sprc 100 december 2008 - unsw sydney€¦ · sprc newsletter 3 reflections on 100 sprc newsletters...

SSPPRRCC NEWSLETTER 1

The UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre has produced a number ofcomparative studies of children’swellbeing in rich countries. Thisproject aims to compare thewellbeing of migrant children inthe USA, UK, Italy, Netherlands,Switzerland, France, Germany andAustralia. The Chief Investigator ofthe overall project is DonaldHernandez from the University atAlbany, New York. The SPRC wascommissioned to undertake theAustralian component of theresearch. This consisted of ananalysis of the 2001 Census data onmigrant children and a review ofthe Australian literature on thewellbeing of migrant children inthis country. The project arose outof a concern that in many Europeancountries in particular, the numberof migrant children has risenexponentially in the past few years.Many of these children are

NewsletterNo 100 December 2008

Registered by Australia Post Publication No. NBP4766 ISSN 1324 4639

Child Migrantsin AustraliaBy Ilan Katz and Gerry Redmond

perceived to suffer levels ofwellbeing well below the averagefor native children.

Three factors can account forthese lower levels of wellbeing.Firstly, many migrant children andtheir parents have suffered variousforms of trauma in their country oforigin. This is particularly true forrefugees, but may be the case forother categories of migrants.Secondly, the experience ofmigration can be very traumatic forchildren and parents, involvingdislocation from their home countryand wider support networks, loss ofsocial status and often reducedeconomic circumstances. Finally,the experiences in the receivingcountry can also be very negative,with migrant children sufferingracism and discrimination, lowerlevels of access to mainstreamservices and misunderstanding byservice providers. These problems

are exacerbated when the familieshave low levels of familiarity withthe receiving country’s language.

Migrationin Australia

In order to understand thecircumstances of migrant childrenin Australia, it is important to knowsomething of the history ofmigration to this country. Since thebeginning of white settlement inAustralia in 1788, there has beencontinuous mass migration to thecountry. Australia is thereforeessentially a migrant society andcontinues to have one of thehighest levels of in-migration of anyOECD country. Data from the2006 Census show that 24 per centof the Australian population wasborn overseas (ABS, 2007), and ouranalysis found that almost one-thirdof children in Australia are born

EditorS Duncan Aldridge, Christiane Purcal and Cathy Thomson

Continued on page 4

Contents

Child Migrants in Australia.......................................... 1

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

100 SPRC Newsletters ................................................ 3

Review of Higher Education...................................... 6

SPRC Indigenous Research Strategy .................... 7

Research on Children.................................................... 8

Clients with Challenging Behaviour .................... 10

Lead Article: Ilan Katz and GerryRedmond report on thewellbeing of migrantchildren in Australia.

Australian Social PolicyConference Call forPapers page 12

Housing and Mental Illness .................................. 11

Australian Social Policy Conference................ 12

Evaluating WAYS Youth Services.................... 14

Disability Studies and Research Centre ...... 14

New Projects .............................................................. 15

Research Scholar News ........................................ 16

New Publications ...................................................... 16

Ilan Katz

Gerry Redmond

2 No 100 DECEMBER 2008

Staff and Visitor UpdateSTAFFDirectorIlan KatzAssociate DirectorMelissa RoughleyARC Australian ProfessorialFellow and UNSW ScientiaProfessorPeter SaundersProfessorial FellowBettina CassProfessorsDeborah BrennanPeter WhitefordSenior Research FellowsBruce BradburyTony EardleyKaren FisherKristy MuirXiaoyuan ShangARC Post Doctoral Fellow andSenior Research FellowLyn CraigResearch FellowsTrish HillMarilyn McHughGerry RedmondKathy TannousCathy Thomsonkylie valentineRoger PatulnyResearch AssociatesMegan BlaxlandRobyn EdwardsSaul FlaxmanSandra GenderaMegan GriffithsFiona HilfertyShannon McDermottSamia MichailKillian MullanYuvisthi Naidoo (on leave)Christiane PurcalCiara Smyth (on leave)Denise ThompsonAnna ZhuDoCS Post Doctoral Fellowand Research AssociatePooja SawrikarUNSW Post Doctoral Fellowand Research AssociateNatasha CortisResearch OfficersDavid AbellóBrooke DinningIoana OpreaMarianne RajkovicMelissa WongIsabel YayaMyra Hamilton

Centre ManagerRoxanne LawsonResearch Support OfficerCatherine KeastAdministration Officer –Human ResourcesMaree WilliamsEvents and Publications OfficerDuncan AldridgeCommunications OfficerJuanita VargasProject OfficerCarol SullivanAdministration OfficerTereasa MulroyAdministration AssistantSue GoodallLibrarianKatherine CummingsProfessorial Visiting FellowsMichael BittmanSol EncelSheila ShaverSenior Visiting FellowsJudy CashmoreChing ChoiVisiting FellowsSara GrahamChris WoodAaron BishopResearch ScholarsSherman ChanBob DavidsonGary GahanAngelica HannanWendy HermestonHelen HodgsonJi-Sun KimYuvisthi NaidooMeredith NiruiMarianne RajkovicGerry RedmondAnne WillsInternsMaria ChanGeorgina GlanfeildRyan GleesonSusi HamiltonYulia MaletaTomasz SitekAlison O’ConnorSocial Policy Research CentreBuilding G2, Western GroundsUniversity of New South WalesSydney NSW 2052, AustraliaPh: +61 (2) 9385 7800Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838Email: [email protected]://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/

The Social Policy Research Centre

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

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

The views expressed in this Newsletter, as in any of the Centre’s publications, do not represent any official position of the Centre. The SPRC Newsletter

and all other SPRC publications present the views and research findings of the individual authors, with the aim of promoting the development of ideas

and discussion about major concerns in social policy and social welfare.

AARRRRIIVVAALLSS::PETER WHITEFORD has taken up a Professorial post at the Centre.Professor Whiteford worked at the SPRC between 1985 and 1990 andagain in 1994. For the last eight years Peter has worked in theDirectorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs at theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.BROOKE DINNING and MELISSA WONG have commenced work atthe Centre. Brooke is working with kylie valentine on the Autismproject, Melissa is working with Peter Saunders. TERESA MULROY has joined the research support team asAdministration Officer, and CATHERINE KEAST has taken up theResearch Support Officer post. JUANITA VARGAS has commenced at the Centre in the new positionof Communications OfficerISABEL YAYA has joined the Centre and is working on the FaHCSIAproject on parenting. MYRA HAMILTON has joined the Centre to work to the NSW CarersAction Plan Evaluation and the FAHCSIA project on Parenting.

DDEEPPAARRTTUURREESS::The Centre farewelled BJ NEWTON, who has taken a position at NuraGili at UNSW.

VVIISSIITTOORRSS::AARON BISHOP is an Australian Department of Health and AgeingPacker Policy Fellow and will be visiting the Centre for the year.CHING CHOI from the Australian National University and CHRISWOOD from the University of Nottingham are also visiting the Centre.The Centre is currently hosting six interns: MARIA CHAN, GEORGINAGLANFEILD, RYAN GLEESON, SUSI HAMILTON, YULIA MALETAand TOMASZ SITEK. The interns are working on a range of projects atthe Centre.

AANNNNOOUUNNCCEEMMEENNTTSS:: We congratulate MEGAN GRIFFITHS and DENISE THOMPSON ontheir appointment as Research Associates. We also congratulateROXANNE LAWSON and MAREE WILLIAMS on their appointmentsas Centre Manager and Administration Officer – Human Resourcesrespectively. YUVISTHI NAIDOO is currently on maternity leave.

