Frequently asked questions

Service providers delivering community sector coordination play a fundamental role in supporting direct service delivery in the CAFS sector. These services are aligned to the CAFS Service System Outcomes, rather than client outcomes. For this reason, these organisations do not need to report their community sector coordination data in DEX.

DCJ has developed a Community Sector Coordination reporting tool for organisations who deliver these activities. Your DCJ contract manager will provide you the tool.

Reporting on the community sector coordination service type can happen at any time within the reporting periods, at least 6 monthly via your DCJ contract manager.

This service type does not include coordinating local interagency activities or communities of practice.

Explore the CAFS Data Collection and Reporting Guide for more information about reporting on the community sector coordination service. 

Core components are program components that are common across evidence-informed programs. Within each core component, there are examples of different ways the core components can be delivered, called flexible activities. The core components align with findings from various evidence reviews, available on the Evidence Portal. This approach supports flexible and evidence-informed service delivery tailored to local needs.

Core components in Wellbeing and Safety

There are two Wellbeing and Safety program logics in the CAFS program that include different core components:

1. Children and families: for service providers delivering services to children and families. These core components are from the Preventing Child Maltreatment Evidence Review and are standard components for effective delivery of child and family services working with families at risk of child abuse or neglect.
2. Young people: for service providers delivering services specifically for young people. These core components are from the Youth Socioemotional Wellbeing Evidence Review. This evidence review also outlines best practice elements for service providers to consider in their practice.

The Preventing Child Maltreatment (PCM) core components are mapped to the Wellbeing and Safety service types (available at Appendix E of the CAFS Program Specifications), so service providers can see how their service delivery aligns with the core components. Through mapping, we can also identify opportunities for service providers to work together in the local service system and ensure clients have access to all the core components they need.

More information

Using a core components approach has further information about the core components approach. The program logic e-module training also provides detailed information on the core components approach and how these are used in program logics.

Service providers funded under the Wellbeing and Safety program activity, specifically working with children and families, should use the core components from the Preventing Child Maltreatment Evidence Review in their service planning and delivery. To be effective in preventing child maltreatment, all five core components should be delivered to the child and their family.

To achieve this, service providers will either:

1. Deliver all core components, or
2. Work in partnership with other service providers locally through coordinated referral pathways to ensure clients can access services that offer the other core components.

A table of the Preventing Child Maltreatment core components matched to Wellbeing and Safety service types is available at Appendix E of the CAFS Program Specifications. Service providers should use this resource to cross-reference their service types against the core components. This will help them to identify which components they are delivering.

We understand there may be circumstances where service providers cannot deliver all five of the Preventing Child Maltreatment core components. In these instances, we ask that service providers:

• Refer to, or partner with, another service that is already delivering a core component within the same LGA. A formal partnership arrangement does not need to be in place.
  • The other service provider does not need to be a CAFS service. They could be an early intervention service that is part of the broader early intervention network, such as another DCJ funded program, NSW Health service or a service receiving Commonwealth funding.
• If there are no providers available in the local network or geographical area to refer to, service providers should discuss this with their DCJ contract manager and tick the ‘Not delivered’ box in their program logic template.

The program logic e-module training provides further detail about how to develop program logics using the core components.

The CAFS program’s cultural safety requirements draw from the Cultural Safety and Wellbeing Evidence Review. The evidence review identifies activities, practices and principles that ensure the cultural safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal children, young people, families and communities in early intervention services.

All CAFS service providers (who are not ACCOs) are expected to adopt the principles and practice elements of the Cultural Safety and Wellbeing Program Logic (Appendix A of the CAFS Program Specifications) in their service design and delivery.

Both ACCOs and non-ACCOs, working with and delivering services to Aboriginal people and communities, should reflect the eight features of Aboriginal-led early support programs from the Aboriginal-led Early Support Programs Evidence Review in their service design and delivery.

DCJ contract managers and CAFS services will discuss progress during regular contract management meetings (at a minimum quarterly), and DCJ contract managers will be responsible for monitoring provider progress. During the first stage of the CAFS program commencing, cultural safety will be the primary program requirement discussed in contract management meetings. 

We recognise some CAFS service providers are at different points on their journey to building their organisational cultural safety and may need more time to build their capability. Currently, there is no set timeline for implementation of these requirements. 

