)20.
Of the nearly 2,300 disability service agencies nationally, over two-thirds are state or territory
funded. Agencies typically operate several service outlets; the number of these service outlets
increased by 50% between 2004–05 and 2009–10. Over 80% of service outlets are in the nongovernment sector21.
In spite of increasing service use and expenditure, significant unmet need for assistance persists in
both non-core activities (housework, transport, meal preparation, cognition, emotion) and in core
activities (self-care, mobility and communication). Almost 25% of people with disabilities have core
needs that are only partially met or are not met at all (Figure 4) and over 40% have non-core needs
that are partially or not met.
Figure 4: Unmet need for assistance with core activities, 2009
Needs partly met
21%
Needs fully met
through informal
support (receives
no formal support)
56%
2.
Needs not met at
all 3%
Needs fully met, receives at
least some formal support
20%
Family Support and Child Protection
Apart from the intensive family support services data, there are no other data at the national level
on the support services used by children in need of protection and their families. This limits our
understanding of the epidemiology of service utilisation related to family support. Further, despite
recognition of the importance of treatment and support services for children and young people at
risk, there is currently a lack of consistency in the data collected across services and among states
and territories. This makes it difficult to present a coherent national picture of treatment and
support services.
Notification-associated child protection services data are more widely available. In Australia during
2010–11, there were approximately 237,000 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect made to
state and territory authorities, a decrease of 17% from the 286,000 reports made in 2009–10. The
largest reported decrease in notifications was in New South Wales (37%). This may be due to a
change in mandatory reporting requirements where the reportable threshold was raised from
including children deemed at “risk of harm” to the new “risk of significant harm”. Western
20 Ibid.
21 AIHW 2011. Disability support services 2009-10: report on services provided under the National Disability Agreement. Disability
series. Cat. no. DIS 59. Canberra: AIHW.
12
Australia (10%), Queensland (1%) and the Northern Territory (1%) also reported decreases in
numbers of notifications22.
The downward trend in the number of notifications nationally has been observed since 2007-08.
Despite this, the number of children actually found to have been subjected to child abuse and
neglect remains high and the downward trend has not been observed uniformly. In Tasmania,
substantiations since 2000-01 have increased (Table 1). Further, indigenous children are significantly
overrepresented and are six times more likely to be the subject of a substantiation than other
children23.
Table 1: Number of substantiations, states and territories, 2000-01 to 2009-10
Year
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
ACT
NT
Total
200001
7,501
7,608
8,395
1,191
1,998
103
222
349
27,367
200102
8,606
7,687
10,036
1,187
2,230
158
220
349
30,473
200203
16,765
7,287
12,203
888
2,423
213
310
327
40,416
200304
n.a.
7,412
17,473
968
2,490
427
630
527
n.a.
200405
15,493
7,398
17,307
1,104
2,384
782
1,213
473
46,154
200506
29,809
7,563
13,184
960
1,855
793
1,277
480
55,921
200607
37,094
6,828
10,108
1,233
2,242
1,252
852
621
60,230
200708
34,135
6,365
8,028
1,464
2,331
1,214
827
756
55,120
200809
34,078
6,344
7,315
1,523
2,419
1,188
896
858
54,621
200910
26,248
6,603
6,922
1,652
1,815
963
741
1,243
46,187
201011
18,596
7,643
6,598
1,907
2,220
1,225
636
1,641
40,466
22 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Child protection Australia 2010-11. Canberra: AIHW. Retrieved from
<www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737421016>.
23 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Child protection Australia 2010-11. Canberra: AIHW. Retrieved from
<www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737421016>.
13
Some of the increases prior to 2007-08 are a result of changing social values and better knowledge
about the safety and wellbeing of children. Child protection services were originally established in
response to concerns about serious physical abuse. Now, in response to changing community
expectations, they address physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and domestic
violence. These changes have been a major driver of increased demand for child protection
services24.
The increase in substantiations in Tasmania is considered to be in part due to increased application
of the Tasmanian Risk Framework as well as greater adherence to the definition of ‘substantiation’
published by the AIHW.
Emotional abuse and neglect are now the most commonly substantiated types of child
maltreatment, followed by physical abuse (Table 2)25. However, many children experience sexual
abuse that is often undetected or not reported to authorities26.
Table 2: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories in 201011
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
ACT
NT
Australia
Emotional
abuse
5,518
3,961
2,621
366
724
510
227
421
14,348
Neglect
5,836
575
2,145
690
1,008
397
221
811
11,683
Physical
abuse
3,750
2,376
1,416
420
343
171
139
328
8,943
Sexual
abuse
3,492
731
416
431
145
92
49
81
5,437
Total
18,596
7,643
5,598
1,907
2,220
1,225
636
1,641
40,466
Expenditure on child protection has also changed over time. According to the Productivity
Commission's Report on Government Services, approximately $2.8 billion was spent on child
protection and out-of-home care services nationally in 2010-11, which was an increase of $137.7
million from 2009-10. Out-of-home care services accounted for the majority (64.9% or $1.8
billion). Since 2006-07, the national expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care services
has shown an average annual increase of 10.2%, equating to an increase of $914.1 million since
2006-200727.
Expenditure on intensive family support services for families at risk of child removal and for families
already in the child protection system has also increased. The average annual expenditure nationally
24 Bromfield L. 2008. Protecting Australian children: Analysis of challenges and strategic directions. Retrieved from:
www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/cdsmac/protecting.pdf
25 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2012. Child protection Australia 2010-11. Canberra: AIHW. Retrieved from
<www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737421016>.
26 Morrison Z. 2006. Results of the Personal Safety Survey 2005. Aware ACSSA Newsletter 13, 9-14. Retrieved from:
www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/newsletter/acssa_news13.pdf
27 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. 2012. Report on government services 2012. Canberra:
Productivity Commission. Retrieved from <www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/2012
14
has increased on average by 24.1% per year from $115.5 million in 2006-07 to $274.4 million in
2010-1128.
The annual Report on Government Services provides the following breakdown of expenditure in
Tasmania on29:

child protection services (CPS) - defined as services funded to perform the "functions of
government that receive and assess allegations of child abuse and neglect, and/or harm to
children and young people, provide and refer clients to family support and other relevant
services, and intervene to protect children";

out-of-home care ("OOHC") – defined as "care for children placed away from their
parents for protective or other family welfare reasons", including alternative care settings
such as foster care or residential care; and

intensive family support services ("IFSS") – those services designed to "prevent the
imminent separation of children from their primary caregivers as a result of child
protection concerns [and] reunify families where separation has already occurred" (Table
3).
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
15
Table 3: Expenditure on CPS, OOHC and IFSS, Tasmania, 2005-06 to 2010-11
CPS
OOHC
IFSS
2005-06
$7,858,000
$27,948,000
$1,200,000
2006-07
$14,723,000
$32,004,000
$194,000
2007-08
$17,142,000
$27,560,000
$224,000
2008-09
$19,222,000
$26,098,000
$2,301,000
2009-10
$120,006,000
$32,778,000
$4,174,000
2010-11
$19,601,000
$39,139,000
$4,643,000
The decrease in Tasmania's real recurrent expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care
services from 2006-07 to 2007-08 occurred because of a one-off back-payment in salary expenses
of $1.3 million for 2006-07 that had accrued from previous financial years. The increase in IFSS
expenditure for 2009-10 occurred because of an investment in Integrated Family Support Services.
In 2010-11, the allocation model for the distribution of overheads (umbrella costs) between child
protection and out-of-home care was altered to reflect the higher expenditure on out-of-home
care. Further, in 2010-11, rostered care was fully out-sourced to the community sector. No
residential care is provided by departmental staff and departmental time spent supporting CSO's in
respect of residential care is immaterial. Therefore, all departmental costs are considered to be
non-residential. This contributes significantly to the rise in non-salary expenses for OOHC30.
RESPONDING TO INCREASED SERVICE DEMAND
Disability services
Systems of support for people with disabilities and their families struggle to meet people’s needs,
with systemic and long-standing inadequacies in disability care and support across Australia existing
for people with disabilities and their carers31 32.
According to the Productivity Commission’s Issues Paper on Disability Care and Support, “many
people think that disability services are often in crisis mode, with very inadequate provision of
services”. There is also a strong view that access to services is a “lottery”, depending on where
people live and how their disability was acquired33.
Fragmentation is also evident within jurisdictions, as services are delivered by a multitude of
programs that are funded and managed separately. This has implications for how efficiently the
service delivery system can operate, and how complex it may be for users to navigate. People often
deal with a number of programs and agencies to receive a full suite of services. Gaining access to
services may be a process of trial and error with large amounts of time spent researching and filling
30 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. 2012. Report on government services 2012. Canberra:
Productivity Commission. Retrieved from <www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/2012>.
31 Way Forward’ report by the Disability Investment Group (DIG 2009a
32 Shut Out’ consultation report by the National People with Disabilities and Carer Council (Australian Government 2009a
33 Productivity Commission. (2010). Disability care and support: Issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government.
16
in applications only to find out that a service is either not appropriate or not available due to
limited funding34.
The shortcomings of available support bring the objectives of a reformed disability service system
into sharp relief. Developments in disability care and support have been described as a move from
a deficit model to a support-based model35. The overarching objective of service delivery in a
support-based model is, to the extent practicable, to enhance the quality of life and increase the
economic and social participation of people with disabilities and their families36.
Support-based approaches to disability service delivery have increasingly been implemented in
international contexts, particularly in North America and the United Kingdom. These approaches
emphasise choice for people with disability and/or their carers in identifying, negotiating, and
purchasing necessary support services, and in ‘driving’ disability system changes37.
There is no comprehensive research evidence (service, staff and client) to support the selection
and implementation of any particular model of service access improvement for people with
disabilities. Available evidence suggests the following specific actions improve the effectiveness of
service delivery38 39 40:

a tiered approach to service delivery that effectively identifies and prioritises provision of
resources according to consumer need;

provision of accessible information, referral and advice;

