The process and policy challenges of adapting and implementing the early development instrument in Australia

Copyright © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCResearch Findings: Australian state and federal governments have increasingly recognized early childhood as a critical period for investing in interventions. At the same time, a number of organizational, structural, and environmental responses have been put in place to build the capacity of communities to better support children and their families. It was in this policy environment of increasing investment in community-level interventions to promote outcomes for children that the need emerged in Australia for a population measure of early childhood development. This article outlines some of the process and policy challenges associated with the introduction and adaptation of a population measure of early child developmentthe Early Development Instrument (EDI)by Australian communities, which culminated in its adoption as a national measure of early childhood development in 2008. It highlights the need to develop both a strategic and psychometric approach to successfully implement any measure that requires community-wide participation. Practice or Policy: There were particular challenges to embedding the AEDI, and therefore data about early childhood developmental outcomes, within policy processes. These are discussed in terms of the adaptation and validation process in Australia, the development of novel methods of data collection for national implementation, the benefits of cross-national comparisons, and the policy impact and environment that has been necessary for longer term sustainability.Sharon Goldfeld, Mary Sayers, Sally Brinkman, Sven Silburn, Frank Oberklai

On regional and cultural approaches to Australian Indigenous violence

Based on a national analysis of Indigenous family violence, the 2001 monograph on ‘Violence in Indigenous Communities’ by the author and his colleagues for the Australian Attorney-General's Department called for government agencies to ‘take a regional approach to supporting and co-ordinating local community initiatives’ together with ‘partnerships between Indigenous program personnel and mainstream services …’ (Memmott et al., 2001, p. 4). This current article reports on regional aspects of two subsequent pieces of research by the author, one in the Barkly Region of central-east Northern Territory for Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation (2007) and the other in the Torres Strait for the Queensland Department of Communities (2008). The research findings from both of these studies develop the case for government policy to accommodate regional approaches to Indigenous family violence due to combinations of geographic and culturally specific causal factors. The importance of nurturing social and cultural capital in Indigenous communities to strengthen social values, leadership and cohesion in addressing Indigenous violence will be emphasised. Some comment will be made on the role of underlying factors (‘deep historical circumstances’) in contributing to violence, in conjunction with precipitating causes and situational factors, the former being somewhat downplayed in policy debate over the period of the Howard government