1

Creating communities that care

A project by the Leaders for Geelong 2010-2012

Barry Allen Gforce Employment Services Graham Clarke Barrabool Hills Baptist Church Nadia Coppe TAC Sid Pope Barwon Health Adam Stott Telstra Business Centre

2

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................ 3

Background .................................................................... 4

Project Research Method ............................................... 5

Defining Integrated Service Delivery .............................. 6

Primary Case Study: Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre .. 7

Research on benefits and effectiveness of Integrated Service Delivery 12

Three Key Elements for Success: .................................. 12

Identifying major obstacles/inhibitors for ISD .............. 18

Summary of Key Findings ............................................. 19

Handover Strategy / Deliverables ................................. 20

Bibliography ................................................................. 21

Appendices ................................................................... 26

3

Executive Summary This report distils the findings of research, case studies and

interviews conducted over a 12 month period, aimed at

investigating the impact of community service agencies

working under an Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) model. At

all levels this approach resonates with those working within

the community services sector, but presents a number of

challenges to operations, governance and funding models.

Common vision and healthy relationships at a grass roots level

are vital to success. The story of the development of an ISD

approach at the Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre illustrates

this clearly, and no amount of resourcing, governance intent and strategic planning will overcome a lack

of will to cooperate at a grass roots level.

The identified major lack of good governance in the community services area, and the specific

requirements of Rosewall N.C. led the project group to focus on this aspect in both the reporting and

handover phase.

The growing isolation and marginalisation felt by many of Geelong’s residents point to the imperative

for a collaborative community response. In this context, ISD – with its inherent sharing of resources,

personnel and expertise makes increasing sense. This will require reform in funding mechanisms at

governmental level, visionary leadership from community organisations and concerted resolve to work

collaboratively in the face of many obstacles.

The Project Team

Barry Allen Gforce Employment Services Graham Clarke Barrabool Hills Baptist Church Nadia Coppe TAC Sid Pope Barwon Health Adam Stott Telstra Business Centre

The project team gratefully acknowledges the

assistance of the many members of the Rosewall

community who shared their stories, advice and

expertise to inform this research.

4

Background This report contains the distillation and summary of research

conducted by the ‘Creating Communities that Care’ project group

of the Leaders for Geelong Program (2010 – 2012).

The group formed around the nebulous concept of ‘social

inclusion’, with a broad desire to produce a project that would

have a positive impact on outcomes for people experiencing social

exclusion.

There was a great deal of resonance amongst the project group,

regarding the topic, but limited experience or expertise in this

area.

Four factors became significant in bringing the project to a focal

point and determining the actual direction and intent of this

report:

I. The Project Group needed to engage in a significant learning phase around Neighbourhood houses, community hubs and integrated service delivery.

II. The large body of literature from academic and evidence-based research perspectives already available on ISD.

III. The unique circumstances and story of the development of an Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) approach at the Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre, involving a number of other agencies.

IV. The feedback from practitioners engaged in the sector that suggested that an ISD approach makes sense, but the obstacles to achieving this are significant.

With this in mind, over time the group settled on the following objectives:

I. Identify and point to the most relevant literature available, with particular weight to recent and local studies.

II. Record and summarise the development of the ISD model as it works on the ground at Rosewall.

III. Highlight a smaller number of key promoters and inhibitors for an ISD approach to community service delivery.

IV. Develop a framework around the development and operation of community hubs that foster socially inclusive outcomes via an Integrated Service Delivery approach.

V. Develop an exit strategy that maximises the opportunities for local community hubs to have access to the report and utilise it to optimise the social inclusive outcomes within their services.

VI. Investigate areas of ongoing support to add value to the ISD approach at Rosewall.

It is not the intent of this report to provide an exhaustive piece of research or analysis on ISD and its

effects on social inclusion. Rather this project points to the apparent key contributors and inhibitors to

success of ISDs, by looking through the lens of the Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre.

5

Project Research Method

Primary Case Study:

Rosewall

Neighbourhood Centre

Academic

Literature Review

Community Hub/ISD Framework A blueprint for integrated service delivery as a method of

increasing social inclusion within communities

Post Fire: Service

delivery, operations

and community

impact

Pre Fire: Service

delivery, operations

and community

impact

e.g. Government reports Academic Case Studies Best Practice Guidelines

Research

Streams

Project

and

Info

Flow

observations, recommendations and guiding principals

Summary of

Rosewall history

and the before and

after effects of the

fire:

Secondary / Supporting

Case Studies

RNC Partners: CoGG ELC Bethany

Playgroups Cathcare

Local leaders and

practitioners working in the

community services

COGG – Community

Development Officer Corio

Norlane Cathy Walker

0418148391

Barwon

Network of

Neighbourhood

Centres

Starting Points:

6

Defining Integrated Service Delivery The Western Australian Department for Community published a report in August 2011 entitled

Integrated Service Delivery and Community Hubs. In the report, they cite the following helpful definition

for Integrated Service Delivery:

‘Integrated Service Delivery refers to the process of building connections between services in order to

work together as one to deliver services that are more comprehensive and cohesive as well as services

being more accessible and more responsive to the needs of families and their children.’ (Prichard, Purdon

& Chaplyn, 2010, p. 9)

The report goes on to further clarify ISD in terms of a sliding scale from individual to co-operation,

where;

Individual refers to a centre which has separate funding and little communication between provided services and programs. Cooperation refers to some elements which indicate a centre providing services in cooperation with other services or organisations e.g. network, share information, joint working with others on a case-by-case basis. Coordination refers to situations where some joint planning may occur, but essentially organisations operate independently. Collaboration refers to elements such as shared cultures, visions, values, actions between organisations. Integration refers to a situation where there is a shared philosophy, vision, goals, outcome, pooled funding, consistent policies and procedures for all parties involved. The Guide to Integrated Service Delivery, published within Platforms: A Service Redevelopment

Framework (2009) points to an almost identical continuum-based understanding of ISD, the only

significant difference being the term co-existence substituted for individual.