care planning that incorporates goal setting by clients; and

improved data systems.
More published research is required to evaluate services and assess the relative strengths of
different approaches to providing integrated assessment and management of clients with disabilities.
Further, systematic collection of administrative data for evaluative purposes is required from
existing service models that contributes to a greater understanding of relative strengths and
limitations of different approaches to improving service access and coordination41 42.
34 NSW Auditor General 2010, p. 4
35 Guscia R. 2006. Construct and criterion validities of the Service Need Assessment Profile (SNAP): A measure of support for people
with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31, 148-155.
36 Productivity Commission. (2010). Disability care and support: Issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government.
37 Kirkman M. Person-centred approaches to disability service provision. 2010.
38 Productivity Commission. (2010). Disability care and support: Issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government.
39 Cooper S. Neighbourbood deprivation, health inequalities and service access by adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research 2011; 55: 313-23.
40 Burton-Smith R. Service and support needs of Australian carers supporting a family member with disability at home. Social and
Community Psychology 2009; 34: 1-9.
41 Dempsey I. Changes in Australian Disability Service Use by Selected Primary Disability Groups 2003-2010. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability 2012; 37: 155-57.
42 Richings C. Service evaluation of an integrated assessment and treatment service for people with intellectual disability with
behavioural and mental health problems. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 2011; 15: 7-19.
17
Family Support and Child Protection
Family support and child protection services are an important source of support for parents and
families that care for children and have a range of positive benefits for children; depending upon the
type of service accessed43.
Children’s needs for assistance may be due to abuse or neglect, or a parent’s inability to care for
the child. Services may include the provision of advice, family support and/or out-of-home care.
Treatment and support services play an important role in supporting families and minimising or
complementing statutory intervention from departments responsible for child protection. This is
because child abuse and neglect are often symptoms of underlying problems within the family (for
example poverty, unemployment or parental mental health issues) and treatment and support
services may help deal with these issues44.
High quality family support services also increase the resilience of children to risk factors that
compromise their cognitive development and are associated with long-term positive effects into
adulthood, including lower school drop-out rates, decreased illness burden, reduced risk of
unemployment and higher income45.
In Australia, families with young children (3-19 months) from a low socioeconomic background are
much less likely than families from a higher socioeconomic background to have used relevant
services for their children46.
This service access paradox, whereby those families who most need services are also the least
likely to access them, is related to a range of barriers including service level (structural) barriers
such as inaccessible locations and complicated pathways of entry to services; and service costs and
barriers specific to children, parents and their situation such as a lack of trust in services and low
English literacy levels47.
In response, State and Territory governments are implementing reforms to their family support
and child protection systems. These reforms are based on early intervention, timely access to
services and improved integration of services and supports48.
Early intervention programs have the capacity to prevent multiple problems simultaneously, rather
than a single outcome49. Knowledge about the importance of risk, protection and resilience in
different environments has led to an emphasis on multi-component programs, which address risk
43 Carbone S. 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.
44 Bromfield L. 2008. A national approach for child protection: project report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
45 Hand K. 2010. Life Around Here: Community, work and family life in three Australian communities (A report to the Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations). Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
46 McCarthur M. 2010. Families' experiences of services. Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs.
47 Ibid.
48 Council of Australian Governments. National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children. 2009-2020.
49 Durlak, J. A. (1998). Common risk and protective factors in successful prevention programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
68(4), 512-520.
18
and protective factors in different domains. Early intervention programs therefore tackle risk and
protective factors at multiple levels, including the child, family, school and community50 51.
The environment within which support and intervention is provided is an important factor that
influences the success of different service models. The family environment is the most immediate
care-giving environment and has the greatest impact on the development of resilience in children52.
However, schools, peers and neighbourhoods also have an important impact on children53.
Service providers need to ensure good systems of service coordination are in place so that the
needs of clients and their families are met effectively and efficiently. Full implementation of service
coordination requires major revision of client intake processes, including eligibility and risk
assessment criteria, an examination of referral mechanisms and a systematic approach to the
management of waiting lists. Improving coordination of services is characterised by shared aims,
information, tasks and responsibilities. It requires54 55:

commitment to joint working at all levels of an organisation;

strategic and operational joint planning and commissioning;

service level agreements and clear interagency protocols cutting across procedural
bureaucracy;

clear, jointly agreed aims, objectives and timetables for the service;

delineation of roles and responsibilities for all staff, and clear line-management
arrangements;

mutual trust and respect between partner agencies and staff;

recognition of the constraints others are under;

good systems of communication and good relationships at grassroots level;

clear paths for information sharing, including databases;

support, supervision and joint training for staff in new ways of working;

secondments between services and services co-existing in one building;

commitment to evaluation, audit and change; and
50 O'Dougherty Wright, M., & Masten, A. S. (2005). Resilience processes in development. In Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R.B. (Eds.),
Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 17-37). New York: Springer.
51 Tully, L., Arseneault, L., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Morgan, J. (2004). Does maternal warmth moderate the effects of birth weight on
twins' attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and low IQ? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 218226.
52 Brooks, J. (2006). Strengthening resilience in children and youths: Maximizing opportunities through the schools. Children and
Schools, 28(2), 69-76.
53 Edwards, B. (2005). Does it take a village? An investigation of neighbourhood effects on Australian children's development. Family
Matters, 72, 36-43.
54 Barlow, J. and Scott, J. (2010). Safeguarding in the 21st Century – Where to Now? Dartington: Research in Practice
55 Holmes, L., Munro, E.R. and Soper, J. (2010). Calculating the Cost and Capacity Implications for Local Authorities Implementing the Laming
(2009) Recommendations. London: LGA [online].
19

commitment to consulting with and acting on user/carer views.
Interagency working is important to the successful coordination of services. Most frontline services
are already committed to the principle of interagency working and staff recognise the need to pool
information, expertise and resources in order to more effectively safeguard children. However, the
challenges of working across organisational boundaries continue to pose barriers in practice, and
cooperative efforts are often the first to suffer when services and individuals are under pressure 56.
In spite of this, when achieved, outcomes that may be achieved include57:

more time for service delivery;

better management of waiting lists;

early identification of clients' needs;

clients are better informed about services;

clients receive service according to need;

more cross-discipline and/or cross-program work;

clearer roles for reception staff; and

a faster response to clients seeking services.
ACTION RESEARCH
The action research methodology
This project utilised action research as a tool to manage the change within disability, family support
and child protection sector needed to implement the reform agenda. Action research is a way of
coping with and managing change. It involves using good information to make decisions about
actions that will improve practice and processes in order to deliver high quality, responsive services
that result in better outcomes (Figure 5).
Figure 5: The action research concept
Research
Uses information to
make decisions and
evaluate change
+
Action
Improves the situation,
process and practice
=
Better outcomes for
clients
High quality and
responsive services
56 Laming, H. (2009). The Protection of Children in England: a Progress Report (HC 330). London: The Stationery Office [online].
57 Department of Health, Victoria. Making it Work – improving access to services for clients in community health.
20
Action research focuses on resolving or addressing the issues that can be controlled or influenced
by those most affected by the change. It aims to build confidence and capacity to face, understand
and respond to issues or problems that prevent achieving desired goals.
Action research is based on a cyclical process of identifying, testing then evaluating actions and
ideas. It involves the following steps (Figure 6):

developing an understanding of how the organisation or practice compares to the ideal or
goal desired, and identifying the gaps or areas that could be improved and changed;

forming and implementing realistic plans of action to make these changes; and

reviewing and evaluating the impact of the actions and using this information to refine the
action plans and learn what works and what doesn’t.
Figure 6: The action research cycle
Impacts of action research in human services settings
Action research has been used to identify best practice and implement a culture of continuous
improvement in many services across Australia involved in early intervention, youth homelessness
and family support. Under the Commonwealth’s Reconnect Program, an evaluation of a number of
such action research projects was performed which demonstrated that action research contributed
to58:

better client outcomes because the services are more responsive, flexible and tailored to
the needs of their clients and the local circumstances;

improved coordination and collaboration between services because the action research
processes encourage involvement, ownership and participation by other services and
agencies, their clients and the community;

improved service delivery by implementing change strategies that resulted in enhanced
access and referrals, increased services promotion, broader and modified types of services
offered, or altered service location;
58 Crane P. Reconnect Action Research Kit. October 2000.
21

establishing a dynamic, change oriented culture in the organisations by promoting positive
attitudes to change and, through regular reviews of practice, improved internal operations
and clarity regarding people’s roles;

the evaluation of support programs by providing important insights into the effectiveness of
the program and strategies; and

policy development by providing government with robust evidence about the nature and
impact of changes needed to improve services.
A range of benefits to clients are associated with action research processes
. These include:

the opportunity for clients to articulate their needs of services, share their experiences and
issues and contribute to service and practice development;

improvements in client awareness and understanding of the services available;

the opportunity to empower and build client capacity to navigate the service system,
advocate for their needs and to negotiate with service providers; and

through service and practice review and development, to make support services more
responsive and individualised.
Organisational staff also derive benefit from action research processes. Staff have the opportunity
to question and challenge the way things are done. They can develop partnerships and collaborative
work arrangements both within and across organisations. Action research can clarify personal and
service roles, responsibilities and builds networks, and encourage and support reflective practice
and improvement to meet clients’ needs. When learning is shared, action research can challenge
and build the evidence-base upon which practice is based, and can improve the relevance of
evaluation of programs and service delivery .
Importantly, action research is a useful tool that supports processes and structures to develop a
continuous improvement approach to work and practice, assisting staff to prioritise actions and
changes using transparent criteria and benchmarks .
Managers within organisations derive additional benefits from the conduct of action research within
their organisations. Action research can improve services transparency and accountability,
contributes to strategic planning and review, provide a tool to create a shared vision and purpose
across the organisation. In some organisations action research has been shown to improve
efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery when embedded within usual practice within the
organisation. When embedded, action research also contributes to a positive organisational culture
.
THIS ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
The action research project was conducted from September 2009 to July 2012.
Core participating organisations / stakeholder groups throughout the project were:

Gateway services;

All family support services involved in the alliances;

Co-located Child Protection workers;
22

Community Partnership Teams; and

Disability support services when they commenced the project in mid-2010.
The main project activities involving stakeholders were action research forums, action learning
circles and development of an action research toolkit. These are described in detail below.
On commencement of the project a small group was formed in each service area that comprised
one to two people from these organisations or groups. These people were identified by their
organisations as ‘opinion leaders’, highly regarded workers and practitioners, team leaders and/or
managers that could drive change and influence their colleagues and other stakeholders to
participate in the project.
After December 2011 a more intensive program was provided for participating organisations,
particularly to support the disability service organisations that commenced the project later in the
reform process. This involved new participants attending three consecutive action learning circles
between March and July 2012. During these circles, participants were introduced to the action
research process and the Action Research and Learning Toolkit and were given the opportunity to
take part in a full action plan cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting.
All action learning circles were convened in Hobart for participants in the South-East and SouthWest, and Launceston for participants in the North and North-West.
The following organisations were invited to take part in the action learning circles, action research
forums or both (Table 4).
Table 4: Participating organisations
ACTION LEARNING CIRCLES
ACTION RESEARCH FORUMS
Anglicare
Anglicare
Autism Tasmania
Baptcare
Baptcare
Centacare
Burnie Community House
DHHS
Centacare (Family Services)
FAHCSIA
Community Based Support (South) Inc.
Eskleigh
DHHS
Glenhaven Family Care
FAHCSIA
Good Beginnings
Family Based Care North
Hobart City Mission Inc.
Glenhaven Family Care
Lady Gowrie Tasmania
Good Beginnings
Langford Support Services
Hobart City Mission Inc.
Mission Australia
23
Jordan River Service
Optia Inc.
Life Without Barriers
St Giles
Lifestyle Solutions
Support Help & Empowerment
Mission Australia
UnitingCare
NRSG
West Coast Council
Optia Inc.
Pittwater Community Centre
Salvation Army
St Michaels Association
Support Help & Empowerment
UnitingCare
Veranto (formerly Oakdale)
West Coast Council
YAFF
Advocacy Tasmania
Action Research Forums
Over the course of the project, five one-day action research forums were held.
Eighteen organisations including 93 individuals participated. Twenty-seven participants attended
two or more forums. Another eight organisations were invited but were unable to participate.
Attendees at the forums included stakeholders from Gateway services, family support and disability
support services, child protection, out of home care, mental health and other relevant
organisations and services in both the government and non-government sectors. The following
number of stakeholders participated in each of the forums (Table 5):
Table 5: Participation in Action Research Forums
Date
No of participants
Forum 1
Forum 2
Forum 3
Forum 4
Forum 5
North
South
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
15/09/09
16/09/09
01/06/10
14/12/10
27/09/11
21
14
30
38
25
24
The first two forums provided an opportunity for participants to become familiar with action
research methods and to discuss areas of improvement that could be targeted in action research.
The subsequent three forums were open statewide action research forums that provided an
opportunity to showcase the innovations and strategies developed to reach the goals of the
reforms and to engage more people and services in the continuous improvements associated with
the reforms (Table 6).
Table 6: Purpose of action research forums
Forums 1 and 2
Forums 3 to 5
Build participants’ understanding of action Showcase local processes and achievements;
research;
Articulate the lessons learned through action
Determine what local action research processes and reflection; and
will be/are put in place;
Identify the barriers to continuous improvement
Agree on priorities for continuous improvement and develop strategies for addressing these.
where action research could be used to
facilitate the change management process;
Agree on what actions/strategies will be trialled
to address priorities.
Each forum contained a mixture of formats and topics including:

