Caravan Parks Pilot: Family Crisis Child Care Program 

7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Commonwealth provided resources to implement a participatory action research approach. The NDP was engaged to provide national co-ordination and facilitation of this process. This approach meant that participants worked in regular cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting where each cycle can inform the next stage of the research. As a result, practitioners have the opportunity to continually learn, integrate change and improve the effectiveness of their actions.

Systematic documentation of 'learnings' at local and national levels was undertaken by the local Pilot projects and the NDP. These 'learnings' were underpinned by comprehensive quantitative data. (Please see Appendix E for a summary table of statistics compiled from the four sites). The NDP carried out a national Key Stakeholders Survey to develop a shared language across stakeholders in all Pilot projects with which participants could describe and evaluate their experiences. (Please see Appendix D for  the Summary of the Key Stakeholder Survey Report)

The purpose of this action research approach was threefold.

Firstly, to provide a framework in which to develop and trial national and local strategies, to extract key 'learnings' and competencies and to ensure that on the ground research informed policy makers as the project evolved. Using action research strongly influenced the agenda of the Caravan Parks Pilot, the determination of the national and local action research questions and the extent of the partnerships developed.

Secondly, to create a research/evaluation culture where the practitioners and other key stakeholders felt closely engaged in the process, had access to resources and skills needed and saw the benefits of the process and the outcomes for the groups with which they were working and for their own practice.  (Please see Section 10 at Page 40 for an analysis of this process)

Key areas of enquiry were around child development, parent /child relationships, engaging mobile families, increasing housing options, facilitation of awareness of and access to community and family oriented services, and incorporating a strengths approach to underpin project development. These were framed as seven national action research questions. (Please see Appendix C for National Action Research Questions)

Thirdly, to use a research process responsive and flexible enough to encompass constantly changing family and caravan park community dynamics. These include high levels of mobility, insecurity of tenure, and complex needs resulting from disadvantage and dislocation in their lives.

[ top ]

8 KEY FINDINGS AND LEARNINGS

8.1 HOUSING

Pilot projects identified critical housing issues that impact on families in crisis on caravan parks. These include sub standard housing, lack of available public housing stock and other housing options, inadequate tenancy rights and homelessness caused by poverty.  Two Pilot projects (Q and Tweed/Gold Coast), reported that the majority of their Family Support Workers' face to face counselling time was spent dealing with housing issues. It was noted that the complexity of these issues and subsequent dilemmas created continue to be the main challenge of any park work.  The other Pilot projects (SA and NT) also reported that  access to adequate housing was a major issue for the families with whom they came in contact.

Key Finding One

Families in crisis living on targeted caravan parks in the four sites experienced  tertiary homelessness  with living  conditions  falling well below the accepted minimum community standards.

Pilot projects reported that families lived in sub standard conditions in caravans where they eat, sleep and socialise in one room with no privacy for parents and exposing children to unnecessary stress. Poor standards in shared amenities (toilets and showers, laundries), inadequate or non existent  physical safety provisions were commonly  observed. Caravans do not provide adequate protection from inclement weather, heat, humidity, rain and cold, nor were there community facilities such as community rooms or play areas for families to use.

Key Learnings

• Educating community and other agencies about conditions on parks using local practice based information was essential in order to raise awareness of issues relating to homelessness, to encourage advocacy around these issues  and  to promote  collaboration and provision of an integrated response to families' needs.

Pilot projects took a lead role in this process of informing and alerting community services, government agencies and politicians. Mechanisms to achieve this were: building new networks or expanding established ones; organizing community forums and Reflection Groups where community agencies assisted staff with targeted questions arising from the action research process; lobbying politicians, providing information to the Department of Family and Community Service's National Homelessness Strategy and direct referrals of families to  housing and helping agencies.

Successful outcomes were clearly linked to the energy and enthusiasm of the project staff , their capacity to network and  their skills in being able to move between early intervention child and parent focused activities, crisis management  and  wider  community development activities. In addition, the resources and credibility of the organizations delivering the Pilot project were important factors.

