1. family and parenting

PUBLISHED BY THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY STUDIES
NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Introducing the
Stronger Families
Learning Exchange
What is action research?
Why do it?
Overview of the
Stronger Families
& Communities initiative
New resources
New services
Meet the
Stronger Families Fund
projects
Stronger Families
I N T R O D U C I N G
Contents
Stronger Fam
Learning Ex
2 Introducing the Stronger Families
Learning Exchange
4 Why use action research?
5 Early intervention and prevention
The evidence base underpinning
family and community policy
6 Overview of the Stronger Families
and Communities Strategy
10 Meet the Stronger Families
Fund projects
16 Doing an action research evaluation
20 Community capacity building
explained
23 Literature highlights
26 Online resources: Support from the
Stronger Families Learning Exchange
29 Conferences and events
31 Services provided by the Learning
Exchange
31 How to become part of
the network!
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange at the
Australian Institute of Family Studies provides a
clearinghouse for strengthening Australian families
and action research support for Stronger Families
Fund projects.
The objectives of the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange are both to contribute to the evidence
base about the effectiveness of early interventions
for families, and to support the work of Stronger
Families Fund projects.
The Exchange will provide information, resource
sharing, training and advice on family wellbeing,
primary prevention and early intervention, and
will service Stronger Families Fund projects and
a larger network of people concerned with
strengthening families and communities. The
Learning Exchange is funded by the Commonwealth
Department of Family and Community Services.
Views expressed in Learning Exchange publications
are those of individual authors and may not
reflect Department or Institute policy.
© Australian Institute of Family Studies –
Commonwealth of Australia 2002
300 Queen Street
Melbourne 3000 Australia
Phone (03) 9214 7888
Fax (03) 9214 7839
Email [email protected]
Internet www.aifs.org.au/sf/index.html
We are pleased to welcome readers to this publication – the first
edition of the Stronger Families Learning Exchange Bulletin.
s part of its Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy, the Commonwealth Department of
Family and Community Services has contracted the Australian Institute of Family
Studies to provide a “learning
exchange” to support parents, families and communities in their role of caring
for young children.
We trust that readers will
find this Bulletin useful and
informative, and that you will
make full use of the Stronger
JUDY ADAMS
Families Learning Exchange
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange at the Australian Institute of Family Studhas now been established at the Institute ies. We look forward to your continued
with the objective of contributing to interest and support.
the evidence base about the effectiveness More details follow about the nature of the
of early interventions for families.
Exchange and the services provided.
As part of the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange, a national clearinghouse will
provide the latest information on research
and programs concerned with family
wellbeing, primary prevention and early
intervention.
The Exchange will also provide special
training and support in action research
evaluations to Stronger Families Fund projects. These are projects that operate under
the Commonwealth Government’s Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy,
financed by its Stronger Families Fund.
The Fund is expected to establish about 80
projects across Australia to support parents
and families. Local communities are being
encouraged and supported to develop ideas
and local projects that meet the needs of
individual communities and the diverse
Designed by Double Jay Graphic Design
Logo developed from artwork by Louise Kyriakou
Printed by Impact Printing
2
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
ISSN 1446-8549
Print Post Approved 381624/02083
families that live in them. To
date, 14 of these projects have
been funded. (See the article
by Gai Stern elsewhere in this
Bulletin for more information on the Strategy and the
Stronger Families Fund.)
A
Stronger Families Clearinghouse
The Stronger Families Clearinghouse will
inform government policy and community program development by:
■
collecting and analysing data from
Stronger Families Fund projects;
■
disseminating learnings about the projects back to the projects, the Department
and other stakeholders, as well as the
wider community;
■
providing special information services
to project workers and government officers, including a number of databases
containing information about Australian
early intervention and prevention
projects, and the use of action research
methodology;
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
ilies
change
■
analysing aggregated project data to
demonstrate trends in early intervention
and prevention services for families and
children;
■
providing regular six-monthly Bulletins
containing information about the
Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy, Stronger Families Fund project
descriptions, news from the projects,
evaluation results, and the latest developments in the field of early intervention and prevention;
■
providing a website containing current
information and links to resources on
prevention, early intervention and
capacity building to support the stakeholders of the Stronger Families Fund
projects and the wider community; and
■
providing an email discussion list for
primary stakeholders which offers a
venue for the discussion of research,
policy and practice issues.
The Clearinghouse will include a help desk
with a toll-free telephone line and access
to resources on community development,
early intervention and prevention, and
action research. The website will also make
project contact details and stories accessible to other projects and stakeholders
via a database containing information
about the projects, project reports, and
lessons learned from the action research
process.
Action Research Training and Support Team
The Department of Family and Community
Services recognises that an action research
evaluation may be a new endeavour for
some organisations, and that building it in
to everyday work may take some time.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
To help with this process, each Stronger
Family Fund project will be assigned a
member of the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange Training and Support Team to
help with the process of designing and running an action research evaluation. Team
members will work with projects to develop
an appropriate and workable action research
evaluation, and support projects through
the cycles of data collection, analysis, reporting and planning for change.
The Training and Support Team member
can help projects in the early stages of their
work with establishing reference groups
for community consultation, and providing
practical advice on developing key performance indicators consistent with an
action research approach. Subsequently,
team members will work with each project
to assist with research design, methods,
ethical clearance, data collection, data
analysis and interpretation. The support
will be offered via a combination of site visits and telephone, fax and email interactions.
In the longer term, the project will generate national data on effective practice and
early intervention strategies. The Training
and Support Team will analyse and report
on findings across all projects to the
Department of Family and Community
Services and in various publications. The
results, which will be reported in the
Bulletin and on the website, will inform
government policy and programs and
academic work in the field.
Judy Adams is the Acting Coordinator of
the Stronger Families Learning Exchange at
the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
See p. 31 for contact details.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
3
Why use
action research?
An action research approach helps tailor projects to local situations. Put simply,
it asks what works – how, when, where, for whom, and with what outcomes.
Community programs and projects have often been evaluated
using traditional “objective”, scientific methods. An outside person,
such as an auditor or an external
evaluator, may come in and assess
the program. They may use surveys
or other measures developed elsewhere, and they may compare
results with another group of people – called a control group – to see
TANIA
whether those who took part in the
program are different from those who did not.
Rather than using surveys or statistics or comparing one group
with another, the practitioners of
action research are more likely to
value and interpret people’s experiences and stories (although
action research may still include
surveys and statistics or other scientific research methods if they
suit the project). It is generally
agreed that more traditional
LIENERT
approaches cannot achieve the
insights that come from people’s experiences.
Stories add colour, character and a new culture
More recently, there has been a growing use of
to the evaluation process (Crane and Richardan action research approach to evaluate proson 2000).
grams. This approach uses a range of research
methods, and is as its name suggests – tied in Action research has a varied history: it has roots
to action or change in programs. It is a dynamic, both in management theory around organisaflexible process that is able to look at a program tional change (Lewin 1946) and in methods for
and learn and inform the program while it is teaching literacy in South America in a way that
being carried out, rather than at the end when empowered local people to act to change their
the program is finished.
lives (Freire 1972a, 1972b). It has been particularly important for people working in a range of
This approach involves stakeholders as particifields throughout the world who see research as
pants in the process, and is flexible enough to
essentially linked to social change (Alston and
take account of the differences that may exist
Bowles 1998).
both between and within communities. It helps
tailor projects to local situations. Put simply, it Action research, used as an evaluation method,
asks what works, how, when, where, for whom is sensitive to local, environmental and social
and with what outcomes. It starts with where contexts. It finds ways to involve and value
projects are at and builds on them, asking what the contributions of everybody who has a stake
is important about what is happening and why, in the program – for example, participants and
and what do we want to learn.
their families, workers, local agency manage-
Action research
Action research contributes to a process of reflective practice, which encourages
continuous improvement.
What is action research?
■
■
■
Action research is tied to action or change.
Action research usually involves everybody
who has a stake – it is participatory and
collaborative.
Action research happens in cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting,
starting with small questions, with the aim
of understanding about the local situation
to increase over time.
4
■
Action research is mainly qualitative – that
is, gathering stories rather than statistics.
What is an action research evaluation?
■ An action research evaluation uses action
research principles to evaluate projects as
they go along, instead of just at the end.
■ An action research evaluation means that
what projects learn from evaluating as they
go along, allows them to change direction if
needed.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
TAN
ments, community members, local services, and
government and non-governmental organisations. It is an approach that helps build partnerships between stakeholders, and bring in
others, such as local businesses, which can
make a contribution. This kind of involvement
is integral to the evaluation.
These kinds of partnerships mean families and
communities can work together to develop the
best ways of taking care of the needs of families, particularly those with young children.
Together with developing these skills is the
desire to prevent the development of social
problems (also called “early intervention”).
A partnership approach seeks to find out and
recognise the strengths and abilities families and
communities already have, and build on them so
they can have more control over decision-making for issues that affect them, are more able to
help themselves, and have a sense of community.
Developing these kind of collaborative community early intervention strategies also helps build
the kinds of individuals and communities that are
able to tackle other problems as they come along.
In other words, they build community capacity
to address local issues (see article on community
capacity building elsewhere in this Bulletin).
Some strategies will be more successful than
others, but in the Stronger Families Fund, less
successful strategies will not be regarded as failures. Understanding not only what worked, but
also what didn’t work, will be important in
developing knowledge about early intervention
approaches. Projects will be asked to report on
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Early intervention and prevention
The evidence base underpinning family and community policy
In recent years, there has been a great deal of
research into the way human beings develop,
especially in the first five years of life.
It has been recognised for some time that
children need to form good attachment to
their carers in order to become healthy,
productive adults. It has only recently been
discovered, however, that patterns of attachment are “hard wired” into the brain during the
early years.
NIA LIENERT
the insights gained in applying their strategies, and share these reports with other projects
as a means of generating good practice for the
Stronger Families Fund and the wider field of
early intervention and prevention.
Key questions for the Stronger Families Fund as
a whole might be: “What makes early childhood
programs effective, in a variety of contexts,
for diverse participants and stakeholders ranging from children, through parents and community members to policy makers?” “What are
the keys to effectiveness that may have been
known but not visible or documented until
now?” “What lessons have been learned during
the project?” (The Effectiveness Initiative 2001).
References
Alston, Margaret & Bowles, Wendy (1998), Research
for Social Workers: An Introduction, Allen &
Unwin, Sydney.
Crane, Phil & Richardson, Leanne (2000), Reconnect
Action Research Kit, Department of Family and
Community Services, Canberra.
Freire, Paolo (1972a), Cultural Action for Freedom, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.
Freire, Paolo (1972b), Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.
Lewin, Kurt (1946), “Action research and minority
problems”, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 2,
pp. 34-46.
The Effectiveness Initiative (2001), Early Childhood
Matters (the Bulletin of the Bernard Van Leer
Foundation, The Hague, The Netherlands), October.
Tania Lienert is a Senior Research Officer in
the Stronger Families Learning Exchange at the
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
In other words, the more positive stimulation
a baby has, the more brain cells – as well as the
number of connections between those brain
cells – are encouraged to develop.
Lack of stimulation, on the other hand, or
negative stresses can result in poor brain development so that babies who have been neglected or abused are more likely to grow up
experiencing poor physical and mental health,
drug and alcohol dependence, a lower standard
of education, unemployment and crime.
It is suggested that the rapid social and economic changes taking place may also be contributing to these problems by placing both
families and communities under heavy stress.
The burden and costs of these problems are
enormous and they increase over time. The
most effective way to address these problems
is early, before they become firmly entrenched.
Along with the research into brain development, there has also been significant international research into the way early intervention
and prevention services can help nurture
growth during the early years. Prevention
averts problems before they arise. Early intervention catches problems early – either early
in a child’s life, or at early stages in the development of problem situations.
The Commonwealth Government’s Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy is based on
the above assumptions. It has used national
and international research to support the
notions that:
■ families have strengths that can be built on;
■ families require advice and support, particularly in times of transition;
■ strong communities are characterised by
networks that create opportunities for their
members and protect vulnerable people;
■ strong communities support families, and
vice versa; and
■ a focus on early intervention and prevention is more effective in the long-term than
responding to crises.
Early intervention services which have proven
to be effective include:
■ home visiting to pregnant women and families with new babies;
■ parenting skills training;
■ family relationship education;
■ family counselling;
■ awareness raising about services and
resources available in local communities;
and
■ support services for families with very
young children, such as playgroups that
provide opportunities for play-based problem solving which helps stimulate brain
development.
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy is working at both the family and community level through a set of early intervention
and prevention projects and initiatives to build
resilience so that families can break the cycle
and deal with issues before they turn into
problems. These activities are based on:
■ strength-based approaches which enhance
and build on strengths rather than focusing
on deficits;
■ action learning as a process of reflective
practice or ongoing evaluation which leads
to continuous improvement; and
■ evidence-based practice building on national
and international knowledge and research.
The families initiatives in the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy include the
Early Intervention Parenting and Relationship
Initiative, the Stronger Families Fund, and the
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. The
Longitudinal Study is managed nationally
while funding through first two initiatives is
managed by the State and Territory office
network of the Department of Family and
Community Services.
Community groups can access the funds to:
■ provide services – for example, parenting
programs such as home visiting, playgroups,
and parenting skills training, as well as
relationship skills training and counselling
in remote areas;
■ resource communities to adapt their own
approaches to generic programs; and
■ coordinate existing services to make sure
they reach the people who need them.
For further information about these
services, contact the Stronger Families and
Communities Strategy hotline toll-free on
1800 300 125.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
5
T
GAI STERN
he Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy is a Federal Government
initiative that recognises that helping
to build stronger family and community
relationships can go a long way to preventing
difficult and expensive social problems
happening in the first place. It also recognises
that often it is people working “on the ground”
who can find the most practical solutions to
local problems.