presentations on action research, the reform process and participant action plan cycles;

facilitated discussions; and

guest speakers.
Facilitators led discussions at each forum about a specific relevant topic such as “how can action
research be embedded into common practice; which current issues and possible solutions could be
tested via an action research approach; and what can be done to address the challenge of recruiting
a sufficient number of experienced, qualified and skilled workers to the sector”.
Action Learning Circles
Action learning circles were convened approximately once every three months for the first two
years of the project and approximately every month for the last three circles. There were 26
participant organisations and a total of 82 individual participants. Fifty-three participants attended
two or more circles. Another 34 organisations were invited to attend, but were unable to
participate.
Experienced facilitators (DLA Piper) led a series of group discussions (‘action learning circles’) with
participants. The goals of the action learning circles were to:
1.
build a shared and comprehensive understanding of processes of service delivery and how
these can be improved;
2.
develop specific, measurable questions to guide action and reflection;
25
3.
identify the changes that need to be made and strategies to be implemented to improve
services;
4.
collaboratively develop action plans that reflect the approach to continuous improvement
that addresses goal 3;
5.
identify additional expertise/resources required to implement the action plans;
6.
challenge each other’s assumptions about the process, constraints and opportunities;
7.
provide different perspectives from their different services and contexts;
8.
establish a wider network of supportive and critical colleagues; and
9.
determine the processes, practices and tools required to embed action research into
stakeholder organisations.
At project commencement the action research team worked separately with the participants in the
North / North-West and South-East / South-West action learning circles to develop “Working
Together Rules” that defined the principles within which action learning circles would be
conducted (Appendix 1). These were agreed by the participants in the respective geographical
areas.
During the action learning circles, participants worked with the facilitator to discuss the issues that
were hindering the reform outcomes and their local challenges to improving practice and services.
Participants were then guided to develop innovative and effective solutions and strategies to
resolve these issues. They were also taught how to build their capacity and confidence to
implement these changes in and across their organisations and communities.
The facilitated discussions with participants were based on the four stages of the action learning
cycle – Plan, Act, Observe Reflect. At each action learning circle, participants summarised the
action learning project they were conducting and provided an update on the progress they had
made with the project (i.e. Observe). A discussion about the causes of, and effective approaches to,
common issues arising from the change management process was then facilitated (i.e. Reflect).
Drawing on each other’s experiences, the facilitator worked with the participants to form practical
and innovative actions designed to address the key issues and capture opportunities. The
participant then planned their next action learning cycle – the next stage of their action research
project (i.e. Plan). Participants made an undertaking to progress their action research plan before
the next action learning circle (i.e. Act).
The action research team content transcribed the discussion from each action learning circle and
provided minutes to participants of each action learning circle within 14 days of the circle.
In between action learning circles, participants implemented their planned actions either individually
or in groups. Participants then re-convened at the next action learning circle in order to share their
experiences and plan the next stages of their project.
Templates developed by the facilitators were used to assist them with their action plans and to
analyse stakeholder involvement. Checklists were also developed to support the decision making
process that is a vital part of action research.
The following numbers of participants attended each of the action learning circles in the North /
North-West (Table 7) and in the South-East / South-West (Table 8) respectively.
26
Table 7: Participation in Action Learning Circles – North / North-West
Circle 1
Circle 2
Circle 3
Circle 4
Circle 5
Circle 6
Date
18/11/09
01/02/10
04/05/10
10/08/10
16/11/10
22/02/11
No.
Participants
5
11
8
11
16
5
Circle 7
Circle 8
Circle 9
Circle 10
Circle 11
Circle 12
Date
24/05/11
30/08/11
06/12/11
02/04/12
07/05/12
02/07/12
No.
Participants
5
6
6
7
6
4
Table 8: Participation in Action Learning Circles – South-East / South-West
Circle 1
Circle 2
Circle 3
Circle 4
Circle 5
Circle 6
Date
17/11/09
02/02/10
03/05/10
09/08/10
15/11/10
23/02/11
No.
Participants
13
11
5
9
5
13
Circle 7
Circle 8
Circle 9
Circle 10
Circle 11
Circle 12
Date
25/05/11
31/08/11
30/11/11
30/03/12
04/05/12
29/06/12
No.
Participants
7
6
4
4
11
6
The facilitators used a range of methods to develop the participants’ skills in action research and
learning. Methods included (but were not limited to) taking participants through a visioning
exercise, explaining action research through visual means (e.g. PowerPoint presentation), providing
case study examples, leading discussions about the reform process, encouraging mentoring and
developing the toolkit booklet as an ongoing resource.
Toolkit development
As part of the project an ‘Action Research and Learning Toolkit’ was developed – a resource that
contained the tools necessary for continuing to use action learning and action research beyond the
conclusion of the action research project.
The facilitators, in consultation with action learning circle and forum participants, identified the
components that should be included in the toolkit. The facilitators then drafted and sought
feedback from participants on toolkit components in an iterative manner until a final version was
developed.
The agreed components of the toolkit, incorporated into the final version, include:
27

information on the service system, the reforms, the action research process and on
continuous improvement;

instructions in facilitation of the action research process;

templates to support action planning; and

case studies that demonstrate the action research process.
The templates and checklists include:

a template action research plan;

a stakeholder analysis checklist to assist the participants in the planning of their projects, so
that key stakeholders could be identified and kept informed; and

a planning checklist that includes relevant organisational processes that should be
considered in planning an action research project.
These templates and checklists were used by participants and further refined by facilitators
throughout the action research project.
The Action Research and Learning Toolkit was launched at the September 2011 action research
forum and was made available to participants in a printed form at all subsequent action learning
circles. In April 2012, the Toolkit’s pdf version became accessible on the DHHS website:
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/disability/projects/the_action_research_project
PROJECT EVALUATION METHODS
Both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods were applied to analysis of the outcomes of
the project. Data that have been included in the analysis include:


Qualitative data

Written feedback from participants of the action research forums collected at
the end of each forum;

Written feedback from participants in action learning circles collected at the
end of each individual action learning circle; and

Analysis of the minutes of the action research forums and the action learning
circles – these were content transcribed by a trained research assistant over
each forum and action learning circle.
Quantitative data:

Analysis of available administrative data collections that reflect changes in
service utilisation since the project commenced;

A survey of all individuals who participated in the action learning circles,
conducted after the action learning circles had ceased (Appendix XX);
28
Qualitative methods
Qualitative methods were applied to the analysis of comments provided by forum and action
learning circle participants (Appendices 2 and 3 respectively). Participants provided written free
text responses regarding their views of the reforms and the action research process over the
duration of the project.
The comments made by participants were de-identified and compiled into a Microsoft Excel®
spreadsheet to facilitate analysis.
A thematic analysis of the minutes of forums and action learning circles was also completed. Free
text from within the minutes was hand-coded according to the major themes that emerged. This
involved identifying recurrent themes, coding them and organising them into categories. These
categories were then systematically compared across the participant responses to refine or recodify the categories of themes.
All views were included in the coding process.
The results of the quantitative and qualitative evaluation are described below according to major
themes that were identified.
Quantitative methods
The following administrative data or meta-data were sought to assist in evaluation of the project:

the number of clients accessing Gateway services, their age, gender, geographical location,
socioeconomic status and any indicators relevant to social circumstances;

the type and range of presenting complaints that led to the referral;

the outcomes of the assessment process, in particular the number and types of provider
organisations engaged to assist clients who access the Gateway;

the outcomes of the management process, particularly short-term achievement of goals of
management, and any relevant long-term impacts.
Given that the analysis is targeted towards the impacts of the reforms on outcomes, time series
data or before and after (pre- / post-reforms) data were sought.
A survey of participants of the action research project was also conducted (Appendix 4). The
survey was emailed to all participants who attended at least one action learning circle over the
course of the project. Of those who had participated in an action learning circle, 60% were still
employed in the organisation and were contactable via email whereas 40% were no longer
employed by their organisation.
Of those that were contactable, 65% responded to the survey (a total of 31 participants). Fifty per
cent of respondents were employed by family services, 43% by disability services and 7% by child
protection. The number employed in government versus non-government organisations was
approximately equivalent. Approximately 60% were from the South and 40% were from the North
/ North-West. Eighty-three percent were female. Two thirds of respondents had attended four or
more action learning circles and had completed, on average, two or more action learning plans.
Survey responses were analysed descriptively using SPSS for Windows (Version 20).
29
ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTCOMES OF THE ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
Participant aims at the commencement of the project
Baseline data were collected at the initial project forum and the first action learning circles. These
data were analysed at the beginning of the project in order to better understand the views of
participants regarding outcomes expected from the reforms and the priorities for action.
Participants desired a reformed service system that would reflect the following attributes:

the right service delivered by the right provider at the right time and to the right client;

an easily accessible and visible entry point to services;

a comprehensive continuum of support;

a skilled, flexible and valued workforce;

client-centred services;

a service system that is integrated, collaborative and seamless;

the service approach empowers clients, builds their capacity, strengthens their resilience
and promotes safety; and

services are responsive, flexible & based on best practice.
Whilst it was acknowledged that the service system could and should be improved, participants
viewed the system at baseline as possessing a number of strengths that should be maintained
throughout the reforms. These included a high degree of collaboration and integration between
stakeholder organisations; high quality outcomes achieved by Level 1 and Level 2 services for most
clients; and a committed workforce.
Participants also reported that successful groundwork had been completed to develop
communities and to improve the community’s capacity to support families. There was a strong
desire among participants to build upon this work as the reforms progressed.
Participants wanted to create a service approach that empowers clients, builds their capacity,
strengthens their resilience and promotes their safety; and to work towards developing a
comprehensive continuum of support. The following issues were identified by participants as
priority areas for initial action in order to achieve this:

creating a culture of trust, collaboration and continuous quality improvement across the
sector;

improving rural and remote access to services; and

recruiting, up-skilling and valuing the workforce.
The main measure of success of the reforms from the participants’ perspective was the creation of
an integrated, collaborative and seamless service experience for clients.
30
Action planning areas
The views of participants regarding the goals of the reforms and the priority actions that were
required to achieve the goals formed the basis for discussions in action learning circles about areas
for action research. Action plans were developed by participants around the priority areas
described above.
By definition, the action research process requires participants to identify priority areas where
continuous improvement activities can occur and then to plan their specific improvement activities.
Participants were encouraged to consider their ‘sphere of influence’ – areas within their control or
within the control of a group of colleagues and that could meaningfully contribute to quality
improvement in services.
The following were common areas of action research activity over time and between different
participant groups:

new ways of working in the alliance of Gateway and family and disability support services;

adopting new practices such as the new common assessment tool;

new ways of managing and reporting such as taking part in the new area advisory group
meetings, and providing quarterly reports to the Department;

new ways of delivering services, such as moving from a direct approach to a case
management approach to working with families. Another example is shifting the service
focus from families with lower complexity and risk to those that are more highly vulnerable
and complex; and

new standards of practice required by the Quality and Safety Standards Framework.
The following lists the specific action plans, categorised broadly according to theme, that were
developed over the course of the project. This list is not comprehensive as participants were also
encouraged to undertake individual and group action planning activities outside the action learning
circles. Rather, this list includes that action plans known to the facilitators (Table 9):
Table 9: Action plans developed by participants of action learning circles
Continuous
improvement
Develop an understanding of, and a tool to measure, a culture of continuous
improvement by:

Identifying the ‘entity’, ‘organisation’ or team culture to be studied –
“where can I influence the culture?”

