Statewide Evaluation of Best Start
Final Report
Early Childhood Consortium Victoria
Centre for Health Policy, Programs & Economics
University 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-being
Breastfeeding
Women smoking
during pregnancy
Immunisation
Attendance MCH 3.5
years visit
Attendance ED child
asthma & infant gastro
Children’s diet &
physical activity
Community safety
Education and schooling
Parents reading to their
children
Housing /Child
protection
Mobility/changes of
housing for Office of
Housing clients
Enrolment kindergarten
Absences from primary
school
Reading abilities
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
Ballarat
Casey
Frankston
Hume
Maribyrnong
Robinvale (town in Shire of Swan
Hill)
Rosewall (Corio in Geelong)
Shepparton
Wellington (5 isolated rural towns)
Whittlesea
Yarra Ranges (4 rural disadvantaged
towns)
Horsham (Aboriginal)
Latrobe / Baw Baw (Aboriginal)
Index of Relative
Socio-Economic
Disadvantage
IRSED - 1-78
24
25
22
5
2
Rural/regional
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
15
Rural/regional
23
9
38
7
Rural/regional
Rural/regional
Rural/regional
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Geographic
classification
60
Rural
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
Time
round 1
round 2
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Shared goals Appropriate
and
membership
commitment
Functional
operations
Planning and Collaborative Overcoming Achievement
decision
action
differences
and
making
continuity
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 2005
1=Never, 4=All the time. Average of all responses.
3.5
3
2.5
2
2006 Pre
2006 Post
1.5
1
0.5
s
ss
io
n
pm
n
se
ve
lo
fo
rm
at
io
de
in
an
d
fa
m
ily
in
tp
an
d
Jo
ld
hi
C
Sh
a
re
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
ab
ro
fe
ou
t
ss
io
n
cl
ie
al
Jo
nt
s
in
tp
se
n
(+
co
n
rm
in
fo
re
Sh
a
en
t
la
nn
in
g
t)
n
at
io
ts
pr
oj
ec
in
t
jo
on
W
or
k
re
so
re
Sh
a
C
ro
ss
se
rv
ic
e
pr
om
ot
ur
ce
s/
fa
ci
lit
io
n
ie
s
0
How much was Best Start responsible for changes in the service cooperation activities?
Round: Round 2
50.0%
Percent
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
not at all
some
most
q14Change due BS
all
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 Protection
Changes 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 indicators
Health and Wellbeing (7 areas)

3.5 year Ages and Stages MCH visit


Breastfeeding


indicator set & omnibus survey
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 cooperation, 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)