SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 1

A new lecture series by the Facultyof Arts and Social Sciences titled SoWhat? is designed to showcase thework of researchers in the Facultyand to demonstrate its relevance tocontemporary public policy. I washonoured to be invited to give thefirst lecture in this series, andMaxine McKew, the newlyappointed Parliamentary Secretaryfor Early Childhood, agreed to chairthe event. The lecture, summarisedin this article, focused on the needfor innovative policy making withrespect to parental leave and earlychildhood services.

In January of this year, the Ruddgovernment referred maternity andparental leave to the ProductivityCommission, asking it to examineways to improve support for parentswith newborn children. TheCommission is due to report in

NewsletterNo 99 JULY 2008

◆ Registered by Australia Post ◆ Publication No. NBP4766 ◆ ISSN 1324 4639 ◆

innovative Policiesin Parental Leaveand Child CareBy Deborah Brennan

February 2009, and its terms ofreference include:

• costs and benefits of paidmaternity, paternity and parentalleave;

• extent of employer provision;• models that could be used in

Australia;• cost-effectiveness of those

models;• their interaction with social

security and family assistance; and• their impacts across the full

range of employment forms.The reference to the

Productivity Commission is anexciting development. It signals agenuine interest on the part of thenew government in exploring whatcan be done to support familieswith newborn babies. Just asimportantly, it opens up a bigconversation in the community.

Generousinternationalprovisions

What kind of family leave policymight we in Australia aspire to? Agood deal of debate has centred onthe attainment of 14 weeks paidmaternity leave - the minimumperiod of paid leave stipulated bythe International LabourOrganisation (ILO). There is nodoubt that 14 weeks paid leave formothers would be a gain and Iwould welcome it. However, itwould be a shame if we limited ourvision to such a small goal. Theachievement of 14 weeks paidleave would still leave Australianparents way behind theircounterparts in other countries. Sixto twelve months leave with a highproportion of one’s previous wages

EditorS ◆ Duncan Aldridge, Christiane Purcal and Cathy Thomson

Continued on page 4

Contents

Parental Leave and Child Care ....................................1

Staff and Visitors ....................................................................2

From the Director ................................................................3

Participatory Research ........................................................6

SAAP Homelessness Services ........................................8

International Perspectives on Social Care ............11

Early Childhood Education ............................................12

Lead Article: Deborah Brennandiscusses the need foradvances in parentalleave and child care.

Delegation from the Netherlands ............................12

Mentoring Young Horn of Africans ................................13

Being a Thesis Opponent in Finland ......................14

UK Parliamentary Select Committee ......................14

Research Scholar News ................................................15

New Projects ......................................................................16

Deborah Brennan

2 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

Staff and Visitor UpdateSTAFFDirectorProfessor Ilan KatzARC Australian Professorial Fellow Professor Peter SaundersProfessorial FellowProfessor Bettina CassProfessorProfessor Deborah BrennanSenior Research FellowsDr Bruce BradburyDr Lyn CraigDr Tony EardleyDr Karen FisherDr Kristy MuirDr Xiaoyuan ShangResearch FellowsDr Trish HillDr Marilyn McHughGerry RedmondDr Kathy TannousCathy ThomsonDr kylie valentinePost Doctoral Fellow (DoCS)and Research AssociateDr Pooja SawrikarPost Doctoral Fellow (UNSW)and Research AssociateDr Natasha CortisResearch AssociatesMegan BlaxlandRobyn EdwardsSaul FlaxmanSandra GenderaDr Fiona HilfertyDr Shannon McDermottSamia MichailDr Killian MullanYuvisthi NaidooDr Roger PatulnyDr Christiane PurcalDr Jen SkattebolCiara Smyth (on leave)Anna ZhuResearch OfficersDavid AbellóMegan GriffithsTom LongdenIoana OpreaBelinda NewtonMarianne RajkovicDr Denise Thompson

Associate DirectorMelissa RoughleyResearch Support ManagerRoxanne LawsonProject Support OfficerMaree WilliamsOffice ManagerCarol SullivanLibrarianKatherine CummingsEvents and Publications OfficerDuncan AldridgeProfessorial Visiting FellowsProfessor Michael BittmanEm Prof Sol EncelProfessor Sheila ShaverSenior Visiting FellowsAssoc Prof Judy CashmoreVisiting FellowsDr Robyn DolbyDr Sara GrahamResearch ScholarsSherman ChanBob DavidsonGary GahanAngelica HannanWendy HermestonHelen HodgsonJi-Sun KimNadine KrejciYuvisthi NaidooMeredith NiuriMarianne RajkovicGerry RedmondChristie RobertsonPeter SiminskiAkiko UsudaAnne WillsVisitors Rebekah Levine ColeySun LujunWensheng MiaoSocial Policy Research CentreBuilding G2, Western GroundsUniversity of New South WalesSydney NSW 2052, AustraliaPh: +61 (2) 9385 7800Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838Email: sprc@unsw.edu.auhttp://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/

The Social Policy Research Centre

The Social Policy Research Centre is located in the Faculty of Arts and SocialSciences at the University of New South Wales. Under its original name, theSocial Welfare Research Centre was established in January 1980, changing itsname to the Social Policy Research Centre in 1990. The SPRC conducts researchand fosters discussion on all aspects of social policy in Australia, as well assupporting PhD study in these areas. The Centre’s research is funded bygovernments at both Commonwealth and State levels, by academic grant bodiesand by non-governmental agencies. Our main topics of inquiry are: economic andsocial inequality; poverty, social exclusion and income support; employment,unemployment and labour market policies and programs; families, children,people with disabilities and older people; community needs, problems andservices; evaluation of health and community service policies and programs; andcomparative social policy and welfare state studies.

The Social Policy Research Centre is located at G2 onthe western side of Anzac Parade, Kensington Campus,enter from Anzac Parade.

ARRIVALS:SANDRA GENDERA has joined the SPRC and is working on theHeadspace Evaluation.

SAMIA MICHAIL has started working on the ARC projects onYoung Carers and Grandparents as Primary Carers of theirGrandchildren with Professors Bettina Cass and Deb Brennan.

IOANA OPREA is assisting on the Stronger Families Evaluation.

JEN SKATTEBOL joined the SPRC in April to work on the ARCproject Making a Difference.

DEPARTURES:CATHERINE SPOONER has left the Centre to take up a positionat the National Centre for HIV Social Research.

VISITORS:LUJUN SUN and WENSHENG MIAO are visiting the Centrefrom the China Research Centre on Ageing.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: We congratulate KRISTY MUIR and LYN CRAIG on theirappointment to Senior Research Fellow. The Centre would like toextend its congratulations also to MARILYN McHUGH on herPhD graduation and MEGAN BLAXLAND for submitting her PhDthesis. CIARA SMYTH is currently on maternity leave.

MELISSA ROUGHLEY has returned from her secondment in theFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences. We congratulate Melissa onher appointment to the position of Associate Director focusing onstrategic development.

The views expressed in this Newsletter, as in any of the Centre’s publications, do not represent any official position of the Centre. The SPRC Newsletter and all other SPRCpublications present the views and research findings of the individual authors, with the aim of promoting the development of ideas and discussion about major concerns insocial policy and social welfare.

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 3

From theDirectorThe election of the Ruddgovernment has, inevitably, begunto change the lexicon of socialpolicy. Every government has itsown catch phrases and politicallyacceptable nomenclature, and thisone is no exception. We seem to bemoving from the era of SocialCapital to the era of Social Inclusion.Already it has become de rigueurfor any significant social policyconference to be themed aroundthe concept of social inclusion, andI have no doubt that there will be aspate of special journal editions,edited books and the like.

