building a community? - welcome to aracy · building a community into community services...

i

Evidence into Action Topical Paper – Building a Community - June 2006 Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth

What is the

best modern

evidence to guide

Building a Community?

Prepared by Dr Susan Young Centre for Vulnerable Children, University of Western Australia For the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth June 2006

22222222

ABOUT ARACY

The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) was founded by a group of eminent experts and organisations in reaction to increasingly worrying trends in the wellbeing of Australia’s young people.

ARACY is a national organisation with members based across Australia.

ARACY asserts that by working together, rather than working in isolation, we are more likely to uncover solutions to the problems affecting children and young people.

ARACY is a broker of collaborations, a disseminator of ideas and an advocate for Australia’s future generation.

ARACY has two primary goals:

1. To promote collaborative research and agenda setting for children and young people

2. To promote the application of research to policy and practice for children and young people.

This paper is one of a series commissioned by ARACY to translate knowledge into action. This series of papers aims to convert research findings into practical key messages for people working in policy and service delivery areas.

The ARACY topical papers may also be the focus of workshops or seminars, including electronic mediums.

Developed for the Facilitating Partners of the Australian Government Communities for Children initiative, this paper is now being made available to a wider audience via the ARACY website: www.aracy.org.au

CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Definitions 2

Community building strategies 5

Conclusion 16

Recommendations 17

References 34

Appendices

1. Major case/ studies reviewed 21

2. Annotated bibliography 36

Funded by the Australian Government

Department of Families, Community

Services and Indigenous Affairs

DISCLAIMER:

ARACY prepared this publication. It draws on information,

opinions and advice provided by a variety of individuals and

organisations, including the Commonwealth of Australia. The

Commonwealth accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or

completeness of any material contained in this publication.

Additionally, the Commonwealth disclaims all liability to any

person in respect of anything, and of the consequences of

anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in

reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon any information

presented in this publication.

ISBN: 978-1-921352-03-4

Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth

PO Box 1360 WEST PERTH WA 6872

Level 13, Dumas House

2 Havelock Street WEST PERTH 6005

Telephone: 08 9476 7800

[email protected]

www.aracy.org.au

1


ABSTRACT

This paper was commissioned by the Australian Research Alliance for

Children and Youth (ARACY) to provide information on the available

evidence for building communities. It canvasses a selection of community

development and capacity building programs and processes which can

contribute to community building.

These categories are not exclusive, nor do they define the entire arena of

community building, but are provided here as representative of the main

reported programs that have been evaluated. These programs provide

some of the proven strategies for building communities to inform practitioners

and agencies throughout Australia.

Attachment 1 includes selected cases and studies which demonstrate

principles of practice within community building strategies. They are grouped

under the headings used in the paper and use the Pawson [1] framework for

assessing evidence. An annotated bibliography also accompanies the

paper and gives details of the literature search.

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the findings of a literature search of what constitutes

some effective usage of community development and capacity building

processes. This section presents a brief discussion of the terms used. The next

section discusses the findings under four main headings dealing with

Community Services Development, Community Education, Indigenous

Approaches and Strengths-Based Approaches. Details of the search

processes, the evaluation framework employed, case examples and

The main findings are categorised under the headings of Community Services

Development, Community Education, Indigenous Approaches and Strengths-

Based Approaches.

2


reference lists for further examination are provided in an annotated

bibliography.

Definitions

Below are definitions of some key terms used in this paper.

Community Development

Community development has traditionally been directed towards the most

disadvantaged and marginalised people in a society. Contemporary

community development has been expanded to be used by and for a

broader cross section that refer to functional and interest groups as well as

the more usual geographical forms. There is a case to be made for the aims

of the work to be towards providing for fairer and more just treatment for

those whose life circumstances tend to exclude them from mainstream

opportunities and provisions. Therefore a social justice approach will be used

to frame the discussion in this paper. This is consistent with the approach

taken by the Stronger Families and Communities initiative, and subsequently

the Communities for Children programs. It seeks to encourage

disadvantaged neighbourhoods to develop and attract resources which will

enable them to achieve better results for the families living in these

communities.

In its long and varied history Community Development has been the subject

of many different interpretations and usages. Among these has been the

discussion as to whether it is a perspective for or a method of work, and

consequently there are a variety of meanings and applications. This paper

acknowledges these many forms of Community Development by drawing

on Anthony Kelly who termed the work collectively as ‘Community Building’.

As he writes in his work published nearly 20 years ago:

3


• Community building is a sea of events and people, not a racetrack

over a set course with a starting and a finishing line.

• There are many dimensions of community building and they are all

important.

It is less a matter of opposites, such as good/bad, right/wrong, friend/enemy,

with us/against us, included/excluded, but more a fabric of connections which

make up a whole; when we work with head and heart and hand, we begin to

shape a kind of community building that is responsive to many different

communities, in different places and in different times, and one that opens up

many ways forward; within this wholeness of thought, action and relationship,

we need to stay open, flexible and honest. [2]

Following this inclusive approach the works surveyed for this paper contain

references to community work, community service, community-based

services, developmental work as well as community development and

community building. The paper will refer to these many terms, providing their

sources for readers to follow up their preferred interpretation.

Muirhead [3] provides a summation of these varieties when he includes:

• Community service – providing a quality, targeted service for

community members. eg: providing playgroups or school readiness

programs

• Community activity (events) – creating activity that can build a sense

of place (where we are) or community (who we are), or simply brings

us together. eg: community parks programs

• Community involvement – involving people in decisions that affect

our lives. eg: organising consultation to map community assets

• Community action – communities acting to change – or defend –

status quo in interests of their community or others who matter to

4


them. eg: resourcing action to prevent the government relocating a

health centre

• Community information – ensuring people have the information they

need to manage and enhance their own lives and those of their

families and communities. eg: seminars on early brain development

in children

• Social (Services) Development – maximising availability and

effectiveness of formal and integrated supports and services. eg:

working with a range of government and private agencies to ensure

more integrated health services [3]

It is clear from these two quotations (from Kelly and Muirhead) that the

approaches taken are intended to be inclusive and to build solid

foundations to enhance communities and the people within them. As such

community building may include activities which focus at any given time on

specific groups of people, for example, youth, or, the early years (children 0-

5-years-old). The intent, however, is to facilitate people’s access to resources

and processes which will enhance their ability to improve their

circumstances. All people in the community are likely beneficiaries even

when specific projects focus on one group. This is one of the aims of

community building: that people with needs are linked with people with

resources. This interchange, if conducted from equal partnerships can

benefit both groups with the joint working being the essence of building

strong and resilient people.

Capacity Building

Capacity building has a more recent history as a social policy term

particularly in relation to social, human and economic capital although it too

has been interpreted in different ways. A succinct definition by the NSW

Health Department [4] brings together its main ideas:

5


Capacity building is an approach to development that builds independence.

Capacity building increases the range of people, organisations and

communities who are able to address problems, and in particular, problems

that arise out of social inequity and social exclusion. [4]

Capacity building comprises a set of activities which can resource

individuals, groups and communities. Alongside working from social justice

principles, it can be seen to form a part of community development. Equally,

activities may be conducted outside of a defined community development

program yet still meet capacity building aims and outcomes.

It is not the role of this paper to debate the various uses of the terms, but to

present examples of strategies in these areas which represent effective

practice.

Finally, note must be made of other activities which are often related to

community development and capacity building because of their preventive

aims. Early intervention and primary prevention programs often have

developmental aims and/or processes and these should not be dismissed

from consideration. For a good discussion and referral to other research

studies in these areas see Bowes [5].

COMMUNITY BUILDING STRATEGIES

For the purposes of this paper I have grouped strategies which contribute to

building a community into Community Services Development, Community

Education, Indigenous Approaches and Strengths-Based Approaches. These

are not clearly defined categories, as they often overlap. Writers have

different methods of categorising community building with not all agreeing

on the definitions or application of approaches. For example, some of the

community development literature suggests that community development is

enacted from a conflict OR consensus perspective thus dividing its

description into those oppositions [6]. However, in this paper, the categories

have been selected as representing the most commonly reported and

studied examples. This may result in some examples being over-emphasised

6


as, for example, the amount of literature dealing with community services far

outweighs Indigenous approaches. In regard to the latter, the inclusion of

Indigenous approaches is not to say that these approaches should only be

restricted to Indigenous communities or that Indigenous communities should

not and can not participate in other strategies. The purpose of their inclusion

is to recognise the important contribution Indigenous communities have

made to understandings and use of innovative approaches.

A framework which is considered to be useful for thinking about these

different approaches may be found in Muirhead’s adaptation of Kelly’s

work. The characteristics of developmental work are compared with those

appearing in program work. This is presented as one way of providing clarity

for workers and the people with whom they work.

The main elements comparing the developmental and community-led

approaches with program approaches may be represented as such:

Developmental Approach Program Approach

Focus on the people Focus on the program

Agenda set by people Clear well-defined agenda

Process focused Outcome focused

Step by step Grand plan

Driven locally Driven centrally

Aim: Self-reliance and sustainability Aim: Program objectives

Starts from where the people are at Starts from where we would like people to be

Time: Long-term – ongoing Time: Determined by the program length

(Adapted from Muirhead [3])

7


In many cases workers and communities have experienced tensions

between perceptions of the goals of community projects and the practices

used to achieve them, particularly when there are many different groups

and organisations involved. It is especially important for clarity when external

funding bodies are key players.

While many projects and activities are called community development,

external requirements restrict some aspects, such as the level of authority,

pace, or time span. The previous table clarifies these and other aspects and

enable expectations to be realistic. This differentiation is not intended to

specify which approach is better or worse, for both approaches have their

applications. Many of the examples which contributed to the summary of

the strategies described below have a program base and have been found

to be effective in assisting communities to develop and achieve satisfying

goals to which they have contributed.

Community Service Development

A large portion of community development occurs through the provision of

services at the community level.

The descriptor of Community Services includes those activities which are

provided by either mainstream agencies at the community or

neighbourhood level, by agencies which are themselves based in the

locality, or through partnerships between community-based and social

service agencies. These services may be small and targeted, such as multi-

function community centres, youth and family support programs or aged

care facilities, or part of a broader program initiative, such as health services.

This category also includes the many community regeneration,

comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs), or neighbourhood renewal

projects [7-11], within which many of the facilities mentioned above are

provided or developed. As such, they meet program objectives in that they

have connections in some way with agencies and authorities outside the

8


locality, either through program design, funding, authority or feedback

mechanisms. Often local groups or committees are formed to act as

intermediaries or representatives of the locality and outside agencies. Within

this broad description may be found many of the activities of community

building, such as social entrepreneurship [12], which focuses on the

economic development of the locality through strong social structures; and

political or social action [13], which focuses on institutional change.

The value of this approach is demonstrated by the numerous projects in

progress and the fact that Government actively seeks strong and energetic

partnerships.

The value of including the community is noted by the Joseph Rowntree

Foundation [8] in the UK:

• Communities have a fresh perspective, and can often see the

problems in new ways.

• Community involvement helps to deliver programs which are more

accurately targeted to local needs.

• The resulting projects are more acceptable to the local community.

• Program outputs which have been designed with input from local

residents are likely to last longer because communities feel ownership

of them.

• The constructive involvement of communities in urban regeneration

helps to build local organisational skills, making it easier to develop

strong successor organisations.

• Partnerships are here to stay - Government will insist on a

demonstrably stronger role for communities within these partnerships.

