Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion i

melbourne citymission foundation paper

Social in / exclusion:

Mere words, or a key framework for understanding and addressing disadvantage? october 2009

Anne Pate

melbourne citymission foundation paper

Social in / exclusion:

Mere words, or a key framework for understanding and addressing disadvantage? october 2009

Anne Pate This report was written by Anne Pate

Published by: Melbourne Citymission 19 King Street Melbourne, vic 3000 t: 03 8625 4444 f: 03 8625 4410 e: [email protected] www.melbournecitymission.org.au po Box 13210 Law Courts PO Melbourne, vic 8010 isbn 978-0-9807210-2-7 Contents

executive summary ...... 1

1 background: the significance of social in/exclusion ...... 3

2 key concepts and debates ...... 7

2.1 From income poverty, to deprivation, to social in/exclusion ...... 5

2.1.1 Poverty ...... 6

2.1.2 Deprivation ...... 6

2.1.3 Social exclusion ...... 6

2.2 Discourses of social exclusion: the dominance of the social integration approach in UK and EU policy frameworks ...... 9

2.3 Towards a more positive construction of social inclusion ...... 10

3 policy frameworks to address social exclusion or promote inclusion ...... 12

3.1 Policy initiatives in the UK and in South Australia ...... 12

3.2 Questions of scale and focus in addressing social exclusion ...... 14

4 social disadvantage in australia ...... 17

4.1 Towards new indicators of disadvantage: deprivation and social exclusion in Australia—Social Policy Research Centre ...... 17

4.2 A framework for assessing poverty, disadvantage and low capabilities in Australia—Melbourne Institute ...... 18

4.3 The current economic climate ...... 19

5 the australian social inclusion agenda ...... 21

5.1 Focus of policy ...... 21

5.2 Delivering the Social Inclusion Agenda ...... 22

5.3 ‘Location’ in the Social Inclusion Agenda ...... 22

5.4 The role of the community sector in addressing social exclusion ...... 22

6 assessments of the australian social inclusion agenda ...... 24

6.1 The Brotherhood of St. Laurence ...... 24

6.2 Anglicare Australia ...... 25

7 implications for community organisations ...... 26

7.1 Implications of using a social in/exclusion approach to disadvantage ...... 26

7.2 Implications of the Social Inclusion Agenda ...... 27

7.3 Useful strategic questions for community organisations ...... 27

references ...... 28 vi Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion Executive Summary

scope key points

In broad terms, this paper: The following key points are highlighted in the paper: a. summarises the conceptual shifts which have led to the 1. The concepts of ‘social inclusion’ and ‘social exclusion’ emergence of ‘social inclusion’ and ‘social exclusion’ as have emerged in the past ten to fifteen years as influential key metaphors for understanding disadvantage. metaphors for understanding disadvantage. Unlike b. examines how the Federal Government has appropriated ‘income poverty’, they illuminate the multidimensional and interpreted these terms and used them to shape a nature of disadvantage. Starting with Townsend’s work social inclusion policy agenda. in the late 1970s, ‘deprivation’ expanded understandings of poverty to encompass how inadequate resources purpose affect people’s access to goods, activities and services. The concept of social in/exclusion, on the other hand, The purpose of the paper is to reflect on the opportunities and shifts the focus onto the processes that give rise to risks that a social inclusion/exclusion framework represents for exclusion, and the relational dynamics that sustain it. community sector organisations such as Melbourne Citymission. These include the role of community networks and The following key questions inform this analysis: connectedness, social capacity, individual rights, and 1. Does social in/exclusion provide a useful framework for the contours of inequality, which promote or prevent understanding and addressing social disadvantage? inclusion in both social and economic spheres. 2. What is needed to reduce or prevent social exclusion 2. Both ‘social inclusion’ and ‘social exclusion’ have been and to promote social inclusion? defined in various ways and used to justify a wide array 3. What are the key elements of the Federal Government’s of political agendas. Analysis of EU and UK usage of Social Inclusion Agenda, and how might these intersect the terms suggests that in both cases there has been a with the priorities, agendas and values of organisations shift over time from an emphasis on redistribution of that work with disadvantaged populations and/or resources to excluded groups, towards discourses and communities? policies which stigmatise ‘problem groups’ in society, 4. In light of these assessments, what should community and emphasise workforce participation. organisations prioritize? For example, what are the 3. The paper briefly presents ideas around ‘capabilities’ implications for the nature, scope, and method of our and ‘valued recognition’. ‘Valued recognition’ is work? In this context, nature means the type of work concerned with valuing difference and uniqueness, and we do (eg. pre-employment programs with adults with draws attention to the ways in which social, economic, a disability); scope means how the service or program is and political arrangements can undermine social conceptualised (eg. a wrap-around service may seek to solidarity by devaluing certain people and groups. Social address both housing affordability and income stability); inclusion agendas have not focused on this set of issues. and method refers to different ways of working (eg. case We recommend further exploration of how this concept management). relates to organisations’ own values. 2 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

