The Impact on Service Collaboration of Co-location of Early Childhood Services in Tasmanian Child and Family Centres: An Ethnographic Study.

INTRODUCTION: There is a global trend towards place-based initiatives (PBIs) to break the cycle of disadvantage and promote positive child development. Co-location is a common element of these initiatives and is intended to deliver more coordinated services for families of young children. This paper examines how co-locating early childhood services (ECS) from health and education in Child and Family Centres (CFCs) has impacted collaboration between services. METHODS: This ethnographic study included 130 participant observation sessions in ECS between April 2017 and December 2018 and semi-structured interviews with 45 early childhood service providers and 39 parents/carers with pre-school aged children. RESULTS: Service providers based in CFCs reported that co-location of services was facilitating local cooperation and collaboration between services. However, insufficient information sharing between services, prioritising client contact over collaborative practice and limited shared professional development remained barriers to collaborative practice. For parents, co-location improved access to services, but they experienced services independently of each other. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Co-location of ECS in CFCs contributed to greater cooperation and collaboration between services. However, for the potential of CFCs to be fully realised there remains a need for governance that better integrates service policies, systems and processes that explicitly support collaborative practice.

Use of administrative record linkage to examine patterns of universal early childhood health and education service use from birth to Kindergarten (age four years) and developmental vulnerability in the Preparatory Year (age five years) in Tasmania, Australia.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the health and education sectors provide universal early childhood services for the same population of children. Therefore, there is a strong imperative to view service use and outcomes through a cross-sectoral lens to better understand and address the service needs of young children and their families. OBJECTIVES: To investigate patterns of health and education service use from birth through Kindergarten (age four years), the associations with cumulative risks, and developmental vulnerability in the first year of full-time school (age five years). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study that used population-wide linkage of health and education administrative data records for 5,440 children with a Tasmanian 2015 Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) record who were born in Tasmania (2008-2010). RESULTS: Four service use patterns were identified: Regular (46% of children), Declining (24%); Low (18%); and Selective service use (12%). Regular service use (aOR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.9), adjusted for cumulative risks, was associated with decreased odds of developmental vulnerability, compared to the other service use groups. Low (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.5 to 8.2) and Declining service use (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.9 to 3.4) were more likely for children with the highest levels of cumulative risks. Low and Declining service use, adjusted for cumulative risks were associated with increased odds of developmental vulnerability, compared to the Regular service use group. CONCLUSION: This study provides a whole population view of the differential use of universal services and the complex risk circumstances that influence service use. The association between patterns of multiple risk and service use points to barriers to service use, and the varying level of developmental vulnerability within each service use group draws attention to children who may benefit from higher sustained participation in core health and education services across the whole of early childhood.

Associations between clusters of early life risk factors and developmental vulnerability at age 5: a retrospective cohort study using population-wide linkage of administrative data in Tasmania, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Early childhood is a critical time to address risk factors associated with developmental vulnerability. This study investigated the associations between clusters of early life risk factors and developmental vulnerability in children's first year of full-time school at age 5. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Population-wide linkage of administrative data records for children born in Tasmania, Australia in 2008-2010. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort comprised 5440 children born in Tasmania in 2008-2010, with a Tasmanian 2015 Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) record and a Tasmanian Perinatal Collection record. OUTCOME MEASURE: The AEDC is a national measure of child development across five domains: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills (school-based), and communication skills and general knowledge. Children who scored below the 10th percentile on one or more AEDC domains were classified as developmentally vulnerable. Children with special needs are not included in the AEDC results. RESULTS: Latent class analysis identified five clusters of risk factors: low risks (65% of children), sociodemographic and health behaviour risks (24%), teenage mother and sociodemographic risks (6%), birth risks (3%), and birth, sociodemographic and health behaviour risks (2%). In this sample population, 20% of children were classified as developmentally vulnerable, but the proportion varied substantially by latent class. Logistic regression showed increased odds of developmental vulnerability associated with sociodemographic and health behaviour risks (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.91 to 2.68, p<0.001), teenage mother and sociodemographic risks (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.69, p<0.001), and birth, sociodemographic and health behaviour risks (OR 3.29, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.16. p<0.001), but not birth risks (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.03, p=0.1649), relative to the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: The patterning of risks across the five groups invites consideration of multisectoral policies and services to address complex clusters of risk factors associated with developmental vulnerability.