• Successful community involvement helps to revitalise democracy.

9


What is needed for the developmental process of delivering services to be

successful, however, is summarised from several reports as including the

following characteristics:

• A holistic approach that is attending to the whole environment, not

just the target group.

• The formation of equal and collaborative partnerships in which each

partner has a role in decision making, and there is clarity about which

decisions must be made elsewhere.

• The development of skills within the community to enable full

participation and leadership of many people.

The evidence suggests that services fail to become truly community based

when these features are lacking. They rely on knowing the locality or group

very well, forming good trusting, working relationships, being able to work

through conflicts positively and ensuring the speed of change is at the pace

required by the community. Most importantly, external agencies, which are

often responsible for funding and therefore require accountability, need to

be educated as to the pace, process and products that are possible. In

particular, the literature notes that there is often a lack of coordination

between agencies both at community and policy levels, and funding can

be complex with very little access by local communities to small scale

funding which is available quickly. No matter which of the approaches is

used, for the activities or processes to be successful, how the community is

engaged is vital.

Workers using these processes, then, have brokerage roles to ensure skills

development which enable inclusion and inter-agency collaboration at the

local level. They also need to provide representation to agencies of the

need for agency coordination and use of relevant resources. The Australian

experience of the Stronger Families and other associated funding

10


approaches, such as the Reconnect programs, evidences the effectiveness

of these funds.

Community Education

Community education has been noted by Ife [14] as being one of the

essential community development skills and is widely used as an area of

community building or capacity building. In the area of child protection it

often appears in the literature under family support where it is discussed as a

central tool in early intervention and primary prevention programs. It is noted

in all the major programs mentioned above as being a necessity to

contribute to capacity building.

Furthermore, practitioners involved in community activities, either from a

centre base or a program base (as defined above), tend to use community

education as a significant tool. For these reasons it is included here as a

distinct strategy, albeit as a noteworthy aspect of community services

development.

Although the focus for community education is narrower than a

comprehensive community renewal or development, where community

education is part of the overall program, its activities contribute to the overall

aim. Where community education is a program on its own, it may still be

considered to contribute to community development or capacity building.

As such, learnings from this group of activities share much with those which

are part of community services development.

Under this heading is to be found training or skill development, such as

leadership development, planning skills and conflict resolution; information

provision, such as details of grant rounds, specific agency information and

changes in policies; and promotional activities, such as child safety and

immunisation programs. The main sources for evaluations of these types of

11


strategies are in the health sector, with Nursing and Allied Health providing

many detailed examinations of what works well in the provision of necessary

information. While health needs have been the main impetus for their work,

their approaches draw on community capacity building and development

to the extent that this literature is the most prolific in evaluated studies.

People tend to respond better to practical information than the more

nebulous ‘community building’ which makes these programs particularly

useful. Where they contribute to community development through capacity

building they are found to produce increased abilities to participate in wider

community activities, thus extending people’s learning and supportive

horizons. Collaborative structures between agencies providing education,

local groups and participants are also necessary, especially noting the

cultural specificity of the information and the processes used.

Developmental outcomes are found amongst those programs which do not

specifically target people who are in need of this type of education. Instead

education programs which are non-stigmatising and open to all have a

better ability to encourage ongoing supportive relationships within the

community. They should also be provided at the participants’ convenience,

availability and location, rather than that of the agencies delivering the

education.

Dorothy Scott [15], a well known Australian researcher in child protection

work, provides many examples of developmental education processes

which have the manifest goal of providing information and skills but have the

latent goal of providing for sustained social network support which can

contribute to the protection of vulnerable families. She is wary of the

Community education programs are at the core of Family, Neighbour-hood or

Community Centre activities.

12


importation of education packages or processes from other contexts without

them being adapted to suit the needs of the local community.

Workers using educative processes are usually mindful of and responsive to

the local context in the provision of information and training, as well as being

able to encourage and enable collaborative agency and group processes.

For these activities workers need facilitation, enabling, consciousness raising

and negotiation skills. It is also helpful if the workers have some training skills.

Indigenous Approaches

The review would be incomplete without mention of specific Indigenous

approaches to community building. It needs to be stated that Indigenous

communities may and do use similar programs, projects and processes to

those operated and enacted in and by non-Indigenous people. However,

there are also processes unique to Indigenous communities, or programs and

processes which originated in and by Indigenous communities. These

processes should be acknowledged. Two of these processes are Family

Group Conferencing and Healing Circles.

Family Group Conferencing originated in Aotearoa/New Zealand from Maori

practices of whole of community (iwi) and family (whanau) approaches

which involve extended family members in key decisions about family issues.

Enshrined in Aotearoa/New Zealand legislation for all work with children in

1989, the process has been adopted widely around the world for work with

child protection and juvenile offending in particular.

As with many other Indigenous people, harmonious relationships are the key

to health and healers seek to restore harmony in times of harm and ill health.

13


It is for this reason that Indigenous healing practices seek to use a ‘whole of

community and family’ approach as compared to a Western view of

individual healing.

The relevance for community and capacity building derive from ecological

principles of system relationships including both spiritual and terrestrial

contexts. As such, family includes more than the extended blood relations

and reaches into the wider community in which there are recognised

resources, as well as needs, which can be developed for use with child

matters. Importantly, professional involvement takes its place as one partner

rather than the leader as is usual in much social service delivery.

Healing Circles, which originated in Canada with First Nations peoples, are

located in a way of knowing different from the dominant Western forms,

which acknowledges a holistic view of all life which needs to operate in

harmony. As noted by Connors and Oates of the First Nations’ context in

Canada

Harm to one community member affects the health and harmony of the entire

community. Because health is defined as a state of harmony and balance

among all community members, re-establishing health requires that

relationships are set back into a state of balance. [16]

Healing occurs with an all of community approach in which there is

accountability, acknowledgement of harm, learning, provision of support,

respect and expectation of change. While punishment is applied, ongoing

healing and restoration of relationships are considered equally important.

This approach does not excuse the offenders for their behaviour or the need

to acknowledge their wrong-doing. However, this acknowledgement is a

14


step towards restoration of trust and reintegration. Community is served

rather than severed through these processes.

Above all for both of these approaches recognition of different cultural

contexts and values are essential as noted by Dorothy Scott [15] in the

preceding section. Operating from a position of what is known as cultural

safety is imperative. This is defined from the Aotearoa/New Zealand context

referring to children as:

The state of being in which a child or young person experiences that her or his

personal well-being, as well as social and cultural frames of reference, is

acknowledged – even if not fully understood by the worker(s) claiming to be

there to help him or her. [17]

This is, of course, also applicable to adults.

Non-Indigenous workers are sometimes reluctant to become involved in

processes which are culturally specific for fear of not knowing the proper

protocols, or for considering it to be outside of their responsibility, knowledge

or appropriate place. Additionally some workers consider that only

Indigenous people can and should be those who are responsible for the

work. This can have negative effects by placing Indigenous workers in

unviable positions where they can be expected to shoulder burdens not of

their making or which are too large for single workers. Often situations are

societal- made rather than being able to be addressed individually.

The work necessarily involves the worker in not only being culturally aware

and sensitive, but requires the worker to take steps to examine his or her own

cultural belonging and the relationship between the cultural contexts of the

worker and participants. This is often a life-long journey.

15


Strengths-Based Approaches

There has been a growing trend towards the use of what has come to be

collectively known as Strengths-Based or Asset-Based which can be found

across these selected areas of community building and are considered

important to discuss because of their extended and relatively recent use.

Strengths-based approaches are commonly referred to as strengths

perspectives, with a focus on the resilience of children, families and

communities and identifying resources and assets in each of those

groupings. They contrast with the predominant view in much social services

work which identifies the problems, needs and deficits of target populations.

Instead, there is the recognition that these populations and their

environments often contain the knowledge, expertise and some resources

which can be productively used for development. Strengths-based

approaches acknowledge that there are structural disadvantages which

must be overcome and that individuals need assistance to enable them to

recover their own strengths and local assets. This involves the worker

collaborating with individuals and groups to assist in this recovery and further

discovery. Therefore the elements present in other forms of community

building already mentioned are important here: collaboration, relationship

building, moving at the pace of the people and working towards goals set

by them.

These principles guide the design of different models of practice to suit

particular situations or groups of which there are many different versions

enacted in many different settings. They have been found to be effective in

Strengths based approaches acknowledge that there are structural

disadvantages which must be overcome and that individuals need assistance

to enable them to recover their own strengths and local assets.

16


child protection, mental health, family violence, drug abuse, and with the

elderly in residential settings amongst others.

CONCLUSION

Community building is the policy direction of our times. As such it holds the

hopes of policy makers, practitioners and local people. These aspirations are

not always met in the ways hoped for, and energetic and committed

people are not always rewarded in their efforts to change situations. The

literature, however, does provide some evidence which supports those

hopes, for there are many activities which are constructive, productive and

satisfying. Amongst the different pathways chosen for change are to be

found strategies which can be successful. They are less models than

principles, which if used to guide the work can bring useful results.

These principles reiterate the policy directions of collaboration and

partnerships but require greater levels of examination by the policy makers,

of the extent they are willing to permit community responsibility and

ownership as well as the honesty and openness of the non-negotiable

features which are part of any policy direction and program. Because there

are non-negotiables does not necessarily mean that development cannot

happen, nor local people cannot have a greater say in the plans and

processes which affect them.

Workers and the people with whom they work are alert to the possibilities for

change and the processes needed to assist them in that change. That they

can succeed is evidenced by some of the examples found in the writings

across the four categories which have given rise to young people engaging

is less risky behaviour [18], or young parents using the supports provided from

local centre based activities [15].

All of these examples provide the information about what is possible and

how we might work with the challenges in ways that help our organisations

17


to change their expectations and practices to develop new skills in this area

of work.

RECOMMENDATIONS

From these reviews it is clear that there are some activities which contribute

to successful community building. Some are specific to the approach, but

others can be used.

Place

While there is some increasing belief that community is and can be formed

and built according to functions and interests, it is evident that place-based

communities are easier to establish and maintain. Even when working with

interest or functional groups the activities of development often occur in a

site which itself will have meaning for some people. Care taken over location

can repay the time spent. Additionally, community building can and does

take place even without the provision of services and with minimal material

resources. Place, people and positive activity are often the most essential

resources.

Mapping assets

Knowing the community is essential and time is well spent getting to know

the people and their concerns and aspirations. As a practical activity and

heeding the strengths-based messages, practitioners could well start by

mapping the assets of the community [19].

Framework for practice

18


The approaches here are not exclusive, although the underlying differences

between the program and developmental approaches may not easily be

resolved. Practitioners may find that clarity about their own framework for

practice and the assessment of the approach from which they are working

at any given time serves them well in being able to identify and design

strategies suitable to the purpose.

Universal versus targeted approaches

Many projects are designed for people identified as in need or at risk. The

evidence to emerge from the programs described, strongly suggests that

programs are more effective in building community when they are holistic,

thus avoiding stigmatising groups and enabling relationships to be built

across people with resources rather than only across people with needs.

Community Building

The evidence suggests that, while community building may be a goal,

people respond more readily when there is an identified practical aim.

Defining and describing the goals in practical terms may encourage more

participation.

19


REFERENCES

1. Pawson, R., et al., Knowledge Review. Types and quality of knowledge

in social care. 2003, Social Care Institute for Excellence: London. p. 83.