One Pilot project (South Australia), reported that there was an initial lack of interest in the project due, the workers believed, to the fact that it was run by a playgroup association.  It was evident that local agencies perceived that this organization played a more traditional role in delivering support services to families where parents were responsible for organizing and running the playgroup. Subsequently, once agencies were clear about the scope of the project  and  ability of the organization to deliver,  the interest and subsequent support was considerable.

[ top ]

Key Finding  Two

Families living in target parks had extremely limited housing options.

Pilot projects reported that families were unable to access public or private rental stock due to existing rent arrears, other outstanding debts or lack of  available public housing stock.  Lack of access to housing was exacerbated for some families who were placed on tenancy data bases  with no monitoring or appeal processes. Tenancy data bases are used to check the history of people who apply for rental properties, All Pilot  projects reported  a  loss of accommodation through evictions as a consequence of change in park  designation, for example changing from a permanent  to tourist focus, or threatened park closures.

Key Learnings

• Developing an integrated service response to the needs of target parks was crucial given the limited resources of the Caravan Parks Pilot and the extent of crisis for some of the families.

In the Tweed, the Pilot project reported that the needs of families on target parks far outstripped the capacity of staff to address these needs. One park was the only housing option for families with housing debts or histories of evictions. Development work undertaken by the Pilot project  highlighted that the lack of housing stock in the Tweed is a huge issue with many years waiting list for public housing.  SAAP agencies and others are forced to use caravan parks and motels  in this area for crisis accommodation as there are no emergency housing or exit points.  Working with other agencies was a key strategy to develop a more integrated approach for service provision and  to mobilise government agencies to action.

Key Finding Three

Building a climate of trust between families and Pilot project staff was the cornerstone for any future work around housing, income support and other issues.

Key Learning

• Many families are distrustful of agencies and some are in caravan parks because they wish to remain anonymous. Once trust was established, staff could assist with housing, income and personal support, through with face-to-face counselling, provision of emergency relief or assisting access to emergency relief, provision of information and direct referral to other helping agencies.  Staff reported that it was important to build up confidence in the families' ability to deal with situations themselves, however this could take a long time.

Key Finding Four

Housing options for families living on caravan parks are further limited due to use of tenancy data bases.

Pilot projects in Q and NSW reported a number of  instances where residents faced covert discrimination by their placement on tenancy data bases with no monitoring or appeal processes.  In Pilot projects (SA and NT) there were less reported instances however workers became alert to the possible use of tenancy data bases when families could not obtain private rental.

Key Learning

• It was important to disseminate information and advocate on these issues.

Pilots projects raised this issue nationally through the National Homelessness Strategy and  lobbied key agencies to advocate for these residents.  In one instance, Pilot project (Q) participated in a national survey to raise awareness of the prevalence and impact of housing discrimination through listing on tenancy data bases.

[ top ]

Key Finding Five

Tenancy legislation to protect residents of caravan parks is weak and difficult to enforce. Families had very limited understanding of tenancy rights and  felt inadequate in exercising  these rights. 

Key Learning

• Collecting on the ground experiences of park residents can impact on wider understandings and leads to change.

The Pilot project (NT) highlighted weak tenancy legislation in the Northern Territory. This followed a spate of evictions in their target park due to a change from a permanent to tourist focus. Seeking help for these residents  revealed that the tenancy legislation in the Territory does not cover park residents nor is there a peak organisation such as Tenants Union or Park Residents Association to advocate for residents. The project workers found that park residents were unwilling to take up legitimate claims against the park operators. This was in part due to the transient nature of their stay, the actual limitations around successfully negotiating a claim, and a real fear of reprisal leading to loss of the only available housing. Improvement in legislation is a long-term process, however, the Pilot project (NT) provided important practice based information to government agencies and community services to stimulate work in this area.

In SA, the Pilot project worked with a peak housing organisation, Shelter SA, to facilitate park residents' input into changes to that state's residential tenancy laws.

