Understanding the nature and significance of early childhood: new evidence and its implications

INTRODUCTION This paper is based on a presentation at a Centre for Community Child Health seminar devoted to a consideration of the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on Child Care and Early Childhood Learning. The aim of the paper was to present a succinct summary of relevant evidence to inform discussions. Rather than reviewing the evidence regarding existing forms of service, the presentation focused more broadly on what we know about child development – how children learn and what children need. The paper is not so much about challenging existing models of early childhood education and care in Australia as challenging our understanding of the nature and significance of the early years. NEW RESEARCH EVIDENCE AND WHAT IT TELLS US Over the past few decades, there has been a growing acceptance among scholars, professionals and policy makers of the importance of the early years. However, as we learn more about the way in which experiences in the early years shape health, development and wellbeing, and the extent of these influences over the life-course, the true importance of these years becomes more and more apparent. There are nine sources of evidence to be considered. Evidence about the nature and significance of prenatal development and experiences, and their effects over the life course Evidence about the nature and significance of postnatal learning and development, and the impact of proximal environments Evidence regarding the impact of early childhood experiences on long term development, health and wellbeing Evidence regarding neurological development and plasticity Evidence regarding the neurobiology of interpersonal relationships Evidence regarding ‘social climate change’ and its effects Evidence from economic analyses of child development and the benefits of investments in the early years Evidence regarding social inequalities and their effects Evidence from repeated measurement of key indicators of child development and functioning.• Presentation at Centre for Community Child Health seminar Investing in Early Childhood—the future of early childhood education and care in Australia The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, 25 July 201

Acting early, changing lives: how prevention and early action saves money and improves wellbeing

Evidence indicates worsening or unacceptably high levels of problems amongst Australia’s children and young people. These problems will not improve – and could get worse – unless we are able to effectively intervene to prevent these problems from occurring in the first place or address the problems early before they become entrenched. This report investigates the potential of early intervention to improve the outcomes of Australian children, especially those children experiencing significant levels of disadvantage, and especially for the long-term (i.e. into adolescence and adulthood). Early intervention is defined in this report as interventions that occur during the early years of an individual’s life (0-5 years of age) in order to prevent a negative outcome or to address an existing problem. The justification for early intervention (i.e. intervention during the early years) rests with the nature of human development and the way in which children develop and learn. The basic foundations for development are laid down during the early childhood years. The prenatal period also plays an important role in an individual’s longterm outcomes.&nbsp

Place-based approaches to child and family services

This paper synthesizes the conceptual and empirical literature on place-based approaches to meeting the needs of young children and their families. A specific focus of the paper is on the potential contribution of place-based approaches to service reconfiguration and coordination. Outline The paper begins by outlining the sweeping social changes that have occurred in developed nations over the past few decades and their impact on children, families and communities. It explores the ‘joined up’ problems faced by families and communities in the contemporary world, and highlights the need to reconfigure services to support families more effectively. The paper then focuses on ‘joined up’ solutions, on what we know about how to meet the challenges posed by the complex problems that characterise our society. Next, the paper explores what a place-based approach involves, and what role it can play in supporting families with young children. The rationale underpinning place-based approaches is outlined and the evidence for the effectiveness of the approach is summarised. The paper then looks at what can be learned from efforts to implement place-based initiatives in Australia and overseas, and explores the issues that need to be addressed in implementing this strategy. The ways in which the early childhood service system might be reconfigured are also considered, and the paper ends with a consideration of the policy and implementation implications.&nbsp

Nitrous oxide consumption potentials of well-drained forest soils in Southern Québec, Canada.

To establish the major controls on N2O consumption by forest soils, we conducted laboratory incubations of 16 samples from four soil types, two organic and two mineral, varying in overlying forest vegetation (sugar maple, American beech and eastern hemlock). The fastest potential consumption of N2O occurred under anoxic conditionswith little soil nitrate and under elevated headspaceN2O concentration. Potential N2O consumption rates were fastest in organic soils under hemlock and beech trees (111 and 75 ng N2O-Ng−1 d−1, respectively) compared to mineral soils under beech and maple trees (45 and 41 ng N2O-N g−1 d−1). Organic soils showed faster N2O consumption rates than mineral soils, possibly due to larger organic C levels and higher C:N ratios. Acetylene treatment confirmed that denitrification was the process underlyingN2Oconsumption. These results suggest that soils regularly consume N2O with varying magnitude, most likely in anoxic microsites throughout the soil profile and that the potential for N2O consumption is larger in organic than in mineral forest soils