The Cultural Safety and Wellbeing Program Logic (Appendix A of the CAFS Program Specifications) offers practical and clear guidance on cultural safety at an organisational level. Cultural competency training and development opportunities to support cultural safety will be communicated to the sector as they become available.

DCJ’s online training platform, Change Together, has a Culturally Responsive Practice module available to all CAFS providers.

DCJ contract managers and CAFS service providers will discuss progress on supporting the cultural safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal people program requirement, during regular contract management meetings (at a minimum quarterly). DCJ contract managers will be responsible for monitoring service provider progress.

The Outcomes for Aboriginal People in the CAFS Program is additional to the CAFS Program Client Outcomes Framework. All service providers are required to report on client outcomes from the CAFS Program Client Outcomes Framework in DEX.

We heard from the sector that there are no cultural outcomes in the CAFS Program Client Outcomes Framework and program reporting. Recommendation 6 of the TEI Evaluation is that TEI should: Update outcomes measurement approaches. In particular, to reflect cultural outcomes and consider principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

DCJ held several Aboriginal Community Partner Forums in 2024/25 with ACCOs and Aboriginal staff in the sector, to explore what outcomes are important to Aboriginal people in the CAFS program. We heard that culture is at the heart of everything and needs to be embedded across all outcomes.

Through extensive discussions and co-design work during these forums, the Outcomes for Aboriginal People in the CAFS Program was developed. This can be found at Appendix C of the CAFS Program Specifications.

DCJ will continue to work with the Aboriginal Community Partner Forum to co-design how these outcomes are implemented. 

SCORE will not pair between TEI/FCS and CAFS in DEX as the pairing happens at the program activity level.

To continue to measure change over time for continuing clients who are accessing the same types of services, providers can either:

• Assess SCORE again as soon as possible under CAFS, or
• Bring across the most recent SCORE from TEI to CAFS as the new initial SCORE where the service delivery continues.

Outlets need to be renamed and program activities linked before CAFS data can be entered.

To speed up approval processes, it is recommended that you name and add program activities at the same time. This will ensure changes are approved at the same time by the Department of Social Services (DSS) as this can take up to 10 business days.

Please ensure the correct naming convention is used when setting up outlets:

Contract ID > Outlet name > Suburb.

Further guidance on naming conventions can be found in the CAFS Data Collection and Reporting Guide. 

Entering the CAFS program activity and service type requires new cases to be created. Providers should continue using the same case ID convention and/or systems previously used.

For Safe and Strong Families (SSF) providers, further advice will be available soon. 

We previously heard significant feedback that CALD clients were underreported due to the way CALD data was collected in DEX. As a result, we will now use the ancestry field in DEX so clients can identify the primary culture they identify with.

Where a client primarily identifies with one of the following cultures or countries they will not be counted as a CALD client: Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

‘Country of birth’ and ‘Language Spoken at Home’ fields remain mandatory for setting up a client in DEX but are not part of CAFS minimum data set (MDS). Therefore, service providers can put “not stated” here if the data is unknown. This will help ensure data reporting is kept to a minimum and CAFS resources are prioritised for service delivery.

The CAFS DEX Report for Service Providers is now available in DEX. Alongside your CAFS program data, the report allows you to continue accessing your TEI legacy data to help identify shifting needs and support flexible service delivery. 

The CAFS program has expanded its scope to include a focus on child development outcomes. This includes:

• children under 9 years with low-level autism and/or developmental delay and low-to-moderate support needs as a target group of the program.
• new associated outcomes (e.g. children start school developmentally ready and families and carers are empowered and confident to understand and meet their child’s development needs).
• minimal changes to the service type descriptions (e.g. for family capacity building, parenting programs and supported playgroups).
• an overarching client outcome of ‘achieving safety and wellbeing at home’.

This new focus supports a more integrated service system where child safety and wellbeing outcomes are addressed through the early intervention system.

Overall, these updates are minor and CAFS retains its strong focus on addressing risk factors that lead to child abuse, neglect and family violence. CAFS will continue to prioritise children and their families during critical periods of child development, through supporting child cognitive, social-emotional, and physical development.