Case Study:

SA state government called for a review of the Tenancy Act. Shelter SA, which takes an active role in advocating for tenancy rights of long term residents of caravan parks, put forward a response to the discussion paper. Project staff introduced the worker from Shelter SA to residents of one park. This led to a focus group and a petition signed by a large portion of the residents. The Pilot project workers reported some animosity by park management at the start of this process, park management subsequently improved interactions with residents.

Key Finding Six

In depth and longitudinal research  at national and local levels is  urgently required to find out more about families in crisis who live on parks as government agencies and services require reliable data on which to plan their services.

Key Learnings

• Community services and government agencies did not include caravan park residents in  planning for and delivery of services.
• Statistics on numbers of families on parks were difficult to collect from park operators, either they did not know the  exact numbers of children or they may not  have wanted the  service to come on to the parks. Regular monitoring of numbers of families and children  at local level needs to be carried out by service agencies.

Case Study:

NT pilot project reported low numbers of families in the target NT park. Project officers began to ask questions about where families were located if not in the one specific park. Through a local community forum the workers initiated a discussion among key service providers about how to best research this question.

[ top ]

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Strong representation be made to the Federal Privacy Commissioner and to appropriate state government agencies responsible for consumer affairs and fair trading, for the purpose of regulating the collection and handling of personal information contained in tenancy data bases, to ensure information used to check the rental history of people who apply for rental properties is accurate, fair and contestable.
2. The Department of Family and Community Services should initiate strong partnerships within the Department (goals, resources, priorities) by requiring joint funding initiatives with certain percentages of allocated funds, to ensure cross fertilisation of ideas and strategies to meet the needs of families at risk of homelessness. For example closer links between Centrelink, SAAP, Emergency Relief, the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, National Homelessness Strategy and Family Relationships and Child Care.
3. Urgent reassessment of public housing resources in the Tweed area of NSW to be undertaken by state and federal governments for the purpose of addressing a critical housing shortage.
4. A future network funding model be developed by the Commonwealth to progress integration of services and agencies necessary to fully respond to crisis needs of park residents. This model would provide funding to develop and resource state/local networks of government and non-government agencies with a main focus on caravan parks.  Such networks would act as a forum for the exchange of information and co-ordinate community initiatives.  This would include emergency relief, counselling, and  support  to service providers to improve access  to and acceptance on  parks. In addition the network would co-ordinate crisis responses such as responses to park closures and evictions.
5. Substantial project implementation funding be provided by the Department of Family and Community Services to capitalise on the investment in and substantial achievements of the Caravan Parks Pilot in the four sites.
6. Provide targeted funding to stimulate short and long term research to inform policy makers on the use of caravan parks as permanent accommodation and the implications for homelessness. This is essential due to the absence of consistent and comprehensive research data in this area.

8.2 INCOME SECURITY

Key Findings

1. Families and other park residents experienced poverty caused by public housing debts, Centrelink breaching of unemployed members of families due to failure to meet activity test requirements or not meeting other administrative requirements, limited access to emergency relief and multiple crises happening simultaneously.
2. There were discrepancies across states/territory in how Centrelink defined and interpreted homelessness as it applied to people living in caravan parks.
3. While there are a number of Centrelink services available for disadvantaged individuals and families, families on caravan parks were not accessing these.

Key Learnings

• It was important to be proactive in establishing links with local Centrelink offices to provide case studies of clients who are at risk of homelessness and to illustrate that some of these clients are among the most disadvantaged of Centrelink clients.

  One positive response to this process was reported by Pilot project (NT) where the local Centrelink officers visited the  targeted park and offered to provide an outreach service monthly.  This was conditional on an onsite van to be sited on the park with facilities for an office. This has not occurred due to changes in NT staffing, management and scope of Pilot and qualified approval from park  operator.