Academics love this sort oftransition because it opens upwhole new areas of work – not onlybecause new subjects of enquiryare encouraged, but also becausenew buzz words such as socialinclusion need debate, refinementand discussion.

Social exclusion (as opposed toinclusion) has been studied in theEuropean context since the early1990s and is generally seen as amore productive construct thanpoverty. Firstly, it is multi-dimensional rather than relying onone threshold for its definition.Secondly, it includes analysis of theforces that exclude marginal groupssuch as ethnic minorities, mentallyill people and homeless peoplefrom mainstream society, ratherthan focusing exclusively on thecharacteristics of the excluded.Thirdly, it incorporates thedynamics and processes ofinclusion and exclusion. It also hasa number of different definitionsand narratives. The most well-known analysis of these differentconnotations was provided by RuthLevitas, who divided socialexclusion into three discourses:

• the social inclusion discourse(SID);

• the redistribution discourse(RED); and

• the moral underclassdiscourse (MUD).

Thus it would seem that theRudd government, by preferringthe term social inclusion, hasdownplayed both the redistributionand the moral underclassdiscourses. It remains to be seen

whether this will continue. In theUK the Blair government, whichintroduced the social exclusiondiscourse into the mainstream, didnot take long to single outundesirable groups in thepopulation (so-called dole bludgers,bogus asylum seekers, hoons etc.)for official opprobrium.

Interestingly the term socialinclusion, while a lot warmer andfuzzier than social exclusion, lacksthe connotation of exclusionaryforces. It therefore implies a muchstronger policy focus on helping theexcluded to participate in mainstreamsociety, without examining what itis about that society that excludedthem in the first place.

From a research point of view,the social inclusion agenda opensup a raft of opportunities to studyaspects of social policy that werepreviously de-emphasised,particularly the effects of governmentpolicy on marginalised groups.

One of the fascinating aspects ofacademic social policy research andanalysis is that many of the basicaspects of society and policy thatwe are addressing are very simpleto understand on the surface, butare fiendishly difficult tooperationalise and defineaccurately. Poverty, care, disability,child abuse, social capital and socialinclusion are cases in point. Anyintelligent member of thepopulation will be able to easilygrasp the essence of these terms,and yet none of them has beendefined accurately or adequately.On the contrary, acrimoniousdebates and tensions amongstscholars have been engendered bydisagreements over theirdefinitions. Whilst these debateshave engaged academics (andbureaucrats) over long periods oftime, the groups of people who aresubject to the actual policies don’ttend to care much about thesearguments.

Social capital, for example, hasspawned a veritable industry ofdefinition, measurement, commentand analysis. The AustralianBureau of Statistics produced aguide to measuring social capitalwith a complicated diagram. I

wonder where all of this will go now,given that social capital has beensuperseded in the political lexicon. Inmy view social inclusion/exclusioncontains a much richer set ofconcepts than social capital. Althoughsocial capital has a very powerful,simple and common-sense narrativeat its core - people function better inthe context of networks of supportand trust than as individuals – it hasbecome an overburdened and tiredexpression with little meaning, and itis tainted by its vaguely right-wingconnotations.

It would be a pity if the focus onsocial inclusion became mired bydefinitional issues. Social inclusion isintentionally an inclusive definitionand hard to define accurately. Thereis another approach to the problem,which the government seems to betaking. That approach is based on themodel set by the Social ExclusionUnit in the UK and followed by theSocial Inclusion Board in SouthAustralia. It is to identify a number ofsevere social policy problems that areknown to require a multi-departmental approach and to set upprocesses to deal with these issues.Typically these problems includehomelessness, substance abuse,mental illness, and young people notin education or employment.

This approach has the advantageof not having to address thedefinitional complexities of socialinclusion. Instead it can narrow thefocus on specific and hopefullyachievable objectives rather thanpromoting social inclusion as apositive-sounding but fairlymeaningless goal. On the other handthis approach is very programmaticand narrowly focused. It presumesthat complex problems can beaddressed relatively easily by short-term interventions. The UKexperience with this approach hasbeen mixed. Homelessness seems tohave genuinely fallen, but otherproblems such as youth crime anddrug abuse have been much lesssuccessfully addressed. This is a newand exciting phase in Australiansocial policy, but it will be a whilebefore we know whether it will fulfilits promise.

By Ilan Katz

Ilan Katz

4 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

is now the norm in Europe and,with the kind of globalised labourmarkets emerging in manyprofessions and trades, internationalsocial policy norms are likely to beof increasing relevance. Manypeople know that the Scandinaviancountries are out in front in thegenerosity of their supports forworking parents. Sweden providesapproximately 15 months at 80 percent of wages and has a special‘father’s quota’ of two monthsleave, available on a ‘use it or loseit’ basis. But it is not only theScandinavian countries that haveimplemented generous paid leave.

In the UK mothers have 39weeks paid maternity leave: sixweeks paid at 90 per cent ofprevious wages and 33 weeks at aflat rate equivalent to $270 perweek. Fathers receive two weekspaternity leave at 90 per cent ofwages. The UK government plansto increase the period of paidmaternity leave to 52 weeks by theend of the current parliament (May2010). The UK has a government-funded scheme with no specificemployer contributions (althoughother aspects of the UK’s socialsecurity system are based on socialinsurance).

In Canada mothers have 15weeks maternity leave at 55 percent of earnings followed by 37weeks paid parental leave thateither parent can take. In Quebec,which has more generous provisionsmodelled on France rather thanNorth America, parents can take 55weeks parental leave at 70 per centof average weekly income or 40weeks, at 75 per cent. Five weeksare reserved for the father.

Germany is another fascinatingexample. In that country, womenare entitled to 14 weeks maternityleave paid at 100 per cent ofearnings, with no ceiling. Followingmaternity leave, either parent cantake parental leave until the child isthree. Until the baby turns one,that parent is entitled to a benefitequal to 67 per cent of their

previous earnings. Both parents areentitled to take paid parental leave,but if the father takes at least twomonths, the period of paid leave isextended to 14 months.

In all of these countries paidmaternity leave is so widelyavailable that it rarely rates amention. The debate has shifted tonew issues: extending the period ofpaid leave beyond one year,increasing the rate of financialcompensation and devising ways toencourage fathers to share inparental leave. We may not beready to go quite this far inAustralia yet, but we need to have abig vision about the possibilities.

Ideas for AustraliaAustralia should, I believe, move

towards a taxpayer-funded schemeof paid leave that would enableparents to care for their infants (upto the age of at least 12 months)without major financial penalty.

European governments do notprovide measures such as the ones Ihave described because they aresofter and kinder than Australiangovernments. Such measures aregenerally part of very hard-nosedcalculations about precisely thekinds of issues that are driving theRudd government: productivity,human capital and labour forceparticipation. But they also emergefrom a growing consensus about theneeds of babies and the best waysto support the parents of newborns.Scientific knowledge about babiesin their first months of life shouldalso be driving Australian policy inthis critical area, but my sense isthat it is not - not yet. Babies thrivein the care of loving, responsiveadults who understand their needs,who know them as individuals andwho have the personal resources tobe responsive. These carers do nothave to be their parents, but manyparents want passionately to be thecarers of their infant children. As awealthy society, Australia has thecapacity to support parental care forinfants for at least twelve months.If, as a society, we are unwilling to

do this, then we have aresponsibility to provide serviceswith skilled and appropriatelyqualified staff.

It is important to recognise that,if parental leave is understood as aperiod of leave from work, someparents will not be eligible for it.Examples are unemployed parents,those outside the labour force,those who do not have sufficientlength of service with an employerand recent immigrants. Theseparents should not be left behind,especially as many of them will beon very low incomes. Considerationcould be given to options thataddress their circumstances.

So, what might a new agenda forparental leave include?

