1. Background

Family relationship services refer to those that aim to support children, young people and adults to develop and sustain nurturing family relationships, and to minimise the social and economic costs associated with disrupted family relationships. The sector consists of a group of services with three interlinked sets of aims:

• early intervention to prevent family relationship problems from arising (services such as parenting education and skills training);
• providing support to stabilise families where problems have arisen (services such as family counselling); and
• helping families to manage their relationships during any period of family breakdown, including post-separation, and to resolve disputes themselves without going to court (services such as family dispute resolution and children's contact services).

The core of the sector in Australia consists of over 100 community organisations that receive funding under the Australian Government's Family Relationships Services Program (FRSP)¹ - although services may also receive funds from other government programs or from religious agencies, charities, or user contributions. The FRSP is jointly funded by the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA).

Why the family relationship services workforce matters

In order to fulfil their goals and achieve social and personal outcomes, family relationship services must be staffed in appropriate and sustainable ways.

The health of the workforce within the family relationship services sector has recently become a priority, with the FRSP Senior Executive Forum (representing FRSP-funded services) reiterating the need for accurate data about the workforce and reaffirming its commitment to identifying strategies to address workforce challenges through its Working Group on Workforce Development (FaHCSIA, 2008). The reasons for doing so are compelling. Remuneration in this sector is low compared with similar industries, and there is evidence of emerging challenges in recruiting, retaining and training practitioners, and in establishing career paths within the service system, particularly in rural and remote locations (FaHCSIA, 2008).

Because these services are labour intensive, the ways in which family relationship services are staffed and how staff capacity is sustained have significance for children and families, managers and practitioners, policy-makers, and the wider community. Like many other human services, family relationship services have enabling effects, in that the benefits of service provision extend beyond those individuals who directly use the services. Such services require a great deal of time and care, as they offer to build the capacity of people to meet their own social and emotional needs and better meet the needs of others. As well as improving clients' lives, the effective provision of these kinds of services has significant flow-on effects throughout the economy and society, further emphasising the need for a stable and sustainable workforce (England, Budig, & Folbre, 2002).

At an organisational level, unstable or inappropriate staffing arrangements incur additional direct and indirect costs that compromise service quality, efficiency and sustainability. Direct costs include those that arise from unnecessarily having to select, orient and train new staff, and indirect costs include loss of organisational knowledge, experience and expertise, and reduction in staff morale. Operating with too few staff overall (understaffing) or with under-qualified staff makes it difficult for agencies to run programs that meet clients' needs, and compromises the organisation's capacity to complete the administrative requirements of funding agencies, thereby jeopardising program continuity (Flaxman, Muir, & Oprea, 2009).

In service delivery, unstable staffing depletes capacity, reducing prospects for the strong relationship formation between staff and clients that is considered so essential for service quality and successful outcomes (Colton & Roberts, 2007). High staff turnover and caseloads may limit opportunities for clients and staff to get to know each other, and may also affect the quality and timeliness of decision-making, which is particularly problematic where child safety and wellbeing may be involved (DePanfilis & Zlotnik, 2008). A further problem is homogeneous staffing, which may impede the capacity for organisations to build relationships with and meet the needs of diverse populations (including Indigenous Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse populations or people with a disability). Inconsistencies in staffing arrangements may also compromise equity of access, with some services not being consistently available in some areas such as remote locations.

Workforce research and family relationship services

Workforce issues are complex, multi-faceted, interlinked and dynamic, and manifest in various ways in different community services sub-sectors and in different organisational, cultural and geographic contexts. Research is only beginning to unpack the context-specific nature of these challenges, and to explore the different models and strategies required to respond to these challenges in various community services contexts.

The services offered in the family relationship services sector are diverse and often require staff to work closely with a range of other services. Thus, the workforce - and potential workforce - consists of a pool of personnel with disparate professional identities and educational backgrounds who have skill sets that are shared and transferable across other family services and in other areas of community services. Family relationship services are thus likely to be affected by workforce issues and challenges in other areas of child and family services, many of which may be shaped by broader trends in community services.

As yet, there is no definitive academic research that focuses on the family relationship services workforce in Australia, and other research about the sector has tended to overlook or only touch on workforce matters.² In outlining the context shaping Australian relationship education and the challenges affecting these services, Halford and Simons (2005) emphasised the need to build evidence-based approaches and expand program access, but their arguments focused on aspects of program design, such as timing, reach, targeting and tailoring. They did not consider issues of workforce quality and capacity, thus underestimating the challenge of arranging human resources in order to effectively implement programs and achieve the organisation's aims.

Indicators of workforce quality and capacity are not routinely monitored in family relationship services, perhaps reflecting the low profile of human resource issues in community services research and management generally. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (HRSC on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 1998) conducted a national survey of providers of marriage education in Australia that counted numbers of courses and participants, but not numbers of workers, or any other worker characteristics. It is therefore no surprise that key players in the family services sector have voiced concerns about the lack of information about challenges affecting not-for-profit agencies, including workforce challenges (Families Australia, 2007).

Although there has been a lack of academic research and routine monitoring, several program evaluations and other studies of the sector have highlighted workforce issues and challenges. Issues raised include recruitment and retention difficulties, poor remuneration, high proportions of part-time work, and an ageing workforce (Family Relationships Services Australia [FRSA], 2008a; Morgan Disney & Associates, 2004; Urbis Keys Young, 2004).

In associated areas of community services, there is a burgeoning interest in workforce issues, especially in the area of child welfare (including both child protection and family support). The proliferation of studies in the United States has caused some to call for the coordination of research designs and methods, and standardisation of definitions of concepts like "retention" and "turnover" to ensure comparability (DePanfilis & Zlotnik, 2008).

In Australia, a number of workforce studies have been conducted in child and family welfare over the last decade, as service systems have come under strain. Research has included interviews with stakeholders about recruitment, retention and workforce management strategies (e.g., Hodgkin, 2002), with some using comparative methodology to explore the views of employers, policy-makers and researchers as to the factors contributing to the turnover of professional child welfare staff in different national welfare contexts (Healy, Meagher, & Cullin, 2009; Meagher, Cortis, & Healy, 2009). Other research has focused on specific occupations in other contexts, rather than on community services sectors, such as a longitudinal study of Australian rural social workers (Lonne & Cheers, 2004), and Healy and Meagher's (2007) study (using survey data and interviews) of the educational preparedness of social workers for child welfare work. Surveys have been conducted across community services, including the largest national sample survey of social and community services workers in Australia, conducted by the Australian Services Union (ASU, 2007). A broader statistical resource comes from Meagher and Healy's (2005, 2006) analysis of the characteristics of workers in community services occupations from the Australian Census.