2. Kelly, A. and S. Sewell., With Head Heart and Hand: Dimensions of

Community Building. 2nd ed. 1988, Brisbane: Boolarong Publications. p.2

3. Muirhead, T., Weaving tapestries: a handbook for building

communities. 2002, Perth: Local Government Community Services Association. 62. p. 8

4. NSW Health., Capacity Building. 2006 [cited 8th June 2006]; Available from: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/capacity-building/case-studies/index.html.

5. Bowes, J.M. and A. Hayes., Children, families and communities:

looking forward, in Children, families and communities: contexts and

consequences, J.M. Bowes, Editor. 2004, Oxford University Press: South Melbourne. p. 228-244.

6. Hoatson, L., The scope of community practice in the 21st Century, in Community practice in Australia, W. Weeks, L. Hoatson, and J. Dixon, Editors. 2003, Pearson Education: Frenchs Forest, NSW. p. 23-32.

7. Joseph Rowntree Foundation., Building civil renewal: A review of

government support for community capactiy building and proposals

for change. 2004 [cited 18th May 2006]; Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/responses/docs/buildingcivilrenewal.asp.

8. Joseph Rowntree Foundation., Resourcing community involvement in

neighbourhood regeneration. 2006 [cited 18th May 2006]; Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/housing/320.asp.

9. Matthews, H., Children and regeneration: setting an agenda for

community participation and integration. Children & Society, 2003. 17(4): p. 264-276.

10. Chaskin, R.J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and A.K. Toler., Moving beyond

the neighbourhood and family initiative: the final phase and lessons

learned. 2000 [cited 2006 15.6.06]; Available from: http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1295.

20


11. Adamson, D., H. Dearden, and B. Castle., Community regeneration:

review of best practice. 2001, Housing and Community Renewal Division, National Assembly of Wales. p. 58.

12. Murnane, B., H. White, and V. Meadows., Three Social Entrepreneur

Stories. 2006 [cited 10th April 2006]; Available from:

http://www.partnerships.org.au/Library/three_social_entrepreneur_stories.htm.

13. Adamson, J., The neighbourhood centre as a base for social action

and life-long learning, in Family centres and their international role in

social action : social work as informal education C. Warren-Adamson, Editor. 2001, Ashgate: Aldershot. p. 201-224.

14. Ife, J., Community Development: Creating Community Alternatives -

Vision, Analysis and Practice. 1995, Melbourne: Longman. 297.

15. Scott, D., Embracing what works. Building communities that strengthen

families. Children Australia, 2000. 25(2).

16. Connors EA, Oates MLB., The emergence of sexual abuse treatment

models within First Nations communities, in Child Abuse: new directions

in prevention and treatment across the lifespan, D.A. Wolfe, R.J. McMahon, and R.D. Peters, Editors. 1997, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks. p. 223-247. p.231

17. Fulcher, L.C., Cultural Safety: Lessons From Maori Wisdom Reclaiming Children and Youth, 2001. 10(3 Fall ): p. 153-157.

18. Mannes, M., E.C. Roehlkepartain, and P.L. Benson., Unleashing the

power of community to strengthen the well-being of children, youth

and families: an asset-building approach. Child Welfare, 2005. 84(2): p. 233-250.

19. Kretzmann, J.P. and J.L. McKnight., Building Communities from the

inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. 1993 [cited 2006 2nd June 2006]; Available from:

http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/community/introd-building.html.

21


APPENDIX 1

Table of Major Cases/Studies Reviewed

This table contains selected cases and studies which demonstrate principles of practice within community building strategies. They are

grouped under the headings used in the paper, although, as previously mentioned, there is some overlap.

The table is arranged according to the following headings:

Cases/Studies Name project or study. Included here are both examples as cases and research studies of practices or strategies.

Context Provides the location.

Program aims Describes the goals of the programs.

Eligibility/Target group Which section of the community the program is aimed at. This may be widely or narrowly targeted.

Content and format A summary of the processes used.

Evaluation and research Locates the evaluation source. In many cases this is a combination of sources, one of which may be formal evaluation.

This framework is drawn from Pawson et al [1].

Policy Community The authority for the program.

More information The reference in the annotated bibliography.

22


Cases/Studies Context Program Aims Eligibility/

Target

Group

Content and Format Evaluation/

Research

Policy Community More Info

Matching

Needs and

Services (MNS)

UK A practice tool intended to help

people who work with

vulnerable children use

rigorously assembled

information on needs as a

guide to design, implement,

and evaluate more-effective

services.

Managers &

Practitioners

working with

children in

need.

MNS focuses on needs but links

them to outcomes and

thresholds before dealing with

the services to achieve those

outcomes. Exemplifies 1 of the 7

practice tools developed by

MNS.

1, 2 & 4

Children’s Act 1989

(England)

Research Institute

[2]

Community

Partnership to

Strengthen

Families Project

The New

York City

Administr

ation for

Children’s

Services

To address the

disproportionate number of

foster care placements

originating from a small

group of high-need

communities.

Families and

children

facing foster

care

placements.

Integrate child welfare

services with other service

systems at the

neighbourhood level to

support children and families

through the provision of

culturally competent services

in locations that are familiar

and convenient.

Evidence

based on

census and

welfare

data.

1, 4

New York

Administration for

Children’s

Services

[3]

23


Cases/Studies Context Program Aims Eligibility/

Target Group

Content and

Format

Evaluation/

Research

Policy Community More

Info

CASA Safe Haven New York and

Oklahoma, US

To build

collaborative

relationships for

family support.

Children,

families with

substance

abuse issues

and staff in

child welfare.

Through family group

conferencing, a

blend of

multidisciplinary

teams, family court

and family

participation.

Qualitative &

quantitative

evaluations

4

National Center on

Addiction and

Substance Abuse

Research Institute

[4]

Reviewed early

years programs &

projects

Sure Start and

preventive

services, UK

Neighbourhood

based prevention

services.

Children and

families IN

Community.

Examples of early

years program and

projects are

reviewed for impact

on disadvantaged

children and their

families.

University of

Oxford

4

Children’s Act 1989

(England)

Sure Start

Communities that

Care

[5]

24


Participation of

children & young

people in decisions

about UK service

development

Children’s

National

Services

Framework -

UK

To gather and

review evidence

on children &

young people’s

participation in

service

development &

public decision-

making.

Children and

Young People

A number of points

about good practice

provided: listening

culture, clarity,

flexibility, resources,

skills development,

inclusion, feedback &

evaluation.

4

UN Convention on

the Rights of the Child

(ratified by the UK in

1991).

[6]

Evidence Source Key: 1. Organisation 2. Practitioner 3. User 4. Research 5. Policy Community

25


Community

Regeneration –

Communities First

Wales –

Rural and

urban

Multi-faceted

strategies for

regeneration.

Disadvantage

d Communities

Outlines in detail, and

draws together, principles

underpinning community

regeneration best

practice.

4

Housing &

Community

Renewal Division,

National

Assembly for

Wales (NAW)

[7]

EDUCATION

FOCUSED

CCI US Multi-faceted

development aims

including developing

self management and

other skills.

Varied targets

according to

need.

Provision of skills

development and

information.

4, 5

Local Authorities

and Research

Institutes

[8]

Yeovil Family Centre England Improve work and

education entry skills.

Women

returning to the

workforce and

education.

Provision of informal and

later formal education as

one of many activities of a

family centre.

2 & 3

Education and

Health Authorities

[9]

26


Evaluation of a

community based

intervention program

of 4 year old

preschool children

Melbourne

preschools

Early intervention

project focused on

improving child pre-

reading skills and

parent behaviour-

management skills of 4

year olds.

4 year old

preschool

children and

their parents

Education and skills

development for children

and parents

Pre and

post, 1 &

2 yr

follow-

up –

surveys/

question

naires

used.

4

Child Health and

Welfare - Royal

Children’s

Hospital &

Latrobe University

[10]


27


INDIGENOUS FOCUS

Family Group

Conferencing

Aotearoa/New

Zealand

Child protection

healing and

reintegration.

Families Traditional Maori Hui to

include all family members

in resolving the issues and

providing a plan for child

safety.

4

Treaty of

Waitangi

1989 Children

, Young

Persons and

their Families

Act

[11]

Four Circles of

Hollow Water

Canada The restoration of

community.

Community

and offenders

Community wide healing

process to reintegrate

offender and heal offender

and community.

3 & 5 Corrections

Department

s

[12]

Aotearoa/New

Zealand – Working

Differently with

Communities and

Families

Whanau Centre

– Family

Neighbourhood

Centre in New

Zealand

Addressing

‘area’-based

socio-economic

disadvantage.

Families IN

Community

CD framework supporting

families in own contexts &

utilising naturally occurring

networks. Strongly aligned

with strength-based

community development/

capacity building.

Participator Action

Research -evidence

support role of

Community/Family

Centres in

community

building. 3

Treaty of

Waitangi. The

1989 Children

Young

Persons and

Their Families

Act.

[13]


28


STRENGTHS FOCUSED

The Claymore

Miracle

Suburb in

NSW

To transform Proctor

Way – known as the

worst street in NSW –

into a positive place to

reside.

Local

neighbourhood

Transfer of housing

responsibility to local

Housing Association

Example of social

reconstruction whereby

NGO put in place to build

community relations where

previous state interventions

failed.

1 2 &3

NSW Housing

Department

Argyle Community

Housing Association

(division of St

Vincent de Paul)

[14]

Minto Hill Project Suburb in

NSW

Transfer of housing

responsibility to local

neighbourhood.

Community

(public housing

occupants)

Example of social

entrepreneurship.

Intensive tenancy

management.

1, 2 & 3

NSW Department of

Housing (learnings

following The

Claymore Miracle)

(Murnane, White

et al 2006)

Families in

Partnership

NSW Strengthen supportive

family networks.

Families with

development-

ally delayed

children

Mobilisation of supportive

learning resources for families.

3 Local parents

challenging the

Education

Department


29


Developmental

Assets & Asset-

building

Communities

Framework

US -

Minnesota

To emphasise the

human relations and

developmental

infrastructure children,

youth, and families

require for their health

& well-being through

survey-based

evaluation linking

young people’s

developmental

milestones to the

developmental assets

which they had

access.

Young people

(6th through

12th class

grade

inclusively)

156 item instrument, the

Profile of Student Life:

Attitude and Behaviour

Survey – instrument

captures basic

demographic information

& measures

developmental assets and

other constructs like

developmental deficits eg

victims of violence

watches too much

television

Literature based

(around prevention,

resilience, youth

development, and

protective factors).

Survey measurements.

Findings suggest

developmental assets a

better predictor of

engagement in high-risk

behaviour than certain

demographic factors

(hence isolated

program responses

insufficient – a multi-

pronged investment in

building community

capacity needed.

Search Institute,

Minneapolis 4

Minnesota

Institute of

Public

Health –

Federal

Substance

Abuse

Prevention

Grant

Scheme

[15]

See Figure 3 - A

Preliminary

Model of Asset-

Based

Community

Capacity

Building.


30


Shared Action in

Long Gully

St Luke’s

Anglicare -

an inner

suburb of

the

regional

Victorian

town,

Bendigo

Promote the safety and

wellbeing of children and

social justice in Long

Gully. A 3yr community

development project

working with adults and

groups in the community

to mobilise resources and

undertake community

building activities.

Children (0-12

years) and

families IN

Community

Strength-based perspective

where recognised power

imbalances incorporates

consideration of a promotion of

the use of ‘power with’. Social

justice framework within a wider

community development

perspective.