Checking whether the elements and measures listed in the aggregated
tool make sense – test with someone at work.
Conduct audit of organisational culture – specific to continuous improvement
Analyse organisational work culture of continuous improvement across different
work groups
What are the views of the CEO’s/managers, workers and clients about skills
needed by the sector in NNW for quality services
31
Explain and engage others in action research:

Relay action learning circle discussions back to Child Protection Service
manager, Gateway Teams and Collaborative Partnership Teams and get
feedback from them;

Set up an Action Research Wall in workplace.
Explain and engage others in the Action Research Project; reflect how the
information could be passed on both ways between organisation and action
learning circle.
Improve continuum of support for families by:

Reviewing referral pathways between CPS and Family Support Services

At the regular Gateway and CPS meetings, discuss ways of streamlining
families moving between CPS and Gateway

Reducing gaps between Child Protection Services and Gateway risk
levels by defining risk levels and providing training on risk assessment

Reviewing category prior to case closure.

Getting case closure feedback.
Investigate ways to embed reflective practice within the organisation
Performance
Understand and clarify service targets within the organisation.
Improve continuum of support for families by developing and implementing
client feedback system.
Improve collection of data regarding outcomes achieved by service users /
families
Better measure the effectiveness of services provided to children, families and
people with disabilities.
Introduce system of monitoring and surveillance of demand at the regional level
Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for measuring the success of a new
service specifically targeting youth (10-18 years) at risk.
Link cultural elements and indicators to teams goal and KPIs
Ensure service empower and meet families’ needs by:

identifying opportunities for client feedback

working on client feedback tool

getting feedback from clients on the new referral process
32
To develop a mechanism to enable families to provide feedback about the
services they are receiving
Workforce
Develop sector-wide professional development opportunities
Improve access to cross-organisational professional development opportunities
Develop professional support for IFSS workers
Develop professional networking opportunities for IFSS workers
Support staff to develop new practice approaches, such as a therapeutic practice
consultant
Embed succession planning into business processes. Many in the workforce are
50+ years. How can their knowledge be captured for the staff that come after
them?
Identify learning needs of family practitioners in the practitioner networks,
including reflective practice approaches
Establish Disability Practitioner Network.
Access to
services
Improve referral pathway to Gateway services for regions outside Launceston
accessing the Northern Gateway
Improve the consistency and transparency of eligibility determination and
prioritisation procedures for accessing services
Develop streamlined Gateway re-entry pathway for clients after discharge
Define levels of intensity in client needs that local agencies address
Better manage demand at a regional level
Improve the intake process to avoid inappropriate referrals
Document demand management approach in disability services that build
capacity via a case study and process checklist
Rural and
remote services
Improve rural and remote access to family support services by developing ecounselling
Overcome service barriers on the West Coast
Improve rural and remote access to family support services by improving
available transport options
Communication
Improve the interface between IFSS worker and team leader
Develop mechanism to improve handover of clients as they transition between
geographical areas
Improve between-organisation collaboration in delivery of youth counselling
33
services
Increase sharing of learning from each other to maximise service delivery
Determine what is needed to build on the initial communication strategy with
local services, which initially generated higher levels of referrals
Improve provider awareness regarding the Gateway on referrals
Define ‘case co-ordination’ and ‘case management’
Foster trust and communication between agencies and the Department by:

Inter-agency training

On-going meetings to discuss cases together

Emailing details on the role of the Community Partnership Team

Discuss how we can reduce the level of secrecy and improve sharing of
forms and information, etc
Building links, where appropriate, between Practitioner Networks, service
planning activities and the Action Learning Circle
Increasing community education about Gateway and IFSS through information
forums.
Effectiveness of Develop evidence-based best practice principles for collocated child protection
services
and IFSS workers
Define and promulgate best practice in relation to the initial interaction and
engagement with a family, especially in relation to a young child
Improve team approaches between collocated child protection worker and IFSS
worker
To clarify the role of the IFSS workers in relation to homelessness of clients; to
develop other models of long-term enduring support to complement crisis work
Improve continuum of support for families by reviewing pathways between CPS
and Family Support Services
What is the most effective approach for initial intake interviews – what makes
the family more comfortable?
Clarify roles in Gateway Family Service area via a case study
Formalise processes in Disability Practitioner Network
Identify the most effective approach for initial intake interviews with disability
services clients – what makes the family most comfortable?
Examples of the above projects conducted over a number of cycles are provided at Appendix 5.
34
Effectiveness of action research
Action research enabled services and practitioners to derive benefit from the opportunities
presented by the reforms and to influence how the reforms were reflected in their organisations
and practices.
Participants rated the action research process as effective in assisting them in a variety of ways. The
major benefits were in providing opportunities to explore issues and problems and in identifying
solutions to problems both within, and shared across, organisations (Table 10).
Table 10: Participant ratings of aspects of effectiveness of action research
Please rate the following:
How effective:
Not
Minimally
effective effective
Somewhat
effective
Very
effective
Were you at sustaining change after it 16.7% (3)
was achieved through action learning?
22.2% (4)
27.8% (5)
11.1% (2)
Were the action learning circles at 22.2% (4)
providing opportunities for participants
to explore the causes of and effective
approaches to common issues arising
from the change management process?
11.1%(2)
33.3% (6)
22.2% (4)
Were the action learning circles at 0.0%
providing opportunities for networking
and improving inter-agency relationships?
22.2% (4)
27.8% (5)
38.9% (7)
Were the action learning circles at 0.0%
providing opportunities for participants
to diagnose service gaps, share
challenges, find solutions and share
successes?
22.2% (4)
33.3% (6)
33.3%(6)
Action research supported participants with the complexities and demands of the change process
by:

providing tools and skills to participants to assist them in change management processes
within and between organisations;

giving participants an opportunity to voice their concerns and find others with similar
concerns;

providing time for participants to share their experiences which led them to form new or
stronger inter-agency relationships;

creating the opportunity for inter-agency action plan working groups so that participants
could work toward a common goal and share what could have been seen as a burden for
one person alone;

gaining support, feeling inspired, gathering fresh ideas and reflecting on what didn’t work as
they moved forward with their action plan cycles; and
35

identifying the attributes of an ideal services system and determining what actions were
needed to move toward that goal.
Action learning circle participants provided feedback regarding skills they had developed through
the action research and learning process (N=40). Figure 7 shows that the action learning circles
successfully provided an opportunity for participants to develop a new set of skills in collaborative
and inter-agency team work, reflective practice, shared ideas and exchange of knowledge. The
action research forums provided opportunities for wider engagement and interaction between
service providers.
Figure 7: Skills developed by action learning circle participants
70%
60%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
New working
Working with at Learned to reflect Gained new ideas
Contributed
relationships with least one other
on my practice
from the action knowledge from
at least one other service provider on within the action
learning circle
my own
service provider an action research learning circles
experience to
project
discussions within
the action learning
circle
Toolkit
More than 70% of participants who responded to the final evaluation survey indicated that the
toolkit had been somewhat or very effective in guiding their research activities. Fifty percent of
participants felt that they would probably or definitely use the toolkit in the future, while another
39% indicated that they might use it (Table 11).
Table 11: Participant feedback regarding the toolkit
How effective was:
Not
effective
Minimally
effective
Somewhat
effective
Very
effective
The action learning toolkit in guiding 5.6% (1)
your action research activities?
22.2% (4)
66.7% (12)
5.6% (1)
How would you rate Very Poor
the following in the
Average
Good
Very Good
Poor
36
toolkit?
a) The quality of the 0.0%
action
planning
templates?
0.0%
29.4% (5)
64.7% (11)
5.9% (1)
b) The quality of the 0.0%
examples/case
studies?
0.0%
23.5% (4)
70.6% (12)
5.9% (1)
c) The quality of the 0.0%
explanation of how to
do action research?
0.0%
23.5% (4)
70.6% (12)
5.9% (1)
The explanation of action research in the toolkit was reported by participants to be a valuable
ongoing resource for participants to use as they instruct others in action research methodology or
as a reminder of what they have been taught during the action research project.
Action research and continuous improvement
An important goal of the action research project was to support participants in creating a culture
of continuous improvement within their organisations.
Over the course of the action learning circles and forums, participants identified the following
characteristics of a culture of continuous improvement in human services:

continuous review and reflection on practice and avoiding complacency;

producing results that are a measurable improvements and that move toward a defined
goal;

acknowledging what is already working well and what is achieving well-defined goals;

taking action at different layers of the organisation;

is supported by structures and systems that support it and enables people to influence
change and increase awareness of possibilities for change;

encouraging staff to challenge barriers, to be self-aware and flexible and open to different
ways of doing things.
Participants reported that participation in the action learning project had made some contribution
to their development of a quality culture, including continuous improvement within their work
(Figure 8) (N=40).
37
Figure 8: Participants views regarding action research and contribution to quality
culture
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Within your team
30%
Within your organisation
20%
Within the alliance or
your region
10%
0%
Yes, a great deal
Yes, a little
No
Participants expressed the view that organisational culture in human services is a predominant
belief or collection of beliefs held by staff that are reflected in the operational environment and
philosophy of the organisation (i.e. whether it values social justice; promotes competition and
personal achievement instead of collaboration, teamwork and client outcomes). Although
organisational culture can be improved with new skills and / or new people entering the
organisation, culture is often entrenched and difficult to change. As a result, the full impacts of the
action research knowledge and skills acquired by participants may not be realised in the short term.
Participants felt that positive organisational culture needs to be shaped by managers within
individual organisations.
Many participants reported that the DHHS has a central role to play in defining the goals and
strategic directions that the sector should aim towards, and to support positive organisational
culture within individual organisations through provision of opportunities for collaboration and
learning across the sector.
Organisations currently engender a culture of continuous improvement through the following
activities / actions:

staff training and education;

formal professional development agreements;

providing opportunities for staff and volunteers to share ideas and work together with
clients;

actively encouraging staff to offer suggestions on how processes can be improved,
supported by a formal mechanism to provide these suggestions to senior management;

formal compliments and complaints processes;
38

defined processes of staff supervision;

good mechanisms for communication across the organisation, including between
management and operational staff; and

process of regular external review and audit of complaints and compliments.
Participants reported that continuous improvement could be further embedded within their
organisations through better systems for reflective practice and through integrating change
management into usual practice / usual business at all levels of the organisation.
Barriers to effective participation in action research
Despite being interested and having a desire to attend, many individuals reported that they were
not able to attend. Common barriers to participation included:

low staff numbers / short-staffed (e.g. staff sickness) resulting in either no
relief/replacement available or too large a workload to allow time to participate;

date or time clashes with other commitments, including too many
commitments/meetings (e.g. area advisory group, practitioner networks etc.); and

participation in the project was not viewed as a priority due to the large number of
competing priorities.
other
Departmental attendees reported additional barriers to participation that were specific to their
employment situation, including:

a perception that, because the influence of one person is limited in such a large
organisation, making meaningful changes through action research projects is difficult; and

the work environment is one of constant change already, resulting in ‘change fatigue’ and
colleagues being reluctant to engage in additional change management processes if not a
requirement of their role.
Participant numbers at action learning circles and at forums fluctuated over the duration of the
project. Further, the membership of individual action learning circles changed frequently
throughout the project. The reasons this occurred include those listed above. The impact was a
lack of continuity in progressing some action research projects that included longer term goals.
In some cases there was a lack of congruence between the participant’s goals within their action
learning plan and the new service model sought from the reforms. Where appropriate, facilitators
worked with participants to better align their goals with the reforms. However, as some action
learning plans were developed outside the environment of the action learning circles, external
support was not always able to be provided.
Action research was one of a range of change management / continuous improvement activities
being applied within participating organisations. A number of organisations also had pre-existing
organisational approaches to change management, quality and continuous improvement. As a result,
participants combined a number of methods when conducting their action research projects.
Whilst it is useful for staff to have an additional range of skills to use, it is not possible to attribute
change processes and activities to the action research project per se.
39
Sustainability of action research methods
Most participants indicated a willingness to participate in further action research projects within
their workplaces in the future. Over half of participants indicated that they would potentially
initiate new projects into the future (Table 12).
Table 12: Intentions to participate in action research in the future
Please rate how likely are you to:
Very
unlikely
Unlikely
Maybe
Probably Definitely
Participate in a workplace action
research project if a workmate
initiates it?
0.0%
5.6% (1)
22.2% (4)
44.4% (8)
27.8% (5)
Initiate an action research project
in your workplace in the future?
11.1% (2)
11.1% (2)
22.2% (4)
50.0% (9)
5.6% (1)
Use the toolkit in the future?
0.0%
11.1% (2)
38.9% (7)
38.9% (7)
11.1% (2)
Recommend action research to a
colleague or manager in the future
as a worthwhile process for
managing change?
5.6% (1)
5.6% (1)
22.2% (4)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
However, a range of actions and supports are required in order to facilitate ongoing participation
in action research by staff members. Participants reported that action research can be embedded
into usual practice within organisations by:

adding ‘action research projects’ as a standing item to team meeting agendas to review
action research projects underway, facilitate reflection on outcomes of actions and assist
team planning for next steps of projects;

delegate responsibility for specific continuous improvement projects to individual team
members;

be explicit about timelines for conducting specific components of the action research
project;
According to participants, prioritisation of which continuous improvement activities were most
important to address with action research was viewed as an important part of the action research
process within and across organisations. Participants proposed that in order to maintain the
momentum in continuous improvement established in the sector, stakeholders within and across
organisations should continue to work collaboratively to identify priorities for continuous
improvement and to delegate responsibility for addressing these.
Participants also felt that opportunities to communicate the successes of continuous improvement
activities were necessary to ensure momentum was maintained. Conferences, networks, forums,
newsletters were proposed as options to facilitate this.
Managers were viewed by participants as key stakeholders whose influence would determine
whether or not action research would be sustained within organisations. In particular, support
from management to conduct projects, involving managers in action research projects, embedding
40
continuous improvement ‘as how we do things’ into organisational culture and the provision of
workplace training were identified as important management responsibilities.
CHANGES SINCE THE PROJECT COMMENCED
Quantitative analysis of administrative data assists in understanding the impacts of the reforms on
service access and service use. Analysis also informs continuous improvement activities, by
providing a basis for benchmarking and monitoring trends in service utilisation over time, and to
assist service planning and performance monitoring.
Participants in action learning circles and action research forums expressed a desire for better
information about the quality of the services they provide, and where opportunities for
improvement exist. Participants also requested better information to inform their action research
goal setting and prioritisation processes.
Limitations in information systems that support administrative data collection
DHHS has worked with the Gateway Services to develop their capability for collection of
administrative data. The Reform Implementation Unit (RIU) within DHHS worked with Baptcare
(who did not have a pre-existing data collection system) to introduce the Integrated Reports and
Information System (IRIS) solution for the service providers to use for data reporting purposes.
To enable comparability of data collection between sites, RIU also worked with Mission Australia
to establish a tool to translate their data from their own information system (called Mission
Australia Community Services Information Management System (MACSIMS)) to an IRIS-compatible
format.
The flexibility of the IRIS data model allows a range of approaches to recording data to suit
operational needs. However, the data from IRIS does not enable DHHS to assess Gateway
operations. Specifically, accurate service activity data required to meet operational needs and to
enable data linkage with other human services information sources are unavailable (for disability,
child protection, and family support cohorts if available) for the following data items: the number of
clients accessing Gateway services, their age, gender, geographic al location, socioeconomic status,
and any indicators relevant to social circumstances.
Further, although the type and range of presenting complaints that led to the referral are collected,
data collection is not standardised between providers, nor are the number and types of provider
organisations engaged to assist clients who access the Gateway or the outcomes of the
management process for the client.
Good quality data are required to inform continuous improvement activities within the sector.
Participants require better quality information regarding the operational performance of their
services and where the greatest opportunities for improvement lie. The limitations of IRIS have
necessitated significant effort from DHHS and Gateway staff in establishing, using and maintaining
the information systems. In addition, because many programs within the sector do not possess the
resources required to capture information about their program activities, these tools have been
adapted for use with other programs. Limitations therefore also present significant risks to
continuous improvement processes in areas beyond the Gateway Services.
In the absence of service activity data that are fit for purpose, aggregated data used for national
reporting purposes provide some basis for considering the impacts of the reforms on services.
However, the contribution that action research has made to the service system is not possible to
infer from these data.
41
Child protection – local trends
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s (AIHW) most recent report on child protection
shows that the rates of children subject to a substantiated notification has fallen from 6.5 per 1,000
in 2008-09 to 6.1 per 1,000 for 2009-10 and 2010-11. At jurisdiction levels, the 5-year pattern for
Tasmania shows a drop from 5.6 to 2006-7, to 5.0 in 2008-09, but was now recording an increasing
trend with 5.2 for 2009-10 and 5.9 for 2010-11 .
This may be attributed in part to the introduction of the Child FIRST regional projects, and then
the extension of the model statewide, resulting in an initial reduction in the rate of substantiations.
The AIHW reports that nationally, emotional abuse was the most common substantiation type
followed by neglect. That is the case for Tasmania, with Tasmania recording comparatively low
proportions of sexual and physical abuse .
According to the most recent DHHS Progress Chart (June 2012), in the nine months ending 31
March 2012 there has been a 23.8% decrease in the number of notifications referred for
investigation across the State compared with the same period in 2011 (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Number of notifications referred to service centres for further investigation
Gateway / IFSS – local impacts
Limitations in available family support data have been discussed in detail earlier in this report.
However, admissions and referral data do provide some basis for comparisons in service utilisation
since project commencement.
The diversionary objective of the Gateway and IFSS may have been achieved with regard to
prospective clients of child protection services. A reduction in the number of children notified for
12 months subsequent to implementation of the program was observed as well as a continued
reduction in the net admissions of children in care since that time (Figure 10).
42
Figure 10: Net admissions to out of home care (admissions – discharges), by quarter
Further, a reduced rate of statutory involvement within the six months following an initial referral
for family support has also been observed (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Number of CPS children referred to Gateway and IFSS who experience
subsequent statutory involvement with CPS (6 months to 30/4/2011)
300
250
247
200
(56.3%)
150
139
(21.1 %)
100
52
50
(13.8%)
34
( 6.9%)
17
0
Notifications Renotifications Referrals for Substantiations Admissions to
referred to
to CPS
Investigation
OOHC
GW/FS
Disability services – local changes
Publicly available disability support service use statistics pre-date the introduction of Gateway
Services for disability. Up to 2009/10 a trend toward increased numbers of service users and
increased delivery of services over time was observed (Figure 12) .
43
Figure 12: Disability support service users and services received, Tasmania, 2004/05 to
2009/10
Waiting list data compiled by the DHHS indicates continuing demand for disability services.
Supported accommodation and community support services delivered by community-based
organisations provide support for daily living and promote access, participation and integration into
the local community. Since July 2012, waiting list figures for supported accommodation and
community support have been compiled by Gateway Services .
In the nine months ending 31 March 2012 there has been a 4% decrease in the number of people
with a disability who are urgently waiting for supported accommodation placement compared with
the same time period in 2011 (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Disability Services – supported accommodation waiting list, 31 March 2012
In the nine months ending 31 March 2012 there has been a 56.5% increase in the number of people
with a disability who are waiting for full-time or part-time community access placement compared
with the same time period in 2011 (Figure 14).
44
Figure 14: Disability Services – community support waiting list, 31 March 2012
SUMMARY
Community service providers are facing increasing pressure to improve the performance of their
organisations in terms of cost, time and quality. Available data demonstrate significant service
demand exists in the disability, family support and child protection areas.
In response, the Tasmanian Government commenced a program of reforms in the delivery of
family support, child protection and disability support services in Tasmania.
A key reform element was to establish a community based intake service for clients that was
located in each of the Disability, Child Youth and Family services (DCYFS) areas. In order to
support the transition in practice to Gateway services as the single entry point to all family and
disability services, the DHHS implemented a program of action research.
The action research project has supported the implementation of the reforms by:

providing participants with opportunities to reflect and learn from each other in action
research forums and action learning circles;

equipping participants to plan and implement continuous improvement activities within and
across their organisations by providing participants with the knowledge, skills and tools to
conduct action research and to manage change;

providing a supportive environment for planning and reflecting upon continuous
improvement activities where participants could feel comfortable in identifying issues and
developing action plans that articulated possible solutions;