Despite these studies, evidence of the specific issues affecting the workforce in the family relationship services sector remains scant. This is problematic because, although it is relatively small compared to other community sub-sectors (FRSA, 2008a), the sector's capacity and sustainability is strategically important to family wellbeing, especially for the most fragile or vulnerable families. While these studies together capture issues that are also likely to be found in family relationship services, research needs to more systematically unpack the specific issues and challenges in this (and other) community services subsectors and contexts.

Approach and scope

In the remainder of this paper, we review and analyse literature relating to workforce issues, models,  challenges and strategies in the family relationship services sector specifically and where such information is not available, in community services more broadly.

Due to the disparate backgrounds and skills of the family relationship services workforce, the review incorporates information about workers employed in a range of programs that aim to support and nurture children and families, not just those funded under FRSP. Relevant articles, policy documentation and submissions were identified through an extensive search of academic databases, and the websites of the state, territory and Commonwealth governments, and of non-government organisations and peak bodies. Articles were surveyed primarily to source specific information about the family relationship services workforce, and secondly, to source information about those community service subsectors that could be expected to work with family relationship services. Australian and international literature was included, with efforts made to review overseas literature that had most relevance to Australia.

Articles were analysed using the categories of workforce composition and characteristics; working conditions; workforce dynamics; workforce strategies; and background and contextual issues to provide the framework for discussion in this paper.

We explore the origins of the family relationship services workforce, and some of its key characteristics, before assessing the workforce challenges evident in the sector, including recruitment and retention, and the factors affecting these. Finally, we assess the range of workforce strategies that are, or could be, adopted in family relationship services and related sectors, appraising their strengths and appropriateness for addressing key challenges.

3. Workforce composition and characteristics

As the previous section has indicated, the family relationship services sector has evolved from being a group of small and relatively uncoordinated church-based and volunteer-run programs, to a more coordinated set of government-supported and professional programs prioritising national social policy goals of promoting child and family wellbeing. However, while governments have recognised the social and economic costs of family conflict and break-up, and have sought to expand the sector and the range of services it provides, initiatives to develop the capacity of the sector's human resources have tended to lag. Like the rest of the non-government sector, coverage by industrial awards is a relatively recent development. Workers in family services and across community services previously fell outside the system of basic industrial protection, contributing to poor work conditions and problems of workforce sustainability (Briggs, Meagher, & Healy, 2007).

In this section, we outline some key workforce characteristics in family relationship services - including gender, age, qualifications and geographic spread of the workforce. This helps to build a profile of the workforce and to identify gaps in knowledge about their characteristics and composition. It also foregrounds discussion of key workforce challenges affecting the sector, considered in more detail in following sections.

Data on family services workers

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003) provided some data about family services workers, defined as:

• welfare workers (those who assist individuals and families with social, emotional and financial difficulties);
• family counsellors (who provide marriage or relationship counselling to individuals, couples or families); and
• family support workers (who assist social and welfare workers by providing services and support to families).

The AIHW noted increasing numbers of welfare and family support workers in the late 1990s, but a decline in numbers of family counsellors. Between 1996 and 2001, the number of welfare workers increased by 44% and family support workers increased by 38% (perhaps reflecting growing support for early intervention services). In contrast, the number of family counsellors decreased by 6.4% (AIHW, 2003). The data also show that while just over a third of welfare workers worked part time, more than half of family counsellors (52.4%) and family support workers (57.4%) did so.

The workforce and FRSP services

Data collected as part of the FRSP also offer insight into some of the characteristics of practitioners in the family relationship services sector. This information originates from reports by agencies providing services to their funding body, FaHCSIA, through the "FRSP Online" system. Because it relies on up-to-date reporting by agencies, data should be considered approximate only. Moreover, because the data relate only to workers who provide services to clients, it does not include those in office or other roles that do not involve client contact, so does not give a full picture of the sector's workforce. A further caveat is that many family relationship services will receive funding from sources other than the FRSP, and workers in these services will not be included in the data collection. Notwithstanding these limitations, the data do provide current indicative information about a large and significant part of the family relationship services workforce.

Gender and the FRSP workforce

Table 1 shows that in February 2009, there were approximately 6,805 staff who had active registration in the sector, according to organisations' reports to FaHCSIA. Around three quarters of these workers were female, confirming the expectation, and the point made in a previous evaluation of the FRSP that more women than men work in the sector (Urbis Keys Young, 2004). The state with the highest proportion of male workers was the ACT (33.5%), while Queensland had the lowest (18.9%).

Note: Registered FRSP workers as of February 2009. Numbers are approximate, because data rely on up-to-date agency reporting.
Source: FaHCSIA FRSP Online administrative data (unpublished), February 2009.

The gender split in the family relationship services workforce is not surprising - women predominantly perform similar kinds of work in Australia and in other countries (Meagher & Healy, 2005). Family relationship services involve direct client contact, emotional engagement and emotional provisioning - capabilities traditionally assumed to be intrinsic to women's roles. As such, work involving these characteristics has sometimes been considered extensions of women's mothering and domestic roles, reinforcing ideas that skills related to social and emotional care are natural rather than the result of formal learning, and that industries involving the provision of care are suitable areas for female employment (Daniels, 1987).

Indeed, the strong sex-typing of these kinds of work underpins a series of workforce challenges. Because of assumptions that providing social and emotional care and support are intrinsic female proclivities, these kinds of work have traditionally been seen as low skill, contributing to relatively low pay and poor training across community services and other industries (England, Budig, & Folbre, 2002). Further, because women still carry the main responsibility for domestic work, responsibilities for family care are likely to be more pertinent issues in female dominated industries like family support, given that a large part of the workforce is female. Retaining and sustaining this workforce is thus likely to require systems of work-family supports (Moss, 2003).

The gender split also raises further issues for sector capacity, in that the strong sex-typing of work involving emotional engagement and care may deter men from working in family relationship and associated services. That family service work is seen as typically "female" work may contribute to shortages of male workers, which may limit the capacity of services to offer specialised educational and therapeutic groups for men (Urbis Keys Young, 2004).

Importantly however, while the sector appears overwhelmingly dominated by women, data above from FRSP Online suggests there may be higher proportions of men working as registered practitioners in family relationship services (24.6%) than in other areas of community services. Indeed, analysis of occupation information reported in the 2001 Census suggests 88.4% of care workers in community services were female (Meagher & Healy, 2005), while 81% of respondents in a large survey of social and community services workers conducted by the Australian Services Union were women (ASU, 2007).