Photos by MediaKoo unless otherwise stated


Reflections on 100SPRC NewslettersThe Newsletter has been one ofthe SPRC’s (many) success stories,and I am delighted to have thisopportunity to reflect on itscontribution in this, its one-hundredth, issue. Since itsestablishment in 1980, the SPRChas pursued dual objectives: toconduct research that is of thehighest quality; and to disseminateresearch findings in order toexpand the knowledge base, raiseawareness of the issues and informpolicy. The Newsletter hascontributed to the latter task byproviding clear, concise andfocused summaries of research to awide audience of scholars, policymakers, practitioners and otherinterested parties. It seeks tocommunicate to those whose taxesultimately fund much of ouractivity information about who weare, what we do, how we do it, withwhom, and with what results. Itreflects our commitment to thegoals of transparency andaccountability.

Its main objectives were set outin a no-nonsense fashion on thefront page of the first issue,released in September 1980 – ninemonths after the formal opening ofwhat was then the Social WelfareResearch Centre (SWRC):

‘SWRC NEWSLETTERwill be published from timeto time both to disseminateinformation about SWRCactivities and to presentinformation and ideas onpresent, proposed orcompleted research fromother organisations.’The description (if not the

name!) is equally appropriate today,although we have tended to focusmore on our own activity, notbecause of any insularity, butbecause that has been what readershave wanted – an inside account ofwhat we are doing, rather than ourperceptions of what others aredoing. In using it in this way, theNewsletter has become animportant link to our many andvaried constituents, but also avaluable training vehicle for ourstaff – providing them with anopportunity to describe their

research in adisciplined butaccessible manner.

During the earlypart of my two decadesas Director, I was oftendaunted by theprospect of having toproduce yet another‘From the Director’column. This wasgenerally the lastarticle completed – atradition that, I ampleased to report, IlanKatz has continued –and it gives theDirector anopportunity to keepabreast of what is goingon in the Centre. Thishas becomeincreasingly importantas we have grown andas our activity hasbecome more diverse.Over time, I came torelish the uniqueopportunity that thecolumn provided mewith to reflect (attimes, no doubt,pontificate!) on thesocial policy issues ofthe day and offerinsights and solutionsfree from the constraininginfluence of academic referees orcontract managers. And theknowledge that one’s words wouldbe read by people of influence inAustralia and overseas added spiceto the prospect.

Production of the Newsletter isnot costless. A tremendous amountof effort is involved in identifyingtopics and contributors, keeping toschedule, editing contributions,finalising the lay-out and liaisingwith the printers over production.We have been well served over theyears by a small army of helpersdedicated to getting the Newsletterinto the hands of its readers. Therehave been times when I wonderedwhether it was an expendableluxury, a diversion from our maingame. But I have come toappreciate the shortsightedness ofthis view, partly as a consequence

of listening to the contrary views ofcolleagues such as Sheila Shaver,but also as I have come to realisejust how widely its reach andinfluence have spread.

There have been countlesstimes when I have walked into acolleague’s office in Britain orSweden, the US or Germany, andseen on the bookcase a file packedwith (obviously well-read) copies ofthe SPRC Newsletter. It has oftenbeen the opening topic ofdiscussions, with my overseascounterparts keen to respond to, orbe updated on, news of ourresearch, events and staffing.

The SPRC Newsletter hasserved the Centre well and beenvalued by its readers. It has playeda unique role in raising awarenessand understanding of social policyresearch issues in Australia. Longmay it continue.

By Peter Saunders

Peter Saunders, former SPRC Director, looking

back at the Centre’s first newsletter.

Photo: Christiane Purcal.


overseas or have at least one parentwho is born overseas. TheAustralian Government has alwaysencouraged migration to Australia,but at the same time has strictlycontrolled and regulated it.

Each generation of migrants hasbrought its own challenges andissues for the nation, but has alsobrought new resources which havebenefited Australian society as awhole. For the first 150 years, untilthe end of the World War II,migration to Australia was for themost part from the UK and Ireland.This was due to a deliberate WhiteAustralia policy, officially known asthe restrictive immigration policy,under the CommonwealthImmigration Restriction Act of1901. In the years after World WarII, labour shortages prompted in-migration from Britain, Ireland andother European countries,including Italy, Greece and theformer Yugoslavia. This economicmigration was supplemented by thesettlement of large numbers ofrefugees from Europe. In the 1970sand early 1980s immigration policywas redefined to restrict immigrationto certain categories of immigrants:people with skills and professionsin short supply, people who alreadyhad close family members inAustralia, and refugees. Throughoutthe period, New Zealanders had(and continue to have) unrestrictedrights to enter and stay in Australia,and have always constituted asignificant proportion of everymigration cohort.

Following the abandonment ofthe White Australia policy and therestructuring of migration in the1970s, there have been successivewaves of immigration, first from theMiddle East (mainly Lebanon) andlater from Asia (Vietnam, Chinaand Indonesia). Cohorts of migrantsfrom Asia consisted of bothrefugees and economic migrants. Inrecent years, Australia has admittedrefugees from around the world.Nevertheless, the numericalmajority of immigrants is still fromEnglish-speaking countries, inparticular the UK and New

Zealand, who between themaccount for one-third of theoverseas-born population, followedby China and Vietnam at four percent each (ABS, 2007).

Along with the diversification ofthe backgrounds of migrantpopulations, official policy towardsethnic minorities has also changed.By the mid 1970s ‘multiculturalism’had become the official policy(Lopez, 2000). However the policyhas been increasingly questionedby governments and, hence, theDepartment of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs (DIMA) wasrenamed the Department forImmigration and Citizenship(DIAC).

Migration policy is importantbecause Australia has had muchtighter control over immigrationthan any other OECD country.Nevertheless there is somecontroversy over whether migrationpolicy in itself is the main driver tothe wellbeing of migrants. Reitz(1998), for example, argues that thelabour market is much moreimportant than immigration policiesin determining outcomes fordifferent groups of migrants.

Definitional issuesOne of the challenges in

discussing the wellbeing of migrantchildren in Australia is thedefinitional issue. Terms such as‘CALD’ (culturally andlinguistically diverse), ‘NESB’(non-English speaking background)and ‘migrant’ all haveshortcomings, and none of themcaptures all the issues. Virtuallyevery Australian who is notIndigenous has a migrantbackground of some sort. On theother hand, dividing people intoEnglish-speaking and non-Englishspeaking backgrounds conflatesSwedes and Dutch with Africanand Burmese refugees. This is notjust an academic issue. Dependingon definition, very different levelsof wellbeing for migrant childrenare found. In addition virtuallyevery research project conducted inAustralia has used differentdefinitions. One of the particular

challenges has been that evenknowing the country of origin doesnot always tell us that much aboutchildren. For example, manychildren from low-income countriesmay themselves come from familieswith relatively high incomes (andvice versa). This is particularly truefor the skilled migration stream,which encourages well-trainedpeople to come to Australia.

Research on childmigrants inAustralia

We found that, compared tomost other OECD countries, thereis a dearth of research on migrantchildren in Australia, and alsorelatively little administrative datacomparing migrant children to thegeneral population. None of theflagship studies of children’swellbeing provides specificinformation about CALD ormigrant children (AIHW, 2007,2005; Australian Research Alliancefor Children & Youth (ARACY),2008; Department of HumanServices Victoria, 2006).

What we foundOur analysis of the Census and

the research literature identified acomplex picture. As a group, childmigrants in Australia seem todemonstrate higher levels ofwellbeing than the population as awhole in a number of areas. In theearly 1990s, the Bureau ofImmigration and PopulationResearch (which has since beendisbanded) carried out a series ofstudies comparing thecircumstances of NESB childrenwith those of English-speakingmigrant children and nativeAustralian children (Taylor andMacdonald, 1992; Taylor andMacdonald, 1994). They found thatmigrant children from English-speaking backgrounds were, ifanything, more advantaged thannative Australian children, whereaschildren from NESB families wereeconomically, educationally andsocially worse off. However, thesestudies were carried out more than15 years ago, at a time when

Child Migrants in Australia continuedfrom Page 1


Australia was suffering an economicrecession. There is mixed evidenceas to whether the differencesbetween migrants from English-and non-English speakingbackgrounds persist to this day.