The key aims of integrated services are to make access to services simpler and to aid better

coordination of services. The Platforms document lists among the expected benefits of ISD the

following:

i. Improved access of available services for consumers ii. Increased efficiency by achieving more from the use of limited, yet comprehensive

resource. iii. Enhanced effectiveness, resulting in enhanced outcomes for consumers and funders.

Throughout the project, it was instructive to discover that practitioners within the community sector

resonate with aims of ISD, but they noted that achieving this was much more difficult than it perhaps

seems, or even than it should be. Agreement around the need to not ‘re-invent the wheel’ is strong,

with awareness that in all cases resources are limited, needs are high and the ultimate loser in

inefficient service provision is the community that the agencies seek to serve.

7

Primary Case Study: Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre (RNC) was

selected as the primary case study and

context for this research for the following

reasons:

I. It has operated with an intentional ISD model, involving four agencies co-located at the RNC.

II. Rosewall's location within the 3214 postcode aligns with Committee for Geelong,

Northern Futures and G21 desire and focus to achieve better outcomes for this area. III. There is an existing need to review the future of the model and suitability of facilities in the light

of recent destruction of the Early Learning Centre and need for refurbishment of Neighbourhood House

Demographic profile of the Rosewall community

SH

ELL P

DE

BA

CC

HU

S M

AR

SH

RD

AMANDA AV

ARMYTAG

E ST

BA

RTLE

TT C

T

BEECH CT

BENAMBRA ST

BOOTH CT

BR

OD

ER

ICK

RD

BUANGOR ST

CLE

VE

LA

ND

CT

CLIVE CT

CONSEDINE CT

CO

OLID

GE

ST

DO

NA

Y R

D

EN

GLIS

H C

T

FA

IRB

AIR

N D

R

FIONA AV

FIRTH CT

FO

RE

ST R

D

FRANKLYN ST

GO

OD

ALL C

T

GOODWIN CT

HA

GU

E S

T

HALL

IWELL

CT

HE

ND

Y S

T

HILSO

N CT

HOWITT AV

INGLEBURN ST

MONTVIEW RD

NO

NA

ME

AV

AIL

AB

LE

OFFIC

ER

CT

PLANTATION RD

RA

ILW

AY

AV

RO

DB

RO

UG

H C

R SCHOOL RD

SHARLAND RD

TA

LP

A C

R

WA

SH

ING

TO

N S

T

WE

SLE

Y C

T

Figure 1 Geographic location of Rosewall

The Rosewall community has a marginally greater number of females to males with the majority of the

population aged between 0 and 60 years of age with 10% being aged 20-24 age brackets demonstrating

a population that is significantly younger than neighbouring communities.

It is of note that only 13% of the population identifies as being born overseas despite the fact that there

are at least 10 languages other than English spoken in homes in Rosewall.

8

The most prominent and significant demographic centres around the composition of the households of

Rosewall and of this demographic domain it is the percentage of one parent families (26%) compared

with the state (10%) that is most striking.

The age at which engagement in formal schooling begins to decline in Rosewall is 15 years of age as

compared with 17 years of age for the state, and the highest qualification gained across the population

was dominated by skilled vocational for males and basic vocational for females whereas state wide the

trends were skilled vocational for males and Bachelor Degree for females.

This is perhaps reflected in occupations with the trend for females being employed in intermediate

clerical, sales and service work; elementary clerical, sales and service work; and, laboring and related

work, whereas state wide the most common occupation for females was professional.

The gross weekly income in Rosewall by gender was $160-$199 for females which was consistent with

state-wide results and $200-$299 for males which was lower than the $300-$399 result state-wide.

Integrated Service Delivery at Rosewall The story of cooperation for the sake of better community services delivery and outcomes at Rosewall

involves four stakeholders:

i. Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre ii. City of Greater Geelong Early Learning Centre iii. CatholicCare iv. Bethany

Each of these stakeholders was interviewed regarding their organisational aims, the services they

provide and their thoughts and reflections on ISD. The summary of their responses can be found in

Appendix B.

History of the Integrated Service Delivery Approach Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre and Rosewall Kindergarten, built by the Shire of Corio, have been

providing programs and services to their community for over 3 decades.

The Kindergarten and Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre have been signatories to the Best Start

partnership from its inception, almost nine years ago. Five or six years ago the local kinder program, at

the time managed by the Rosewall Primary School, closed because of financial viability. Best Start

partner organisations and parents came together to provide an unfunded kinder program for two

terms. The community was very passionate about retaining the service in the area, because of

transport issues and a sense of this being where they felt a sense of belonging.

Through the Best Start project a facilitated playgroup was also established. The City of Greater Geelong

then took over management of the kinder program with a different model and the funded program

9

returned to the centre, re-launched as the Rosewall Early Learning Centre. One year later the centre

won a state early year’s award for its innovative program. The pre-school program was at capacity and

the playgroup had approximately 20 families attending. The Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre was a key

partner organization throughout this process and still is.

In 2009, Catholic Family Services (CathCare) began delivering a family counseling service from the foyer

of the Early Learning Centre. In the next twelve months referrals began to be made across services –

the 4 year old kinder program, the playgroup, counseling service and the programs at the

Neighbourhood Centre. Bethany also took on the funding and employment of the playgroup program

and facilitator. A 3 year old rostered playgroup (facilitated by Bethany workers) was also established to

cater for the need of a 3 year old pre-school program. This program was at capacity within weeks of

starting.

Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre gained funding to put together and trial a program titled Making

Tracks: My Tracks - Our Tracks, designed to engage learners who were lacking confidence, socially

isolated or disengaged from learning. The organisations who were delivering services from Rosewall

were partners for this project. Through this, the partner organisations began to realize that they were

no longer organizations that were co-located, but were in essence working in a hub with an integrated

service delivery model. They began to meet to intentionally unpack this and identify what the dynamics

were that gave rise to the success. The success was evident in the changed lives of the people that the

organisations were all working with.

In 2010 the hub members continued to meet to work through formalising a Terms of Reference

(Appendix A) around the partnership and some joint strategic planning ensued. The ISD model was

working well and clients from the local community were acknowledging the benefit of this model in

action.

Post Fire Effect on the Integrated Service Delivery at Rosewall

In the first week of January 2011, a fire destroyed the Early Learning Centre building whilst leaving the

Neighbourhood Centre building mostly unaffected (Appendix C and D). This has caused the ELC to re-

locate to another venue in nearby Hendy St. The playgroups continue to operate from the

Neighbourhood Centre and whilst the 4 partners continue to meet as a hub, this has greatly affected

the ability of the agencies to cross-refer, as workers don’t have the same access to fellow workers or

services, which was key for engagement to occur.

Clare Barrett, (CatholicCare) made the observation that their post-fire fractured geographical presence -

services are now spread across six locations - has meant there is now virtually no walk-in patronage of

the counseling and advocacy services. This was a feature of their time at Sharland Avenue.

Clare also lamented the loss of the professional and collegial support that working from the one location

in Sharland Avenue had afforded her.

10

As further evidence of the impact, Yvonne McAuliffe (Bethany) cited the loss of a smooth transition

process for children and families from the Bethany run playgroups to the CoGG run Early Learning

Centre.

Moving Forward at Rosewall Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre has been identified by COGG as in need of upgrading and was allocated

funds in the 09/10 COGG budget for consultation and draft concept plans to be drawn up. This process

has been delayed as the insurance claim relating to the ELC fire is processed.

The opportunity is to build a facility in Rosewall that will be conducive in design for integrated service

delivery. So the community is asking the state government to look at the needs and the opportunity for

this community and consider allocating funding towards a purpose built community hub facility.

The development of the ISD approach at Rosewall is distinctive in its ‘organic’ development. Rather

than a product of an intentional partnership at an organisational partnership level, it developed from

the grassroots. This meant that the personal and professional relationships were well established over

time. This focus on relationships at a service delivery method should be seen an instrumental to the

success of the ISD approach at Rosewall, and its importance is highlighted by the research, as discussed

later in this report.

Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre: Background The RNC is located on Sharland Avenue, Rosewall . It aims to:

- reduce the isolation of individuals and groups within the community - address social inequalities and increase life opportunities by encouraging the development of

self-help and mutual support activities, social interaction and income generation - provide emotional support and resources for the alleviation of poverty, distress, misfortune,

destitution and helplessness - foster a sense of community in which members are accepting and supportive of each other - provide educational services and linkages for adults in the community

RNC seeks to address these aims by providing a variety of educational programs and activities including:

- education and awareness programs Run Local Festival in March (11am to 2pm) attended by approx. 600 people and includes family entertainment, BBQ, Skate Competition, etc

- Hendy St Centre (to create more activity partly in response to not having the ELC), activities enticing approx. 40 people per week

11

Rachelle’s Story

Rachelle and her family had experienced a very hard

time in life. She was not integrated in the community

and felt that she could not trust anyone. She had, in

her words, shut down and was finding it hard to cope.

She had no will to do anything other than

motherhood. She was trying to put on a brave face

and thought that she was hiding it well. She thought

she was OK

She built up a good relationship with the teachers at

the Rosewall Early Learning Centre. She would often

linger at the centre, not wanting to leave. The

teachers there were very sensitive. They could see

that she needed help and suggested that she go to

see a counselor at Catholic Care.

Although it was hard, she went to see the counselor

and she believes that it changed her life. They

recommended she attend a course at the Rosewall

Neighbourhood Centre called “Making Tracks- My

tracks, Our Tracks”. Once she connected with the

Neighbourhood Centre, Rachelle did other courses

(e.g. computer course) and met many people. She

now feels an active part of her community and

volunteers at the centre. It made her feel happy

again. She works at the centre doing enrolments,

helping with the various festivals and fairs and does

help on the ground two to three days a week.

Rachelle also took her children to see the counselor at

Catholic Care. The children have benefited

enormously and are happy children who are doing

well at school and enjoy participating in sports and

other activities.

Now that the ELC is not part of the complex, she

believes that the bond is not as strong and referring

people is harder. Having the ELC and Catholic Care in

the same location made it easier for people to drop in.

She feels for those that they don’t have the same

opportunity that she had before the fire.

- quarterly publication in conjunction with Cloverdale Community Centre with a print run of 11,000 copies per quarter

- fortnightly email distribution (approximately 60) to JSA’s, other not for profits and community organisations

- website and Facebook which has 120 users

- special promotional events e.g. Shrove / Pancake Tuesday with approximately 6 per year with 30 people on average attending

- cafe on 3 days a week serving approximately 40 customers / visitors per day

In one of our early interviews with

Bev Brown, the Centre co-ordinator,

confidence was expressed in the

Centre’s ability to connect and

support individuals experiencing any

degree of social isolation. In her

words,

“If we can get them in the doors, we

know they will connect.”

Inherent in that statement was the

challenge of creating pathways that

lead people to the Centre. The ISD

approach at Rosewall has been

significant in increasing access to the

Centre’s programs and resources as

this personal vignette shows (see

sidebar)

12

Research on benefits and effectiveness of Integrated Service Delivery There is a large body of research available that supports the ISD approach to delivering community

services. This report does not intend to provide a comprehensive summary of that research, but rather

point to a few reports or documents that provide up to date relevant information, particularly for those

who want to explore the how as well as the why. The aforementioned Platforms document is an

excellent resource, designed with user-friendly templates and guidelines.

