reconciliation walkpeople 1people 2people 3 --- working together to strengthen communities---
---
---communitybuilders.nsw - ---
Search
---
Home

Be a Community Builder

Get Organised

Funding Facts

Create Stronger Communities

Link with Others

Case Studies

Rural and Regional Communities

Capacity Building for NGO's

Drugs and Community Action

International Year of Volunteers

Events Calendar
Discussion Forum
Add to this site
join our email listsmore info
Home > Government Information >

People, Place and Partnerships - Workshop 4 - Strengthening Communities: tools, evidence and evaluation - continued I

Contents

Doing the impossible - Measuring Community Capacity
Community Indicators and Local Democracy
Area Assistance Scheme
A 'Whole of Community' Approach: Sustainable management for Aboriginal organisations

 

Project title: Doing the impossible - Measuring Community Capacity

Background rationale:

The Commonwealth and state governments across Australia have responded to the growing body of research indicating the important role of social capital, cohesion and support by making "community building" the centrepiece of strategies to improve the social and economic conditions of the population as a whole and to reduce inequalities. Recently, there has been an upsurge of interest in rebuilding the social fabric of our communities, increasing their resilience and strengthening their capacities to protect and promote the wellbeing of the people who live in them. According to one social commentator, "community has become the new 'centre of gravity' in our attempts to come to grips with a rapidly changing world. The rationale for this project is, therefore, to identify and measure the factors that contribute to community capacity as a first step to developing innovative, effective cross sector interventions.

Brief description of Project:

The Project has two distinct, but related parts:

  1. To identify and measure the key factors that influence community "capacity" based on a review of research and practice; to understand how these factors operate in urban, rural, advantaged and disadvantaged communities; to identify potential policy implications; and to identify possible action strategies.
  2. To test Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing technology through a joint project involving Tasmania and Victoria; and to identify the factors that lead to success of multi-state information collection initiatives to help inform development of a nationwide system for ongoing monitoring and surveillance.
Stakeholder involvement:

Both Tasmania and Victoria have state-based reference groups with involvement of program planners, service deliverers, NGOs, social researchers and policy developers.

Achievements to date:
  • A seminar in Sydney, hosted by NSW Premier's Department that brought together social researchers, program managers and policy developers to help shape a conceptual model and identify the key factors that build community capacity.
  • Development of a conceptual model of community capacity building derived from action research in Australia and the U.S.
  • Development of a questionnaire to be used in telephone interviews with adults in Victoria and Tasmania.
  • Cognitive testing of the questionnaire by the ABS (currently in progress)
Lessons learned:

Be willing to take risks in social research. There is certainly no uniform definitions of concepts like "community", "social capital", "capacity", "networks", "resilience" and the list goes on. At the same time there have been many efforts to measure these concepts, not all valid and reliable. Given the importance of "community" in today's discussions about improving social and economic conditions, it seems imperative to continue to experiment and try to improve on the foundation work that has been done in Australia and around the world.

Don't' stop doing until the evidence is in. While doing is what this is all about, measuring is also critical to good policy and practice and important in terms of accountability to the very communities governments are committed to working with. However, we cannot stop doing - experimenting, developing new ideas and partnerships from the ground up - while we measure, analyse and interpret.

Full contact details:

Lori Rubenstein, Manager, Policy Development
Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services
5/99 Bathurst Street
Hobart 7000
Phone: (03) 6233 6720
Fax: (03) 6233 2899
Mobile: 0407 535719
Email: lori.rubenstein@dchs.tas.gov.au

contents


Project Title: Community Indicators and Local Democracy

Background:

The development of community based indicators to enhance local democracy in five local government areas in Victoria and NSW. Funded by ARC and participating local governments.

The Community Indicators and Local Democracy is a major national collaborative research project in the field of democracy, local governance and community development, to be carried out over three years (1999-2001) and in two states. The School of Social Science and Policy at University of New South Wales and the Institute of Social Research at Swinburne are partners in this project. The industry partners are five diverse local governments in rural and metropolitan NSW and Victoria, and the peak national industry group, ALGA, with support from the NSW Local Government Department.

Brief Description of Project:

This three year project will test a range of community participation strategies. The outcomes are aimed at contributing to the four related fields of: citizenship, and democratic participation; local governance and public administration; applied social policy and the use of social and environmental indicators; and problems of community development. This project helps local governments develop improved research and planning processes and better tools to monitor local communities and local needs.