Sustained home visiting for vulnerable families and children: a literature review of effective programs

Parenting young children has become a more complex and stressful business, especially for those families in our community with the least resources (Grose, 2006; Hayes et al, 2010; Poole, 2004; Richardson & Prior, 2005; Trask, 2010). A widening gap exists between families that function well and those that are vulnerable. The paradox of service delivery for children and families is that vulnerable families – that is, those families with the greatest needs – are also the least likely to be able to access those services (Ghate & Hazel, 2002; Fram, 2003). A range of barriers exist for vulnerable and at risk families in making use of services (Carbone et al, 2004). One of the key barriers to vulnerable families accessing services is that many find it difficult to relate to the formal service system and are easily alienated by practices others find acceptable. Research regarding parents’ experiences of support services suggests that parents want services where they are simultaneously cared for and enabled in their role as parents, and to receive services characterised by empathy, competence, functionality, respect, flexibility and honesty (Attide-Stirling et al, 2001; Winkworth et al, 2009). Vulnerable parents fear a loss of autonomy in their interactions with support services and want services that are non-judgemental and that provide continuity of care (Ghate & Hazel, 2002; von Bultzingslowen, 2006). In addition to the barriers faced by vulnerable and marginalised families in accessing services, the system does not work in an integrated or coherent fashion to ensure that all children and families needing support receive it. Furthermore, the vast majority of services for children and families in Australia do not have an outreach function, that is, a means of engaging these vulnerable and at risk families who are in need of support but use services inconsistently or not at all. In short, the service system was not designed to meet the needs of vulnerable families within the context of a rapidly changing social and economic climate. Therefore, many families requiring support are not receiving it. A research collaboration between the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY), the Centre for Health Equity Research and Evaluation (CHETRE) and the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH

Primary schools as community hubs: a review of the literature

Considerable work has been undertaken over several years to establish primary schools as community hubs in the City of Hume through the Hubs Strategy Group for the Hume Communities for Children Initiative and, more recently, the Supporting Parents Developing Children project. This work has highlighted the need for a primary school community hub toolkit. The purpose of this review is to inform the development of a resource (e.g. a toolkit) that can be used by other schools so that they can also establish themselves as community hubs. An agreed definition of schools as community hubs within the literature has not been reached. Rather, the notion of schools as community hubs seems to be understood in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this review we will draw on the definitions provided by Black (2008) and the Hubs Strategy Group for the Broadmeadows Communities for Children Initiative (2009). Black (2008) describes hubs as involving \u27collaboration between school education systems and the other sectors (community, business, local government and philanthropy) to support the learning and wellbeing of young people, especially those facing disadvantage\u27 (p. 6). These collaborations can range from sharing, co-locating or joint use of physical facilities, through to schools as the centre of a hub or precinct that offers multiple services for the whole community. In the City of Hume, the Hubs Strategy Group have conceptualised a hub as, a welcoming place for families that engages key service providers to work collaboratively. A hub can be a single location or a network of places working together to provide services, such as schools, kindergartens, maternal and child health, and other relevant agencies. Hubs facilitate connections between key services and professionals and represent a paradigm shift in the planning and practice of service provision. Services and their staff are required to rethink existing practice to move to an inclusive practices framework at a professional and community level. &nbsp