Indicators of organisation size

FRSP Online data also tell us about the distribution of practitioners between organisations, which gives some indication of the opportunities for development of practitioner cultures and support, and of professional isolation. Table 2 shows how FRSP services are dominated by a large number of organisations employing small numbers of registered practitioners. In February 2009 there were 64 funded organisations that employed 10 or less practitioners, and relatively few (12) organisations employing more than 100 practitioners. However, over two-fifths of registered practitioners worked in organisations employing more than 100 registered practitioners, and over three-fifths work in the largest 31 organisations. While these data are indicative only and require further exploration, they raise questions about how working conditions, and training and development opportunities might differ across small and large organisations, as those in small organisations could be expected to have less access to peer networks, and fewer opportunities for promotion.

Note: Registered FRSP workers as of February 2009. Numbers are approximate, because data relies on up to date agency reporting.

Source: FaHCSIA FRSP Online administrative data (unpublished), February 2009.

The data in Tables 1 and 2 indicate the size of the workforce in FRSP funded services, the gender split, the spread of registered practitioners across the states, and their distribution between organisations. This gives an indication of the overall size of the family relationship services workforce, subject to the limitations outlined above. While it does indicate some key characteristics of registered practitioners, it does not give sufficient detail to support a full understanding of the workforce and the challenges emerging, as FRSP Online data are approximate only and key indicators such as workers' age, qualification levels and occupational background, or the geographic spread of workers are not included.

Other characteristics of the family relationship services workforce

While FRSP Online data only provide information about practitioners' gender and organisation size, other sources give an indication of workforce age structures and ageing, and issues around qualifications, accreditation and registration, pay, volunteering, and the geographic and cultural characteristics of the family relationship services workforce.

Age

Along with other areas of community services, the family relationship services workforce is ageing (Meagher & Healy, 2005; van Acker, 2008). While the ageing of the Australian workforce is a national trend (Kryger, 2005), human services workers are particularly affected. On average, care workers in community services are older than workers in other industries, and this in itself can make it difficult to recruit younger people into the industry, compounding concerns about workforce sustainability when the older generation retires (Meagher & Healy 2005). The age profile of workers in the marriage and relationship education field may also raise challenges for service delivery - if an older workforce may be poorly matched to younger clients, and if the life experience and expertise of younger workers comes under challenge by older, more experienced workers (van Acker, 2008).

Qualifications

The precise mix of qualifications in the family relationship workforce is unclear. Family relationship services employ staff in a range of positions, including family counsellors, family therapists, dispute resolution practitioners, educators and skills trainers, managers, facilitators, youth workers, and community liaison workers. There are several pathways into these jobs. While many positions require vocational qualifications (Certificate IV level in, for example, relationship counselling or relationship education) or bachelor or higher degree qualifications (for example in social work, youth work, psychology, counselling, family law or community development), previous experience and on-the-job training may also provide pathways into the sector (FRSA, n.d.).

While there is no research evidence of the current qualification levels and background disciplines that are needed by workers in family relationship services, there is no prescribed minimum qualification. Over a decade ago, the House of Representatives Committee report encouraged higher levels of education among marriage and relationship educators, but did not believe a particular tertiary qualification should be a necessary prerequisite for practice (HRSC on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 1998). Rather than requiring particular qualifications, a registration process was recommended for family relationship services, based on the idea that a level of proficiency is required for practice in the marriage education field (HRSC on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 1998).

Registration and accreditation

Practitioners in services funded by the Family Relationships Services Program who provide services to clients are required to have their details registered on the FRSP Online system. This registration is not an accreditation system, and does not indicate attainment of a level of competency. As registration data are minimal, this system cannot be used to provide a detailed picture of workforce capacity, such as qualifications, or experience, however there is scope for it to play an expanded role in ensuring service quality.

A different system applies to those providing family dispute resolution as defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (who may also perform other roles in family relationship service provision). This group do require accreditation. For these workers, an accreditation system was introduced to ensure service quality and recognise professionalism among family dispute resolution practitioners, alongside reforms phasing in requirements for parents to attend family dispute resolution prior to seeking parenting orders through a court. From 1 July 2009 family dispute resolution practitioners can meet accreditation standards through three pathways: completing the Vocational Graduate Diploma of Family Dispute Resolution (specially developed for the family relationship sector) or higher education equivalent; completing an appropriate qualification or be accredited under the National Mediator Approval Standards and gaining competency in all compulsory units from the Vocational Graduate Diploma (or the higher education equivalent units); or being registered before 1 July 2009 and gaining competency in three specified units of competency from the Vocational Graduate Diploma (or the higher education equivalent units)³ (AGD, n.d.). While this helps maintain service standards, there was some criticism from social workers during the development of the regulations about the focus in the accreditation system on vocational competencies over theoretical understandings and reflexive practice knowledge (Martin & Douglas, 2007).

Remuneration

There is little systematic information about pay rates in the family services sector. However, a review of the FRSP found evidence that professional salaries across services are around 25% lower than salaries earned in comparable government sector positions, with staff paid less than teachers or nurses (Urbis Keys Young, 2004). This was documented for counsellors, social workers and psychologists, who earn less than those who could be employed doing similar work in government agencies, the family court or in legal aid. Those with legal training were reportedly much more poorly paid than their counterparts in the government or private sectors (Urbis Keys Young, 2004).

FRSA also cites a gap between the community-based FRSP sector and the public sector of around $15,000 and $30,000 per annum for each full time equivalent position. In light of mortgage and rent increases, non-monetary incentives like flexible hours or training in the community sector are unlikely to adequately compensate (FRSA, 2008b). Although the salary sacrificing options sometimes offered in community organisations with public benevolent institution status can compensate, these options are spread unevenly across the community sector and are not universally available (ACOSS, 2008a), and the structure, take-up and implications of these arrangements in family relationship services is unclear.

Volunteers

In general, community services use high numbers of volunteers, which may depress wages and constrain the development of professional identities (Community Services and Health Industries Skills Council [CSHISC], 2008). Like the wider sector, family relationship services have been found to overly rely on volunteers (Urbis Keys Young, 2004). While there are no data available that quantifies the use of volunteers, the sector is historically underpinned by voluntarism, given its church-based roots. However, volunteers have progressively been replaced with paid staff since the Family Services Program was introduced in the 1960s, and this trend has been reinforced with the development of the academic study of counselling and related disciplines. While volunteers still play a role in some aspects of service delivery, and in post-separation services in support roles, the emphasis has turned to up-skilling and professionalising the paid workforce. Many agencies have developed their own internal education and professional development programs (HRSC on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 1998), and accreditation was recently introduced for part of the sector (family dispute resolution).