• It was also important to raise these issues at a national level. This occurred through Caravan Parks Pilot findings to the Department of  FACS and representations made to the Minister of Children and Youth, Larry Anthony, by Save the Children Q and Playgroup Q about issues for homeless families living in caravan parks.
• Poverty is a huge societal issue, it is therefore unrealistic to expect workers and the families to engage in prevention activities when the families are already in crisis.

  
  Across three Pilot projects the degree of crisis intervention and corresponding stress on workers was high. This was compounded in Tweed and Brisbane parks by the presence of a large number of families in crisis. South Australia reported a lower number of families this meant that staff could work more closely with families and draw on the support of other agencies. Pilot project NT reported a low number of families overall coupled with high mobility. The ability of the Pilot project NT to respond to and follow up families in crisis was limited by frequent turn over of staff and the experience and skills of staff in taking on crisis management work.  Pilot projects reported that some workers who were new to the field, were initially shocked by the levels of poverty and crisis experienced by the families with whom they were interacting.

• In order for a Family Support Worker to work effectively in more than one park and one local community, their hours of work must be full time. This is due to the multi- dimensional nature of crisis work, the need to build trust with families and the time required to network with local agencies to provide more integrated support for park communities. 
• Provision of emergency relief was limited as was the capacity of staff to provide this.  Strategies must be put in place to deal with these limitations. For example Pilot project Q developed a local resource directory incorporating the local emergency relief agencies so that people could contact the agencies themselves.

Case study:

In Case Study Number One in Appendix A, the Family Support Worker outlines the process of assisting one family evicted from a caravan park for non payment of rent. This process included urgent negotiations with support agencies for crisis housing, transport and storage of the family’s belongings and subsequent transport to more permanent housing. The worker helped the parents with strategies to better approach agencies, provided on going support while they re-established themselves and dealt with issues of attachment of the family to their worker.

'We have a better appreciation of the issues faced by residents, the tenuous nature of tenancy and the issues involving homelessness'. Centrelink Noarlunga (Source: Pilot project SA Service Provider Survey)

'The caravan park workers have been instrumental in raising awareness of the conditions, obstacles and challenges for families living in caravan parks. This information has been useful for Housing Advisors at South Australia Housing Trust as Advisors now have a better understanding of the likelihood of families in caravan parks fitting the SA Housing Trust's homelessness or at risk criteria for early housing, assessment and assistance.' SA Housing Trust (Source: Pilot project SA Service Provider Survey)

[ top ]

RECOMMENDATIONS

7. Urgent negotiations be undertaken with Centrelink redefine and promote nationally a definition of homelessness which includes people living on caravan parks whose living standards fall below minimum standards. This is to improve access to income support through Centrelink and provide a benchmark for use by Centrelink staff in meeting the needs of park residents.
8. Strong partnerships be developed between Centrelink, clients and community service providers and protocols established to stabilise caravan park families housing and financial circumstances.
9. Flexible low-key outreach services should be provided by Centrelink to meet demonstrated needs of park residents.

8.3 EDUCATION

The Caravan Parks Pilot's main focus of attention was on families with young children. However, the Pilot projects have exposed serious issues relating to education and school attendance for children living on caravan parks.

Key Findings

7. Large numbers of school-aged children were not attending school. These children were either not enrolled or were not attending.
8. There were older children attending playgroups with younger children.  This caused difficulties due to different age related needs.
9. Older children were acting as primary carers for their younger siblings or other children.

Key Learnings

• That creative strategies need to be put in place to meet the immediate needs of this neglected group by providing age specific activities while at the same time ensuring the safety of the younger children.
• That organisations need to check policies and procedures regarding extending playgroup to older children.
• That schools and local service providers should be engaged to draw attention to the numbers of children non enrolled or not attending school and to encourage closer links.

Case Study:

Q Pilot project facilitated a local committee with Save the Children Q and the local school which has facilitated enrolment and attendance of school aged children at the local school. Through the Family Support Worker, families have been helped with uniforms and other necessary items.