The CAFS program has a new target group that aligns with the program’s focus on child development outcomes: ‘children under 9 years of age with low-level autism and/or developmental delay and low-to-moderate support needs’.

This new target group aligns with evidence suggesting that early involvement of families and children with developmental support needs in early intervention programs is linked to better outcomes.

We acknowledge that a number of CAFS providers are already supporting children and families in this target group and delivering services aligned with these client outcomes. 

As part of continuous improvement, DCJ has been building the early intervention evidence base since the beginning of the Targeted Earlier Intervention (TEI) and Family Connect and Support (FCS) programs. In response to service provider feedback that providers often have limited access to high-quality research about ‘what works’, DCJ launched the Evidence Portal.

Evidence from the commissioned reviews is built into high-level program logics for the program. It’s also integrated into individual program logic templates to assist service providers to develop their own program logics.

When using the Evidence Portal to design and implement programs or services, consider balancing research evidence with other types of evidence, including practitioner expertise, local knowledge and the voice of clients.

Since the launch of the Evidence Portal, DCJ has commissioned several evidence reviews relevant to early intervention service delivery. These have been aligned to the population groups accessing CAFS services. However, there are still some gaps in the evidence and further reviews will be commissioned on different topics over time.

Aboriginal families and communities

DCJ has been working to build the evidence for Aboriginal-led programs. We commissioned Gamarada Universal Indigenous Resources Pty Ltd to conduct an evidence review on Aboriginal-led early support programs to improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal children, young people, families and communities. This evidence review was unique as the evidence was culturally appraised using a Cultural Lens Matrix.

CALD families and communities

The CAFS Program Specifications have a strengthened commitment to outcomes for CALD communities. This includes the importance of CAFS services:

• hiring bi-lingual staff
• ensuring translation of resources into community languages
• ensuring the availability of cultural adaptions under parenting programs and supported playgroups.

This improves access to services and increases the cultural relevance of programs. Further work is needed to continue to capture the evidence of what works for CALD communities.

We recognise completing program logics takes time and resources. We have templates, pre-filled examples and e-module training to help you complete your program logics.

Visit Program logics to access these resources.  

Use of the new program logic templates is a requirement under the CAFS program. All CAFS service providers must complete their new program logics by 1 June 2026.

Family Connect and Support (FCS) service providers do not need to develop a separate individual program logic for their program activity as the FCS model of service delivery is the same across the state.

Yes. Service providers will be required to develop more than one program logic if they are contracted to deliver services under more than one program activity.

Service providers contracted to deliver services under both the Community Strengthening and Wellbeing and Safety program activities are required to complete a program logic for each of these program activities.

For service providers contracted to deliver services under the Wellbeing and Safety program activity, there are two program logic templates depending on who the service is being delivered to:

• Children and families: for service providers delivering services to children and families. This program logic includes the Preventing Child Maltreatment Evidence Review core components.
• Young people: for service providers delivering services specifically to young people, independent of their family unit. This program logic includes the Youth Socioemotional Wellbeing Evidence Review core components.

Exceptions

• Family Connect and Support (FCS) service providers are not required to develop an individual program logic as the FCS model of service delivery is the same across the state.
• Service providers are not required to develop an individual Cultural Safety and Wellbeing program logic. However, all CAFS service providers should aim to embed the critical elements from this program logic into their service delivery.

For more information on this topic, explore Program logics and the e-module.

This will depend on which program activity service providers are contracted to deliver. If delivering services to young people under more than one program activity, service providers will need to complete more than one program logic.

To download individual program logic templates, visit Program logics.

Community Strengthening

Community Strengthening service providers who work with young people should consider the four best practice elements from the Youth Work – Agency and Empowerment Evidence Review when designing and delivering their services. This evidence is built into the Community Strengthening program logic template. When developing program logics, service providers should consider how each service activity addresses these best practice elements.

Wellbeing and Safety

Wellbeing and Safety service providers who work with young people should consider the five core components from the Youth Socioemotional Wellbeing Evidence Review and the four best practice elements from the Youth Work – Agency and Empowerment Evidence Review. This evidence is built into the Wellbeing and Safety (Young people) program logic template. When developing program logics, service providers should consider how each service activity addresses these core components and best practice elements.