• paid leave with sufficientcompensation to enable parents tocare for their infants till they are atleast one year old;

• specific measures toencourage fathers to take a share ofparental leave. (An additionalperiod of leave, available on a ‘useit or lose it’ basis for fathers isworth considering in this context.But it would need to be designedin such a way as to avoiddisadvantaging sole parents, same-sex couples and families where careby the father may be inappropriateor impossible); and

• alternative policies for low-income parents not eligible forparental leave.

Child careEarly education and care is a

policy realm that has risen rapidlyin political significance since theelection of the Rudd Laborgovernment. Labor has madecommitments to address theaffordability of care, to establishnew services, to improve qualityand to increase access. The Councilof Australian Governments(COAG) has a broad agenda aroundearly childhood education and care.While these are laudable goals, Iargued in the lecture that the policyframework on which thegovernment is building has serious

Innovative Policies inParental Leave and Child Care continued

from Page 1

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 5

weaknesses, due to theunparalleled corporatisation of carethat has occurred in Australia.

The Rudd government has agreat opportunity to reshape earlyeducation and care and to undosome of the damage that hasresulted from the policies of theprevious administration, particularlythe concentration of ownership inthe hands of a single corporation.ABC Learning owns at least one-third, and possibly a higherproportion, of long day care centresin Australia. No other countryallows a single corporation todominate the provision of earlychildhood education and care tothis extent. Why are other countriesmore cautious about marketconcentration, and why might thisbe a problem for Australia? Thereare at least three reasons for concern.

Concerns aboutcorporatisation

The first reason is theincompatibility between thefunctioning of markets andchildren’s need for high qualityeducation and care. Market theorysuggests that when parents are‘empowered’ as consumers,providers will compete on the basisof both quality and cost, sinceparents, as guardians of theirchildren’s interests, will valuequality as well as affordability. Butmarkets can only work undercertain conditions: the existenceand availability of competingproducts; customers must beknowledgeable about the productsthey seek to buy; and they mustgenuinely be able to ‘shop around’.

In the case of child care, none ofthese assumptions can be taken forgranted. Most parents have littleknowledge about the quality ofservices, and shortages of supplymean that many families simplyhave to take what they can get.Research has shown that parentalassessments of the quality of careare generally higher than thosebased on objective measures.Shortages of particular kinds ofservices (such as care for babies and

toddlers) as well as generalshortages in some geographicalareas (notably inner-city suburbs,remote areas and some countrytowns) make the notion of‘consumer choice’ a hollow ideal.Advertising and branding canfurther cloud parents’ assessments.Indeed, according to Canadianeconomists Cleveland andKrashinsky, commissioned by theOECD to report on fundingmechanisms for early childhoodeducation and care, ‘for-profit firmshave an incentive to provide childcare that seems of high quality butis not. Because parents can befooled into buying low quality care,low quality providers will be able tounderprice higher quality producersand drive them out of business’(Cleveland and Krashinsky, 2003).

The second reason whycorporatisation is a problem is that,rather than increasing choice (asmarketisation is theoreticallydesigned to do), it has reduced thechoices available to many parents.Community-based child care,highly valued by many families, hasbeen marginalised in Australia andbarely exists in some communities.By definition, the market cannotdeliver this type of service, yet it isprecisely what many parents want.

The third reason for concernabout corporate dominance is that itmay make it harder forgovernments to achieve theirobjectives. The Ruddgovernment’s concern about highchild care costs is a good example.Labor’s first budget included anincrease in the Child Care TaxRebate from 30 per cent to 50 percent of ‘out of pocket’ expensesand lifted the cap on the rebatefrom around $4000 to $7500. Thereis a distributional issue here, sincechild care expenses rise with familyincome (i.e. better-off families usechild care for longer hours and paymore for it), so the greatest benefitswill inevitably go to those with thehighest costs, and the highestincomes. But another problem,specifically related to the structureof the early childhood ‘market’ in

Australia, is that the additionalsubsidy is likely to be absorbedinto higher prices. If this is thecase, the increase in the Child CareTax Rebate will be a gift to thosewho make private profits from childcare, but it may afford only short-term relief to parents burdened byhigh child care costs.

Child care Tourof Canada

In March and April of this year Ivisited Canada at the invitation ofCode Blue for Child Care andvarious Canadian universities. CodeBlue is an umbrella group thatbrings together national, provincialand territorial child careorganisations, unions, women’s andsocial justice groups. It aims topromote ‘a universal, inclusive,comprehensive, high quality,community-based child care systemthat is accessible and provides earlylearning and developmentopportunities for all children.’Canadians are vitally interested inAustralia’s experience with thegrowth of corporate child care, andmy hosts organised speakingengagements for me in six cities.Travelling from east to west, Ivisited Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa,Winnipeg, Vancouver and Victoria.My speaking engagementsincluded briefing MPs and theiradvisers, delivering Universityseminars, addressing public forumsand holding discussions withindividuals.

Strong links are developingbetween Australian researchers(including several at the SPRC) andtheir counterparts in Canada, UK,New Zealand and Sweden. We areworking towards sustained,comparative research projectsaddressing some of the issues wehave in common.

ReferenceCleveland, G. and M.

Krashinsky (2003), Financing ECECServices in OECD Countries,Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

6 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

In disability policy, researchers andgovernment officials areincreasingly attempting to giveprimacy to the voice of people withdisability through usingparticipatory research methods.This article examines howparticipatory evaluation techniquescan help to manage conflictinginterests during policyimplementation. It uses theevaluation of the Resident SupportProgram (RSP) in Queensland,funded by Disability ServicesQueensland, as a case study. TheRSP coordinates and providessupport services for people living inprivate residential services(predominantly boarding housesand hostels), with the aim ofimproving their quality of life,access to services and participationin the community.

Participation andsocial policyprocess

Current public policy for peoplewith disability in Australia andinternationally aims to involvepeople with disability at all levelsof decision making. At the sametime, social policy research seeks toactively engage people withdisability and people who supportthem (families, advocates andworkers) in research that informsthe development of public policy.Only recently has governmentbegun to apply participatoryapproaches to disability policy. Pastpolicy processes privileged theparticipation of officials,practitioners and families, with theeffect of framing disability as amedical or individual experience.Instead, participatory methodologyprioritises the voice of people withdisability. The intention of theapproach is to reflect theexperiences, needs andexpectations of people withdisability in the policy process, itsoutcomes and the service

support services in the community,as well as to improve coordinationof services. The RSP isimplemented in private sectorsupported accommodation(hostels), boarding houses and agedrental accommodation facilities.The program governance structureis complex because it is anintegration initiative involving twogovernment agencies, contractednon-government and privateproviders, and disability supportorganisations. This article describeshow participatory approaches in theRSP evaluation contributed toshaping the policy implementationand participants’ outcomes.

Evaluation designThe evaluation was not ‘user-

controlled’ in the full participatoryevaluation sense, but it attemptedto incorporate participatoryprinciples into a governmentevaluation. Participation techniqueswere built into the research designprocess as well as data collection,analysis and dissemination.Techniques included repeat visitsto the program sites withopportunities for observation;longitudinal interviews on site;involvement of researchers withdisability; multiple points ofresearch feedback and solicitingresponses from participants; andrepresentation from self-advocacydisability organisations in theevaluation governance structure.These multiple approaches wereaimed at developing relationshipswith people with disability, gainingtrust and developing means ofcommunication helpful for theresearch and policyimplementation.

The benefits of participationwere enhanced by an evaluationdesign that included longitudinaland formative approaches. Thisfacilitated a research process andgradual policy change that wereresponsive to the comments of

experience. Citizen participation in policy

evaluation changes both theevaluation and the policy process(Beresford 2002). It attempts toaddress value conflict and unequalpower in policy and evaluation.While evaluation does not changethis disadvantage, participatoryevaluation techniques at leasthighlight exclusionary policypractices. This article argues thatparticipatory research approachescan potentially contribute tochanging policy implementation.

