Skip to content

This report was published by the former Department of Families, Community Services
Contents | Downloads

2. Community wellbeing

The search for information generally identified programs either in relation to specific age groups (early childhood, seniors, young people) or particular areas of prevention and early intervention (child abuse/maltreatment, crime). However, program information and studies that relate in various ways to the broader aim of enhancing the overall 'wellbeing' (Falk & Harrison 1998) or 'health' (Catalano & Hawkins 1996) of communities is identifiable in the literature. These programs and studies include both community-based prevention and early intervention strategies and community work in which community building was the immediate explicit purpose of the intervention.

As noted in Chapter 1, a range of literature refers to the value of communities that:

(Cox 1995; Putnam 1993; Gray 1996; Gittell & Vidal 1998; Falk & Harrison, 1998).

The notions of community participation and the value of networks in building stronger communities are further explored by Baum et al. (1999). It is argued that there is increasing recognition of the importance of community participation and the role that community groups play in developing communities in which trust building and reciprocity lead to an increase in social capital (Baum et al. 1999). Further, there is significant research to support the notion that people with diverse networks of quality relationships are healthier than people who are socially isolated. In this context, health is described as the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people (Rosenfeld 1997, cited in Baum et al. 1999). Further, a strong and healthy community may be described as one that:

As discussed in Chapter 1, based on the concepts of civil society and social capital, the key elements of stronger communities are: knowledge and community skills including volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; and community capacity to use best practice.

The consistent elements in all of the materials cited that relate to stronger/healthy communities, is the importance of a sense of connectedness between people, and between people and their community in an environment in which all people are able to participate to their full potential.

At the same time, a number of factors are cited as contributing to the unraveling of social ties and community life. These include:

There has been an overemphasis on individual remediation and treatment and an underemphasis on prevention and development (Morrison et al. 1997). In addition, Morrison et al. refer to services with fragmented funding that are poorly designed and do little to contribute to building an overall neighbourhood structure. The importance of prevention strategies is also highlighted by claims that billions of dollars are spent on public services to address problems that are preventable. Not only does it make economic sense to invest in prevention strategies, it is also a mechanism for building capacity rather than fostering dependence on public programs (Iowa Kids Count Initiative 1993).

The Iowa Blueprint Investment Strategy is a community prevention agenda developed in the United States (US) in the early 1990s to help children to thrive. It states that over US$2 billion was spent in 1992-93 on problems that can be prevented. The key areas of expenditure were remedial services (health, education and human services); adult dependence (welfare and health care costs); and public protection (juvenile and adult corrections). A number of poor outcomes that are preventable are listed, including:

It is argued that if public expenditure to address preventable problems can be reduced by five per cent, the state will save over US$3 for every US$1 invested in prevention initiatives (Iowa Kids Count Initiative 1995).

Within Australia, two significant pieces of research were identified—the Health Development and Social Capital Project in the Western Suburbs of Adelaide and a Social Cost Benefit Analysis of NSW Department of Housing's Neighbourhood Improvement Program. In addition, the then Commonwealth Department of Social Security produced research that examines the factors affecting living standards and strategies that may increase living standards for low- income people. Details of this program, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, are provided, as well as materials on Indigenous Australian communities' Rural Communities and Community Economic Development programs, in Department of Social Security (1997). Some of the programs are addressed in detail, while others are included to indicate the potential that they might have for future evaluations. Furthermore, information about three US-based programs is included: the Community Middle School Consortium, the Parent Involvement Program and Communities that Care.

back to top

2.1 Health development and social capital project

The Health Development and Social Capital Project is reported on in three publications by Baum et al. (1999): Building Healthy Communities: Health Development and Social Capital Project—Western Suburbs of Adelaide; Social Capital in Action: Health Promotion and Community Groups; and Inventory of Community Groups and Organisations.

The project commenced in 1997 and was a collaborative effort between the South Australian Community Health Research Unit and the Department of Public Health at Flinders University in South Australia (SA). The aim of this project was to explore community participation, health and social capital in the western suburbs of Adelaide, SA which are characterised by:

Specifically, the project examined:

The specific elements of social capital explored in the project were networks and levels of trust and reciprocity. Material was drawn from a range of sources including:

The authors were unable to obtain details on any quantitative evaluation that may have been completed. However, it is noted that dividends from investment in structures which strengthen social and civic activity should be seen in terms of increasing levels of trust and providing natural systems of social support that have been shown by Rosenfeld (1997) to have a generally positive effect on individual health status (Baum et al. 1999, p. 65).

The project has been included on the basis that it is a significant overarching piece of work that gives context to the role of community-based programs in contributing to the development of healthy communities.