Also consider:

• If you provide services to children and families, as well as young people, you will need to develop an individual program logic for each group.
• You do not need to be a youth-specific service to complete the Wellbeing and Safety (Young people) program logic. If a large part of your service delivery is to young people and/or service delivery includes the youth individualised support service type, you should use this program logic template.

For more information on this topic, explore Program logics and the e-module.

Program logic activities change as needs and local priorities change. At a minimum, service providers must review their program logic annually. This annual review will form part of contract management.

The CAFS program is committed to Indigenous Data Governance (IDG), consistent with Closing the Gap National Agreement priority reform four ‘Shared access to location specific data and information at a regional level’.

Aboriginal service providers in the program currently have access to all data collected and reported by their organisation and can access and share that data with their stakeholders and community at any time. Program data at a state and local government area level are also publicly available through the TEI and FCS data dashboards.

The CAFS program will support ACCOs to:

• engage with their local communities to identify local data priorities and lead community-driven initiatives for self-determination
• develop their own data collection and storage resources
• set up data-sharing rules to advocate for the services they require
• build technical data capability
• use data to demonstrate strengths and build capacity
• build skills to understand the information in DEX reports and other data to support local priorities.

The aim is for ACCOs in the CAFS program to:

• be engaged and lead in decision-making about data
• have the opportunity to give feedback that is valued and recognised by DCJ
• lead localised data development activities that are useful for community to enhance data collection
• have greater authority to manage, govern and own data routinely collected
• build capability and expertise to collect, manage and store data effectively.

By empowering Aboriginal service providers to be custodians of their data, data will provide a more meaningful and accurate representation of the outcomes clients and communities achieve.

As outlined in the CAFS Program Specifications, supported playgroups are facilitated by a professional worker with:

• qualifications in early childhood, or
• experience in early childhood or in working with families with children.

The Supported Playgroups Evidence Scan found that supported playgroups work best with facilitators who have qualifications in early childhood education and care or community services, and strong engagement and relationship building skills. However, being qualified in early childhood education or community services is not a pre-requisite for being able to deliver a supported playgroup. This is dependent on the requirements of the specific model.

While formal qualifications are valuable, experience is also recognised and can be sufficient to deliver a supported playgroup. A key feature of supported playgroups is the role of professional facilitators who engage families, lead the playgroup program, deliver specific interventions and activities and link families with other supports.  

Supported playgroups are an opportunity for parents or caregivers to share experiences of parenting and learn new parenting skills while being supported by workers who coordinate the activities. They also provide children with an opportunity to socialise, play and learn in a structured and positive environment as well as participating in age-appropriate learning experiences and activities to help them become school ready. Supported playgroups are facilitated by a professional and qualified worker and are a more targeted service model for families with particular needs or vulnerabilities, compared to community playgroups.

Community playgroups are informal gatherings where babies, toddlers and pre-school aged children and their parents or carers can come together to learn through play and connect with one another. These groups can be run by a worker or volunteer and are generally self-managed. Community playgroups are for all families.

Choosing to deliver a supported playgroup or community playgroup should be based on the needs of the local community and local context, and in conversation with your DCJ contract manager.

If unsure which service types align with the services you deliver or wish to deliver to meet local needs, speak with your DCJ contract manager.

‘Locally applied’ parenting programs or supported playgroups are programs or models not found on the evidence-informed list of parenting programs or Supported Playgroup Rapid Evidence Scan. Service providers may be able to deliver a locally applied parenting program or supported playgroup model if it is considered more suitable to meet the local needs of the community and local context and there is evidence demonstrating it is producing positive outcomes.

If a locally applied program or model is considered more suitable, service providers will need to complete a form and submit this to their DCJ contract manager for approval. The form should outline the program/model being proposed, the rationale for selecting this program/model rather than one from the evidence informed list or evidence scan, and any evidence underpinning it.

The forms and further support to complete this process are available at Parenting programs and supported playgroups. 

Service providers should consider and aim to deliver one of the 37 evidence-informed parenting programs from the list or a model from the Supported Playgroup Evidence Scan. Providers should consider the available evidence, local context, and client and community need.

However, selecting a program from the evidence-informed parenting programs list or a model from the supported playgroups evidence scan is not mandatory.