Participatory

Action Research

Reflecting back

regularly on

vision & value

statements as a

reference point.

2 & 3

St Luke’s [16]

Evaluation of

Shared Action

St Luke’s

Anglicare -

an inner

suburb of

the regional

Victorian

town,

Bendigo

Evaluate Shared

Action in Long Gully.

Shared Action

stakeholders:

schools,

businesses,

organisations &

community

members.

CD Framework (4 components:

embeddedness, influence,

resources, and person/environ –

relationship). Themes:

Participation, networks &

connection with organisations,

positive attitude changes,

range of activities,

development of skills/

confidence, safety issues/

dealing with conflict, ownership.

La Trobe

University

Extensive

literature review.

Focus groups,

observation &

interviews.

1, 2, 3 & 4

St Luke’s [17]


31


Aintree

Community

Centre Practice

Aintree

Community

Centre

Centre supporting

families, particularly

single mothers.

Breaking down social

barriers.

Families Ecological perspective;

building new narratives;

draws on psycho-dynamic

theory, and Freirian

ideology. Working closely

& building relationships

between Centre staff and

families.

Participatory

Action Research

theoretical/

practice based

literature informs

practice.

Development of

new narratives and

relationship

building apparent

over time.

2, 3 & 4

Treaty of

Waitangi

1989 Children,

Young Persons

and their Families

Act

Aintree

Community

Centre

[18]

Midwestern and

Honduran

community-

based

collaborative

problem-solving

case example

Midwest US &

Honduras

Midwest: school

children care

Honduras village

conflict resolution

Children

Villagers

Based on a collaborative

model that creates an

environment with citizens and

experts working together to

create knowledge and

establish dialogue on an

evolving issue. Cross culturally

adaptable given applicability

of lessons learnt 1-10.

Participatory

Action Research

1, 2, 3

Research

Institute

[19]

32


Putting Family

First

Time IN For

Family & Family

Time 1st

Minnesota,

US

A citizen model

applied to the over-

scheduling of children

& decline of family

time.

Family

professionals

partnering with

families.

The Families and

Democracy Model

(provides criteria): Citizen

versus program

perspective.

Participatory

Action Research

3

Research

Institute

[20]


33


Community Health

Collaboratives

Pennsylva

nia, US

Collaborative

partnerships in health

Community

Health

organisations

Presents the results of a

qualitative case study

designed to identify

indicators of success for a

specific community

partnership and to test the

feasibility of an evaluation

tool for collaborative efforts

Through using

principles of

social justice,

feedback from

pilot-test

participants on

the feasibility &

value of the

process is

presented.

1,2, 3 & 4

To Our Children’s

Future With Health

[21]


34


REFERENCES

1. Pawson, R., et al., Knowledge Review. Types and quality of knowledge in

social care. 2003, Social Care Institute for Excellence: London. p. 83.

2. Taylor, K.I., Understanding Communities Today: Using Matching Needs and

Services to Assess Community Needs and Design Community-Based Services Child

Welfare, 2005. 84(2): p. 251-264.

3. Chahine, Z., J. van Straaten, and A. Williams-Isom, The New York City

Neighbourhood-Based Services Strategy Child Welfare, 2005. 84(2): p. 141-152.

4. O'Connor, L.A., et al., "Nothing About Me Without Me": Leading the Way to

Collaborative Relationships with Families Child Welfare, 2005. 84(2): p. 153-170.

5. Smith, T., Neighbourhood and Preventive Strategies with Children and Families:

What Works? Children & Society, 1999. 13: p. 265-277.

6. Cavet, J. and P. Sloper, The participation of children and young people in

decisions about UK service development. Child: Care, Health and Development,

2004. 30(6): p. 613-621.

7. Adamson, D., H. Dearden, and B. Castle, Community regeneration: review of

best practice. 2001, Housing and Community Renewal Division, National Assembly of

Wales. p. 58.

8. Chaskin, R.J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and A.K. Toler. Moving beyond the

neighbourhood and family initiative: the final phase and lessons learned. 2000

[cited 2006 15.6.06]; Available from:

http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1295.

9. Holland, D., Make your experience count: social work as informal education, in

Family centres and their international role in social action : social work as informal

education, C. Warren-Adamson, Editor. 2001, Ashgate: Aldershot. p. 189-200.

10. Elliot, J., et al., Evaluation of a community intervention programme for

preschool behaviour problems. Journal of Paediatric Child Health 2002. 38: p. 41-50.

11. Waldegrave, C., Contrasting national jurisdictional and welfare responses to

violence to children. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 2006. 27(March): p. 57-76.

12. Aboriginal Peoples Correction Unit. The Four Circles of Hollow Water. 1997

[cited 2005 18/05/05]; Available from: http://www.psepc-

sppcc.gc.ca/publications/abor_corrections/199703_e.pdf.

35


13. Munford, R., J. Sanders, and P.B. With Ann Andrew, Ripeka Kaipuke, Leland

Ruwhiu, Aotearoa/New Zealand - Working Differently with Communities and Families,

in Family Centres and their International Role In Social Action, C. Warren-Adamson,

Editor. 2001, Ashgate: Sydney.

14. Murnane, B., H. White, and V. Meadows. Three Social Entrepreneur Stories.

2006 [cited 10th April 2006]; Available from:


15. Mannes, M., E.C. Roehlkepartain, and P.L. Benson, Unleashing the power of

community to strengthen the well-being of children, youth and families: an asset-

building approach. Child Welfare, 2005. 84(2): p. 233-250.

16. Beilharz, L., Building Community - The Shared Action Experience. 2002, Bendigo

Victoria: Solutions Press.

17. Gardner, F. and B. Jamieson. Building Community, Strengthening Families:

Shared Action in Long Gully. 2000 [cited 2006 17.6.06]; Available from:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:f1oicWyBxUoJ:www.stlukes.

org.au/services/commbuilding/documents/SharedActionFinalReport2000.doc+gard

ner+%22long+gully+%22.

18. Sanders, J. and R. Munford, Community centre practice - potential and

possibilities for creating change. Journal of Social Work Practice, 2006. 20(1): p. 39-

50.

19. Stevens, G.L. and A. Marin-Hernandez, Community collaborative problem

solving--cross-cultural lessons. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 1999. 91(2):

p. 79-82.

20. Anderson, J.R., Democratic Community Initiatives: The Case of Overscheduled

Children. Family relations, 2005. 54(5): p. 654.

21. Hausman, A.J., J. Becker, and R. Brawer, Identifying value indicators and social

capital in community health partnerships

Temple University. Journal of Community Psychology, 2005. 33(6): p. 691-703.

36


APPENDIX 1. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Community building strategies and evaluations

This annotated bibliography was generated from the searches conducted to

provide evidence of community building strategies. It contains a selection of

these works which contributed to the ideas and material contained in the

accompanying paper. Some works are not annotated but provide reference

points for follow up.

Details of the search strategy are provided.

Research Strategies

The review was undertaken of the literature on community development and

capacity building using several databases, search engines, web sites and

recent bibliographies. Database searches involved 149 Databases including

APAIS, Blackwell Synergy, Illumina, ERIC, Informit, JSTOR, ProQuest, Infotrac,

Science Direct, Taylor & Francis and Social Work Abstracts. Ninemsn and

Google scholar, including others were search engines utilised. Government,

non-government and Third Sector websites were included in the search

providing capacity building examples across the sectors. Web sites ranged

from international to local sites and included: the Australian Bureau of

Statistics, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Research Alliance For

Children and Youth, Department of Local Government and Regional

Development, Western Australia’s Early Years Strategy, onlinewa, NSW Health,

Community Builders NSW, Department for Victorian Communities, Tasmania

Together, School of Social Welfare, Institute for Policy Research, Joseph

Rowntree Foundation, HeadStart, Northwestern, Partnerships, Arizona,

Cambridge Journals Online and Cavaye Community Development.

37


Search terms included: community development, capacity building,

community capacity building, capacity based practice, asset-based

community development, evaluation, research, with refined searches

including the terms ‘children’, ‘families’, ‘sustainability’, ‘evidence-based

practice’, and ‘early years’. Although the search did not specify a timeframe

to view the literature where databases requested timeframes the past

decade was given to obtain the most current literature. Bibliographies from

the literature further guided searches. In addition, opportunistic searches

were made of known existing works. A total of approximately 270 works were

generated, from which this selection is derived.

Search findings

The search uncovered examples of the available research and evaluations.

Included here are those which carry out some research which is associated

with community development (broadly defined) and capacity building. Little

of this asks the specific question ‘is this effective?’, most often being more

broadly concerned with descriptions of the programmes and processes and

concluding more research is necessary and desirable.

What is reported here includes accounts of quantitative studies, either by the

project evaluators or through literature reviews conducted by others; and

examples of types of applied research techniques for effectiveness or as

evaluations. These latter tend to use qualitative data and processes.

Some overviews of programmes and practices have been conducted, for

example the analysis conducted for the Family and Community Services

Department in 2000 of community-based prevention and early intervention

action (Gauntlett, Hugman et al. 2001), the review of Communities, social

capital and public policy (Johnson, Headey et al. 2005), the evaluations of

the Reconnect Programme (Ryan 2003; Ryan and Beauchamp 2003) and the

evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy in 2004 (Funnell,

38


Rogers et al. 2004). These are included as citations in the bibliography. In

addition other reviews have been conducted, such as that provided for the

WA Department for Community Development to inform the Capacity Building

Strategic Framework. This report and its accompanying appendices contain

case examples describing work conducted and lessons learnt (Government

of Western Australia 2005; Government of Western Australia 2005;

Government of Western Australia 2005)

Where available the annotations include recommendations and/or

guidelines for practice.

39


Aboriginal Peoples Correction Unit. (1997). "The Four Circles of Hollow Water."

Retrieved 18/05/05, 2005, from http://www.psepc-

sppcc.gc.ca/publications/abor_corrections/199703_e.pdf.

This describes the successful restorative justice programme which is based on

community healing principles and is deeply rooted in cultural traditions.

The healing process is based on traditional ways of knowing:

1. conceiving of the world as a circle - a web of relationships in balance with each

other, so healing is intended to return the balance.

2. the offender must be accountable to the community- he (usually male) must

agree that he did it - it is restorative/forgiveness - the healing circle is on p.121

The first circle is people stating why they are there; the second is to praise the victim

and absolve his/her of blame; (this is important as often the victim has been blamed

for his/her situation); the third is to speak to the offender, this is to say to the judge

what should happen to the offender; the fourth insists on guilty pleas so that the

children don't have to go through the course, and they don't want the offenders to

go to prison, because there is no healing in prison. The offenders have to commit to

four months work during which they have to admit what they did and work with their

counselors; they have to tell their families what they have done, they bring their

families to the circles, then they tell the whole community what they've been

charged with and what they have done to heal so far. If they can't do that they go

through the court system. They report once every six months to the community for a

period of five years.

Adamson, D., H. Dearden, et al. (2001). Community regeneration: review of best

practice, Housing and Community Renewal Division, National Assembly of Wales: 58.

Reviews literature in US, UK and Europe and evaluations of best practice.

Key Principles for the Communities First need to address the themes to emerge from

the Review: Partnership, Participation, Capacity Raising, Identifying Communities for

Support; Equal Opportunities, Evaluation of Success and Funding Frameworks.

