|
Early Childhood Australia - Response to the Broadband Funding Review |
|
|
|
Early Childhood Australia Inc
Response to the Broadband Funding Review
Introduction
AECA believes that decisions made as a consequence of this review must be based on an overall understanding of children’s services in their entirety and in particular future directions of children’s services. Of necessity, this includes very broad questions of operation, funding and policy.
The Broadband, while important, is only part of the funding contribution of the Commonwealth Government towards supporting families and children through children’s services. The future of broadband funding cannot be detached from the wider issue of purpose and effectiveness of the entire Commonwealth investment in children’s services. Consideration of the interactions among all funding and program components will be required in order to determine the broad impact on the field as a whole of any redevelopment of the Broadband.
The Review of Broadband Funding is one of a number of areas of work currently being undertaken by the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS). Three areas of policy work that are of particular significance in terms of decisions that might be made as a result of this review are:
- The work that is being done to progress the development of a National Agenda for Children, and
- The efforts being made to resolve issues related to the status and standing of child care workers.
- The commitment to building and increasing family and community capacity to deal with challenges and take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.
AECA is of the very strong view that decisions taken as a result of this review should be conscious of the potential outcomes of the work being done on these three policy imperatives.
Impact of current issues and developments
AECA believes that the exciting and progressive work being done by Government around the development of a national agenda for children and on the issues related to the status and standing of the child care workers may well necessitate a review of the Government’s overall approach to the funding of children’s services.
Agenda for Children
The early thinking and work being done on the Agenda for Children reinforces the Government’s stated position that participation in children’s services should contribute positively to children’s growth, development and learning. This commitment will necessitate some hard thinking about fundamentals such as:
- The qualities and qualifications of people who work with and are responsible for children in children’s services,
- The cost and other implications for child staff ratios and total group size etc of the evidence which shows that sustained, stable, trusting, caring relationships are fundamental to the positive growth and development of young children.
The resolution of these issues will not be cost neutral.
Status and standing of child care workers
AECA is also concerned that the recommendations to Government from the Review of Broadband Funding should be conceived within the expectation that, in the near future, there will be increases in the wages and conditions of child care workers. These improvements will lead inevitably to an increase in both parent and government contributions to the costs of children's services. The outcomes from the recent Think Tank organised by the FaCS support this proposition. In addition the ability to address national shortage of child care staff on an ongoing basis needs to be factored into considerations.
Community capacity building
The commitment to community and family capacity building requires a conscious commitment to the maintenance of those services that are a locus for family and community support. All children’s services potentially play a significant role in underwriting growth in community capacity. The community management model has particular values in this regard.
AECA therefore believes that the recommendations of the Broadband Review should be framed within:
- An understanding of the pressures that will influence future policies and funding of the Children’s Services Program
- A coherent funding model for children’s services that takes account of an evolving policy agenda
- An explicit acknowledgement of the implications for government and, parents and the cost of children’s services generated by the current crisis in staffing in these services.
- An understanding that a commitment to the building of social capital is part of the overall objectives of the children’s services program.
For this reason AECA is of the very strong view that the outcomes of the Broadband Review should be set aside until such time as these broader issues are resolved.
In fact, the Government may have to provide an injection of funds now to cope with the pressures that gave rise to this review.
The rationale of AECA’s submission
AECA’s comments on the Broadband Funding Review assume a continuing commitment to the purposes of the children’s services program, a funding regime to ensure them and recognition that services will continue to be funded by a combination of Government and parent contributions. They are also framed within an overall perspective on Government funding generally and children’s services funding in particular.
This submission proposes a funding model for children’s services within which the provisions currently funded through “the broadband” can be considered.
Purposes of children's services
The purposes of children’s services are:
- To provide a high quality experience for children that provides well for their growth, development and learning that is equally accessible to all children and families
- To support families and communities particularly those with additional needs
- To support parents who are in the workforce or seeking to enter it.
The implications of these objectives are that:
- Family financial contributions should be based on income;
- There should be equity between service types with regard to the support provided by the government, both financial and other, and in the contribution required of families;
- There should be funding support to ensure that children with additional needs (‘targeted children’) have both access to a range of services and are able to participate fully in the program provided. There are two parts to this issue:
- Government should bear the full additional cost of integrating children with additional needs into a service
- There should be no financial disincentive at the service level to the enrollment of children with additional needs.
This approach to equity speaks to the requirement for adequate, additional funding to achieve the same ends for children with additional needs that is participation in a program that to responds to their developmental needs. It does not suggest support or otherwise for current approaches to additional needs support.
Government funding – The principles
Outlined below are the principles that AECA believes should be evidenced in Government funding programs.