We recognise some of the parenting programs on the evidence-informed list or supported playgroup models from the scan may not work in specific contexts or for specific client groups and locally applied programs/models may be more suitable. For example, parents of children with a disability, families experiencing family violence and CALD families.

If a service provider wants to deliver a parenting program or supported playgroup that is not on the evidence-informed list or evidence scan, they need to complete a form and submit this to their DCJ contract manager for approval. The forms and further support to complete this process are available at Parenting programs and supported playgroups.

DCJ is not mandating the use of a particular evidence-informed parenting program or supported playgroup model in the CAFS program. Service providers should consider the evidence in the context of the most appropriate option for their target group, local need and budget.

General information on evidence-informed parenting programs and supported playgroup models is available on the Evidence Portal.

Specific information about training and licensing costs of each evidence-informed parenting program and supported playgroup model should be sourced directly from the owner as costs can vary depending on the training requirements and particular components.

Training

In 2024/25, DCJ funded Fams and the Parenting Research Centre to deliver Smalltalk training and post-training implementation support to 120 TEI practitioners. More Smalltalk training is being planned for 2026.

Fams also facilitates a Supported Playgroup Network for supported playgroup practitioners to raise and discuss practice issues. Contact Fams to find out more at [email protected].

If service providers wish to deliver an adapted version of one of the evidence-informed supported playgroup models, they first need to check the licensing arrangements of the model. There may be restrictions on modifying the model’s content.

If service providers are planning to deliver a supported playgroup model that is specifically designed for their local community or differs from the model’s specific requirements, this is likely a ‘locally applied’ model. If so, please complete the form which should outline the model being proposed, the rationale for selecting this model rather than one from the evidence scan, and any evidence underpinning it. For more detailed information on this process, visit Parenting programs and supported playgroups.

Any proposed supported playgroup model should follow the best practice principles identified from the Supported Playgroups Evidence Scan and align with the Early Years Learning Framework.

Service providers should also consider specific requirements appropriate to CALD families, including CALD facilitators and translated resources.

Yes. A new form is required for each locally applied parenting program and/or supported playgroup model. But one form can be completed to cover multiple areas/locations, if the same program or model is being delivered in multiple locations.

Service providers only need to complete the form once, prior to the start of their contract for the program/model they are intending to deliver. However, if the program/model later changes, service providers will need to complete a new form.

Service providers intending to deliver a locally applied program are required to complete and submit a form to their DCJ contract manager as part of the negotiation process for CAFS contracts.

An example of a completed form and more information to assist service providers is available at Parenting programs and supported playgroups.

For Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) or non-ACCOs with Aboriginal staff delivering Indigenous parenting programs or Indigenous supported playgroups, there is no requirement to consider a parenting program from the evidence-informed parenting program list or supported playgroup model from the evidence scan, and no need to complete the forms.

An optional form is available for these providers for the purpose of collating local evidence and understanding effective programs/models that work for Aboriginal people. These providers are also encouraged to indicate on the form whether they would be interested in having an evaluation of their locally applied program/model. This form is for information purposes only to build the Aboriginal evidence base. DCJ will not be conducting assessments to determine the suitability of these programs/models. To access the forms, visit Parenting programs and supported playgroups. 

The list of evidence-informed parenting programs and supported playgroup models were sourced from:

• DCJ commissioned evidence reviews that identified programs/models with a high-strength evidence base. For example, evaluated using a rigorous quantitative method such as randomised controlled trial or quasi-experimental design
• Additional programs identified by service providers, and rated as ‘Promising’, ‘Supported’ or ‘Well Supported’ on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) program registry.

We recognise the limited number of Aboriginal programs and models here, and the need to build the evidence base for Aboriginal programs, particularly well-designed quantitative studies with control groups.

The CAFS program is committed to building the evidence base for Aboriginal-led programs and models. To support this, we have developed a form to collect information about Indigenous parenting programs and Indigenous supported playgroups to understand what is currently being delivered. Providers can indicate on the form whether they are interested in an evaluation of their program/model. Completing this form is optional. For more detail on building the evidence base for Aboriginal-led programs and models, explore Parenting programs and supported playgroups. 