The National Assembly should develop the Communities First Strategy to create an

enabling and facilitating environment for community based regeneration schemes to

flourish;

The Communities First programme should be a flexible means of achieving a

common vision for communities in Wales without prescribing the specific means to

achieve that vision in each community;

40


That Communities First creates a unified funding regime for disadvantaged

communities that provides a long-term commitment within a non-competitive

funding environment;

That the Communities First Programme should not be a vehicle for transferring

responsibility for economic regeneration from the state to the community;

The National Assembly should retain a commitment to redressing structural

disadvantages by pursuing an equal opportunities and anti-poverty element in all its

actions;

Communities First partnerships should be constituted to reflect local conditions and

the current capacities of the respective partners to participate;

that the ‘three thirds’ principle should inform the pattern of representation but not be

prescriptively applied;

That the respective roles and responsibilities of the partners should be clearly defined

and codified as the first task achieved by newly formed area partnerships;

That the partnerships should have a clear legal framework which sets out

unambiguously its powers, responsibilities and patterns of accountability;

That experience derived at the local partnership level should inform structures and

processes at the centre of all agencies and organisations which impact on the area;

Community participation must be a central feature of the Communities First

approach if the National Assembly is to realise its vision fro a Better Wales;

Participation must be developmental and progressive and avoid tokenism;

Communities First must be supported by incentives and sanctions to encourage and

promote power sharing and community participation in decision making and

resource allocation;

Local structures and partnerships must interact with the formal democratic process

and develop supplementary community based mechanisms to secure fair and open

community representation;

Monitoring and evaluation of these objectives should be frequent and community

based;

Capacity raising of all partners in the regeneration process is an essential pre-

condition of community development;

Funding and resourcing of capacity raising is an essential component of a strategy

such as Communities First;

Community members require an informal ‘soft-entry’ training structure which

progresses in a ladder of achievement to more formal processes. This structure should

be developed on a national basis but with local community delivery mechanisms;

41


All capacity raising training and education should be recognised and accredited;

Effective planning for capacity raising should be a condition for funding allocation;

Criteria for selecting communities must be clear, unambiguous and externally

verifiable;

Hard statistical or quantitative evidence must be supplemented and focused by

acquisition of more qualitative and localised knowledge;

Selection criteria must be ‘rural proof’ and recognise the diversity of Welsh

communities;

That care and attention be paid in all area-based partnerships to the promotion of

equal and adequate opportunities for all sections of the community;

That mechanisms of community representation do not favour specific groups or

exclude others by design and implementation of their form and practices;

Monitoring and evaluation techniques must be participative and directly involve the

community in measuring and determining he level of change;

Monitoring and evaluation must aim to balance the quantitative indicators

conventionally required for public accountability with qualitative indicators which are

meaningful to the community and demonstrate change in the daily experience of life

in deprived communities;

Monitoring and evaluation should set out a number of clear and accessible

‘benchmarks’ which measure the quality of life in a community and which should

provide a standard which all communities aspire to;

Future funding of disadvantaged communities in Wales must be long-term and

stable;

Funding must be allocated according to need, established by comprehensive and

clear criteria;

The funding framework must enable the regeneration partnership to influence and

control mainstream funds and allocated them according to community priorities;

The funding framework must support the principles of area regeneration and enable

them to become reality.

Anderson, J. R. (2005). "Democratic Community Initiatives: The Case of

Overscheduled Children." Family relations 54(5): 654.

Describes a democratic citizen model of community organising for mobilising and

partnering with families, using the over scheduling of children as a case example.

Provides an overview of the growing body of research on this aspect of family time;

describes the difference between a citizen model and programme models for

42


working with families; gives two examples of community initiatives initiated by family

professionals; describes next steps for evaluating this community organising model;

and offers implications for family professionals. The examples are Family Time First and

Family Time In, both of which started with a community conversation about the issues

and resulted in groups forming to initiate actions such as family friendly community

meetings (not scheduled over the dinner hour) and families committing to balancing

family and sports time for children. While focusing on family time, the process could

be used with other initiatives within the community.

Anderson, D., T. Guthrie, et al. (2002). "A Nursing Model of Community Organization for

Change." Public Health Nursing 19(1): 40-46.

"The Nursing Model of Community Organization for Change presented in this

article describes the relationships among the concepts of empowerment,

partnership, participation, cultural responsiveness, and community competence

within a community organizing context. These concepts are implemented through

the use of the Nursing Model of Community Organization for Change, which consists

of four phases: assessment/reassessment, planning/design, implementation, and

evaluation/dissemination. This nursing model provides a theoretical framework for

community health professionals when creating community health interventions in

partnership with community members." (Abstract)

The model is to be found in the Webinar presentation.

Atkinson, R. and P. Willis (2006). Community capacity building - a practical guide.

Hobart, Tas, Housing and Community Research Unit, University of Tasmania: 15.

Provides definitions, methods and examples as well as effectiveness specifically

within the area of housing. The examples include small funds schemes to enable

community projects such as community arts or parenting, film making to record

stories and the creation of community gardens.

Austin, S. (2005). "Community-Building Principles: Implications for Professional

Development." Child Welfare 84(2): 105-122.

A think tank for child welfare practitioners recognised the value of agency-

community member collaboration and asked about the knowledge, policies and

strategies needed to build community. It emphasises implications for professional

education. Included are examples relating to activities in family centres such as the

use of Time Dollars (exchanges of time spent reading to children etc. for money to

43


buy computers, school supplies etc in the Time Dollar Store using donated goods)

and the formation of partnerships with local businesses to provide employment,

leadership development etc.

Barr, A., S. Hashagen, et al. (2000). ABCD handbook : a framework for evaluating

community development. London, Community Development Foundation.

A detailed account of how to undertake evaluation of community

development focusing on inputs, processes, outputs ad outcomes using community

activities and their experiences. A working example of a hypothetical project is

given. in some detail.

Barter, K. (2001). "Building community: a conceptual framework for child protection."

Child Abuse Review 10(4): 262-278.

The community building framework proposed here identifies value bases,

knowledge and theoretical dimensions and methods. Identifies the principles of

strengths based approaches in partnership with local communities and using a holism

approach.

Beilharz, L. (2002). Building Community - The Shared Action Experience. Bendigo

Victoria, Solutions Press.

This work details the Shared Action programme implemented by St Luke's in Victoria

as a community building activity designed to provide the community with protective

measures for children at risk. See Gardner for details.

Billings, J. R. (2000). "Community development: a critical review of approaches to

evaluation." Journal of Advanced Nursing 31(2): 472-480.

This article reviews evaluation approaches and suggests that the standard

evaluations used by authorities lack the processes understood by 'lay' people for

judging how and how well they do their work. They need rather to focus on how the

participants think about their work rather than on pre-imposed criteria.

Bond, L., S. Glover, et al. (2001). "Building Capacity for System-Level Change in

Schools: Lessons From the Gatehouse Project." Health Education & Behavior 28(3):

368-383.

Based in secondary schools this process uses capacity building to affect behaviour

(e.g. smoking and bullying). It is evaluated using a cluster-randomised controlled trial

44


design with 26 schools. Using the criteria of connectedness, security and positive

regard to design activities to promote well being, this project suggests a whole of

school approach which may mean restructuring the schools.

Bradley, B. S., J. Deighton, et al. (2004). "The 'Voices' Project: Capacity-Building in

Community Development for Youth at Risk." Journal of Health Psychology 9(2): 197-

212.

This describes an Action Research project with 10 young people encouraging them

to tell their stories through theatre. It is a capacity building demonstration using

political awareness and building of young people's capacities in marginalised

communities. the outcomes included improved health outcomes.

Brown, P., B. Butler, et al. (2001). "The Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood

transformation initiative. Lessons learned about community building &

implementation." Retrieved 15.6.06, 2006, from


This review explores the early strategies, issues, and implications that shaped these

lessons.

Neighbourhood Transformation (NT) was one of the first attempts to systematically

bring together diverse strands of thinking about comprehensive community change.

NT was driven by several core components, including a comprehensive vision for

ending poverty; a strategy that simultaneously addressed social, economic, and

physical conditions; partnerships that linked the public and private sectors; a

commitment to building capacity and ownership within individuals and the

community; and efforts to leverage public will and investment—both financial and

political—on behalf of social change.

Those relationships and investments produced several notable achievements:

• Six intermediaries were created to facilitate improvements in housing, health

care, education, employment, and other public services.

• More than 1,000 affordable-housing units were renovated or built.

• Two elementary schools showed significant improvements

• in test scores.

45


• Streets became significantly cleaner and safer because of improved city

sanitation and public safety services.

• Medical and mental health services and computer labs were established in

Sandtown’s schools.

• Hundreds of residents received job training and placement.

• A community market opened, and a monthly community newspaper was

founded.

• More than $70 million in new funds was committed to community

improvements by federal programs such as Healthy Start and the

Empowerment Zone initiative.

Summary of Lessons

Lesson 1: Build on a Deep Understanding of the Neighborhood.

Lesson 2: Invest in Community Capacity Early.

Lesson 3: Generate Belief in and Ownership of the Change.

Lesson 4: Establish a Clear Decision-Making Process Early.

Lesson 5: Specify the Rules of Engagement.

Lesson 6: Consider Partnership with the Public Sector.

Lesson 7: Embed Community Building in Every Activity.

Lesson 8: Ground Expectations in an Explicit Strategy.

Lesson 9: Balance Funding Against Pace and Priorities.

Lesson 10: Nurture Connections Among People, Ideas, and Institutions.

Lesson 11: Build Residents’ Economic Self-Sufficiency.

Lesson 12: Use Neighbourhood-Focused Intermediaries

to Change Systems..

Lesson 13: Create a Culture of Learning and Self-Assessment.

Abiding Challenges

Challenge 1: Altering the Balance of Power.

Challenge 2: Acknowledging Issues of Race and Class.

Challenge 3: Showing Respect.

Challenge 4: Honouring Residents’ Competence as Leaders.

Challenge 5: Harnessing the Community’s Spiritual Strength.

Cavet, J. and P. Sloper (2004). "The participation of children and young people in

decisions about UK service development." Child: Care, Health and Development

30(6): 613-621.

46


Examines through literature and professional feedback the extent to which

young people are in fact equal participants in decision making. "Issues identified as

barriers to change included adult attitudes and intransigence, lack of training for key

adults, lack of clarity leading to tokenism, the nature of organizations (i.e. their

formality, complexity, bureaucracy and internal politics) and the short-term nature of

much funding. The evidence suggests that good practice includes a listening culture

among staff, clarity, flexibility, adequate resources, skills development and training for

staff and participating children and young people, inclusion of marginalized groups,

feedback and evaluation. There is only limited evidence that children and young

people's involvement in public decision-making leads to more appropriate services,

although there is evidence that participating children and young people benefit in

terms of personal development and that staff and organizations learn more about

their views." The researchers conclude there is the need for further evaluation.

Chahine, Z., J. van Straaten, et al. (2005). "The New York City Neighborhood-Based

Services Strategy " Child Welfare 84(2): 141-152.

The New York City Administration for Children's Services (ACS) instituted a

neighbourhood-based services system through the realignment of all foster care,

preventive, and protective services along community district lines. ACS, with its

community partners, also formed neighbourhood-based networks to improve service

coordination and collaboration among key community stakeholders and to shape a

multisystem strategy tailored to each district informed by child welfare data. Based

on analysis of neighbourhood-specific census tract child welfare data, ACS initiated

the Community Partnership to Strengthen Families project to address the

disproportionate number of foster care placements originating from a small group of

high-need communities, including Manhattan's Central Harlem. This article describes

examples of specific strategies based on the Central Harlem experience. A

Community Walk strategy involved service providers walking the locality to see the

services in action and to talk to the providers and consumers to match the joint

perceptions and work out how to overcome the perceived mismatches. Family team

conferences were another strategy used.