SA Pilot project worked with parents to encourage school participation and utilised their own organisation (Playgroup Association of SA) resources to provide an extra worker in holiday time to be responsible for activities and supervision. Circus activities were the theme. This allowed Pilot project workers to concentrate on the younger children and their parents.

Pilot project (Tweed/Gold Coast) linked with another agency to offer an art therapy workshop to meet some of the needs of older children. This was successful as there was good participation and children were able to express and deal with a number of issues around grief and loss.

Wendy presented from interstate with three children aged seven, six and two years. Her school aged children had only accessed school for less than one term. The children's behaviour was destructive and created animosity with other park residents and management. Workers encouraged the mother to enrol the children in school even though they planned to move. The workers noticed significant delays in the children, for example the seven year old could not write her name. The children started school within a week and their behaviour showed a steady improvement over the next four months.

[ top ]

8.4 CHILD CARE

In this section, Child Care refers to

a) care given to the children in the playgroup environment and,

b) to government funded Child Care services

In the traditional model of community playgroups, parents attend playgroup with their children and are responsible for supervision of their children while interacting with other children and parents.

Key Findings

1. Due to the complex needs of families, some parents either did not attend playgroup or attended only sporadically.
2. Organisations have had to re-examine their organizational, structural and legal status in response to children attending playgroup without their parents.
3. Parents who are more transient have no access to long day care, family day care, occasional care or pre-schools for their young children and, at times, make poor choices about child care.

Case Study:

Having to go to an appointment, a single father leaves his two young children in the care of a newly met male acquaintance who had moved into the park two days previously.

Older siblings take care of younger children and bring them to playgroup.

Key Learnings

• That constant encouragement of parents is required to attend with their children and participate in activities. Having adult activities, for example craft, is a great strategy.
• That services need to be flexible to meet the immediate needs of these families. Parents living in cramped vans with no play space and a constant need to supervise children outside the van need some form of respite care.  Forms of organised child care are often not available to them due to length of waiting lists, transience and lack of suitable transport. There is an on going tension between meeting organisation legal requirements for parental attendance and supervision at playgroups and parental needs for time out, knowing that their children are safe, active and enjoying themselves.
• Other services have to be alerted to families needs and encouraged to provide access to child-care for families unable to access care in the current system.

[ top ]

RECOMMENDATION

10. That the Minister focus funding for child care services on special programs for families and children living on caravan parks to address the obvious disparities in opportunities to access child care services.

8.5 PARENTING

Key Findings

1. Role modelling and increasing parents' awareness about child development has a positive effect on the parent child relationship. Parents showed an increased willingness to learn more about their children and to try new activities and ways of interacting with their children.
2. Where playgroups are run once or twice weekly with regularly attending families it is possible to note continuing improvement in the parent child relationship. With sporadic attendance, small, positive incremental changes can be observed.
3. The degree of crisis experienced by families impacts significantly on their ability to focus on parenting and child focused issues.
4. Parents required intensive support when linked with external playgroups on leaving the park.
5. Male carers were difficult to engage in playgroup activities.

Key Learnings

• Successful engagement of families over time was due to the welcoming and positive approach of Pilot project staff, the non-threatening nature of the playgroup activity and maintenance of a regular presence on the park.
• It takes time to build trusting relationships and it is this trust that enables the workers to exert influence and to address the issues with the families.

Case Study:

Pilot project SA reported making two child protection notifications to relevant authorities. This was successful as the project workers were able to maintain contact with and support these two families due to the trust built up over time. Playgroup Association SA implemented strategies to train, mentor and support staff during this process.

• Parents need to learn about and experience the importance of play and creativity themselves so that they could appreciate their children's needs.

Case Study:

Pilot project Tweed/Gold coast initiated parent craft activities which proved very popular.

