Indigenous programs and policies - what works

Why do so many Indigenous programs and policies fail? 

Evidence shows too many programs fail because they have neither been developed nor delivered the right way. We have put together some guidelines to what does and doesn’t work. These can be used by community members, advocates and those officially putting the programs together. This summary website is part of a wider project to explain what does work and to encourage people to stop making the same mistakes again and again.    

The criteria cover the processes involved in making decisions, rather than policy content, and shows clearly how often it is the flawed planning and delivery that undermines the potential of the program's success.

We hope communities will be able to use these evidence-based criteria to convince politicians and funders to change their ways so that programs can become successful. We also hope that those in the public service and political systems will recognise the value of using their own  criteria to ensure that what they fund is effective, both in the short and long term.

What works 

Policy development and delivery must include all affected parties and be based on real dialogue and cooperation between government agents and local Indigenous elders and communities.

There is almost universal agreement that success requires bottom up, culturally appropriate, local engagement, rather than short term, top down, centrally designed and imposed models. Unfortunately almost all current policy development and delivery continues to use the latter top down model. Despite some initial rhetoric from the Abbott government, the changes they have made do not seriously address the way governments stuff things up.

The advice offered by the government's own official experts is quite clear and matches what communities have also been saying, so we need to use these findings to push for changes. Stage one is to adopt and adapt the nine items listed below which clearly show what works, that is what produces good policies and programs. These were developed and published by the federal government's own advisory body, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). These clearly show what processes should be adopted to make Indigenous focused policies and programs work better. The criteria are interconnected and need to be taken together as a recipe for how to make sure what is offered is likely to achieve good outcomes. It is how the process is done that really counts in the end.

1. Community involvement and engagement - strong leadership, strong community - member engagement, appropriate infrastructure and use of a paid workforce to ensure long-term sustainability 

• Appropriate consultations by government officials with target communities should be undertaken early on before decisions are made on what services are needed and how to deliver them.
• The consultation process needs to include adequate time and prior briefings to allow communities/organisations to set up meetings that all relevant affected community people know about and can attend.
• The process must recognise local cultural knowledge, and listen to ideas and discussion. Local people need to feel engaged, and be sure local ideas are heard and appropriately incorporated.
• There should also be feedback on what has and has not been included, and why. 

2. Adequate resourcing for planned and comprehensive interventions - a strong sense of community ownership and control is a key element in overcoming Indigenous disadvantage 

• Long term planning, funding and support for staffing are all essential for effective services.
• This involves planned funding for multiple years with realistic renewal possibilities
• Limited likelihood of successful programs being defunded, as this breeds future distrust
• Allow enough time for local communities, elders etc to discuss, amend and offer their own ideas. 

3. Respect for language and culture - protocols are fundamental in communication 

Incorporate design processes that recognise and value: 

• The local leadership, culture and languages,
• Input through collaboratively designed local services,
• Reciprocal respect and cultural understanding between locals and outsiders that incorporates and acknowledges differences,
• Cultural and language differences that effect mutual understanding of the project plan and outcomes.

4. Working together through partnerships, networks and shared leadership - experience in leadership is key to developing future community leaders. 

This has to be integrated into planning, as it is the structural key. Partnerships myst involve: 

• The genuine sharing of formal and informal decision making
• Mutual recognition of joint interests, whether expressed through self-determination or other forms of shared control. 

5. Development of social capital - community experience in project work provides for learning and training opportunities. 

Collaboration is a vital asset that:

• Allow people to work together effectively and as equals.
• Minimises the need for complex bureaucratic processes.
• Limits the use of FIFO and non local agencies and stems the short term high level turnover of staff. 

6. Recognising underlying social determinants - consider the project as part of a whole historical and community context. 

Programs must address local and structural issues and past historical effects as well as current needs. This requires including external pressures in planning, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) finds population wide social and health problems derive from institutional and structural inequalities that limit people’s sense of control and autonomy, rather than from personal or familial deficit. 

7. Commitment to doing projects with, not for, Indigenous people - Effective relationships were vital and Aboriginal community buy-in was also essential for ongoing success. 

This important idea is essential for both effective program delivery and to address power imbalances.   

• Relationships need to be genuinely collaborative between funders, providers and recipients of services.
• There needs to be either formal written agreements or, if agreed, informal arrangements integrated into actual decision making and delivery,
• Local and joint engagement models need to work to create effectiveness and goodwill, 
• Decisions need to integrate Aboriginal knowledge and aspirations.  

8. Creative collaboration that builds bridges - between public agencies and the community, and coordination between communities, non-government and government services. 

Services need to plan, listen to and engage with local communities and other agencies: 

The problem of too few or too many overlapping services must be avoided.

• Recognise and involve current locally controlled services, where they exist.
• Limit the number of large outside agencies operating in small or localised areas as they often fragment local goodwill, don’t share skills and undermine the effectiveness of linked programs.  

9. Understanding that issues are complex and contextual - many projects share common ground 

There needs to be a focus on joining up services so as to recognise that few issues have single causes, and that structural problems underlie many local issues. This builds local goodwill. 

 

What does not work 

The AIHW criteria guidelines also cover what doesn't work. These are important because they represent the way that most governments tend to develop policies and programs and are the types of processes that their own advisers clearly identify as not working. 

1. "One size fits all" approaches. 

This approach is often used and forms a major flaw both in government programs and also sometimes in other services/NGO group projects. Political beliefs and administrative processes may see cookie-cutter models as easier to manage and apply, however these don’t work and exemplify the very issue the previous positive criteria aims to address.  

2. Lack of collaboration and poor access to services 

Successful interventions require the integration of services to provide continuity of care, community involvement, local leadership and culturally appropriate mainstream services. These steps help to ensure the suitability and availability of services, which can thereby improve access by Indigenous Australians. Multiple services in many locations fail if they are not locally connected and accepted.

3. External authorities imposing change and reporting requirements 

Many local services resent what they regard as externally imposed changes to what they know is working, especially when they are excluded from decision making process, and when reporting processes do not seem to be used to create the changes they need or verify their implementation.

4. Interventions without local Indigenous community 

Interventions without local Indigenous control and culturally appropriate adaptation don't work. This common complaint breaches most of the criteria for what is working. As mentioned above, external decision making, one size fits all design and delivered services are most unlikely to engage locals and develop the levels of trust and good will in local communities and/or with clients that makes services effective or even appropriate.

5. Short-term, one-off funding - Piecemeal interventions, provision of services in isolation and failure to develop Indigenous capacity to provide services. 

The history of failures of Indigenous services is summed up in this item. Partial, short term and  inadequate interventions that fail to effectively deal with the identified problems or do not operate for long enough to make a difference must be avoided. While short term inflexible funding may tempt bureaucrats and community groups, these programs often undermine long-term relationships and possible future community engagement. Defunding some successful programs after pilots expire can also create future resistance to any program. Failure to plan, support and resource services, and ensure that local skills are developed, may similarly lead to local staff finding delivery of any service too hard.