Chaskin, R. J. (1999). "Defining community capacity: a framework and implications

from a comprehensive community initiative." Retrieved 15.6.06, 2006, from


47


This article seeks to define community capacity and explore how a capacity

building process works through examining two case studies of Comprehensive

Community Initiatives (CCIs). It follows the Kretzman & McKnight approach of

assessing assets and forging links between components of community.

Concentration on building informal relations (between neighbours) and semi formal

network (between organisations) rather than intimate ties is recommended for the

development of social capital.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, et al. (2000). "Moving beyond the

neighbourhood and family initiative: the final phase and lessons learned." Retrieved

15.6.06, 2006, from http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1295.

This full evaluation report provides an update on the activities of the initiative since

November 1996 and distills the lessons learned by the Neighbourhood and Family

Initiative over much of its implementation through June 2000. The setting, content and

programme are defined and described and problems in collaboration are discussed.

Major findings are to be found in a separate, briefer report entitled Lessons Learned

from the Implementation of the Neighbourhood and Family Initiative: A Summary of

Findings, available from Chapin Hall.

Cheadle, A., M. Sullivan, et al. (2002). "Using a Participatory Approach to Provide

Assistance to Community-Based Organizations: The Seattle Partners Community

Research Center." Health Education & Behavior 29(3): 383-394.

This paper describes the project and examines the 'enabling systems' that may

be needed for the community based organisations (CBOs) to operate effectively.

Findings suggest that taking a capacity building rather than a technical assistance

approach is potentially more sustainable. This means rather than providing services,

assisting member organisations to develop skills through mentoring, training and other

processes contributes to sustainability.

Chrisman, N. J., K. Senturia, et al. (2002). "Qualitative Process Evaluation of Urban

Community Work: A Preliminary View." Health Education & Behavior 29(2): 232-248.

Discussion of a process evaluation model with a participatory action research

project which found that the Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities, which acts

predominantly as broker was successfully supporting and evaluating community

health projects.

48


Clark, M. J., S. Cary, et al. (2003). "Involving Communities in Community Assessment."

Public Health Nursing 20(6): 456-463.

The use of focus groups of usually under-represented members of communities

identified the assets and challenges of a multicultural environment and led to actions

in the community such as community forums, workshops, clean-up activities and

development of community information networks and web sites.

Cornwall, A., P. Lall, et al. (2003). "Putting partnership into practice: participatory

wellbeing assessment on a south London housing estate." Health Expectations 6: 30-

43.

This article describes an innovative approach to creating the basis for

partnerships to address community wellbeing on an estate in south London. Drawing

on participatory appraisal and action planning methods, it drew together residents

and professionals within and beyond the health service, provide strategies for health

professionals.

Cuthill, M. (2003). "The contribution of human and social capital to building

community well-being: a research agenda relating to citizen participation in local

governance in Australia." Urban Policy and Research 21(4): 373-391.

This paper discusses the interrelationships between concepts such as human

and social capital, community well-being, citizen participation, community capacity

building and community engagement. Working from this discussion a research

agenda is presented relating to citizen participation in local governance with

particular emphasis on the role of local government in building human and social

capital, thereby contributing to the well-being of communities.

Cuthill, M. (2004). "Community Visioning: Facilitating Informed Citizen Participation in

Local Area Planning on the Gold Coast." Urban Policy and Research 22(4): 427-445.

Much contemporary planning literature places emphasis on involving people,

who have an interest in or may be affected by planning outcomes, in the planning

process. This move towards participatory planning has been enthusiastically

embraced and implemented in many places both in Australia and overseas.

However, there has been little reporting of the practical aspects of implementing

such an approach. This article describes a community visioning process that forms the

basis of the Mermaid Beach Local Area Planning project on the Gold Coast.

49


Successful operational initiatives and constraints identified through the

implementation of this visioning process are discussed.

Cuthill, M. and J. Fien (2005). "Capacity building: Facilitating citizen participation in

local governance." Australian Journal of Public Administration 64(4): 63-80.

This article presents a synthesis of research findings drawn from a pilot study and

five applied research projects focusing on the concepts and processes which

underpin the operationalisation of citizen participation in local governance.

Dees, J. G. (1998). "The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship." Retrieved 10th April

2006, from

http://www.partnerships.org.au/Library/the_meaning_of_social_entrepreneurship.htm.

An exploration of the term social entrepreneurship and its applications in

business. This article suggests social entrepreneurship can be used with social

problems as they are social change agents.

Elliot, J., M. Prior, et al. (2002). "Evaluation of a community intervention programme for

preschool behaviour problems." Journal of Paediatric Child Health 38: 41-50.

The evaluation of this community based intervention operated by medical

practitioners suggested it resulted in positive effects, despite being of low intensity.

This universal-type of intervention involving parent skill development training and child

pre-reading sessions appeared to be well accepted by the community, but the

authors recommend that there is a need to increase recruitment of families of at-risk

children into such programmes.

Fernandez, E. (2004). "Effective interventions to promote child and family wellness: a

study of outcomes of intervention through Children’s Family Centres." Child and

Family Social Work 9: 91-104.

This paper reports research carried out in Australia designed to evaluate the impact

of family support interventions by comparing the views of families and their

caseworkers with respect to the perceived benefits and outcomes of the

interventions in the context of changes in family functioning and parent–child

relationships, and the extent to which changes led to reduced involvement in

protective services.

50


Findings support the use of intensive interventions based on feedback from the young

people children and parents to avoid children being taken into care.

Fulbright-Anderson, et al (1998) New approaches to evaluating community initiatives,

Washington, Aspen Insitute. Vols 1 & 2

This two volume work provides many articles concerning the theory of evaluation,

some reflections from practitioners and comments on measurement and analysis of

community change initiatives to emerge from a Round Table held in the early

nineties. The Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) were initiated by

governments concerned with poor social, economic and health outcomes. CCIs are

discussed in other items here such as Chaskin.

Fulcher, L. C. (2001). "Cultural Safety: Lessons From Maori Wisdom " Reclaiming

Children and Youth 10(3 Fall ): 153-157.

Cultural safety has its current origins among the Maori peoples of New Zealand.

The reader is encouraged to consider how rituals of encounter that promote cultural

safety might enhance the cultural competence of workers and improve the quality of

services offered in a variety of settings. Family Group Conferences also support active

family participation in the care and control of children while empowering family

decision making and promoting safe practices.

Funnell, S., P. Rogers, et al. (2004). Evaluation of the stronger families and communities

strategy 2000-2004. Community capacity building. Canberra, Australian

Government, Department of Family and Community Services: 1-69.

This issues paper canvasses the aspects of capacity building found through the

literature and discusses implications for analysis, planning, processes and

sustainability. Several projects are analysed with some presentation of strategies in

use, such as skills development, working with local media for more positive reporting,

a youth-run Youth Summit, and parks improvement projects. This is a worthwhile

paper for practitioners and programme planners.

Gardner, F. and B. Jamieson. (2000). "Building Community, Strengthening Families:

Shared Action in Long Gully." Retrieved 17.6.06, 2006, from

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:f1oicWyBxUoJ:www.stlukes.org.au/servi

51


ces/commbuilding/documents/SharedActionFinalReport2000.doc+gardner+%22long+gully+%22

.

The evaluation of the “Shared Action” project implemented by St Luke’s Anglicare

(and described in Beilharz - see earlier entry).

Findings concluded that the project:

1 increased opportunities for participation in a clear structure

2 enhanced participation in a way the meant people felt valued

3 focussed on individual and community capacities and strengths

4 used participation in activities to explore processes for dealing with differences

and conflict

5 provided a variety of activities so that people could choose their level and type

of involvement

6 encouraged respectful attitudes

7 provided workers as resources who were able to demonstrate respect and

constructive processes, encouraged participation and the development of

community responsibility

Changes observed in the community included

1 community members with a greater sense of pride and hope in their

community as well as a feeling of ownership

2 people who felt capable that they could influence change both at a personal

and community level

3 community members who felt more able to deal constructively with conflict

4 the development of community resources, an infrastructure of activities and

committees so that people can choose how to be involved

5 individuals and groups who developed knowledge, skills, confidence and the

capacity to work together effectively

6 the development of strong social networks and a sense of social capital

7 physical resources such as the playground and barbecue area

8 increased feelings of safety from feeling connected to others and being able to

deal with conflict

9 positive changes in relationships with voluntary organisations, schools and

businesses involved in the community

52


"It is not possible to prove ‘statistically’ a reduction in child abuse. However it is clear

from the Long Gully community and its key workers that children are now living in a

safer and more nurturing environment with a strengthened community life."

Gauntlett, E., R. Hugman, et al. (2001). A meta-analysis of the impact of community-

based prevention and early intervention action. Canberra, Department of Family and

Community Services: 114.

This study sought evidence that the Stronger Communities element of the

Commonwealth Government’s Stronger Families and Communities Strategy had

beneficial outcomes and that it was cost effective. The analysis found that

preventive and early intervention programmes are beneficial and that that they are

cost effective.

"Some specific conclusions may be drawn from the various areas covered in this

study.

• the building of trust and reciprocity leads to an increased social capital,

which is an important ingredient of healthy communities; and

• there is significant research to support the notion that people with diverse

networks of quality relationships are healthier than people who are socially

isolated.

• Keys to building healthier and therefore stronger communities are:

• structures in place to identify community leaders and other highly-motivated

community members; and

• 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:

• to enable skills development in areas such as organising groups, running

meetings, lobbying, the writing of grant applications, and so on;

• to enable the identification of funding sources and the capacity to bid for

these funds; and

• to build better links with other community groups and organisations, to

publicise achievements and, in turn, to access information about other

communities’ achievements.

53


The literature reviewed clearly establishes the benefits of community-based early

childhood and family prevention and intervention programs. The benefits arise from

both the cost effectiveness of many of the programs as well as in building stronger

and healthier families and, in turn, stronger and healthier communities. The premise

for early childhood prevention and early intervention programs is the recognition that

a child’s development in the first few years of life sets the foundation for life-long

learning, behaviour and health outcomes.

• similar conclusions can be drawn for family support programs—community-

based programs build resilience and protective factors which address the

structural causes of disadvantage in ways which are not addressed by

individual programs alone;

• by building social networks and empowering communities, self-reliance and

protective factors are strengthened (and there is some evidence that

dependency on individual programs is thereby reduced); and

• because of the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of many social

problems affecting children and families (for example, child abuse,

maltreatment, and so on ), community based initiatives that are integrated

with government programs, and which address combinations of problems,

are likely to produce more socially and cost-effective results." (From

executive summary)

Gibbon, M., R. Labonte, et al. (2002). "Evaluating community capacity." Health and

Social Care in the Community 10(6): 485-491.

A comparison of two approaches conducted in Fiji and Nepal to assess community

capacity. Using a framework of 'domain' descriptors to assess community capacity,

such as the extent of participation, leadership and organisational structures, the

authors demonstrate that while communities are all different, this method is useful for

evaluative purposes. The use of visual representations of community change, in

particular the spider web approach, are also discussed.