• A designated Family Support Worker role in addition to early childhood and early intervention focus was essential. This worker could undertake crisis management in order to meet the immediate needs of families as well as developing prevention strategies such as helping families create positive relationships with other services. This was particularly important on parks where there are high numbers of children attending playgroup, and high numbers of parents in stressful situations.
• A considerable amount of staff resources are required to support parents access community based playgroups. For some families this requires a huge shift in self-esteem and the ability to negotiate relationships with other parents and their children. Playgroup Q reported that very limited numbers of families were successfully integrated in to community playgroups due to complex issues in supporting these families and the time needed to build family's strengths in a slow and respectful way. Changing the organisational culture of playgroup associations and their members also takes time.
• Men who were either sole parents or partners were slower to engage in playgroup activities and to seek support from the workers. In some instances the men were actively hostile. Building trust was a key element in dispelling real or potential hostility and Pilot project workers found ways to engage the men in areas where they felt they could contribute. For example organising a BBQ or bringing a guitar and singing at playgroup.

[ top ]

8.6 CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT (SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL)

Key Findings

1. To successfully conduct playgroups on caravan parks and provide extended support for parents requires the services of skilled staff with extensive experience in child development, family support and community development.
2. Activities that worked best were those targeting children's development eg age appropriate, developmentally challenging, giving opportunities to interact with positive adults and building on children's strengths.
3. Small incremental improvements in children's development can be observed despite the limited time per week for playgroup
4. Providing a predictable routine, both flexible and semi structured in playgroup was beneficial in order to model consistency and to provide positive messages to children and parents about safety, hygiene, sharing, eating together and times for songs and story telling. This was important for children and their parents who may otherwise have little structure or control in their lives.
5. Early intervention activities must be offered in the context of wider support structures for children and their families given the crisis situation faced by these families.
6. Parental stress levels impacted negatively on group activities.
7. Pre-School aged children had very limited opportunities for development activities outside of the playgroup.

   Quote from SA mother: ' My child starts waiting at 7am for the playgroup to arrive on the park.'

Key Learnings

• Excluding school age children from playgroup activities allowed focus on developmental needs of pre-school aged children.
• Behaviour management strategies needed to be implemented in order to deal with aggressive and unruly behaviours of some children.
• It was important that playgroup be a regular weekly or bi weekly event on the park-in spite of fluctuating numbers attending.
• Child focused playgroups were an effective mechanism for entry into the lives of families living in caravan parks.

  Parents commented on their high regard for Pilot project staff and the individual benefits for themselves and their children through playgroup activities, receiving of information, support in crisis situations and advocacy and facilitated links with important agencies and services.(KSS Survey)

[ top ]

8.7 COMMUNITY HEALTH AND AGENCY LINKAGES

Promotion of successful early intervention and prevention strategies on parks to increase community health and develop effective linkages was contingent on a commitment to integrated service provision by agencies responsible for housing, social support, health education and child care. In addition, a commitment to building a climate of trust between families and the workers and agencies was crucial.

Key Findings

1. Families had little knowledge of and were not accessing services, apart from meeting immediate needs, for example Centrelink.
2. Parents reported feeling discriminated against by agencies and the general community.  One parent commented that 'people treating us like ‘trailer trash.''
3. Some family members were reluctant to draw attention to themselves due to drug and/or alcohol addictions, violent relationships, child abuse, mental health issues or financial difficulties.
4. Where the target parks were geographically isolated from main centres and transport uncertain, families had greater difficulties in accessing services.
5. Agencies often had very limited knowledge of issues facing this particular group and were inadequately resourced to provide outreach work. Hence a great deal of time and energy was required by project workers to build up supportive networks.
6. Within the park environment, families were often reluctant to form close relationships and the playgroup environment was a positive communal experience for parents and their children.
7. Park operators played a big role in the running of the park community and how people were treated. Where a park operator was supportive this facilitated families' knowledge of and access to services, where negative, services may be actively discouraged from coming onto the park.