The “Integrated Service Delivery and Community Hubs” (W.A. Department of Community, 2011) is the

most up to date and contextual relevant report at the time of publishing this report. The report’s

methodology involved surveying 22 centres across metropolitan, rural and remote areas that are

currently demonstrating characteristics of integration.

Among its findings the following stands out:

- The current emphasis on Community Hubs is based on the principle that integrated services are preferable as a means of providing seamless service delivery. This research indicates that efforts to achieve effective outcomes from Community Hubs should focus on supporting the enabling principles and removing the barriers to delivering integrated services.

- Examples of services working well indicated the presence of key enabling principles including meeting regularly, planning for combined projects, joint application for funds and working together. Key examples of ‘services working well in the centre’ came from an Early Years Network and a purpose-built Local Government Authority managed centre or hub.

Three Key Elements for Success: There are many elements that can be seen as promoters or inhibitors to the success of ISD. This report

seeks to highlight the three that emerged as key elements for success from both the research reviewed

and the interviews undertaken:

I. Good governance II. Strong personal and professional relationships at an operational level

III. Co-location / Physical Space

Good Governance This is a perennial acknowledged challenge for Not-For-Profit agencies and community groups.

Governance positions on boards or committees of management or often filled by highly committed and

passionate members with little to no previous governance experience. This comes in an area where

governance issues around funding, legal compliance, OH&S and human resource management are

notoriously complex. Added to that, the governance structures required to bring alignment and aid

synergy for agencies involved in an ISD approach have a higher degree of complexity in both

establishing and maintaining. Experienced practitioners including Jason Trethowan, (C.E.O., Medicare

Local Barwon), Beth Davison (Manager Grovedale Community Centre) and Gabrielle Nagle (C.E.O.,

Glastonbury) all spoke at length about good governance being a pillar for agencies wanting to embrace

an ISD approach. Key learnings include:

13

Definitions, Literature Reviews and Models:

Pillor and McKinlay (2011) have focused their research ‘ideas and theories of community governance’

from reputable authors and experts in the field.

The key points relevant to our research that have been gleaned from Pillor and McKinlay (2011) and

include ‘the key theories and ideas underpinning the term community governance’ and ‘things we can

learn from recent Australian experience about the practice of community governance’.

In defining governance, Kjaer (2004) in Pillor & McKinlay (2011) reports that democratic procedures

focus on the inputs of good governance and effectiveness and efficiencies are essentials for the outputs

of governance.

Kjaer (2004) in Pillor & McKinaly (2011) continues by referencing the OECD eight key characteristics of

good governance;

“It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient,

equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of

minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in

decision making.”

It has also been suggested by Pillor & McKinlay (2011) that good governance in the local government

and community sector is supported by both private and public representatives.

They continue after referring to expert definition above by offering their own definition of good

governance.

“Governance is the process by which decisions are taken and implemented; the process by which

organizations go about achieving their goals and producing their outputs and the process by which

organizations are directed, controlled and held to account. It encompasses authority, accountability,

stewardship, leadership values and culture within the organization”.

Pillor & McKinlay also make the point that community governance fosters a sense of social inclusion

within communities.

Kennedy & Hydon’s (2007) description of a community or family centre using an ISD model as;

“…an integrated child and family service will operate as a seamless service defined by the capacity of the

staff to work with children, parents and the community under a shared vision. The integration ideally

takes place when staff under a single community governance structure, work with families as an

integrated team. An approach that takes time and perseverance.”

Jackson et al (2008) describe some of the complexities involved in making an ISD model work.

“Integrated care requires a change in focus, from health services delivered by separate units to care that

can be provided across organizations for a community or patient group. It requires general practices,

hospitals, community services and consumer organizations to form effective long-term working

14

relationships and to move beyond the occasional informal partnership to a serious commitment to

integrated health care delivery. This strategic re- adjustment must be matched by a commensurate shift

in inter- organizational management and governance.”

Jackson el al (2008) add to the list of challenges by noting that groups or agencies working in an ISD

environment will inevitably come from organisations that have different governance models that can

lead to unhealthy competition and strain on relationships.

Successful Local Examples

In a recent interview with Jason Trethowan, CEO of Medicare Local Barwon, it was highlighted that the

right structure of a board and governance charter is critical to the success of the organisation. Two

models shared by Jason where the constitution developed for the new Kardinia Health Clinic in Waurn

Ponds and the consortium charter for Headspace in Geelong.

Both organisations exist to address the health concerns of their clients within an ISD model but due to

the different constructs of funding and accountability of those involved at the operational and board

level, a different board and governance structure was established for each.

It is worth demonstrating the key difference in the structure of both organisations to assist in identifying

which model would suit the board and governance structure of any potential ISD venture.

At a high level, the Kardinia Health Clinic is owned by three members, Barwon Medicare Local, Barwon

Health and Deakin University. It was explained that each member has a very strong invested interest,

by way of funds, student teaching and brand image to name a few, in ensuring the long term success of

the clinic. Therefore their board structure is closer to that of a formal corporate board.

Headspace however, comprises of a consortium of service partners – Barwon Medicare Local (lead

agency), Barwon Health, Bellarine Community Health Ltd, pathways Rehabilitation and Support Services

and Victorian Mental Illness Fellowship.

Barwon Medicare Local as the lead agency is the government funded agency that is solely responsible

and accountable back to the Headspace national organization. This being said, means that the other

agencies do not carry the same level of accountability or responsibility to the government. Unlike the

Kardinia Health Clinic, Headspace Barwon, does not have a central management team that the service

providers formally report to.