Geographic profile

Geographic patterns of service provision and need raise challenges for human service delivery, including for family relationship services (Halford & Simons, 2005). In many rural areas, incomes tend to be low, and unemployment tends to be high and volatile where communities depend on a narrow range of industries, or a single industry (Catholic Welfare Australia [CWA] & Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [FaCSIA], 2006; Green, 2003). These trends, combined with the financial uncertainty, anxiety and stress relating to the drought in some regions of Australia, contribute to poor health, education and financial outcomes, and to high levels of need for family and relationship services in rural areas (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006; Green, 2003). In some areas, the mining boom has put pressure on relationships: family members have been relocated and face prolonged or episodic separation.

As well as contributing to demands on family relationship services, these regional patterns raise workforce challenges. Where other health and social services are lacking, family relationship services may need to fill the gap. Developing specialised services is impractical in small communities, limiting service choice and meaning family relationship professionals may pick up clients that need other kinds of assistance - widening the repertoire of required skills (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006). Further, in small communities, workers may find it difficult to maintain boundaries where personal and professional roles and relationships intersect (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006). There may also be shortages of training providers in many areas, and limited funds to travel to access training or professional development opportunities.

Ethnic diversity

The cultural profile of the workforce is important, because capacity to speak languages other than English enables practitioners to connect with, and deliver services to, culturally diverse communities. Overall, the community services workforce appears slightly less ethnically diverse than all occupations, and the wider Australian population. Whereas 15.2% of Australians reportedly spoke a language other than English at home in 2001, the figure was 14.1% for the working population, but lower, at 12.2% for care workers in community services (Meagher & Healy, 2005). These are aggregate figures for community services in general and include nursing homes and childcare services where workers who speak languages other than English are concentrated (31% and 27%, see Meagher & Healy, 2005). As such, they are likely to underestimate the gap between the linguistic diversity in the family relationship services workforce, and diversity in the general population.

This profile raises challenges for the workforce, and for service capacity to engage culturally diverse families. However, while hiring bilingual staff is generally seen as important for delivering services to culturally diverse communities, some argue that the cultural profile of service providers may, in some contexts, be less important to service effectiveness than cultural competence, work skills and the relationship-building style of staff (Forehand & Kotchick, 1996; Katz, La Place, & Hunter, 2007; Moran, Ghate, & van der Merwe, 2004; Sawrikar & Katz; 2008).

The Indigenous workforce

According to the 2001 Census, Indigenous Australians comprise 2.2% of the total population, 1.2% of employees, and 2.4% of care workers in community service industries (Meagher & Healy, 2005). Although Indigenous workers are over-represented in community services, they are under-represented among professionals in these industries (Meagher & Healy, 2005).⁴ Indeed, there is evidence of shortages of Indigenous workers who are formally trained and qualified, which may compromise the capacity of services to effectively meet the needs of Indigenous populations (Healy, 2002).

In family relationship services, suitably qualified Indigenous practitioners have been described as in "critical undersupply" (FRSA, 2008b). CWA and FaCSIA (2006) documented difficulties in recruiting Indigenous staff with formal qualifications, as well as non-Indigenous staff who are trained to work effectively cross-culturally and are experienced in working with Indigenous communities. Retention is a further problem, especially because of isolation and poor informal supports, for example, when there is only one Indigenous worker and high community expectations (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006). In a study of Indigenous child and family services funded under the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, Flaxman et al. (2009) found general difficulties recruiting and retaining Indigenous workers, with positions often left vacant and re-advertised. Where "gatekeepers" or cultural brokers were used to link service providers from outside the community with community members, these individuals tended to become over-burdened with managing communication and relationships, compromising the sustainability of these roles. Shortages of Indigenous practitioners and the strain on Indigenous family services workers makes continued provision of cross-cultural training imperative, along with strategic approaches to developing the Indigenous workforce, and recruiting and retaining Indigenous staff.

5. Workforce responses: Strategies in family relationship services and related fields

This paper has analysed a number of workforce trends and issues that raise challenges for the quality and sustainability of the family relationship services sector. This section examines a number of strategies that have been initiated, proposed or could be considered as ways to develop workforce capacity in family relationship services, and in related community service areas, including child welfare services. Such strategies are multiple and diverse - ranging from those that broadly focus on reforming policy, models of service delivery and professional practice, to more modest initiatives aimed at improving workplace training and supervisory arrangements. In this section we present a typology of options that categorise strategies into levels of implementation, distinguishing between strategies that may be introduced at:

• the policy level, including changes to regulatory arrangements and funding terms;
• those that could operate at the sectoral level, including cross-agency training and partnerships;
• those that operate at an occupational level which involve professionalising the family relationship services workforce; and
• employer-led initiatives at the organisational level, such as targeted recruitment, training and supervision.

Strategies at the policy level

The workforce challenges outlined above highlight a growing need for the family relationship services sector to develop policy responses that strategically address issues of workforce capacity and sustainability. Policy of this nature needs to be informed by research-based evidence such as that provided through a national workforce mapping process to identify personnel, qualifications, remuneration benchmarks, workforce distribution, demand trends, and examples of best practice. Delegates to the Family Relationships Services Program Senior Executive Forum committed support for a project of this type at the end of last year (FaHCSIA, 2008), and it is currently ongoing. Once finalised, this data should help workforce planners to identify staff shortages and forecast future workforce requirements. Findings from this project could also be used to inform the development of a national workforce framework, like that jointly developed by government and professional representatives of the health sector. The National Health Workforce Strategic Framework (Australian Health Ministers' Conference, 2004) for example, effectively guides new policy relating to workforce development goals. The adoption of a similar model for the family relationship services sector would enable both government and industry representatives to take a proactive leadership role in addressing workforce challenges and developing effective policy responses. Van Acker (2007) argued that action of this type is needed.

One structural change that could be implemented at the policy level, and that is identified in the literature as a barrier to workforce development, is the short-term funding of the sector through the Family Relationships Services Program and additional discretionary grants and subsidies. Families Australia (2007) recently argued that funding cycles of more than three years can help to achieve stability within the workforce by making employment contracts more attractive. Cortis, Hilferty et al. (2009) go further by arguing that short-term funding contracts result in short-term staffing, which place relationship building, overall service quality, and service continuity at risk. As identified in Cortis, Hilferty et al. (2009), funding contracts also need to factor in the increased costs associated with recruiting, training and supervising a rural workforce.