Stronger Families and
There has been a shift in thinking over the last
two decades about what government’s role in
communities should be and this, in some
instances, has turned traditional government
processes and responses upside down.
There is a growing recognition that government
should have a lighter touch in family and community life, that many communities themselves
know best what their needs are, that there will
be different solutions in each community, and
that governments should aim to foster communities’ self-reliance rather than their dependence.
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy
is a new way for the Government to work with
communities. Traditional approaches to delivering services and support to Australian families
and communities such as regional development
programs, major capital works projects and
national submission based grants programs that
are competition based have not always allowed
communities to take action in the ways they most
want, and have not encouraged collaboration and
resource sharing to the extent possible.
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy
moves away from the traditional government
approach of developing and implementing
services for communities. It is focused at families
and communities rather than at organisational
structures, fosters partnerships and builds on
communities' strengths and capacities to deal
6
with their issues over time rather than aiming
to “solve” their problems using a one-size-fitsall approach. The Strategy takes account of
communities’ uniqueness and aims to build selfreliance. It recognises Government's role as a
broker and facilitator rather than just a service
purchaser or provider, and acknowledges that
effective support for communities requires “bottom-up” development and delivery.
The Strategy includes communities from the
beginning and throughout the development
process as it seeks to engage with community
projects that develop or demonstrate strong
community support. It is a dynamic, policy-program approach that is open to continuous
improvement as it is developed and modified by
communities and governments in partnership. The
Strategy encourages innovation and cooperation,
and recognises in many cases, the process for
helping communities to build capacity is as
important, and in some cases more important,
than the resulting products.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
What this means in practice is that the Strategy
takes a prevention and early intervention
approach to helping families and communities
build resilience and capacity to deal with problems before they develop. It recognises that the
context in which people live includes their family, their community and the broader social and
economic environment. It acknowledges the
importance of community to the wellbeing of
its citizens, the special protective role strong
communities have for the very young, and the
importance of supporting families in caring for
their members.
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy represents a substantial investment by the
Commonwealth Government in this area. In the
2000-2001 Budget, it committed $240 million
over four years to the Strategy. In support of
accountability for this funding, within an innovative partnering arrangement, the Department
of Family and Community Services has worked
with central agencies to develop new governance
mechanisms, including performance monitoring
and evaluation frameworks.
The Strategy recognises the need to help strengthen
communities and aims to do this by assisting
communities to increase their capacity to meet the
challenges of economic and social change so that
they can better manage the pressures of life that
so often lead to family and social breakdown.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Communities Strategy
Strategy initiatives
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy is working at both the family and community level through the implementation of various
initiatives. The initiatives form the basis for
community driven projects and approaches
which represent much of the new approach to
doing business under the Strategy.
The Strategy differs from the usual rules-based
approach implicit in government-funded programs in that it is underpinned by a set of principles that test in practice what makes a difference
for families and communities. These principles are:
■
working together in partnerships;
■
encouraging a preventative and early intervention approach;
■
supporting people through life transitions;
■
developing better integrated and coordinated services;
■
developing local solutions to local problems;
■
building capacity;
■
using the evidence and looking to the future;
and
■
making the investment count.
Funding is available under a range of complementary and interacting initiatives that reflect
these principles.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
The Stronger Families Fund encourages coordination and integration of local services to
help communities to find new ways to
strengthen family functioning, with a focus on
early childhood development and effective
parenting. Family functioning refers to what
families do for their members by focusing on the
functions that they carry out. These “functions”
include: providing intimacy, support and care;
caring for and nurturing children; acquiring
and sharing income and material assets; buying
and producing domestig goods and services;
imparting a sense of identity through kinship and
links with the wider community; transmitting
culture, including social values and language;
and helping children and young adults prepare
to be active members of our communities.
“Can Do” Community showcases real life examples where people have worked together to
revitalise their communities.
Early Intervention Parenting and Family Relationship Support encourages communities to
provide innovative services and activities in parenting support and playgroups, marriage and
relationship education and family counselling.
Real gains in social capital and community
capacity building require genuine collaboration and partnership between all tiers of government, community leaders, individuals, and
the business community. The Strategy recognises
that pre-packaged program responses are
often inappropriate to meet the diverse range
of family and community needs. Effective initiatives need a strong element of community
engagement and require “bottom-up”, community-led development and delivery.
Potential Leaders in Local Communities
develops skills, opportunities and support for
potential community leaders.
Local Solutions to Local Problems helps communities develop their own responses to local
issues and in the process increase their capacity
to deal with similar or other issues in the future.
National Skills Development for Volunteers
helps volunteers develop the skills they need to
really make a difference in their communities.
A new way of working – governance
Underlying the Strategy’s approach is a belief
that governments alone cannot build capacity
or trust. That is, governments cannot create
social capital. The Strategy also recognises
that while a traditional model can support a
large number of services and help to do some
important work, it can also waste opportunities
through lack of coordination, duplication and
the rigid application of program guidelines.
This has implications for Government with its
obligations for ensuring funds are used for their
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
7
legislated purposes, and for sound financial and
performance management. The bottom-up
approach of the Strategy has challenged the
Department of Family and Community Services
to explore new ways of working with communities and to find new ways of ensuring that
accountability is maintained for funding allocated to projects. Among other things, the challenge of the Strategy has led to the development
of a new approach to program management and
project identification, new contracts, performance indicators and evaluation frameworks. It
has also led to new governance arrangements.
Governance is about setting and maintaining
direction. The nature of the Strategy has called
for innovative governance arrangements which
ensure the involvement of the “social coalition”. Basically, this is represented by a two-tiered
advisory structure made up of the Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy National
Partnership and the State and Territory Advisory
groups.
■
■
The Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy Partnership
The Partnership is a national body which provides advice to the Minister for Family and
Community Services on the broad parameters
of the implementation of the Strategy including advice on: targeting frameworks; funding
envelopes for States and Territories; the development of nationally-based projects; and
performance management and evaluation.
The partnership is chaired by the Chief Executive of the Smith Family, Ms Eileen Henry.
State and Territory Advisory
Groups (STAGs)
The STAGs include local level experts. Their role
is to consider implementation issues specific
to their particular State or Territory. They are
responsible for: providing advice on specific
proposals; making recommendations regarding funding; identifying communities which
require assistance to build capacity so that
they can develop local initiatives to strengthen
their community; promoting opportunities for
collaboration with business and government;
and providing advice to the Stronger Families
and Communities Partnership on performance
and emerging areas of need.
There are three ways to identify and develop
projects:
■
■
■
8
Targeted community projects which will be
identified through State and Territory targeting plans. Targeting plans have been developed in each State and Territory which balance
the following three dimensions: striking an
appropriate balance between meeting need
and maximising opportunities; maintaining
and giving effect to the key principles of flexibility and local solutions which underpin the
Strategy; and ensuring a balance between
the various target groups, for example rural
and regional communities as opposed to urban
communities and between program elements.
Partnership projects where the Department
encourages and supports joint project proposals. For example, this could involve helping
communities to set up “partnerships” between
the different levels of government and with
businesses. The partnerships would be expected
to have local support and to bring benefits to
families and local communities.
Indigenous projects
The Prime Minister announced that a minimum
$20 million under the Strategy is to be earmarked
for indigenous-specific projects. At the Prime
Minister’s request an Indigenous Community
Capacity Building Roundtable was convened on
24 October 2000 to develop principles for working with indigenous communities and families.
The Roundtable agreed that governments and
indigenous people should work in partnership in
the design and implementation of programs
aimed at supporting families and communities.
They also emphasised that projects should:
■
build on the existing strengths, assets and
capacities of indigenous families and communities, and reflect the value of positive role
models and successful approaches;
■
aim to empower indigenous people in leadership and managerial competence;
■
give urgent attention to initiatives which target the needs of children and young people,
particularly in the areas of leadership training,
self esteem building, awareness of one’s culture and family, and anti-violence training;
Project identification
The Government is committed to giving communities themselves a significant say in what
projects should be supported and how the funding should be spent. This means the Department
of Family and Community Services is working
directly, through its State and Territory network, with local communities to develop ideas
and local projects that meet the needs of individual communities and the families that live in
them.
Self-identified projects where communities
have reasonably well-developed ideas or proposals, that are able to show good community support and community involvement as
well as meet the Strategy criteria for funding.
■
be inclusive of indigenous history, cultures and
spirituality, where communities recognise
their relevance;
The Strategy as a national action
learning project
While it is a practical example of community
support, the Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy is forward looking in its approach. It has
been built around the philosophy of action
learning which is a means of evaluating an
activity during its lifetime and looking for ways
to improve processes to achieve outcomes as
they develop, rather than at the end of the
activity when the process is finished.
Many projects have action research built into
their methodology. Stronger Families Fund projects have action research requirements that are
specifically supported by community and academic experts as well as by a funded clearinghouse and information exchange. The
clearinghouse will give communities access to
the most up-to-date information and research
on successful projects as well as linking them to
the existing evidence base. Experience gained
from projects is being compiled in the clearinghouse to inform project designs and to spark
innovative thinking about responses appropriate for particular communities. (See elsewhere
in this Bulletin for more about the Stronger Families Learning Exchange Clearinghouse at the
Australian Institute of Family Studies.)
Research into developing indicators of family and
community strength is also contributing to the
future development of the Strategy and policy
approaches generally. This research gives an
insight into the complexity of attributes that
affect and shape families and communities and
provides a fundamental basis for Government to
understand the complexities involved so that
future policy development is informed by a
sound research base.
How the Strategy is working and
achievements so far
Funding for community projects became available in January 2001. While it is early days yet,
as at March 2002, 294 projects with a value of
more than $39.4 million had been approved
across all initiatives and a wide range of locations and target groups.
■
contribute to practical reconciliation by
empowering indigenous people to take
responsibility within their families and communities for developing solutions to problems;
More project ideas are emerging in a number of
ways: some are emerging from work already happening on the ground; some need to be seeded
and intensively supported; many projects are in
communities with large numbers of families
with young children, or in communities facing
challenges and in rural and regional areas.
■
give priority to initiatives that encourage
self-reliance, sustainable economic and social
development; and
The community development work required in
the early stages of the Strategy means that
funding commitment will increase as the
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Strategy progresses. The amount of money available for projects in the first year increases tenfold by the fourth year.
Early learnings from the Strategy
Despite its infancy, trends and themes are already
emerging from the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy that will inform its ongoing
implementation and further policy development. These learnings are becoming apparent
both from the types of projects that are being
developed and funded, and from the issues that
are arising in the action research environment
as the implementation of the Strategy evolves.
A major learning to this point has been in the
confirmation of the continuum of capacity
that exists in Australian communities and the
varying levels of interaction required to help
communities though, another issue is emerging.
There is often a lack of infrastructure and core
services in these areas and projects often need
long term funding and intensive and long-term
community development.
As discussed earlier, the Strategy focuses on a
grass-roots approach to community projects. In
particular this means supporting local individuals and small community groups that often have
not had the resources or skills (for example, in
developing proposals, or in demonstrating substantial networks, or in targeting a large number
of people) to be competitive against large, structured organisations in traditional funding rounds.
Early results from the Strategy indicate that
while some peak bodies are receiving funding for
projects, a considerable portion of funding is
being directed to the grass-roots level. A challenge
information for communities and individuals
(see below).
Expressions of interest for funding are logged on
to a central database. This database tracks project information from when project ideas are
received as expressions of interest through to
when they are recommended to the Minister for
funding approval, through to the development
of funding agreements. The database, while
developed and updated centrally, is managed on
a day to day basis by the Department’s state and
territory office network.
Conclusion
In summary, the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy takes a different approach to
supporting families and communities, especially in times of transition and change.
Real gains in social capital require genuine collaboration and partnership between
all tiers of government, community leaders, individual members of the community,
and the business community.
communities use opportunities to their advantage. Some communities demonstrate “strong”
characteristics and require limited assistance to
turn this strength into capacity. They may already
have strong leadership resources and have identified the local issue that they aim to resolve. In
these cases little outside intervention and a
small injection of funds may be all that is required
to kickstart a local response. The project officer’s
role in such communities focuses more on helping them to generate community support, or putting community leaders in contact with possible
partners or helping them to understand the aims
and principles of the Strategy in order that they
can develop an appropriate project proposal.
However, for every community that is “ready to
go” there are many communities that have, for
various reasons, neither the skills, knowledge,
resources nor commitment to use opportunities.
These communities have most to benefit from
the Strategy and are particularly targeted for
assistance both in terms of capacity building and
funding. Up to 70 per cent of funding in each
year is targeted to disadvantaged communities
which are identified on the basis of indicators
including the Australian Bureau of Statistics
social and economic indicators for areas as well
as demographic indicators. In targeting these
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
is to ensure that smaller organisations continue
to have opportunities under the Strategy.
Another emerging issue is the need to ensure a
coordinated and cooperative approach to working with State and Territory government agencies to avoid duplication in activities. The
Department’s State and Territory Offices, who
manage the Strategy at the local level, have put
considerable effort into developing and supporting cross-government relations, and mechanisms are already in place to facilitate
complementarity between the Strategy and State
initiatives. However, these mechanisms need to
be rigorously monitored and maintained.
Process for project implementation
Management of the linked initiatives under the
Strategy has been devolved to the Department’s
State and Territory office network to ensure
that the Strategy is responsive to local needs.
To assist this process, a Community Guide to the
Strategy has been released. It outlines how to find
out more about the Strategy and how to access
funds, including an expression of interest form
for funding. About 20,000 copies of the Guide
have been distributed nationally to organisations.
A central contact number has also been put
in place to provide ease of access to Strategy
The Strategy recognises that helping to build
stronger family and community relationships can
go a long way to preventing difficult and expensive social problems happening in the first place.
It also recognises that often it is people working “on the ground” who can find the most
practical solutions to local problems.