Generally the later research andour own analysis of the Census dataconfirmed that migrant childrenfrom English-speakingbackgrounds tend to have higherlevels of wellbeing than the generalpopulation of Australian children.NESB children as a group also havesimilar (or just below average)levels of wellbeing in many areas.However, particular groups ofchildren suffer from very highlevels of disadvantage in differentfacets of their wellbeing. Forexample, the Census data showthat the average income fordifferent groups of migrants rangedfrom $161 per week for ‘Other EastAsia’ to $302 per week forCaribbeans (the average forAustralians was $233).

There were very few statisticsavailable on the ‘softer’ outcomessuch as health, child protection andcrime, but the National Report onSchooling in Australia 2005(MCEETYA [Ministerial Councilon Employment Education andYouth Affairs], 2007) showed thatyoung people from NESB wereexactly at the national average forreading and just below the averagefor numeracy.

Despite these positive findings,a number of smaller studies havefound that migrants to Australiasuffer the same issues as migrantsto any other country – for exampleracism, discrimination, identityissues and dislocation from theirculture of origin. Thus the relativewellbeing of migrants is notexplained by Australian society’smore ‘welcoming’ attitudes towardsmigrants – especially those fromNESB. Rather it seems that inAustralia, migrants are able to findemployment relatively quickly, andto find jobs which are stable andlead to better prospects, comparedto other countries. This isconfirmed by a recent analysis ofthe HILDA (Household Incomeand Labour Dynamics in Australia

Survey) data (Wilkins, 2008).In order to look more closely at

the wellbeing of younger childrenwe undertook some preliminaryanalysis of LSAC (LongitudinalStudy of Australian Children) wave1 data. We found that children fromNESB came from families withlower incomes on average thanthose from English speakingbackgrounds. On the compositeoutcomes index they scored lowerthan English speaking children, buthigher than Indigenous children.Interestingly, NESB parentstended to have very high levels ofdistress and hostility – higher thanIndigenous parents. While most ofthese parenting and child outcomesdisappeared after controlling forsocio-economic status, familystructure and other factors, thisnevertheless shows that childrenfrom NESB may be facing anumber of challenges in their lives.

ConclusionOur research confirmed the wide

variation in wellbeing for migrantchildren in Australia. None of thetrends reported are very stable,because the migrant population isconstantly changing. Global andlocal events, economic conditionsand changes in policy all affect whoapplies and is admitted as a migrantto Australia and the nature of theirexperiences once they settle. Eachnew cohort of migrants brings withit specific issues and responses. Itis probably not very useful to talkof ‘migrants’ as a single category,because their experience ofmigration is so variable.Nevertheless these findings arevery interesting because they seemto indicate that migration itselfdoes not necessarily produce pooroutcomes and that many childrenare resilient. We recommend moreresearch in this area, so that Australiacan draw on a comparable body ofknowledge to other similar countries.

ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics

(ABS) (2007), Migration Australia:2005-2006, Australian Bureau ofStatistics, Canberra.http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausst

ats/subscriber.nsf/0/E0A79B147EA8E0B5CA2572AC001813E8/$File/34120_2005-06.pdf.

Australian Institute of Health andWelfare (AIHW) (2007), YoungAustralians: Their Health andWellbeing 2007 (Cat. no. PHE 87ed.), Australian Institute of Healthand Welfare, Canberra.

AIHW (2005), A Picture ofAustralia’s Children, AustralianInstitute of Health and Welfare,Canberra.

Australian Research Alliance forChildren & Youth (ARACY) (2008),Report Card: The Wellbeing ofYoung Australians, ARACY, Perth.

Department of Human ServicesVictoria (2006), Headline Indicatorsfor Children’s Health,Development and Wellbeing,Department of Human ServicesMelbourne.

Lopez, M. (2000), The Origin ofMulticulturalism in AustralianPolitics 1945-1975, MelbourneUniversity Press, Melbourne.

Ministerial Council onEmployment Education and YouthAffairs (MCEETYA) (2007),National Report on Schooling2005: National BenchmarkResults, Reading Writing andNumeracy, Years 3, 5 and 7,MCEETYA, Canberra.

Reitz, J. G. (1998), Warmth ofthe Welcome: The Social Causes ofEconomic Success for Immigrantsin Different Nations and Cities,Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Taylor, J. and Macdonald, H.(1992), Children of Immigrants:Issues of Poverty andDisadvantage, Australian Bureau ofImmigration and PopulationResearch.

Taylor, J. and Macdonald, H.(1994), Disadvantage andChildren of Immigrants: ALongitudinal Study, Bureau ofImmigration and PopulationResearch, Melbourne.

Wilkins, R. (2008), ‘Immigrantlabour market outcomes’, in Heady,B. and Warren, D. (eds), Families,Incomes and Jobs, Volume 3: AStatistical Report on Waves 1 to 5of the HILDA Survey, MelbourneInstitute of Applied Economic andSocial Research, Melbourne, 96-100.


Where does a research centre likethe Social Policy Research Centre(SPRC) at the University of NewSouth Wales, established in 1980and well into its 28th year, fit inAustralia’s higher education system?What might our research mission andlong experience with engagementsbetween research, policy debate,policy development, implementationand evaluation contribute to thereview of Australia’s higher educationsector, currently underway andmoving towards completion?

On 13 March 2008, the DeputyPrime Minister and Minister forEducation, Julia Gillard, announced‘a major review of Australia’s highereducation system whose aim is toexamine and report on the futuredirection of the higher educationsector, its fitness for purpose inmeeting the needs of the Australiancommunity and economy and theoptions for ongoing reform.’(http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/reviews/highered_review/) TheReview Panel, chaired by ProfessorDenise Bradley, released aDiscussion Paper in June 2008 –Review of Australian Higher

Education, which outlines what itsees as the place of highereducation in modern Australia. Thesubmission process has closed andProfessor Bradley announced thatthe Panel’s decision would bemade after undertakingconsultations, commissioningresearch and reading submissions.It will release its final report togovernment in December, bringingforward a comprehensive andintegrated package of reforms.

higher educationin modernAustralia

The Review of Australian

Higher Education Discussion

Paper (2008) states that:

maintain civil and sustainableregions and communities.

With respect to the contributionsthat higher education might beexpected to make to Australia’seconomic, social and culturalcapital, it is apparent that theDiscussion Paper envisages thatthe functions of universities, inaddition to (and in partnershipwith) teaching and learning,research and research training,should include knowledge transfer,community service, communityengagement and development. Inother words, universities shouldmake contributions to governmentand civil society, to sustainabledevelopment nationally andinternationally, as well as tobusiness and industry. How mightthis be done not only throughteaching and learning, research andresearch training, but also throughother routes which might bedeveloped and supported? Howmight this be done not onlythrough research transfer, whichimplies a one-way flow ofinformation from universities toprivate, public, government andcommunity sector institutions?

Moving away from theperspective that sees researchtransfer as unidirectionaldissemination to hopefully avid andeager (but in some instancesreluctant and disinterested)knowledge receivers, we mightinvoke the concept of mutuallyconstructed knowledge exchanges.This concept is often pertinent tothe process of doing social policyresearch. What are the functions ofuniversities (as identified in theReview of Australian Higher

Education Discussion Paper)

which relate to carrying out socialpolicy research in a universitysetting – that is, in a setting whichvalues autonomy and theindependent scholarly pursuit of

Higher education is the site for

the production and transmission

of new knowledge and for new

applications of knowledge. ... But

higher education in a modern

democracy does more than this.