This means that a consortium charter outlining how each service partner should behave and function

whilst representing the Headspace brand was more appropriate than that run by the Kardinia Health

Clinic. The consortium members do not formally report back to a board that holds them accountable.

This is sole the responsibility of Barwon Medicare Local.

For good governance to work, it is important to recruit individuals for boards based on appropriate

skills.

Please refer to the appendices for the details on the Headspace Consortium Charter (Appendix C) and

the Medicare Local Barwon Constitution (Appendix D)

Jackson et al,(2008) identified three successful ISD models that have been sustained on the medium

15

term. All identified and work best under an arrangement of;

‘…clear separation between governance and operational management and the need for local

communities with the vision, leadership and commitment…”.

These three models of integrated governance models were;

- The creation of an incorporated body, with governance responsibility shared across integrating organizations and with pooled resource allocation capability for a given population or

region.

- An incorporated body established by integrating organisations, with its own funding pool and responsibility for defined areas of common business overlap between organisations.

- A formal and agreed governance arrangement between organizations to share resources by delivering services across a finite geographical area.

Challenges

Some of the key challenges to the ISD model that will affect good governance include;

Individual agency or consortium members will have different disciplinary approaches, different training,

beliefs practices of their professions and come from different organizational cultural backgrounds

(Hydon & Kennedy, 2007).

Good governance is an essential enabler amongst others things to give ISD model the best chance of

succeeding.

Jackson el al (2008) add to the list of challenges by noting that groups or agencies working in an ISD

environment will inevitably come from organizations that have different governance models that can

lead to unhealthy competition and strain on relationships.

Practical Assistance in Establishing Good Governance:

The document Platforms: A service redevelopment framework; guide to integrated service delivery

(Centre for Community Child Health, 2009) provides excellent information and templates around

governance design and operation. This is a well written and comprehensive document designed to step

individuals and agencies through the essentials of good governance.

The Our Community organisation is also a great resource for community organisations, with a specific

charter to encourage and foster good governance. They can be contacted through their website at

www.ourcommunity.org.au

Strong Relationships and Clear Operating Principles As much as good governance is critical in establishing the right organisational environment for agencies

to integrate, the operational procedures, policies and culture around agencies working not just

16

collaboratively are significant. Differing organisational cultures and behaviours mean that clear

agreement ‘rules of engagement’ need to be established, ideally well in advance, of ISD commencing on

the ground. This foresight in anticipating and co-creating agreed procedures must be coupled with

flexibility and a high commitment to shared outcomes and open and honest communication.

Appendix B contains the Terms of Reference document developed by the stakeholders at Rosewall as a

way working through some agreed ‘rules of engagement’. It was identified across a number of

practitioners interviewed that the relationships between individuals at an operational level are also key.

Good governance structures, operating policy and procedures will not overcome dysfunctional

professional or personal relationships.

In the case study at Rosewall, we see the development over time of the working relationships. This is

crucial in building the trust required to share the resources, space and information inherent to ISD.

Consider the relational dynamic that underlines the following comments by service providers

interviewed regarding the challenges of working collaboratively;

- Difficult to find the right partner organisations with shared vision and commitment. - Need to be able to communicate well. - Clash of cultures between providers - Need to have passion to work through issues to reach satisfactory resolutions for all parties - Dependant on individual personalities not getting in the way of providers working together - Individual organisations may have inbuilt barriers or policies to prevent moving in sync with other

providers - Privacy issues may prevent services being able to work together - Need to develop agreed “Rules of Engagement” for potential areas of conflict between partner

organisations at both a committee (governance) and on-the-ground level”

Co-location / Physical Environment Given the unique perspective we were afforded by Rosewall story, it was clear that the physical

environment is of importance for the ISD approach. At Rosewall we see 4 agencies deepen their

collaboration through co-location. This collaboration has now been effected, due to the fire, by being

dispersed across a number of locations. Mary’s story above illustrates the on-the-ground effect of this.

The agencies continue on with a commitment to ISD, it is hampered by their geographical separation.

Jodie Bath, Director of the CoGG owned Early Learning Centre made these comments regarding the

post-fire effect of moving the ELC to an alternative site;

- Due to relocation ELC staff and parents are unable to access readily the services available and providers available at Rosewall , this impacts negatively.

- ELC Staff not around Rosewall to be as informed on services available - We don’t build relationships with other workers providing services at Rosewall - Changes in volunteers at Rosewall leads to loss of rapport with the ELC staff - Hard to cross-refer when not in the same physical space.

Whilst the Rosewall story suggests that co-location is of tangible benefit for ISD, recent research would

suggest that it is perhaps not as crucial at first we assumed.

17

Co-location in itself does not constitute a joined up or holistic approach. In the absence of careful pre-

planning grounded in clearly articulated and shared expectations, co-location can create a situation in

which agencies are merely co-tenets rather than collaborators. (Integrated Service Delivery for young

people, 2010)

The previous emphasis on good governance, clear operating principles and healthy professional and

personal relationships appear to be of greater significance. Whilst the physical space and environment

will not create an ISD approach in the absence of the aforementioned elements, it clearly maximises the

ability for agencies to work together.

Locally, the Kardinia Health ‘Super-Clinic” on Colac Rd, Belmont and Diversitat’s Northern Community

Hub in Arunga Avenue Norlane are good examples of recently built facilities designed to facilitate

community engagement, co-location and integration of community services.

CoGG has earmarked the RNC as in need of renovation, and with the destruction of the CoGG owned

Early Learning Centre, it would appear as though there is a window of opportunity to make planning

decisions that deliver great benefit to the community. Conversations with Paul Jamison (Manager

Community Development) and Liz Coles (Coordinator Community Facilities) from CoGG indicate that

this is the clear intent of CoGG. We look forward to a great outcome that facilitates the good work

being done in the Rosewall community.