To help communities, the Strategy includes new
initiatives to encourage potential community
leaders, build up the skills of volunteer workers, help
communities develop their own solutions to problems, and promote a “can do” community spirit.
For families, the Strategy uses an early intervention, strengths-based approach to focus on
the importance of early childhood development, the needs of families with young children,
improving marriage and family relationships, balancing work and family responsibilities, and
helping young people in positive ways.
Gai Stern is the Assistant Director of the Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy Implementation Team in the Community Branch, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community
Services, Canberra.
For more information on the Stronger Families
and Communities Strategy, call the information
line on free call 1800 300 125.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
9
Meet the
Stronger Families Fund projects
t the time of going to press, 14 projects had been approved for funding from the Stronger Families Fund. Over the next
three years it is envisaged that between 75 and 80 projects will be funded across Australia. We asked those projects which
were up and running to answer four questions about what they were doing to provide an introduction for Bulletin readers. Here
are the responses from seven of the projects.
A
Ashmont Community Resource
Centre, Wagga Wagga
community had been actively working
within the area of Ashmont over the last 20
years. Its interaction with the community
by way of breakfast programs, kids’ clubs,
and drop-in centres had revealed specific
family problems which needed extra professional assistance locally to address.
The project setting
Why is the project needed?
This program is located in the largely government housing estate area in the western suburb of Ashmont in Wagga Wagga,
New South Wales. Statistics at the local primary school indicate about 24 per cent of
enrolments are Indigenous. A local church
The area of Ashmont is geographically isolated with all the associated problems of
social marginalisation. Availability of support agencies, increased networks, and
access to teaching programs are necessary to address the issues of abuse and
family dysfunction. A safe and friendly
environment is needed where community
members can seek support to strengthen
their own self-help and self-determinism
mechanisms.
issues such as parenting, relationship breakdown in the family, domestic violence,
adverse effects of drugs and alcohol, budgeting, gambling, housing, education,
employment, legal assistance, and access to
counselling and clinical health services.
The project seeks to address the needs of
a diverse range of community members
including people who are unemployed,
people with disabilities, single parents and
Indigenous people, aiming to strengthen
and support parents and families, particularly those with young children up to
five years old. In the broad sense the
project aims to respond to the need for
family support in Ashmont and enhance
the building of this diverse range of
people into a socially functional and
responsible community.
How are you going about it?
What are you trying to do in this project?
Also at the opening are Penny Batcheldor, project financial manager
and acting community liaison officer, with Wagga Wagga probation
parole manager Dennis Nicholl, who was amazed at the transformation of the centre by a small team of committed volunteers.
The program follows a co-location model
where key family support agencies are
encouraged to offer an integrated service
within the local community of Ashmont.
The centre aims to provide coordinated
services for local residents in partnership
with government based bodies, private
organisations and the community, covering
The funding covers the cost of refurbishment and fit-out of a building to provide
suitable offices for counselling services,
conference space for education programs,
and administrative space for the liaison
officers. Salaries have been provided for
two part-time community liaison officers,
one Indigenous. The liaison officers will
build links with agencies which might offer
their services from the centre, and offer
education programs appropriate to local
needs. The education programs will address
issues of lack of confidence/self-esteem,
and teach parenting skills and other skills
that benefit the social, physical, and emotional well-being of family members. Needs
analysis and impact studies will be undertaken concurrently with programs.
More generally, the liaison officers will
aim to maximise the benefits of an interagency approach to meeting expressed
needs, and conduct outreach to the community to encourage them to use relevant services.
Pictured at the opening of the Ashmont Community Resource Centre are project manager Reverend Rob Donald, of the
Ashmont Anglican Church, Bishop Godfrey Fryar, and the Federal Member for Riverina, Kay Hull MP.
10
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
The program is auspiced by Anglicare
Canberra and Goulburn Youth and Family
Services.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Enfield Child Development
and Family Centre
The project setting
The Enfield Child Care Centre (next to the
Enfield Primary School in Adelaide, South
Australia) offered long day care and out of
school hours care for children aged up to
13 until its closure in June 1999. The Child
Care Centre is owned by the Department
of Education, Training and Employment
and is not currently occupied. The existing
child care facilities will be used to establish a new model of service provision
for children and families in the Enfield
community. The programs and services
provided will be designed to respond to the
needs of parents and children.
provision and coordination of the programs at the Centre. The Enfield Early
Learning Service (EELS) will link with Aboriginal Education, the Enfield Primary
School, and provide the opportunity for
other services to provide outreach from the
site. The service will be a collaboration
between the South Australian Department
of Education Training and Employment
(DETE), Child and Youth Health (CYH),
Enfield Primary School and local community organisations.
■
To establish a partnership approach to
meeting the needs of families and the
community in this region. The partners
are the South Australian Department of
Education Training and Employment (DETE),
Child and Youth Health (CYH), the Lady
Gowrie Child Centre, Enfield Primary School
and local community organisations.
■
To create an accessible family centre
for all families and children in the area.
The following are the goals of the project.
A management team has been formed
who will be firstly responsible for the management and development of the Enfield
Child Development and Family Centre. It
will act as an enabling group which will
address issues and develop appropriate
solutions to ensure the smooth establishment and operation of the centre. There will
also be a local community advisory group
who will support the program coordinator
of the centre in planning and the day to day
functioning of the centre.
■
To maximise local community ownership
through effective consultation and communication mechanisms which enhance
community development.
■
To maximise learning for all children
through a cohesive, integrated, high
quality service for children and families
by providing education, care and health
services in a holistic way across the
spectrum of family and children’s needs.
■
To create links and develop flexible and
sustainable services for families with
children in the areas of health, development, care, and learning.
■
To provide a broad and integrated array
of supports to families and children in
one of the most disadvantaged communities in South Australia.
Why is the project needed?
The Enfield community has a high rate of
unemployment and youth unemployment
and a large proportion of disadvantaged
households in the form of single parents,
high proportions living in public housing
and households suffering financial stress.
Research strongly suggests that early intervention for young children is extremely
significant in preventing later failure in
educational attainment, the reduction of
unemployment and in enhancing the
ability to participate positively in society.
How are you going about it?
The Enfield Child Development and Family Centre will operate on a day-to-day
basis under the auspices of the Enfield
Primary School Governing Council. It is
planned that a sub-committee of the Governing Council will be formed with membership reflecting a range of partnerships
in the Enfield Community.
What are you trying to do in this project?
The Enfield Child Development and Family Centre aims to provide a broad and
integrated array of supports to families
and children in one of the most disadvantaged communities in South Australia.
It will provide flexible and sustainable
services for families by employing a
coordinator to establish a framework to
facilitate and coordinate health, care,
and educational opportunities for the
families with children aged up to 12
years residing in the areas around the
Enfield Primary School. The Enfield Child
Development and Family Centre will
have a designated leadership position
(program coordinator). The program coordinator will take responsibility for the
The Enfield project steering group is pictured outside the building which is to be renovated (left to
right): Suzanne Hewson, Kerry Edwards, Carol
Perry, Vikki Denny, Mary Ireland, Marg Tatzyo,
Jacqui Emery, Merryn Crookbain and John Gamlen.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
11
Goodwood Connect
Community consultation indicates low
levels of trust, a high need for community
services, and a perception by residents
that they have a low ability to influence
decision-making about issues that concern them.
The project setting
What are you trying to do in this project?
The project is located in the precinct of
Goodwood on the mid-eastern boundary
of the City of Glenorchy, in the northern
suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania. The public
housing estate is nearly 50 years old and
contains 990 people.
The project aims to: build community trust
and to develop generational and community links and service infrastructure; ensure
community members have a voice, and
are self-empowered; develop local
enterprise, mentoring and volunteering;
and develop programs that renew the
community. Renewal programs include
facilitating community participation and
developing potential community leaders,
improving the use of community houses,
and developing and implementing early
investment programs that provide better
opportunities for children.
Why is the project needed?
The local population includes high numbers
of single-parent families, Aboriginal people,
children up to four years old, and unemployed people. Most live in rented dwellings
and have a low average individual income.
The population is highly transitory.
Project coordinator,
Dennis Crispin.
How are you going about it?
First, by connecting the community to the
project, through building communication,
trust, engaging the energy of the community, identifying community needs, recognising and promoting community strengths,
and implementing ongoing dialogue with
the community.
Second, by developing a plan to support the
above process, to identify and skill up
potential leaders, develop structures and
processes and ensure sustainability.
Creating Capable Communities
The project setting
The project aims to support local residents
in highly disadvantaged public housing
estates in the bayside suburbs of Melbourne – Highett, Moorabbin, Hampton,
Sandringham, Elsternwick and Cheltenham.
Why is the project needed?
The project is needed to develop local networks and support programs responsive
to the needs of families on the estates, in
consultation with the residents and other
service providers.
What are you trying to do in this project?
Via strategies like playgroup social activities and peer support groups, it is envisaged
that residents on the estates will establish
and improve links with each other and the
wider community.
How are you going about it?
■
■
12
Parents and children at the Hampton East Estate, Scarborough Drive.
the establishment of a reference group
of interested residents and local service
providers;
■
the provision of “Meet ‘n Chat” groups
(peer support groups) in each of the
estates;
the facilitation of a parent support group
“Creating Capable Kids” in areas as identified by the residents;
■
the provision of a range of social activities including Barbeques, Christmas
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
Parties and other social events as
requested by the residents;
■
developing the interest and involvement of community volunteers.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Building Strong and Healthy
Families in Derby
Jalaris Aboriginal Corporation
The project setting
The project is set in Derby in the West
Kimberley, Western Australia. Derby has
a permanent population of about 3000
people, half of whom are Aboriginal. About
20 tribal groups live in and around Derby.
The traditional owners of Derby are the
Warrwa and Nygina people. The town has
a long frontier history of genocide, with
massacres occurring right into the 1930s.
One of the consequences of this recent history is that the community suffers among the
highest levels of alcoholism and drug abuse
in Australia, poor nutrition, unemployment,
truancy, domestic violence, crime and suicide.
Since 1994, the Jalaris Aboriginal Corporation has established itself as a stable
organisation in the community, providing
low cost food and clothing largely out of
its own resources. It is frequently used as
a last resort source for emergency food
supplies by people who are destitute. Jalaris
also supervises Justice Department community service workers.
Truancy is a major issue for about 10 per
cent of school children in Derby, and it
appears to be a marker for problems relating to the welfare of the children’s families. By attracting these truanting children
to its drop-in facility, Jalaris hopes to begin
assisting them and their families.
Why is the project needed?
Scientific evidence has shown the links
between poor nutrition and developmental problems in children. A range of recent
studies quoted in the Kimberley Aboriginal
Health Plan has found that: “Dietary deficiencies are still widely prevalent, particularly in children. Maternal malnutrition
has long been recognised as contributing
significantly to unsatisfactory nutrition
and health in infants and young children.”
The consequences of this poor nutrition for
our target group in Derby are typically
chronic ill health, truanting and/or poor
school performance.
The evidence of these scholarly studies is
reinforced by:
■
the experience Jalaris has in meeting the
immediate need in its own community;
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
The kids getting together for breakfast at the Mungarri Drop-in Centre.
Jalaris is currently first point of call for
many hungry children (up to 20 per day)
but doesn’t have the resources to meet
the demand;
■
■
previous experience in providing meals
to the community first from its own
resources and then via the Mungarri
Nutrition Program and the Rural Access
Program: up to 50 low cost meals per day
were delivered over an 18-month period
to targeted households under these programs, the majority to mothers and their
children; and
evidence from Family and Children’s
Services, Derby Aboriginal Health Service,
Derby Community Health and the local
schools.
This project was developed following extensive discussions with the people on our
Advisory Committee, all of whom consider
a nutrition project of the kind Jalaris
proposes to be a matter of some urgency
for the health and education of the targeted population.
meals, and sell cheap but healthy snacks like
fruit iceblocks, and a small games arcade is
available. Having attracted the children,
Jalaris will watch for health, emotional and
social problems, including truancy, and in
association with the relevant professionals
begin working to provide assistance.
How are you going about it?
A number of strategies are planned. These
include employing family support workers
and a nutrition worker to work with children, their parents, and other family and
community members at the drop-in centre; teaching children and their parents
to make their own nutritious meals, transport and supervision for children on bush
tucker trips with elders; encouraging creative work with children at the drop-in centre; a low-income shop with good food;
assistance with budgeting; referrals to
other support agencies where needed; and
developing networks in the community.
What are you trying to do in this project?
On the basis of its kinship with the community, and the reputation it has developed
over the years, Jalaris wishes to target the
fundamental needs of the community’s
children for education, good tucker, safety
and health care by providing a centrally
sited drop-in facility five days a week. This
already happens in a limited, informal way.
The local children are frequent visitors to
the Jalaris children and their aunties and
uncles and their jabby (grandfather), and
they get fed as a matter of course if they
are hungry. The Stronger Families Program
funding will be used to expand and professionalise this present informal service.
Jalaris estimates that there are as many as
200 children in the immediate area, of
whom 50 or more are expected to drop in
each day (including multiple visits). The
kitchen will supply low cost nutritious
Lorna Hudson, OAM, senior Bardi woman, Family Support Worker at
Mungarri Drop-in Centre with grand-daughter Teneille Francis.
Jasmine Francis, Family Support Worker at Mungarri Drop-in
Centre, with daughter Teneille.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
13
Families NOW
Beenleigh Families
Information Centre
The project setting
Families NOW is a families information
centre located within Beenleigh Centrelink
in Brisbane. The area faces extremely
high levels of family breakdown, domestic
violence, homelessness, crime and drug
abuse.
Why is the project needed?
The Families NOW Project aims to assist
parents in the local community in a variety of ways. We are exploring the needs of
families in our local community and works
with other agencies, organisations, the
community and businesses to develop
strategies to strengthen the Beenleigh
and Eagleby community and the families
who live in it.