A recent policy initiative in early intervention services affecting the family relationship sector (and one which industry representatives have had little power to influence) is the ongoing shift towards closer integration of service providers and greater collaboration between practitioners. Whilst some writers have questioned whether collaborative models are necessarily more effective and efficient ways to work (Sloper, 2004), others assert benefits such as less replication between different service providers, and increased professional development and career progression opportunities for staff. The literature also indicates that whilst multi-agency working can pose challenges to workers' professional identities, it offers greater flexibility to work across agencies, thereby facilitating greater access to supervision and training opportunities. In addition, multi-agency working can facilitate a greater understanding of partner agencies' roles and improved communication. Despite contention, "multi-agency working" and "joined-up services" have become key policy priorities across child and family and other community services. Indeed, government policy increasingly specifies requirements for collaboration and service integration as a means of enhancing service delivery and promoting better outcomes for clients (Horwath & Morrison, 2007).

The recently announced Family Support Program is an example of such a policy. This Australian Government initiative brings the Family Relationships Services Program together with 7 other family, children and parenting programs. The multi-agency collaboration advocated within this policy acknowledges the complex and interconnected nature of family relationship services to children's services (including early intervention). For the workforce, more connected ways of working are likely to require good systems of communication and information sharing within agencies and professions and between them, as well as clarification of role overlap (Scott, 1997; Sloper, 2004).

In the UK, the move towards multi-agency working in children's services has been accompanied by a broad reform package that has seen children's services agencies restructured in an effort to create a more coherent configuration of services. The UK's wide-ranging reform agenda was at risk because of a crisis in the recruitment and retention of a range of child welfare professionals, so the UK Government devised the 2020 Children and Young People's Workforce Strategy (Purcell, 2008). Changes stipulated in this policy include increased support for industry leaders and managers; a targeted approach to graduate recruitment that involves exploring ways to fast track recruitment as well as raising the profiles of jobs in the children's services workforce; developing a knowledge bank for workers to ensure that practice, training and workforce development is firmly rooted in evidence based practice; and supporting the ongoing learning of workers by ensuring that training and career progression are accessible and of high quality. Drawing from this, a workforce strategy for Australia's Early Years services is currently being developed at the national level (OECECC, n.d.). While similar reforms could be applied to family relationship services in Australia if required, more proactive work in the area of workforce planning and development should reduce the necessity for such a comprehensive program of reforms.

Strategies at the sectoral level

A number of workforce development strategies can also be implemented at the sectoral level. One such strategy, which could follow the mapping project and workforce framework outlined above, involves the family relationship services sector conducting a training needs analysis (as suggested in the Urbis Keys Young 2004 review of the FRSP), and establishing workforce development priorities. This approach has been adopted in Queensland where training advisory councils (e.g., the QLD Workforce Council's Community Services and Health Industries Alliance) set priorities across the sector such as expanding the size of the workforce through vocational and higher education, and strengthening existing practitioners' skills base by improving the quality and accessibility of training.

Improved training and professional development for practitioners was identified in the Urbis Keys Young (2004) program review as a critical challenge for the sector. Improvement in this area needs to begin at the level of undergraduate education, as many agencies in the program review reported that they prefer not to employ new graduates because they do not have the requisite skills or experience for FRSP work. Simple solutions to this situation are partly hampered by the fact that pathways into the sector are provided by a variety of degree programs and vocational training. The range of entry points prevents straightforward reform of course content and structure. However, doing so across the various entry points would ensure new graduates are better prepared for the challenging context of FRS work, including in rural and regional areas.

One way to improve undergraduate education would be by developing strong partnerships with universities to encourage students in social welfare, social work, counselling, psychology and other human services degrees to undertake specialist courses in mediation, family dispute resolution and/or counselling. This would help carve out direct pathways into the family relationship services sector. Strong lobbying by sector representatives could help specify relevant courses as compulsory content for certain human services degrees. Field placement at Family Relationship Centres, internship programs, and supported employment for students during academic breaks could provide further incentives for graduates to enter the sector.

Improved training and professional development within the sector is also hampered by a lack of designated funding for these purposes. This situation especially disadvantages individual and small agencies that are often unable to provide training for their staff. The Urbis Keys Young (2004) review recommended cross-agency and joint training as a cost effective use of sectoral infrastructure. This strategy also provides the additional benefit of facilitating greater collaboration between service providers and practitioners, which may be undermined where funding is allocated through competitive tendering processes.

Changes to workers' entitlements and conditions could also be adopted at the sectoral level to help retain and recruit staff. Families Australia (2007) suggested examining the scope for transferable long service and sick leave entitlements throughout the community sector, and between both government and non government agencies. The cost burden and impact on individual agencies, and across the sector, would need to be determined prior to further consideration of this strategy.

Strategies at the sectoral level could also be introduced to address the specific needs of rural and regional practitioners. In a recent study examining effective service delivery in regional, rural and remote areas, Roufeil and Battye (2008) argued that the most effective ways to build sustainable services is through making changes to the "training environment, maximising workforce participation and service re-engineering" (p. 4). They maintain that reform of rural services should focus on the kinds of employer initiatives which could be introduced to improve service delivery, rather than the usual focus on the constraints of the rural environment and practitioner characteristics. Most recently, the Australian Government acknowledged the demanding practice context of rural work and the greater needs of these practitioners by agreeing to allocate funding to assist rural practitioners to attend conferences and professional development courses (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006).Such funding initiatives need to be sustained and expanded to support rural workers' development and delivery of quality services.

Finally, the national compact being developed between the Australian Government and the not-for-profit sector, may provide a window of opportunity for non-government family relationship services to participate more centrally in agreements with government. This compact will provide a platform for discussion and agreement between the government and the not-for-profit sector. FaHCSIA and ACOSS have already consulted a number of community organisations about the development of the national compact. Towards the end of 2008 an expert panel was established to advise on the consultation process. This panel included representatives from mental health, aged care services, disability services, Catholic social services and other organisations (although there was no specific representation from family relationship services). The expert panel called for the creation of an Office of the Third Sector within government to better inform and coordinate government strategies and drive positive change in the way government currently engages with not-for-profit organisations and communities. Melville (2008) argued that the broader community services sector should use the opportunity to reframe its own partnership agenda and seize the political opportunities that may be provided by this compact. Taking an activist approach, and advocating for the inclusion of representation from the family relationship services sector would be a first step in ensuring that the voice of the sector is strongly heard.

Strategies at the occupational level

The core strategy for addressing workforce challenges at the occupational level involves further professionalisation of the family relationship services sector. This strategy was first employed during the late-70s and early-80s and led to the phasing out of trained volunteers and the recruitment of paid professional staff. As outlined in Section 2, the family relationship services sector had its roots in marriage guidance services, delivered largely by volunteer labour, however, service provision today relies upon skilled and qualified practitioners to deliver a broad range of services to suit the needs of an increasingly diverse society. A renewed focus on professionalisation of the workforce has been proposed as a way to retain experienced practitioners and attract new graduates into the sector.