By deepening our understanding

of health and social issues, and by

providing access to higher levels

of learning to people from all

backgrounds, it can enhance

social inclusion and reduce social

and economic disadvantage. ... By

helping sustain and renew other

institutions through its capacity to

develop knowledge and skills,

higher education acts as a

cornerstone of the institutional

framework of society

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2008:1).The Discussion Paper goes on

to outline the functions of highereducation in modern Australia, andthese include:

• developing high levelknowledge and skills;

• self fulfillment and personaldevelopment and the pursuit ofknowledge as an end in itself;

• to prepare a highly productive,professional labour force;

• generating new knowledgeand developing new applications ofknowledge

– by undertaking research anddeveloping high level researchskills; and

– by exchanging and transferringknowledge and its applications withindustry and society;

• developing and maintaining acivil and sustainable society

– by playing a key role in thedevelopment and maintenance ofthe nation’s culture and socialstructures;

– by assisting to develop thecapacity of Australia to functioneffectively in the community ofnations and of individual Australiansto be global citizens; and

– by helping develop and

Bettina Cass

Social Policy Research andthe Review of Australian HigherEducationBy Bettina Cass


evidence vitally relevant to thedevelopment of policies thatenhance social inclusion and

reduce social and economic

disadvantage? To understand fullythe importance of undertakingresearch in order to create newknowledge, disseminate knowledgeto communities, governments andindustries, nationally andinternationally, undertake researchtraining with higher degreestudents and postdoctoral fellows,we might adopt the powerfulmetaphor of building bridges

between researchers, policy-makers, professionals and otherpractitioners, in an ongoing seriesof researcher/policymaker/practitioner conversations andengagements (cf Saunders andWalter, 2005).

The third function identified foruniversities, namely Developing

and maintaining a civil and

sustainable society by playing akey role in the development andmaintenance of the nation’s cultureand social structures; by assisting todevelop the capacity of Australia tofunction effectively in thecommunity of nations and ofindividual Australians to be globalcitizens; and by helping developand maintain civil and sustainableregions and communities, is clearlyfundamental to undertaking socialpolicy research. And here we mightenvisage the SPRC’s contributionsto the civic, human, social andeconomic development ofcommunities as forging andmaintaining knowledge creation

partnerships between academicresearchers in consultation withgovernment policy-makers, serviceproviders, community

organisations, public and privatesector industries and the range ofcommunity sector agencies. Thisconceptualisation brings to the forethe contributions made by theSPRC’s research teams inknowledge creation partnerships,nationally and internationally.

This is not to suggest that suchpartnerships are always consensualand non-controversial. Like allexchanges whose consequences arevital to policy debate anddevelopment with many interestsat stake, they may be deeplycontested and require mutualrespect and negotiation in which allparties engage in a learningexchange. But this is the very stuffof evidence-driven research engagingpublicly with the policy arena.

For Australia’s higher educationsector there are dangers in notengaging in research disseminationand community engagement, andthese dangers involve diminishingthe universities’ role in publicpolicy debates, in framing andcontributing actively to thosedebates, and as a result beingrendered extraneous tocontemporary processes in social,economic, political and culturaldevelopment. It might be seen ascentral to the social and civicresponsibilities of universities thatthese functions be supported andvigorously pursued. This isquintessentially the research,research training and researchpartnerships and disseminationspace in which the SPRC sits.

In their collection of essays onIdeas and Influence: Social

Science and Public Policy in

Australia (2005), Saunders andWalter speak of the identificationof ’entry points’ to the policy

process. In this way, promise isheld out for more fruitful andconstructive conversations betweensocial scientists, social policyanalysts, policy-makers andpractitioners, in which the learningprocesses are mutually constructedand experienced, with a clear eyeto promoting social equity,enhancing social inclusion andreducing social and economicdisadvantage, and to developingand maintaining civil andsustainable regions andcommunities.

In the current period, the Panelengaged in the review of Australianhigher education is involved inroundtable meetings with theGovernment to discuss preliminaryfindings and indicate the directionsin which it is heading in completionof its report in December. It is ofutmost importance to the future ofAustralian universities that strongcredence and full support be givento the community engagement roleof ‘developing and maintaining acivil and sustainable society’through knowledge creation,knowledge transfer, researchtraining, and research partnershipsin the production of evidence-driven knowledge to frame,contribute to and assist with theapplication and evaluation of publicpolicy.

ReferencesCommonwealth of Australia

(2008), Review of Australian

Higher Education Discussion

Paper, Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra.

Saunders, P. and Walter, J. (eds)(2005), Ideas and Influence: Social

Science and Public Policy in

Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.

SPRC publishes Indigenous Research StrategyThe SPRC recently published its Indigenous Research Strategy, which has been in development since2002. The Strategy sets priorities and timeframes for the SPRC’s research involving Indigenous peopleand communities, as well as for the Centre’s overall values, culture, policy and operations.

The UNSW’s Indigenous Programs Centre, Nura Gili, has been an important partner in developingthe Strategy. The SPRC will continue to work closely with Nura Gili as it implements the IndigenousResearch Strategy. The Indigenous Research Strategy is available on the Centre’s website:http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/SPRC_Indigenous_research_strategy.pdf


The Social Policy Research Centrehas a long-standing interest inchildren’s lived experiences and isincreasing its capacity to consultdirectly with children and youngpeople about their lives. A numberof current projects at the SPRC arealigned with broader socialmovements that recognisechildren’s and young people’scapabilities and position them asactive partners in knowledgeproduction about their lives. Theseinitiatives align with a strongtradition of quantitative research atthe SPRC that has highlighted theconditions of young people’s livesin order to inform more equitablesocial policies. Qualitative methodscomplement this knowledge baseby bringing to the fore thecomplexities of children’sexperiences and the capabilitieswith which they negotiate theirenvironments. This article sketchesthe past and present SPRCinitiatives concerned withimproving the lives of children andyoung people (hereafter referred toas young people) and invitesreflection on the methodologicalcomplexities of research withyoung people.

Research on livingstandards offamilies withchildren

The SPRC has made significantcontributions to research about theliving standards of young people. In1986, the study Poverty, before

and after paying for housing

turned attention towards theexperiences of families withchildren living in poverty andcalled for further research that pays‘close attention to the experience ofpoverty among young people’(Bradbury et al, 1986:86). Thisresearch trajectory includesBradbury et al’s (2001) cross-national study of children’smovements in and out of poverty aswell as the recent project Wealth as

Research on and with Childrenand Young People at the SPRCBy Jen Skattebol and Samia Michail

a protective factor for child

outcomes (Katz and Redmond,2008), which looked atdeterminants of children’s well-being through the lens of income.Currently, the Making a difference

project is exploring perceptions ofeconomically disadvantaged youngpeople in order to understand howexperiences of economic adversitymay exclude them from aspects offamily, school and community life,and what supports can make adifference.

Engaging childrenand young peopleas informants

In the early 1990s at SPRC,qualitative methods sought youngpeople’s perspectives in the Wards

leaving care: a longitudinal study

(Cashmore and Paxman, 1996) toinform the development of servicesfor young people who have beenwards of the state. Here, interviewswere conducted with young peopleat a place of their choice; processesdeveloped to ensure informed andongoing consent, and a summary ofthe research findings provided toparticipants. This work informed –and was informed by – conceptualshifts in the social sciences thatrecognise young people’scitizenship and rights to activelyparticipate in research that affectstheir lives.

This trend of researchingdirectly with young people aboutthe issues and initiatives thatimpact on their lives continues atSPRC today. For example, theevaluation of headspace: the

national youth mental health

foundation (2008/9) assesses theextent to which headspace

expands the capacity of theAustralian community to respond toyoung people with mental healthand associated issues. SPRCresearchers are currently evaluatinga resilience-building program atTirkandi Inaburra, an Indigenous,community-controlled residential

facility for Aboriginal boys who areat risk of contact with the criminaljustice system. Culturally and

linguistically diverse young people

and mentoring: the case of Horn of

Africa young people in Australia

identified how best to tailor currentmentoring programs to the culturesof young Horn of African mentees.In these evaluations, a variety ofmethods are used to facilitate trustand communication with youngpeople.