The DCJ-commissioned Aboriginal-led Early Support Programs Evidence Review highlights the generally accepted view within Aboriginal communities that ACCOs are best placed to understand, design, and deliver services that respond to the needs of their communities. However, there is limited information on what evidence exists about the characteristics, implementation and impact of Aboriginal-led programs designed to improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal families and communities.

This review consolidated a broad range of evidence on early support programs which were designed, led and delivered by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, and assessed this evidence according to culturally-informed criteria. This review identified eight common themes among the highly-rated evidence about Aboriginal-led early support programs designed for Aboriginal children, young people, families and communities.

Indigenous parenting programs and supported playgroups

ACCOs and non-ACCOs with Aboriginal staff delivering Indigenous parenting programs or Indigenous supported playgroups should offer parenting programs and supported playgroups that are locally designed with input from community and practitioner expertise. Service providers may also choose to use culturally adapted programs/models where appropriate for their client need, for example, Indigenous Triple P.

The Supported Playgroups Evidence Scan identified two supported playgroup models delivered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that show a promising evidence base:

• Exploring Together Preschool Program (ETPP)
• KindiLink.

The Supported Playgroups Evidence Scan also identified a number of key elements of successful Aboriginal supported playgroups delivered to Aboriginal people.

All CAFS service providers are expected to consider and address the Service System Outcomes and program requirements in their service design and delivery. During the first stage of implementation, supporting the cultural safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal people will be the primary program requirement focus discussed in regular contract management meetings with DCJ contract managers.

Over time, we will work with you around developing additional resources to support the implementation and monitoring of the other program requirements.

There are no timeframes in the CAFS program, with the exception of FCS who can provide services to clients for a maximum of 6 months. While FCS is time limited, a family can be re-referred to FCS. There is no limit on the number of re-referrals to an FCS service provider.

CAFS services should focus on tailoring support to meet client needs and unique circumstances rather than requiring clients to fit into a standardised service model or set timeframes. Service providers are encouraged to work with clients as long as necessary to achieve positive outcomes.

We recognise this may impact contract outputs and encourage you to discuss this with your DCJ contract manager and make necessary output adjustments when negotiating your CAFS contract.

To align with findings from the TEI and FCS evaluations, service types in the CAFS program have been streamlined to reduce duplication and unnecessary reporting. Some standalone service types have merged.

Material aid / brokerage

Material aid and brokerage continue to be important to CAFS service delivery, however they are no longer a separate service type. Instead, they can be reported within other service types:

• Community Strengthening program activity: material aid has been included in the information/advice/referral service type, recognising it is often used as a soft entry for clients into the service system.
• Family Connect and Support (FCS) and Wellbeing and Safety program activities: material aid / brokerage has been included in the family capacity building service type.
• Wellbeing and Safety program activity: Material aid has also been included in the newly created service type of youth individualised support. This acknowledges the unique work youth services do to support the wellbeing and safety of young people and the importance of material aid in engaging and case management for young people.

Despite not being a standalone service type, service providers can still collect data on material aid in DEX. This can be captured using ‘material wellbeing and basic necessities’ as the referral reason or referral purpose. Aggregated data about material wellbeing and basic necessities at an LGA, district and state level is available on the TEI and FCS dashboards.

Individual service providers can also record information about the cost of material aid through their own budgeting and financial record systems.

Intake and assessment

Intake and assessment has merged with the family capacity building service type as it is primarily an activity within family capacity building.

Business planning

Analysis of the business planning service type identified it was rarely used. It has been removed.

Community sector planning

Due to similarities, community sector planning and community sector coordination have merged. All activities within these service types are listed in the community sector coordination service type.

Indigenous social participation

Due to their similarities, Indigenous social participation and Indigenous healing activities have merged. The definition of Indigenous healing activities has been updated to reflect the values and practices of ACCOs.

If unsure which service types align with the services you deliver, speak with your DCJ contract manager.

A new service type titled youth individualised support has been introduced in the Wellbeing and Safety program activity to capture the unique work that youth services do to support the wellbeing and safety of young people.

This has been added in response to sector feedback that young people often require access to specific youth related services to support their individual needs (i.e. outside of the family unit).

