At Relationships Australia we have been concerned for some time about the effects on families of the rapid and extensive socioeconomic changes of the last 25 years. Many people are troubled by decreasing marriage rates, increasing divorce rates, later marriages and related trends. These have not been our major concern and, in fact, as explained in another paper in this publication, "Relationships Australia Celebrates 50 Years of Service", we interpret these developments differently from many people. Our concern is that the socioeconomic system has changed completely for the generation now in their twenties and early thirties. We believe that the generation in power in society does not yet see this as a permanent change which requires rethinking our public policies and their underlying assumptions.
The central focus of this paper is acknowledgement of the changes and their impact, and discussion of the implications for government, communities and relationship support services.
The major changes
The major socioeconomic change is being documented increasingly in research. Reforms to the Australian and world economies in the past 20 years are complex. We do not seek to explore them in detail but to outline their extent and significance. A major point is that the move to globalisation of the economy and a liberal economic agenda has led to permanent changes to the labour market and labour force patterns, principally reduced security of employment, greater participation of women in the workforce, increased under-employment, increased overtime work for many (usually unpaid), earlier retirement, and multiple job and career changes over a lifetime.
There has also been significant change in the pattern of families. Two areas of noticeable change are marriage patterns and the role of young people in the family since the 1950s. The average age for first marriage in the 1970s was 21 years for a woman and 23 years for men. In the 1990s, the average age is 25 years for women and 27 years for men. De facto relationships are now 8% of all couples, and child-bearing occurs at a later age. Young people’s movement through the life cycle has also changed dramatically. In particular, young people are staying in education and moving out of the parental home at a later age (ABS 1997b, Hartley, 1993).
Our interest in young people
Our interest is in the young adult age group of 20 to 35. This is the age at which couple relationships are formed, especially first marriages; children are born, resulting in family formation; and it is also the group that divorces most. Therefore, as a specialist provider of relationship and family support services, this is a vital group for us to understand.
This is also a group that is not often mentioned. For example, when people talk about youth unemployment they usually refer to the 15—20 age group, ignoring the fact that the statistics are becoming alarming for the 20—30 year age group, as demonstrated by the unemployment rate of 13.0% for 20—24 year olds and 7.6% for 25—34 year olds (ABS, 1998).
The cohort of people now in their twenties and thirties are the first generation to be confronted with the new socioeconomic system. They are also the children of the largest cohort in history - the Baby Boomers - who, as a generation, experienced full employment and economic growth when they were the age their children are now. Young adults are also the children of the cohort that have divorced in high numbers since the introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975. Understanding them and their ways of responding to these changes is essential for service development and public policy.
Relationships - their importance and our expectations of them
This year, Relationships Australia is celebrating 50 years of service to Australians. As a contribution to the understanding of relationships in Australia we conducted the Relationships Indicators survey. This will be repeated every two years to contribute to information about major shifts in behaviour and attitudes to relationships over time. The survey underpinning the Index was based on a survey undertaken at the time of our name change in 1994.
The 1998 Relationships Indicators confirmed that Australians value and want to improve their relationships. These relationships may be with a wife, husband or intimate partner, or with sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers or other key people in their lives, including friends. Of those surveyed, 53% want to improve at least one of their relationships. The Index also showed that people do believe that there are good reasons for marrying. We have argued for some time that the divorce figures and later marriage are not signs that people do not value marriage, but on the contrary are evidence of people’s very high expectations and a cautiousness about making the full commitment until they are sure that they have found the right partner. We believe that the Index confirms this.
One of the main reasons for many people’s concern about marriage and divorce is that comparisons have been made from the wrong base. If we look at trends over a longer period of time than just the decades since World War II (ABS 1998, 1996), we see that the 1950s and 1960s were an aberration. Figure 1 (Crude Marriage Rates - Selected Years from 1933 to 1997) shows that the marriage rate before World War II was not much higher than it is now. Note: The crude marriage rate is the total number of marriages per 1,000 population aged over 15 years.