Details of 25 case studies are presented in Social Capital in Action: Health Promotion and Community Groups (1999). The organisations and groups receive little if any funding and many rely on a combination of fund raising, nominal membership fees and volunteers. Many expressed concerns about relying on the energy and commitment of a limited number of people who are prepared to give their time on a voluntary basis. The overall finding was that community groups support a vibrant and energetic part of community life and they contribute to trust building, developing relationships for mutual benefit and encouraging pride in collective achievement. Specifically, the case studies found examples of:

The level of participation was linked to a range of socio-economic factors with findings that:

Notwithstanding variations in levels of participation, the project concluded that community groups and organisations are an important resource for developing health at the community level (Building Healthy Communities, p. 3). Specifically, the report identified a number of local neighbourhood characteristics that can be suggested as providing a health-promoting community:

A number of community organisations identified the following factors that would 'make their group stronger':

back to top

2.2 New South Wales Department of Housing's Neighbourhood Improvement Program

Through a hypothetical case study analysis Stubbs and Storer (1996) have undertaken a cost- benefit analysis of the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Housing's Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) to answer the following questions in relation to the Airds Estate:

The methodology used included:

The NIP includes five public housing estates in Campbelltown and will cost approximately $100 million over 13 years. The report states that unemployment in Airds costs $21.7 million per year, or $46 000 per person per year. This includes the cost of unemployment benefits, management of a benefit payments system, training programs and services for unemployed people and the opportunity costs of lost gross domestic product (GDP). When the cost of other social problems (including crime, Department of Housing maintenance and repairs and family stress) are added, it was estimated that the total cost of social problems in Airds is $28.5 million per year, or 17 times the annual cost of the program for the estate.

If social problems in Airds were reduced to the NSW average, the cost-benefit ratio would be 1:17 (that is, this represents a saving of $18 million per year). Further, a reduction in social problems by a mere 3.7 per cent would ensure the program 'broke even'. It is claimed that this could be achieved by the creation of 23 permanent jobs alone; a major reduction in crime and property turnover; or a small effect across all indicators. However, the report does not provide any details on whether this has been achieved.

While the report notes that poor urban design may exacerbate social problems, it is certainly not the cause. Therefore, physical improvement alone would be unlikely to result in significant reductions in social problems. It is strongly argued that there needs to be a range of strategies in place, including: a high degree of community participation; direct job creation; decreasing community isolation through improved transport; and enhancing opportunities for tenants to purchase their homes.

The report presents an overall cost-benefit analysis through the Airds case study, rather than providing examples of community-based programs that have been evaluated. However, it does highlight the enormous economic and social benefits that can be achieved through programs that reduce social problems as opposed to relying on physical design alone that is unlikely to produce lasting effects. Further, it highlights the importance of community participation and community cohesion as significant factors in reducing social problems like crime (Hagedorn 1991, and O'Sullivan 1991 cited in Stubbs and Storer 1996).

back to top

2.3 Western Australia Council of Social Service Poverty Commission —Housing for a Sustainable Community

In 1998, the Western Australia Council of Social Service (WACOSS) Poverty Commission requested Shelter WA to undertake a review of the contribution of housing to 'sustainable community'. This review was based on the concepts of social capital development, with a particular focus on housing as a key element of community wellbeing (Shelter 2000, p. 1). Data from Western Australia (WA) indicate that 40 per cent of low-income households in the state are experiencing 'housing stress', defined as requiring to allocate more than 30 per cent of their budget to housing costs (pp. 5-6). This is an aspect of housing that adversely affects community wellbeing. Seniors, people with a disability, veterans and families with young children are highly represented in these groups, as are Aboriginal households. The WACOSS Poverty Commission Report highlights three programs that seek to redress the impact of housing stress in WA:

All three programs have a very high usage rate of by Aboriginal households, younger single people and women escaping domestic violence. High levels of unmet need are reported. These are measured by program figures of requests for assistance that met program specifications but to which a response was not possible because of limitations of staff time and/or community resources, including affordable accommodation.

These three programs have made a difference to the outcomes for people experiencing housing emergencies, in particular in relation to the connections between housing and employment (pp. 30-2). Although changing employment patterns can have a deleterious effect on housing, conversely a housing problem can have a serious negative impact on a person's employment. Securing housing tenure thus has a positive impact on other aspects of the community, in reduced levels of social distress (such as less domestic violence and crime and better health outcomes) and increased levels of local economic participation.

back to top

2.4 Community Research Project

The Community Research Project is an Australian project undertaken by the then Department of Social Security between 1994 and 1997.

This project aimed to test the potential of particular community-based services to improve the living standards of people on low incomes. The living standards measured were:

The research sites ranged from rural to inner city, urban and high-growth areas. Generally, the communities were all characterised by high unemployment and dependence on income support and were undergoing economic decline. In addition, there were particular groups of disadvantage identified (unemployed young people, Indigenous people, retired people).

In all, 80 community-based initiatives were funded for 12 months at an average cost of $18 208. Outcomes were measured in terms of first-order outcomes and second-order opportunities and outcomes. First-order outcomes were those that focused on the immediate resolution of an individual's issue, while second-order outcomes focused more on providing an opportunity that could capitalise on or be converted into a tangible benefit at a later date.

Qualitative data indicates that 59 per cent of the 72 projects were likely to produce observable benefits in a range of living standard areas. A further 56 per cent of the projects reported achieving substantial living standard gains: 26 per cent reported that they were successful in achieving some living standard gains; and 18 per cent appeared to have only minimal effects on targeted living standard areas.

The report asserts that changes could be effected in a range of living standard areas and that a change in one living standard area was highly likely to produce changes in other living standard areas. The authors understand that an evaluation of a number of these projects in terms of stronger communities and social outcomes was under way at the University of New England in 2000 but the results were not available at the time of writing.

back to top

2.5 Neighbourhoods in partnership

Morrison et al. (1997) report on programs to build stronger neighbourhoods and communities through the development of support for families and youth. They argue that connectedness between people needs to be developed and supported to overcome problems associated with social isolation and to rebuild the economic and social fabric. The Community Middle School Consortium and the Parent Involvement Program are two examples cited that aim to build stronger communities, through the development of networks for youth and families.