What are you trying to do in this project?
Families NOW works with agencies and
schools in the local area to provide parenting workshops and a six week budgeting
The newly refurbished reception area at Families NOW: the dogs are the Families NOW logo.
course. We offer parents the opportunity of
doing business with Centrelink without
the hassles or distractions of their children,
as we have a playroom children can use
while parents access the Family Assistance
Office. We also have two display boards and
many pamphlets on view to the public.
We provide referrals to agencies and services for families that require additional
assistance. An example of this is a referral
to an emergency relief provider in the local
area.
How are you going about it?
We open Families NOW five days a week with
the same office hours as Centrelink. We
update our information as it comes to hand,
and we recruit volunteers as needed. We are
constantly monitoring issues within the
community to see who can service any gaps.
Pictured at the Families NOW reception desk are (from left to right): Vince Vernick, program manager for Family Services, Lutheran Community Care; Dorothy
Aldred, senior social worker, Beenleigh Centrelink; Robert Mintel, (former) customer service manager, Beenleigh Centrelink; and the Federal Member for
Forde, Kay Elson MP. Seated is Karen Knight, Families NOW volunteer.
14
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Strengthening Families in the
Eastern Goldfields
Goldfields Men’s Health
The project setting
The project is located in a communitybased setting in the Goldfields region of
Western Australia. The Goldfields, categorised as a rural and remote area, is the
largest region in the state. The city of
Kalgoorlie-Boulder is located 596 kilometres east of Perth and has a population of
approximately 32,000. Mining is the major
industry within this region, with the Goldfields nickel and gold mining and processing operations employing the largest
number of employees in Western Australia’s minerals and petroleum sector. The
target community for this project is men
working within the mining community
within the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.
to a large number of family breakdowns in
Kalgoorlie-Boulder and problems related to
behavioural norms (spousal and child abuse,
criminal activity, and illicit drug abuse).
There are also many men in the region who
are non-custodial fathers working in the
mining sector and other industries.
The project is pursuing its aims in the
following ways:
■
development of the project website,
(www.wellman.org.au);
■
making contact with Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) personnel and
management at mine sites and other
organisations, and contacting health
and social service providers and other
community stakeholders to help improve
links and integration between these
stakeholders;
■
provision of relevant existing information products and information on local
health and social service providers to
workplaces/mine sites and other places
that men congregate, such as sporting
venues and pubs;
■
coordination of access for mine site
OHS professionals and other professionals to relevant training packages
and resource manuals including intervention counselling and healthy lifestyle
assessments;
■
organisation of training and education
for general practitioners to recognise
men’s problems and refer them on to
appropriate service providers;
■
coordination of a forum for men and
their partners, health and social service
providers, employers and OHS personnel
to identify the main issues for men and
their families; and
■
the development of recommendations to
■
address issues raised at the forum.
Because most services operate within
normal business hours, access to health
and social services can be difficult for
people working 12-hour shifts or shift
work. Less job security results in families
being moved from place to place to follow
employment opportunities
What are you trying to do in this project?
The project is attempting to:
■
■
Why is the project needed?
Men employed in the mining industry in
the Goldfields area have high needs due
to isolation, prolonged work hours, family
stress, industry-related trauma, long distance travel, and an intrinsically hazardous
workplace. The nature of work in the region
often draws a diverse range of people to the
region. Many families in Kalgoorlie-Boulder
do not have an extended family network in
town, which can be difficult for parents at
home with children. Anecdotal data points
How are you going about it?
improve awareness of issues affecting
the target group’s psycho-social and
family wellbeing and health in order to
improve men’s insights into their needs
and their willingness to access appropriate services;
improve skills of Occupational Health and
Safety (OHS) professionals and mining
site nurses to support men in the mining
industry and refer men and their families
to appropriate health and social services;
■
improve access for early intervention
and management of social, family and
health issues;
■
improve links and integration between
key stakeholders and service providers;
and
■
raise awareness for employers on the
issues affecting their employees and
their families.
Representatives from the Stronger Families Learning Exchange and the Department of Family and Community Services visited the Goldfields Project in Kalgoorlie in
February 2002. From left to right: Robert Hicks, Paul Browning, Nicole Peel, Craig Shaw, Clair Read and Vivienne Duggin from Goldfields Men’s Health and the Eastern
Goldfields Medical Division of General Practice (the project auspicing body), together with Nancy Bineham from the Department and Adam Tomison from the Learning Exchange.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
15
Doing an
action research
evaluation
T
here are many different ways of doing action research
evaluations. This article outlines how action research
evaluations will be used by projects in the Stronger Families Fund.
It is intended to serve as an introduction for Stronger Families
Fund projects, but also to be of interest to others working in the
field of early intervention and prevention.
TANIA LIENERT
Action research is both an approach to
research and a move towards change or
continuous improvement in organisations.
It can also be used as an evaluation method.
In the Stronger Families Fund, the focus is
on using action research for project evaluation, to help projects with continuous
improvement. At the same time, it is also
about gathering and sharing the information about what works and doesn’t
work for early intervention and prevention
projects so others can learn from it.
There are many different ways of doing
action research evaluations. This article
outlines how action research evaluations
will be used by projects in the Stronger
Families Fund. It is intended to serve as an
introduction for Stronger Families Fund
(SFF) projects, but also to be of interest to
others working in the field of early intervention and prevention.
Background
Evaluating projects is a useful way to find
out whether they are working or not. It
is an important component of most
community programs and projects. It may
be a new activity for some groups starting
out on their first project, or it may be a
familiar concept for those who have more
experience. Wherever project teams are
16
coming from, it is important to note
that the components of an action
research evaluation might not necessarily be completely new for a program or project team.
In many cases what happens in an action
research evaluation builds on what already
happens in projects and uses people’s
existing skills, for example local knowledge, noticing, describing, listening, planning, involving participants or clients in
activities or services, responding to local
needs and circumstances, explaining, making decisions, networking with community
services and other organisations, documenting, reporting and improving as you
go along.
In these cases, doing an action research
evaluation gives a focus to the things people would be doing anyway (Crane and
Richardson 2000). It also gives permission
for the project team to take time out from
their work to reflect and write down their
observations. This can help busy project
teams to get back in touch with the bigger picture of what they are trying to do
and why. It can help keep projects alive and
vibrant, especially when teams come
together to share what is important to
them, their observations, insights, values
and passions.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
Key features of an action
research evaluation
Action research can best be explained by
looking at the two words in its title: it is
about action or change, and it is about
research, a word that means “to find out”.
Put simply, it is about research that informs
action or change in a project or program.
The two go together. When used as an
evaluation method, it encourages people to
look at and think about how projects are
going as they going along, instead of just
evaluating them at the end.
Purpose of an action
research evaluation
Action research evaluations are most often
used because of their focus on action or
change, or continuous improvement.
Building action research into a project is
useful because it can help the project, the
organisation and in some cases, whole
communities to be more responsive to
feedback and insights gained, and to change
as they go along. Doing action research
gives project teams the opportunity to look
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Involving everybody – asking them
for their ideas and suggestions about
what is happening, what should
happen and what it means – not
only generates more valid and reliable information, but it can create
connections between people and
groups, and can empower participants and communities and even
workers to act to change their situations. Projects that use this
approach have been shown to work
better and have greater long-term
effects, sometimes carrying on in
some way after the official project
finishes (Stayner et al. 2000). In
other words, doing an action
research evaluation, and projects
acting on results as they go along,
helps promote project sustainability.
Consequently, it is seen that SFF
project teams will greatly benefit if
they can find ways to involve and
value the contributions of participants and their families, workers,
local agency managements, community members, local services,
government and non-governmental organisations.
at the meaning and context of their work,
document their strategies, then to test
and refine them over time. It allows and
requires project teams to build records of
their development and to justify their practices. Projects have much more scope to be
flexible over the funding period, because
of the scope to implement changes quickly
based on a reasonable research base.
sensitive to the variety of needs of diverse
communities. The ongoing evaluation
can inform activities and programs so
they are more likely to work better in
particular locations and with particular
groups of people. It is an approach that
helps build partnerships between stakeholders, and bring in others, such as local
businesses that can make a contribution.
How to involve people in an
SFF project: Setting up a
reference group
Additionally, when the research findings are
reported outside the project, they can help
build knowledge about what works and
what doesn’t work in particular places or
contexts, which is useful for other projects
to learn from. Research reports can also
inform Government policy and other
research.
Involving everybody who has a stake, in
a spirit of partnership, can help people
have a sense of ownership of a project.
Participation helps to create change
because, “among other reasons, change is
usually easier to achieve when those
affected by the change are involved” (Dick
1999).
Who is involved in an action
research evaluation?
In addition, people affected by projects
often have the best insights into their
situation. Anne Garrow (2001) suggests
project teams need to affirm and acknowledge participants as experts in their
own lives, support community control
and participation, and stand alongside
participants rather than taking a one-up
position.
A reference group may have a different role
in different communities. At least half, or in
some cases, all of those in the group should
be those who the project is trying to serve
– the people “who-it’s-all-for” (Wadsworth
1997a) to make sure they have their say into
both the content and the process of the evaluation. Other participants can be people
from local health and welfare agencies,
community groups, community leaders and
community members. It can start small and
grow as the project progresses.
An action research evaluation usually
involves everybody who has a stake (it is
participatory and collaborative). Previous
studies have found that when a participatory action research evaluation is part of
a project, it can help projects to be more
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
If the project does not already have one,
setting up a reference group or groups is
a great opportunity to involve participants
and/or clients in both the project and the
evaluation to see how the project is going.
This group may need to be flexible and
informal and fit in with local ways of doing
things. It may need to take account of
people’s busy lives, and in some cases, project teams may need to offer transport
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
17
assistance or pay people, especially
unwaged people, for their time. Gaining
trust and credibility, especially with some
participants and clients, or other agencies
the project team may have competed
against for funding, may take time.
In some communities and projects, groups
may include opposing stakeholders, and
there are opportunities for constructive
conflict to lead to positive solutions. In
others, there may need to be more than one
group to take account of conflicting views
or to look at different activities. Being able
to discuss inevitable differences and conflicts can make the evaluation results richer
and more well-rounded. In fact, if everyone
in the group agrees on everything, it is a
good idea to seek out opposing views to
ensure your evaluation embraces diversity.
People invited by project teams to join
reference groups might ask: “What’s in it for
me?” Phil Crane and Leanne Richardson
(2000) offer some possible answers based
on another government project that uses
participatory action research as an evaluation method, the Reconnect early intervention program on youth homelessness.
They suggest project teams can offer participants and clients the opportunity to
contribute to project development, a say in
what the issues are and an opportunity to
talk about their own experiences. They can
offer members of the local service network
a chance to have input into the exploration of local solutions to local problems.
Being involved can establish and enhance
relationships and allow for more opportunity for collaborative strategies within the
community. Community involvement
allows communities a way to develop
responses to issues and allows members to
understand more about the problems some
people face. It ensures the approach suits
local circumstances and ensures community
“ownership” and involvement in developing strategies.
Apart from members of the reference
group, there are other people who may be
sources of help in the evaluation process.
These might include individual people who
have a story to tell, and co-researchers or
peer researchers – people project teams
employ to find out the views of specific
communities they want to involve and
work with, for example, local indigenous
people or people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
What is the action research cycle?
An action research evaluation is often
talked about as a dynamic process: cycles
of planning, acting, observing and
reflecting, then planning again for a new
action (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988;
Wadsworth 1997a). The accompanying
figure gives a picture of how these cycles
might happen.
The cycles start with small questions, and
when the planning stage comes around
again, project teams can take account of
what has been learned in previous cycles.
The aim is for understanding about the
local situation to increase over time.
These cycles work best if they are tied to
natural project cycles, but as a guide, they
might go around every six months or so.
Sometimes the stages may overlap or happen in a slightly different order, but an indication of how a cycle might evolve in a
project can be gained from the following
overview.
Plan
■ The project team and reference group
members come together to talk about
evaluating a project, and discuss why the
evaluation is important.
Action Research cycles
Observe
Reflect
Observe
Reflect
Act
Observe
Reflect
Act
Act
Plan
Plan
Plan
Source: Action Research cycles: Crane and Richardson (2000).
18
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
■
The group gathers baseline data (information about the situation the project
wants to improve).
■
The group defines an idea or assumption
they want to test, or an issue or problem
or question they want to find out more
about that will help the project to
improve, starting with small, specific
questions and building up to bigger
ones as confidence increases. A simple
way to get started could be to ask “what
could we do better?”
■
The group decides how they want to carry
out the evaluation and the level of involvement of reference group members.
Act
The group starts the first planned activity
or program of activities.
Observe
The group looks at, listens to and thinks
about what is going on, asks questions of
all those involved about how it is going, and
gathers this information, focusing on the
questions raised in the planning stages
but also being open to other feedback.
Reflect
The group thinks about what the information means for what they are doing (or not
doing), and whether what they are doing can
be improved. This includes thinking about
whether and how the results help in understanding issues and problems (a critical
analysis of the situation). The information
and knowledge gained is recorded.
Then the cycle begins again, with more
planning, this time having a fresh look at
the project and taking account of what has
been learned to see if any changes might
be made. At this stage, the group also
plans the next cycle of evaluation, either
to deepen understanding of issues from
the last cycle, or to research a new idea,
assumption, issue, problem or question.
This is followed by more action, observation and reflection, and so on.
As the process becomes more familiar and
comfortable, bigger questions can be asked
and more people are likely to become
involved. As the project progresses, as well
as at the end of the project, the group
can revisit the baseline data and assess
how the situation has improved.
A useful variation on the above (plan, act,
observe, reflect) model has been developed
by Tjikalyi Colin and Anne Garrow in the
Indigenous community of Ernabella in South
Australia. Best described by the title of their
book Thinking, Listening, Looking, Understanding and Acting as You Go Along (1996),
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
their evaluation map (reproduced here) provides another way of thinking about the
practice of an action research evaluation.
