At the heart of this presentation is the African proverb ‘It takes a village to raise a child’, which very simply, identifies the role the wider community plays in raising children and young people. All of us, but particularly children and young people, need to connect with the wider community - to feel a sense of belonging. It doesn’t really matter whether that community is the local neighbourhood or suburb, or a particular cultural, religious or social group. Merely, that a strong connection is made, and that there is regular contact with family, friends or others who may provide support and guidance, particularly in times of crisis or distress.

A strong connection with the community can be characterised as:

• a strong sense of identity or feeling of belonging to the community

• good relationships with neighbours and others (real friendships — call on in times of need); and,

• a number of links with people or groups from outside the immediate group.

Identifying with a community, feeling connected, and having a sense of belonging, has been shown to lead to positive outcomes for children and their families. Healthy development for all (but especially for children and young people) is based in part, on a positive social environment. The connections we have to those around us, family, friends, neighbours and local professionals, influences how well we cope when things become difficult, and positively enhances our quality of life.

Although the Beatles may have meant something slightly different, their song " I can get by with a little help from my friends’ epitomises the value of connectedness.

Importantly, people who feel part of a vibrant, healthy community are themselves more likely to see that they can contribute something worthwhile to that community. This then, is the beginning a cycle of positive support and enhanced community life where individuals and the wider social group reap the rewards.

In contrast, a lack of connectedness or supports may have very real effects on community members’ quality of life and ability to cope. Non-involvement in the community, being disconnected, can have serious social consequences such as: alienation, loneliness, low self-esteem, boredom, intolerance of others, lack of motivation, and it can negatively impact on family functioning or impair child development (Fegan & Bowes, 1998).

When communities suffer hardship, the consequences and the suffering associated with that hardship are magnified when the community members are isolated, disenfranchised, and don’t have the social supports that can help them to overcome or ‘get through’ the problems they face. People may be culturally isolated, geographically isolated (exacerbated by transport problems), they may have special needs limiting their social contact, they may be new to the area, (‘newcomer’), they may lack a phone, or a lack of funds may preclude them taking part in social occasions or events.

Just as a strong, positive community may promote positive, healthy development, living in an environment plagued by various social ills may adversely impact on your quality of life. Living in an area of high unemployment, high crime rates, poor transport facilities and poor access to professional services, where many of the people you come into contact with are also struggling to get by, is more likely to produce less favourable social outcomes.

(For example, contrast the experiences of an unemployed young person in Kew or Brighton with an unemployed young person in the Western Suburbs.)

(It’s harder to remain positive and motivated when life is bleak, no-one is around to provide encouragement and nothing seems to be getting better).

It’s common to hear older members of society talk of a time where there was a very strong feeling of ‘community’, when people looked out for one another, the streets were safer and life was generally better. However, societal changes over the past 30 years have made it more difficult for people to establish and/or maintain social links, even in the same local community.

The eminent U.S. psychologist James Garbarino noted that

Since the 1950s, technological innovation, changes to women’s roles in the workforce and in society as a whole, the increased geographical distances between family members and the higher mobility of families, among other things, have resulted in substantial changes to the local neighbourhood. A result has been a higher degree of social isolation, a disconnectedness from those around us. Many people no longer have the resources of extended family, friends or neighbours to turn to for advice, company or support as part of everyday life.

Clearly there is a need to enhance connectedness in local communities (Vinson, Baldry & Hargreaves 1996). If it doesn’t occur naturally, we have to find ways of making it happen.

Three questions: Who are the players? What are the venues? What should be done? I’ll attempt to provide some examples or options for actions as part of a brief overview of the players and venues.

In most neighbourhoods, people reap the benefits of some form of ‘neighbourhood-based natural helping network’, that is, they have a range of local professional and non-professional supports (friends, family, neighbours etc.) they can turn to.

When we look at the local community members who provide support to others, we see that they can be classified as :

• Those who help friends, family, neighbours in ongoing relationships

• Those altruistic people who provide help across the community, to ‘strangers’.

Clearly, there is a need to encourage people in the local community to become ‘natural helpers’, to provide them with development and training , and maybe, as a means of indicating the value of such work to society, by paying them for their time.

