Statewide Evaluation of Best Start

Final Report

Early Childhood Consortium VictoriaCentre for Health Policy, Programs &

EconomicsUniversity of Melbourne

Overview of presentation Principal evaluation questions Reminder of main outcome indicators and

other important measures Our main methodological instruments

(briefly) Principal findings (partnerships, service

cooperation, outcome indicators) (briefly) Conclusions, significance, implications

(most importantly)

The principal evaluation questions for Best Start were 1:

Have the enhancements to universal early years services and their liaison with education providers introduced through Best Start resulted in improvements in the outcome domains of Health and wellbeing, Education and schooling, and Housing/Child Protection?

What local strategies were deployed to implement Best Start by each of the partnerships in order to improve outcomes in relation to the outcome domains as measured by Best Start outcome indicators? How successful were they?

What local strategies were deployed to engage vulnerable children and families who are not currently using universal services? How successful were they?

The principal evaluation questions for Best Start were 2: Specifically, how successful was the Breaking Cycles

Building Futures project in developing and implementing strategies to improve service access by children and families not currently using, or prematurely disengaging from universal services? Which were the most effective strategies?

With regard to the effective strategies identified above, where and in what way can these strategies be more widely applied to other services and in other communities?

What other improvements have been achieved as a result of Best Start?

What are the characteristics of the partnerships that are associated with achieving better outcomes? Does the type of funding (category A, B, or C) have a bearing on the level of outcomes achieved?

Best Start Outcome Indicators

Health and well-beingEducation and schooling

Housing /Child protection

BreastfeedingWomen smoking during pregnancyImmunisationAttendance MCH 3.5 years visitAttendance ED child asthma & infant gastroChildren’s diet & physical activityCommunity safety

Parents reading to their children

Enrolment kindergarten

Absences from primary school

Reading abilities

Mobility/changes of housing for Office of Housing clients

Re-notifications to child protection

Other outcomes and indicators Better access to child and family support,

health services and early education an improvement in parents’ capacity,

confidence and enjoyment of family life Communities that are more child and family

friendly. Service planning and co-operation,

(mobilisation of community resources) at both the levels of partnership and local project

Community infrastructure such as playgrounds, libraries etc,

11 Best Start (disadvantaged) Sites

+2 Indigenous

Site

Index of Relative Socio-Economic

Disadvantage IRSED - 1-78

Geographic classification

Ballarat 24 Rural/regional Casey 25 Metropolitan Frankston 22 Metropolitan Hume 5 Metropolitan Maribyrnong 2 Metropolitan Robinvale (town in Shire of Swan Hill)

15 Rural/regional

Rosewall (Corio in Geelong) 23 Rural/regional Shepparton 9 Rural/regional Wellington (5 isolated rural towns) 38 Rural/regional Whittlesea 7 Metropolitan Yarra Ranges (4 rural disadvantaged towns) 60

Metropolitan

Horsham (Aboriginal) Rural Latrobe / Baw Baw (Aboriginal) Regional

Eight main data collection instruments 1

Statewide Best Start Indicator datasets (plus MCH municipal datasets) (ongoing)

Facilitator-derived profile of Site inc. of project implementation (6-monthly)

Site visits and interviews with Best Start facilitators (3 monthly)

VicHealth Partnership Analysis Tool (Early & Late)

Service co-operation & co-ordination survey Tool (Early & Late)

Eight main data collection instruments 2 Omnibus survey of parents of three

year old children (Early & Late) Vulnerable families strategy

(including as part of the evaluation of Breaking Cycles Building Futures) (eg playgroup visits & informal interviews)

Most Significant Change in Indigenous Sites

Characteristics of Partnerships

Leadership & management

Broad, active participation

Broad based influence & control

Barriers

Workload commitments

Dedicated support & resources

Parent engagement

Historical & philosophical attitudes

Maintaining & Strengthening Partnerships Shared vision Developing a culture of collaboration Allowing time for development Getting the balance right Facilitating the process Widening the scope Recognising outcomes Adequate funding & resourcing

Partnership Survey

Achievement and

continuity

Overcoming differences

Collaborative action

Planning and decision making

Functional operations

Appropriate membership

Shared goals and

commitment

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

round 2round 1Time

Systems & Services

Joint Planning Cross Service Promotion Joint Projects Joint Professional Development Sharing Information & Cross Referral Sharing resources Child & family information sessions