Participatory approaches are notreflected in many currentgovernment directives for socialpolicy evaluation. Althoughgovernment guidelines andpractices can include collection ofdata about participant experiences,they rarely incorporate participantvoices in the evaluation process andgovernance.

When researchers and officialssupport the involvement of peoplewith disability in research onpolicies that affect their lives,rhetoric often differs from practice.Unreflective use of the terms‘participation’ and ‘consultation’ inthe policy process can hide barriersfor involvement of people withdisability, particularly people withcognitive disability.

The ResidentSupport Program

The SPRC and the DisabilityStudies and Research Centreincorporate participatorytechniques in all disability andmental health evaluations. Anexample is the Resident SupportProgram (RSP), which wasintroduced in Queensland as a pilotprogram from 2003 to 2004 andextended thereafter (Fisher et al.,2005). Its aims are to provideexternal support services for peopleliving in the private residentialsector to improve their quality oflife and their access to health and

Karen Fisher

Sally Robinson

Participatory ResearchImproves Policy ImplementationBy Karen R. Fisher and Sally Robinson

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 7

people with disability, andsympathetic to preferred means ofcommunication of people withcognitive disability. Thus theevaluation became part of thepolicy implementation.

Policyimplementation

The participatory evaluationsupported changes to the policyimplementation in the interests ofpeople with disability. Itcontributed to prioritising theinterests of people with disability,engaging the full range of policyparticipants, managing conflict, andchanging policy practice, not onlyin this program but also in relateddisability and housing supportpolicies.

The research processencouraged various stakeholdergroups to contribute to theevaluation and the policyimplementation. Apart from thepeople who used the program,there were people who spoke ontheir behalf, particularlyrepresentatives of self-advocacyorganisations of people withdisability, researchers withdisability, family and friends. Otherpolicy participants included policyofficials, service provider managersand workers, and representativesfrom other organisations such asindustry groups. While theirprimary goal was professed to beimproving the lives of people usingthe program, the potential forconflict with other personal,institutional and economic interestswas high.

Managing conflictWhile policy participants held

widely differing and strongly feltviews on key aspects of theprogram implementation, theresearch processes privileged thevoices of people who used theprogram. This diffused the risk ofhostility between participants as itprovided an explicit framework tomanage conflicting interests.

Evaluation findings based ondata from people with disability

and other policy participants wereregularly discussed in thegovernance forums. Thus it becameobvious how the views of peoplewith disability sometimes differedfrom the opinions of serviceproviders and other stakeholders.For example, staff and managers inone location described theflexibility of their approach toservice delivery. They saw this asan improvement on their genericservice provision. However,residents found the service was stillregimented, for example theyreceived assistance with showeringin the afternoon, rather than at thebeginning or end of the day inaccordance with their activities inthe community.

For the people in thelongitudinal cohort, participatorymethods provided opportunities tocomment on the program’simplementation. They madesuggestions that service providersand policy officials could act on.Other residents who were presentwhen researchers visited theresidential facilities also had anopportunity to comment on theprogram and their access to supportservices generally. In addition,researchers were able to observeconditions in the residentialfacilities.

It is not unreasonable toconclude that facilitating theseopportunities for people withdisability to express their opinionsand for their voices to be prioritisedin policy decisions improvedservice delivery and ultimatelycontributed to residents’ positiveoutcomes measured in theevaluation.

The success in implementing aparticipatory research approachencouraged government policyofficials to apply the approach toother policy problems. Theresearchers have since appliedparticipatory techniques with thesame government agencies in otherpolicies such as preventing risk toclients.

Participatoryevaluation andpolicy process

The RSP evaluation shows thata participatory evaluation cancontribute to managing conflictinginterests in policy implementation.The explicit link betweenparticipatory research methodologyand policy process gave peoplewith disability opportunities toaffect policy and programimplementation, and ultimately,their service support and quality oflife. Multiple techniques arerequired for meaningfulengagement with people who usethe services under review.

The RSP policy experience alsohighlights benefits of participatoryapproaches for policy makers.Officials who had not used thismethod previously accepted thenew approach because it offered apractical way to manage andprioritise competing interests in thepolicy process, without alienatingother policy participants. Inaddition, the focus on residentoutcomes and experience wasconsistent with the disability rightsframework in which their policiesare intended to operate.

ReferencesBeresford, P. (2002), ‘User

involvement in research andevaluation: liberation orregulation?’, Social Policy andSociety, 1( 2): 95-106.

Fisher, K.R., D. Abelló, S.Robinson, P. Siminski and L.Chenoweth (2005), Resident SupportEvaluation Final Report, reportprepared for Disability ServicesQueensland, SPRC Report Series2/05.

Acknowledgements: DavidAbelló, Peter Siminski and BruceBradbury (all SPRC) and LesleyChenoweth, Griffith University;evaluation participants (people withdisability, managers, field workersand advocates); Evaluation SteeringCommittee and Working Party.

Sally Robinson conductsresearch for the Disability Studiesand Research Centre.

8 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

The Government’s Green Paper onHomelessness was released in mid-May and includes some searchingquestions about how effective theSupported AccommodationAssistance Program (SAAP) hasbeen at dealing with Australia’shomelessness problem. This articlereports the result of a studyexamining how far homeless peoplethemselves felt that SAAP serviceshelped them get back on their feet.

SAAP is currently the mainnational service response tohomelessness in Australia. TheCommonwealth and State/Territorygovernments jointly fund servicesfrom more than 1300 agencies,mainly NGOs, throughoutAustralia. These services mainlyprovide crisis and medium-termtemporary accommodation, alongwith case management support andreferral to longer-term housingwhere available. One of the mainstated aims of SAAP is to fosterclient ‘self-reliance’, but self-reliance is a complex andcontroversial concept when appliedto homeless people. The SAAP VMultilateral Agreement sees self-reliance not only in terms ofobtaining housing, but also in termsof rebuilding connections withfamily and other support networks(Commonwealth of Australia, 2005:42). However, SAAP administrativedata include only a limited amountof information on outcomes and donot specifically address many of thewider facets of self-reliance. TheNational Coordination andDevelopment Committee (CAD)commissioned this study from theSPRC, with the aim of building onprevious work on SAAP clientoutcomes and self-reliance(Baulderstone and Talbot, 2004;Browton, 2000; Kunnen, Lee andMartin, 2004). The full researchreport was published by CAD inJune (Eardley et al., 2008).

The Impact of SAAP HomelessnessServices on Client Self-RelianceBy Tony Eardley

Research aims andmethods

The research involved designingand implementing a client surveyto measure how far receiving SAAPservices facilitates improvement inclient self-reliance, and what formsany improvements take fordifferent client groups. Themethods included:

• a review of literature on self-reliance and tools for measuring itin the context of homelessness;

• consultations withstakeholders, including State SAAPrepresentatives, service providers,peak homelessness organisationsand client reference groups;

• a national survey of SAAPclients; and

• a set of qualitative client casestudies.

Because measurableimprovement in self-reliance wasonly likely to be demonstratedwhere clients had received morethan brief assistance, the surveyfocused on clients who had beenknown to the service for at leastfour weeks, either continuously orintermittently, and had beenreceiving case management. Thesurvey instrument was developedin consultation with stakeholdersand was piloted with clients in twoSAAP services. Clients completed ashort questionnaire themselves, butcould ask service staff for helpwhere needed.

The survey drew responses from630 clients across Australia,recruited through 75 SAAPservices. While there were someminor differences between thesample profile and that of theservice-user population as a whole,the sample was broadlyrepresentative.