4. The paper also considers questions of scale and focus 7. The Federal Social Inclusion Agenda is the for initiatives to address social exclusion. ‘Scale’ may Government’s response to continuing disadvantage be area, region, state, or national. ‘Focus’ refers to who experienced by some Australians despite national (or what) the initiative is aimed at. There is a dearth economic growth. The six priority areas for action are: of quality evidence, but it is clear that questions of – addressing the incidence and needs of jobless ‘what works’ should not be reduced to simplistic families with children; oppositions such as ‘people or place’, ‘local or national’, – delivering effective support to children at greatest and ‘universal or targeted’. (Universal services include risk of long term disadvantage; schools, hospitals, childcare centres, community centres, – addressing the incidence of homelessness; while targeted services include youth refuges, case – focusing on particular locations, neighbourhoods management services for people with an acquired brain and communities to ensure programs and services injury, tutoring programs for socially excluded young are getting to the right places; people, etc..) Different social issues require different – employment for people living with a disability types of response, depending on the goal of policy, and it or mental illness; and is also necessary to connect approaches across different – closing the gap for indigenous Australians. scales. For example, employment initiatives at the local level need to be connected to the wider labour market. 8. There are indications that the Federal Government, 5. Two recent studies of the nature and extent of social while stating that it intends to restore advocacy as a disadvantage in Australia are profiled in the paper. key role for the community sector, defines this in fairly The Social Policy Research Centre’s Towards new limited terms and will expect the sector to deliver indicators of disadvantage: deprivation and social exclusion according to the outcome measures it establishes. in Australia explores the extent of poverty, deprivation 9. Labor’s strategy to address exclusion emphasises and social exclusion amongst people accessing support workforce participation. In the current economic from welfare agencies, and the general population. They context this would require substantially increased conclude that despite economic progress and rising living investment in education and training for currently standards many Australians still experience severe excluded groups. Providers of specialist pre-employment deprivation and exclusion in many dimensions. support in the new Jobs Services Australia, such 6. The global financial crisis will have consequences for the as Melbourne Citymission, will be well placed to extent of social exclusion, and the effectiveness of policy to research these issues further. reduce it. The recent study by the University of Newcastle’s 10. An alternative viewpoint is provided by Anglicare Centre for Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) on the Australia, which has called for ‘a reassertion of the impacts of rising unemployment in different localities, primary role of ethics in public policy’. This would suggests that some currently disadvantaged suburbs will involve the development of more rounded perspectives become further dislocated from mainstream economic on workforce participation, to include non-market activities, and that some ‘mortgage belt’ suburbs will based activities, and on housing, to reassert its primacy experience rising levels of disadvantage. as shelter rather than investment. Anglicare Australia’s perspective on the Social Inclusion Agenda accords well with Melbourne Citymission’s own experience and values, particularly in respect of people who remain excluded from the workforce. 1. Background: the significance of social in/exclusion

