Welcome to our Knowledge Sharing Page

Topics of focus are chosen based on common themes arising from engagement with Member ACCOs. An initial list of topics was drawn from the extensive consultation documented by the 2025 report, ‘In their laughter, we heal: ACCO aspirations for families, children and young people’, and continues  to evolve as we welcome input from VACYPA Members about what would be most relevant and useful for their ACCOs.

VACYPA Rapid Reviews gather evidence from a combination of academic and ‘gray’ literature, which refers to government documents, consultation findings, case studies, evaluation reports and other sources of information published outside of formal academic peer-review processes.  The methods used to identify sources include: Internet searches for key words on –  Research repositories, such as ScienceDirect and Google Scholar Websites of relevant research institutes and sector experts, such as SNAICC, VACCA, the Lowitja Institute, Australian Institute of Family Studies, and the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare Drawing from knowledge and expertise held by VACYPA and Members, including: Resources compiled by staff over time Discussions with VACYPA staff about research and examples they have led, contributed to or know about Advice from leaders and staff of Member ACCOs as appropriate, especially where Member ACCOs suggest particular topics for review Literature snowballing, which means looking through references cited in publications already identified to gather additional information.  The scope of each rapid review is defined based on practical relevance to VACYPA Member ACCOs and the communities they serve.  Rather than assigning strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, the rapid reviews consider as much information as possible within available timeframes while prioritising sources that advance understanding of Aboriginal-led work. This approach upholds the principle of self-determination that is central to VACYPA’s work, asserts focus on evidence that is meaningful and impactful to Aboriginal people and acknowledges the systemic inequities constraining resources and capacity afforded to Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing. (See, for example, the discussion on 'Racism and Data Reporting’ in VACYPA’s Submission to the Inquiry into Racism, Hate and Violence Directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People)  Sources identified using the methods listed above, therefore, are prioritised for data extraction based the following categories: Research by, for and about Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people Whole-of-population research authored by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations Research relevant to Australian First Nations communities authored by First Nations people and organisations overseas Research focusing on Aboriginal populations by any author or organisation Mainstream research or whole-of-population research by any author or organisation In addition, VACYPA rapid reviews prioritise research specific to the field of child and family services, and research that involves meaningful participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with lived experience of the child protection and youth justice systems.

VACYPA Rapid Reviews consider three primary questions, with secondary questions considered in light of available evidence. What evidence is available about the topic of interest? Based on available evidence, what can we safely say about Aboriginal led approaches to child and family services? What is known about how to achieve positive outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities? What examples demonstrate proven, promising or emerging approaches? What guidance can be drawn from these examples? What barriers and challenges inhibit positive outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities? What is known about how to address these barriers and challenges? What enablers maximise positive outcomes for Aboriginal children, families and communities?  What does this mean in the context of Aboriginal self-determination in the child and family services sector? What policy recommendations can be drawn from the evidence reviewed? What practice recommendations can be drawn from the evidence reviewed? What are the limitations of the evidence available? What further evidence is needed to inform effective policy and practice?