18

Identifying major obstacles/inhibitors for ISD The concept of similar agencies working together to utilise strengths, share resources/expertise and

reduce overlap is not difficult to grasp. Throughout the project, those interviewed affirmed the

concepts behind the ISD philosophy, whilst clearly identifying that achieving a higher level of

collaboration and synergy is a constant and ever-present challenge.

The ‘Integrated services and community hubs background working paper’ (Department for

Communities, 2011) has recognised many of these issues from current literature. Differences in

organisational aims; a culture of protectionism; staff turnover; a lack of communication and perhaps a

lack of leadership, commitment or support from senior management are all elements consistent with

the comments quoted.

Funding Structure At a macro level, the Integrated Service Delivery and Community Hubs report highlights a complex but

clearly important issue that greatly inhibits ISD:

“The most commonly expressed barrier to integrated service delivery was funding arrangements, such as

competitive funding and short-term funding arrangements.”

At an anecdotal level, the competitive nature of funding is keenly felt by practitioners. The need to build

trust and work collaboratively is undermined by the reality that partners soon become competitors

whenever the next funding cycle comes around. The frustration is highlight by this quote:

“Many of the centres expressed a willingness to develop greater integration in their service delivery, but

lacked the influence to remove some of the barriers. By reviewing current practices and policies at a

governmental level it may be possible to assist in removing some of those barriers and aid the

progression towards integrated services and community-influenced hub development.” (Integrated

Service Delivery and Community Hubs, 2011)

The following sentiments, expressed by local practitioners give a feel of the frustrations or obstacles felt

by those working within the area:

- Difficult to find the right partner organisations with shared vision and commitment. Need to be able to communicate well.

- Larger organisations can be too structured - Clash of cultures between providers - Need to have passion to work through issues to reach satisfactory resolutions for all parties - Dependent on individual personalities not getting in the way of providers working together - Individual organisations may have inbuilt barriers or policies to prevent moving in sync with other

providers - Privacy issues may prevent services being able to work together - Need to develop agreed “Rules of Engagement” for potential areas of conflict between partner

organisations at both a committee (governance) and on-the-ground level

19

Summary of Key Findings

With consideration to the research and conversations conducted throughout this project, we present

the following as key findings:

i. Integrated Service Delivery of community services is critical in maximising efficiency and effectiveness for agencies working in this area. Through sharing of resources, expertise and cross-referral, outcomes around social inclusion are increased.

ii. The nature of work in the community services sector, and particularly the competitive nature of funding, makes achieving any or increasing levels of integration difficult. There appears a great need for inputs and/or reform at a governmental level around funding to create an environment in the community services more conducive to ISD.

iii. Healthy ISD must be developed in both a bottom-up and top down manner: a. Good governance is fundamental, as it responsible for creating a healthy environment

(resources, personal, policies, etc.) for successful and healthy service provision at a service delivery level.

b. The personal and professional relationships at a grass-roots level between partners operating in an ISD environment are critical. They must be valued and invested in to achieve greater collaboration.

iv. There is a significant pool of research, guideline documentation and professional expertise/ experience available to individuals and agencies desiring to implement ISD. We found those interviewed in this project only too willing to assist and make their experience available to others.

20

Handover Strategy / Deliverables

In view of these findings, the Communities that Care group presents the following outcomes:

i. Capturing History: This report intends to capture and crystallise the history and development of ISD model at Rosewall, long with supporting evidence, as they consider their future co-operation. It also serves as a positive case study for collaboration and partnership that leads to better outcome for the local community.

ii. Advocacy: The report will be made available to Neighbourhood Houses in the Greater Geelong Region and other relevant agencies through existing networks, with the aim that it may have a catalytic effect to encourage and affirm future operations around the ISD model.

iii. Governance Support: The literature and anecdotal evidence clearly points to the need for good

ensure success of the ISD model. This has also been identified as a major need for the Neighbourhood House. A process is underway to strengthen and support the Committee of Management at RNC (led by Deb Kearney from the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development) The group has committed to playing an ongoing role in this project.

Beyond that, the real value and outcome of this project – intangible as it may be – is evident in the

significant learning experienced by the members of our project group. We wish to acknowledge and

honour the outstanding contribution that is being made by a small, often under-resourced and under-

appreciated group of people working to add value to our community. Their time, energy and passion

are clearly making a difference in the challenge of “Creating Communities that Care”.

21

Bibliography

Centre for Community Child Health. (2009). Platforms: A service redevelopment framework; guide to

integrated service delivery. Melbourne: Centre for Community Child Health, The Royal Children’s

Hospital Melbourne.

Department for Communities. (2011), Integrated service models and community hubs background

working paper. Perth: Department for Communities.

Elliott, A. (2006), Early Childhood Education: Pathways to Quality and Equity for all

Children. ACER: Melbourne.

Jackson, C.L., Nicholson, C., Doust, J., Cheung, L. and O’Donnell, J. (2008), Evidence into Policy in

Australian Primary Healthcare. Seriously Working Together: Integrated Governance Models to Achieve

Sustainable Partnerships Between Healthcare Organizations, MJA, V 188, N 8.

Kennedy A and Hydon (September 2007), Integrating Children’s Services, Possibilities and

Provocations.

Pillor. S., & McKinlay. P (2011), Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, Local Government

and Community Governance: A Literature Review.

Press. F., Sumsion, J. and Wong, S. (n.d), Integrated Early Years Provision in Australia: A research

project for the Professional Support Coordinators Alliance. Bathurst: Charles Sturt University.