The Community Middle School Consortium commenced in 1996 in a US town called Aurora and involves a partnership of a high school and twelve community social service agencies providing services to students and their families. Coordination of services occurs mostly through one agency.

Services to students and families are provided through homes visits, onsite school appointments during and after school, or visits to the agencies. The educational component provides tutoring, homework clubs and parent support to parents and children from nearly 50 families within the school.

The project was in response to high rates of student suspension; a lack of eligibility of high-risk children for special education services; and low projected graduation rates. The organisations worked together to raise approximately US$35 000 for the first year of the project's operation through a mixture of local council funds and grants.

The project was reported to have assisted 50 families with educational support; food and clothing to several students; 236 students through anger management groups; and 46 individuals referred for mental health treatment. Findings indicate that staff built trusting relationships with the students and their families. Positive outcomes were attributed to interdisciplinary efforts among teachers, social workers, agency staff, community members and others and that services 'surrounded' students and families rather than being provided at a distance (pp. 529-30). Aimed at increasing parent participation in the school, the Parent Involvement Program includes a range of before-school, after-school and noon-time activities for students in an elementary school at Aurora. Prior to the implementation of the program, very few parents participated in the yearly 'family night'. However, since the Parent Involvement Program began, over 600 people participated in the activities offered. In addition, of 73 surveyed parents, 32 stated that they had not participated in school programs prior to the introduction of the program and 41 stated that they attended school-supported activities. Through an evaluation of the impact of parental participation in the classroom, all respondents stated that parental participation had a positive effect, with parents working as volunteers in the classroom and student attendance improving by nearly 90 per cent across all fifth-grade classes (Morrison et al. 1997).

No information was available about the cost of this program.

back to top

2.6 Communities that Care

Communities that Care (CTC) is a comprehensive community-wide and risk-focused prevention strategy aimed at reducing identified risk factors and increasing their corresponding protective factors (Catalano &Hawkins 1996; Harachi et al. 1996). It has been developed and refined in a series of programs that have been run and evaluated for over 15 years in Washington and Oregon in the US northwest. This work is project-managed and researched from the University of Washington, Social Development Research Group (SDRG), in Seattle. The 'social development model' is an evidence-based theoretical tool that brings together ideas about social learning, family and community dynamics, and social interaction in the creation and maintenance of sub-cultures within the context of the wider community. It thus avoids separating individual and collective explanations for and responses to community issues.

In the initial phase of the program, identified community leaders focus on building local capacity for community-based prevention strategies. A Community Prevention Board is then formed by bringing together formal and informal community leaders and intervention personnel (Harachi et al. 1998). It is the board's responsibility to select and oversee the implementation of evidence-based interventions to fit local conditions. This is done through an assessment of the community risks and resources that uses a participatory approach to involve members of the community. In this way, the action plan that is constructed from this assessment is grounded in the community, involving members in the definition of needs and resources; building local initiative through participation; and working towards a mobilisation of the community to address its own needs. Most programs have been funded through a combination of government and non-government sources, with minimal budgets to pay for a part-time community organiser, expenses for participant members of boards and other incidental expenses (Cheadle et al. 1998).

Some work has commenced in Australia on implementing CTC programs and to date the Centre for Adolescent Health (Melbourne) has piloted a survey to measure risk and protective factors among young Australians with a view to forming preventive interventions. In 2000, the CTC program will be trialled in Victoria by a consortium including the Women's and Children's Health Care Network and the Rotary Club of Melbourne (Toumbourou 1999). The implementation of a CTC program in Victoria will integrate a randomised, controlled evaluation (Toumbourou 1999, p. 5). Its findings are due in 2002 and these will provide detailed information concerning these aspects of the program.

It is claimed that US federal expenditure on CTC has stimulated community capacity building in the form of state and county (equivalent to shire) level investment informed by community prevention planning forums (Toumbourou 1999). This is substantiated by the evidence from the evaluations conducted by the SDRG (Catalano & Hawkins 1996; Cheadle et al. 1998).

Cost-benefits are not explicitly estimated by the SDRG, although these may be imputed from the relatively low levels of funding described and the evidence of community building outcomes. Such results take the form of increased community leadership, focusing on community strengths and the development of resilience (in the form of shared learning in ways of addressing community issues).

back to top

2.7 Indigenous Australian communities

Indigenous community wellbeing

Many discussions of prevention and early intervention strategies specifically for Indigenous communities emphasise very similar problems to those of mainstream Australia. Indeed, Australian projects discussed elsewhere in this report include Aboriginal people as well as people of other ethnic and cultural origins. At the same time, in order that their distinctive needs are not lost or ignored, there is a recognised need to have program and studies that are focused specifically on the wellbeing of Indigenous communities (Dodson 1998).