Rationale: Background to the project:

In recent years Australia, like many industrialised nations, has experienced an apparent decline in the health of democracy, community and citizenship. This is evident in public alienation from political processes; growing social inequalities; a decline in social trust; a more corporate and commercially oriented model of government; and changes in language and culture (for example, when 'citizens' become 'customers').

These changes have created special difficulties for local government, historically the nurse and teacher of democracy to ordinary citizens. Small government, privatisation and economic restructure have brought cuts in community infrastructure; reductions in municipal powers and functions; greater central control through rate capping and forced amalgamations; and pressure to become more business-like through compulsory competitive tendering, the preparation of 'business plans' and local indicators of managerial performance and of broader social and ecological well-being. While local government still enjoys more citizen support than other levels of government, and is still the most accessible avenue of political participation for ordinary citizens, these pressures need to be addressed.

In seeking solutions to these democratic problems, many writers point in similar directions: to the need for new, local, participative processes aimed to overcome widespread alienation, an emphasis on social inclusion, and meaningful, co-operative governance that builds social trust and strong communities, strong local assemblies and open 'deliberative' democratic forums to resolve conflicting interests.

Stakeholder Involvement:

The action research focus has been to develop in each municipality, an ongoing citizen-based system of "Community Indicators", designed to measure and benchmark community well-being and community priorities.

The project also aims to:

  • enhance local democracy including citizen participation, community development and democratic priority-setting.
  • improve local governance especially social and management planning and community responsiveness.
  • to pilot and adapt participation techniques (including electronic democracy, citizens' juries).
  • and test measures of community involvement in Australian communities.

Project partners are Waverley and Queanbeyan Councils in New South Wales and Moreland, Surf Coast and Geelong Councils in Victoria. These councils have gained better information about community needs and priorities; improved tools for planning, evaluation and priority setting; and new processes for effective and democratic community participation in local governance.

Each of the councils involved already has a strong commitment to improve current local democracy and council accountability with resources dedicated to long term organisational and community planning. For example, Waverley Council has had a long tradition of pioneering participative democracy processes to supplement its formal governance structures (e.g. establishment of 'precinct' committees',etc.).

Key Elements:

This project has built on the experience of "Community Indicator" projects in the USA and Canada. These are measuring systems designed, developed and researched by community members themselves, and they attempt to build a three dimensional picture of a healthy community-economic, social and environmental. They are 'like instrument panels, that provide citizens with clear and honest information about past trends and current realities' and help shape and clarify community priorities.

This project adds to this a range of organisational development techniques which aim to improve Councils' participatory policy capacity. This is essential as the examples of community indicator approaches which have been reviewed from the North American experiences lack the institutional capacity for sustained impacts in the communities these organisations serve. By bringing together mechanisms for on-going monitoring of the state of things (community indicators) with the tools to iteratively achieve these (improved planning, specific participation techniques), specific improvements in participatory democracy can be made.

Achievements to Date:

Improved strategic and management planning
Strengthened policy capacity for councillors
Improved knowledge of community aspirations, needs and capacities
Better directed resource and policy decisions
Improved channels for community engagement

Lessons Learned:

Importance of time and relationship building
The value of political commitment
The benefits of this process for the elected level
The importance of understanding 'community' as multifaceted
Understanding the fear that openness to the community generates
Importance of helping to understand the value of that responsiveness
Importance of understanding the relational webs which build institutional capacity (i.e. the networks that link and activate)
Participation is educative and constructive
The extra value and resources that strengthening democracy brings to governance tasks.

Full contact details:

Roberta Ryan
Associate Director, Brian Elton and Associates
Associate, School of Social Science and Policy
UNSW
Phone: 02 9387 2600
Email: Roberta@elton.com.au

Notes from Workshop

  1. Safety and Crime Prevention are big issues in the community's mind when considering what makes a community a good place to live in.
  2. The difference between people's perception and what has happened in reality can be vast.
  3. Somebody must followup the work from these indicators -there is a responsibility to followup the indicators and achieve outcomes.

contents


Project Title: Area Assistance Scheme

Background:

The program was established in 1980 as a means for dealing with social and economic disadvantage in areas of high population growth in Sydney West. By the mid 80's the program had expanded to cover the Hunter, Central Coast, Illawarra and Macarthur Regions of NSW. In 1991 the Scheme was extended to cover the North Coast.