Melbourne Citymission aims to build inclusive communities difference with Government around how it has framed ‘social by facilitating equitable access to opportunities and resources inclusion’ and how it proposes to promote it. for people who are living with disadvantage. 1 To advance this This paper has informed the articulation of Melbourne agenda, the agency has engaged as a leader or partner in Citymission’s value-based position on reducing social exclusion.2 programmatic initiatives which promote social inclusion for The paper: particular populations of people who experience exclusion. A Identifies how the concept of ‘social in/exclusion’ has Additionally, Melbourne Citymission has used community emerged as a way of understanding disadvantage; development approaches to address social exclusion in under- A Describes the key debates on social in/exclusion; resourced places or communities. Over the past decade, these A Locates the Federal Labor Government’s Social complementary ‘people’ and ‘place’-focussed approaches have Inclusion Agenda in the context of initiatives in other also been emphasised as critical to policy and service reform to countries, and the critical literature on this experience; address social exclusion or promote social inclusion in the UK, A Considers questions of scale for particular policies to the EU, and several Australian states, such as South Australia. promote social inclusion and address exclusion, in the More recently, the Federal Labour Government’s Social light of available evidence; Inclusion Agenda has promoted these concepts and related A Reflects on the opportunities and risks for community approaches for understanding and addressing social in/exclusion organizations in this field; and in Australia. These concepts and approaches have been underpinned A Identifies priority issues and concerns for community by an ever expanding national and international academic organisations. literature which examines the concepts of ‘social inclusion’ and ‘social exclusion’ and assesses the effectiveness of policy. Within each section, key questions for community This paper critically reflects on these concepts and policies, organisations to consider are highlighted in the text. and the key debates surrounding them. For an agency such as The paper aims to resource discussion and decision making Melbourne Citymission which provides services to over 4,000 regarding the following issues: people each week experiencing some form of disadvantage 1. Does social in/exclusion provide a useful framework for or exclusion, this analysis is not merely a theoretical exercise. understanding and addressing social disadvantage? How governments, community sector organisations and 2. What is needed to reduce or prevent social exclusion communities understand disadvantage is crucial in determining and to promote social inclusion? what interventions are developed, how they are prioritised, and 3. What are the key elements of the Federal Government’s whether they will be effective. Social Inclusion Agenda, and how might these intersect For these reasons community organisations need to with the priorities, agendas and values of organisations articulate their own perspective on whether and how the that work with disadvantaged populations and/or concept of social in/exclusion can strengthen understandings communities? of disadvantage, and to define their points of agreement and

2. Melbourne Citymission Position Paper: Social inclusion / exclusion 1. Strategic Directions 2006–10, Melbourne Citymission, 2006 available at www.melbournecitymission.org.au 4 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

4. In light of these assessments, what should community Subsequent Melbourne Citymission papers will consider organisations prioritize? For example, what are the the priority areas named in the Agenda which are of particular implications for the nature, scope, and method of our work? relevance to the organisation. For example, a further Foundation In this context, nature means the type of work we do (eg. Paper will examine policies and programs to address locational pre-employment programs with adults with a disability); disadvantage in the context of the Social Inclusion Agenda. scope means how the service or program is conceptualised (eg. a wrap-around service may seek to address both housing affordability and income stability); and method refers to different ways of working (eg. case management). 2. Key concepts and debates