Government of Western Australia (2005). Capacity Building Strategic Framework 2005

- 2007: Good Practice Examples (Attachment 2) Department for Community

Development. Western Australia: 1-33.

54


A number of examples are described in key performance terms and lessons learnt,

such as Aboriginal Parenting Workshops (Men and Women's business needs to be

dealt with separately, etc), Grandcare Grandparent Support Service(there is an

unanticipated demand), Carers Counselling Line (carers prefer anonymous

counsellors for assistance in the country), etc.

Government of Western Australia (2005). Capacity Building Strategic Framework 2005

to 2007. Department for Community Development: 1-20.

Details the strategies to be used in the Department in the two year time frame with

definitions and concepts explained as guides to action. For examples see reference

above.

Government of Western Australia (2005). Contemporary Literature on Capacity

Building and the Strengths Perspective for the Capacity Building Strategic Framework

2005 to 2007 (Attachment 1). Department for Community Development: 1-12.

Provides a review of the literature used for the development of the capacity building

strategy. A useful resource.

Graybeal, C. (2001). "Strengths-based social work assessment: transforming the

dominant paradigm." Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human

Services 82(3): 233-242.

This is a review of some of the conflicts between traditional problem-based

assessments and alternative, strengths-based approaches. It offers useful tools and

strategies for incorporating client-centred, strengths-based practice in settings where

social workers are required to use assessment processes based in the medical model

and deficit-based language of psychopathology and the DSM. It also promotes a

process of infiltrating, influencing, and transforming the assessment process so that it

reflects a more holistic and strengths-based social work perspective. An example is

provided for transforming the traditional assessment and incorporating the strengths-

based perspective in practice through using a case study.

Green, B. L., C. L. McAllister, et al. (2004). "The strengths-based practices inventory: a

tool for measuring strengths-based service delivery in early childhood and family

support programmes." Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human

Services 85(3): 326-334.

55


The authors developed the Strengths-Based Practices Inventory (SBPI) from 2 studies

of parents. They found that the tool is sensitive to differences between programmes

in the extent of strengths-based practice and is related to some expected outcomes,

including family empowerment and social support. They note that this was

developed from in-depth interaction with parents to develop the scale and that

these were parents of a voluntary service. Other scales would need to be developed

for programmes in involuntary services to better reflect the purpose of service

delivery.

Greenaway, A. and K. Witten (2006). "Meta-analysing community action projects in

Aotearoa New Zealand." Community Development Journal 41(2): 143-159.

This paper reports on a meta-analysis of ten community action projects in

Aotearoa New Zealand. The importance of processes for critical reflection, the

analysis of power dynamics between stakeholders, and recognition of the social,

cultural and historical context of a project's genesis are discussed.

Hashagen, S. (ND). "Models of engagement." Retrieved 15.6.06, 2006, from

http://www.scdc.org.uk/resources_reports.asp.

A model for analysis assesses effective participation along the axes of

Approach (passive, one-way; reactive 'community consultation; pro-active

'community participation'; interactive or partnership working; community

mobilisation/empowerment; and entrusted community control), and describes

models of engagement such as consultation/public participation, asset-based,

community democracy, identity based, learning-led and popular education, service

development, community organising and regional and national network models.

Hausman, A. J., J. Becker, et al. (2005). "Identifying value indicators and social capital

in community health partnerships

Temple University." Journal of Community Psychology 33(6): 691-703.

This article describes a qualitative case study which was designed to identify

indicators of success for a specific community partnership as well as testing an

evaluation tool to be used for collaborative efforts. It found that the most common

performance indicators leading to the development of social capital across areas

such as hospital/business, small community organisations, youth groups, faith-based

56


groups and block captains were mutual support, networking and trust; and what

needed imporvement was role definition, coordination and communication.

Holland, D. (2001). Make your experience count: social work as informal education.

Family centres and their international role in social action : social work as informal

education. C. Warren-Adamson. Aldershot, Ashgate: 189-200.

Details a community education programme run from a neighbourhood centre

which covered a range of skills and knowledge development for women who

wanted to return to the workforce and education. Other services are offered at the

centre, focussing on children who have been abused and parent support groups.

Honadle, B. W. (1981). "A Capacity-Building Framework: A Search for Concept and

Purpose." Public Administration Review 41(5): 575-580.

An early article from the US providing some definitions of community building and

commenting on organisational/ government capacity building projects. It reviews

some of the then common conceptions of capacity which relate mainly to

organisational ability.

Jack, G. (2005). "Assessing the impact of community programmes working with

children and families in disadvantaged areas." Child and Family Social Work 10: 293-

304.

A discussion of the need to evaluate the popular community models in use in

disadvantaged communities. He finds that the limitations of targeted funding, and

the difficulties of establishing and maintaining the effective partnerships upon which

successful programmes rely, are emerging as significant issues. These findings are

discussed in the context of ever-widening inequalities in UK society and the need for

integrated and multi-agency service delivery.

Jeffery, H. E., M. Kocova, et al. (2004). "The impact of evidence-based education on a

perinatal capacity-building initiative in Macedonia." Medical Education 38(4): 435-

447.

An evaluation of an education programme in Macedonia which used a train the

teachers model to develop a strategy for health promotion. The strategy found it to

be successful in increasing capacity in perinatal medicine.

57


Johnson, D., B. Headey, et al. (2005). Communities, social capital and public policy:

literature review. Department of Family and Community Services, Commonwealth of

Australia.

Another of the literature reviews conducted for the then FACS which contains a

wealth of resources.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (1999). "Developing effective Community Involvement

Strategies: Guidance for Single Regeneration Budget bids." Retrieved 30th January

2006, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/finding/foundations/169.asp.

Provides detailed outline of processes deemed necessary for community

organisations to enhance their connection to community and seeking funding.

Community mapping and participation are early strategies as well as developing

sustainable organisational structures. The Foundation has many such resources on

their web site.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2004). "Building civil renewal: A review of government

support for community capacity building and proposals for change." Retrieved 18th

May 2006, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/responses/docs/buildingcivilrenewal.asp.

Comments to the Government of UK's consultation paper on community capacity

building which note the need to acknowledge community complexity, the inclusion

of other than geographic communities and the need for local participation.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2006). "Resourcing community involvement in

neighbourhood regeneration." Retrieved 18th May 2006, from

http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/housing/320.asp.

Consultants examine the way community involvement in neighbourhoods is

currently resourced in UK. They highlight the strategic and financial gaps and put

forward specific proposals on how these might be filled. These include engaging

communities before problems are identified so they may be ready to fully participate

when projects are designed (this requires general community building as a principles

and practice), the use of a multi-disciplinary approach, paying residents for

development work and using community 'champions'.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2006). "'Response to the "Communities First" proposals

from the National Assembly for Wales'." Retrieved 18th May 2006, from

http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/responses/docs/communitiesfirst.asp.

58


Another comment on a consultation paper reiterating local participation, inter-

government collaboration and the need for training, as well as specifically providing

links to resources which detail audit and assessment tools for assessing community

capacity.

Kajner, P. (2005). "All is one: Healthy communities and a sustainable future."

Community Development Journal 40(4): 447-452.

The Community Development, Sustainable Development and the Environment'

section at the Budapest conference brought together people from Norway and

Hungary involved in linking sustainable (mainly environmental) development and

community development. Examples include Representations of Future Generations

(Hungary) brought together the protecting of the environment with the creations of

conditions for a better quality of life through local community decision making and

implementation, and the Last Straw landscape rehabilitation project which had the

effect of bringing together a diverse range of local community groups. Other

examples are a café at the centre of an Old People's Centre which is designed along

eco-friendly lines and a local centre for sustainability across age groups. The

messages of community development processes are evident in these examples.

Kretzmann, J. P. (1991). "Community-Based Development And Local Schools: A

Promising Partnership." Retrieved 2nd June, 2006, from

http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/codevpubs.html.

Case studies of school/community partnerships gathered from around the

country reveal some clear lessons about what works and what does not in this case

study of local schools as assets. Using assets instead of needs assessment and the

focus on people rather than economic resources, and building sustainable

relationships across age groups are the foundations of this practice engaging the

young people's attention on ideas they want to pursue. Lessons to be aware of

where the need to fit the projects into already existing concerns, not to make the

relationships too multiple or wide, start small and include all the young people, not

just those who are considered capable.

Libesman, T. (2004). "Child welfare approaches for Indigenous communities:

international perspectives." Child Abuse Prevention Issues 20(Autumn).

59


The paper describes a range of service models that focus on Indigenous

collaboration, community development, community participation and community

control. Some key policy and practice recommendations for the development of

better child protection and child welfare/family support systems are described.

Findings include the focus on a holistic approach to healing, autonomy and flexibility

in service provision, and the capacity to respond or tailor services to meet local

needs as important indicators with a particular emphasis on family preservation,

which is a particularly important part of Indigenous family support systems. She finds

that the flexible family and home-based nature of family preservation services renders

it suitable for use with a variety of cultural traditions.

Lindsey, E., K. Stajduhar, et al. (2001). "Examining the process of community

development." Journal of Advanced Nursing 33(6): 828-835.

In this study of how an organisation engaged the local community on a respite care

project the following themes stressed the importance of: (a) identifying a community

need; (b) addressing the various components identified in the community

development process (relational, structures and process); (c) highlighting the

strategies used to engage in successful community development (developing shared

visions, creating win/win relationships); and (d) attending to factors that influence

community development (philosophical and practical 'fit' with existing concerns,

reciprocity and to take time).

Mannes, M., S. Lewis, et al. (2002). "Cultivating developmentally attentive

communities. A report on the first wave of the National Asset-Building Case Study

Project." Retrieved 17.6.06, 2006, from http://www.search-institute.org/research/NatlAsset-

BldgCaseStdyProjectI.pdf.

This lengthy and detailed report details four case studies of Healthy

Communities Healthy Youth projects operating along asset-based approaches.

Largely descriptive of the projects the preliminary findings rest on the formation of

relationships between young people and adults and the need to resist imposing

norms and expectations.

Mannes, M., E. C. Roehlkepartain, et al. (2005). "Unleashing the power of community

to strengthen the well-being of children, youth and families: an asset-building

approach." Child Welfare 84(2): 233-250.

60


This describes how an emphasis on the elements of positive human

development and community approaches to asset building can make a meaningful

contribution to the field of child welfare. The institute's framework of developmental

assets identifies a set of interrelated experiences, relationships, skills, and values that

are associated with reduced high-risk behaviours and increased thriving behaviours.

The model developed was reproduced for the Webinar.

Matthews, H. (2003). "Children and regeneration: setting an agenda for community

participation and integration." Children & Society 17(4): 264-276.

This paper looks at recent attempts to increase public participation in local

decision-making which will actively involve children in the processes that will affect

them. The author examines the policy of young people's participation and finds that

there is resistance to including young people's voices and recommends the

development of local community structures which will enable this to happen. Using

the framework of dialogue, development, participation and integration Matthews

suggests more needs to be done by adults to actively include young people.

McShane, K. E. and P. D. Hastings (2004). "Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Research

on Child Development and Family Practices in First Peoples Communities." First

Peoples Child & Family Review. A Journal on Innovation and Best Practices in

Aboriginal Child Welfare Administration, Research, Policy and Practice 1(1): 33-48.