But, in the years between, there have been two peaks of much higher marriage rates -1947, and the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is the large difference between the levels of the two peak periods and the present that gives the sense of a dramatic change.
The profile of the number of divorces per 1,000 married people at Figure 2 is also dramatic.
Here the explanations are equally interesting. Divorce was difficult and costly before the 1975 Family Law Act, so divorce was low except for a noticeable increase in 1947 (ie, immediately post-war). This sudden increase in divorce in 1947 contributed to the concerns about stable families, and of course it is the divorce figures of the last 20 years that are being presented as cause for concern now.
For the periods of lower divorce rates covered in Figure 2, however, the statistics do not mean that all of the rest of the marriages were intact - the levels of desertion and separation were high, but not usually followed by formal divorce. Sole parents were just as common a century ago as they are now. As McDonald (1993) has said, the increase in divorce over the last 70 years can be seen as formalising marriage breakdown by divorce. The Australian Institute of Family Studies (McDonald, 1993) has shown that the length of relationships, on average, is no shorter than it was late last century. This is because, with early death, desertion and separation, marriages did not on average last longer. In fact, today’s married couples are more likely than couples 100 years ago to be still living with their spouses after 30 years.
In the light of these trends, "recent changes may appear less dramatic than at first sight" (Edgar, 1995:10). Taking a longer-term view, we see that there is more similarity between the profile of relationships in the period before World War II and now: less emphasis on everyone marrying, later marriage and child-bearing, and similar lengths of relationships. The immediate post-war decades were unusual: encouragement of marriage for all, earlier marriage and childbirth, and an image of marriage for the longer life span that was possible by then.
With this in mind, Relationships Australia has been working in its national public policy activities to encourage a more balanced and considered view of what is happening to relationships, marriage and families. They are changing, and the changes are important and fascinating, but we need to avoid creating a nostalgia for an era which was an aberration and could not support its own ideology.
Expectations of marriage
Another aspect is that expectations of relationships have changed significantly since the pre-World War II era. Warwick Hartin, former National Director of Relationships Australia, commented amusingly but seriously about the difference in expectations of marriage, last century and in more recent years.
"In the predominantly rural economies of the past, a husband would be content if his wife assisted him on the farm, was the mother of his children, kept house, and was a reasonably willing sexual partner. His wife would be satisfied if her husband worked hard, supported the family, was not too intolerant of the children, not too demanding sexually, and was not violent when drunk. The modern marital partner is expected to be the ideal companion for every occasion, a wise and understanding confidant, an all-coping parent, an exciting sex partner, a comfort in trouble, an adviser in difficulties, a resource in a crisis, and a loyal sympathiser and supporter."
(Hartin 1992:28).
An understanding of the longer term trends in relationships, marriage and families is important background to the main issues that we raise in this paper. The life cycle of relationships and families through stages of preparation, formation, maintenance and enhancement, possible ending, healing and reformation are central to people’s life goals and to our work. It is the effect of social and economic change on these relationships that is our focus here.
A new socioeconomic system
We believe that there is a new socioeconomic system confronting young people: there has been a paradigm shift in thinking about the economy, the role of government and the labour market, as well as the globalisation of these elements. The expectations of how income is earned, of work conditions, of income support and provision of community support, of relationships and families, have all changed. McDonald (1996) has written an important paper on this, comparing the circumstances for the generation that is aged between 40 and 55 now and those that are now aged 15—30. Changing labour force patterns, increasingly rostered working hours, major reductions in social infrastructure, the targeting of government benefits, the casualisation of work and the changes in industrial conditions we believe constitute a new socioeconomic system.
CHANGING LABOUR FORCE PATTERNS
The labour force is profoundly different today from 30 years ago. During that 30-year period, nearly all employment growth has been in the service sector, which increased from 2.6 million to 6.0 million workers. This industry is characterised by part-time, casual and seasonal work (ABS, 1997a). In some parts of the sector, work is also rostered over 24 hours, 7 days a week. Seven-day rosters are equally common for young women and young men, and therefore involvement in family life will be equally difficult for both genders.