One factor that is of considerable importance in this area is the 'over-representation' of Aboriginal young people in the criminal justice system; in indices of at-risk behaviours (such as substance misuse, community violence, suicide attempts); and in unemployment figures (Cunneen 1997). This is paralleled by their relative absence from indices of positive outcomes such as university entrance and other post-compulsory education, employment and in wider community roles. Of course, there are many young Aboriginal people who play positive roles within the mainstream and within Indigenous communities. However, the higher proportion of young Aboriginal people compared to young people from non-Indigenous backgrounds in at- risk categories is a great concern, and in most states the proportion has risen in the last decade (Cunneen & McDonald, 1997 p. 21). (A slight fall was noticed in WA, but this was from a base almost double that of the next state, and was still the highest proportion of over- representation.) From their summary of their review of a range of programs Cunneen and McDonald conclude that early intervention strategies that are most effective in keeping young Indigenous people out of custody are those that are community-based and which are developed and implemented by the community (1997, p. 176).

Similar trends may be seen in community-based prevention strategies to respond to excessive levels of alcohol consumption (or 'problem drinking') in some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Saggers and Gray (1997) note that a much larger proportion of the Indigenous population than average does not consume alcohol at all, but their consumption of alcohol at harmful levels is disproportionately high. Their review and analysis of studies in this field indicate that the underlying problem is the balance between control of availability and the determination of sections within the mainstream economy to provide alcohol in Indigenous communities or where Aboriginal people form a large section of the community. This evidence suggests that although community-based health programs aimed at individual people play a part in dealing with the issue of excessive consumption, the control by communities of the supply of alcohol is likely to have a more significant impact. The crucial factors are that the community must be the source of the strategy (it cannot be imposed from outside) and it must apply to all members of the community (not only to Indigenous people). Under community-based prevention schemes, alcohol retailers suffered a loss of income, but all other indicators of community wellbeing (including other economic activity) improved.

The common factor between the youth and community health interventions briefly summarised here is that of community participation and leadership in all aspects of problem definition, program design, intervention and evaluation. Most of the literature on Indigenous communities that was surveyed and which is summarised by the material quoted above, made reference to the ways in which the current needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are a consequence of having their strengths destroyed through the processes of colonialism. Strategies to promote stronger Indigenous communities, to develop their resilience and to foster social capital within them clearly have to start from this premise.

Community Development Employment Projects

The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) schemes were established in 1977 to provide a work-based response to problems of unemployment among Indigenous Australian communities. They were designed to be community-based with local leadership, so that they could develop as a means to promote economic, social and cultural strength (Arthur 1991).

The program was reviewed at the twenty-year mark by Spicer (1997) and has also been subject to a number of other evaluations in various respects (for example—Moizo 1990; Payne 1990; Arthur 1991; Bernard 1997). These evaluations together provide diverse insights into the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

In what may be regarded as the most wide-ranging external review, Spicer (1997) identifies several benefits that have been gained through the CDEP. These are:

The CDEP program has also been evaluated by ATSIC (1997). Many of the findings in this evaluation match those of Spicer's study. However, one important area that the ATSIC report identifies is that of the non-employment benefits of the program. Four aspects in particular are reported—when compared to unemployed people in the same communities, CDEP participants:

Each of these factors points to measurable cost-benefits, which in the area of earnings (and consequent local economic activity) are an immediate gain of $2 for every $1 funding. The savings of reduced health and crime costs would require additional figures on the costs of these issues in Aboriginal communities, but these are unavailable. (An extrapolation using the NSW Housing figures (Stubbs and Storer, 1996) could suggest gains in the order of greater than $10 saved for every $1 spent, but this hypothesis requires rigorous empirical testing.) The gains in the strengthening of Aboriginal community indicated in the fourth element cannot be quantified in the same way. However, to the extent that the social problems experienced by Aboriginal communities can be traced to the impact of mainstream policies and related social factors (Arthur 1991; Bernard 1997), the gains could be expected to be significant in terms of social capital (expressed in factors such as increased local leadership; the sharing of knowledge and skills; the development of local solutions to issues; and building community capacity).

In 1997, costs were $2 600 per CDEP participant per year. Spicer (1997) recommended that this should be increased to $10 000 per year to take account of training and infrastructure development. At the same time, he proposed that some rationalisation should occur because, of the 274 organisations that were part of the CDEP nationally, some covered the same areas as others, while some were as small as only 13 people and so were struggling. Even at this higher level, using the community economic multiplier figures given by Croft (1995), a minimum benefit of $1.96 for each $1 funded can be estimated (see discussion of Local Exchange and Trading Systems in this chapter, below). In addition, the cost-benefits in relation to health and crime, and the social capital gains in aspects of stronger communities could also be expected to continue to grow.

Other studies have also identified issues that are still to be addressed. In a case study, Moizo (1991) identified that although some economic autonomy had been gained, there were also instances in which the effect of CDEP had been to separate businesses from the community. Bernard (1997) goes further and argues that, in places the CDEP scheme has introduced a problematic element into Aboriginal culture and self-determination by introducing a European model of 'work'. This he says, combines with the 'workfare' basis of funding to disrupt Indigenous cultural norms. Spicer (1997) also details concerns about the 'work-for-the-dole' structure of CDEP funding. Not only does this lead to relatively low levels of income for some Aboriginal people, but it also makes connections between CDEP and the different work-for- the-dole scheme that has been introduced in the mainstream social security system. Spicer argues that it would be better for both the CDEP and the mainstream social security system (and hence wider perceptions) to create a great divide between the two by using different terminology and approaches to the two schemes. It is also necessary to address the problems faced by some Aboriginal people who may be in the worst of both worlds because they are included in a scheme but not working and so lose entitlement to either wages or a pension (see also Daly & Smith 1996, p. 371). These issues are recognised in the ATSIC evaluation, and the study also reported a need for more effective communication between ATSIC and the local projects (ATSIC 1997, pp. 19-21).