This paper takes a strengths approach to research with First Peoples instead of

the more commonly used problem focused approach. The study undertook an

extensive literature on healthy child development and family practices in Caucasian

families and found that contrasted with the limited perspective healthy development

in First Peoples families. They recommend that research adopts a strengths approach

which is more culturally sensitive.

Moore, T. (2003). Research to inform the development of a capacity building

programme. Melbourne, Centre for Community Child Health, Royal Children's

Hospital, Melbourne: 1-176.

This lengthy report details a project undertaken to enhance awareness of the

evidence base of environmental and other influences on the early years. The focus

was on improving the capacity of early childhood workers (from a range of

disciplines) to use the evidence base and educate others. There is a detailed

61


literature review of evidence and recommendations concerning specific training and

skills development.

Munford, R., J. Sanders, et al. (2001). Aotearoa/New Zealand - Working Differently with

Communities and Families. Family Centres and their International Role In Social

Action. C. Warren-Adamson. Sydney, Ashgate.

Describes the role of community centres in family work in which participatory action

research strategies engage families in developing activities that best meet their

needs and lead to other developments in the locality. Taking a strengths approach

the practitioners use the centre as a springboard to other community driven activities.

Murnane, B., H. White, et al. (2006). "Three Social Entrepreneur Stories." Retrieved 10th

April 2006, from


Examples of three community projects/community building including that

known as the Claymore Miracle, the Minto Hill project and Families in Partnership.

Social entrepreneurism here is used to describe the beginning phases of projects in

which the 'social entrepreneur' takes an active role in providing organisational

resources then moving towards a developmental approach of starting with small

community identified mainly social activities which had the effect of stimulating

further interest in small projects. The final example started with the efforts of two

concerned parents who joined a Kindergarten programme and initiated parent

networks.

Nchinda, T. C. (2002). "Research capacity strengthening in the South." Social Science

& Medicine 54(11): 1699-1711.

This paper describes some experiences in capacity strengthening and proposes

mechanisms for building these capacities in a sustainable manner. It focuses mainly

on the development of human resources and training to develop research skills an

recommends the building of networks across developing and the developed world.

O'Connor, L. A., J. Morgenstern, et al. (2005). ""Nothing About Me Without Me":

Leading the Way to Collaborative Relationships with Families " Child Welfare 84(2):

153-170.

This article describes a substance abuse intervention programme for children and

their families which relies on collaborative work between agency staff and the

62


families. Family group conferencing is one of the strategies used with a special

emphasis on inter-agency collaboration.

Ohmer, M. L. and W. Korr (2006). "The effectiveness of community practice

interventions: a review of the literature." Research on Social Work Practice 16(2): 132-

145.

The search conducted for this review revealed a relatively small number of

quantitative intervention studies using experimental or statistical controls (9), which

suggests the need for a consideration of how to develop the evidence base for

community practice. The qualitative research suggests effectiveness of community

practice interventions on psychosocial aspects of communities including citizen

participation, and the improvements in physical, social and economic conditions of

communities. Contextual factors such as who participates and the level of stability in

communities is found to be important.

Papin, T. and T. Houck (2005). "All It Takes Is Leadership " Child Welfare 84(2): 299-310.

This paper describes the efforts taken to improve the child welfare service

delivery system in a US state. The authors explore a model which illustrates leadership

as the key ingredient rather than a general focus on collaboration and integration.

This suggests locating and developing leadership across the community is of most

importance.

Pawson, R., A. Boaz, et al. (2003). Knowledge Review. Types and quality of

knowledge in social care. London, Social Care Institute for Excellence: 83.

This report proposes a classification of social care knowledge based on its sources:

organisations, practitioners, the policy community, researchers and users and carers.

This framework is used in the ARACY topical paper.

Roditti, M. G. (2005). "Understanding Communities of Neglectful Parents: Child

Caregiving Networks and Child Neglect " Child Welfare 84(2): 277-298.

This article explores the family social networks and the community of caregivers

of neglected children. Using social network mapping used they found that far from

being isolated from the larger community, the children had many caregivers.

Community building can result from understanding these patterns.

63


Roehlkepartain, E. C., P. Benson, et al. (2003). Signs of progress in putting children first:

developmental assets among youth in St Louis Park, 1997-2001. Minneapolis, Search

Institute. 2005.

Report on research conducted on developmental assets inventory of young

people finding evidence of the deliberate development of assets in and for young

people. This was a deliberate strategy to raise awareness of how to develop assets

and found that although many residents and families were building assets almost half

weren't - suggesting the need for a whole of community approach. Encouraging

volunteering, school reach out activities and deliberately seeking to involve those not

already participating are some of the suggestions.

Ryan, P. (2003). ‘I’m looking at the future’ Evaluation Report of Reconnect. Canberra,

Family and Community Services Department, Australian Federal Government: 123.

The assessment of the effectiveness of providing support to young people who are

homeless or at risk of homelessness through community capacity building activities

suggests that the programme be continued, that there be better agency

collaboration and provision of services and that further follow up research is

necessary to build on the success. This lengthy report provides details of young

people's circumstances and hopes for their future as well as the capacity building

strategies used.

The Reconnect Programme is subject of several reports to be found on the FACSIA

website:

http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/publications.htm#youthr

econnectprogrampublications

Sanders, J. and R. Munford (2006). "Community centre practice - potential and

possibilities for creating change." Journal of Social Work Practice 20(1): 39-50.

This paper focuses on a single case study in a Community Centre to explore the

aspects of practice within the centre which contribute positively to support. The

researchers found a mix of psycho-dynamic and systemic approaches were needed.

Scott, D. (2000). "Embracing what works. Building communities that strengthen

families." Children Australia 25(2).

The author uses several examples of programmes which she considers contribute to

building communities, identifying some of the common characteristics such as: the

64


need to construct bridges across both the different levels of government and the

different sectors of the service system, and to involve a broad range of people such

as economists, business and union leaders, social planners, professionals in health

education and welfare services and local community members.

Smith, T. (1999). "Neighbourhood and Preventive Strategies with Children and Families:

What Works?" Children & Society 13: 265-277.

This article argues that the 1989 Children Act has provided a poor context for

discussing prevention. The article discusses Sure Start and Communities that Care

and their impact on disadvantaged children and neighbourhoods.

Steer, R. (2005). "The Neighbourhood Support Fund. Pilot Programme, 2000 – 2003

Final Evaluation Report." from

http://www.cdf.org.uk/SITE/UPLOAD/DOCUMENT/NSF/final_eval_2000-2003.pdf.

This report found that the relationships formed between the workers and the young

people involved in the projects were the most crucial for success. The evaluators also

identified that being treated as adults, by the opportunities for self-development,

socialising and, in some cases, to do something for other people were also important

to the young people. There was also a high level of sustainability with many re-

engaging with education, employment or training.

Stevens, G. L. and A. Marin-Hernandez (1999). "Community collaborative problem

solving--cross-cultural lessons." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 91(2): 79-

82.

Midwestern (US) and Honduran community-based collaborative problem-solving

case examples provide cross-culturally adaptable lessons. Common models include

clarification of issues, involvement of others, development of coalitions, educational

intervention processes, and evaluation strategies.

Stone, W. and J. Hughes (2001). Sustaining Communities: An empirical investigation of

social capital in regional Australia. SEGRA 2001 Fifth National Conference, Townsville.

This paper draws on a survey of 1,506 households to examine the distribution of

social capital across regional Australia. The paper explores the nature of people's

connections with one another and with their communities and examines how these

connections reflect the bonding, bridging and linking distinction drawn in social

capital theory.

65


Taylor, K. I. (2005). " Understanding Communities Today: Using Matching Needs and

Services to Assess Community Needs and Design Community-Based Services " Child

Welfare 84(2): 251-264.

Taylor describes the tool, Matching Needs and Services (MNS) to help

professionals engage with community members in the effort to gather evidence of

community needs, aggregate and prioritize those needs, and begin to design

services to better meet them.

Taylor, P. (2005). Who are the Capacity Builders? Configurations of Community

Capacity Building in Six Neighbourhoods. Report to Community Development

Foundation, Community Development Foundation: 143.

The study focused upon community capacity building workers and using case studies

explored the various work, roles and settings for the workers which all varied across

the districts. While there was commonality in the sorts of work performed, such as a

focus on local educational activities and larger regeneration projects there was also

different in the amount of resources available to each and the expectations by their

organisations on each worker. In particular there was a variety about the clarity of

what constitutes capacity building by organisations and the people with whom they

work. They conclude that effective capacity building needs long term commitment

and mainstream support as part of the overall promotion of well-being by public

agencies.

Taylor, R. (2003). Indigenous Community Capacity Building and the relationship to

sound governance and leadership. National NT Conference 2003.

This conference paper explores the needs of capacity building in relation to

human development, the restructuring of institutions, political leadership, building

partnerships and building problem solving capacities in communities. In particular he

notes the need for recognition and respect for the already existing abilities in

Indigenous communities which needs to be harnessed.

Van der Plaat, M. and G. Barrett (2006). "Building community capacity in governance

and decision making." Community Development Journal 41(1): 25-36.

This article examines the mechanisms for involving marginalized groups in the

process of participating collectively and working toward a common interest. The

study focuses on parents' experiences with two of Canada's largest community-

66


based health promotion programmes for children. The conclusions emphasize the

need to recognize the informal and everyday as important sites for governance and

decision making. In addition, they add substance to the claim that women's spaces

that focus on women's work' are legitimate sites from which to build civil society.

Waldegrave, C. (2006). "Contrasting national jurisdictional and welfare responses to

violence to children." Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 27(March): 57-76.

This paper describes some of the approaches to addressing maltreatment of children

in OECD countries and explores whether these approaches could be used to improve

outcomes in New Zealand. Comparisons are made between the Anglo-American

model of child protection, which New Zealand uses, and the Continental European

model of Family services. New Zealand's use of Family Group Conferences, which is

developed from an Indigenous Maori structure, is more akin to the family services

approach.

Weil, M. O. (1996). "Community Building: Building Community Practice." Social Work

41(5): 481-499.

Ideas to strengthen and expand community practice and community building

are presented in this paper. Examples such as Habitat House and Head Start are

explored with an examination of current community building models. These include

Neighbourhood and Community Organising, Organising Functional Communities,

Community Social and Economic Development, Social Planning, Programme

Development and Community Liaison, Political and Social Action, Coalitions and

Social Movements.

Weyers, M. L. and A. M. van den Berg (2006). "The success factors in community work

services. A critical incident study." International Social Work 49(2): 117-187.

This paper describes the use of the critical incident technique (CIT) to identify the

critical success factors in developmental social work services as a means of

evaluating the success of using community development approaches. These critical

success factors appeared to be the people themselves who were involved and the

roles they played (support, volunteer, leaders); skills such as administration, financial

management, needs assessments, motivating others; and the provision of moral

rather than practical support.

67


Woodland, J. and J. Hind (2002). Capacity Building Evaluation of Capacity Building

Programs. Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Woollongong

Australia.

In designing the evaluation of six capacity-building projects implemented by

one rural Primary Care Partnership (PCP), the evaluators opted to use an approach

that would, in turn, enhance the capacity of program staff to undertake evaluations

of their own programs. An over-arching framework was developed for the

evaluation, based on a program logic model. The same framework was used to

develop an individual program logic for each of the six projects. Participants were

coached through the development of an evaluation plan and supported to

undertake their evaluations.

Dr Susan Young, Centre for Vulnerable Children, University of Western Australia July 2006

building a community? - welcome to aracy · building a community into community services...

Documents