For young people entering the job market today, employment, if obtainable, is uncertain and unstable. The casualisation of the job market may mean that the young person will not participate in the labour force through full-time work but rather combine part-time and casual work. This has profound effects on the income, lifestyle and opportunities of young people, as vividly demonstrated on a Triple J Radio Network talkback program in 1998:
"I call in every morning at 6.30 a.m. to find out if I am working that day. How can I plan long-term when I don’t know what I am doing day to day?" (Triple J talkback caller).
This planning would be for all activities, such as training, voluntary work experience, recreation, and planning a social life to form relationships.
Research conducted with our service providers in 1998 showed that there are changes in employment not only for young people but also for every age range. People who are already in the labour force need to change and adapt to the work environment.
"We might see a couple who … both work full-time to pay the mortgage, raise children and run a household, and one partner will be studying at night. Yet they need that qualification to keep up-to-date in the work environment." Relationships Australia service provider (Relationships Australia National Office, 1998).
The Relationships Indicators (1998b) confirmed that economic factors impact adversely on relationships. The survey found that over three-quarters of the respondents (77%) reported that they have experienced major relationship difficulties in recent years in at least one of their important relationships. The three main contributing factors were financial difficulties (29%), work or study demands (26%), and having or bringing up children (24%).
The financial difficulties of young people, and the financial difficulties reported in the Relationships Indicators point to another concern. Conventional wisdom in social policy holds that there is a life cycle of poverty through the stages of family life. The experience was that young people built up resources before marriage and before having children, were at risk of poverty when children were born, recovered again when the children left home or started to contribute financially because they were working, and then might be at risk of poverty again in old age. Income support was planned with some recognition of this. Now it is apparent that young people find it very difficult to build up resources, or take much longer to do so, and are therefore delaying having children. When they have children they need two incomes to survive, placing sole parents, who experience poverty at higher rates than two-parent families, at even greater disadvantage.
Workplace conditions
In the workplace, a combination of a government policy change to workplace agreements and a business policy to pursue a "flexible" workforce is bringing major changes to people’s lives. Workplace conditions can also influence a worker’s quality of work and family life (Wolcott and Glezer, 1995).
Workplace agreements and enterprise bargaining have given workers some benefit in negotiating aspects of their working arrangements. These moves are encouraging for workers who juggle work and family commitments. However, as the Brotherhood of St Laurence (Jackson, 1995) discusses in The Future of Work: The Way Forward, the shift to enterprise bargaining for working time has not been universally beneficial for workers:
"There is some evidence that enterprise agreements have resulted in less rather than greater control by women over their hours of work, thus restricting their capacity to juggle their paid and unpaid work; and that the introduction of changes such as seven-day rosters in male areas of work may be reducing the capacity of men to participate in family life."
Wolcott and Glezer (1995) discuss a number of workplace conditions relevant to parents. These include some choice and control over the scheduling of work and flexibility in work practices to meet both unexpected and routine needs of family life. The quality of the job also affects the family, as stressful experiences can impact on family relationships. Just as important is a job that is interesting, provides a sense of achievement, fosters good relationships with co-workers and supervisors and provides job security and income. While new workplace agreements and enterprise bargaining are encouraging steps, striking the balance between the new socioeconomic system and "family-friendly" workplaces has still not been achieved.
Relationships Australia counsellors report that couples coming for counselling find that the longer working hours now required are causing difficulties in their relationships. Working a 10-hour day is not considered unusual, and children are seeing their parents come home from work late in the evening. The Relationships Indicators found that study and work demands accounted for 26% of significant difficulties in relationships and, for 18—24 year olds, were the leading difficulty in relationships.