At present I believe that we have one particularly untapped resource who have a strong role to play in building connectedness, and that is older people. We have an aging population, people are living healthily for decades after their retirement from full-time employment. There needs to be recognition of not just what services are required to support these people, but what they can offer society, and especially the younger members of society. I am a strong believer in the need to promote communication and learning across generations (that is, the value of older people as mentors and supports for the young). Such contact may teach respect on both sides, it enhances the social links for both groups, and for the young, there is an opportunity to gain wisdom, and perhaps particular skills. For example, we already have: adopt a grandparent programs, agencies where skilled tradespeople teach the young their craft, should also include youth as lay-visitors to the elderly, providing practical or emotional support = valuable community services of benefit to all parties. All of these enhance community connectedness.

I believe the so-called generation gap has become a generation chasm. We have many older people fearing young people, our youth are frequently demonised in the media and seen as a danger, as young thugs and criminals, as dole bludgers, who need to be controlled and disciplined. A common concern is the lack of respect shown to the elderly.

At the same time both old and young unemployed people are effectively seen as offering nothing to society. Community connectedness must involve opening the lines of communication between young and old. It would also help if greater attempts were made to promote positive messages about children and young people in the media, the current perspective is not accurate and it’s certainly not about creating cohesion and unity in the community.

It is also important to note that to create effective change and healthy positive communities, requires the active involvement of government and government services, the non-government sector (agencies like OzChild) and the local community in partnership. Professional agencies can set up mechanisms, programs or strategies to improve the lives of children, families and communities, but unless those mechanisms are embraced and finally ‘owned’ by the local community, any program is going to have limited success. It’s important that there a groundswell of community involvement. We have to build systems and structures where local people feel they have a stake, a connectedness, from which access and programs for the wider community can grow (e.g. Clean Up Australia).

Evidence from programs in the UK and US indicate the benefits of having professional input and resources at the start of community development projects in a ‘whole of community’ partnership. E.g. ‘bad’ neighbourhood — vandalism, crime, unsafe, unpleasant. Work with community to develop solutions and for people to reclaim their space. Nice jargon, it can be put another way: The people reclaim ownership and develop pride in their communities, they develop an ‘esprit de corps’ if you like, and re-invest (or invest more) in the ‘community good’.

As time passes, such programs have gotten lives of their own, there is greater community participation, and often they can become self-funding and expand = cycle of positive support and enhanced community life where individuals and the wider social group reap the rewards.

N.B. This should not be interpreted as governments withdrawing or lessening their input, rather that solutions cannot succeed without the willing participation of the community. In the early stages, this may require a period of community development and empowerment in order to create a sustainable partnership.

There are three main venues where community-building, or the development of community connectedness happens: the local neighbourhood, school, and the workplace.

Local community (neighbourhoods)

When you adopt a ‘whole of community’ approach, the focus is on ‘resolving or reducing the social problems of a neighbourhood . . . or region and on promoting living environments that foster the development of individual and [community] potentials’ (Dallaire et al. 1995:125).

First, there is a need to provide information to community members about available local resources (professional and non-professional) and ensure accessibility. When social capital is high, parents and children have external social supports who they can turn to as a resource when problems arise. Access to information about health issues and local services and resources enhanced.

However, addressing issues of exclusion and disadvantage requires sufficient allocation of resources, and an investment in our social or human capital, rather than focusing on economic outcomes. In the communities that really need greater connectedness, it is not as easy to get people to volunteer their time, to be concerned with others outside their immediate family. If you are struggling to get by, you have less emotional, financial and physical resources to devote to others.

First, enhance social opportunities for people.

Opportunities to socialise with others should be (and have been ) developed to cater to the needs of particular groups (and whole communities). There is a need to extend the program to create safe, accessible space (includes various sporting, social and cultural groups) for people to come and enjoy the company of others, particularly in less affluent suburbs. This opens up possibilities to develop relationships and to obtain social support.

I was disturbed to read recently of a mall complex instructing its security staff to move young people on as they are seen as a nuisance and may intimidate other people. However, there was also a move to limit the amount of time people, (and they were targeting older people) could sit on a public bench.

Is this the response we want? I don’t think so. I would suggest there may have been more creative solutions that could have been employed — a youth area, more public seating for a start. Rather than providing venues for people to meet and socialise, in some facets of society we have begun to minimise socialisation as economic considerations become paramount.

