Evaluating Area‐based Interventions: The Case of ‘Communities for Children’

Abstract

Increasingly, governments in wealthy countries are designing early intervention initiatives around principles of ‘community regeneration’ or ‘place management’. Because these initiatives are multi‐site, aimed at long‐term systemic change, and implemented amidst a range of other initiatives, assessing their quality and outcomes demands departure from conventional programme evaluation approaches. This article analyses the challenges of evaluating area‐based interventions in the child welfare field, and shows how the National Evaluation of Australia's ‘Communities for Children’ initiative seeks to overcome these through its mixed method design and the longitudinal Stronger Families in Australia study.

Overlooked and under‐served? Promoting service use and engagement among ‘hard‐to‐reach’ populations

“…‘Invest to Grow’ involved seed funding for early years programmes aimed at child development and family well‐being, while ‘Local Answers’, distributed regionally, focused community development grants. The third and larger programme, ‘Communities for Children’, engaged large charities in 45 disadvantaged regions to develop and coordinate local services, and distribute project funding (see Cortis, 2008; Muir et al., 2009; Purcal, Thomson & Spooner, 2010). On the ground, the services funded in each programme stream were tailored to local circumstances, yet unified by their shared goals of supporting child development and family relationships directly, or building professional and community capacity to serve families, children and young people.…”

Evaluatie van ‘Alcoholmatiging Jeugd in de Achterhoek’: verandering in perceptie van ouders op het alcoholgebruik van jongeren na één jaar

“…Om hier uitspraken over te doen is het gemis aan een controlegroep ondervangen door zowel een proces-als een effectevaluatie te doen. 19,20 In dit onderzoek zijn in de tweede meting dan ook vragen over het bereik van de interventie opgenomen. Met behulp van deze vragen zijn de respondenten in twee groepen gedeeld; zij die iets van een interventie over alcoholgebruik van jongeren in de Achterhoek hebben gehoord en/of gezien (groep 2a) en zij die geen interventieactiviteiten hebben waargenomen (groep 2b-kan worden beschouwd als controlegroep).…”

The Promises and Pitfalls of Prime Provider Models in Service Delivery: The Next Phase of Reform in Australia?

“…A prominent lead provider model in Australia is the Communities for Children (CfC) initiative operating in 45 disadvantaged communities. The CfC model involves a facilitating partner organization that engages local community partners to address perceived gaps in services for families and children (Cortis ). Other examples of prime provider type approaches in Australia include headspace integrated service hubs , a local consortia based approach aimed at improving access and service cohesion for young people experiencing mental health illness (McGorry et al ) and the Partners in Recovery (PIR) model that aims to provide coordinated support for people with severe and persistent mental illness with complex needs through inter‐agency collaboration (DoH ).…”