Key Learnings

• Pilot project workers required a wide range of knowledge about services in order to provide accurate information to the families.
• Children were missing out on child health services such as immunisations, hearing and eye tests, and individual remedial treatment for various health and development problems.
• Services need to be actively educated, engaged and encouraged to adapt approaches to engage with families living in caravan parks.
• Considerable time is required to develop and maintain service networks to reduce the isolation of families and encourage services to provide outreach activities.
• Where there was a well established, active network of agencies familiar with caravan park issues, for example the Onsite Network of South East Queensland, this facilitated raising awareness of issues impacting on families and advocating for long-term change.
• Spending time to build rapport and trust was crucial to be able to assist families develop and maintain links with services. Agencies were able to access parks successfully due to the quality of these relationships.
• Consistent and respectful interactions with park operators were important to maintain access to the park and to support the park operator if required.

Case Study:

The Family Support Worker contacted Indigenous Health regarding a child who was attending playgroup. This service came onsite and identified a number of areas where it could provide assistance to park families. As a consequence, indigenous families on that park feel connected to that service and make contact directly. (Pilot project Queensland)

Quote:

'The State Department of Family and Youth Services SA (FAYS) believes that the playgroup program is an effective way to link families into support services and minimise potential for abuse and/or neglect of children living in parks. The project has highlighted FAYS awareness of issues facing families living in caravan parks particularly safety issues for children'. Source: Pilot project SA Feedback from SA agencies

RECOMMENDATION

11. That the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy prioritise investigation into building healthy communities within the caravan park environment while strengthening links between caravan parks and the broader local community.

[ top ]

8.8  STRENGTHS APPROACH

Identification of and building on the strengths of families and children living in caravan parks was an important area of research in the Caravan Parks Pilot.  Pilot projects were aware that many critical and serious issues impacting on these families can lead to management and workers adopting a 'deficit' approach to their work where families are viewed as victims with little or no capacity to assist themselves and where the workers take on most of the responsibility for guiding and providing services. This has obvious consequences on the way services are delivered and the outcomes for the families.

The Caravan Parks Pilot trialed the practical application of a strengths approach by consistently acknowledging that the parents and carers, and their children do have strengths, and by seeking out ways to identify and build on these strengths.

Key Findings

1. Parents and children often need help to be able to identify what they are doing well.  Pilot projects identified a number of important activities to assist parents and children. These include: modelling of positive interpersonal interactions, praising achievements, celebrating positive change with parents and children and assisting people to develop their own goals and working with them to achieve these.
2. Positive reinforcement resulted in improvement in self-esteem and decision making abilities.
3. Using a strengths approach supports workers. Pilot project SA reported that using a process of reflecting at the end of each playgroup session, and identifying the strengths of each person (child and adult) attending that session, helped workers focus on the positives and not get dispirited by negative events and crises.
4. A focus on strengths helped positive changes in attitudes among other stakeholders.

Case Study:

Pilot Project SA. By continually focussing on strengths when discussing families with the park operator, the park operator can identify strengths in the families for himself due to a change in perceptions.

5. Playgroup is positive in nature and creates a positive communal space in the parks.

Key Learnings

• All families have strengths. When workers are consistent in talking to families about their strengths and where they were doing well, this assisted people to introduce positive changes in their lives and to take on new ideas.
• Smaller numbers at playgroup maximised the one to one opportunities that were beneficial in identifying and building on strengths. Smaller numbers enable parents to take on various roles and responsibilities within the group and be acknowledged for this and the benefits that such activities bring to the group.
• Training in a strengths approach is important.

  
  Pilot project NT reported that after attending the 2002 National Caravan Park Workers Conference that had a strengths approach theme, they were able to adopt a stronger strengths based approach to their work.  This was beneficial as it helped transform stereotypes about permanent residents displayed by tourists and helped counteract the negative attitudes showed to permanent residents by management on the target park.
  
  Pilot project SA organised a Strengths workshop for Pilot project staff, other Playgroup SA staff and the wider community.

• To challenge a deficit approach and move to a strengths focus is a slow process due to systemic and cultural issues.

Previous: Purpose, Overview and Scope Next: Servic Delivery Model and Analysis