Long working hours also include unpaid work. This may be domestic work or caring for children, the elderly, the sick and those with disabilities. This unpaid work is predominantly undertaken by women, both inside families and in the broader community (MacNeil, 1995).
Balancing paid work, unpaid work and other responsibilities requires more than flexible workplaces and conditions. Community services, such as child care and community care, play an important role in supporting participation in the workforce, particularly for women (Uniting Community Services Australia, 1997).
Changing family structures
The total image of relationships and families that was promoted in public policy in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s could not carry the weight put on it. It did not last even 20 years, although shadows of it influence us now. The role of women was challenged first; then came improved contraception, increased emphasis on personal goals and independence, increased levels of education for men and women, and the trend to later marriages again. The glamorised image of the family was challenged as the silence about domestic violence and child abuse was broken. Cultural diversity in family structures and styles was acknowledged, and de facto relationships and cohabitation were more accepted. Increased mixed-culture marriages are also increasing, and significant numbers of people are choosing to remain single or live in same-sex relationships. In recent years, the economic pressure to have two incomes to support a family has led to the enormous increase in married women in the workforce.
There has been a major shift from the "breadwinner" model of the family, which underpinned people’s behaviour and public policy in matters such as the basic wage and income security. The chapter, "Families and Welfare Services", in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 1998 publication Australia’s Welfare, outlines this well. It points to the education and employment systems as having changed in keeping with the change to a model of the family based on gender equity. However, publicly-provided welfare services have not changed. For example, there is still an assumption that women will be available as full-time carers for family members who are sick, disabled or elderly. The publication also discusses the importance of recognising that, although families are spread across households more than in the past, there is still strong evidence of "substantial exchanges of money, services, and emotional support between households" (AIHW, 1997, p. 60).
Another change in families relates to the living arrangements for children, with increases in step-families and shared parenting arrangements across two households. Our counsellors confirm that they are seeing complex family relationships and multifaceted and splintered families. Although some of these families could be classified as "blended", this incorrectly suggests a smooth transition and working of the family.
Because of the part-time, casual nature of the work available, young people’s incomes are often lower and they remain at home with their parents for longer. They are often unable to contribute to the family finances, thus extending the stress on the parents, their income and their relationship. The parents may also at this time be assuming financial responsibility for, and providing support to, their parents. This may leave them less prepared financially for the longer period of life after retirement that the Baby Boomer generation faces.
We have already mentioned that young people are marrying later and having children later, and more are living in intimate couple relationships that are not marriages nor necessarily seen by them as de facto relationships. An associated change has been that, although young women may be involved with a partner, they are less likely to be living with them. More young women are living at home with their parents (40% for ages 20—24), and more are in group households - an increase from 11.5% in 1986 to 21.1% in 1996. Similarly, the percentage of young men living at home has also increased, to 55%.
Related to these trends have been changes to the way in which people become couples. Our research has confirmed that young people do want long-term, committed relationships. However, the steps towards such commitment are more complex than they were for their parents. These steps are:
"The net effect of this complexity is that many young people experience a sequence of intimate relationships, and many have difficulty working their way through to a high level of attachment - that is, a level where the clear intention is that the relationship is permanent." (AIHW, 1997:70).
All this is being negotiated amidst a life of uncertain employment and income, possibly debts from higher education, higher expectation of relationships and anxiety about choosing the right partner. Young people are trying to find the balance between autonomy and intimacy, and between the life choices they need to make to cope with change.
Mismatching policy
Public policies in government, community and business activities are impacting on families in two key ways. One range of policies is deliberately shaping the new socioeconomic system. The other range is out of touch with the reality of people’s lives and, as a result, these policies create unintended problems for individuals and families. There are also, of course, many contradictory, complex and confusing policies that affect families.
Financial Independence and Choice of Living Arrangements
The Common Youth Allowance is one policy that is deliberately shaping lives and, as a result, is greatly changing families. ABS Statistics show that young people are staying in education for longer periods of time and also staying in their parents’ homes until a later age. This is not a natural development - the Common Youth Allowance states that students are to be assessed on their parents’ income until the age of 25, when they qualify for an "independent rate". This inhibits the ability of young people to move into the life stage of separation from the family and move towards forming their own families. There is little choice for the young person who, for financial reasons, cannot leave the family home.