Research findingsThe survey showed that services

often dealt with people with long-term experiences of homelessness.

While for many clients, particularlywomen escaping domestic violence,the current period of homelessnesswas the first they had experienced,nearly 10 per cent had experiencesof homelessness that went backmore than 20 years, and almosttwo-thirds had been homeless onmore than one occasion. Aroundfour-fifths had experiencedhomelessness, either continuouslyor intermittently, for at least a year,and nearly half had first becomehomeless more than five yearsbefore. Also striking was the lengthof time for which respondents hadbeen receiving SAAP assistance.More than one-quarter reportedgetting help for between one andfive years, and a further six per centfor more than five years. Thus, for asignificant minority, SAAP supportis not a short-term crisisintervention but a long-termengagement.

The most common reasons forseeking assistance wererelationship breakdown, domesticviolence, abuse and other relationalpressures (particularly for femaleclients). Money problems, evictionor other loss of accommodation,problem alcohol- or drug-use, andmental health problems were alsoimportant. The issues cited asbarriers to achieving self-reliancewere headed by the practicalproblems of lack of money andaccommodation, but also includedrelational problems with otherpeople; lack of employment; drugand alcohol problems; depression,stress and other health factors; lackof support; and what clients saw astheir own self-defeating attitudes.

Respondents were asked tomark on a 10-point scale of progresstowards ‘getting back on their feet’where they felt they were now,compared to where they werebefore approaching the SAAPservice for help (Figure 1). Morethan two-thirds indicated they hadmoved beyond the halfway point,

Tony Eardley

Score

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 9

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of clients’ self-assessed scores formovement towards ‘getting back on their feet’, by sex

and more than one-third felt theywere at point 8 or beyond. Onlyfive per cent said they had made noprogress at all.

Respondents were also askedwhether things were better orworse in a number of life domainssince coming to the service. Theseincluded accommodation, incomeand employment, ‘looking aftermyself’, relationships with otherpeople, dealing with otherorganisations, ‘coping’, gettingaround (transport), and, for thosefor whom they were relevant, issuesabout children and Englishlanguage usage. Averaged across alldomains, nearly three-quarters feltthat things were either a lot or alittle better than before. Just overone-quarter felt they were aboutthe same, and only a few felt theyhad deteriorated.

The area where SAAP servicesseemed to have the most positiveimpact for the largest proportion ofclients is, not surprisingly, in theircore business of providingtemporary accommodation andhousing support. Nearly 90 per centsaid that access to accommodationhad improved, while questions ontenure before and after receivingassistance showed a significantmovement away from the mostinsecure forms of dwelling andtowards secure housing in thepublic and community sectors.

There were many other areas of

life where positive effects wereidentified: SAAP services seemedto have a strongly beneficial effecton clients’ feelings of safety andsecurity and on their personal self-confidence. Improvements in thecare of children and in relationshipswith them also scored highlyamongst those for whom they wererelevant.

Where services were leasteffective was in helping clients findwork, although they did help somepeople access training andeducation. They also acted as animportant link in connecting clientswith income support throughCentrelink. This was particularlycrucial for women escapingdomestic violence, who oftenneeded to secure an independentsource of income.

Multivariate analysis suggestedthat much of the variation in clientoutcomes could be accounted forby the length of involvement withservices and the frequency ofprevious homelessness episodes.Most other characteristics andcircumstances of clients had little orno explanatory force. Women did alittle better than men, however,especially in getting paid work andin accessing emotional support orcounselling. Age appeared to be anissue only in relation to gettingaccommodation, with the youngestand oldest age groups reportingslightly less improvement than the

25-50 year olds. There were nosignificant differences in outcomesbetween Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients, or betweenculturally and linguistically diverse(CALD) and non-CALD clients.This is encouraging in that servicesmostly seemed to provide anequally effective level of supportfor all clients, regardless of theircharacteristics. However,observable characteristics onlyaccounted for a proportion of thevariation in outcomes. Other factorsnot captured in the survey, such asdifferences in client personalitiesand in the effectiveness of services,are likely to account for the rest.

Respondents were asked towrite down how they felt serviceshad helped them. There werenearly 1400 separate responses,many of which included heartfeltexpressions of gratitude.‘Accommodation’ was the mostfrequently mentioned category, aswould be expected, but other formsof help included food and basicnecessities, indicating that servicesaddress levels of poverty inAustralia that are absolute ratherthan just relative.

Respondents were also asked tosay whom else they had foundhelpful. This provided an indicatorof the SAAP clients’ socialexclusion. Almost one-quarterreported no other sources of help,while 43 per cent mentioned familyor friends, either alone or incombination with other services orworkers. Nearly half mentionedother services or workers.

Nearly 60 per cent thought theywould still need help with housingin the future. Almost 55 per centalso mentioned needing furthersupport with ‘coping’, includingdealing with stress, while close tohalf thought they would still needhelp with maintaining income andemployment. Substantial numbersthought they would need help withmaintaining relationships and withdealing with other organisationslike Centrelink.

Before coming to the service, 34per cent were jobless (either

10 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

looking for work or out of thelabour market), 30 per cent hadhome or caring responsibilities and18 per cent were in work. By thetime of the survey there was amarginal decrease in the level ofemployment and a slight increasein joblessness. There was also somemovement from homeresponsibilities into study, part-time work and volunteering,reflecting the fact that manywomen who had left their partnersfollowing domestic violence nowhad to support themselves alone.The majority of those who werepreviously without jobs remainedso, but around one-quarter of thoselooking for work had moved intoemployment, volunteering or study.Of the five per cent who were infull-time work before they came tothe service, only one-quarterremained in work at the time of thesurvey. This may be because theevents that precipitatedhomelessness were either directlyconnected with job loss or made ithard for them to keep work.

There was little change inincome sources between the twopoints in time, but there was anincrease in the percentagereporting being on Centrelinkpayments. The movement ontopayments was mainly from thosereporting no income or those relianton income from family/partners orfriends - often women who had leftviolent partners and had to find anincome source of their own. Thissuggests that respondents whoaccessed income support wereoften starting on the path offinancial independence and in abetter position to access associatedservices aimed at increasing theirjob opportunities.

The clients whose stories wewere able to obtain for the casestudies did not fully represent theSAAP clientele. Most were womenfor whom domestic violence was asignificant factor in bringing themto a SAAP service. Nevertheless,they provided a useful illustrationof the forms of assistance thatservices offer and their impact. All

those interviewed were currentlyreceiving income support, but mostwere now engaged in some form ofeducation or training. All were stillin regular contact with the programstaff and were receiving some formof ongoing counselling or personalsupport. For most of theseparticipants, self-reliance meantlearning not to rely, financially or inother ways, on another significantperson, usually their parents and/orpartner.

The majority of case-studyparticipants were still receivingsubsidised rental housing. Thus theidea of no longer relying on theprogram, either through subsidisedhousing or ongoing counselling, wassomething they viewed with someapprehension. Some expressedconcern about coping when theywould no longer receive SAAPsupport.

Lessons from theresearch

Overall, the study provides ahighly positive picture of theextent of client movement towardsself-reliance after getting help fromSAAP services. Most sawthemselves as well on the waytowards ‘getting back on their feet’.Although direct claims of causalitycannot be made, as many clientsget help and support fromindividuals and services other thanSAAP, the strong implication is thatservices are instrumental in thisprocess. However, many clientswere still living in temporaryaccommodation at the time of thesurvey. Most saw themselves ascontinuing to need support into thefuture in a wide range of areas,particularly longer-term housing,coping with personal problems, andother forms of support.