Professionalisation has been described by Larson (1977) as a "collective mobility project" (p.xvi) in which occupations seek to improve not only their economic position and working conditions, but also their status and prestige. Professionalisation is therefore a process that emphasises the power and political strategies used by occupations to maintain or increase their position. The description and promotion of family relationship services practitioners as professionals by their representative professional association is one such strategy, as is the relocation of education and training of more practitioners into universities or accredited organisations.

The ideology that underpins an occupation's quest for increased professionalisation is the argument that it will result in an improved quality of services, and enhance staff capacity and sustainability. No research has been identified on whether increased professionalisation within family relationship services can achieve these goals, although some research is available from other community service sectors. Van Acker (2008) argued, for example, that the introduction of training competencies in relationship education will help to professionalise the marriage education sector and attract more staff. Recent attempts at increased professionalisation of this small sub-sector include the development of competency standards by the Marriage and Relationship Education Association of Australia (MAREAA). This peak body has worked with educators and government to develop competency standards and a qualifications framework. This framework, which has been ratified by the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council, provides a "benchmark" for training programs for relationship educators. It positions Australia ahead of the UK and the US in terms of training requirements for marriage educators (MAREAA, cited in van Acker, 2008).

Van Acker's (2008) work, which relates only to marriage education, highlights divisions within the family relationship services sector. Such divisions reflect the broader fragmentation of social services work. Healy and Meagher (2004) argued that the fragmentation and routinisation of social work into discretely identifiable parts, and the underemployment of qualified social workers in para-professional positions has contributed to the deprofessionalisation of social services work. Instead, they proposed the development of collaborative alliances between unions, professional associations and accredited training bodies as a way of professionalising social services work.

Healy and Meagher's (2004) strategy advocates mobilisation of the collective strength of the social services sector to lobby policy-makers and funders to recognise service provision as a professional activity, with practitioners requiring improved remuneration and working conditions. This strategy could similarly be enacted by the family relationship services sector as many of the workforce issues are shared. Healy and Meagher's (2004) research also identifies potential obstacles to concerted united action, which in relation to family relationship services concerns the disparate professional identities and educational backgrounds of practitioners, and the fact that these practitioners may be motivated by a commitment to helping clients, rather than a desire for prestige and money. The former obstacle suggests that broadening or weakening the qualification requirements necessary to become a family relationship services practitioner as a way of increasing potential inductees, may be a problematic strategy.

Continued fragmentation dissipates the collective power of family relationship service practitioners to force structural changes that may encourage more graduates to join the sector, under-qualified practitioners to undertake further professional development, and experienced practitioners to remain. The recent amalgamation of three former industry representative bodies into a single representative body (FRSA) should provide a stronger, collective voice to policy and funding negotiations.

Finally, and as part of a renewed focus on professionalisation within the sector, it is suggested that the newly formed FRSA, like the MAREAA, consider embarking on a program to develop professional standards. The development of standards by FRSA could act as protection against the imposition of standards developed outside of the sector, mandated by government agencies, and connected explicitly to practitioner registration and/or accreditation. This is representative of a regulatory approach to standards development (Mahony & Hextall, 2000). The alternative model proposed here, known as the developmental approach (Mahony & Hextall, 2000) emphasises the potential of standards to increase practitioner control, and improve the professional practices and learning of practitioners.

Strategies at the organisational level

At the organisational level, a range of employer-led strategies may improve workforce capacity and sustainability. Although this range of strategies may give single organisations an edge in recruiting and retaining staff, initiatives at this level are likely to be introduced unevenly across the sector, and may exacerbate competition between organisations for staff. These strategies may therefore improve working conditions and make the sector more attractive, but may not be coordinated in such a way as to offer comprehensive solutions to workforce challenges across the whole family relationship services sector.

Strategic approach to recruitment and staff development

Organisations might consider adopting more targeted approaches to recruiting, developing and retaining staff. Targeting may be adopted to enhance workforce diversity, for example, by attracting and retaining Indigenous and bilingual workers, as well as men, or specialist fathers' workers. Of course, while services often seek to employ Indigenous, ethno-specific, male or female staff to help meet the needs of target groups through culturally appropriate service models (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006), some argue that employing staff who share characteristics or identities with clients is less important than ensuring the overall quality of practice, and the quality of worker-client relationships (Cortis, Hilferty et al., 2009; Forehand & Kotchick, 1996).

Services in rural and remote locations may also require targeted approaches to ensure they can recruit, develop and retain staff. Those providing services to rural and remote Indigenous communities under the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, for example, found that employing, training and mentoring local people was more successful than bringing new workers into the area (Flaxman et al., 2009).

Where there are acute recruitment challenges, the use of temporary agency staff may offer ways to fill positions. Indeed, in child and family welfare in England this strategy has increasingly been used, especially in the statutory sector. However, the use of short-term, agency staff may exacerbate problems throughout the sector. The high wages required by temporary, agency staff may be beyond the grasp of many NGOs, especially smaller agencies. Rather than resolving sector-wide recruitment challenges, agency salaries may strip workers from partner organisations, contributing to a churning of staff throughout the sector (Meagher et al., 2009).

Another strategic recruitment model is to provide pathways for graduates into the sector via student placements (Southwick & Solomona, 2007). This may involve offering professional placements that articulate into paid positions, or partnering with universities in other ways to recruit graduates early and prepare them intensively. Selecting promising staff early in their training and providing thorough competency training and networking opportunities to complement university studies can help ensure new graduates can "hit the ground running" and be prepared to take on complex tasks. Such a model has been used in public child welfare in the US (Fox, Miller, & Barbee, 2003), and is most suited where there is high competition for new graduates and where work is highly complex and contributing to burnout within the first few years. Although new graduates provide a potential source of labour, inexperienced workers tend to require intensive supervision, and investing in this group may be seen to divert resources to staff least likely to stay (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006).

Wages, conditions and job structures

Improving the wages and conditions on offer is a way organisations can attract and retain staff. In rural and remote areas, organisations may need to pay a premium for staff, including support for relocation where local sources of skilled labour are lacking. Where pay rates and job tenure are constrained by funding levels and arrangements, other organisational initiatives may help attract staff, including increasing the availability of flexible hours and family friendly working arrangements, which is particularly important for attracting and retaining female workers, and for retaining workers aged between 25 and 40 (Meagher, 2005).