It is evident from the literature that understanding and measuring these concepts in order to trace the emergence of ‘social in/ disadvantage is complex, and that approaches are continually exclusion’ as an influential metaphor for understanding and evolving. 3 This section traces the emergence of the concept of responding to disadvantage. social in/exclusion as a means of understanding and framing The following definitions of these key terms are generally a response to disadvantage. How social in/exclusion builds on accepted: and differs from the earlier concepts of poverty and deprivation Poverty is a situation in which someone’s income is so inadequate is also examined. Two questions frame this section: as to preclude them from having an acceptable standard of living. A How has the concept of social in/exclusion developed, It exists when people’s actual income is below a poverty line. and how does it differ from previous approaches to Deprivation exists when a lack of resources prevents people from understanding disadvantage? accessing the goods and activities (items) that are consensually A In what ways does this concept add to our regarded as essential in a particular society. It is generally understanding of disadvantage? What are the limitations defined in terms of an enforced lack of these socially perceived of the approach both conceptually and in practice? essentials. Social exclusion exists when people do not participate in key 2.1 from income poverty, to deprivation, to social in/exclusion activities in society. Whereas deprivation focuses on what people cannot afford, what matters for exclusion is what people do not Research and policy to understand and address social do.4 Crucially, the concept draws attention to the relational aspects disadvantage has undergone a series of conceptual shifts of a process whereby people are excluded by the acts of others.5 during recent decades from a focus on income poverty, to Researchers are increasingly attentive to the processes which lead deprivation, and more recently to social in/exclusion. It is to people becoming excluded, and which prevent their escape. crucial to understand the differences and overlaps between Social inclusion is the other end of the same dimension as social exclusion, and has been variously defined. For example, Julia Gillard recently referred to ‘meaningful participation in 3 This discussion draws on two major recent Australian studies the mainstream economic and social life of the country’.6 which exemplify different approaches. They are: Peter Saunders, Yuvisthi Naidoo, and Megan Griffiths, Towards new indicators of Whichever approach is used to understand disadvantage, it disadvantage: deprivation and social exclusion in Australia, Social must be conceptually robust, capable of being operationalized Policy Research Centre, November 2007; and Bruce Headey, A (converted into something which can be measured), and, ideally, Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage and Low Capabilities measurable through existing datasets. in Australia, based on the Melbourne Insitute 40th Anniversary Project, 2005. The Saunders study trials indicators of disadvantage developed based on the concepts of deprivation and social exclusion and on the experiences and attitudes of members of the general community and community sector 4 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p. viii clients. Headey’s research profiles a framework for assessing disadvantage which is informed by Sen’s ‘capabilities’ and 5 Ibid., p. 11 ‘functionings’ approach. Both studies are presented in more 6 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS National detail in Section 4. Conference 10th April 2008, p.4 6 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

2.1.1 poverty ‘items’ (goods, services or activities) that are consensually

There are a number of conceptual and practical limitations of regarded as essential to ordinary living patterns and activities relying on income poverty to define and measure disadvantage. in a particular society. For many years, poverty research in Australia and in other Western The concept of deprivation has been interpreted and countries has been based on defining relative poverty by setting explained in a variety of ways. Saunders comments that a poverty line relative to median or mean household disposable deprivation may exist because of factors other than a lack income. Limitations of the focus on income poverty include: of income, including poor working conditions, inadequate neighbourhood facilities, and lack of access to appropriate A The concept of poverty used in poverty line studies has health services. 13 Further, it is possible to experience deprivation not been grounded in the conditions faced by those who in one or more dimensions without necessarily being income 7 are on low incomes. poor. It is also possible to be poor in terms of income without A The setting of poverty lines is essentially arbitrary and necessarily being deprived, partly because of the delay which has resulted in sterile debates that have failed to reach may occur between loss of income and the experience of 8 consensus on what line should be used. deprivation, for example when people are protected by savings A Low incomes do not necessarily translate into low or help from family. Thus although deprivation and poverty 9 consumption of goods and services. are closely related, they are not synonymous concepts. A Income is not the only resource available to people— Saunders argues that the deprivation approach can be accumulated wealth, access to credit, and support from used to help set an income poverty line, if assumptions are family and social networks are important resources made about what constitutes deprivation, adding that ‘it is 10 which can protect people in times of need. conceptually valid and practically feasible to draw a dividing A Even if the income approach could identify those with line between where deprivation constitutes poverty and where a low material standard of living, it does not tell us why it does not’.14 In other words, he believes it is possible to be they are poor, and therefore cannot point to possible deprived without being in poverty. 11 policy interventions. In contrast, Headey uses the narrower term ‘material A People at the low end of the income distribution are deprivation’ and argues that a household should only be under-represented in social surveys. classified as deprived if it has both a low income and symptoms