facilitating the open exchange of ideas where stakeholders could work across
organisational boundaries in order to deliver common solutions to areas where
improvement could occur.
Action research participants identified a number of project aims at the commencement of the
action research project, including the desire to create an easily accessible and visible entry point to
45
services, a skilled, flexible and valued workforce and to deliver services that are responsive, flexible
and based on best practice.
In response, participants planned and delivered in part or in full over 50 action research projects
across the domains of continuous improvement, service performance, workforce support and
development, improving access to services, building rural and remote service access, improved
communication, increased service effectiveness.
Thus, the action research activity that was undertaken by participants aligns well with the original
aims and vision of participants to reform their sector.
A number of the impacts of the action research project are anticipated to be sustained. Participants
of the project possess knowledge and skills in action research and anticipate they will use their
knowledge and skills for participating in, or for leading, continuous improvement activities within
their organisations in the future. The Action Research and Learning Toolkit is an ongoing resource
for the sector that is available to those interested in continuing to use action research and learning
in their workplace.
A range of actions and supports will facilitate the sustainability of the gains made through the action
research project. Of particular importance is the embedding of action research methods within
usual practice within worksites. This was identified in the midterm review of family support
services. Recommendation 12 of the midterm review states “the best functioning aspects of
Weekly Allocation Meetings around the state should be reviewed and developed into a best
practice model in line with the Action Learning processes underpinning the service model.” This is
consistent with the feedback of participants collected during the evaluation of the action research
project.
Additional supports that can be provided to maintain action research momentum include providing
opportunities for stakeholders across the sector to meet regularly in order to share their
experiences of continuous improvement within their organisations and to identify and prioritise
areas for future continuous improvement action. As participants possess change management and
continuous improvement skills in addition to those gained in the action research project, these
opportunities for collaboration should not be limited to action research activities alone.
Strategic leadership and involvement by managers is essential to the sustainability of continuous
improvement action across the sector. Stakeholders identify the central role of managers in setting
the strategic priorities for continuous improvement, for supporting the development of an
organisational culture that reinforces the value of action research and related continuous
improvement activities, and for providing ongoing training and resources to equip the workforce.
Effective policies require the support of good data to track progress and inform future service
delivery and planning. Although DHHS and Gateway Services organisations have collaborated well
to implement an administrative data solution, this has not delivered the information required by
participants, organisations and the sector as a whole to inform continuous improvement activities.
This also limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the degree to which the intended
service system changes proposed in the reforms have been achieved.
The development of a robust reporting information solution would not only benefit Gateway
Services organisations and the Department. Better information about other related programs, who
are already adapting the Gateway information solution, may also be obtained.
46
APPENDIX 1: WORKING TOGETHER RULES
South-East / South-West Action Learning Circle Working Together Rules
1.
Create a safe environment.
2.
Discussions will be confidential until approved by the group. No personalised information
will be made public.
3.
Maintain an open mind and encourage diversity of thinking. All ideas are welcome. Allow
differences of opinion and an understanding of where a view comes from and the
experience it is based on.
4.
Use the opportunity to bounce ideas off each other as independent people.
5.
Acknowledge and respect difference.
6.
Seek to find common goals by achieving consensus from different perspectives.
7.
Listen to each other actively. One conversation at a time.
8.
Work as a large group (more efficient) and as small groups (more airtime and energy).
9.
Be honest. Don’t sanitise the issues and discussions that come out of the group and
encourage healthy debate.
10.
Review this agreement at regular intervals.
North / North-West Action Learning Circle Working Together Rules
1.
Respectful humour is allowed!
2.
Safe environment to share. Share what is working well and what is not working well.
3.
Confidentiality will be maintained by reporting as a group using de-identified information.
The participants will agree what information is not to leave the room.
4.
All opinions are respected. Open communication is encouraged.
5.
Brainstorm and get all ideas out. Accept and hear everyone’s ideas. It’s OK to be fallible.
6.
No personal agendas. Focus on clients and generating positive outcomes.
7.
Focus on best practice rather than agency and apply individual expertise and experience.
Treat the Alliance as one. Not competitive but collaborative.
8.
Transparency.
9.
Group ownership about action plan projects and group functioning.
10.
Respectful disagreement.
11.
Respectful communication. No interruptions. Try to write down good ideas until you have
a chance to speak.
12.
Meeting management: RSVP for the circles. Be on time. Free to get up and have coffee any
time during the circles.
47
APPENDIX 2: FEEDBACK FROM FORUM EVALUATIONS
Participants were given the opportunity to respond to a written evaluation at the conclusion of
each Action Research Forum. A summary table of these evaluations is presented below:
Did the Action Research Forum…
Strongly Disagree /
Disagree
Agree / Strongly
Agree
Further identify how action research supports change and
continuous improvement?
2.5%
97.5%
Help you gain a better understanding of the action
research process and how it applies to the Reforms?
2.5%
97.5%
Offer you the opportunity to express your views and
contribute your knowledge?
1.2%
98.8%
Provide a balance between presentations/activities and
discussion?
6.2%
93.8%
Were the facilitator’s process and tools helpful?
1.2%
98.8%
If you are a member of an Action Learning Circle, did the
Forum support your work on your own Action Plan?
2.5%
97.5%
Were there any issues not
covered in the program, or
that you would like more
detail on?
Well-presented/ Facilitated well
All issues covered well
No – it was good.
Role of Family Support workers?
Further discussion regarding Disability Sector
Accountability of workloads and outcomes from AL Circles.
Where the information might be useful in implementing further
improvements.
What improvements would
you recommend for the next
Action Research Forum?
Need a greater range of services present – i.e. aboriginal
representation
More activities; more active involvement by participants.
Need to work towards building trust as many unknown people
therefore concerns raising views.
Smaller group work. Identify key issues and have group discussions
and then feedback to the group.
Now we are getting further into the process more discussion on
tasks and roles.
Cannot understand why practitioners not managers are encouraged
to come. To make change, managers need to be involved. We also
have Practitioner Networks set up so a duplication of services.
Management cannot afford to send practitioners to both.
48
As discussed, need to do some interim work re disability services.
More people and more case studies
List the three most valuable Discussion
aspects of the Action
Chance to discuss potential barriers and issues of the reform process
Research Forum
Open discussion; to be able to share openly and honestly
Opportunity to incorporate funding for community capacity building
in rural areas was recognised
Chance for discussion
Sharing of service stories. Story telling.
Hearing how other Area Circles are working/developing
Hearing similar issues/concerns across Areas/regions
Networking
To work with a variety of service providers
Chance to explore other experiences
Field other options
Connecting DCYFS and the NGO sector
Collaboration
Discussion on using networks to achieve change
Statewide approach
Information
Background and context
Reflect questions
Reinforces previous learnings
Process
Action learning process
Clarification of the process
Rationale for process
The idea of connecting practice and research
Now is a good time (early in the Reforms) to implement AR
Clear understanding of what the research project is about
New understanding of who should attend action learning circles
Explaining how Action Research assists/applies to the reform
Explaining our roles in Action Research and how it helps us
(IFSS/Gateways)
Helping to gain a deeper understanding of the reform, the sector and
people’s roles in these
Being able to take info back to work place
49
Outcomes
Input
Improving service delivery
Improve services for families
Service integration
Future developments
Ongoing system improvement and quality service delivery
Hearing about the huge gaps around the state and how that is being
managed more positively
What topics or format would
you recommend for the next
Action Research Forum?
More presentations
Overall outcomes from DHHS – what are the long-term
expectations?
How to achieve full consumer engagement?
Resources/Capacity
Child Protection Issues
Data Collection
Action Research projects to be undertaken that contribute to and
inform the review of the Gateways/IFSS.
How to implement as a systemic and accepted practice.
Any other comments?
Thanks for the introduction to the process.
Good speakers.
Consumer focus and feedback.
How can other workers (not just managers!) be included in things such as
Action Research/evaluations as we are the coalface and have the
experience – not always the opportunity to voice.
Where are the other government departments such as Drug & Alcohol,
Probation, and Mental Health?
I find it a challenge to take responsibility for the ALC due to being a lone
IFSS worker and lack of time. Although I do enjoy talking through the
presenting problems.
Not sure how it fits in with network practitioners meetings and AAG.
Thanks
50
APPENDIX 3: FEEDBACK FROM ACTION LEARNING CIRCLE EVALUATIONS
Question 1:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Help you gain a better
understanding of how the action
research process supports the
Reforms, including providing an
opportunity to consider issues
which could be researched and
reflect on projects working to
address service gaps or
improvements?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NAN
NA
1
0%
0%
67%
89%
33%
11%
2
0%
0%
63%
100%
37%
0%
3
9%
0%
64%
80%
27%
20%
4
0%
0%
80%
80%
20%
20%
5
0%
11%
80%
67%
20%
22%
6
0%
0%
60%
67%
40%
33%
7
0%
0%
16%
50%
84%
50%
8
0%
0%
0%
75%
100%
25%
9
0%
0%
86%
67%
14%
33%
10
51
Question 2:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Further demonstrate how
action research supports change
and continuous improvement
through the process of testing,
observing, reflecting and
planning?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
0%
0%
0%
55%
100%
45%
1
11%
0%
67%
87%
22%
13%
2
0%
0%
87%
75%
13%
25%
3
0%
0%
67%
100%
36%
0%
4
0%
0%
80%
80%
20%
20%
5
0%
0%
60%
89%
40%
11%
6
0%
0%
60%
57%
40%
43%
7
0%
0%
17%
33%
83%
67%
8
0%
0%
33%
75%
67%
25%
9
0%
0%
71%
33%
29%
67%
10
52
Question 3:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Offer you the opportunity to
express your views and
contribute your knowledge?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
0%
0%
75%
83%
25%
17%
1
0%
0%
56%
56%
44%
44%
2
0%
0%
50%
60%
50%
40%
3
0%
0%
73%
50%
27%
50%
4
0%
0%
60%
75%
40%
25%
5
0%
0%
20%
56%
80%
44%
6
0%
0%
40%
43%
60%
57%
7
0%
0%
0%
33%
100%
67%
8
0%
0%
33%
25%
67%
75%
9
0%
0%
86%
0%
14%
100%
10
53
Question 4:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Provide a balance between small
group activities and whole
group discussion?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
0%
0%
75%
83%
25%
17%
1
0%
0%
62%
75%
38%
13%
2
0%
0%
29%
80%
71%
20%
3
0%
0%
82%
67%
18%
33%
4
0%
0%
82%
80%
18%
20%
5
0%
0%
40%
78%
60%
22%
6
0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
50%
7
0%
0%
33%
50%
67%
50%
8
0%
0%
33%
100%
67%
0%
9
0%
0%
100%
67%
0%
33%
10
54
Question 5:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Were the facilitator’s process
and tools helpful?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
0%
0%
50%
80%
50%
20%
1
0%
0%
78%
78%
22%
22%
2
0%
0%
75%
80%
25%
20%
3
8%
0%
75%
83%
17%
17%
4
9%
0%
73%
100%
18%
0%
5
0%
10%
80%
70%
20%
20%
6
0%
0%
20%
67%
80%
33%
7
0%
0%
33%
33%
67%
67%
8
0%
0%
0%
25%
100%
75%
9
0%
0%
71%
33%
29%
67%
10
55
Question 6:
Did the Action Learning
Circle…
Support your work on your
own Action Plan(s)?
Strongly
Disagree /
Disagree
Agree
Strong Agree
ALC
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
NNW
SESW
0%
0%
75%
67%
25%
33%
1
0%
0%
44%
75%
56%
25%
2
0%
0%
87%
100%
13%
0%
3
0%