Brief Description of Project:

The Scheme provides $10million in grants to local councils and community groups for social and community development projects. The main outcomes of these projects is to improve community infrastructure and its capacity for mutual support and self-help.

Stakeholder Involvement:

The Program is a partnership between the NSW Government, local councils and the community. The local community is involved through local committees that decide on their local priorities and determine the priority ranking of local proposals.

A regional committee operates in each region that consists of key government agencies, local government and community representation. These committees make recommendations to the Minister about funding priorities and the distribution of resources within their region.

Key Elements:

There are three types of projects that are funded through the Area Assistance Scheme:

  1. Community facilities and resources. This includes refurbishment and improvement to community centres and halls and providing funding for equipment and materials for community run projects.
  2. Self-help projects. This includes a broad range of projects that build the capacity of the community for economic independence and mutual social support. For example, leadership development and mentoring, local enterprises that stimulate resource sharing, skills development and increased information technology capacity, community education and awareness raising, and pilot programs that stimulate innovative ways of providing sustainable community care and support.
  3. Long term community services (Pick-up). A small pool of resources is earmarked each year for long term community services, such as family support, youth work or community development. These services are developed in partnership with the AAS committees and the relevant NSW Government agencies. These services are managed by community based organisations and are transferred to the administration of the relevant pick-up agency within 2 years of the projects commencement. Government agencies that pick-up the administration of these projects receive an enhancement from Treasury to continue its funding in the future.

There are currently approximately 300 projects funded under the Area Assistance Scheme. These are funded for one, two, three or four years.

Achievements to Date:

The Program has had a significant impact in building the community capacity and infrastructure in the regions where it operates. Some of the benefits of the program identified in a recent triennial review are:

  • Promoting collaboration and democratic processes for decision making
  • Reducing isolation and increasing community connections and networks, facilitating mutual support and caring.
  • Developing skills and knowledge and fostering self-esteem and confidence.
  • Developing the capacity of local councils to work with local communities
  • Improving the management and co-ordination capacity of non-Government organisations
  • In the long term, all the above have a strong preventative outcome, for example improve employment opportunities, reduced instances of violence, child abuse, youth suicide and crime and vandalism.

A cost benefit analysis, conducted as part of the Review concluded that the community contributes $2 for every $1 of Government funding to the Scheme, when the direct financial benefits were measured.

Lessons Learned:

Working from the bottom-up, requires a commitment to including diverse communities and skilling people so that they can fully participate. It also requires long term vision and planning, so that our short term programs are small steps towards long term community outcomes.

Building the capacity of the community for self-help can only be achieved when communities are actively engaged in the process of developing and managing local solutions. Through this process they develop the skills, connections and trust that are essential for a system of mutual support.

Full contact details:

Nada Nasser
Team Leader, Community Infrastructure
planningNSW
Phone: 9391 2107
Email: nada.nasser@duap.nsw.gov.au

Information about the Area Assistance Scheme and full contact details can be obtained from the AAS web site www.duap.nsw.gov.au/aas

Notes from Workshop

Area Assistance Scheme:
  • Partnership between state government, local government and community.
  • Aim is to improve community infrastructure.
  • Encourages co-operation between agencies and innovation through consultation process.
  • This triggers cooperation.
Recommendations:

AAS should be spread to further regions (with additional $ to allow this)

contents


Project Title: A 'Whole of Community' Approach: Sustainable management for Aboriginal organisations

Background/ Rationale:

Community based organisations both reflect and contribute to the communities they are located in. Where communities are under stress, local organisations will find it difficult to survive and thrive. Building up the capacity of local organisations, however, can nurture an infrastructure within a community, which in turn provides services, skill development and employment. Sustainable community organisations support the sustainability of communities.

However, many local organisations face unnecessary pressure and stress due to ineffective structures and management practices, and these can drain community resources rather than making a positive contribution to community building.

The difficulties organisations experience in managing and maintaining themselves occur for several reasons, including the appropriateness of the management model, the levels of skills required in the committee roles, and the level of support and resourcing available in the organisation's environment. Problems in managing local organisations are exacerbated in rural and remote communities, where the pool of available skilled people is limited, and there are fewer resources to draw on.

Often, the problems experienced by Aboriginal community based organisations tend to receive a greater degree of attention than those of non-Indigenous organisations, although many of the difficulties they face are common.

