Relational contracting is one of the most talked-about ideas in Australian community services right now. But what does it actually mean — and how do you do it?
This webinar cuts through the concept and gets straight to implementation. With over 630 registrations from across government, non-profits, primary health networks and the research sector, it’s clear this conversation is overdue.
Our panel — Liz Forsyth (ForsythClement Advisory), Andrew Davitt (PLACE) and Emma Cook from the Australian Government Department of Social Services — covers what relational contracting is, when to use it (and when not to), real-world case studies including South Australia’s Child and Family Support System, and what DSS is currently developing as a model for community services.
ARACY anchors relational contracting to child and family wellbeing outcomes using The Nest framework — shaping what gets prioritised, measured, learned from and improved, not just delivered.
Watch the recording and explore the resources below — curated from the evidence base and shared by audience members on the day.
Why this matters now
Short-term, compliance-heavy contracts have produced fragmented services, workforce instability and poor outcomes for families. The DSS Family and Community Services review, the Safe and Supported national framework, and the proposed reform of Communities for Children programs all point in the same direction: the sector needs to shift from managing contracts to building relationships that learn and adapt over time.
Webinar Presentation
Liz Forsyth, Founder of ForsythClement shared some of her presentation on relational contracting with webinar participants – a great resource for anyone working on relational contracting.
ARACY RELATIONAL CONTRACTING 101 RESOURCES
The evidence base — Prof. Mark Considine AM, University of Melbourne
Why read this? Considine and Prof. Bruce Bonyhady AM are Australia’s leading researchers defining what relational contracting actually is — and isn’t. Two papers plus Considine’s 2025 presentation to the Minister’s Non-profit Productivity Roundtable. If you want the intellectual grounding behind today’s conversation, start here.
University of Melbourne — Relational Contracts research project
Relational contracting in practice — SA Child and Family Support System
Why read this? The closest Australian example to what today’s session is pointing toward. CPD and The Front Project document how SA’s Department of Human Services used relational contracting to achieve a 93% family preservation rate — covering the real mechanics of co-designed KPIs, trust-building with providers, and what conditions made it work. If you want to see everything discussed today applied to a real system, this is it.
CPD/Front Project — How to Embed Learning Systems in Social Services (PDF, January 2026)
WEBINAR AUDIENCE SUGGESTIONS
These resources were shared by audience members in the chat during the webinar. If you have something worth adding to this list, get in touch.
SA Commissioning and Outcomes Frameworks — Department of Human Services SA Shared by Jessica, Department of Human Services SA
Why read this? This is the live commissioning framework underpinning the SA Child and Family Support System that Andrew Davitt spoke to in the webinar. It sets out DHS’s seven commissioning principles — including relationship-based, innovative and flexible, and shared accountability — alongside the outcomes framework that shapes what gets funded and measured. If you want to understand what relational contracting looks like embedded in government infrastructure, this is it. DHS SA — Commissioning and Outcomes Frameworks
Relational Contracting — Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford Shared by Jessica, Department of Human Services SA
Why read this? A rigorous, jargon-free guide from Oxford’s Government Outcomes Lab covering what relational contracting is, when to use it, the real risks and challenges, and how to adopt it in practice — including procurement. If you want the international evidence base and practical design guidance behind the conversation in today’s webinar, start here.
GO Lab, Oxford — Relational Contracting guide
Degrees of Relationality in Public Services — Benjamin Taylor, RedQuadrant / Public Service Transformation Academy Shared by Keira, Centre for Public Impact
Why read this? One of the most useful diagnostic tools to emerge from today’s conversation. Taylor maps nine degrees of relationality — from coercive to citizen-governed — and gives you a practical ladder for working out where your system sits and how to move it. It directly answers the question of whether relational contracting is really just a tone of voice or something that has to be designed in. Work in progress, shared March 2026.
Download — Degrees of Relationality (PDF)
Elevating Diverse Voices Learning Program — Centre for Public Impact Shared by Keira, Centre for Public Impact
Why read this? Diana mentioned this in the webinar — and it’s free. The Centre for Public Impact is offering a four-month learning program for middle to senior managers in early years policy roles in state and federal government, running April–July 2026. It covers evidence appraisal, deep listening, relational working and influencing systems. Exactly the capability-building that came up in the audience questions about what relational commissioning actually takes. Apply now — places are limited.
Download program overview (PDF)
Safe and Supported — Implementation, Department of Social Services Shared by Marinda, Department of Education, Children and Young People, Tasmania
Why read this? The national framework driving child safety reform across all Australian governments — and the policy context sitting behind what Emma Cook spoke to in the webinar. Safe and Supported sets out the 10-year vision and two action plans (2023–2026) for protecting Australia’s children, including First Nations children. It’s the systemic backdrop to why relational contracting in community services matters now, not later. DSS — Safe and Supported Implementation
A New Approach to Programs for Families and Children — Discussion Paper, DSS Shared by Chris, Curtin University
Why read this? This DSS discussion paper proposes merging five existing child and family programs — including Communities for Children — into a single national program. It’s the reform that makes relational contracting urgent for the community services sector right now. If you work in CfC, family support or early years, this directly shapes what your funding environment will look like. Consultation closed in late 2025 but the paper sets out the direction of travel.