Research needs to
respect participants’
individuality, freedom
Research methods: How can
evidence be gathered?
For groups that have done program evaluations before, an action research evaluation can be thought of predominantly as a
process evaluation (that is, determining the
extent to which a program is operating as
intended and target populations are being
served). However, an action research evaluation is also likely to incorporate an assessment of the impact of the programs on
participants (an outcome evaluation).
What is different about an action research
evaluation, however, is that it happens in
cycles, it involves participants, the methods
are varied to suit the program and the results
are used to improve the program as it goes
along. Typically, an action research evaluation is also mainly qualitative, which means
the focus is on gathering stories rather than
statistics (which is not to say that statistics,
or quantitative data, cannot be gathered).
Quality information (data) can be produced by using a range of different ways
of gathering this information (research
methods). This is known as a “multiple
methods” or “triangulation” approach.
Information gathered from a range of participants (for example children, their parents, grandparents and community
members) and using a range of methods
gives groups a better chance to develop a
good picture of what is happening. Information gathered can range from individual stories to statistical data on any or all
aspects of the project.
In broad terms, some of the ways of gathering this information could include:
■
descriptions of programs and services:
this can include documentation of the
process of developing the project, records
and reflections from project workers, other
staff , volunteers and management about
what project teams are doing, and why and
how they are doing it, using for example
meeting minutes and a journal or log
book to keep track of insights, observations, anecdotes and questions, and reflections on the research process itself;
■
photographic and video documentation;
■
paintings, drawings, music and songs;
■
counting the numbers of people who
participated in activities/programs, and
information about those people (for
example who they are, where they come
from, why they came, how many sessions
they attended);
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
and right to privacy.
■
participant information, referral sheets,
work log books and other agency
paperwork;
■
participant feedback sheets or documentation of verbal feedback;
■
group brainstorming, talking circles or
discussion groups with participants
and/or other stakeholders (for example,
other services in the area, local community groups);
■
suggestion boxes, comments books, email
and/or websites where people can leave
comments and ask questions;
■
larger forums or conferences involving
a range of stakeholders;
■
in-depth individual, family or group
interviews, using open-ended questions
which allow diverse experiences and
perspectives to emerge;
■
statistics and surveys;
■
naturalistic observation;
■
case studies; and
■
comparing participants’ knowledge/skills/
views/behaviour before participation in
a program and after participation to
see if it made a difference (the traditional
evaluation method of pre-test post-test
analysis, but adapted to suit the project);
a wide variety of methods could be used
for this.
gathering more descriptions, problems,
questions, statistics, previous research
and community-identified priorities that
help paint a picture of the situation that
the project grant wants to improve. This
information is called baseline data.
The information will be different in every
community and is most useful if it focuses
on things that might change as a result of
the project. Local government statistics,
available from local councils, may be useful
if the project falls into a local government
area. They may not be so useful if the project crosses these areas, or takes place in a
specific community where local issues are
“swallowed up” by statistics for a larger
area. In these cases very specific local information is helpful, if it is available. As the
project progresses, it may be possible to
look back at this information and assess
how the situation has changed or improved.
Research ethics: Protecting the
privacy of the people who tell
their stories
Research with people, including research
where people tell their stories, needs to be
done ethically, that is, it needs to respect
An evaluation map gives direction to each stage
The ways of finding out information and
gathering evidence can be diverse. Any and
every method can be used depending on
what needs to be found out and the people
involved. For more information about
research methods, see Yoland Wadsworth’s
(1997b) excellent introduction for community groups, Do It Yourself Social Research.
An example of gathering
evidence: Baseline data
A project group’s first gathering of evidence in their evaluation work will be
gathering baseline data. This activity is
undertaken because is important to have
a clear idea of why the project is significant. This may already have been written
into the grant application or project
workplan. In most cases, project teams
and reference groups need to start with
➤
Evaluation map: Colin & Garrow (1996).
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
19
participants’ individuality, freedom and
right to privacy. This is usually done in a
number of ways, described below under the
two broad headings of informed consent
and privacy and confidentiality.
Informed consent
All of the people who might have a story to
tell in an interview or discussion group need
to have the research project explained to
them and be invited to join in. They should
have their rights explained and be told that
if they do not want to join in they will not
be disadvantaged, and that they can change
their mind at any time and their story will
not be used. Potential participants should
sign an informed consent form saying that
they understand the project and their rights.
This form should be kept separately from
their story in a locked filing cabinet.
Privacy and confidentiality
If people give details about themselves,
these details should be confidential (kept
in a safe place where no one except the
project worker can have access to them). No
information about individuals should be
used that could identify them: summaries
of information only should be used, or
stories and case notes should have some
details changed so that no one will know
who the story is about.
In some communities, doing ethical
research might also include:
■
involving participants in discussions
about what is going to be researched,
endorsing it and controlling the analysis and distribution of findings, usually
using a reference group or community
meetings (Colin and Garrow 1996);
■
making sure research takes place in
community languages and with appropriate interpretation or translation of the
findings; and
■
finding a way to feed back research
results to the research participants. This
can be done either during the research
process to understand what has been
said (which gives a good opportunity to
deepen understanding by stimulating
further dialogue), or by offering a summary of the final results.
What are the challenges or
potential problems?
The cyclical approach of an action research
evaluation gives groups the chance to progressively look at and think about whether
the project is doing what it set out to do and
if there is anything that could be done better, and to report on this regularly enough
20
to justify changes if they are needed. If the
organisation is already geared to continuous improvement, incorporating the cycles
of an action research evaluation and writing up what happens may only be a small
change to the way things are done. However
if it is a new approach, it may take longer to
get used to. Because an action research
evaluation is participatory and happens in
repeated cycles while the project is happening, it often takes longer than other
kinds of evaluations.
In some communities, the hardest and
longest part may be getting people to join
in, especially when people are busy, are geographically separated, from different cultural backgrounds or may not have ever
been asked their opinions before and do not
trust who is asking. In other communities, getting people involved may be easy
but the methods chosen, for example interviews, may mean there is a lot of information to take in and analyse.
Whatever the challenges in particular situations, the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange can provide support to projects
that will help them address these issues and
gain maximum value from their action
research evaluations.
References
Colin, Tjikalyi & Garrow, Anne (1996), Thinking,
Listening, Looking, Understanding and Acting as You Go Along: Steps to Evaluating
Indigenous Health Promotion Projects,
Council of Remote Area Nurses (CRANA),
Alice Springs.
Crane, Phil & Richardson, Leanne (2000), Reconnect Action Research Kit, Department of
Family and Community Services, Canberra.
Dick, Bob (1999), “What is action research?”,
Online http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/
ar/whatisar.html
Garrow, Anne (2001), “Participatory learning and
action with drug using populations: A review
of the PLA component of the Injecting Drug
Use Prevention Education Project, Myanmar”,
Report commissioned by World Concern.
Kemmis, Stephen & McTaggart, Robin (1988),
The Action Research Planner (3rd edn),
Deakin University, Geelong.
Stayner, Richard, Foskey, Ros & Ramasubramarian, Laxmi (2000), The Continuing Effects
of Action Research Projects, Report to the
Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.
Wadsworth, Yoland (1997a), Everyday Evaluation
on the Run (2nd edn), Allen & Unwin/Action
Research Issues Association, Sydney.
Wadsworth, Yoland (1997b), Do It Yourself Social
Research (2nd edn), Allen & Unwin/Action
Research Issues Association, Sydney.
Tania Lienert is a Senior Research Officer in
the Stronger Families Learning Exchange at
the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
C
ommunity capacity building has become a
central objective in a wide range of public
policies and programs in Australia. Most
analysts and practitioners in the human services
field would count this as a positive development
despite the fact that the concept of “community
capacity” is seldom precisely defined in these
policies and programs, and measures to indicate
whether or not it has been “built” are only in the
developmental stage.
Coming to grips with the concept
Some useful short definitions of “community
capacity” in the literature include:
■
the degree to which a community can
develop, implement and sustain actions
which allow it to exert greater control over
its physical, social, economic and cultural
environments (Littlejohns and Thompson
2001);
■
the ability of individuals, organisations and
communities to manage their own affairs
and to work collectively to foster and sustain
positive change (Howe and Cleary 2001);
■
a holistic representation of capabilities (those
with which the community is endowed and
those to which the community has access),
plus the facilitators and barriers to realisation
of those capabilities in the broader social
environment (Jackson et al. 1977).
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Community
capacity building
explained
Community capacity building has become a
central objective in a wide range of public policies
and programs in Australia.
BETTY HOUNSLOW
On a more concrete level, one application of the
concept of capacity building in the health promotion field (Hawe et al. 2000) has defined it in
terms of (at least) three activities:
century – unless new and more effective interventions change the trajectory.
■
building infrastructure (to deliver programs);
■
building partnerships and organisational
environments (to help sustain programs and
“gains” or positive outcomes);
In one sense, the ideas behind community
capacity building are not new. From the 1970s
in Australia there has been a strong “community development” school in the not-for-profit
sector aimed at fostering the ability of people
to take greater control over their lives and
environments through working together for
common goals. Many of the aspirations,
processes and strategies of community development are also found in the current manifestations of community capacity building.
■
building problem-solving capability in communities and systems (to ensure appropriate
responses to new problems in unfamiliar
contexts).
Community capacity building, as both a concept
and a strategy, has relevance to all communities and to society as a whole (as evidenced in
discussions around “social capital” and “the
third sector”). It is, however, most commonly
applied to disadvantaged communities and
population groups. This is belated acknowledgement that the profound economic restructuring and social change of the last decades of
the 20th century has had a very uneven impact
– benefiting some individuals and communities,
while harming others.
The promotion of community capacity building
recognises that these continuing economic and
social transformations will result in an increasingly divided society with even more deeply
entrenched pockets of disadvantage in the 21st
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
■
poses a greater challenge to all three tiers of
government (but particularly the federal government) with its explicit demands for “place
management” rather than program-focused
management, and for a “bottom-up and
joined-up” approach to solving multi-faceted
problems (Howe and Cleary 2001);
■
often injects an element of “market-based”
solutions in its approach to neighbourhood
regeneration;
■
places greater emphasis on the community
itself (rather than professionals or government) identifying its needs and defining
desired outcomes – that is, on the community
initiating action rather than being mobilised
to act (Littlejohns and Thompson 2001).
Old wine or new?
Some would argue that there is no difference
between the older concept of “community
development” and newer concept of “community capacity building” (other than the packaging), and that capacity building was always
at the heart of good community development
practices.
Others believe that, while there is a continuum,
a qualitative shift has occurred because community capacity building:
■
places a much greater emphasis on a tri-partite, cross-sector approach to tackling social
and economic issues (particularly on the
involvement of business and the private sector in collaborative work);
Whatever the merits of the “old wine/new wine”
argument, the reality is that community capacity building is now a central plank of public policy, and most would agree that this is a positive
development.
Some underlying values
The capacity building approach is an acknowledgement that certain groups and communities
have been or are in danger of being “left behind”
in our society and that they need to “catch up”.
In making this acknowledgement, it implicitly
endorses the value of equal opportunity and the
desirability of greater social equity.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
21
In its emphasis on participation and a more
collaborative approach between different
sectors, it not only reinforces the value of
participatory democracy but expands the
meaning of democratic governance at all
levels (Howe and Cleary 2001). In effect, it
overtakes the concept of “government as
steerer, not rower” that dominated public
policy in the early to mid-1990s, and asserts
that the steering role should be shared –
although the precise dimension of the
sharing and of the residual control that
should remain with government is often
contested territory (see below).
prevent child abuse and neglect, youth
homelessness, substance abuse, etc.), many
practitioners and analysts argue that it is
also a desirable end in itself because it
contributes to the creation and maintenance of active citizenship and social trust.
be developed, they also felt confident that
five key success factors could be identified
from effective initiatives occurring in very
different sets of circumstances.
Some underlying tensions
“Capacity Building, focusing on education
and the development of human and social
capital and increased connectedness.
As indicated by the preceding discussion,
community capacity building can therefore
be conceived as both a process and an
outcome; as both a method of working and
a value in and of itself. Given the complexities of the concept, it is not surprising
that it contains some internal tensions
and ambiguities. These do not negate its
importance or usefulness but they do
require open acknowledgement and careful handling by practitioners.
Some of these tensions and ambiguities
include:
There are not always local solutions to
local problems, regardless of the
strength of a community’s “capacity”.
The concept of capacity building (as opposed
to “development”) is also predicated on the
conviction that all communities – whether
geographic communities or communities of
interest – have strengths or “assets”. This
apparently simple and self-evident understanding counterbalances the “deficit” prism
through which disadvantaged people and
communities are usually viewed.
The assets approach challenges the paternalism inherent in many public policies
and programs and in the ways that “professionals” often work with communities.
It also recognises that “interventions which
take into account and build upon existing
community capacities are more likely to be
successful in accomplishing desired change
than those which are adopted in a more
traditional top-down manner” (Littlejohns
and Thompson 2001: 37).
Connected to this is the proposition that
solutions to problems are best developed
and implemented by those closest to the
problem – a belief succinctly expressed in
the phrase “local solutions to local problems” (the name of a sub-program of the
Commonwealth Government’s Stronger
Families and Communities Strategy).
Viewed from this perspective, community
capacity building is the latest manifestation of decentralisation in public policy.
Finally, while the main purpose of efforts
to build a community’s capacities is often
to achieve a specific outcome (such as
improving its ability to intervene early to
22
■
There are not always local solutions to
local problems, regardless of the strength
of a community’s “capacity”. Some problems require state or national level
changes in policies, political approaches
and/or resource allocations.
■
The “community” is not a single or homogenous entity. Within any community there
will be different viewpoints and interests.