Changing how jobs are structured may also help organisations attract and retain workers. Job sharing and secondment opportunities, partnerships to supplement shortages of particular staff (e.g., Indigenous staff), and other opportunities to work alongside experienced workers, managers or role models may make the work more attractive (Flaxman et al., 2009). Where workers consider fulfilling bureaucratic accountability requirements (such as filling in forms or inputting management information data) to be burdensome and to detract from more rewarding frontline work, managers may be able to help reorganise the work process, to improve the ratio of direct client contact to administration and increase opportunities for professional discretion (Meagher et al., 2009). Work processes should be organised to maximise client contact over administration. In small communities outside metropolitan areas, management roles may be redesigned to be shared so that responsibilities of leadership do not fall onto, and overburden, a single person (Roufeil & Battye, 2008).

Supervision and mentoring arrangements, and opportunities for skill development, may also be reorganised. Where work is emotionally demanding, supervision may be important to the prevention of burnout. Regular supervision meetings may also offer organisations a way to monitor and manage emerging feelings of dissatisfaction, enabling them to identify emerging intentions to resign, and to intervene (Barak et al., 2001, p.656). Strengthening peer support networks and mentoring systems, and providing strong orientation for new staff, may also offer strategies for improving retention (Hodgkin, 2002).

Organisational support for training

A further set of organisational supports relates to training and professional development programs, provided internally or externally with employer support or subsidy. This is important both for improving capacity and job satisfaction, and for communicating organisational commitment to workers and clients (Curry et al., 2007; Hodgkin, 2002). In family relationship services, identified training needs include working cross culturally, especially with Indigenous people in rural and remote communities (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006), and management and leadership training (FaHCSIA, 2008).

For new employees, investing in training can provide important orientation and networking opportunities. For more long-standing staff, training is a way to update and develop skills and reflect on their work. Technology offers ways to reach rural workers and ensure they can participate in training and professional development activities. Where organisations support staff to complete tertiary studies, they should also foster a work environment that facilitates staff completion of training, and supports graduates' transitions to work or to higher positions (Lonne & Cheers, 2004).

As well as supporting tertiary studies or offering short professional courses to their own staff, some family relationship services have training units that offer specialist courses throughout the sector. Some short courses are endorsed by the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Australian Psychological Association, making them especially attractive to staff and organisations. While courses are likely to be difficult and costly for organisations in rural and remote locations, technologies may provide some opportunities, as recommended by the sector (CWA & FaCSIA, 2006). In areas where formal training is not available, informal on-the-job training along with mentoring offers ways to train local workers and improve service sustainability (Flaxman et al., 2009).