As a result of these issues, researchers and policy makers of financial stress. The use of both relative income poverty and are increasingly abandoning the relative income approach in deprivation indicators is described by Headey as a combined favour of multidimensional approaches in which income is approach, and has been adopted by the Irish Government. only one dimension of concern. The first move towards this When Headey applied this approach to his analysis of HILDA is outlined below. panel survey and other data, he found that for Australia it ‘yields plausible results and also indicates a decline in poverty and 2.1.2 deprivation deprivation in recent years.’ 15 Saunders’ and Headey’s different uses of the term The deprivation approach is an extension of the income ‘deprivation’, suggests that how the concept is defined will poverty approach, but focuses on consumption as well as affect the conclusions reached about its prevalence. on resources.12 In the late 1970s, British researcher Peter Townsend pioneered ‘deprivation indicators’ which act as proxy 2.1.3 social exclusion measures of low consumption or material deprivation. People how social exclusion differs from poverty are considered deprived if they are unable to afford particular and deprivation

Social exclusion is a broader concept than either income poverty or the more sophisticated concept of deprivation. According 7 Ibid., p. 7 to Saunders, while deprivation has been used to better define 8 Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage and poverty, social exclusion ‘has been seen as offering an alternative, Low Capabilities in Australia, p. 7 9 Ibid., p. 6 10 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p. 7 13 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p. 10 11 Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage 14 Ibid., pp. 10–11 and Low Capabilities in Australia, p. 7 15 Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage 12 Ibid., p. 14 and Low Capabilities in Australia, p. 15 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 7

broader approach that opens up issues associated with the role It is interesting to note that whereas the UK government of institutional structures and processes’.16 and the EU have preferred the term ‘social exclusion’, the Reflecting on the overlaps between the concepts, Saunders Australian government has used the term ‘social inclusion’. argues that it is possible to be socially excluded without being What this means for the content of policy remains to be seen. in poverty. 17 He also notes that although deprivation approaches ‘Social inclusion’ suggests that broader issues of relationship are concerned with the ability to take part in ‘ordinary living and connection may be given more prominence in discourse patterns and activities’ as well as with the ability to obtain and policy (see below). However the early indications are that material items, social exclusion is not simply a sub-set of the Australian Social Inclusion Agenda borrows heavily from deprivation. 18 Indeed, the literature on social exclusion has paid the UK model despite the different terms used. less attention to the role of inadequate resources in affecting The following discussion focuses mainly on social the affordability of goods, activities and services (deprivation), exclusion, but we recognise the relationships between the than to the processes that give rise to exclusion, the relational two concepts. dynamics that sustain it, and the consequences for people’s ability to exert control over their lives. definitions of social inclusion Saunders comments that social exclusion ‘shifts the focus The Laidlaw Foundation in Canada has produced some away from the role of income in constraining people’s ability to interesting work on the theme of social inclusion and how it purchase essential items, onto the role of community networks can be promoted. Their definition of social inclusion states that and connectedness, social capacity, individual rights and the it is ‘about making sure that all children and adults are able to contours of inequality in promoting or preventing inclusion participate as valued, respected and contributing members of 19 in different spheres of social and economic activity.’ society. It is, therefore, a normative (value based) concept—a Social exclusion embraces issues of denial of rights to way of raising the bar and understanding where we want to particular groups and can itself cause poverty and deprivation, be and how to get there.’ 23 In their view, social inclusion is not for example through the exclusion of particular groups from just a response to social exclusion, but has value in itself as 20 the labour market. both a process and a goal. This definition of social inclusion implies a proactive social inclusion or social exclusion? approach to social wellbeing that invests in the conditions Discussion of social exclusion invariably leads to discussion for inclusion, as well as removing barriers or risks. A central of social inclusion, because they are viewed as two ends of a dimension of social inclusion is valued recognition (conferring single dimension which can only be understood and defined recognition and respect on individuals and groups). This in relation to each other.21 concept is discussed further in section 2.3 below. The difference between creating inclusion and preventing exclusion is significant, however, in that implicit in each are definitions of social exclusion assumptions about who is required to adjust. Is the goal of Multiple definitions of social exclusion—and of social inclusion policy to address failures in existing social and economic —exist, many informed by experience in the UK and the EU. structures that fail to create inclusive conditions for all citizens? A recent Australian Institute of Family Studies report for the Or is the task of policy to integrate marginalized people into Federal Labor Government acknowledges that the scope and 22 fundamentally just and sound structures? parameters of both concepts are contested. It also provides some insight into the particular way the Government has interpreted these concepts.24 16 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p. 9 17 Ibid., p. 11 18 Ibid., p. 9 19 Ibid., p. 65 Shillington, Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion, Working 20 Ibid., p. 12 Paper Series: Perspectives on Social Inclusion, for the Laidlaw 21 Alan Hayes, Matthew Gray and Ben Edwards, Social Inclusion, Foundation, December 2002, p. 13 AIFS paper for the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the 23 Michael Bach, Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Rethinking the Child Prime Minister and Cabinet, October 2008, p.4 Rights Agenda, Working Paper Series: Perspectives on Social 22 Marvyn Novick, Prospects for Children: Life Chances & Civic Society. Inclusion, for the Laidlaw Foundation, June 2002, p. viii Discussion paper for the Children at Risk Symposium, Laidlaw 24 Hayes, Gray and Edwards, Social Inclusion, AIFS paper for the Foundation, Toronto, cited in Andrew Mitchell and Richard Social Inclusion Unit, October 2008 8 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

