S266578 SWK405 Belinda Malone A1 Agency report Organisation type FAST operates as a Non-Government Organisation though I run under NT Christian Schools who manages human resources and provides administrative and operating resources (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). NT Christian Schools applies for funding based on delivering the whole 8-week FAST program in different communities to their prospective “principle partners” (Such as Anglicare or The Smith Family) who control funding from initiatives such as Communities for Children (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). Service delivery models utilised by agency in remote service delivery FAST operates under a community development service delivery model (also called community capacity building) and fits within Alston’s (2009) description of factors common with this model such as using local people and local resources. FAST uses the terms strengths-based and whole of community to describe their approach (Promising practice profiles, 2016). FAST permanent staff don’t deliver the program, they recruit casual staff within communities such as family members of school children, then train and upskill those local people to deliver the program (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). Strengths and limitations identified by the organisation’s representative The program often depends on unpredictable circumstances such as consistent participation (which is often inconsistent) and the skill level of local staff hired, where many have never been employed before and so the program can be somewhat consumed by training them to a level of competency (J. Orozco interview, August 2016) (Promising practice profiles, 2016). When applying for funding, it is hard to demonstrate the results of the program as they are not usually reflected in quantity so much as quality (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). Many people from within communities have told stories about how positively the program has effected the community and individual members (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). “It provides a space and opportunity for people to build their own positive relationships after repetition” (J. Orozco interview, August 2016) Sustainability of service model The FAST program in the Northern Territory has been running now for 10 years (Promising practice profiles, 2016). As the funding situation is unique, and the model uses local people and local resources in order to run their own program (Alston, 2009), the model is very sustainable. It also doesn’t depend on intensive long-term intervention; often after the initial 8-week program, some funding is provided for the first year to support the community’s monthly program and often sees the community create long term habits that continue after funding has ceased. The FAST team in Darwin also maintains contact with coordinators in the communities via distance and offers support (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). Challenges to staffing and retention of workers within the agency.

1. S266578 SWK405
Belinda Malone A1 Agency report
Organisation type
FAST operates as a Non-Government Organisation though I run
under NT Christian Schools who manages human resources and
provides administrative and operating resources (J. Orozco
interview, August 2016).
NT Christian Schools applies for funding based on delivering
the whole 8-week FAST program in different communities to
their prospective “principle partners” (Such as Anglicare or The
Smith Family) who control funding from initiatives such as
Communities for Children (J. Orozco interview, August 2016).
Service delivery models utilised by agency in remote service
delivery
FAST operates under a community development service delivery
model (also called community capacity building) and fits within
Alston’s (2009) description of factors common with this model
such as using local people and local resources. FAST uses the
terms strengths-based and whole of community to describe their
approach (Promising practice profiles, 2016).
FAST permanent staff don’t deliver the program, they recruit
casual staff within communities such as family members of
school children, then train and upskill those local people to
deliver the program (J. Orozco interview, August 2016).
Strengths and limitations identified by the organisation’s
representative
The program often depends on unpredictable circumstances such
as consistent participation (which is often inconsistent) and the
skill level of local staff hired, where many have never been
employed before and so the program can be somewhat consumed
by training them to a level of competency (J. Orozco interview,
August 2016) (Promising practice profiles, 2016).

2. When applying for funding, it is hard to demonstrate the results
of the program as they are not usually reflected in quantity so
much as quality (J. Orozco interview, August 2016).
Many people from within communities have told stories about
how positively the program has effected the community and
individual members (J. Orozco interview, August 2016). “It
provides a space and opportunity for people to build their own
positive relationships after repetition” (J. Orozco interview,
August 2016)
Sustainability of service model
The FAST program in the Northern Territory has been running
now for 10 years (Promising practice profiles, 2016). As the
funding situation is unique, and the model uses local people and
local resources in order to run their own program (Alston,
2009), the model is very sustainable. It also doesn’t depend on
intensive long-term intervention; often after the initial 8-week
program, some funding is provided for the first year to support
the community’s monthly program and often sees the
community create long term habits that continue after funding
has ceased. The FAST team in Darwin also maintains contact
with coordinators in the communities via distance and offers
support (J. Orozco interview, August 2016).
Challenges to staffing and retention of workers within the
agency
The FAST program finds a very low turnover compared to other
NT organisations, they attribute this to the way that NT
Christian schools’ value and invest in relationships and
individuals, this comes out in support provision, flexibility,
training and much more (J. Orozco interview, August 2016).
Staff believe in the program and feel a shared sense of
commitment to the organisation and the communities (J. Orozco
interview, August 2016).