This has important implicationswhen put together with thefindings about progress towardsself-reliance. The factor identifiedas having the strongest positiveindependent influence on self-rated outcomes was the length oftime clients had been getting help.Many of the barriers to self-reliance

are simply not susceptible to quicksolutions, and services may oftenneed to put long-term resourcesinto client support to achieve goodoutcomes. There is an argument forseeing continuing service receiptnot as a sign of dependence, butrather as a necessary part of thejourney towards self-reliance. SAAPservices have the capacity to movepeople along the many and variedpathways to self-reliance, but thoseassisted also need to know thatsupport will continue if needed.

ReferencesBaulderstone, J. and C. Talbot

(2004), Outcome Measurement inSAAP Funded Services: Final Report,Australian Department of Familyand Community Services, Canberra.

Browton, R. (2000), DevelopingGood Performance Measures forCustomers Becoming Self-reliant: finalreport – a detailed report of thedevelopment of the self-relianceconstruct and questionnaire,Cooperative Education forEnterprise Development,University of Western Australia,Perth.

Commonwealth of Australia(2005), SAAP V MultilateralAgreement, Canberra.

Eardley, T., D. Thompson, B.Cass and A. Dadich, with M. Neale(2008), Measuring the Impact ofSAAP-funded Homelessness Services onClient Self-reliance, Final Report forthe SAAP National Coordinationand Development Committee,Social Policy Research Centre,University of New South Wales,Sydney.

Kunnen, N. and R. Martin(2004), “Getting back on my feet”:exploring self-reliance in the context ofsupported accommodation andhomelessness, Australian Housing andUrban Research Institute,Melbourne.

Acknowledgements:Other contributors to the study

from SPRC were DeniseThompson, Bettina Cass and AnnDadich. Megan Neale of FourSectors Consulting carried out thequalitative case studies.

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 11

An international workshop titledSocial Care - Perspectives fromAustralia, Scandinavia, Canada andthe UK was organised by the SPRCand Professor Marta Szebehely(Stockholm University) and held atUNSW in February. The workshoppresented international research onsocial care, defined as formal, semi-formal and informal care for peoplewith disability and older people.Forty-six invited participants,including university researchers,postgraduate students, policy-makers and service providers,discussed the papers and issuesraised by the panels.

The workshop was an excitinginternational collaboration. Itprovided opportunities forpostgraduate research students whowork with Marta Szebehely in theDepartment of Social Work atStockholm University to presenttheir research and have it discussedin a constructive workshopenvironment, and to meet withpostgraduate students andresearchers in Australia.

Each panel was composed ofspeakers from Scandinavia,Australia or Canada. The first panelcomprised papers by SheilaNeysmith (University of Toronto,Canada) on ‘Older women’s work -does home care help or hinder?’, byMichael Fine (MacquarieUniversity) on ‘Care andeconomics: exploring the void’ andby Marta Szebehely on ‘Working in

construction of older persons andpersons with a disability in Swedishpolicy’, by Karen Fisher andChristiane Purcal (SPRC) on ‘Newapproaches to housing supportpolicy for people with disability inAustralia’ and by Teppo Kröger(University of Jyväskylä, Finland)on ‘Care research and disabilitystudies: nothing in common?’.Discussant Michael Fine exploredthe significant themes in thesepapers. In panel five, papers werepresented by Evy Gunnarsson(Stockholm University) on ‘Thewelfare state, the individual andthe need for care - older people’sviews’ and by Jane Mears(University of Western Sydney) on‘The organisation and delivery ofcare in Australia: a focus on apromising practice’, both welldiscussed by Sheila Neysmith.

The presentations in panel sixincluded papers by GabrielleMeagher (University of Sydney) on‘Australian attitudes to provision ofservices to vulnerable citizens: whoshould deliver and why should thegovernment subsidise them?’; byGun-Britt Trydegård (StockholmUniversity) on ‘Care services forelderly and disabled persons inSweden. A comparison from theperspectives of users, families andcare workers’; and by GabrielleMeagher and Natasha Cortis(SPRC) on ‘The political economyof for-profit paid care: theory andevidence’. The important themesin these papers were identified byRianne Mahon (CarletonUniversity, Canada).

A comprehensive and insightfulsummary of key workshop themeswas provided by Sue Himmelweit(Open University, UK). MartaSzebehely and I led the finaldiscussion on potential fields ofcomparative research. Avenues forpublication of the workshop papersare being explored.

residential care for older people -does welfare regime contextmatter? A comparison of paid carework in Sweden, Canada andAustralia’. The discussant, DebKing (Flinders University),presented a comprehensiveassessment of the issues raised.

In the second panel, papers werepresented by Ciara Smyth, BettinaCass and Trish Hill (SPRC) on‘Accessing combinations ofinformal and formal supportservices. The case of young carersin Australia: Who bears the costs ofcare-giving?’; and by VivecaSelander (Stockholm University) on‘How to make everyday life work -Combining formal, semi-formal andinformal personal assistance’. Thediscussant, kylie valentine (SPRC),brought fresh insights to the issuesof social care in families.

The third panel comprisedpapers by Trish Hill, CathyThomson, Michael Bittman andMegan Griffiths (presentingresearch undertaken at SPRC) on‘Informal care, employment andeconomic disadvantage’, and byPetra Ulmanen (StockholmUniversity) on ‘Kinship in Swedishelder care policy - problemrepresentations and outcomes’.Discussant Ilan Katz (SPRC) raisedissues about informal family-basedcare and costs to key communityservices sectors.

Panel four presented papers bySara Erlandsson on ‘The

Bettina Cass

International Perspectives onSocial Care

SPRC Workshop, 18-19 February 2008By Bettina Cass

At the SPRC’s social care workshop (left to right): Bettina Cass (SPRC), SueHimmelweit (Open University, UK) and Marta Szebehely (StockholmUniversity). Photo: Deborah Brennan.

12 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

In the lead-up to the 2020 Summit,Prime Minister Kevin Ruddproposed the establishment of‘universal, high quality, affordableParent and Child Centres for all 0-5year old Australian children’. Suchcentres would bring togethermaternal and child health services,long day care and preschool. Similargrand visions for early childhoodhave been announced in theUnited Kingdom, New Zealandand Canada in recent years. Thus, aworkshop designed to fosternational and international researchcollaboration into early childhoodand care was especially timely. TheSPRC planned this workshop inconjunction with researchers fromother local universities, and theAustralian Research Alliance forChildren and Youth (ARACY)provided most of the funding forthe workshop. Additional grantsfrom the British Academy and theAcademy of the Social Sciences ofAustralia made it possible to bringhigh profile international scholarsto Australia.

In preparation for the workshop,a review of recent policy-relatedliterature was prepared, and policyaudits were written outlining thekey features of early childhoodeducation and care (ECEC) policyin Australia, UK, Canada, Swedenand New Zealand. The reports areavailable on the SPRC website.

The aims of the workshop were:1. to encourage policy-related

research into early childhoodeducation and care (ECEC) and itsbroader social and political context;

2. to provide an opportunity forAustralian researchers, policy-makers and practitioners to engagewith international researchers;

3. to bring researchers fromdifferent disciplines together withpolicy-makers, members of non-government organisations and

International ResearchCollaboration on Early ChildhoodEducation and Care PolicySPRC Workshop, 21-22 February 2008

By Deborah Brennan

practitioners;4. to disseminate information

about current and proposedresearch projects; and

5. to continue the process of‘mapping’ a research agenda forAustralian ECEC.