Another suite of research projectsexamines the lives of young carers –children and young people whoprovide regular care for a relative.Identifying isolated carers:

contacting carers with unmet needs

for information and support (2004)investigated the socio-demographiccharacteristics and geographicaldistribution of young carers. Thisproject identified a significantnumber of young people who livewith a person with a disability, butdid not identify as carers and werethus not identifiable in the existingdata sets. A new project, Young

carers: life course impacts of the

caring responsibilities of children

and young adults (2008), builds onthis understanding and explores theexperiences of this somewhatinvisible and diverse group throughin-depth and participatory methods.The project aims to understandwhich social policies might bestsupport young carers’ lives.

Research onservices forchildren andfamilies

SPRC also has a significant focuson the service systems that supportour youngest citizens in the rapidlyexpanding and sometimesconverging fields of earlyintervention and early childhoodeducation. Topical and reviewpapers, policy audits, strategicassessments of the children’sservices sector, evaluation andexploratory research and

Jen Skattebol

Samia Michail


international research collaborationscombine to strengthen ourunderstanding of, and visions for,effective service systems.

Currently, the SPRC has anumber of exploratory researchprojects aiming to develop modelsof best practice to support youngpeople and their families. Theseprojects will seek the views ofyoung people and the significantadults involved in their lives. TheLinking schools and early years

project is working with schools,early childhood services andcommunities to develop a model ofcollaborative practice that fostersenvironments supportive ofchildren’s learning. Similarly, theEffective and culturally

appropriate service delivery for

CALD children and families in the

child protection system projectinvestigates children’s and families’experiences of the child protectionsystem with the aim of developingpractices that are responsive to theneeds of culturally andlinguistically diverse (CALD)families and children. Finally,Returning to work: exploring the

dimensions of a significant

lifecourse transition for mothers

and children aims to investigatethe whole-of-family impact ofmothers’ return to work.

Recognising youngpeople’s citizenship

Young people have beenfrequently positioned as objectsrather than subjects in both socialpolicy and research. Historicallythey have been understood asdevelopmentally unable to voicetheir own perspectives or toparticipate as citizens. In addition,many adults believe they can speakfor young people because they canlay claim to their own experiencesof childhood or because of theirproximity to young people. Yetexperiences of childhood varyenormously across generations,culture and space. Lister (2007)argues that young people are oftendenied opportunities todemonstrate their capacity to beparticipatory citizens. A growingbody of research with both children

and young people, however,demonstrates that, when offeredmeaningful opportunities toparticipate in research, many youngpeople exhibit their expertise,political agency, understanding andcapability on a range of levels.When researchers involve youngpeople in the early stages ofresearch, we harness their expertisein their own lives and also build thepolitical capacity and recognition ofthe community (or collectivegroup) we seek to serve.

However, young people’scapabilities to act as political agentsvary according to the opportunitiesfor civic participation and skill-building in their social worlds.Moving beyond tokenistic inclusionis most likely to occur when adultsrecognise and cater for the differentskill sets and orientations youngpeople have towards research.Some young people will beinterested in contributing toresearch at the inception anddesign stages, while others benefitfrom support to develop capacitiesand orientations (see, for example,the work of CREATE, afoundation for young people incare: www.create.org.au).

Inclusive research design, then,is a pedagogical exercise for adultresearchers and policymakers aswell as for young people. Inclusivedesigns provide opportunities foryoung people to exercise and buildon their citizenship skills. Thisfrequently challenges adult powerand a long-standing emphasis onresearch outcomes rather thanprocesses. Imperatives to produceresearch of the scale, calibre andrigour needed to inform socialpolicy operate in tension withethical principles that demand therecognition and support of youngpeople’s citizenship through anemphasis on process. To advancethe development of inclusivemethodologies, we would like toinvite other researchers to explorethe ethics, complexities and politicsof researching with young people ina themed session titled Children

and young people in research

methodologies at the 2009Australian Social Policy Conference.

ReferencesCashmore, J. and Paxman, M.

(1995), Longitudinal Study of

Wards Leaving Care: Final

Report. NSW Department ofCommunity Services: Australia.

Bittman, M., Fisher, K., Hill, T.,Thompson, D. and Thomson, C.(2004), Identifying Isolated Carers:

Contacting Carers with Unmet

Needs for Information and

Support. – Final Report for ARC

Linkage Project, Social PolicyResearch Centre, Sydney.

Bradbury, B., Rossiter, C. andVipond, J. (1986), Poverty, Before

and After Paying For Housing.SWRC Reports and ProceedingsNo. 56. UNSW, Australia.

Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S. andMicklewright, J. (2001), ‘Thedynamics of child poverty in sevenindustrialised nations.’ In,Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S. andMicklewright, J. (eds), The

Dynamics of Child Poverty in

Industrialised Countries, 92-132,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Cass, B., Smyth, C., Hill, T. andBlaxland, M. (2008), Young Carers

in Australia: Understanding the

Advantages and Disadvantages of

their Care-Giving and the

implications for Policy – Final

Report to FaHCSIA, Social PolicyResearch Centre, Sydney.

www.create.org.au.Lister, R. (2007), ‘From object to

subject: including marginalisedcitizens in policy making’, Policy

and Politics, 35 (3): 437-55.Muir, K., McDermott, S., Katz,

I., Patulny, R., Flaxman, S. andGendera, S. (2008), Independent

Evaluation of headspace: The

National Youth Mental Health

Foundation, Evaluation Plan,

Prepared for Headspace andUniversity of Melbourne, SocialPolicy Research Centre, Sydney.

Redmond, G. and Katz, I.(2008), Wealth as a Protective

Factor for Child Outcomes,

unpublished report to FaHCSIA,Social Policy Research Centre,Sydney.


Clients with challenging behaviourare a small but significant groupwithin the NSW disabilitypopulation (McVilly, 2004:9).These clients have a range ofimpairments, including variouslevels of intellectual disability,mental illness, sensory and physicalimpairment, and acquired braininjury. Challenging behaviourresults from the relationshipbetween their impairments,lifestyle, environmental factors,such as drug and alcohol abuse,homelessness and criminal history,and a failure of the service systemto support their needs. Theseclients present a challenge toservices attempting to provideconsistent and appropriatetreatment.

The NSW Department ofAgeing, Disability and HomeCare’s (DADHC) 2006 ‘StrongerTogether’ disability policyplatform, stated that legislativereform enabling greater exchangeof information and resourcesbetween service providers is part ofa best practice model for treatingchallenging behaviour. NSWdisability policy draws heavily fromthis emphasis on client outcomes.It aims to achieve activecommunity participation for theclient while stressing socialinclusion and promoting humanrights and dignity during the policyprocess (DADHC, 2006).

The NSW Government isapplying these approaches tosupporting clients with challengingbehaviour. An interagency group,the Challenging BehavioursTaskforce, developed theIntegrated Services Project (ISP), apilot project that provides supportedaccommodation and clinicalinterventions in a communitysetting on a short-term basis.

The SPRC was commissionedby the NSW Government toevaluate both the effectiveness ofISP strategies in treating

challenging behaviour and the cost-effectiveness of the project.Additionally, this research isconsidering the applicability of themodel to other people needingsupport and will add to theinternational evidence base of bestpractice for working with peoplewith challenging behaviour. As partof the evaluation, the SPRCconducted a literature review onapproaches to complex needsfocusing on challenging behavior.

The literature review found thatsuccessful approaches to treatingchallenging behaviour involve:

Greater interagency

cooperation, ranging from morestreamlined information sharingguidelines to establishing jointtaskforces (Vincent, 2002:52).Whole of government approachesare more flexible in dealing withthe challenging behaviourpopulation, and can help providegreater continuity of care across anumber of service areas.