3. Ethical dilemmas encountered by human services workers in
remote service delivery.
J. Orozco (interview, August 2016) explains that they don’t
really encounter any major ethical dilemmas. Often the
communities have actually asked for Christian programs and
Christian schools and the program doesn’t have any agenda of
their own, it’s about providing the community with an
opportunity to develop itself.
Interview with Jasmine Harrison, FAST Trainer:
The website says that the program is run under NT Christian
Schools, how is the organisation governed by NT Christian
Schools?
· More of an umbrella organisation
· FAST operates under the ethos of NT Christian schools e.g.
serving and caring for people, respect
· Manage administration, insurance etc.
· Prayer is part of meetings
· Pay some of the administrative costs, able to provide other
resources e.g. fleet cars, pays for policies.

4. · FAST aims to hire Christians to work there
Does this ever pose ethical dilemmas as far as say religious or
moral differences with people in the communities?
· Everyone who enters a community has their own views and
values and should respect others
· Massive Christian population amongst communities already –
therefore the team seems to represent the population quite well,
gives the example of a community that wanted to make their
only school Christian
· The program itself has no evangelistic Christian motives but
represents Christian values. The program is evidence based, not
originally Christian, based in America.
How effective do you think the approaches are that FAST uses
(strengths-based, whole of community)? What elements of these
approaches are the most critical in practice?
· Community development practice model
· We don’t deliver the program, we train and upskill local
people to deliver the program
· Aim to build something in the community that will last after
the program is finished
What kind of maintenance is needed after the initial program is
run? And what would that mean if FAST lost their funding? Is
there a contingency plan?
· There’s meant to be a follow up program which is more
strongly directed by the families. The funding stretches for once
a month for a year, encouraging meet-ups
· FAST would check in regularly with the coordinator
· In some communities they often run another round in a couple
of years
· See below about funding – funding is on a needs basis etc.
What kind of strengths do you see coming from the program and
the community’s participation in it?

5. · People in communities talk about how the program has had a
positive impact on individual staff after a while of participating
& running in the program.
· Providing space and opportunity for people to build their own
positive relationships after repetition
What limits and challenges do you come across day to day when
running the programs?
· Lots of circumstantial things that can impact on how the
program goes, short-term risks
· Funding is easier when you can have solid number which the
program doesn’t always work well with
Is there a high turnover in staff for FAST compared to say,
other organisations in the NT?
Is the program sustainable for staff? Does the general turnover
pose any issues with the agency?
· Really low turnover – long term staff compared to the rest of
the NT
· NT Christian schools prioritise relationships over other things
· Culture of commitment
· Mindset of values that staff are committed to
· Good training and support provided
· Staff really believe in the programs
· Flexible workplace
· Culture of investing in people e.g. in the communities
What are the major ethical dilemmas (other than asked above)
do you encounter when working with communities?
· Federal funding under communities for children, which is a
little bit complicated because first federal funding is budgeted,
then region by region they compete to get for Communities for
children (or C4C) funding which comes under a facilitating
partner e.g. Anglicare, who get a bucket of funding and then
FAST applies to different regions under their facilitating
partners who control the funding.
· The now called Primary health network also contributes

6. funding which FAST is eligible for as it is an early intervention
program
· Some facilitating partners also give funding out of donations
e.g. smith family and in one example a school got together and
raised money to fund the program because they valued it so
strongly
Alston, M. (2009). Innovative human services practice:
Australia's changing landscape. South Yarra, [Vic.]: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (2016). Promising
practice profiles (1st ed., pp. 1-10). Retrieved from
http://www.fastnt.org.au/documents/File/Promising%20Practice
%20Profile_FAST.pdf
Assessment Item 2
Description/Focus:
Agency Visit Report
Value:
20%
Due date:
Midnight Friday 27th August (week 7)
Length:
500 words
Presentation:
Report style. Clear headings

7. Assessment criteria:
· Report structure and writing style (including referencing)
· Evidence of preparation, development of questions and
recording
· Critical analysis
Task:
Select an agency that delivers services to remote or regional
communities and prepare a report on the visit that identifies:
· Organisation type (think back to SWK243)
· Service delivery models utilised by agency in remote service
delivery
· Strengths and limitations identified by the organisation’s
representative
· Sustainability of service model
· Challenges to staffing and retention of workers within the
agency
· Ethical dilemmas encountered by human services workers in
remote service delivery.
Also need an interview. No word limits. please check the model
answer.