back to top

2.8 Rural communities

Landcare

Landcare is 'a community-based approach to fixing environmental problems' (Landcare 1999a, p. 1). Comprising over 4 250 groups around Australia, the program seeks to promote community, industry and government partnership in the management and preservation of natural resources through raising awareness and building local capacity to manage the land. These groups vary from local initiatives focused on specific issues, through to regional projects, and to national bodies that include the Landcare Australia Foundation and Landcare Australia Limited. Unlike most of the other programs discussed in this chapter, Landcare does not address negative social indicators, but it is a response to a major negative outcome for rural community wellbeing that impacts on positive indicators—for example, land degradation may have a deleterious effect on rural economic growth.

Funding for Landcare programs comes from various sources. Predominantly a combination of government and industry funding, in 1997 the total level of income to the program nationally was $280 million. An evaluation of the first decade of Landcare suggests that the program has been successful in its environmental impact, but perhaps as importantly in the community- building outcomes that have been achieved (Landcare, 1999b). At the same time, this review recognises that further work must be done in capacity building; the even wider acceptance of sustainable agricultural practices; and greater linkage between small local projects and a wider regional vision. A cost-benefit analysis of the Landcare program was not part of this review. Given the complex network of projects and subprograms, such an analysis would be extremely difficult for Landcare overall.

Community involvement and partnership with industry and government in Landcare are the strengths of the program. One in three farmers are members of Landcare groups (Martin & Halpin 1998). Independent studies of Landcare have shown that the programs have been very successful in promoting local participation and the use of best practice (Curtis & De Lacy 1998) and in developing local leadership (Martin & Halpin 1998). Studies also sound a cautionary note about the way in which corporate sponsorship of Landcare projects is a success in itself, but it may sometimes be a substitute for a more substantial review of the impact of manufacturing practices on the environment (Lockie 1999). Curtis and De Lacy (1998) argue for further policy development to strengthen the community building and environmental achievements of the program.

Rural women in leadership

Increasing research evidence points to the importance of women's leadership for the strengthening of rural communities (Walls & Tanner 1994; Bourke & Luloff 1997). The view that 'there are no women out there' wishing to take on leadership roles is countered by a weight of evidence that when the right circumstances and opportunities are available, women in rural communities want to be involved (Alston & Wilkinson 1998). Indeed, women have often been the community members that have held rural societies together through networking and local community activity (Alston 1995).

Haslam McKenzie notes that rural women contributed approximately $9 billion to Australian gross national product (GNP) in 1995-96 (1998, p. 265). However, beyond this 'their contribution to social capital is immeasurable'. Women in agriculture and rural industries, whether as single farmers, farming with a husband or partner or in other rural work, frequently provide forms of leadership that are only now becoming recognised. In her case studies, Haslam McKenzie (1998) identified as the outcomes of women's leadership: the presence of a telecentre; a plan for a locally-managed credit union to replace the bank which had closed its branch; promoting tourism as a source of local economic activity, and establishing a Business Development Group. Despite a series of national reports recognising the problems of women's leadership being blocked, excluded or ignored, Haslam McKenzie points to a continuing need to find ways of promoting opportunities for rural women to develop and/or exercise leadership (1998, p. 267). She argues that without this, rural communities will continue to decline rather than to be strengthened.

Ferrari and McKinnon (1998) summarise a series of papers from the Second International Conference on Women in Agriculture. They note McGowan's work with Women in Agriculture, which includes a program of leadership workshops for women. Initial qualitative responses are that these workshops provide considerable encouragement and capacity building for rural women. The program ran until 2000 and a full evaluation was not available at the time of writing.

Also included in this review is a summary of Scott's work in north-west NSW. This is a case study of women's economic and community leadership exemplified by Scott (who was ABC Woman of the Year 1996 and Sydney Business Review Business Woman of the Year 1997). While not a program, this example illustrates several of the key 'strong communities' indicators, including the development of local economic capacity, networks, voluntarism and best practice.

Studies of women in rural leadership identify continuing systemic and structural issues that exclude women from leadership to the detriment of country Australia. Although it is difficult to extrapolate cost-benefits, the centrality of women's leadership for social capital building in rural communities is indisputable. This is underlined by the figures for women's visible and invisible contribution to rural economies (and hence to the national economy) in leadership, direct employed labour, unpaid domestic labour and voluntary community effort.

Community Builders

IDEAS, a private development company based in York WA, describe Community Builders as '…a six month program that seeks to identify, encourage and empower local residents to become more involved in building their community and its economy' (2000, p. 1). The program operates by identifying a team of between two and five people. Each team consults neighbours in its local area and then meets on a monthly basis with other teams in a 'community cluster' of between six and ten community teams. Each cluster is supported by a facilitator who acts as a coach to assist in the formulation of initiatives.

The principles of the program, which are reflected in its objectives, are:

These principles clearly parallel the stronger communities indicators identified in Chapter 1. As a program, Community Builders is also highly participative, as it requires engagement in a continuing series of meetings, workshops and implementation in local activity. It is a voluntary movement and reflects the spirit of 'bottom-up' process that is a central feature of much community development practice.