Youth individualised support includes the following activities targeted at young people:

• intake and assessment
• organising activities to promote greater interconnectedness for young people
• support – navigating government systems, completing forms for access to services (e.g. Centrelink or housing), legal, language etc.
• advocacy
• assistance with employment pathways – such as help with resumes
• counselling
• mediation
• referrals
• material aid (may be offered to clients to support their overall case management)
• mentoring.

Service providers are encouraged to choose this service type when working with a young person independently of their family unit. 

Family capacity building provides family support activities to build family capacity to address comprehensive needs. This includes developing a case plan and delivering a broad range of case management activities (e.g. intake and assessment, counselling, advocacy, case coordination etc.). Family capacity building is delivered individually to parents and families.

Parenting programs provide support specifically targeted at understanding and strengthening parent–child relationships through education, knowledge or practical skill building for parents. Where possible, service providers will select a program from the list of evidence-informed parenting programs. If a provider considers a ‘locally applied’ program is more suitable in their local context, they can propose this option to their DCJ contract manager.

Unlike family capacity building, parenting programs are generally delivered to a group of parents, as opposed to an individual parent 1:1 with a case worker. However, some specific parenting programs may have a home visiting component delivered 1:1. 

Community engagement is the organising of community events or festivals or planning activities with community members that align with, or would achieve, CAFS outcomes. This may also include community consultation activities. Organising community events or festivals can only be counted if the service is responsible for organising and running the event.

Service providers delivering community engagement will primarily collect and report unidentified clients in DEX.

Social participation is initiating or facilitating community workshops and activities that align with CAFS outcomes. This includes:

• social, cultural, recreational, youth activities, art or language activities; workshops; or linking up members of a community around a shared issue.
• activities that encourage connectedness for community members, which would increase social inclusion, connection and participation (e.g. community playgroups, mentoring, leadership programs, peer support, relationship, social skills, whether delivered one on one or in a group).
• providing spaces for clients to have an opportunity to connect with others, such as a neighbourhood or community centre, informal locations, or online to achieve the CAFS outcomes.

Unlike community engagement, when delivering social participation, service providers should, where possible, collect and report individual client details and outcomes in DEX.

The service type definitions in the CAFS Program Specifications provide additional examples to distinguish the two service types.

The hiring out of spaces/venues has been removed from the definitions of both service types as this is not part of the CAFS program. 

It is not expected that all CAFS staff will have clinical qualifications. If delivering counselling services to children and young people, staff will need appropriate qualifications. Where staff are delivering other service types that do not require qualifications (e.g. mentoring/peer support) and it is identified that the child or young person requires counselling or psychological services, then relevant referrals should be made to services with qualified staff.

Many children and young people affected by mental health conditions will benefit from CAFS services that do not require staff to have clinical qualifications (e.g. youth individualised support). These services can be an important ‘soft entry’ point for children and young people to access more targeted or specialised services. 

The CAFS program recognises the unique and critical work that Community Strengthening service providers do to build and facilitate community cohesion, inclusion and wellbeing. Working with ‘community’ is reflected in the overall CAFS target population which is: ‘children, young people, families and communities within NSW who are in need’.

The purpose of having additional specific target groups (beyond the target population) is to provide a more focussed approach for priority groups who have been identified as having known vulnerabilities. As ‘community’ is a broad category of people, it is not specified as a separate target group in the CAFS Program Specifications. The list of key target groups is not exhaustive, and CAFS services may support other client groups according to local priorities and needs.

No. Service providers are not expected to work with all target groups listed in the CAFS Program Specifications. The target groups are recommended to be prioritised for service delivery in the Stronger Communities Investment Approach. These key groups may overlap and are not an exhaustive list.

Service providers may support other client groups according to local priorities and needs. This is flexible and should be negotiated with your DCJ contract manager based on what is needed in the local area.

The NSW Government generally considers young people to be aged 12 to 24 years. However, there are places where the age range of young people is expanded to 10 to 24 years. This includes evidence referenced in the CAFS Program Specifications such as the Youth Socioemotional Wellbeing evidence review and Youth Work – Agency and Empowerment evidence review.

Service providers are encouraged to exercise their discretion when determining whether a client should be considered a child or young person. Importantly, if a young person is seeking assistance, they should not be turned away because of their age.