Instead of young adults leaving their homes to form their own families, they may move into the rental market or group housing, returning to the family home when financial problems arise. The adult members of the family feel an obligation to maintain the young adult financially, given high youth unemployment and the increase in part-time and casual jobs. While the young persons may be financially dependent upon their families, they may be striving for independence in other areas of their lives. It is a confusing time for both parties and impacts on all members of the family, financially and emotionally.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, unemployment benefits are not obtainable for people under the age of 18. The focus in government policy for these young people is to return to some form of study, even if they do not perform well in an educational setting. Being required to continue to struggle in education can lead to alienation, disruptive behaviour, family tension and to young people leaving home with very negative and some times irreparable breakdowns in their relationships with their parents.
There may also be extra pressure on the young person to achieve in school, especially by parents who see the uncertainty of the labour market. Leaving school at Year 10 is no longer an option, and apprenticeships now need a Year 12 Certificate. For those who have difficulty at school, or are not academically minded, the options decrease radically.
Young people in casual, part-time work cannot get low-interest loans to help them with their financial difficulties because business policies have not adapted to the social and economic changes in society. If young people do manage to get approval for credit, it is very likely to be at the highest rates. This is an example of the well-established fact that the poor pay more for their money.
The key to partnering and child rearing for a majority of Australian families is stable housing and access to home ownership. It has traditionally provided stability to families at critical stages in the life cycle. Yet young people who are now accessing a job market where full-time work may not be obtainable cannot enter the home ownership market due to the home loan criteria for full-time employment.
The ACOSS paper, "A Common Youth Allowance" (1997), follows this line of argument. It states:
"It cannot be assumed that longer periods of study or work preparation imply that young people should remain dependent on their parents for longer periods, even though they may remain in the parental home for much longer … Social policy cannot march out of step with community norms and attitudes. A policy which forces young people to remain dependent on their parents, even though they would clearly identify themselves (and be regarded by their parents and the general community) as independent, could cause social harm, including family breakdown, as well as being difficult to enforce."
Income support
With the changes to the labour market, many people of all ages are having to survive financially either by combining an income from part-time work with a social security benefit or by moving repeatedly between short-term, casual work and income support. This has been the case for some years, and yet the eligibility requirements and administrative arrangements in the social security system still make this difficult and hazardous - difficult in that the regulations and procedures are complex, and hazardous because it is very easy to be overpaid erroneously and then be required to repay the money (Baldock, 1994). This is especially true for students who have a limit on the amount they are allowed to earn before their allowance decreases. Fortunately, there is some discussion of negative tax and tax credits being considered for low-paid workers. This would be a major breakthrough in justice for workers who are in this position.
Reductions in social infrastructure
Families are a core social unit of society. Both sides of government publicly acknowledged the importance of families in their election campaigns by launching "Family Policy" statements. However, for families to function with a sense of well-being, they cannot be the only social unit of society and they need to be embraced and supported whatever form they choose to take. Families have never been self-reliant, and nor should they be. Public policies which direct the responsibility for the care of family members back to the community without adequate mechanisms for support and respite exacerbate pressures on family structures.
Current governments argue that there is "no choice" but to reduce expenditure in the delivery of services. The result is the reliance on families, the community or the private sector for services and support. These three social institutions, rather than the state, are now seen as the "safety net". Deinstitutionalisation policies relied on families to take responsibility for care without the accompaniment of adequate community support. A devastating effect of the release of the mentally ill into a community with no adequate community support has been destitution and homelessness (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1993). Relationships Australia counsellors see increasing numbers of such people who are having relationship and family difficulties.