Prichard, P., Purdon, S. & Chaplyn, J. (2010), Moving Forward Together: A guide to support the

integration for service delivery for children and families. Melbourne: Tasmanian Early Years Foundation

22

Appendix A: Demographics of Rosewall Community

Population by Suburb

Age by Gender

6425

4076

1079

6688

4395

1181

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Corio Norlane Rosewall

Male Female12

4

113

113 13

8

96

87

102

109

111

93

42

20

18

3 9 3 0 0 0 0 0

132

115

104 12

5

102

75

79

66 10

3

78

42

13

21

6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0-4

5-9

10-1

4

15-1

9

20-2

4

25-2

9

30-3

4

35-3

9

40-4

4

45-4

9

50-5

4

55-5

9

60-6

4

65-6

9

70-7

4

75-7

9

80-8

4

85-8

9

90-9

4

95-9

8

99 y

ears

an

d o

ver

Females Males

23

Percentage of overseas born residents Corio, Norlane & Rosewall

Household composition

30%

38%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Corio Norlane Rosewall

7466

2074

1917

843

221

114

78

3705

1538

1743

795

154

89

72

1352

136 56

1

69

19

6 10

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Co

up

le f

amily

wit

h c

hild

ren

Co

up

le f

amily

wit

ho

ut

child

ren

On

e p

aren

t fa

mily

Lon

e p

erso

n

Gro

up

ho

use

ho

ld m

emb

er

Oth

er f

amily

Un

rela

ted

ind

ivid

ual

livi

ng

in f

amily

ho

use

ho

ld

Corio Norlane Rosewall

24

Formal Schooling

The age at which formal schooling begins to decline was similar for both males and females in all three

suburbs. For Corio and Rosewall, this decline occurred at 15 years of age and beyond, whereas in

Norlane this decline was apparent at 14 years of age. This is noticeably different to the LGA and the

State, as in both of these areas the decline is apparent at 17 years of age and beyond.

Highest qualification obtained – Rosewall

Occupations

Across each of the three suburbs, the two most common occupations undertaken by males were:

intermediate production and transport work; and trade and related work. This also mirrored the LGA.

Females across each of the three areas differed somewhat, with the three most common occupations

being: intermediate clerical, sales and service work; elementary clerical, sales and service work; and,

labouring and related work. At both the LGA (female only) and the State level the second most

common occupation was that of professional, this differed considerably to the suburbs under

investigation with this category being one of least common occupations.

0 0 3 3 15 110

3 0

58

0 6 6 3 10

8 19

0

74

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Hig

her

deg

ree

Po

st-

grad

uat

e d

iplo

ma

Bac

hel

or

deg

ree

Un

der

- gr

adu

ate

dip

lom

a

Ass

oci

ate

dip

lom

a

Skill

ed v

oca

tio

nal

Bas

ic v

oca

tio

nal

Inad

eq. d

escr

ibed

No

t st

ated

Male Total Female Total

25

Gross weekly income by gender:

Across each of the three suburbs (and likewise the LGA and the State) there were gender differences

related to gross weekly income. Around 50% of the female population in each of the three areas earned

equal to or less than $160-$199 per week. This was consistent with the LGA and the State. In

comparison, around 50% of the males in Corio earned equal to or less than $300-$399 per week. This

was greater than both Norlane ($160-$199 per week) and Rosewall ($200-$299), but yet it was

consistent with both the LGA and the State.

Gross weekly income by gender – Rosewall

0

33

6 21

29

132

32 62

81

86

77

31

21

38

18

0 0

68

38

52

43

114

95 14

0

133

47

21

9 6 0 0 0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Neg

ativ

e in

com

e

Nil

inco

me

$1-$

39

$40-

$79

$80-

$11

9

$120

-$15

9

$160

-$19

9

$200

-$29

9

$300

-$39

9

$400

-$49

9

$500

-$59

9

$600

-$69

9

$700

-$79

9

$800

-$99

9

$1,0

00-$

1,49

9

$1,5

00 o

r m

ore

Male Female

26

Appendix B: Service Providers at Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre

Rosewall N.C. CoGG ELC Bethany CatholicCare

What is your core business/ purpose?

Supporting people / families to explore / develop aspirations and meet their needs (food, education, entertainment and any other further issue recognized).

Awareness creation of available programs and services. Could be via referral

Playgroups which are supervised by staff

Kindergarten classes (2 x 5 1/2 hour days)

Early Learning @ Rosewall provides a commitment to an inclusive service that provides a stimulating, educational and enjoyable play based curriculum to encourage our children to become lifelong learners

Build individual, community and family skills and relationships through playgroup activities

Improve transition planning and participation in kindergarten and schools for children

Providing play activities highlighting the value of playing in groups and as a aid to learning

The CatholicCare social justice mission statement is from John’s gospel: “I have come that you may have life to the full”.

Objective is to work with marginalised and vulnerable families in community, in strengthening family relationships

Invited by COGG to the area to do early years (0-8years) relationships focus and on the parents.

It was a family services hub with the Best Start Partnership, government funded program. Facilitation and nurturing process which helps bring community to develop policy and procedures around children.

What services do you provide?

Education and awareness after engaging the community through such promotional activities …….

Run Local Festival in March (11am to 2pm) attended by approx. 600 people and includes family entertainment, BBQ, Skate Competition, etc.

Hendy St Centre (to create more activity partly in response to not having the ELC), activities enticing approx. 40 people per week

Quarterly publication in conjunction with Cloverdale Community Centre. 11,000 copies per quarter.

A fortnightly email distribution (approximately 60) to JSA’s, other not for profits and community organisations

Website and Facebook - 120 users

Special promotional events e.g. Shrove / Pancake Tuesday. Approximately 6 per year

Cafe on 3 days a week serving approximately 40 customers / visitors per day

As above plus:

COGG provides free bus pick up services from kindergarten participants’ homes (8 kids)

Cross referral to other services offered by Rosewall but now difficult

Supported Playgroup (aimed at 2yo children and parents) - In school term, 1 session (2 hours) per week. Involves about 12 families

Rostered Playgroup (aimed at 3yo children and parents) - In school term, 1 session (2 hours) per week. Involves about 10 families

Advocacy where the voice of the client has been lost through the lived experience of trauma and complex layers of adversity.