DSS — A New Approach to Programs for Families and Children (PDF)
Questions submitted before and during the webinar
The evidence is still emerging — no one can say it's conclusive yet. Global examples show it works best where trust, co-production and joint governance are treated as formal obligations, not informal add-ons.
Liz Forsyth, transcript p.6 · Considine, Melbourne Uni · GO Lab, Oxford
All three. The mental/cultural shift is the foundation — but power imbalances, probity rules, and compliance structures also need redesigning. Without genuine trust, you end up with an enhanced grant model that reverts to business-as-usual.
Liz Forsyth, transcript pp.5–6 · Andrew Davitt, transcript p.18 · Liz's deck slides 15–16
Four design principles: make relationships a formal objective; hard-wire shared governance; commission for learning not just delivery; align procurement with relational intent — longer agreements, less re-tendering, outcome quality indicators alongside compliance metrics.
Liz's deck slides 11–14 · Emma's deck slide 4
Yes — and this is the preferred design for complex services. SA's Child and Family Support System included communities, people with lived experience, providers and government all in the same relational model. Liz's slides recommend shared-governance agreements with NFP consortia as standard practice.
Andrew Davitt, transcript pp.16–17 · Liz's deck slide 12
No. The DSS discussion paper confirms any provider can opt in at application. ARACY's submission recommends a tiered approach — mature sites operate under a community-led model; less mature sites build capability under more traditional arrangements first.
Emma's deck slide 3 · DSS discussion paper
Yes in principle. The Australian Evaluation Society has applied relational principles directly to evaluation commissioning — flexible scope, iterative design, candid two-way dialogue. DSS has not yet stated a policy position on this for non-service-delivery work.
Relational skills and a partnership mindset matter as much as technical tools. Leadership, deep listening, and peer learning are essential. Under stress, people revert to compliance — building psychological safety is a precondition.
Liz Forsyth, transcript p.7 · Liz's deck slide 10 · CPI Elevating Diverse Voices program
Distributed is better. RC depends on deep local knowledge — a single national manager can't hold it. NSW DCJ separates lead contract manager, contract manager, and program manager roles by geography and service context. One national manager across diverse communities is too thin.
Social procurement asks who you buy from. RC asks how you work together over time. They're complementary — a relational contract may incorporate social procurement — but they address different problems.
Liz's deck slide 7
This is a genuine gap in the literature — no Australian case studies exist yet. The strongest available guidance: embed probity, conflict-of-interest and shared-risk protocols from the start, with clear escalation pathways and agreed exit/renegotiation clauses before a crisis, not during one.
Liz's deck slides 15–16 · GO Lab
Compliance reporting shifts to joint sense-making. Quality measurement remains a cornerstone — but as a shared conversation tool, not an audit hammer. Balance hard outcome metrics with relational quality indicators: continuity, cultural safety, user experience, collaborative behaviour.
Emma Cook, transcript pp.12–13 · Liz's deck slides 13–14
The barrier is rarely the rules — it's mindset. If government can't create the space, no one else can. NFPs can help by demonstrating that long-term relational approaches deliver better risk management than price-driven competition, and by coming to the table with ready-made governance frameworks.
Andrew Davitt, transcript p.18 · Liz's deck slide 14
Relational care and practice describe how workers relate to people. RC describes how funders and providers relate to each other — the form of the contract and governance. They reinforce each other but operate at different levels.
Liz's deck slides 6–7 · Taylor — Degrees of Relationality
The DSS discussion paper states RC will be offered in the new national program — any provider can opt in at application. For CfC facilitating partners, this means up to five-year agreements, flexible governance, and shared outcome goals. ARACY's submission recommends a tiered model that supports sites at different levels of readiness.
CI is a multi-actor collaboration framework. SROI is an outcomes valuation methodology. Social impact bonds transfer risk via rigid metrics. RC is about how the contract itself is structured — governance, trust, adaptation. All can coexist inside a relational contract.
Liz's deck slides 6–7, 17
Create governance forums that are proportionate and risk-based. Shift from compliance reporting to joint sense-making. Build structured learning cycles: joint quarterly sessions, shared improvement plans, small test-and-learn budgets inside larger contracts.
Emma Cook, transcript pp.12–13 · Liz's deck slide 13
UK (Essex, adult social care, children's residential care), Canada (Ontario Health Teams), and Australia (Australian Navy, SA Child and Family Support System). To engage government: bring ready-made governance frameworks, shared data, and evidence of better risk management — don't wait to be asked.
Andrew Davitt, transcript pp.34–42 · Liz's deck slides 8–10
The rules are rarely the real barrier — power imbalances, ways of working and mindsets are. Both sides need to change. RC works best where outcomes are complex, local knowledge matters, and both parties are willing to share risk.