As mentioned above, some policies implicitly assume that women are at home and are able to care for family members. Such policy is out of touch with the current socioeconomic system. For example, in the HACC Program, the targeting of those most in need is defined by age, degree of handicap and lack of family support. Ineligible clients are expected to buy their own services or rely on relatives to provide care. (Burbidge, 1998; Baldock, 1994).
These are just some examples of the pressures faced by individuals and families created by a mismatching of policy. In our document, "Priorities for Families, Children and Young People, and Family Relationships" (1998a), we called for Government to develop a mechanism to assess and monitor the impact of social and economic policies on families, children and young people. We believe this would send a powerful message about the importance of families in the nation’s social and economic structure, and work towards breaking down the mismatch of public policy. This mechanism would allow the co-ordination of policy to ensure that what is given by one policy is not taken by another.
Implications for relationship support services
The social and economic changes, combined with the changes in family structures, have important implications for relationship support services, including Relationships Australia, both in the services we offer and the way in which they are delivered. These are some preliminary thoughts, and there is a need for more discussion of these matters in our field.
Supporting families and strengthening communities
A healthy society is built on strong families and communities, not just families alone. Two areas that concern us are the support bases upon which people draw during times of stress and strain, and the current interest in "social capital".
We all create a map around us of supports and contacts. In the new socioeconomic environment where individualism is encouraged, the population is mobile and the workplace takes on increasing importance, these supports and contacts may be drawn from work and study environments. For those who do not have access to these environments, there is increasing alienation and isolation. Increasing pessimism, especially among young people, is an area of concern among service providers. The cultivation of a sense of hope is often as important as specific strategies.
A concern raised by our counsellors is how people and, in particular, women, manage as they move into child rearing. They may be removed from their support group in the workforce, and family support may be some distance away. A positive solution to this concern can be group work, which allows for connection and increases social networks. Case management in counselling can also focus on responses to and strategies for these issues.
As the family is pushed to become more "self-reliant", there is an interest in communities and civic life reinvigorated by "social capital" - that is, social exchanges marked by trust and reciprocity (Winter 1998).
Warwick Smith, former Federal Minister for Family Services, stated in his contribution to Family Matters (Smith 1998):
"In social capital theory it is a truism that, while governments can very easily destroy social capital, they cannot create it. I believe this is true. However, what governments can do is to foster the conditions whereby social capital can flourish."
Eva Cox (1995) also comments on the role of government:
"Removing … public support will leave a sense of desertion and loss, as private lives try to make do with their own resources".
Sviridoff and Ryan (1997) noted that few funders recognise "stronger communities" as a valid outcome.
Young people and prevention
We see that a key area of our work for this generation of young people is relationship education, by which we mean more than the traditional six-session course before marriage. We see the new direction as working with young people to help them understand how to be successful in relationships.
An example of this is a program run by Relationships Australia (Western Australia) called, "Build Better Relationships". The program is targeted to couples aged 23—30 years in committed relationships and uses a broad range of community education strategies to increase the skills necessary to maintain rewarding relationships.
A follow-up survey from this program showed that the top two messages recalled were, "Communication is important" and "Help is available". This result is encouraging, particularly as practical experience indicates that couples are more likely to benefit when they seek support early, before difficulties are entrenched. Unfortunately, asking for support is often seen as a last resort. Yet relationship education and counselling can be enormously beneficial to couples looking to enhance their relationships.
To ensure that people receive the message of the benefit of relationship support services, there is a need for policies to recognise and support relationship and interpersonal skills and open discussion of the fact that people have difficulties in the best of relationships.
Young people who have grown up in the age of the technical revolution may feel more comfortable gaining initial information about relationship support services and relationship education through multimedia, including the Internet. As service providers, we need to explore the potential of these media to reach young people.
In addition to reviewing our services in the light of the issues and developments covered in this paper, Relationships Australia works on national policy to encourage a more balanced and considered view of what is happening to relationships, marriage and families (Disney et al, 1996; Bateman, 1996; Disney, 1998). There has been change since the 1950s, and the changes are fascinating and important, but we need to avoid creating a nostalgia for an era which was an aberration and could not support its own ideology.