17%
64%
50%
36%
33%
4
0%
0%
80%
100%
20%
0%
5
0%
0%
50%
67%
50%
33%
6
0%
0%
40%
83%
60%
17%
7
0%
0%
17%
40%
83%
60%
8
0%
0%
33%
50%
67%
50%
9
0%
0%
86%
33%
14%
67%
10
56
Question 7:
NNW and SESW answers combined
Were there any issues not covered in Leadership of Reform process
the program, or that you would like
Group – cross organisational goals –
more detail on?
concrete expression of these
ALC
1
Ethics of research, approval of research
projects
2
Connection between Practitioner Network,
Action Learning Circles and Area Advisory
Group
3
Good for the first time
4
This was the best one, lots of interaction and
discussion
Not sure at this stage, but will be able to
input more in three months
Difficult to say, given it was my first session
None at this stage, some may come about in
the future (first session attended)
Disability services to be included more in
discussion
5
No, found my first session informative and
beneficial
System review – process
6
No. Not at this stage. Issues covered well
Present learnings from previous action
research project
No, first meeting really informative
7
Not at this stage as it is the first ALC I have
attended for quite a while, due to other
work commitments
8
Opportunity to discuss all action learning
case studies was given
Opportunity for reflection was useful too
All good
9
An example at the start
10
Some more explanation of the toolkit we
were provided with (what it contains etc.)
57
Question 8:
NNW and SESW answers combined
What
improvements
would
you Rotate between N/W and North
recommend for the next Action Learning
A few more participants
Circle?
Fruit juice, better morning tea (mints would
be good)
ALC
1
Bigger space
Stay with same, it works well
2
Information about the reforms – where are
we. Information from above
A little more structure/direction
A small skills improvement agenda item
Better attendance
As we discussed, it would be great for IFSS
and Gateway workers from the NW to
attend
3
More time in sessions and breaks. Informal
discussion important
Keep going. Relationships are forming and
understanding growing
Increased participation. Perhaps another
reminder email or phone call
Have more service providers informed of
the benefits of attending these meetings,
through email, word of mouth etc.
Confirm the scope/goal of the Action
Learning Circle (in the context of other
reform support processes)
No improvements – works really well. Love
the group discussion
4
Reform Unit attendance?
Love the discussions and the difficult subjects
Possibly more participants from other IFSS
agencies
More practitioners
No progressing nicely after a bit of a shaky
start (for me)
More South-East participation?
Extend day to work on project as a group
whilst together as a group and thoughts are
5
58
being brainstormed
Keep the opportunity for discussions open
More attendance
Number of attendees was an issue
6
More participants
Link to broader outcomes/ learnings for the
Reforms
More community sector organisations
attending
Increased participation/ participants
7
Better attendance – more providers/
agencies
More people, more discussion
8
It would be good to have an increase in
participants; however I am not sure how the
group can achieve this
Although I enjoyed and preferred a smaller
group, it would be good to have more FS
services represented
More engagement from
partnership/providers.
More participation of non-government
sector.
Addition to email list
9
Ongoing
Smaller groups
Create vision, that creates passion for
change management
Considerations of barriers to change
10
59
Question 9:
List the three most valuable aspects of
the Action Learning Circle.
NNW and SESW answers combined
Discussion with colleagues, networking and
collaboration across services
ALC
1
Good connected communication between
participants
Facilitation
Challenge/goal setting
Development of action plan
Update/learning on what’s working and
what’s not in other areas
Learning
Transparency
Meeting others involved
Sharing information
Agencies coming together to discuss
issues/concerns and work towards outcomes
for now and in the future
Opportunity to meet variety of people from
various organisations to discuss issues
affecting us all and how we can improve
them
Input of ideas from a vast range of
experiences and knowledge
Recognition that others don’t have
background to Reforms and need this to
place in context
Seeing we are all having similar issues of
concern and problems
Understanding daily operational issues
Linking plan to workplace
Common goal
Hope for goods outcomes for
clients/services
Time for reflection on practice and
professional development
A focus on continuous improvement and the
opportunity to do so
Discussing continuous improvement culture
Having the power to facilitate change
Talking about actions that we can do
60
individually
Collaboration of ideas
2
Structure of Learning Circle
Discussing and reflecting each project
Refining project
Coming together and sharing ideas
Developing trust
Exchange of ideas and solutions
Ways to overcome barriers
Entities – man made, therefore we can
dismantle
Being able to work collaboratively with
other members
Being able to discuss issues in a nonjudgemental environment
Networking and peer sharing experiences
Other viewpoints
New attitudes and solutions
Affirmation
Reflecting on issues presenting in the sector
Hearing ideas from other people about how
they do things
Getting inspiration from other people from
the circle
Shared knowledge/learning
Both DHHS and non-government
representatives involved
Improving understanding
Relationship building
Hearing other’s experiences
Opportunity for self-reflection
Opportunity for access to knowledge of
others
Recap activities
3
Continuous improvement discussion
Back to basic presentation
Forum for discussion and sharing of ideas
Networking opportunity
Relationship building with other services;
61
building trust with other agencies
Group discussions
Action learning
Sharing stories/responsibilities
Finding a way forward
Understanding each other’s roles
Chance to contribute
Glimpsing the bigger North/North-West
picture
Respectful discussion
Inspiration of continuous improvement
Ability to have a discussion and time to
reflect
Practitioner Networks discussion
Relevance of action research and learning to
other developments and networks
Ability to hear how services are going
Finding the unmet needs in service delivery
and identifying this. Addressing these needs
at a higher level
Assuming that this feedback will be brought
back for consultation, discussion and review
Group discussions
4
Developing action plans
Having community based child protection
workers and more IFSS workers present
A forum for presenting ideas
Ability to work on research with workers in
our area
Examples looked at of Action Learning
projects
Networking opportunity
Collaboration
Open and honest discussion (brainstorming)
Responsibility
Toolkit and checklists
Time to talk about projects
Sharing experiences
Developing an understanding of the process
Learning exactly what the role of community
62
child protection workers are
Alliance members having involvement
Extensive guides to research options,
process, ideas
Opportunity to improve processes and
systems
Vision
Better understanding of the issues faced by
providers and state system
Time to think about impact on programs
(FAHCSIA) and discuss
Better links with state system
As an IFSS worker, being able to see the
bigger picture than on ground work
South-West focus
Discussion (on broad range of things) and
group sharing of knowledge
5
Contact
Information
Reflection
Flexibility of project thoughts
Autonomy of projects
Small group work on research question
Networking
Ideas from peers
Feedback on project
Realisation for change
Good to talk through problems; Input
Listening to other’s plans
Collaboration
6
Discussion
All views heard and respected
Clarification of issues
Talking about projects
Networking, network building, networking
to gain understanding of providers
Hearing from others. Discussion of “who,
what, where and when is happening”. Gaps
and where people are heading
63
Energised into action
Role understanding
Facilitating change
Potentially better outcomes for clients
Better understanding of impact of issues on
target group
As an IFSS worker gives me the space to
think, as normally way too busy to think
Project time
7
Recapping
Toolkit
Team work
Further understanding of ALC
Networking/understanding of issues in other
sectors/ collaborative aspects and building
communication links
Educative benefits
Opportunity to share common experiences
New learning
Identifying my huge network of service
providers
I got an enormous amount of ideas for the
project. Well worth my time.
8
Project reviews
Open discussion
Clear, focused, optimistic
Toolkit
Understanding of how ALC works
Brainstorming, shared information, goals etc.
Networks
Encouragement
Networking
Greater understanding of C.S.O issues and
issues/barriers that exist in the community
Interesting focus on recruitment processes
and difficulties recruiting appropriate staff
Felt the smaller group was more beneficial
than the group I previously attended
Information I received in regard to previous
ALC workshops
64
Information shared by other participants.
General information sharing
Sharing of ideas
Expanding knowledge and understanding of
services
Reflection
Considering future projects
Opportunity to discuss issues/gaps with
other government and non-government
representatives
Availability for toolkit
9
Hearing experiences from people involved
and their projects
The variety of people around the table
Breaking down the steps
Renewed passion for evaluation of change
management
Just really happy to have a problem that I
want to solve
Creates resources for more people
Open discussions, exploring and sharing
ideas
Networking
Reflection
Set plan to follow
Cross agency rep’s
10
Open discussion
Easy template
Process
Confirmation of existing knowledge &
current activity
Sharing
65
Question 10:
Any other comments?
(Circle 5 & 6: Do you have any
suggestions for further engaging Disability
Services in the Action Research Project?)
NNW and SESW answers combined
ALC
Enjoyed this session, provided inspiration
and to back my organisation to make
changes
1
As I am leaving, I would like to say thank
you. This has been a positive experience.
The new manager will be briefed and I will
have an ongoing interest until my family
moves to Victoria.
2
I think still early days
Would like clarification on practice
networks
It has been a difficult process to grasp.
Pressures to deliver services have competed
with the ability to plan and develop the ALC.
It has felt like a top down approach rather
than a process that has evolved to meet a
need of the practitioners, services and
organisations
3
Enjoy coming
4
Pleased for opportunity that my agency gave
me to attend, as usually only ‘client direct
work’ and research etc. not given enough
importance
Opportunity for lots of discussion was
valuable
Enjoyed today
See you at the next one
It was very useful having a representative
from FaHCSIA
First session. No prior understand or
knowledge of Action Learning prior to
attending. Overview may have been useful
5
Disability consultants to review their
position description and integration with
Gateway LAC workers
For focus to be overall and not Family
Services focused as much
66
Invite Gateway and more LACs
Very interesting
Looking forward to actioning my plan
Too early to make any comment
Get them to come along
6
Large representation of disability services.
Need to re-engage family services
It is already happening
No, there were heaps here today
Enjoy sessions and discussion
7
Thank you!
8
Well done
9
Really enjoyed today, feeling regretful that I
haven’t fully engaged and understood the
need for change management
Very beneficial process
Smaller group was great – more opportunity
to discuss
67
APPENDIX 4: FINAL EVALUATION SURVEY
The Action Learning Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
How many action learning circles have you attended?
a.
<3
b.
3-5
How many action learning plans have you completed or participated in completing?
a.
0
b.
1
c.
2
d.
3+
How would you rate the effectiveness of the action learning process in managing change in
your work?
a.
Not effective at all
b.
Minimally effective
c.
Somewhat effective
d.
Very effective
e.
Not applicable
How successful were you at sustaining change after it was achieved through action
learning?
a.
Not effective at all
b.
Minimally effective
c.
Somewhat effective
d.
Very effective
e.
Not applicable
The Toolkit
5.
How effective was the action learning toolkit in guiding your action research activities?
a.
Not effective at all
b.
Minimally effective
c.
Somewhat effective
68
6.
d.
Very effective
e.
Not applicable
How would you rate the quality of the following components of the toolkit?
Very
Poor
Poor
Average
Good
Very
Good
Action planning templates
Examples / case studies
Explanation of how to do action
research
The Future
7.
8.
9.
10.
If a workmate initiates it, how likely are you to participate in a workplace action research
project in the future?
a.
Very unlikely
b.
Unlikely
c.
Maybe
d.
Probably
e.
Definitely
How likely are you to initiate an action research project in your workplace in the future?
a.
Very unlikely
b.
Unlikely
c.
Maybe
d.
Probably
e.
Definitely
How likely are you to use the toolkit in the future?
a.
Very unlikely
b.
Unlikely
c.
Maybe
d.
Probably
e.
Definitely
How likely are you to recommend action research to a colleague or manager in the future
as a worthwhile process for managing change?
a.