These will not always “jigsaw” neatly and,
in fact, will often conflict.
■
Any community consensus that does
exist on any issue may not gel with the
objective evidence base.
■
There can be significant disjunctures
between the goals and desired outcomes
set by governments and those preferred
by local community organisations. This
poses difficult questions such as: who
best reflects “the community’s wishes”
(government bodies or local organisations), and should there always be shared
decision-making and a search for consensus or should one party have the
ultimate power and final say.
■
Organic community leaders are not necessarily fully representative of the community or democratically appointed, but
it is only motivated and willing individuals who move things forward and
make change happen.
Success factors in
community building
Work undertaken by Howe and Cleary
(2001) for the Victorian Government on
community building strategies included a
substantial literature review from which
they distilled “international best practice”.
While cautioning that local solutions must
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
These five key success factors (Howe and
Cleary 2001: 3-4) are:
A Linked Approach, involving co-ordination
across government portfolios, partnerships
between spheres of government (local,
state and commonwealth), and partnerships between government, business, community and philanthropic sectors.
An emphasis on Local Democracy, whereby
bottom-up initiatives take priority over
solutions imposed from outside, and the
importance of local identity, leadership,
knowledge and management are recognised as critical components.
Flexible Approaches, that take regard of the
multifaceted nature of the problems that
face particular communities and which
emphasise the importance of continuous
reflection and development.
An emphasis on Sustainable Strategies
rather than one-off projects, and (strategies) which recognise the ongoing interdependency of social, economic and
environmental connectedness.”
The research also indicates that: “These success factors tend to be mutually reinforcing
and suggest that the process of community
building is as important as the outcomes.”
References
Hawe, Penelope, King, Lesley, Noort, Michelle,
Jordens, Christopher, & Lloyd, Beverly (2000),
Indicators to Help with Capacity Building in
Health Promotion, NSW Health Department
(The full report can be downloaded from the
NSW HealthWeb site: http://www.health.
nsw.gov.au).
Howe, Brian & Cleary, Rev Ray (2001), “Community building: Policy issues and strategies
for the Victorian Government”, Report commissioned by the Victorian Department of
Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne, January.
Jackson, S. et al. (1977), “Half full or half
empty? Concepts and research design for a
study of indicators of community capacity”,
Working Paper 97-01, North York Community Health Promotion Research Unit, cited
in Littlejohns and Thompson (see below).
Littlejohns, Lori Baugh & Thompson, Donna
(2001), “Cobwebs: Insights into community
capacity and its relation to health outcomes”, Community Development Journal
vol. 36, no. 1, January, pp. 30-41.
Betty Hounslow works for RPR Consulting
and is a former Director of the Australian
Council of Social Service.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Literature highlights
COMPILED BY JUDY ADAMS
The following recent international materials in the Stronger Families Learning Exchange collection may be borrowed from the Australian
Institute of Family Studies library, via the interlibrary loan system. The next edition of the Bulletin will feature Australian materials.
These references are a small sample
of recent international materials
received in the Stronger Families
Learning Exchange collection. For
further information, please see the
catalogue at http://www.aifs.org.au
/SFLEX/index.html
Children and
child development
Capital at home and at school:
effects on child social adjustment,
by Toby L. Parcel & Mikaela J. Dufur,
Journal of Marriage & the Family,
vol.63,no.1,pp.32-47,February 2001.
This article argues that capital investments in children are essential to the
social development and wellbeing of
the children. It raises questions about
the influence of school and family on
the social adjustment of children, and
emphasises the importance of social
adjustment for children.
Children in society: contemporary
theory, policy and practice, by Pam
Foley,Jeremy Rocke & Stanley Tucker,
Palgrave in association with the Open
University, Basingstoke, UK, 2001.
This book provides a critical and
comprehensive account of the theoretical and practical issues associated with working with children and
their families. It discusses many of
the current social, legal, political
and cultural debates around service
models and service delivery. Debates
on social inclusion, quality of life and
the valuing of diversity are included.
Managing to make it: afterthoughts,
by Frank F. Furstenberg, Journal
of Family Issues, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 150-162, March 2001.
This article presents the findings
from a ten-year-long research study
of five varying neighbourhoods. The
research focused on the interactions between parents and the local
community that were related to
child development. There was little
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Reconnecting household and community: an alternative strategy for
theory and policy, by John H. Scanzoni, Journal of Family Issues, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 243-264, March 2001.
This article argues that the model of
household isolation that has prevailed in the United States since the
1950s is structurally flawed. Critics
of this theory argue that there is a
meso layer of society which links
households to their communities.
This article elaborates this theme
by suggesting households may form
pacts or alliances in four areas:
gender; children/youth; older people;
and economic disadvantage.
The role of neighbourhood and community in building developmental
assets for children and youth: a
national study of social norms
among American adults, by Peter
C. Scales, Peter L. Benson & Eugene
C. Roehlkepartain, Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 29, no. 6,
pp. 703-727, November 2001.
It is important for young people to
be involved with unrelated adults, as
well as with adult family members.
evidence to suggest that the well- Building communities: civic renewal This article examines how unrelated
being of the family or child was and public policy, by Vicky Nash, adults can engage with children
related to the social cohesion, insti- New Economy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 52-54, and adolescents in positive and
effective ways.
tutional resources or problem behav- March 2001.
ior levels of the neighbourhood.
This article raises two questions:
Early intervention
However, a strong relation between
What are the characteristics of a
family management and neighbourstrong community? How can public Developing an early intervention
hood characteristics was revealed.
policy build and foster “strong program to prevent child maltreatcommunities”? Some of the most ment, by Aideen Naughton & Alan
Community building
frequently mentioned factors Heath, Child Abuse Review, vol. 10,
Building community: a conceptual which contribute to a strong com- no. 2, pp. 85-96, , March-April 2001.
framework for child protection, by munity include: the extent of social The development and implementaKen Barter, Child Abuse Review, capital; good access to public serv- tion of a child abuse prevention
vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 262-278, July- ices; a well-designed physical envi- program is described. This program
August 2001.
ronment; and participation and has a unique approach and uses a
This paper proposes an innovative involvement. The article then dis- variety of intervention strategies,
strategy to help re-claim those chil- cusses how public policy can pro- which are described in detail. The
dren and families who are at risk. This mote and strengthen these factors. first five years evaluation of these
strategy is based on a community- New measures for public policy are clinics show a very high rate of sucbuilding framework.
suggested.
cessful outcomes.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
23
Errorless compliance training with
physically abusive mothers: a
single-case approach, by Joseph M.
Ducharme, Leslie Atkinson & Lori
Poulton, Child Abuse & Neglect,
vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 855-868, June 2001.
by the Village for Families & Children
in Hartford, Connecticut.
Reducing risk for children in changing cultural contexts: recommendations for intervention and training,
by Dorit Roer-Strier, Child Abuse &
Neglect, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 231-248,
February 2001.
The sea change in non-profit human
services: a critical assessment of
outcomes measurement, by Robert
L. Fischer, Families in Society, vol. 82,
no. 6, pp. 561-568 SER, NovemberDecember 2001.
Expanding the conceptual basis of
outcomes and their use in the human
services, by David P. Moxley & Roger
Errorless compliance training is a W. Manela, Families in Society,
success-based approach which vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 569-577, Novemberteaches children to comply with December 2001.
their parents’ requests. The approach This paper aims to expand the conuses a hierarchy of compliance prob- ceptual basis of outcome measures
abilities, starting with high compli- in human services into a broader
ancy requests and working through context which includes complex
the hierarchy to low compliancy social and organisational influences.
requests. Lower compliancy requests The author then discusses how
are introduced at a slow pace to outcomes evolve, how they reflect
ensure compliance and success for aspirations and embody moral
both the mother and child.
perspectives.
This paper suggests guidelines for
both parents and professionals for
the prevention and reduction of risk
associated with cultural differences,
conflicts and misinterpretations. The
paper presents a framework for a
five step intervention plan to be
used with parents. It also recommends multicultural training for
professionals.
Evaluation
Building organisational capacity
in outcomes evaluation: a successful state association model, by
Stephen Ristau, Families in Society,
vol. 82, no. 6pp. 555-560, NovemberDecember 2001.
participate in one of two prevention
programs. Those mothers that
Meltdowns and containments: refused to participate in either proconstructions of children at risk as gram continued in the research projcomplex systems, by Lynn Nybell, ect. The mothers who refused to
Childhood, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 213-230, participate in one of the prevenMay 2001.
tion programs were more confident,
This article examines the current had more support and less deprestide of reform of children’s services sion. They also reported higher funcin the United States. The author tional status and better adjustment
describes the new wave of service in their child. The implications of
delivery models as “wraparound” these findings are discussed.
services which treat children as
Fathers
“complex systems”. This is a very
different approach from the tradiDaily variation in paternal engagetional ideas of child development
ment and negative mood: implicawhich present the developmental
tions for emotionally supportive and
stages in a linear, staged and goalconflictual interactions, by David M.
orientated progression.
Almeida, Elaine Wethington & Daniel
Education for self-support: evalu- A. McDonald, Journal of Marriage &
ating outcomes using transformative the Family, vol. 63, no. 2, pp.417-429,
learning theory, by Suzanne Christo- May 2001.
Family support
pher, Tim Dunnagan & Stephen F. This study examined the associaDuncan, Family Relations, vol. 50, tion between the time fathers spent
no. 2, pp. 134-142, April 2001.
with their children and emotionally
This paper discusses an outcome
This paper describes the use of trans- supportive or conflictual father–
measurement approach to program
formative learning theory to evalu- child interactions. It also examined
evaluation from the perspective of
ate a family-empowerment project whether the fathers’ negative mood
a direct service agency.
focusing on life skills. Participants of moderated these interactions. Findthe program were surveyed using ings showed that the more time
Family strengths
open-ended interviews. The results fathers spent with their children
revealed that transformative learn- was associated with more positive
Family strengths and the Kansas
ing outcomes, such as an empowered and supportive interactions, regardMarital Satisfaction Scale: a factor
sense of self and new connectedness less of the fathers’ mood.
analytic study, by Walter R. Schummwith others, were achieved.
Stephan R. Bollman & Anthony P.
Implications of overwork and overJurich,Psychological Reports,vol.88, Helping parents deal with children’s load for the quality of men’s family
no. 3, pt. 2, pp. 965-973, June 2001.
acute disciplinary problems with- relationships, by Ann C. Crouter,
Research into family processes now out escalation: the principle of Matthew F. Bumpus & Melissa R.
focuses on family strengths rather nonviolent resistance, by Haim Omer, Head, Journal of Marriage & the
than family dysfunction. This article Family Process, vol. 40, no. 1, pp.53- Family, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 404-416,
May 2001.
examines a new model that was 66, Spring 2001.
developed to measure six concepts This article describes a “non-violent
of family strengths.
resistance” intervention for parents
This article describes the planning,
to use when dealing with children
development and implementation The strengths perspective in social
with acute disciplinary problems.
of an evaluation program called work practice (3rd edn), by Dennis
This approach allows for a parental
Excellence 2000. This program is Saleebey, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
attitude that avoids the usual kinds
aimed at helping family service Ma, 2002.
of escalation between parents and
agencies become proficient at evalThis book introduces the basic children.
uating their service outcomes.
assumptions, values, guiding principles and lexicon of the strengths Who joins a preventive intervenDefining and measuring program
perspective. It includes an overview tion? How risk status predicts
effectiveness at a mental health/
of the strength-based approach to enrollment, Henry T. Ireys, Katherine
social services agency, by Miriam
practice, as well as ideas about how A. DeVet & Robin Chernoff, Journal
P. Kluger, Nelson Rivera & Marie
to discover and use strengths in of Community Psychology, vol. 29,
Mormile-Mehler, Families in Society,
practice. It investigates the resilience no. 4, pp. 417-427, July 2001.
vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 549-553, Novemberliterature, examines the consequences Families of chronically ill children
December 2001.
of taking a strength-based approach, were recruited for a longitudinal
This article describes an outcome and answers some of the most com- research project. The mothers were
effectiveness process which is used monly asked questions about it.
then offered an opportunity to
24
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
This study examined the impact of
men’s long work hours and role
overload on their relations with their
wives and children. Findings showed
that long work hours did not
adversely affect the relationship
with their wives. However, high levels of role overload did. The combination of long hours and high
overload did affect the father-child
relationship in a negative way.
Listening to men’s stories: overcoming obstacles to intimacy from
childhood, by Carol Dorr, Families
in Society, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 509-515,
September-October 2001.
Five white, married men from
unhealthy or abusive families of
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
information in the newsletter with
their social network. It also examined
the relation to parental change
which resulted from the individual
or shared use of the information.
The study found that individual
use of the newsletter and social
sharing of the information had
independent effects on parenting.
The results support the view that
the parenting advice is not accepted
Inter-agency cooperation
or rejected in a vacuum, but is
affected by the discussion within
Joining up the solutions: the the existing social network. This sugrhetoric and practice of inter- gests that parenting programs
agency cooperation, by Rosemary should encourage the shared proWebb & Graham Vulliamy, Children cessing of the information and even
& Society, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 315- target social networks rather than
332, November 2001.
the individual.