Most definitions of social exclusion have the following the scope of social exclusion: who or what is excluded? common aspects: Among the definitions of social exclusion, the UK Social Exclusion A Social exclusion involves restriction of access to Unit’s definition has been highly influential: opportunities, and limited capabilities to capitalize on these opportunities; A shorthand for what can happen when individuals or A Social exclusion has both social and economic areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as dimensions; unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high A Social exclusion is multi-dimensional, and caused by crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. inter-related factors; and Notably, this definition highlights the idea that social A Social exclusion is a process rather than an outcome at a exclusion can be a condition or characteristic of communities or particular point in time.25 areas as well as of individuals. Many social exclusion definitions The Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion ( CASE ) identifies and related policies and programs do not allow for this four dimensions of exclusion: consumption exclusion, possibility, describing it as either a condition of individuals or production exclusion, exclusion from political engagement, of places. As several commentators have noted, however, the UK and exclusion from social interaction. This framework has been Social Exclusion Unit definition fails to describe what actually influential in shaping the UK social exclusion research agenda, does ‘happen’.27 While it encompasses some of the dimensions but one of its limitations is that it fails to illuminate whether or parameters of social exclusion (unemployment, poor housing, exclusion is due to choice or to lack of opportunity. This reflects etc.), the definition fails to describe the processes that lead to the dataset used ( the British Household Panel Survey ), which exclusion. This is problematic because it provides no coherent does not show the reasons for non-participation across the basis for preventing or reducing social exclusion. four dimensions. However as Saunders points out, it is also Saunders observes that this lack of clarity ‘can create difficult to disentangle questions of choice and opportunity, problems when identifying and analyzing social exclusion, since ‘current choices are shaped by past influences which may although as long as there is awareness of these dangers, they themselves result from previous acts of exclusion’.26 do not present an insuperable problem.’28 Others are less A second framework used to explore social exclusion in sanguine. Authors from the Centre for Independent Studies the UK was developed by researchers on the Poverty and Social represent the most cynical with their description of social Exclusion Survey ( PSE ). This approach also identifies four main exclusion as ‘a chaotic concept that is now almost devoid of dimensions of social exclusion: impoverishment, labour market any agreed meaning’.29 exclusion, service exclusion, and exclusion from social relations. Some definitions attempt to clarify the scope and degree The listing is more complex than that proposed by CASE, but of social exclusion by identifying types or categories of social again there are difficulties distinguishing between the roles exclusion. For example, the Rt. Hon. David Miliband, then UK of choice and constraint in determining observed outcomes. Minister of Communities and Local Government, has described In addition, assumptions have to be made in relation to each the following forms of social exclusion: dimension about what constitutes exclusion. For example, A Wide exclusion refers to a large number of people service exclusion is defined as missing out on three or more excluded on a single or small number of indicators. services, whilst lack of social participation is defined as not An example would be working families in low paid being involved in five or more social activities. or insecure work. An example of policy to reduce this would be making changes to the income support system to reduce financial disincentives to paid employment or to reduce child poverty.