Specific services for challenging

behaviour: These includesupported accommodation in acommunity setting, specialisedhealth and counselling services, andskills and community accessprograms. These broad serviceareas can assist in empoweringclients to become part of a largercommunity and achieve personallife goals while addressing theirdisability support needs (McVilly,2004:16).

Self Advocacy: Clients, andwhere appropriate their carers,should have access to all relevantinformation regarding availableservices so that an informed andindividual plan can be made.Clients are the key stakeholdergroup, and consulting themprovides valuable insight into theirneeds (McVilly, 2004:18).

In practice, legislative and policyresponses to clients withchallenging behaviour have tendedto reflect administrative

convenience more than client-based needs, and therefore can beobstacles to achieving outcomes forpeople with challenging behaviour(Vincent, 2002:51). Often theseclients are in contact with multipleservice providers, and each providerhas different guidelines,performance indicators andinformation-sharing policies. As aresult, clients with challengingbehaviour are less likely toexperience the same quality ofsupport as the rest of the disabilitypopulation, while occupying a fargreater amount of time andresources (DADHC, 2006:7).

In NSW, existing and historicservice system arrangements havepresented barriers to successfulcommunity participation for clientswith challenging behaviour.Effective treatment of challengingbehaviour requires a collaborativeapproach at state and local area levelsthat is centred on individual clientneeds rather than bureaucraticstructures (McVilly, 2004).

ReferencesMcVilly, K.R. (2004), Innovative

Models for Community Support

for People with High and Complex

Support Needs, report for theDepartment of Ageing, Disabilityand Home Care NSW, Centre forDevelopmental Disability Studies(CDDS), University of Sydney.

NSW Department of Ageing,Disability and Home Care(DADHC) (2006), Stronger

Together: A New Direction for

disability services in NSW 2006-

2016, Department of Aging,Disability and Home Care, Sydney,NSW.

Vincent, I. (2002), ‘Collaborationand integrated services in the NSWpublic sector’, Australian Journal

of Public Administration, 58 (3):50-54.

Acknowledgements:Shannon McDermott, Karen Fisher.

Supporting disability clientswith challenging behaviourBy Ryan Gleeson

Ryan Gleeson


Robyn Edwards

It is now well recognised that it isnot sufficient to provide peoplewith mental illness with a roof overtheir head and hope for the best.Support is also required. As statedin the Green Paper onHomelessness (2008), Which Way

Home?, ‘Housing is a vital part ofthe response. Different forms ofsupport are also required’.

This article summarises aliterature review and consultationson housing and support for peoplewith mental illness, within thecontext of sustainability of tenanciesand recovery from mental illness

Effectivenessprinciples

The literature highlightsinterrelationships betweenhomelessness and mental illness.While it has long been recognisedthat mental illness can contributeto, and be a cause of homelessness,recent studies show that for somepeople the reverse is true: theexperience of homelessness cancause mental illness. The literaturealso shows that effective housingand support for people with mentalillness needs to adhere to thefollowing principles:

• A recovery framework,

defined by Davidson (2004) as a’process of restoring or developing ameaningful sense of belonging andpositive sense of identity apart fromone’s disability and then rebuildinga life in the broader communitydespite or within the limitationsimposed by that disability’.

• Person-centred support,

characterised by assertive outreach;time to nurture and build a workingrelationship between the personwith mental illness and supportworker; consumer advocacy; andworking with the whole person andtheir needs including drug andalcohol and criminal justice histories.

• Primacy of the person’s

housing needs and preferences,

including a focus on housingaffordability; choice of housinglocation; and choice of livingarrangements.

• Independent living, which

widens consumer choices andpromotes participation in thecommunity.

• Responsiveness to population

needs, including needs associatedwith Indigenous communities,culturally and linguistically diverse(CALD) communities, gay andlesbian people, women and youngpeople.

• Separation of housing and

support, to ensure the integrity ofboth landlord and supportfunctions.

• Interagency coordination,

including partnerships betweenstate housing and mental healthagencies and non-governmentorganisations, as evidenced inQueensland’s Project 300 andNSW’s Housing andAccommodation Support Initiative(HASI).

• Individual and systemic

advocacy, which affirms the rights,interests and well-being of peoplewith mental illness and aims toaddress discrimination, socialexclusion and stigma that areregularly experienced by peoplewith mental illness.

• Long-term perspective of

housing and support needs, whichstrengthen family, peer andinformal supports; offer appropriatelong-term housing; and providesupport to sustain the tenancy.

• Preventing homelessness,

using early intervention planningand support at the early signs ofillness, and a refocus on therecovery framework.

ConsultationsAn important component of the

project, which is common to studieson mental health and disabilityconducted by the SPRC, was toinclude the voices and experiencesof people with mental illness.Consultations with mental healthconsumers and their advocatesabout the effectiveness principlesabove were held in Queenslandduring May 2008.

While generally endorsing theprinciples, participants outlined anumber of shortcomings in their

application to services and practice.People with mental illness spoke ofthe poor quality of the housing theyhad been offered (‘boxy littlebedsits’) and indicated they wererarely given choices regarding wherethey lived. Examples were providedof government agencies passingresponsibility on to other agencies,and people with mental illness beingdiscriminated against by the privatereal estate sector.

The mental health consumergroup concluded that housing isfundamental to recovery as ‘you needa home to recover and to have a life’.In addition, respondents emphasisedthat participation in the communitywas important to recovery andindependent living. Importantly, acase study showing how an incidenceof physical illness plunged a familyinto homelessness and mental illnesswas a reminder that these issues canaffect many in the community.

ConclusionsThe ten effectiveness principles

identified in this research have thepotential to inform programdevelopment and service delivery,and to promote recovery for peoplewith mental illness. They affirm thecentral importance of stable housingas a foundation to recovery and livingin the community.

The Federal Government’s WhitePaper on Homelessness, to bereleased later this year, is anationwide opportunity to improvepolicy responses to homelessness,and to put in place innovativeapproaches of providing support tohomeless people – many of whomsuffer from mental illness – so thatthey can sustain tenancies and buildpositive lives.

ReferencesAustralian Government (2008),

Which Way Home? A new approachto homelessness, Commonwealth ofAustralia.

Davidson, L. (2004), Challengingthe Paradigm, Program for Recovery& Community Health, YaleUniversity, USA.

Acknowledgements:Karen Fisher and Sally Robinson.

Housing and Mental IllnessBy Robyn Edwards


The Social Policy Research Centreinvites offers of papers forpresentation at the next AustralianSocial Policy Conference to be heldat the University of New SouthWales, Sydney, from 8-10 July2009. The over-arching theme is atopic of growing importance insocial policy – and one that iscentral to the stated aims of thenew Labor Government. At a timeof global economic insecurity,exacerbated by the challenges ofclimate change, how do we create asociety that is both socially andeconomically inclusive within itsown borders and actively engagedwith its regional neighbours topromote a wider form of globalinclusiveness? The current realities,the possibilities and the practicalchallenges involved in meetingthese goals will be discussed byplenary and forum speakers, andtaken up in contributed papers.

PLENARY SPEAKERS

Naomi EisenstadtDirector of the Social Exclusion

Task Force, UK Cabinet Office

Tom CalmaAboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Social JusticeCommissioner and RaceDiscrimination Commissioner,Australian Human RightsCommission

Ann OrloffProfessor of Sociology and

Gender Studies Director, Programin Gender Studies, NorthwesternUniversity USA

Australian Social

FORUMSASPC Forums offer opportunity

for robust debate on topical policyissues. Provisional topics for 2009Forums include the following.Final titles and speaker details willbe made available early in 2009.

• Beyond conditionality:enforcing social norms throughwelfare quarantining andsuspension

• Reforming Australian socialwelfare: where to for the Pensionsand Tax Reviews?