An evaluation of Community Builders has yet to be undertaken. However, the anecdotal qualitative evidence is that it is being sought by rural communities as a practical strategy for developing stronger communities.

back to top

2.9 Community economic programs

Food-Share Australia

Food-Share Australia is a self-help community development program that aims to assist its participants to be of service and add value to their local community (Food-Share 1999). Targeted to people who live on or below the poverty line, it provides $30 worth of food each month to a person who contributes $15 and undertakes two hours of voluntary service. A family may be involved in purchasing multiple units on a pro-rata basis. In addition to the receipt of food, the participants may access nutritional advice.

Food-Share is a registered charity and a Public Benevolent Institution. Its start-up costs have been funded by the New South Wales Government (details not provided in available reference), in cash and in kind, and it has begun to receive wider community support from individuals and groups (also both cash and in kind). While too new to have been evaluated, this program does evidence several of the 'stronger communities indicators', including building capacity, promoting networks, supporting voluntarism and encouraging local initiative.

Local Exchange and Trading Systems

Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS) are a coordinated means by which the interchange of goods and services in a local community can be harnessed to the 'building and strengthening [of] people's sense of belonging to communities' (Lang 1994, p. 4). It does this by creating a system based on a local alternative to the mainstream economy. The nominal value of exchange is defined in units (many of which are given colourful local names). The basic premises of these systems, however, prevent the medium of exchange from becoming a shadow currency (which is, in fact, illegal in most countries where these systems have developed). These premises are:

Coordination of a system is seen as work undertaken, and so is 'paid' in LETS units raised from members' subscriptions.

The important core of LETS is that the tangible exchange that is taking place is the result of people's efforts of within the same community. This is described by its advocates as an inclusive aspect of the systems, because it allows people to participate both in giving ('selling') and receiving ('buying') who might be excluded by the formal economy. Members do not leave the formal economy, and the LETS transactions are included in tax declarations in countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In the United Kingdom they are included in social security assessments, while in Australia they are exempt (Lang 1994, pp. 117-24; Williams 1995, p. 18). In neither country does participation in LETS excuse a person from seeking work if in receipt of unemployment benefits, but the schemes are accepted as a means by which people maintain their skills and stay in touch with the formal labour market.

LETS are described by their proponents as good for national economies, through the benefits created for local economies and communities. Williams (1995, p. 5) points to the development of community; the development of resilience in local economies; and assistance for people to maintain and improve their skills and self-esteem and so being able to participate more in community building. Croft (1995, pp. 36-8) goes further, and argues that where local trading may have a multiplier effect of $1.41 value for every $1 initially spent buying locally, LETS creates an equivalent (some of which will be returned to the formal economy) of $1.96 for every $1 spent. The benefits of stronger community arising from the social capital accrued can be estimated to make the real value even higher.

Local empowerment/enterprise zones

The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Initiative is a US program, which has been implemented in 126 urban and rural areas. It is aimed at regeneration of declining communities through tax incentives, performance grants and loans to promote local economic activity (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 1999). Although this is a federal government program, the role of government is to coordinate and support local participation by bringing together community and industry in an integrated and comprehensive way (Walker & Weinheimer 1998). It thus differs from previous enterprise development programs in its community-based focus and the emphasis on local initiative and action.

There is already evidence that the empowerment zones are meeting the goals of creating economic opportunities through encouraging local economic capacity and community initiative. The inclusion of community members in key elements of the program is a crucial factor (Detroit Empowerment Zone Transition Office (DETZO) 1999). Difficulties in the evaluation of the program include a tendency to concentrate on outputs (the amount of work produced) rather than outcomes (the achievement of results measured against objectives) (United States General Accounting Office 1996). Little evaluation has actually been done, and some problems have emerged such as an overstatement of non-government funding and inaccuracies in the reporting of achievements (Ryan 1998). Nonetheless, the Detroit zone has reported outcomes of increased economic opportunity, improvements in the sustainability of communities and some restoration of neighborhoods (DETZO 1999).

Community Business Partnership

The Community Business Partnership program is an Australian initiative, launched by the Prime Minister in 1999 (Department of Family and Community Services 1999a). The program seeks to foster partnerships of mutual benefit and for the benefit of the community. Such partnerships are based around the involvement of business with a variety of community projects, in partnership with the non-government not-for-profit sector and community groups. In particular, the program aims to identify incentives to a philanthropic approach on the part of business, and where necessary to devise relevant ways of addressing disincentives.

Best practice examples are provided in the listing of the most outstanding partnerships in 1999, as reflected in the Prime Minister's Awards for Community Business partnerships (FaCS, 1999b). The 20 projects to win awards in 1999 encompassed a wide range of community issues, including:

In each case the partnership engages the interest and support of businesses while supporting the management of projects by community groups and non-government bodies. As a new program there is no formal evaluation yet, but the early evidence is that the partners all regard the arrangements as successful.