This article describes a three-year
project in which home-school It takes an urban village: parenting
support workers were placed in sec- networks of urban families, by Nancy
ondary schools to cooperate with, L. Marshall, Anne E. Noonan & Kathand coordinate, the other agencies leen McCartney, Journal of Family
that were working with disaffected Issues, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 163-182,
and excluded students. The difficul- March 2001.
ties of co-ordinating external and This study explored the concept
school-focused agencies are discussed. of the urban village in African
American, European American and
Parenting and parent education Hispanic American families with
primary school-aged children. The
Involvement of the personal social concept was found in all of the
network as a factor in parent communities but the nature of
education effectiveness, by Susan K. the networks varied. Findings of the
Walker & David A. Riley, Family study suggest that parents who
Relations, vol. 50, no. 2, pp.186-193, receive more emotional support
April 2001.
and had less homogeneous social
This study investigated whether networks were more warm and
parents who receive a newsletter responsive with their children, proon parenting issues discussed the vided a more stimulating home
origin were interviewed in an effort
to understand how they overcame
the problems from their childhood
and were able to be more intimate
with their own families. The main
themes that were common to their
stories included: childhood role
models; alternative caregivers; childhood friends; and pivotal later life
experiences.
environment and felt more effective
as parents. These parenting practices and characteristics were found
to be associated with fewer behaviour problems and more social
competence in the children.
of study for research, practice and
policy are discussed.
What motivates participation and
dropout among low-income urban
families of colour in a prevention
intervention, by Deborah Gross,
Make room for daddy: the pragmatic Wrenetha Julion & Louis Fogg,
potentials of a tag-team structure Family Relations, vol. 50, no. 3,
for sharing parenting, by Anna pp. 246-254, July 2001.
Dienhart, Journal of Family Issues,
vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 973-999, November This study investigated why lowincome urban parents of colour
2001.
enrolled in a parent training proThis study explores ways in which gram, and why 30 per cent of them
families can organise themselves to did not complete the program. Most
involve the fathers. A tag-team respondents said they enrolled
approach, where the differences and because they wanted to be better
the unique contribution of each parents. Time restraints, program
parent is valued, appears to be a location and the quality of the
successful formula.
recruiter were the most cited reasons
for dropping out.
Parent involvement in family support
programs: an integrated theory, by
Resilience
Karen McCurdy & Deborah Daro,
Family Relations, vol. 50, no. 2, Resilience in ecosystemic context:
evolution of the concept, by Marpp. 113-121, April 2001.
garet A. Waller, American Journal
This article outlines a conceptual
of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 71, no. 3,
model of parental involvement in
pp. 290-297, July 2001.
family support programs, which is
anchored in ecological and family This article reviews the resilience
systems frameworks. A summary of literature across a diverse range of
the current literature dealing with social science disciplines over the
the premature departure from serv- past 20 years. A synthesis of recent
ices is provided. The article proposes findings suggests that resilience is a
that parental decisions to enroll and continual, ever-changing process
remain in support programs are that is determined by a multitude of
shaped by a variety of factors at factors and occurs within a given
different levels of influence. In con- ecosystemic context. An ecosystemic
clusion the implications of this line context is one in which the interrelatedness and interdependency
between individuals and social
systems is stressed, rather than
stressing within-person factors.
Raising resilient children: fostering
strength, hope, and optimism in your
child, by Robert B. Brooks & Sam
Goldstein, Contemporary Books,
Lincolnwood, Ill. c2001.
This book aims to help parents focus
on their child’s strengths, not on
their weaknesses. In this way the
parents are helping the child to
become happier and more resilient.
The book offers a clear and practical guide to help parents build
resilience.
Judy Adams is Acting Coordinator
of the Stronger Families Learning
Exchange at the Australian Institute of family Studies.
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
25
Online resources
COMPILED BY BELINDA SNIDER
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange is gathering information and research findings relevant to strengthening families and
communities. Listed below is a selection of online documents which may be of use to families, practitioners and policy makers.
Information for parents
Family tips
Focus on the Family Australia – www.
families.org.au/5/tips.asp
Family tips covering a wide range of
family topics.
Health information
HealthInsite – www.healthinsite.
gov.au/
A searchable Commonwealth Government web site which aims to
improve the health of Australians by
providing easy access to quality
information about human health.
Health information
Child and Youth Health – www.cyh.
com/cyh/index.stm
The web site from Child and Youth
Health, an independent South Australian Government health unit,
offers a searchable parenting–child
health database, specially written
for parents, covering a wide range of
topics, and a youth health database
especially written for young people
12–24 years.
– www.stepfamily.asn.au/main.htm
Stepfamily Zone, from the Stepfamily Association of South Australia and Stepfamily Australia,
offers resources for stepfamilies,
including articles, links, newsletter,
and books.
Talking with kids about tough issues
Children Now and the Kaiser Family
Foundation – www.talkingwith
kids.org/
A United States initiative to encourage and assist parents to talk with
their children earlier and more often
about issues like sex, HIV/AIDS,
violence, alcohol, and drug abuse.
Community development
resources
Community development: the collaborative community investment
approach
Australian Youth Foundation, 2000
– www.ayf.org.au/Resources/Comm
%20Coll%20Background%20Paper/
Background%20Paper.htm
Includes a listing of principal Commonwealth and state government
Individual family service plan
families, and information for chil- Web; Young parents corner; Child initiatives in community developIFSPWeb, US – nncf.unl.edu/ifspweb dren and young people.
wellbeing research; and Information ment in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s;
/ifsp-home.html
for practitioners and for volunteers. non-governmental approaches to
A self-paced tutorial designed to help Parent easy guides
community development; and a
Nebraska parents and professionals Parenting SA – www.parenting.sa. Parenting tips
potential framework for the Auscreate better Individual Family gov.au/pegs.asp
NSW Department of Community tralian Youth Foundation’s impleService Plans (IFSPs) for young chil- Simple, easy-to-read information Services – www.community.nsw.gov. mentation process for the Community
dren with disabilities. A philosophy on many of the issues faced by par- au/document/parent/title.htm
Collaboration Investment Approach.
of family-centred services is that ents from birth through adoles- Online magazines in PDF format
programs be built on existing cence. The guides are organised in offer information and helpful tips Community participation survey,
February 2001
strengths of the family and the child. three categories: General parent- for parents.
Swinburne Institute for Social
ing; Aboriginal; and Multicultural.
Research – www.sisr.net/program
Looking after kids
Stepfamilies
WA Department of Family and Chil- Parenting magazines
The Stepfamily Association of csp/occasionalpapers/surfcoast
dren’s Services – www.fcs.wa.gov.au/ Parenting NSW – www.parenting. Victoria – www.stepfamily.org.au/ Survey.PDF
templates/looking_after_kids/defau nsw.gov.au/
Provides links, articles and papers, The basic survey instrument used in
lt.cfm
The New South Wales Government and information about courses avail- the Institute’s national project across
five Victorian and New South Wales
Information, services and resources has developed a series of Parenting able for stepfamilies.
local communities. It may be downfor looking after kids. Parenting Magazines offering advice and tips
loaded and used by local governtips are offered, as is information for parents, which can be down- Stepfamilies
about children and child develop- loaded from this site. Also offered are Stepfamily Association of South ments and community groups (but
ment, available services, Aboriginal Recipes for children; Kids fun on the Australia and Stepfamily Australia please include proper attribution).
26
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Community resilience manual: a
resource for rural recovery and
renewal
Centre for Community Enterprise,
Canada – www.cedworks.com/
Select “Community resilience” from
menu. After completion of a registration form, this manual is available
in PDF format.
Community tool box
University of Kansas – ctb.lsi.ukans.
edu/tools/tools.htm
Provides more than 200 sections of
practical and detailed information
about how to do the work of community building. Includes a model
for change; evaluating comprehensive community initiatives; and
framework for program evaluation.
Early years guidelines for community coordinators and steering
committees
Ontario Children’s Secretariat, March
2001 – www.childsec.gov.on.ca/3_
resources/early_years_study/steer
ing_guidlines.html#Anchor-Pa-4168
The purpose of the communitybased Early Years Project is to build
capacity and shared responsibility
in order to make early child development and parenting programs
available to all children in Ontario.
The guidelines cover principles,
project tasks, community ownership, accountability, and roles and
responsibilities.
First national conference on the
future of Australia’s country towns:
Practical strategies for sustainable
futures: Bendigo, June 2000
The Regional Institute Ltd – www.
regional.org.au/countrytowns/index.
htm
Online proceedings include keynote
presentations, and papers grouped
under the following themes: Global
forces – big changes; What are the
development options? Ingredients
for successful strategies; Community
responses to change; and Sharing
ideas – strategies and initiatives.
Good beginning: sending America’s
children to school with the social
and emotional competence they
need to succeed
Child Mental Health Foundations
and Agencies Network (USA) (PDF
399K) – www.nimh.nih.gov/childhp/
monograph.pdf
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
This monograph summarises the
research on the social and emotional risk and protective factors
that predict early school outcomes
and to analyse the federal policies
that seek to improve these outcomes. It then explores the existing
gaps between research and practice and provides recommendations
for change.
Monitoring outcomes: achieving
goals
City of Onkaparinga, 2000 – www.
onkaparingacity.com/council/depart
ments/indicators/index.htm
A practical guide for using community indicators to monitor the strategic directions of a local government
area or region.
Select “Community resilience” from
menu. After completion of a registration form, this publication is available in PDF format.
Action research resources
Action research e-reports
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney – www.cchs.usyd.edu
.au/arow/arer/
Fourteen reports covering action
research methodology, projects, history, and Indigenous action research.
Action research resources
Southern Cross University – www.scu.
edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arhome.html
Online resource papers are presented
which support Areol (action research
and evaluation on line), a 14-week
public course offered each semester
New commitment to neighbourhood as a public service by Southern Cross
renewal: national strategy action University and the Institute of Workplan (UK)
place Research Learning and DevelSocial Exclusion Unit, UK Cabinet opment. A number of discussion lists
Office, January 2001 (PDF 1543K) – are available.
www.cabinet–office.gov.uk/seu/200
1/action–plan.pdf
Action research, relativism and
The purpose of the National Strat- critical realism
egy for Neighbourhood Renewal is Collaborative Action Research Netto tackle the unacceptably bad con- work, University of East Anglia, UK
ditions in the UK’s poor neighbour- – www.uea.ac.uk/care/carn/Mem
hoods. Whitehall departments will bers_papers/Richard_Winter.html
be judged for the first time on the Richard Winter’s paper on a theoretareas where they are doing worst ical justification for action research.
rather than on the national average.
This document sets out a raft of Issues of trustworthiness and
commitments to policies, resources credibility in action research
and targets, which can only be Association for Qualitative Research,
achieved if departments work well AQR Conferences – www.latrobe.
together, and with local communi- edu.au/aqr/offer/papers/BDick.htm
Paper presented at the Issues of
ties and service providers.
Rigour in Qualitative Research conRevisiting the old in revitalising the ference, Melbourne, 1999, by Bob
new: capacity building in Western Dick.
Australia’s Aboriginal communities:
a discussion with case studies: final Participatory action research
world congress, Ballarat, September
report
Western Australia Aboriginal Affairs 2000
Department, 2000 (PDF 456K) – University of Ballarat – www.bal
www.aad.wa.gov.au/Downloads/pdf larat.edu.au/alarpm/list.shtml
Online papers from the ALARPM/PAR
s/FINALREPORT.pdf
The objective of this report is to World Conference are available for
provide a useful input into the downloading in Word format.
process of developing coordinated
interagency strategies to build the Reconnect action research kit
capacity of Aboriginal communities Commonwealth Department of Famto take advantage of existing services. ily and Community Services, 2000 –
www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinter
Tools and techniques for community net.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/youth–re
connect_action_research_kit.htm
recovery and renewal
Centre for Community Enterprise, This kit is designed to explain action
Canada – www.cedworks.com/ research and how it fits into the
Federal Government’s Reconnect
Program, an early intervention program which addresses the needs of
young people who are homeless or
at risk of homelessness, and their
families.
Family strengths
A meta-analysis of the impact of
community-based prevention and
early intervention action
Department of Family and Community Services, 2001 (PDF 365K) –
www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinter
net.nsf/4a0e577e7b9d1e2aca256807
0012e251/f80c6990abddba3eca2568
5f00167457/$FILE/PRP+No.11.pdf
National and international literature is reviewed to address two principal questions: What is the evidence
that prevention and early intervention programs promote the development of stronger communities
and create measurable positive social
outcomes? What is the evidence
that there is a cost-benefit to be
achieved by government supporting
such programs?
A review of the early childhood
literature
Commonwealth Department of
Family and Community Services,
2000 (PDF 194K) – www.facs.gov
.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/b919d0
6b2c7d99e3ca256807001393b2/17b
77b50cd8dbb42ca2568e0001e1869
/$FILE/earlychildhood.pdf
Commissioned review of the literature on major risk and protective
factors that may influence children’s
developmental outcomes in the preschool years, and on the preventive
and early interventions that may
impact on these outcomes.
Australian couples in millennium
three: a research and development
agenda for marriage and relationship education
Commonwealth Department of
Family and Community Services,
2000 (PDF 408K) – www.facs.gov
.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/b919d0
6b2c7d99e3ca256807001393b2/17b
77b50cd8dbb42ca2568e0001e1869
/$FILE/AustralianCouples.pdf
A commissioned report on how to
enhance the effectiveness of marriage and relationship education in
strengthening marriage and relationships in Australia.
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
27
Building communities that
strengthen families: elements of
effective approaches
Australian Institute of Family Studies 2000 – www.aifs.org.au/insti
tute/seminars/scott.html
Paper presented at Institute’s seminar
by Dorothy Scott which outlines conceptual and empirical components of
a strong foundation for developing
programs aimed at family strengthening and community building, and
identifies some of the challenges for
programs in “going to scale”.
The following papers from this conference are available Online:
Community interventions to promote healthy social environments:
early childhood development and
family housing
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, USA, February 2002 –
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrh
tml/rr5101a1.htm
A report on recommendations of the
Task Force on Community Preventive
Services, reviewing early childhood
development and family housing
interventions. It recommends publicly funded, centre-based, comprehensive early childhood development
programs for low-income children
aged three to five years, and housing
subsidy programs for low-income
families which provide rental vouchers for use in the private housing
market and allow families choice in
residential location.
“Families and communities connect@public libraries”, by Robinson, L.