Evidence-based service modules for a sustained home visiting program

The Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH) at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and the Royal Children’s Hospital has undertaken two literature reviews to inform the design of a sustained home visiting program for vulnerable families with young children; the program is now known as \u27right@home\u27. This project is being led by a collaboration between three organisations: The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY), CCCH, and the University of New South Wales. The first literature review undertaken by CCCH (Sustained home visiting for vulnerable families and children: A review of effective programs (McDonald et al., 2012) (hereon in referred to as the Home visiting review of effective programs) sought to answer the question ‘what works in home visiting programs?’ The conclusion reached was that it was not possible to answer the question definitively, either because the evidence regarding the ‘components’ of home visiting programs is contradictory or contested, or the evidence is not available. As the home visiting review of effective programs focused on what was delivered (ie. the efficacy of different manualised programs), rather than how services were delivered (ie. the effect of the manner in which services were delivered and the nature of the relationships established between service providers and parents), a second literature review was undertaken: Sustained home visiting for vulnerable families and children: A literature review of effective processes and strategies (Moore et al., 2012) (hereon in referred to as the Home visiting review of effective processes and strategies). The home visiting review of effective processes and strategies identified converging evidence from a number of sources to support the idea that the process aspects of service delivery matter for outcomes – how services are provided is as important as what is provided. A number of key elements of effective service delivery processes have been repeatedly identified in the research literature and these represent the threshold features or bedrock on which all services should be based: if services are not delivered in accordance with these process features, then efforts to change people’s behaviour will be less effective (Moore et al., 2012). The evidence also indicated that the identification of goals, and of strategies to achieve these goals, needs to be done in partnership with parents. However, while the ultimate choice of strategies should be made by parents, the strategies on offer used must be evidence-based. Therefore, service providers should be able to draw on a suite of evidence-based strategies to address the range of challenges that parents face in caring for their children (Moore et al., 2012). In the light of the findings of this second literature review, it was decided that the right@home home visiting program would not involve the delivery of a manualised program. Rather, service delivery would be based on the processes of effective engagement and partnership, while the content of the program would take two forms: standard modules that are delivered to all participants, and e.g. information on the stages of child development), and evidence-based ‘service modules’ (i.e. specific strategies) that could be deployed to address issues that are of particular concern to individual parents.  Related identifer: ISSN 2204-340

Early learning programs that promote children’s developmental and educational outcomes

This resource sheet reviews international and Australian research evidence for the characteristics of early learning programs that are effective in promoting developmental and learning outcomes. The early years of life are the best opportunity to lay the foundations for a child’s future. By getting it right in early childhood, we plant the seeds for tomorrow’s engaged and active student, productive and skilled worker, and confident and loving parent. Investments of time and money in the early years have been shown to be far more cost-effective than investments made at any other time. The skills children develop as infants, toddlers and preschoolers are cumulative and form the basis for later skill development. Early learning contributes to a chain of effects that either reinforces initial achievements or exacerbates initial difficulties. As a result, children enter school with marked differences in the cognitive, emotional, attention-related, self-regulatory, learning and social skills needed for success in the school environment, and these differences are predictive of later academic success. Progress during the school years depends partly on early levels of functioning and partly on family socioeconomic status. Throughout the early years, socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with poorer outcomes in language and literacy, communication, socioemotional functioning and early learning skills. Attending an early learning program in the years before school has been shown to have significant benefits for children’s development, particularly for children growing up in situations of socioeconomic disadvantage or special need. However, many of these children miss out due to problems of access and uptake or cost and quality. This resource sheet reviews international and Australian research evidence for the characteristics of early learning programs that are effective in promoting developmental and learning outcomes. The bulk of this research is not Indigenous-specific. The review focuses on centre-based or school-based education and care settings; universal and targeted approaches to program delivery; and Australian studies that address the needs of Indigenous children. &nbsp

Rethinking universal and targeted services

 In supporting young children and their families, we need to use the available resources in ways that are both effective (that achieve the outcomes we are seeking) and efficient (that do so with least amount of effort and cost). Among other things, this involves knowing what combination and balance of universal and additional or targeted services are needed and how these should be deployed. One of the key ways in which human services vary is according to their aims or target groups. Three forms of services that are usually distinguished are universal, targeted and treatment services, and defined as follows: • Universal services are available to the whole of the population and are designed to promote positive functioning and thereby decrease the likelihood of specific disorders developing. • Targeted services are available to selected groups or individuals who are known to be at risk of developing a particular health or developmental problem, and are designed to reduce the incidence of the problem developing. • Treatment services are available to individuals or families who have an established condition or problem and are designed to minimise the negative impact of the condition or problem. This paper seeks to rethink these forms of service and the relationship between them. It proposes an alternative relationship, a tiered system of universal, secondary and tertiary services that are more closely integrated than the existing universal, targeted and treatment services, and that are designed to strengthen the capacity of the universal services to be truly inclusive and to cater more effectively for the diverse needs of all children and families