Volunteering

Many of the different programs and projects included in this report incorporate an aspect of voluntarism in their approach. Some are entirely focused on volunteers. This is important, in that the notion of civil society includes voluntarism as a key element and some recent evidence suggests a 'depletion' of voluntary contributions in western societies (see Chapter 1). Beyond the incorporation of volunteering within programs, volunteering is also a focus for specific attention in its own right as a contributor to the building of social capital. The national peak body in this sector is Volunteering Australia, which also has constituent state and territory affiliate associations. These organisations exist to promote volunteering and to support a wide variety of community effort in which volunteers are used. Volunteering Australia promotes clear definitions and principles of volunteering, which are grounded in the idea of civil society (Volunteering Australia, no date). These are:

Volunteering Australia argues that these principles are important because, without them, the contribution of volunteering to civil society is undermined. The notion of volunteering is incompatible with coercion, unpaid labour for the profit of someone else or as a means of intervention in industrial disputes (see also Lyons 1997; Hudson 1998).

Some critical research has suggested that volunteers are more likely to be members of groups within communities who are otherwise absent from the labour market (whether by choice or not). In particular, large numbers of volunteers are seniors (of both sexes) and younger women (Warburton 1997; Baldock 1998). However, such research also shows that there is a significant difference between volunteering and 'unwaged work' that makes volunteering a strong contributor to various aspects of communities (Kerr & Savelsberg 1996). This derives from the sense of 'volition' or willingness inherent in voluntary effort compared to the compulsion of necessity implied in the idea of 'unwaged work' (see the discussion about social capital in Chapter 1). Volunteering has declined slightly in Australia in the last decade (Lyons & Fabiansson 1998), although it remains an essential part of the life of many communities and a source of community service (Jamrozik 1996). There is broad agreement that volunteering can be nurtured with appropriate responses from government and business. These include the valuing of volunteer effort; recognising that volunteering is complementary to (and not a replacement for) paid employment in the delivery of community services; and that volunteering is clearly distinguished from any compulsory activity (such as 'work for the dole' or 'community service orders').

The cost of coordination, training and managing volunteering is difficult to determine, although the benefits of specific programs to develop and maintain volunteering are clearly evident in studies such as that by Jamrozik (1996) and Lyons and Fabiansson (1998). A more detailed cost-benefit analysis cannot be undertaken at this time. The cost-benefits of some specific volunteer programs are noted under other headings (see chapter 3, chapter 4 and chapter 5 ). The wider benefits for communities from volunteering identified in these studies not only include the exchange of skills and ideas and the networking that is inherent in organised voluntary service, but also gains in local leadership and in the development of local solutions to local problems.

back to top

2.10 Community wellbeing—conclusion

This chapter has shown that there is increasing recognition of the importance of community participation and the role that community groups play in developing strong and healthy communities. The building of trust and reciprocity leads to an increase in social capital, which is an important ingredient of positive community functioning. There is significant research to support the notion that people with diverse networks of quality relationships are healthier than people who are socially isolated. In this context, health refers to the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people.

A key to building stronger communities is to have structures in place to identify community leaders and other highly-motivated community members. Community-building projects are improved where the inputs of relevant professionals working in the community are mobilised and where these skills are utilised in a multi-disciplinary framework. The building of social capital through community-based programs is also facilitated where opportunities exist:

Table 1: Summary of community wellbeing programs reviewed
Program/ Project Title Program/ Project Description1 Target Community/ Group2 Funding sources Project Costs3 Outcomes 4 Evaluation5 Contact Details

Health Development and Social Capital Project

Review programs in western suburbs of Adelaide, SA, looking at individuals and community groups.

Residents of western suburbs in Adelaide.

Research project funding from National Health and Medical Research Council.

(from programs studied) Social indicators: increased social capital.

Strong communities' indicators: knowledge/skills and volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; community capacity to use best practice.

Qualitative data only, no cost-benefit analysis.

SA Community Health Research Unit, Flinders University.

NSW Dept. of Housing — Neighbourhood Improvement Program

Cost-benefit analysis of objectives of planned intervention for community development program in Airds, NSW.

Residents of Airds, NSW.

NSW State Government. $100 million over 13 years.

(projected outcomes) Social indicators: strengthened local economic capacity; reduced crime; reduced welfare dependency; better health outcomes; reduced long-term unemployment; increased social capital.

Strong communities' indicators: networks and partnerships in communities, leadership in communities, local solutions to local problems, community capacity to use best practice.

Quantitative and qualitative data reported.

Cost-benefit ratio of between $6 for each $1 spent (short-term) and $17 for each $1 (long-term) — projected.

NSW Department of Housing.

WACOSS Housing Report

Analysis of three programs to support WA tenants in difficulties.

Residents in WA.

State and federal government, figures not stated.

Social indicators: strengthened local economic capacity; reduced crime; better health outcomes.

Stronger communities' indicators: local solutions to local problems.

Qualitative and quantitative.

Cost-benefit figures not available.

WACOSS, 2 Delphi Street, West Perth. WA 6005.

Community Research Project

Eighty (80) community projects to improve social circumstances of low-income families. Australia (national).

Households on low incomes.

Department of Social Security $18 000 average per project

Social indicators: strengthened local economic capacity;, reduced welfare dependency;, better health outcomes;, reduced long-term unemployment;, increased social capital.

Strong communities' indicators: networks and partnerships in communities, local solutions to local problems; volunteering, leadership in communities.

Quantitative and qualitative data reported.

No precise cost-benefit analysis.

Department of Social Security.

Community Consortium Middle School

A program involving a partnership between the high school and twelve community social service agencies that commenced in Aurora, USA in 1996.

High-school students.

Fund were raised through local council funds and grants to the value of US$35 000 for the first year of the project.