“Connections: a group to assist in
building relationships between
mothers and children in overcoming
the effects of domestic violence”, by
Robards, F. and Partridge, S.
“Developing the longitudinal survey of Australian children”, by Dickenson, J. and Grant, M.
“Engaging fathers in group work:
creating cooperative environments”,
by King, A.
“Getting it right on both fronts: an
integrated strengths-based approach
to practice and organisational management”, by Barnardos Australia.
Family strengths research project
Family Action Centre, University of
Newcastle, 2000 (PDF 603K) –
www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/fac/
programs/fsreport.pdf
This project developed an Australian
Inventory of Family Strengths consisting of 85 strength statements.
Over 600 volunteers who identified
themselves as members of a family
with strengths filled out this inventory. The Family Strengths Theme
Research entailed a qualitative analysis of family strengths stories provided
by more than 70 family members in
the form of open-question surveys
and interviews. This report outlines
the structure and the results of both
studies, and discusses how the findings of both projects have been incorporated to produce an Australian
Family Strengths Template.
“In the eyes of the beholders: vision- Housing, social capital and stronger
aries and advocates”, by Dowling, L. communities
Australian Housing and Urban
(Families and disability).
Research Institute, 2001 (PDF 138K)
“Social capital: linking family and
– www.ahuri.edu.au/pubs/position
community”, by Stone, W. and
ing/pp_stronger.pdf
Hughes, J.
The first stage of the “Strengthening
“The ACT schools as communities communities: the contribution of
program”, by Collins, K. and housing policy and planning” project,
this positioning paper establishes
Winkworth, G.
the framework for an empirical
“Two hands, three baskets and hope: examination of the relationship
parents rebuilding after child sexual between housing and social capital
abuse”, by Whittington, H.
in the strengthening of communities.
Provides a review and analysis of
literature on the conceptualisation
and measurement of community
strength and its outcomes; places this
information in an analytical framework, identifying the commonalities
and differences between various
approaches to these issues; provides
a menu of options of indicators for
measuring community strength, especially indicators on which data are
available or collectable; and evaluates
those options as a total set.
Searching for family resilience
Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2001 (PDF 596K) – www.aifs.org.
au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm58/ss.pdf
Article by Simone Silberberg with
information about the University of
Newcastle Family Action Centre’s
Family Strengths Research Project
and the Australian Family Strengths
Template, which aims to offer a
framework from which community
resources can be developed and other
research projects can be initiated.
Work and family: current thinking,
research and practice
Commonwealth Department of
Family and Community Services,
2000 (PDF 256K) – www.facs.gov
.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/b919d0
6b2c7d99e3ca256807001393b2/17b
77b50cd8dbb42ca2568e0001e1869
/$FILE/work_family.pdf
Work and family issues, including the
“Unlocking the essence of profesIdentification and analysis of indi- influence of work on family strength
Family strengths: everybody’s busisional home visiting: a strengths
cators of community strength and and wellbeing, are examined in this
ness, everybody’s gain: second Ausapproach to improved parenting”, by
commissioned family research paper.
outcomes
tralian conference on building family
Bryce, H. and Ellison, L.
Department of Family and Commustrengths – University of Newcastle,
“Working with fathers where they nity Services, 2001 (PDF 437K) – www. Belinda Snider is the Database
December 2001
Papers – www.pco.com.au/fam are: learnings from the workplace”, by facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/ Librarian at the Australian Institute
Russell, G. and Llewellyn–Smith, P.
vIA/occasional_papers/$file/No.3.pdf of Family Studies.
ilystrengths/
28
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Conferences
COMPILED BY BELINDA SNIDER
For conferences or events to be listed in the Bulletin and the Institute’s Internet pages, please send details to Belinda Snider, Database
Librarian at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Phone: (03) 9214 7864. Fax: (03) 9214 7839. Email: [email protected]
21–23 June 2002
Children First
Coffs Harbour, NSW
3–5 July 2002
Community Networking
Monash University, Vic
The objectives of this conference,
“Children First: Making the Vital
Years Count”, from the Country Children’s Services Association of New
South Wales include: to explore
ways of translating government policy into outcomes for children; to
develop strategies of service evaluation and meeting community
needs; and to explore literacy and
numeracy experiences within the
early childhood curriculum.
The Fifth Community Networking
Conference, “Electronic Networks:
Building Community”, is a must for
anyone who is interested in enriching
communities through accessible electronic networking. One of the major
aims of the conference is to engage
delegates in issues of community networking and increase understanding
in how community networking principles can contribute significantly to
community building. Main themes
are: community building; knowledge
economy/knowledge community; and
digital divide/income divide.
Further information: Kathy Whalan,
Project Officer, Country Children’s
Services Association of NSW, PO Box
118, Katoomba NSW 2780. Phone:
(02) 4782 1470. Fax: (02) 4782 4425.
Email: [email protected].
Further information: Larry Stillman
and Gary Hardy, Centre for community Networking Research,
Monash University, PO Box 197,
Caulfield East Vic 3145. Phone: (03)
9903 1801. Email [email protected].
Web: http://www.ccnr.net/2002/
23–27 June 2002
Early Childhood
Broadbeach, Gold Coast, Qld
“Beyond What’s ‘Best’ for Children:
Creating Our Community of Practice” is the title of the International
Conference 2002 hosted by the
Creche and Kindergarten Association munities, the conference is designed
so that participants identify the
of Queensland.
issues of relevance and interest in
Further information: Louise Burke.
their own communities to which
Phone: (07) 3552 5333. Email:
the theme of inclusion applies.
[email protected]
Further information: Dawn Darlas27–29 June 2002
ton-Jones, School of Psychology,
Towards Inclusive Communities
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup
Perth, WA
Campus, 100 Joondalup Drive,
The Edith Cowan University is host- Joondalup, WA, 6027. Email: d.dar
ing an international conference, [email protected] or Meredith.Green
Working Towards Inclusive Com- @curtin.edu.au.
munities: From Rhetoric to Reality:
Trans-Tasman Community. The con- 2–3 July 2002
ference aims to encourage interdis- Social Policy Research and
ciplinary collaboration, as well as Evaluation
participation from community Wellington, NZ
members, advocates, practitioners,
policy-makers and other stakeholders. Focusing on the exploration of
power and inequality in our com-
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
icy, Research and Practice”. The focus
of the conference will be on social
science researchers presenting their
research on social policy-relevant
topics; and presentations on the
issues and the process of generating
social policy-relevant research and
its uptake by government agencies.
The conference is part of a package
of initiatives agreed to by Cabinet as
part of the Improving the Knowledge Base for Social Policy (IKB)
Project.
Further information: Neil McInnes,
Strategic Policy Group, Ministry
of Social Development, Private
Bag 39993, Wellington NZ. Phone:
The Ministry of Social Development (04) 918 9551. Fax: (04) 916 3776.
is convening the Social Policy Email: [email protected].
Research and Evaluation Confer- Web: http://www.dsw.govt.nz/key
ence 2002, titled “Connecting Pol- initiatives/conference.html
4–7 July 2002
Asia Pacific Societies
Brisbane, Qld
The theme of the fifth Asia Pacific
Sociological Association Conference is
Asia Pacific Societies: Contrasts, Challenges and Crises, reflecting both the
changing nature of societies in the
region together with the challenges
they face. The 2002 APSA conference
is being held just prior to the XV International Sociological Association
World Congress. The bringing together
of these conferences will allow sociologists from around the world to
obtain an insight to sociology in the
region and will allow sociologists in
the region to meet others from the
United States and UK-Europe and to
share experiences and interests.
Further information: Email: apsa_2002
@asiaone.com. Web: http://www.an
soc.uq.edu.au/asia-pacific/index.htm
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
29
7–13 July 2002
ISA World Congress
Brisbane, Qld
10–12 September 2002
Politics of Childhood
University of Hull, UK
This conference explores the politics
of childhood as experienced by
children in their everyday lives. It
considers how children’s social
worlds – at home, in the street, at
school, in the playground – are
Further information: Web: http:// shaped by wider social, economic
www.ucm.es/info/isa/congress2002/ and political forces operating both
globally, through national and inter2–4 September 2002
national law and social policy, and
Child and Family Services
more locally through specific culSydney, NSW
tural representations of what chilThe Association of Children’s Welfare dren should be and what childhood
Agencies is pleased to invite pro- should be like. Abstracts to be sent
posals for papers, workshop and by 5 April 2002.
poster presentations for the 2002 Further information: Centre for the
Conference. Titled “What Works? Social Study of Childhood, DepartEvidence Based Practice in Child ment of Applied Sciences, University
and Family Services”. The confer- of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK.
ence will have streamed sessions Email: [email protected]
on: out of home care; Indigenous
children and families; children 25–27 September 2002
with disabilities; child protection; Connecting Communities
education for vulnerable children Whyalla, SA
and young people.
The Fifth Biennial National Regional
The theme of the International Sociological Association World Congress
of Sociology is “The Social World in
the 21st Century: Ambivalent Legacies and Rising Challenges”.
Further information: Sharyn Low,
Matrix On Board, Phone: (02) 4572
3079. Fax: (02) 4572 3972. Email: sha
[email protected]. Web: http://www.
infoxchange.net.au/group/notice
board/YAFS/item/20020224001b200
20902.shtml
30
Australia Conference will be presented by the University of South
Australia’s Centre for Rural and
Remote Area Studies.
Further information: Web: http://
www.regional.org.au/au/nra/2002/in
dex.htm
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
Further information: Conference
Secretariat, Gini Solutions: Phone:
(03) 9859 5508. Mobile phone: 0419
With the theme “Mobilising Public 178 138. Fax: (03) 9859 0519. Email:
Health”, the 34th Public Health [email protected].
Association of Australia Annual Con19–24 November 2002
ference will concentrate on demonFamily Relations
strating what public health can and
Houston, Texas, USA
does achieve, its relevance and
capacity, even in times of scarce The theme of the 64th Annual Conresources. The conference will have ference of the National Council on
a strong emphasis on action in pub- Family Relations is “Families Over
lic health. Sub-themes include the Life Course: Bridging Research
refugee policy and status, tech- and Practice”. The focus will be on
nologies, and Aboriginal and Torres the following questions: Is strengthStrait Islander health and wellbeing. ening marriage to reduce the divorce
Abstracts deadline 16 April 2002.
rate a workable strategy for policy
Further information: PHAA Secre- and intervention? How can we fostariat, Phone: (02) 6285 2373. Email: ter resiliency in children and adolescents in low income families? Is
[email protected].
parent and child wellbeing getting
8–9 November 2002
better or worse under welfare
The Critical Early Childhood Years
reform? What are future prospects
Melbourne, Vic
for increasing father involvement
“The Critical Early Childhood Years: in child rearing and household
Rethinking Current Interventions activities? What can be done to
and Strategies” is the name of the enhance long term caregiving of
conference to be hosted by the elders by their family members?
Queen Elizabeth Centre, Melbourne. What are successful approaches to
Themes will be: Care and education university–community collaborain early childhood; New under- tions to enhance child and parent
standings of early childhood; High
wellbeing?
needs families and high risk infants;
Prevention and early intervention for Further information: National Counparents and children: Building par- cil on Family Relations, 3989 Central
enting competence. Abstracts are Ave. NE, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN
invited, closing date 30 April 2002. 55421, USA
29 September – 2 October 2002
Public Health Association
Adelaide, SA
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002
Learning exchange services
Stronger Families
Learning Exchange services
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange, at the Australian Institute
of Family Studies, provides clients and stakeholders with a variety
of services.
Research collection and library
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange has compiled and catalogued a comprehensive
and ongoing collection of Australian and international early intervention and prevention
research and practice literature and resources. Materials are acquired in all formats – books,
manuals, periodicals, newsletters, audio-visual materials and electronic resources.
Material housed by the Learning Exchange may be browsed at the Institute, or borrowed
or obtained in photocopy format (where applicable) via your own library. For copyright
reasons, photocopies can not be provided by the Learning Exchange direct.
Help desk
A help desk is staffed during office hours to answer queries related to action research,
family wellbeing and community development. Queries can be addressed by telephone,
fax, mail, email, or in person.
To contact the help desk:
Phone: (03) 9214 7888
Freecall: 1800 352 275
Fax (03): 9214 7839
Email: [email protected]
Website
The Learning Exchange website (www.aifs.org.au/sf/index.html) provides:
• information on Commonwealth and State and Territory initiatives;
• database of action learning projects in Australia;
• links to Australian and overseas websites;
• electronic versions of Learning Exchange publications; and
• news of forthcoming conferences and events.
Action research database
A good-practice database contains information about Australian early intervention and
prevention projects using action research methodology. The database is accessible via the
Learning Exchange website (www.aifs.org.au).
Become part of the Stronger Families Learning Exchange network!
Join our mailing list to receive the latest news about, and regular six-monthly bulletins containing information on the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, Stronger Families Fund project descriptions and news,
good practice, research results, and developments in the field of early intervention and prevention.
Name:
Address:
Organisation:
Position:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Send to: Stronger Families Learning Exchange
Australian Institute of Family Studies
300 Queen Street
Melbourne
Victoria 3000 Australia
Fax:
Learning exchange contributes
to stronger families
The Stronger Families Learning Exchange at
the Australian Institute of Family Studies aims
to contribute to the formation of an evidence
base from which to inform policy, practice
and research in strengthening families and
communities. It will do this in two ways.
■ It will provide a repository of information
and data on Stronger Families Fund projects,
other early intervention and early childhood
projects, related national and international
research, and action research.
Printed on recycled paper
■ It will provide action research expertise and
advice on project design, implementation,
evaluation and reporting to Stronger Families
Fund projects. Data will be collected and
analysed, and learnings disseminated back
to the projects, stakeholders, and the wider
community.
32
STRONGER FAMILIES LEARNING EXCHANGE
BULLETIN NO.1 AUTUMN 2002