All government funding should:
- Be transparent, accountable and subject to review and
- Provide for stability
In addition government funding for Children’s Services should:
- Provide for sustainability, security and predictability
- Be equitable and fair
- Be national
- Support access
- Be flexible and responsive to ongoing and emergent local, regional, state and national need
- Recognise the need for a diverse range of children’s services
- Guarantee a whole of system approach of quality assurance
- Ensure a planning approach that enables all families and children to participate on equal terms in a quality children’s services program
- Provide for system maintenance, development and innovation
The funding structure
The overall approach taken by AECA to this review foregrounds consideration of all the different types of funding required for the operation of a children’s services program. Clearly the distinction between capital and recurrent funding remains and we will give some consideration to the need for a more realistic approach to capital support particularly for services in rural and remote Australia. At the same time, if a coherent and transparent approach to the allocation of funds is to be possible, the issues raised by the broadband review necessitate an analysis of the range of different types of funding for children’s services that are included under the general heading of recurrent funding.
AECA believes that funding for the Children’s Services program falls into four main categories and that the way these funds are allocated must reflect the principles already outlined in this submission. These categories are:
- Program funding
- Infrastructure support funding
- Innovations/emergent Issues funding and
- Capital funding
Program Funding
Program funding covers those areas that are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of :
- a quality system and
- programs that result in high quality outcomes for children. Quality Assurance is part of the Government’s accountability obligations as well as a necessary part of its obligation to ensure the well being of children. For this reason AECA believes that quality assurance should be fully funded by Government beyond the registration fee. AECA also believes that consideration should be given to a lodgement fee for an appeal that could be refunded if that appeal were successful.
Program funding is demand driven and so uncapped. It would be secure for so long as areas receiving such funding continued to fit the guidelines for it and services met Government accountability requirements. This is not to deny the possibility of change should the Government’s budget priorities change.
In line with the commitment to equity in the way funds are provided Program Funds would be of four kinds:
- funds which are available to all families and are means tested
- additional funds which are necessary to resource the participation in services of children and families with needs arising from location and/or other recognised on going additional needs;
- funds which are necessary to ensure families can access a diverse range of quality services; and
- funds which benefit all families equally in that they support public systems of ongoing quality assurance including provision for education and support of services for those engaged in the accreditation process
Infrastructure funding
This funding supports the infrastructure that underwrites the quality of the children’s services system. Such funding recognises the importance of ongoing professional support and development to the maintenance of any system. This is not the same as support for quality assurance identified above as program funding. It recognises the need for services and those who work for them to maintain their professional knowledge, skills and information base if they are to provide quality services. This is particularly the case in an area where wages and conditions are so difficult. Funding for infrastructure support should reflect the priorities of the government and although not open ended should increase with new government priorities and demands.
AECA believes that cost of infrastructure support should be born by government and services. Given the current uneven participation in professional development across the system consideration should be given:
- To providing participation incentives to services and
- To including a requirement to give evidence of participation in external professional development experiences in documentation associated with the Quality Assurance process.
Clearly equity considerations are important in the allocation of these funds.
Innovations/Emergent Issues Funding –
All systems need to make provisions that ensure that the system is responsive to new demands and emerging issues. Funding for innovations and emerging issues would provide for work on new directions and emergent thinking. as well as providing flexible support for new initiatives responding to needs emerging at local, regional, state or national levels. Funding would be available for initiatives that contribute to thinking and practice. New initiatives may be evidence based or provide the evidence needed for a change of approach. Features of innovations funding are that:
- The total pool of funding is capped
- Innovations initiatives are time limited and funding under this head can be discontinued if funding is no longer appropriate.
- Funds may be used to fund pilot projects which can be moved into Program funding after a pilot phase if it is decided that they meet the criteria for this category of funding
- It could also be used to fund special projects that were seen to contribute to thinking and practice
Capital Funding
The issue of capital funding is one of considerable concern. Capital Funding from government is necessary to ensure that there are services in areas where private providers are unwilling to risk investment capital. This is particularly the case in low socio economic areas where such funding is necessary to underwrite access to these services.
At present the only capital funding available is directed towards services in rural and remote Australia and even here there are concerns that the processes for application for such funds are attenuated and do not reflect an understanding of the real costs of building outside major cities and how building costs escalate over time. In some cases funds this results in funding that is sufficient at the time of application but insufficient with the lapse of time until final approval and commencement of the project.
AECA also believes that it would be constructive when making decisions about the allocation of capital funds to ensure that existing infrastructure such as community preschools are looked at as potential candidates for redevelopment. This would be a sensible approach and offers potential cost savings. It also avoids disenchantment felt in communities when new buildings and services are funded which undermine existing services. Whether Government planned interventions build or undermine capacity in communities should be an important consideration in the decision making process.
Whether this category of funding is a subset of infrastructure funding is an open question.
Regionalisation
One of the issues which has been raised in the Broadband Review and more generally is whether there are benefits to be had from the regionalisation of decisions about the allocation of Broadband funds. Notwithstanding AECA’s firm view that decisions on the reallocation of Broadband funds should be set aside in the short term AECA believes that the issue of regionalisation is complex.
There is some suggestion that funds would be better allocated where knowledge of local needs can be given due weight. However it is also the case that in some regions these processes could be divisive and unhelpful particularly if funds are still inadequate to meet perceived need. This issue needs careful investigation and clear and transparent processes and guidelines including proper accountability and consultation if it is to generate any of the perceived gains.
Conclusion
AECA is pleased to make this contribution to the Review and looks to continuing participation in the review process as part of the Child Care Reference Group.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 14 June 2007 )
|