• The challenges for socialpolicy in financial crisis andrecession

CALL FOR PAPERSThe success of the Australian

Social Policy Conference is basedon the presentation of high quality,original papers across the range ofsocial policy fields. We are nowinviting offers of papers fromresearchers, teachers, students andpractitioners of social policy. Paperscan present the results of research,discuss conceptual or theoreticalapproaches to contemporary socialpolicy, raise issues for debate ordiscuss questions of methodology.

As in previous conferences,discussion will be organised aroundthematic strands. The topic areasfrom within which the final strandswill be selected, and for which weare currently seeking offers ofpapers, include the following.

• Labour market participationand welfare reform

• Social exclusion and

economic inequalities• Retirement and ageing• Children, young people and

families• Identity, diversity and

citizenship• Housing, place and the

environment• Organisation and delivery of

human services• Community, social

participation and care• Chinese social policy (special

pre-conference workshop)• An Open strand for papers on

other subjects of interest andimportance outside the main themes.

SELECTION OF PAPERSFor the 2009 conference there

will be three categories ofpresentations: full refereed papers(with double-blind refereeing tosatisfy requirements for HigherEducation Research DataCollection points), and papers andposter presentations based onrefereed abstracts. Acceptance ofpapers for presentation at theconference is necessarilycompetitive. Selection will be theresponsibility of the SPRC, incollaboration with external sessionorganisers and referees. Criteria forselection will include academicquality, originality, accessibility andrelevance to current debates insocial policy. Where papers arebased on empirical research,preference will be given to papersshowing evidence of researchresults. We welcome paperspresenting all points of view. Pleasespecify the thematic area (or areas)into which you feel your paper falls.We reserve the right to place it

An Inclusive Practicalities and


elsewhere, where appropriate, tomaintain program balance.

Papers submitted for fullrefereeing should be no more than3000 words in length and shouldinclude an abstract of no more than200 words. Author details should beprovided only on a separate coversheet to facilitate double-blindrefereeing. The closing date for thereceipt of these papers is13 February 2009.

For other papers, the closingdate for receipt of abstracts(max 200 words) is 9 April 2009.Please send your abstract or paper(preferably as a Microsoft Wordattachment to an email) [email protected].

Telephone enquiries aboutpapers or the conference in generalshould be directed to (02) 93857802. Registration details will bemade available shortly. Please referto the conference website atwww.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2009.Information on the paperspresented at the previous (2007)conference can be found atwww.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2007.

Special SessionProposals

We also invite proposals forspecial sessions, including groups ofrelated papers within thecontributed paper streams, orthemed research workshops.Proposals for special sessionsshould be sent [email protected]

In conjunction with the Australian Social Policy

Conference, the Chinese Social Policy Workshop about

recent research on developments in Chinese social policy

will be held on 7 July at UNSW. Its aim is to increase the

capacity of Chinese and Australian researchers to

collaborate in areas of joint policy research interest.

Chinese, Australian and other international researchers

and government and nongovernment officials engaged in

current research in China or an interest in developing that

research agenda are welcome to present or attend the

workshop. The expected outcome will be the formation

of networks of academics, post-graduate candidates and

officials to further the conclusions from the workshop.

Peer reviewed papers from the workshop will be

published in an international special issue journal.

Refereed papers and abstracts in English are sought for

this workshop, for which the same refereeing process and

closing dates will apply as for the main conference. Please

make it clear your paper or abstract is intended for the

one-day workshop. Papers can be presented in Chinese at

the workshop and simultaneous translation in Chinese

and English will be available. Themes for papers or

working sessions are:

• Current Chinese social policy questions

• Methodological approaches to Chinese social policy

research

• Australian engagement in Chinese social policy

research

• Other

CHINESE SOCIALPOLICY WORKSHOP7 JULY

Policy ConferenceSociety?Possibilities

8-10July2009


The recently established DisabilityStudies and Research Centre(DSRC) at the University of NewSouth Wales (UNSW) is the onlynational disability studies researchcentre in Australia. DSRC’screation as a university-basedcentre builds on the success of theDisability Studies and ResearchInstitute (DSaRI), a community-based, not-for-profit researchconsultancy. DSRC is aninterdisciplinary research centrethat promotes the critical socialperspective of disability ineducation and research. Its aim is tomaximise Australia’s capacity toensure an equitable, participatory

New Disability Studies and ResearchCentre Established at UNSW

and accessible society for peoplewith disability.

Like its predecessor DSaRI,DSRC develops collaborative,interdisciplinary research projectsthat build linkages betweenstakeholder groups and empowerpeople with disability asparticipants in research.

As well as undertaking andmanaging research. DSRC activelypromotes the participation ofpeople with disability in highereducation, research training andresearch work as well as in allaspects of the centre. In 2009DSRC will host forums, seminarsand conferences to promote critical

disability studies and stimulatediscussion about disability policy andresearch.

While announcing the establishmentof DSRC in September, Bill Shorten,the Federal Parliamentary Secretaryfor Disabilities and Children’sServices, commented that there wasan urgent need for research in thedisability area.

DSRC is aligned with the SocialPolicy Research Centre, the Facultyof Arts and Social Sciences and theFaculty of Law. The Acting Directoris Rosemary Kayess from the Facultyof Law. For more information, pleasecontact the centre on + 61 (2) 93859908 or at [email protected].

Waverley Action for Youth Services(WAYS) offers an integrated modelof service delivery that acts as aone-stop shop for youth aged 9-25and their families. Services aredesigned to build a community ofyoung people who are informedand have the ability to makehealthy lifestyle choices. WAYSreceives funding from a variety ofsources, including federal, state andlocal grants, as well as money fromprivate organisations andfoundations over time. WAYS’internal monitoring and evaluationactivities have evolved to meet thereporting requirements for each ofthese funding bodies.Consequently WAYScommissioned the SPRC todevelop a more cohesivemonitoring and evaluationframework for the agency.

This was accomplished bylinking the collected data to anorganisation-wide program logicmodel. Logic models are used toidentify the intended relationships

between a program’s resources,activities, outputs and outcomes(Savaya and Waysman, 2005). Aparticipatory approach was used,which involved talking and workingwith WAYS staff at all stages ofdeveloping the monitoring andevaluation framework (Blackstock,Kelly and Horsey, 2007).

Interviews with WAYS staffuncovered that much of the datacollected in the organisation waspaper-based and that staff hadminimal time, resources or skills toanalyse this information. Theinterviews contributed to thedevelopment of a program logicmodel for WAYS, which waspresented to staff for discussion in ahalf-day workshop. The discussionallowed staff to identify gaps andinaccuracies in the program logic.

Once there was agreement onthe WAYS program logic model,staff were asked to discuss and addto a draft set of indicators thatwould identify whether WAYS waseffectively implementing each

stage of the model. The rationale foreach indicator, the person responsiblefor collecting the indicator and thefrequency of reporting weredelineated. This represented asignificant step towards creating anintegrated and useful system of datacollection across the organisation.However, WAYS acknowledged thatfurther implementation of such asystem would require significantchange at the organisational level aswell as additional time and resources.

ReferencesBlackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J. and

Horsey, B. L. (2007), ‘Developingand applying a framework to evaluateparticipatory research forsustainability’, Ecological

Economics, 60 (4): 726-42.Savaya, R. and Waysman, M.

(2005), ‘The Logic Model. A tool forincorporating theory in developmentand evaluation of programs’,Administration in Social Work,

29 (2):85-103.

A monitoring and evaluationsystem for WAYS Youth ServicesBy Shannon McDermott and Catherine Spooner

Shannon McDermott

Catherine Spooner

Photo: SPRC Archives


New ProjectsFAHCSIA SOCIALPOLICY RESEARCHSERVICES PROJECTS

The 2008 projects under theSocial Policy Research ServicesContract with the Department ofFamilies, Housing, CommunityServices and Indigenous Affairs arelisted below.