The workshop was a uniquegathering of Australian andinternational researchers, policy-makers and representatives of non-government organisations.Australian participants representedthe disciplines of political science,sociology, economics, law,education and history. Internationalspeakers were similarly diverse andwere drawn from the UK, USA,Canada, Sweden and New Zealand.They included Fiona Williams(University of Leeds), RianneMahon (Carleton University),Susan Himmelweit (OpenUniversity), Helen May (OtagoUniversity), Barbara Hobson(Stockholm University), GordonCleveland (University of Toronto)and Sue Colley (an independentCanadian researcher).

The need for rigorouscomparative research was raisedthroughout the workshop.Participants identified a number ofresearch priorities including:

• the nature and impact of themarketisation and corporatisation ofearly childhood services;

• the contested meanings of‘quality’ in ECEC;

• the integration of educationand care in various nationalcontexts;

• recruitment and retention ofhigh quality staff;

• and the pay, status andprofessionalisation of the ECECworkforce.

The need to include the voicesand perspectives of children inpolicy-making was raisedfrequently in discussion. Manyparticipants noted the need forresearch into the economics of childcare, with issues ranging from therising costs of care to the structureof corporate care providers.

AcknowledgementsJennifer Sumsion and Fran Press

(both from Charles SturtUniversity) and Jennifer Bowes(Macquarie University) helped planthe workshop; Fran Press wrote theliterature review; Megan Blaxlandwrote the policy audits, withassistance from Samantha Ner andChristiane Purcal for the NewZealand audit (all SPRC).

In February a delegation from the Netherlands visited the Centreto talk to Senior Research Fellow Dr Tony Eardley aboutdevelopments in employment services in Holland and Australia.The group of 20 included councillors and officials from localauthorities (who are responsible for employment services in theNetherlands), private and non-governmental service providers, andresearchers. Peter Davidson, employment policy officer fromACOSS, also attended and presented ACOSS’ views on the needfor further reform of the Job Network in Australia.

Delegation from theNetherlands visits the SPRC

Deborah Brennan

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 13

In recent years, Australia hassignificantly increased the numberof humanitarian and refugee visasgranted to Horn of Africancommunities (Djibouti, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia andSudan), particularly for people aged30 years and younger (Centre forMulticultural Youth Issues, 2006;Olliff, 2007). Many of these youngpeople have difficulties adjusting toAustralian society post migrationand require services that areculturally appropriate and meettheir needs. Research has shownthat mentoring can be one way inwhich to connect young Horn ofAfricans with Australian society andimprove their life chances(Department for VictorianCommunities, 2005). However,service providers know little abouthow to provide culturally appropriatementoring programs, as Horn ofAfricans are a new migrant group.

The National Youth AffairsResearch Scheme (NYARS), whichhas recently moved to theCommonwealth GovernmentDepartment of Education,Employment and WorkplaceRelations (DEEWR), commissionedthe SPRC to conduct research onhow mentoring services can betailored to effectively providesupport and meet the needs ofyoung Horn of Africans.

This project used phoneconsultations and focus groups withservice providers, mentors, mentees,policy makers, communityorganisations and the young peoplethemselves, to identify the needs,experiences and challenges of Hornof African young people.

The telephone consultationswere conducted with keystakeholders (mainly NYARSmembers) across New South Wales,Victoria, South Australia,Queensland and the AustralianCapital Territory. All stakeholderswere either involved in mentoring,designing, implementing and/orfunding mentoring programs or inproviding community servicesspecifically for Horn of Africanyoung people.

Mentoring young Horn ofAfrican peopleBy Megan Griffiths

Focus groups were held with 33young Horn of Africans across NewSouth Wales, Victoria and SouthAustralia. Two gender-matchedfocus groups were conducted ineach state with young people agedbetween 16 and 25 years.

The research identified anumber of principles upon whichmentoring should be based toeffectively meet the needs of Hornof African young people, but alsoyoung people regardless of theircultural background. Key practices,procedures and policies thatfacilitate effective mentoring for allyoung people, regardless of theircultural background, include:

• extensive mentor screening;• effective mentor training;• gender-matching between

mentee and mentor;• matching based on the skills

of the mentor and the needs of thementee;

• regular contact between thementor and mentee;

• establishing developmentalrelationships; and

• supervision for mentoringrelationships.

In addition to the generalpractices for mentoring youngpeople, this research identifiedother practices and procedures thatneed to be considered whenmentoring young Horn of Africans.When matching a Horn of Africanyoung person with a mentor, it isimportant that the young person begiven the choice to be matched witha mentor of the same race and/orreligious affiliation. The age of thementor is also important and shouldreflect the needs of the youngperson; for example, an older mentormight be more appropriate if theyoung person is in need of aparental figure.

Matching can also be moresuccessful if the young Horn ofAfrican’s family members supportthe mentoring relationship.Mentoring may be a foreignconcept to many Horn of Africanfamilies, so it is important that theyare included in the initial process to

help them understand the aims, whatis involved and the potential benefits.Including the family may also increasethe likelihood of trust developingbetween the mentee and mentor.

Mentoring young Horn of Africansmay also be more effective if theprogram has staff from the Horn ofAfrica who can relate to their situation.Cultural awareness and competencytraining on Horn of African issues wasseen as important for all staff. Further,having links with the local Horn ofAfrican community is recommended.

Stakeholders also suggested thatsettlement services might be best placedto meet young Horn of Africans’immediate needs such as housing,while mentoring may be more usefulonce their immediate needs are met.

Culturally appropriate servicedelivery is essential for mentoring tobe effective for young people from theHorn of Africa. If the principles andpractices above are considered,mentoring can be a useful service thatprovides support and assists young Hornof Africans to adjust to Australiansociety.

ReferencesCentre for Multicultural Youth

Issues (2006), Settling In: ExploringGood Settlement for Refugee Young Peoplein Australia, Policy Paper, Centre forMulticultural Youth Issues.

Department for VictorianCommunities (2005), Leading the Way:The Victorian Government’s StrategicFramework on Mentoring Young People2005 -2008, Office for Youth,Department for Victorian Communities.

Olliff, L. (2007), Settling In: How dorefugee young people fair within Australia’ssettlement system?http://www.cmyi.net.au/uploads/downloads/cmyi/pdfs/Issues_Resources/MigrationAction_SettlingIn_090307.pdf,accessed August 2007.

Acknowledgements:Pooja Sawrikar and Kristy Muir co-authored the report.

If you would like to receive a PDFcopy of the report once it becomesavailable, please emailmegangriffiths@unsw.edu.au.

Megan Griffiths

14 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

In early May the UK ParliamentarySelect Committee for Work andPensions met with SPRC staff andcolleagues from the University ofWestern Sydney and Carers NSWto discuss the UK Government’scarers’ policies and Australianresearch and policy on carers. TheCommittee includes MPs fromEngland, Scotland and Wales fromall major parties: Labour,Conservative and LiberalDemocrats. They are conducting aninquiry into the UK Government’s

Visit by UK Parliamentary SelectCommittee for Work and Pensions

Carers’ Strategy.Professor Ilan Katz opened the

meeting, followed by a presentationfrom Professor Bettina Cass, whosummarised research on carers andincome support policies inAustralia. Informal care,participation in employment andcarers’ economic circumstanceswere discussed by Dr Trish Hilland Cathy Thomson. AssociateProfessor Jane Mears (University ofWestern Sydney) outlined researchon the relationships between

informal care and paid care. Themeeting was concluded by apresentation from Elena Katrakis(CEO NSW Carers Association) onthe experiences of carers inAustralia from the perspectives ofcarers and service providers.

The members of the UKCommittee and the representativefrom the British High Commissionwho had arranged the meeting saidthey found it very helpful inconsidering UK policy development.

Being a Thesis Opponent in Finland By Peter Saunders

In March I travelled to Finland toact as the Opponent in theDisputation of a PhD dissertationsubmitted at the University ofTurku. I had earlier been asked toread the thesis ‘Change of Norm?In-Work Poverty in a ComparativePerspective’ by Ilpo Airio andreport whether I considered it ofsufficient quality to be submittedfor examination for a doctorate. Idid, and so the actual Disputation

was organised.This is a rather formal event.