The way forward
There are strong and important links between broad social policy and family well-being. Our services can assist families in the way that they deal with pressures, but we cannot "counsel away" the contributing social and economic factors.
There is a need for a comprehensive approach to public policy to support families, and a commitment to establish a mechanism for wide-ranging co-ordination of policies that affect families. We believe that this commitment fits firmly in the portfolio of the newly- developed Federal Department of Family and Community Services.
The family is not a static unit and, for policy to remain relevant and effective, it must not remain static. Until there has been rethinking of our public policies and their underlying assumptions, the current mismatch will continue to affect adversely individuals, families, their relationships and family well-being. This is particularly crucial in relation to young people.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997a), Australian Social Trends, Cat. No. 4102.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997b), Youth, Australia: A Social Report, Cat. No. 4111.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998), Labour Force Australia, Cat. No. 6203.0, ABS, Canberra.
ACOSS (1997), A Common Youth Allowance, Paper No. 85, Australian Council of Social Service, Sydney.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (1997), Australia’s Welfare, AIHW, Canberra.
Baldock, C. (1994), "The Family and the Australian Welfare State", Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.105-117.
Bateman, G. (1996), Defining Families for Policy Making, 5th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Brisbane.
Burbidge, A. (1998), "Changing Patterns of Social Exchanges", Family Matters, Issue No. 50, pp.10—17.
Cox, E. (1995), A Truly Civil Society, Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sydney.
Disney, H., Bateman, G., & Seddon, E. (1996), "Healthy Families and Relationships: Challenges for Families, Practitioners and Researchers". Paper presented at the Rotary Research Fund Symposium, Canberra, May 1998.
Disney, H. (1998), "The Links between Healthy Public Policy and Healthy Relationships", 10th National Health Promotion Conference, Adelaide.
Hartin, W. (1992), "Marriage - Past, Present and Future", in Forty Years On, Marriage Guidance Australia, Camberwell (Victoria).
Hartley, R. (1993), "Young Adults Living at Home", Family Matters, Issue No. 36, pp.35—37.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1993), Report of the National Inquiry into the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness, AGPS, Canberra.
Jackson, S. (1995), The Future of Work: The Way Forward, The Brotherhood of St Laurence, Victoria.
McDonald, P. (1993), Family Trends and Structure in Australia, Australian Family Briefings No. 3, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
McDonald, P. (1996), "Young People in Australia Today: A Socio-Demographic Perspective", in Mortgaging our Future? Families and Young People in Australia, (eds Thanki R., & Thomson, C.) SPRC Reports and Proceedings No. 129, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
MacNeil, K. (1995), The Future of Work: Reading the Signs. The Brotherhood of St Laurence, Victoria.
Relationships Australia (1998a), Priorities for Families, Children and Young People, and Family Relationships, Relationships Australia, Canberra.
Relationships Australia (1998b), Relationships Indicators, Relationships Australia, Canberra.
Relationships Australia National Office (1998), "Semi-Structured Interviews with Service Providers", conducted by McPherson, A., unpublished.
Smith, W. (1998), "Social Capital", Family Matters, Issue No. 50, pp.8—9.
Sviridoff, M., & Ryan, W. (1997), "Community-Centred Family Service", Families in Society, Issue No. 72, pp.128—139.
Triple J (1998), Talkback Program on the Casualisation of the Work Force, "The Morning Show".
Uniting Community Services Australia (1997), Work and Unemployment: A Fair Future. Position Paper No. 1, Canberra.
Winter, I. (1998), "Social Exchanges Families, Communities, States and Markets", Family Matters, Issue No. 50, pp.5—8.
Wolcott, I., & Glezer, H. (1995), "Impact of the Work Environment on Workers with Family Responsibilities", Family Matters, Issue No. 41, pp.15—19.