CatholicCare will act as advocate at schools or other areas that the client needs a voice.

Therapeutic counselling

Support groups

Integrate with other professionals, as a collective of shared visions and how best to help the clientele. E.g., issue around the grief in the loss of the primary school increasing the social exclusion, division between the parents.

27

How Do You See Your Service Delivery Has Been Affect Post-Fire?

Decreased ability to cross-refer across other partners

More difficult to maintain the relationships – professionally and personally

Less foot traffic into the Centre which means decreased participation in the programs

Loss of support and contact of fellow workers

Now only 1/3 participants are within walking distance of Rosewall

2/3 from outside the Rosewall area

50% are Indigenous due to the Watharoung connection

Less parents involved so they are not able to gain parental skills

Due to relocation ELC staff and parents unable to access readily the services available and providers available at Rosewall , this impacts negatively

ELC Staff not around Rosewall to be as informed on services available

Don’t build relationships with other workers providing services at Rosewall

Changes in volunteers at Rosewall leads to loss of repour with the ELC staff

Hard to cross refer when not in the same physical space

Have lost the capacity to refer to other Rosewall services

The potential for transition from Supported Playgroup ( 2yo )to Rostered Playgroup ( 3yo ) to Early Learning Centre (4yo) has been diminished

This has already been noticed in participation into Rostered Playgroup Bus services have led to less contact between staff and parents and also parents with each other

The interaction with parents is important to enable the parent to improve the educational experience of the child and the educational outcome.

With services provided now from different locations the easy referral from service to service for parents is not as seamless as should be

Missing the office Harder, missing the professional support from ELC, neighbourhood centre, playgroups, and Best Start program. They are separated, not as easy. No professional partners who can bring people over, Location is isolated rather than integrated. Loss of “walk-in” clients

How intentionally do you work with other community organisations in your area?

Cathcare (pre fire 5 days a week, post fire 1 day per week, now at Hendy St)

Partnered with Extended School Hub

COGG Youth Dept.

Barwon Youth Surfer Bu , mentoring and education support

Northern Futures,

Cloverdale Community Service,

Work well with other local groups in the same educational space including

Northern Suburbs Kinder Network

Network of “Linking Schools and Early Year Services” (under 8 years of age)

Involved in “Best Start” Project

Share information with “Best Start” both a Management and Operational level. Best Start is a collaborative group to increase health and educational outcomes for 2-8yo.

Liaise with the Early Learning Centre – been harder since fire

Involved in Community Events including Children’s Week, Playgroup Week and Tiny Bubbles (water awareness)

Lots of cross referring with Glastonbury, Child First alliance, DHS, Corio Bay Family Centre Rosewall Community Centre number one partner. Especially when want to build case management approach, not just therapeutic

Appendix C: Rosewall Family & Community Hub Terms of

Reference

Purpose

To work with the local community in providing holistic support to individuals, families

and groups that is flexibly tailored to the specific needs of those persons.

Objectives

To respect everyone’s position within this community and within this hub and to honour their individual and differing capacity and willingness to achieve.

To focus on the individual needs of each person in believing those ripple effects within families and the community will be realised.

To sustain the current life of the programs in operation and to develop their potential by offering collaborative support to all professionals co-located from this hub.

To make cross referrals within the body of professionals co-located at the hub and out into the local community if it adequately supports families and individuals.

To work together as professionals in partnership to expand services rather than duplicate

To build on qualitative information and measurements about our services

Membership

Service providers and partner organisations who offer services or projects from the hub

qualify for membership. Two streams of membership exist.

1. Core Members: These are the main partnership groups who run programs in residence.

2. Affiliate members: These are partners who run sessional programs from this hub. 3.

Shared initiatives

Shared initiatives will be comprised of those activities and occasions when there are

communal partnership approaches to achieving goals. Joint applications for funding or

media coverage may be included in such initiatives. Similarly other activities might

include community days such as the Going Potty festival, The Rosewall Hub Open Day,

Children’s Week, and other occasional community celebrations.

1 Creating communities that care

2012

Meetings

Meetings will be held once per term. The date of these will fall within the first 4 weeks

of school term and all members will be notified well in advance. Agenda items will be

called for in advance of these meetings and all partners are free to contribute to

meeting agendas. The facilitator of the meeting will rotate from year to year with

Centacare continuing on as facilitator for 2010.

Communication Strategy

The above mentioned meeting will serve as a communication point for partners to share

information and express concerns about any matters pertaining to the hub. A communal

hub calendar has been created electronically for all partners to contribute to. They are

reminded one week before the month finishes to notify their events for the upcoming

month. This will be posted in an accessible location for all community members to see.

In addition to this email between partners is positively encouraged.

Promotion & Marketing

The Rosewall Family and Community hub may be actively promoted through, but not

limited to, the following;

Articles published in Northerly Aspects quarterly publication.

An official launch in the first half of 2010

Our hub banner

Various network meetings we attend.

Local media exposure of various community events.

Confidentiality

Matters pertaining to the hub as discussed by partners are considered to be

confidential. Much of our work touches on sensitive and complex issues that affect our

community members. It is assumed that all hub partners will maintain confidentiality in

these matters.

Review

An annual review of this partnership group and this Terms of Reference document is

advised on a yearly basis. This is best completed at the change of facilitator from one

year to the next.

2 Creating communities that care

2012

Appendix D: Relevant News Articles

3 Creating communities that care

2012