Building the capacity of family day care educators to promote children’s social and emotional wellbeing : an exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Childhood mental health problems are highly prevalent, experienced by one in five children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged families. Although childcare settings, including family day care are ideal to promote children’s social and emotional wellbeing at a population level in a sustainable way, family day care educators receive limited training in promoting children’s mental health. This study is an exploratory wait-list control cluster randomised controlled trial to test the appropriateness, acceptability, cost, and effectiveness of “Thrive,” an intervention program to build the capacity of family day care educators to promote children’s social and emotional wellbeing. Thrive aims to increase educators’ knowledge, confidence and skills in promoting children’s social and emotional wellbeing.
Methods/Design: This study involves one family day care organisation based in a low socioeconomic area of Melbourne. All family day care educators (term used for registered carers who provide care for children for financial reimbursement in the carers own home) are eligible to participate in the study. The clusters for randomisation will be the fieldworkers (n = 5) who each supervise 10-15 educators. The intervention group (field workers and educators) will participate in a variety of intervention activities over 12 months, including workshops; activity exchanges with other educators; and focused discussion about children’s social and emotional wellbeing during field worker visits. The control group will continue with their normal work practice. The intervention will be delivered to the intervention group and then to the control group after a time delay of 15 months post intervention commencement. A baseline survey will be conducted with all consenting educators and field workers (n = ~70) assessing outcomes at the cluster and individual level. The survey will also be administered at one month, six months and 12 months post-intervention commencement. The survey consists of questions measuring perceived levels of knowledge, confidence and skills in promoting children’s social and emotional wellbeing. As much of this intervention will be delivered by field workers, field worker-family day care educator relationships are key to its success and thus supervisor support will also be measured. All educators will also have an in-home quality of care assessment at baseline, one month, six months and 12 months post-intervention commencement. Process evaluation will occur at one month, six months and 12 months post-intervention commencement. Information regarding intervention fidelity and economics will also be assessed in the survey.
Discussion: A capacity building intervention in child mental health promotion for family day care is an essential contribution to research, policy and practice. This initiative is the first internationally, and essential in building an evidence base of interventions in this extremely policy-timely setting.

The capacity of criminal sanctions to shape the behaviour of offenders : specific deterrence doesn’t work, rehabilitation might and the implications for sentencing

There is a considerable gap between the law and knowledge regarding the efficacy of state-imposed sanctions to achieve several key sentencing objectives. Two sentencing objectives which often carry considerable weight in the sentencing calculus are rehabilitation and specific deterrence, despite the fact that neither has been proven to be attainable. This article examines the empirical data on whether specific deterrence and rehabilitation are attainable, and consequently whether they should be retained or abolished as sentencing objectives.

Capacity building : just rhetoric, or a way forward in addressing health inequality?

Issue addressed: It is time to move beyond defining the problem of health inequality to taking action. The response required is complex and calls for system wide action. It is in this context that a discussion of increasing the capacity of the health system to respond to health inequality is both timely and essential. Methods: This paper looks at a capacity building framework that has been developed by the New South Wales Health Department and provides an example of a number of projects that have applied capacity building strategies. Conclusion: Addressing health inequality presents a significant challenge to health promotion practitioners. Emerging capacity building theory provides direction for strategies to build the capacity of a health system to address equity. It proposes a set of practical actions using the five focus areas of organisational development, workforce development, resource allocation, partnerships and leadership. So what?: A capacity building approach by itself will not provide the mandate and framework for the action that needs to be taken to address health inequality, but it helps to ensure that once potential solutions are identified the health system has the capacity to respond.

Building capacity in sexuality education : The Northern Bay College experience : Report of the first phase of the sexuality education and community support (SECS) project

The Sexuality Education and Community Support (SECS) project aims to introduce a P-12 approach to sexuality education at Northern Bay P-12 College (NBC) through a collaborative partnership process between the schools within the College and local, regional, and state health and education agencies and has set out to change current sexual health education practice in the College and assist other schools in the region to do the same. The Project’s goal is a ‘sustainable, responsive, whole school, regionally consistent, best practice sexuality education’. During this first or establishment phase of the SECS project strategies have been implemented to begin the process of building capacity in sexuality education at NBC. These strategies are aimed at developing a sustainable approach during the next three and a half years.

Understanding coastal urban and peri‐urban indigenous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change

This brief presentation will commence to address a number of emerging questions that are underpinned by the current NCCARF research project: Understanding Urban and Peri‐urban Indigenous People’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to Climate Change. In terms of climate change adaptation barriers, options and priorities, what are the major considerations for indigenous communities residing in coastal peri-urban and urban places that may differ from those of their non-indigenous counterparts and possibly from Indigenous communities living away from the coasts? It will speculate on whether these considerations can be addressed through existing planning and management frameworks.

Indigenous climate change adaptation perspectives : understanding urban and peri‐urban indigenous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change

The National Climate change Adaptation Research Plan: Indigenous Communities (2011) highlighted that research on Indigenous communities and climate change, including the variables of impacts, vulnerability and adaptive capacity and adaptation has been limited. While most research has focused on identifying the biophysical impacts of climate change, a minority of studies have considered the Indigenous knowledge and peoples whom continue to reside in Australia and care for; ‘country’;. The report concluded that “there is a need for research that expands knowledge about these and other dimensions of Indigenous adaptation to climate change.“ This paper reviews work in progress on a NCCARF funded research project that is seeking to investigate select coastal urban and per-urban Indigenous community vulnerability to, and capacity for climate change adaptation. Working collaboratively with Indigenous communities resident in Adelaide, Heywood/Portland, Mornington Peninsula, Stradbroke Island and Brisbane, it seeks to explore and articulate strategies that enhance Indigenous capacity to climate change including possible protocols, frameworks, processes and procedures that may lead directly to a more informed appreciation of what is transpiring around Australia’s coastal per-urban regions for their Indigenous communities who still hold strong bonds and responsibilities to their ‘country’.