Implementing service co-operation activities – the latest survey

Comparing before Best Start with last 6 months of 20051=Never, 4=All the time. Average of all responses.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Cross

serv

ice p

rom

otion

 

Share

reso

urce

s/fac

ilities

Wor

k on

joint

pro

jects

Share

info

rmat

ion

Share

info

rmat

ion a

bout

clien

ts (+

cons

ent)

Joint

plan

ning

Joint

pro

fess

ional

deve

lopm

ent

Child

and

fam

ily a

nd in

form

ation

sess

ions

2006 Pre

2006 Post

How much was Best Start responsible for changes in the service co-operation activities?

allmostsomenot at all

q14Change due BS

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Pe

rce

nt

Round: Round 2

Barriers

Funding

Resources

Time

Better Transition Strategies (BTS) Informed staff about BTS, the benefits & how BTS

are consistent with their own goals and values Helped staff understand why BTS should be

implemented & the limitations of current practice Had professional leaders who were actively

involved in BTS & demonstrated their success Recognised staff achievements & addressed

barriers to implementation Provided staff training & on-going professional

support for BTS Allocated staff time for BTS activities, included

BTS in staff role descriptions & made BTS a part of programming advice/work plans

Projects and outcome indicators - strategies used in projects

Promoting service co-operation (staff-related) eg joint professional development activity, (parent-related) development of service directories, locality-based network groups; Health promotion/social marketing eg community festivals project-based ‘expos’New program infrastructure (for mainstream) playgroups and parents groups (for at risk) eg family resource centres in primary schools offering professional consultations; outreach services (eg lactation consultants),

Number of projects by indicator

(Red hi; Blue lo)Health and wellbeing (65)

Breastfeeding (30)

Smoking (0)

Immunisation (2)

MCH (20)

Attendance ED child asthma, infant gastro (1)

Diet and Physical Activity (7)

Community safety (5)

Education & schooling (37) Parents reading (14)Preschool (7)Reading abilities (9)Absenteeism (7)

Housing/Child ProtectionChanges of Housing (1)Re-notifications child protection (0)

Subsidiary aims (57)Better access to services (19)Parents’ confidence (19)Communities child friendly (6)

Service co-operation (13)

Early effects on outcome indicatorsHealth and Wellbeing (7 areas)

3.5 year Ages and Stages MCH visit indicator set & omnibus survey

Breastfeeding indicator set

Physical activity omnibus survey (some evidence)

Early effects on outcome indicators Education and schooling (4 areas)

None directly; however

For parents reading to children - 2 of 6 literacy related materials (uses PC; enjoys playing adverts/junkmail)

Omnibus survey

Early effects on outcome indicators

Housing and Child Protection projects Little activity

Parental confidence and Communities child friendly projects Community child-friendly

Omnibus survey

Conclusions, significance implications

Best Start has been a considerable success. Enthusiastic take-up of partnership

arrangements across the early childhood sector.

Contrasted with earlier experience of (most) agencies’ working in isolation or competition.

Conclusions, significance implications

Working as a partnership led to: Action plans & new projects to meet

service gaps with early positive effects as identified above; and

enhanced service co-operation between agencies across the early childhood sector (beyond their involvement in Best Start alone)

Improved understanding in accessing vulnerable groups Not easy - “hard to reach groups are

hard-to-reach” Staff should be approachable,

trustworthy and above all non-judgemental.

Project selection is important - should be geographically accessible & build on services already well regarded (eg the Patricia Smith Children’s Centre - Breaking Cycles project within the Parkside estate in North Shepparton)

Evaluation confirms the value of continuing Best Start in existing Sites & extending it to other disadvantaged communities.

Best Start makes an important contribution to the state government’s children and equity agendas and local government Early Years Plans. points the way to better strategies of service

co-operation, community involvement, improving parenting skills etc

Characteristics of successful Best Start Sites

Role of the facilitator is central Role of the auspicing body is also

very important Role of the partnership is

important – experience shows most ‘settle-down’ & function harmoniously and productively.

Not only community partnership important but also Government-community partnerships Important for best funding, best evidence,

best analysis of local needs; provided that medium-term stability in strategic direction

maintained Avoid short-term chop and change Give agencies time to adapt to new partnership

practices (replace existing own-agency practices not add to them)