Stronger communities' indicators: networks and partnerships in communities.

Not known from the material cited.

N/A

Parent Involvement Program

A program aimed at increasing parent participation in schools, based in Aurora, USA.

Elementary school students.

Not known from the information cited.

Social indicators:reduced absenteeism.

Stronger communities' indicators: networks and partnerships in communities.

Not known from the material cited.

N/A

Communities that Care

Increasing community resilience and developing community mobilisation, Seattle and Oregon, US. Increasing community resilience, Melbourne VIC.

Residents in target communities.

Data not reported.

Social indicators:strengthened local economic capacity; reduced long-term unemployment; increased social capital.

Strong communities indicators: knowledge/skills and volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems, community capacity to use best practice.

A great deal of qualitative and descriptive evaluation.

Some quantitative material is available, but cost-benefit analyses have not been published in any of the literature cited.

Prof. Richard Catalano, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, US.

Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP)

Community-based projects to assist Indigenous Australian communities to develop autonomous economic activity (national).

Members of Indigenous communities who would be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Pooling of unemployment benefits plus capital and recurrent running costs of projects. $2 600 per person per year (1997 figure). Government-funded, plus commercial loans.

Social indicators:strengthened local economic capacity; reduced welfare dependency; reduced long-term unemployment; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skill; networks and partnerships; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; community capacity to use best practice.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Cost-benefit analysis by extrapolation of a minimum annual gain of $2 for each $1 spent (may be as high as $10 for every $1 in some aspects).

ATSIC.

Landcare

Community-based approach to fixing environmental problems. Australia (national).

Open membership, heavily represented among rural primary industry and other rural communities.

Federal government and business grant funding.

Social indicators: increased local economic capacity; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: volunteering; networks and partnerships; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; community capacity to use best practice.

Primarily qualitative in terms of social evaluation (impact on communities).

Landcare.

Women in Agriculture

Program to develop and support leadership skills among women working in the farming sector. Australia (national).

Women working in the farming sector.

Not available from the literature cited.

Social indicators: increased local economic capacity; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skill including volunteering; networks and partnerships; leadership in communities; community capacity to use best practice.

Qualitative, in progress.

C. McGowan, Women in Agriculture—e-mail: cmcgowan@albury.net.au

Community Builders

Program to develop leadership and partnership in rural economic development.

Members of rural communities.

Not available from the source cited.

Social indicators: increased local economic capacity; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skill including volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; community capacity to use best practice.

Qualitative.

Ideas Inc., York. WA.

Food-Share Australia

Program to support low-income individuals and families through food subsidies integrated with support for voluntary community effort, Sydney, NSW.

Individuals and families on low incomes.

State government seed grant, with community and business partnership funds, plus part contribution by participants. Project costs not available.

Social indicators: reduced welfare dependency; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skill including volunteering; networks and partnerships; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems.

Qualitative, in progress.

Food-Share Australia,

Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS)

Community voluntary networks of neighbours who exchange goods and services through a local non-monetary system.

Anyone in a community who wishes to participate.

Unfunded. On-going 'costs'of running a scheme are included as voluntary effort and 'reimbursed'accordingly. Trades and exchanges may be given nominal cash equivalent value based on local market rates.

Social indicators: strengthened local economic capacity; increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skills including volunteering; networks and partnerships; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; community use of best practice.

Qualitative and quantitative.

Cost-benefit of $1.96 for each $1 spent (as calculated by Croft 1995, on the basis of a multiplier effect on local economic activity, priced at market equivalent values).

Not available.

Local Empowerment/ Enterprise Zones

Structured government intervention through tax incentives, grants and loans to promote local business and community development, US.

Urban and rural areas with high indicators of community need.

Government, industry and private philanthropy in partnership. Exact figures not provided (vary by program). Emphasis on corporate foundations and private philanthropists.

Social indicators: strengthened local economic capacity; reduced crime; reduced welfare dependency; increased social capital.

Strong communities indicators: networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems.

Quantitative and qualitative.

Averaged over $25 million per year through 1990s.

Cost-benefit analysis not available.

Not available.

Community Business Partnership

To promote partnership between industry and the non-government welfare sector, Australia (national).

Businesses and non-government welfare agencies.

Minimal government funding (& 13m over four years) for co-ordination and publicity, with funds going direct from business to community service agencies.

Social indicators: increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: volunteering; partnerships in communities; local solutions to local problems.

Yet to be undertaken.

Cost-benefit not available.

Department of Family and Community Services.

Philanthropy Australia.

Volunteering Australia

National co-coordinating body for state organisations to promote volunteering across all sectors of the community, Australia.

Anyone who is interested in volunteering or in using volunteers in a community project.

Federal Government

Social indicators: increased social capital.

Stronger communities' indicators: knowledge and skills including volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems.

Qualitative.

Cost-benefit analysis not available.

Volunteering Australia,
Floor 4 Ross House,
247-251 Flinders Lane,
Melbourne. VIC 3184

1. Description of project aima and location. Pilot, one-off, or on-going. Project length.

2. By geographic location/region and/or community of interest.

3. Name of funding program/s or funding sources, total project costs (direct and indirect).

4. General effectiveness/outcomes as well as social indicators and stronger communities indicators.

5. Quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation. Availability of cost-benefit data

Return to top

3. Early childhood and families

1. Introduction