Indigenous carers (BettinaCass, kylie valentine, Trish Hill,Denise Thompson, B.J. Newtonand Brooke Dinning). Theresearch will provide evidence toassist FaHCSIA in supportingIndigenous carers, through betterunderstanding of Indigenous carers’circumstances and needs. This isrelevant to income support, carerallowance, and service provisionpolicies and their implementation.

Maternity leave and childoutcomes (Gerry Redmond, AnnaZhu and Bruce Bradbury). Theproject addresses the question;does paid maternity leave improveearly development outcomes forchildren?

A policy framework forparenting (Ilan Katz, ShannonMcDermott, Rebekah LevineColey, Isabel Yaya and MyraHamilton). Drawing on acomparative analysis of parentingpolicy in the EU and othercountries, the project considers anddevelops an optimum frameworkunder which parenting policy canbe progressed.

Post-diagnosis support forpeople with Autism SpectrumDisorders, their families andcarers (kylie valentine, MarianneRajkovic and Brooke Dinning).This project examines thefollowing questions: what doparents and carers of children withAutism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)perceive as the most effective post-diagnosis support? What are theinternational trends in providingtreatment and support services forchildren with ASD and theirfamilies?

Effectiveness of individualisedfunding approaches for disabilitysupport (Karen Fisher and

Robyn Edwards with RosemaryKayess, Disability Studies andResearch Centre). The researchexplores the cost effectiveness ofindividualised funding for disabilitysupport services. Secondary dataand primary research of variousindividualised funding approachesto disability support will beanalysed against the policy goals ofcost and outcomes.

Ageing and business servicesworkforce (Ilan Katz, ShannonMcDermott, Robyn Edwards andDavid Abello). The projectexamines the policy challenges ofthe ageing of the business servicesworkforce (a cohort ofapproximately 18,000 people withmoderate to severe disability)

OTHER PROJECTSEvaluation of The Benevolent

Society Brighter FuturesProgram, funded by TheBenevolent Society (KathyTannous and Ilan Katz). Theproject will analyse the FamilySurvey data collected for theDepartment of CommunityServices (DoCs) to inform theevaluation of Brighter Futuresservices provided by theBenevolent Society.

Deprivation and socialexclusion among welfare agencyclients, funded by ANGLICARECanberra and Goulburn,ANGLICARE Sydney,ANGLICARE WA, CentacareTasmania, Community InclusionBoard, Chief MinistersDepartment, ACT, VICDepartment of Human Services,SA Department of the Premier andCabinet, Melbourne Citymission,Mission Australia, QueenslandCouncil of Social Service (PeterSaunders). The main goal of thisresearch is to replicate the earlier(2006) client survey used in theARC project ‘Left Out and MissingOut’, which examined communityviews on what constitutes the‘essentials of life’ in Australia todayand estimated the incidence ofdeprivation and social exclusionusing a broad range of indicators.

The original survey concentrated onthe states of NSW and Victoria andthis project will extend this to theother states and provide an update onthe earlier findings and test therobustness of the indicatorsthemselves.

Intergenerational homelessness,funded by the Australian Housing andUrban Research Institute (TonyEardley). SPRC is participating in thisproject as part of a consortium withcolleagues from Murdoch, Monash andMelbourne Universities. The studyaims to improve understanding of theextent of intergenerationalhomelessness in Australia and how itcan be avoided.

Consultancy: Jobless familieswith children in Australia, funded bythe Department of Prime Minister andCabinet (Peter Whiteford). Thisproject will analyse the key factorsaffecting family joblessness inAustralia, and provide policy responseswhich support the employment ofparents and the needs of their families.

Child-centered policy analysisand child-centered budgeting inKiribati, Vanuatu and SolomonIslands, funded by UNICEF (PeterWhiteford, Peter Saunders andPooja Sawrikar). The project aims toprovide a systematic and integratedreview of available evidence on theextent and severity of child povertyand hardship, an analysis of pastpolicies to assess their impact on thewell-being of children,recommendation of ways in which thepolicy formulation process can bebetter equipped to engage and addressthe needs of children.

The cost of providing earlychildren services nationally acrossgeographical areas: Family day careand in-home care (Phase 1) andLong day care (Phase 2), funded bythe Department of Employment,Education and Workplace Relations,(Kathy Tannous and AppliedEconomics). The project objectivesare to develop three economic costmodels, one for each type of service,across geographical areas and toidentify social, economic, physical andinstitutional factors that may impact onthe service cost.

Research Scholar NewsThe SPRC is very pleased toannounce the establishment of thePhD in Social Policy. PhDcandidates now can enrol directlyinto this program. The PhD programwill be administered at the SPRCunder the coordination of ProfessorBettina Cass. The Centre will beactively recruiting new candidatesand seeking opportunities toprovide top-up scholarships.

Meanwhile, the success ofscholars from the SPRC continues.Congratulations are in order forPeter Siminski, whose PhDdissertation passed with flyingcolours. Peter graduated at UNSWon 18 September. For his thesis‘Essays on the Distributional

Impacts of Government’ hefollowed the three-paper model,where three of the chapters werestand-alone papers. They areavailable as working papers fromthe School of Economics website atthe University of Wollongong.Peter is currently lecturing atWollongong on Health Economicsand Quantitative Methods, and hehas recently been appointedDirector of the Centre for Humanand Social Capital Research at theUniversity. The Centre consists ofstaff from the School of Economicswho conduct research on topicssuch as education, health, labour,poverty and social-capital networks.

A very pleasant social evening was

held recently for past and presentPhD scholars with Professors JonathanBradshaw (Department of SocialPolicy and Social Work, Universityof York) and Peter Saunders (formerSPRC Director). The aim of theevening was – apart from having arelaxing meal – to discuss commonintellectual topics of interest andobtain feedback on thesis work.Each of the students gave a short,informal presentation about theirstudy and any difficulties they hadencountered. The wide-ranging andproductive discussion covered avariety of areas, with Jonathan andPeter (and others) suggesting solutionsor new ideas. The students consideredthe evening a great success.

NEW PUBLICATIONS SPRC Report 11/08, Karen Fisher and Carolyn Campbell-McLean, Attendant Care Program Direct

Funding Pilot Evaluation, report prepared for the NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care,August 2008, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/Attendant_Care_Evaluation.pdf

SPRC Report 12/08, Karen Fisher and Shannon McDermott, Evaluation of the Integrated Services Project

for Clients with Challenging Behaviour, report prepared for Integrated Services Project NSW, August 2008,http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/ISP_Evaluation_Plan.pdf

SPRC Report 13/08, Ann Dadich and Karen Fisher, Housing and Accommodation Support Initiative I

Evaluation: Care Planning Report, prepared for NSW Health, August 2008,http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/HASI_CarePlan_Report.pdf

SPRC Report 14/08, Bob Davidson, Catherine Spooner, Karen Fisher, BJ Newton, Ann Dadich, CiaraSmyth, Jacqueline Tudball and Saul Flaxman, Indigenous Research Strategy – Working Better with Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander People and Communities, August 2008, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/SPRC_Indigenous_research_strategy.pdf

SPRC Report 15/08, Robyn Edwards and Karen Fisher, Disability Policy – Sources for Evidence,

September 2008, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/Disability_Policy.pdf orhttp://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/Disability_Policy.rtf

SPRC Report 16/08, Catherine Spooner and Shannon McDermott, Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

for Waverley Action for Youth Services, prepared for Waverley Action for Youth Services, September 2008,http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/reports/2008/WAYS.pdf

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

I wish to receive the SPRC Newsletter in the post.

mailing addressName

Organisation

Address

Phone Fax

Email

Post Code

Previous addressNameOrganisationAddress

Phone Fax

Email

Post Code

PLEASE MAIL/FAX COMPLETED FORM TO: Publications, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales,SYDNEY NSW 2052 OR Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838 Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7802 Email : [email protected]

sprc 100 december 2008 - unsw sydney€¦ · sprc newsletter 3 reflections on 100 sprc newsletters...

Documents