Very unlikely
b.
Unlikely
c.
Maybe
d.
Probably
69
e.
11.
Definitely
How can the action research learnings of this project be sustained in your workplace?
About You
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
What is your age?
a.
<35
b.
35 – 44
c.
45 – 54
d.
55+
What is your gender?
a.
Male
b.
Female
Who is your current employer?
a.
Government
b.
Not for profit organisation
Which sector do you work in?
a.
Disability
b.
Child protection
c.
Both
d.
Neither
Which region do you mainly work in?
70
APPENDIX 5: EXAMPLES OF ACTION PLANS CONDUCTED ACROSS MULTIPLE
ACTION LEARNING CIRCLES
1.
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 1
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
There had been some efforts to
clarify this in meetings. There is a
clear difference between the
traditional case management role
within disability services, where one
person takes on a whole of life case
management role for one client. This
contrasts with the case co-ordination
approach since the Reforms, which
builds a care team, rather than
depending on one case manager.
The new approach depends on
good planning and communication.
It is important to identify the
client’s needs and then agree how
these needs will be met. The
Disability Local Area Coordinator
working in the Gateway plays a
monitoring and coordinating role
to ensure that client needs are
being met. The different roles must
be clearly defined so that gaps in
service do not develop. This
approach improves collaboration
between services providers and
gives the client a more empowered
role.
EXAMPLE 1
Clarification of
definitions of
‘case coordination’ and
‘case
management’.
Clarifying the
DHHS definition
of case
management
Where there is a statutory
requirement, because of child safety
concerns one provider must be the
case manager.
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 2
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
The updated DHHS definition of
disability services case management
was provided (see page 1).
It was agreed that facilitating
collaboration between services and
ensuring the effective integration of
services were also key goals.
The researcher noted that the case
management definition included a
broad range of activities that included
being a primary contact for the
people with disabilities and their
families; support accessing
appropriate services, information and
developing networks; and developing
and maintaining a person’s individual
plan.
Some participants noted that there
were many elements of case
coordination within this definition
but were pleased that a definition
had been put in writing.
71
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 1
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
The researchers reported that
they had met once to plan their
action research. A key question
that had emerged was How to
maintain the profile of Gateway
in the area?
It was noted that in one year,
many staff had changed
positions within the child and
family services sector.
EXAMPLE 2
Investigate referral
patterns to the Gateway
from places outside
Launceston to identify
reasons for changes (an
increase in the % referrals
from Launceston area as
compared with referrals
soon after
commencement).
Tasks:
Survey stakeholders
(subject to approvals).
Review referral data to
look for trends.
The research team had decided
to undertake a survey of
stakeholders to identify any
barriers to referrals. This would
be checked with Gateway
management in terms of ethics
and process. Following the
survey (which was likely to
include interviews in outlying
areas), the team would reflect
on the referral trends and
develop some draft
recommendations.
Participants wondered if regular
updates from Gateway were
required to maintain the
service’s profile.
Participants also spoke
positively about the fridge
magnet and brochures that had
been developed. These should
be continued.
Participants spoke positively
about the role of the school
social workers, which had been
collaborative and assisted
referrals.
It was noted that there might
be a need to re-educate referral
agencies about criteria and
referral processes. Perhaps the
referral process was too
complex.
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 2
OUTCOME
OBSERVATION
Achieve a more equitable
referral rate from out-lying
areas of the North region.
Formulating a survey from
which will be able to find out
what direction to take.
Difficulty has been that some of
Improved level of understanding the action research team have
by service providers about
moved so needs to find new
Gateway services.
group. The survey could use
Survey Monkey, a paper based
questionnaire and/or possibly
telephone interviews. Needs to
find someone to do Northern
Midlands & George Town.
More referrals will be a sign
that education in an area has
72
worked.
CYCLE 3
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 3
ADAPTED QUESTION
REFLECTION/ ACTION
OBSERVATION
Investigate referral
patterns to Gateway from
places outside Launceston
to identify reasons for
changes. What is needed
to build on the initial
communication strategy
with local services, which
initially generated higher
levels of referrals?
Participants suggested
contacting neighbourhood
houses to assist with the survey
in George Town and other
areas. A new participant agreed
to join the project team.
The lead researcher reported
that some of the project team
had met to discuss the issues
and collated the work from
former team members who had
left the project team because
they had changed jobs.
Continue survey of referral
patterns from outlying areas in
the North.
The lead researcher also
presented a draft survey, which
was fully refined during the next
part of the workshop.
The findings of the survey will
be provided to the Area
Advisory Group.
The turnover of staff in some
key areas such as St Helens
Georgetown, West Tamar and
Meander meant that the project
team needed to think through
how to best disseminate the
survey. After 12 months,
people move and networks can
be lost.
CYCLE 3
CYCLE 3
REFLECTION
ACTION/ OUTCOME
It was important that the
project develop a sustainable
way for ensuring services were
aware of and understood the
role of Gateway role and
available services into the
future.
Finalise survey (which was
developed further during the
workshop) and then administer
it via project team networks
and key colleagues in other
areas.
Responses to survey.
There is some confusion about
the role of Gateway as many
agencies are notifying both
Gateway and Child Protection
about the same issue or case.
The initial Reform model
73
anticipated that most families
and other services would
contact Gateway first and that
the assessment process would
start there.
Presentations about Gateway
are being made in the North
West to schools, Indigenous
groups and other service
providers and this had been
effective with school principals
and social workers.
CYCLE 4
CYCLE 4
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
The project had progressed
since last Action Learning
Circle workshop. The survey
had been developed and had
begun to be distributed, using a
variety of mechanisms. In the St
Helen’s area, a simple survey
had been given to the entire
area network meeting, which is
held every three months. The
response to the online survey
was also good. The survey will
show how best to inform
people about the Gateway
services and referral processes.
The survey itself had raised
awareness and had increased
case load to full capacity.
Referrals have increased from
the Northern Midlands
catchment after team had
spoken with one key social
worker. The surveys are being
sent out to services in the
remaining areas. Responses
should be available by midSeptember and the data will be
analysed. Glenhaven will take
the lead in the Meander area
Participants were provided with
a copy of the survey and were
very encouraging. Participants
are looking forward to hearing
about the survey results.
74
because they are part of the
Alliance in that area and have
the contact with the
community.
CYCLE 5
CYCLE 5
CYCLE 5
ADAPTED QUESTION
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
Provider and community
education and awareness raising
activities have led to improved
awareness by providers and the
community of the Gateway.
Some people are suspicious of
the new system, particularly its
use in mandatory reporting, and
do not trust that it is effective
and safe even though evidence
demonstrates its safety and
effectiveness.
What is the impact of
improved provider
awareness regarding the
Gateway on referrals?
However, this has not achieved
change in practice from the old
to the new system for all
stakeholders.
By providing the option to use
the old system, some people
refuse to adopt the new
system.
Communicating the safety and
effectiveness of the new system,
and gradually removing access
to the old system will assist in
transferring remaining people
to the new system of Gateway
referral.
Strengthening organisational
processes for receiving
feedback from clients and
providers will provide
additional information regarding
the new system, its advantages,
and opportunities for
improvement.
75
EXAMPLE 3
Can we increase the
community’s education
about Gateway and IFSS
through information
forums?
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 1
OBSERVATION/
REFLECTION
OBSERVATION
Mission Australia has
continued with community
education forums, which are
held every three months. The
project team is reflecting on
the feedback from these and
looking at how to balance the
information given.
Identified at intake that the
Gateway wasn’t receiving
referrals from those from
other cultures.
Community sector
organisations have increased
their invitations to other
services to training and social
events.
Gateway SE (intake, IFSS, LAC,
grandparents programs etc.)
has been holding information
sessions for other service
providers.
Approximately 40 people had
attended the last session and
evaluation forms had been
completed.
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 2
REFLECTION
ACTION/ OUTCOME
It was reflected upon that the
forum didn't work as well as
everyone had hoped because
people hadn't necessarily
wanted to hear about both
sides of the Gateway service
(e.g. disability and/or family
services). People also expected
different formats (e.g.
PowerPoint).
Observe the outcomes and
participant feedback at the
next information forums.
Identify further improvements
to the way the forums are
conducted.
One participant suggested a
PodCast, which had been used
to promote the Targeted
Youth Services.
76
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 1
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
The project team had been
actively observing the initial
intake interview process,
especially to find easier ways
to collect sensitive
information. The team had
added prompt questions to the
targeted assessment tool to
assist with this. The researcher
has looked at role-playing,
scripts, encouraging families to
feel comfortable over (eg
where to meet, how to
respond in certain
circumstances). The
researcher wants to increase
clients’ and families’
understanding of why
uncomfortable questions have
to be asked. This project is
continuing.
There was very positive
feedback about this work.
There was a good discussion
about ways to question
families respectfully to elicit
required information within
the assessment process. This
was an area where enhanced
practice would benefit families,
clients and providers. There
was strong support for ongoing support of new intake
workers to help share this
knowledge.
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 2
OBSERVATION
REFLECTION
The project leader reported
that the team had continued to
have discussions around what
works and what doesn’t
through looking at complaints
and then finding ways to
improve.
Presentations are still needed
to be used to get the word
out about Gateways role.
There is still a lot of confusion
about what family support is.
Intake needs to find a way to
improve understanding. Some
people will need to refer to or
use the service to really
understand how it works.
EXAMPLE 4
What is the most effective
approach for initial intake
interviews with disability
services clients – what
makes the family most
comfortable?
New CAF tool (Common
Assessment Framework) is 59
pages long and is now used at
intake. This is a very big
document with a combination
of screening tools. Intake
workers are going to need to
take laptops etc. to write up
the information from this,
which could appear intrusive
to families.
The project team are still
77
trying to find ways to make
the new tool less intrusive.
The key learnings from the
project are: develop rapport
with the person and/or family;
follow up with all involved
parties (including the
person/group who referred),
and facilitate a face-to-face
meeting with all services
involved. In the future the lead
agency is beginning to consider
placing a Gateway worker in
another service that is
providing relevant services in a
local area (e.g. maybe in New
Norfolk).
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 2
PLANNED ACTION
PLANNED OUTCOME
The researchers will continue
to develop best practice intake
processes using the new
Common Assessment Tool
and use of a laptop during
client visits.
Report on further
improvements to the intake
process.
78
DISABILITY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES
Department of Health and Human Services
GPO Box 125, Hobart 7000
Ph: 03 6222 8529
Email: disandcommservices@dhhs.tas.gov.au
1