The guidelines state that ‘Thecorrect form of attire ... for gentlemen[is] full evening dress with blackwaistcoat (or, where appropriate,uniforms without decorations)’.Therefore a search was instigatedto find a tall Finn with full eveningdress willing to loan it to a visitingAustralian! With customary Finnishefficiency someone was located,and the suit was not a bad fit, asyou can see on the photo.

The Disputation was open tothe public and took place at theuniversity, in front of an audienceof colleagues, friends and family.The Disputant is given 20 minutesto describe the thesis before theOpponent raises a series ofquestions that the student mustrespond to. As you can imagine,this can be a very dauntingexperience for the student (even Iwas nervous!), but Ilpo did anexcellent job of responding to mycomments.

The Disputation was followedby afternoon tea, where colleaguesoffered congratulations to a veryrelieved student. The evening wasdevoted to a banquet, hosted bythe student and held in this case ata beautiful villa in the countryside

where Ilpo had grown up.The whole occasion was a

wonderful combination ofscholarship, theatre, camaraderieand inclusion, and contrasts withthe process here in Australia, wherethe academic examination of thethesis is kept totally separate fromthe degree ceremony itself. I cameaway thinking that the moreintegrated Finnish approach hasmuch to recommend it.

Opponent Saunders makes a point…Photo: Markus Lehto

... and Disputant Airio responds.Photo: Markus Lehto

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 15

The SPRC is very pleased toannounce that, from September2008, higher degree researchstudents will be able to enrol withthe SPRC as the primary site oftheir candidature. The SPRC willundertake administration ofstudents’ candidatures, includingannual reviews, organising seminarsand workshops and generallyensuring a strong and collegialculture of research training.Currently and in previous years,higher degree research studentshave been enrolled throughSchools, usually in the Faculty ofArts and Social Sciences, with jointor co-supervisors at the SPRC andin the Schools. With theimplementation of the changes,students will be able to have jointor co-supervision with academicswho are both at the SPRC, or at theSPRC and a relevant School, ifappropriate to strengthen thesupervision arrangement. TheSPRC will undertake a program ofrecruitment of potential higherdegree research students in socialpolicy across Australia andinternationally.

Congratulations to ChristieRobertson, a former researchscholar at the SPRC. Christie wasawarded her doctorate in May.Christie’s thesis study was

Associate at the Centre, who hassubmitted her PhD thesis. Meganwas enrolled at Sydney University(Department of Sociology andSocial Policy) and was supervisedby Bettina Cass and DeborahBrennan. The topic of Megan’sthesis relates to the experience ofAustralian mothers and welfare-to-work policy. In 2003, AustraliansWorking Together introducedcompulsory employment-orientedactivities to Parenting Payment forparents whose youngest child hadturned 13. This marked asignificant shift in the basis ofentitlement for income support forAustralian parents. The thesisinvestigates mothers’ experienceof the new welfare system usingDorothy Smith’s ‘everyday life’approach to research. The thesisexamines mothers’ day-to-dayworlds, the opportunities andconstraints they navigate, thepolicies and institutions whichshape their opportunities, thepolitical framing of those policies,and wider social and economictransformations. The title ofMegan’s thesis, which is underexamination, is Everydaynegotiations for care and autonomy inthe world of welfare-to-work: Thepolicy experience of Australianmothers, 2003-2006.

supervised by Sheila Shaver andSue Keen. Her study The SmithFamily VIEW Clubs of Australia:from philanthropy to social enterpriseinvestigated the effectiveness andsustainability of women’s voluntaryparticipation through a case studyof VIEW Clubs of Australia.Drawing together the concepts ofsocial capital and women’s agency,the research interrogated the role ofsocial and organisational networksin facilitating opportunities forwomen through organisationalenvironments, and to exercisegreater choice and power in theirlives at individual and collectivelevels and across individual, socialand political dimensions. Theresearch also explored how featuresof the internal and externalorganisational environment operatedynamically in this process -generating both opportunities andconstraints. This was evident inthis case study, particularly inrecent efforts focused on promotinga different and more active role forthe organisation in the communityand broader public sphere. Christienow works as a Senior PolicyOfficer in the Office of Women,the NSW Department of Premierand Cabinet.

Congratulations also go toMegan Blaxland, a Research

Research Scholar News:Higher Degree ResearchStudents at the SPRC

Responses to SPRC Newsletter Circulation SurveyThank you to all subscribers who responded to the circulation survey included in aprevious issue of the Newsletter. Almost a third of our subscribers responded to thesurvey. More than half of the respondents would like to continue receiving the SPRCNewsletter in hardcopy through the post, while a third indicated they would prefer toreceive it via e-mail.

We have updated our subscriber mailing list so respondents receive the Newsletter inthe format they prefer. In addition, the Newsletter continues to be accessible to anyonethrough our public website http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/.

16 ◆ No 99 ◆ JULY 2008

Mailing lists (Free)SPRC Email List. You will receive updates of events at SPRC and Centre publications, including the Newsletter(published three times a year), SPRC Discussion Papers and the SPRC Annual Report.

OR

I wish to receive the SPRC Newsletter in the post.

mailing addressName

Organisation

Address

Phone Fax

Email

Post Code

Previous addressName

Organisation

Address

Phone Fax

Email

Post Code

PLEASE MAIL/FAX COMPLETED FORM TO:Publications, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, SYDNEY NSW 2052OR Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838 Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7802 Email : sprc@unsw.edu.au

New ProjectsReview ofMonitoring andEvaluation Systems

Catherine Spooner andShannon McDermott

Waverley Action for YouthServices (WAYS)

WAYS Youth Services providesassistance and support to youngpeople and families in the EasternSuburbs, South Sydney, SydneyCity and surrounding suburbs.WAYS’ aim is to provide a ‘one stopshop’ for youth, addressing as manyof the issues that young people faceas possible. The aims of this projectare to improve the monitoring andevaluation systems at WAYS and toidentify, prioritise and explore apotential research project for WAYS.

Linking Schools andEarly Years Services

Ilan Katz and kylie valentineMurdoch Childrens Research

InstituteThis project aims to ensure that

children enter formal educationready to learn and develop. Theproject also aims to ensure that

schools are prepared for childrenwhen they first attend, includingthose from disadvantagedbackgrounds. The project will workwith selected schools, early yearsservices and communities todevelop a new model of workingcollaboratively to overcome barriersto learning and development inthree Victorian sites.

Housing andassociated supportsfor people with amental illness orpsychiatricdisability

Karen Fisher, Robyn Edwardsand Kathy Tannous with LesleyChenoweth (Griffith University),Sally Robinson (DSARI)

Queensland GovernmentDepartment of Housing

The research informsgovernment policy and practice interms of principles for effectivehousing and support; costs andbenefits of options; needs andpreferences of people with mentalillness or psychiatric disability; and

the relationship between optionsfor housing and support andrecovery from mental illness andpsychiatric disability. It includes aliterature review, consultation withpeople with mental illness andpsychiatric disability and otherinterested people, and a costeffectiveness summary.

Literature Review:Early Interventionfor students withdrug use problems

Catherine Spooner, DeniseThompson, Belinda Newton,Roger Patulny and Louise Rowling

Department of Education andTraining (NSW)

The project critically reviews theexisting literature, both in Australiaand internationally, concerningappropriate evidence-based earlyintervention strategies andmaterials that schools canimplement to support studentswith drug use problems. Theresearch is practically oriented andidentifies the resources required byschool staff to provide support forstudents with drug use problems.