References

• Attorney-General's Department. (no date). Accreditation and registration for family dispute resolution practitioners. Retrieved 27 February 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/mjv2je>
• Australian Council of Social Service. (2008a). Australian Community Sector Survey (ACOSS Paper 154). Sydney: ACOSS.
• Australian Council of Social Service. (2008b). National compact consultation final report. Sydney: ACOSS.
• Australian Health Ministers' Conference. (2004). National health workforce strategic framework. Sydney: Author.
• Australian Human Resources Institute. (2008). "Love 'em don't lose 'em": Identifying retention strategies that work (AHRI Pulse Research Report Vol. 2, No. 2). Retrieved 27 February 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/mflhjd>
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2003). Health and community services labour force 2001 (National Health Labour Force Series No. 27). Canberra: AIHW.
• Australian Services Union. (2007). Building social inclusion in Australia: Priorities for the social and community services sector workforce. Carlton South: ASU.
• Balfour, D., & Neff, D. (1993). Predicting and managing turnover in human services agencies: A case study of an organization in crisis. Public Personnel Management, 22, 473-486.
• Barak, M., Nissley, J., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Science Review, 75(4), 625-661.
• Bednar, S. (2003). Elements of satisfying organisational climates in child welfare agencies. Families in Society, 84(1), 7-12.
• Briggs, C., Meagher, G., & Healy, K. (2007). Becoming an industry: The struggle of social and community workers for award coverage, 1976-2001. Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(4), 497-521.
• Catholic Welfare Australia and the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2006). Lessons from the field: Family relationship services in rural and remote Australia. Challenges and good practice. Canberra, ACT: Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
• Child Welfare League of America. (2005). Workforce recruitment and retention in child welfare. Arlington, VA: Child Welfare League of America.
• Colton, M., & Roberts, S. (2007). Factors that contribute to high turnover among residential child care staff. Child and Family Social Work, 12(2), 133-142.
• Cortis, N., Hilferty, F., Chan, S., & Tannous, K. (2009). Labour dynamics and the non-government community services workforce in NSW (SPRC Report 10/09). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of NSW.
• Cortis, N., Katz, I., & Patulny, R. (2009). Stronger Families and Communities Strategy national evaluation 2004-2008: Engaging "hard to reach" children and families. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of NSW.
• Community Services and Health Industries Skills Council. (2008). Environmental scan 2008 (Version 2, 24 April 2008). Retrieved 28 August 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/nbwqql>
• Community Services and Health Industries Skills Alliance. (2008). Industry skills report October 2008. Brisbane: Health and Community Services Workforce Council.
• Curry, D., McCarragher, T., & Dellman-Jenkins, M. (2005). Training, transfer and turnover: Exploring the relationship among transfer of learning factors and staff retention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 931-948.
• Daniels, A. (1987). Invisible Work. Social Problems, 34(5), 403-415.
• DePanfilis, D., & Zlotnik, J. (2008). Retention of front-line staff in child welfare: A systematic review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 995-1008.
• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2008). FRS Sector e-News (Issue 21). Retrieved 7 August 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/llatoz>
• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (no date). Main types of family relationship services. Retrieved 7 August 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/n94dsx>
• Ellett, A., Ellis, J., Westbrook, T., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369 child welfare professionals' perspectives about factors contributing to employee retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 264-281.
• England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455-473.
• Families Australia. (2007). Key challenges facing the not-for-profit community sector (Working Paper, October 2007). Canberra: Families Australia.
• Family Relationships Services Australia. (2008a). Skilling Australia for the future (Response to Australian Government's skilling australia for the future discussion paper). Canberra: Author.
• Family Relationships Services Australia. (2008b). Sustainable services for Australian families (Submission to the Federal Budget). Canberra: FRSA.
• Family Relationships Services Australia. (no date). Training and qualification pathways. Retrieved 25 February 2009, from <http://www.frsa.org.au/site/Training%20and%20Qualifications%20Pathways.php>
• Flaxman, S, Muir, K., & Oprea, I. (2009). Indigenous families and children: Coordination and provision of services (Occasional Paper no. 23). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
• Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy, 27(2), 187-206.
• Fox, S., Miller, V., & Barbee, A. (2003). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: Effective use of training and professional development. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 7(1-2), 67-81.
• Graef, M., & Hill, E. (2000). Costing child protective services staff turnover. Child Welfare, 79, 517-533.
• Green, R. (2003). Social work in rural areas: A personal and professional challenge. Australian Social Work, 56(3), 209-219.
• Halford, W., Markman, H., Kline, G., & Stanley, S. (2003). Best practice in couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29(3), 385-406.
• Halford, W., & Simons, M. (2005). Couple relationship education in Australia. Family Process, 44(2), 147-159.
• Healy, K. (2002). Managing human services in a market environment: What role for social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 527-540.
• Healy, K., & Meagher, G. (2004). The reprofessionalization of social work: Collaborative approaches for achieving professional recognition. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 243-260.
• Healy, K., & Meagher, G. (2007). Social workers' preparation for child protection: Revisiting the question of specialisation. Australian Social Work, 60(3), 321-335.
• Healy, K., Meagher, G., & Cullin, J. (2009). Retaining novices to become expert child protection practitioners: Creating career pathways in direct practice. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 299-317.
• Hodgkin, S. (2002). Competing demands, competing solutions, differing constructions of the problem of recruitment and retention of frontline rural child protection staff. Australian Social Work, 55(3), 193-203.
• Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children's services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 55-69.
• House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (1998). To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships (Report of the Inquiry into Aspects of Family Services). Canberra: House of Representatives.
• Katz, I., La Place, V., & Hunter, S. (2007). Barriers to inclusion and successful engagement of parents in mainstream services. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Kryger, T. (2005). Australia's ageing workforce (Research Note 35). Canberra: Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia.
• Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Lonne, B., & Cheers, B. (2004). Retaining rural social workers: An Australian study. Rural Society, 14, 163-177.
• MacDermott, L. (2006). NGO workforce planning: The poor cousin of capacity building. Developing Practice, 17, 50-56.
• Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing teaching: Standards, performance and accountability. London: Routledge.
• Martin, J., & Douglas, K. (2007). Social work and family dispute resolution. Australian Social Work, 60(3), 295-307.
• Meagher, G., & Healy, K. (2005). Who Cares? Volume 1: A profile of care workers in Australia's community services industries (ACOSS Paper No. 140). Sydney: ACOSS.
• Meagher, G., & Healy, K. (2006). Who Cares? Volume 2: Employment structure and incomes in the Australian care workforce (ACOSS Paper No. 141). Sydney: ACOSS.
• Meagher, G., Cortis, N., & Healy, K. (2009). Strategic challenges in child welfare services. In K. Rummery, I. Greener, & C. Holden (Eds) Social Policy Review 21: Analysis and debate in social policy, 2009. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
• Melville, R. (2008). "Token participation" to "engaged partnerships": Lessons learnt and challenges ahead for Australian not-for-profits. In J. Barraket (ed.) Strategic issues for the not-for-profit sector. Sydney: UNSW Press.
• Memmott, P., Chambers, C., Go-Sam, C., & Thomson, L. (2006). Good practice in Indigenous family violence prevention: Designing and evaluating successful programs (Issues Paper No. 11). Sydney: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of New South Wales.
• Moloney, L., & Smyth, B. (2004). Family Relationship Centres in Australia: Reflections based on research and practice. Family Matters, 69, 64-70.
• Morgan Disney and Associates. (2004). Family Relationships Services Program. Progressing partnerships in policy and practice: Outcomes from the Family Relationships Service Program regional workshops and national forum May-June 2004. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services and Attorney-General's Department.
• Moran, P., Ghate, D., & van der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parenting support? A review of the international evidence (Research Report 574). London: UK Department for Education and Skills.
• Moss, P. (2003). Beyond caring: The case for reforming the childcare and early years workforce (Facing the Future: Policy Paper No. 5). Retrieved 10 August 2009, from <http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk/data/files/Policy/Policy_Archive/beyond_caring_the_case_for_reforming_the_childcare_and_early_years_workforce.pdf>
• Nissley, J., Barak, M., & Levin, A. (2005). Stress, social support and workers' intentions to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 29(1), 79-100.
• NSW Community Services and Health Industry Training Advisory Board. (2007). Community services training needs in rural and remote NSW. Sydney: Department of Education and Training.
• Office of Early Childhood Education and Child Care. (no date). National early years workforce strategy. Retrieved 27 February 2009, from <http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/EarlyChildhoodWorkforce/Pages/NationalEarlyYearsworkforcestrategy.aspx>
• Reiger, K. (1987). The coming of the counsellors: The development of marriage guidance in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 23, 375-387.
• Roufeil, L., & Battye, K. (2008). Effective regional, rural and remote family and relationships service delivery (Briefing Paper No. 10). Melbourne: Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Sawrikar, P., & Katz, I. (2008). Enhancing family and relationship service accessibility and delivery to culturally and linguistically diverse families in Australia (Issues Paper No. 3). Melbourne: Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Scott, D. (1997). Inter-agency conflict: An ethnographic study. Child and Family Social Work, 2, 73-80.
• Sloper, P. (2004). Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-agency services. Child: Care, Health and Development, 30(6), 571-580.
• Southwick, M., & Solomona, M. (2007). Improving recruitment and retention for the Pacific mental health workforce: Feasibility study. Auckland: The National Centre of Mental Health Research and Workforce Development.
• Stalker, C., Mandell, D., Frensch, K., Harvey, C., & Wright, M. (2007). Child welfare workers who are exhausted yet satisfied with their jobs: How do they do it? Child and Family Social Work, 12(2), 182-191.
• Strolin, J., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J. (2007). Causes and effects of child welfare workforce turnover: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 1-34.
• Urbis Keys Young. (2004). Review of the Family Relationships Services Program. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services and Attorney-General's Department.
• Purcell, M. (2008). 2020 Children and Young People's Workforce Strategy: Evidence & knowledge management. A report for the 2020 Children and Young People's Workforce Strategy Expert Group by the CWDC, NCSL & TDA. London, U.K.: Department for Children, Schools and Familes. Retrieved 31 August 2009, from <http://tinyurl.com/lsaa3j>
• van Acker, E. (2003). Administering romance: Government policies concerning pre-marriage education programs. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 15-23.
• van Acker, E. (2007). Howard's social policies concerning relationships, work and families. Paper presented at Australian Political Studies Association Conference, Monash University, Melbourne.
• van Acker, E. (2008). Governments and marriage education policy: Perspectives from the UK, Australia and the US. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Victorian Council of Social Services. (2008). Future Victoria: Inclusive, liveable, sustainable (State Budget Submission 2009-10). Melbourne: Victorian Council of Social Services.
• Zlotnik, J. L., DePanfilis, D., Daining, C., & Lane, M. M. (2005). Factors influencing retention of child welfare staff: A systematic review of research. Washington, DC: Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research.