However, there are several factors that are specific to Aboriginal community management, including the:

  • composition of committees and the concept of 'representation'
  • impact of cultural obligations and commitments to family and community and how conflicts of interest are identified and managed
  • expected degree of formality of governance and management processes
  • tension between organisational regulatory requirements and the usual ways some communities conduct their business
  • impact of contestable funding on community cohesiveness
  • silo structure of government funding which is alien to the way in which most Aboriginal communities operate.
Brief Description of Project:

This project involves the development of framework and strategy for alternative and sustainable models of organisational management for Aboriginal communities.

Stakeholder Involvement:

Consultations were conducted with members of local organisations in rural and remote areas, members of Aboriginal communities and relevant State and Commonwealth officers, identifying the key concerns and problems, developing possible responses to these issues and providing feedback on options developed.

Achievements to Date:

Background research has been conducted, drawing on a number of relevant State and national projects conducted over the last five years.

A paper has been drafted, outlining issues relating to governance and management in Aboriginal organisations. The paper proposes options and models for sustainable organisations.

The development of a framework and strategy for a pilot project is in progress.

Lessons Learned:

There are several approaches to governance and management that may be more suitable and sustainable for Aboriginal communities. These need to be trialled with Aboriginal communities in different settings. It is crucial that the implementation of these new approaches involves discussion and negotiation within the community, control and design of organisations by their community members, and a structured skill development and management support system that addresses the community as a whole.

The current model of contestable funding mitigates against a cooperative approach to service delivery within communities. For Aboriginal communities to sustain, and be sustained by, their organisations, government needs to take a long term, strategic and planned 'whole of government' approach to resource provision.

Any specific aspects of this project presented at conference workshops:

The project presentation will focus on the factors that have impacted on Aboriginal organisations and their communities, and explore options for future development of sustainable Aboriginal community organisations.

Full contact details:

Bradfield Nyland Group
84 Palace St
PETERSHAM NSW 2049
Ph: (02) 9569 1704
Fax: (02) 9572 8483
Email: bngis@ozemail.com.au

Notes from Workshop

  • Looking at principles, models and strategies for sustainable management for Aboriginal organisations
  • Anecdoctal scenario (Baker St model) used to illustrate issues involved in Aboriginal management.
    • Why Aborigines don't succeed
    • Whole of community approach, important to understand history to understand specific issues.

Baker St House - shared sense of responsibility & ownership;

Scenario (indigenous issues):
  • Dispossession/colonisation
  • Divisive funding process
  • Lack of whole of government approach
  • Higher degree of public scrutiny
  • Diversity and complexity of Aboriginal communities ignored.
  • Challenges facing Aboriginal organisations:
    • Organisational structures don't recognise/value Aboriginal ways of relating
    • Relationship between sustainable community organisations and sustainable communities:
      • Lack of cohesive management takes energy away
      • Long term, strategic, planned "whole" community approach.
  • Principles for future development for Aboriginal Organisations
    • Long term, strategic and planned "whole of government" approach needed
    • Recognition of diverse views and interests in community
    • Resource provider instead of service provider
    • Acknowledge traditional and cultural status of community members
    • Organisational design issues.
Three levels of Development
  1. Area level planning and governance: Congress or Council models
  2. Organisational design
  3. Area development strategies:
    • Mapping communities
    • Negotiating options for governance of Aboriginal community services
    • Capacity building strategy
From sustainability to enterprise
Recommendations:
  • Don't assume to know issues; consultation and collecting information and collaboration with all parties is needed
  • Several approaches and ways to deal with issues. Preferred practices must be negotiated and discussed with all parties.
  • Alien concepts are often applied, but flexibility in approach is needed, plus different levels of involvement and status. Different approaches work with different communities.
  • Instead of falling in to established Acts etc, a more flexible approach is needed (and possible) under current legislation.
Discussion/Comment

  • Problem of Government dumping money instead of sustainable skill development etc to work with communities, form structures and utilise resources (human) in communities.
  • Burn-out and demands on key people is high.
  • Democratic approach within communities is needed.

contents



See full index by: [ date | region ] Up to [ Index ]


^^ Top of page



NSW Government

About this site | Contact Us | Disclaimer | Feedback | Government Information | Sitemap


© communitybuilders.nsw - working together to strengthen communities

This page: http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/site/govinfo/82.html
Last modified: 13 Dec 2001