In many ways Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have something to offer the wider community and attempts at developing connectedness Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long recognised the need for comprehensive strategies to deal with social problems and the need for a mobilisation of the whole community to address problems in an holistic manner.

While western societies have adopted a narrow view of caregiving, with biological parents primarily responsible for childrearing, Aboriginal children are not isolated from the larger community. The children are seen as belonging to the whole community, with many adults and children involved in both their lives and childrearing . There are many benefits to be gained from such extended support.

Schools are an important sub-community that do not only provide academic education, but typically attempt to provide students with some emotional support, a link to the wider community and to deal with, or prevent, numerous social problems. Many schools currently teach courses on a number of social problems, such as substance abuse, child maltreatment, AIDS and suicide. Underlying many of these programs is an attempt to develop in children and young people independent thinking; the resistance of peer pressure; and the development of decision making, assertiveness and effective communication skills. The aim is general empowerment, but with a secondary focus on applying the generic skills to specific problems and situations.

Schools are also important venues for enhancing wider community connectedness.

In NSW the departments of School Education and Community Services and Health have worked together to fund a two-year pilot program to establish four interagency school community centres. The project objectives are to: encourage and support families in their parenting role; to identify needs, knowledge gaps and issues in the local community; to promote community involvement in the provision and coordination of services for children and families; and to promote the school as a community centre.

An evaluation of the program reported that:

• parents whose children attended preschool programs identified benefits to their children in terms of readiness for school and general socialisation. Such benefits were also noted by principals and preschool staff;

• parents reported the benefits of the project in lessening their own social isolation and providing them with opportunities for self-development;

• health professionals perceived the projects as contributing to the health and wellbeing of children

• interagency cooperation between government departments and with local community agencies appeared to have been enhanced.

The report indicated a high level of community support for the continuation of the project, and a strong level of community involvement. Community representatives noted the positive impact of the local centres on the communities’ perceptions of themselves: ‘People have begun to feel good about their community and to take action to improve amenities.’ (Social Systems & Evaluation 1996:2)

Having a job provides a number of benefits: it gives you the funds to maintain an adequate standard of living, it provides a source of community identity and status in the community, of self-respect, and it is a venue for interacting with other people.

As part of the working community, the job environment provides another opportunity of learning how society operates, its rules and norms. Having a sustainable job ensures people are immersed in the rhythm of daily life, and into what is a usually, a supportive community group. It is one of the predominant cultural influences.

Yet a large proportion of our youth are missing out, or having delayed entry, into employment. In the early 1990s we have had the highest youth unemployment rates since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The largest contribution to the current unemployment rate (28.6 per cent) comes from young people looking for full time work (who are not students). A particularly disturbing trend is the rising proportion of intergenerational unemployment. That is, families where both parents and their offspring have never held full-time employment.

The result is a huge gap in community socialisation and connectedness that needs to be filled. In the US one program that has been developed, as a result of identifying the social damage that is done if unemployment ‘ghettos’ are allowed to develop, is to attempt to create jobs for virtually all jobseekers in particular neighbourhoods (e.g. 10 blocks). Another approach is to try to break up public housing communities and spread the disadvantaged (small numbers) into better-off suburbs, so that the positive socialisation can be picked up. In both cases the aim is to locate people in positive, healthy communities where the more disadvantaged are exposed to a wider community that can model or demonstrate positive behaviours.

As individuals, it may be difficult to directly affect some of the major social ills that face us at present, but we can work to improve the resiliency of children, young people, families and other community members. This will take time, it’s almost like pyramid selling, from a small beginning can develop a large community-based movement. The process has already begun in some communities, but needs to be adopted more widely and given more credence. And most importantly the community has to come on board — ‘sisters are doing it for themselves’, well in this case its ‘communities doing it for themselves’ — with a little help.

Return to Papers and presentations

AIFS Home

Email queries to webmaster@aifs.gov.au | Copyright, privacy, disclaimer | Site map Australian Institute of Family Studies, Level 20, 485 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Australia. Tel: (03) 9214 7888. Fax: (03) 9214 7839. URL: http://www.aifs.gov.au/