Liz's deck slide 5 · Andrew Davitt, transcript p.18
Non-negotiable compliance elements (suitability to work, safety) remain. RC operates on top of those — changing how parties respond to performance issues, not removing accountability. Use clear terms of reference specifying who is ultimately accountable to Parliament, alongside joint advisory structures.
Emma Cook, transcript p.13 · Liz's deck slide 15
Australian Navy (frigate programme), SA Child and Family Support System, Essex My Home Life (UK), UK adult social care partnerships, children's residential care consortia (UK), Ontario Health Teams (Canada).
Andrew Davitt, transcript pp.14–17 · CPD/Front Project — SA CFSS deep-dive
RC doesn't replace socioeconomic outcome measurement — it changes how those outcomes are discussed. DEX will still track disadvantage status and family vulnerability. The Commonwealth Outcomes Fund links payments to measurable socioeconomic outcomes. RC creates the relational conditions for honest conversations about what the data means.
In SA's CFSS, providers shifted from being audited to being in a shared conversation with government. Community voices shaped service adjustments directly — not filtered through outcome metrics. People receiving services experienced greater continuity and person-centred responses.
Andrew Davitt, transcript pp.15–17 · CPD/Front Project
Not answered directly in the webinar. The evidence suggests yes — RC builds trust, reduces adversarial behaviour and creates a more rewarding working environment. Low staff turnover is itself a marker of relational capacity, not just an outcome of it.
Liz's deck slides 4, 11
This was outside Emma Cook's remit on the day. The DSS discussion paper on a New Approach to Programs for Families and Children is the most current public information available.
Not addressed in the webinar or any publicly available source. This remains an open and important question for the sector. ACOSS has documented the workforce pressures that make relational working structurally harder to sustain.
The DSS discussion paper directly links them. Under the new national program, funding will prioritise ACCO-led service delivery, following the Closing the Gap Grants Prioritisation Guide (Priority Reform 2). RC is the mechanism that would let ACCO-led services govern and adapt without compliance requirements that historically undermine self-determination.
Use shared-governance agreements with NFP consortia that define joint decision-rights. Require documented, co-signed collaboration frameworks for major partnerships. The relational agreement itself is the vehicle for shared objectives and accountability.
Liz's deck slide 12 · DSS — Safe and Supported
Within DSS, it's already expanding — relational contracting is being embedded in Inclusive Employment Australia (disability employment) with a Values Box and Joint Charter of Contract Management. Whether other departments such as Education follow is not yet publicly confirmed.
Emma Cook was direct: no commitment to full implementation has been made. Design work started in early 2026. Further refinement and government decisions are needed before timelines can be confirmed. Sector engagement will continue throughout 2026.
Emma Cook, transcript pp.9–11 · DSS discussion paper
Outside Emma Cook's remit on the day. The DSS discussion paper on the new national program is the most current public source on future contracting arrangements.
PBO and RC address different problems — PBO is about payment structure and risk transfer; RC is about the quality of the working relationship and governance. They're not alternatives. DSS has run PBO trials since 2019 and is pursuing RC separately. Social Ventures Australia advises DSS on both.
Liz's summary puts it directly: contracts are tools to steward shared outcomes, not instruments to buy activities at the lowest price. Hard-wiring shared decision-making into governance turns relationships into system infrastructure. That's the evidence base for public value.
Liz's deck slide 17
Reach out directly via the resource page — ARACY would love to add your experience and evidence. DSS is continuing sector engagement throughout 2026 through existing channels.
Not addressed in the webinar. Cross-portfolio alignment is a real risk — multi-partner governance is complex and politically sensitive. The mitigation is to keep structures simple, standardise templates, and invest in design support upfront.
Liz's deck slides 12, 15
Queensland Kids Partnership and Queensland Place Network brought together 40+ system leaders the following week to work on exactly this. We are exploring what ongoing convening looks like with DSS and will keep you posted.
Diana Harris, transcript p.25 · ARACY resource page
Use longer-term agreements and avoid re-tendering that disrupts trust. Balance hard outcome metrics with relational quality indicators. Don't use RC for simple, standardised services where price competition is appropriate — it's a tool for complexity.
Liz's deck slides 5, 14 · Emma's deck slide 4
These are the communities that need RC most — and where it's hardest. Staff turnover is a leading risk to trust. Design contracts to require low turnover as a performance indicator. Build community and governance relationships that outlast individual staff. The CPD/Front Project documents what this looks like in the SA context.
Liz's deck slides 5, 10, 11 · CPD/Front Project
All audience-shared resources, panellist slides, and the curated evidence base are on the ARACY resource page.
ARACY — Relational Contracting 101: From Concept to Practice
SHARE THIS
With six connected areas, The Nest ensures young Australians have everything they need for the best start in life, helping them reach their highest potential.
Using The Nest, has helped ARACY to be at the forefront of disease prevention and the promotion of holistic health for young Australians.
Here you’ll see some examples of how The Nest has been used in organisations outside of ARACY across Australia.