27 Ibid., p. 12 28 Ibid., p. 12 29 Peter Saunders and K. Tsumori, Poverty in Australia. Beyond the 25 Ibid., pp. 7–9 Rhetoric, Policy Monograph No. 57, Centre for Independent 26 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p. 66 Studies, Sydney, pp.60–61 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 9

A Deep exclusion refers to being excluded on multiple A Social integration or cohesion discourse—the opposite of or overlapping dimensions. Deep exclusion is more social exclusion is seen as social integration, with paid entrenched and deep-seated than wide exclusion. An work represented as the primary or only legitimate means example of a group experiencing deep exclusion is long- of integrating individuals of working age into society. term homeless young people. An example of policy to To simplify, Levitas labels these discourses RED, MUD, and address this would be policy to help ‘rough sleepers’. SID respectively, and says that they differ in what the poor or A Concentrated exclusion refers to a geographic excluded are seen to lack: ‘in RED, they have no money; in MUD concentration of problems and to area exclusion. An they have no morals; and in SID they have no ( paid ) work’.31 example of policy to reduce concentrated exclusion Clearly, these discourses are embedded in very different para- is place-based intervention targeted at the most digms and political ideologies.32 disadvantaged communities. Levitas detects a decisive shift away from the redistributive If we delve more deeply into the concept of ‘social inclusion’ discourse towards the social integration discourse by the late by examining international experience, it is apparent that 1990s in both the UK and the EU. She argues that in the UK the term has been used to justify quite different political- most New Labour rhetoric and policy has been based on the philosophical positions, and has resulted in quite different social integration understanding of social exclusion, in which policies and programs. The very fluidity of the concept may the key element is labour force attachment. As discussed in explain its wide appeal across the political spectrum. As Levitas Section 5, the Australian Federal government has adopted this points out, the concept of ‘social inclusion’ is a metaphor. The approach to social exclusion. question is not ‘what does it mean’, but ‘how is this metaphor Levitas also describes New Labour’s approach as ideological used, by whom, and for what purpose?’.30 The implications of (legitimating rather than challenging the status quo), in that this insight are discussed further below. social inclusion is seen as the opposite of exclusion, and exclusion is seen as resulting from moral failure or lack of 2.2 discourses of social exclusion: paid work. Structural inequalities are not addressed; it is the dominance of the social integration approach in uk and eu policy frameworks assumed that the excluded must change. Other inequalities such as those between the super-rich and others are regarded Levitas identifies three different discourses of social exclusion as irrelevant and are legitimized.33 in her analysis of European Union documents in the mid 1990s Another implication of such discourse is that it reduces and public debate in the UK, and demonstrates that it is not community difference by constructing society as a binary of always understood in terms of a redistributive agenda. The two seemingly homogenous groups – an included majority and discourses are the redistributive discourse, the moral underclass excluded minority. The excluded individual needs to cross a discourse, and the social integration discourse: dividing line to become an insider, usually through getting a A Redistributive discourse—social exclusion is seen as job.34 Some alternative, more positive, constructions of social a consequence of poverty, although it is understood inclusion are discussed below. to mean something more complex, relational, multi- dimensional, and dynamic than is colloquially understood by poverty. The right to full social, economic and political participation is achieved through redistribution to ensure that all can exercise their rights as citizens. A Moral underclass discourse—social exclusion is viewed as a moral failing, and the concern is with the moral 31 Ibid., pp.2–3 hazard of ‘dependency’. This discourse tends to focus on 32 Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington, Poverty, Inequality and the consequences of social exclusion for social order, Social Inclusion, Working Paper Series: Perspectives on Social Inclusion, for the Laidlaw Foundation, December 2002, p. 13 and to target particular groups such as lone parents, and 33 Ibid., pp. 3–4 unemployed young men. The goal of policy is to reinforce 34 Dr Zoe Morrison, Place, social inclusion and ‘cultural justice’: traditional norms by dealing with problem groups. Reflections on the British experience—a place-based social exclusion policy case study, Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Department of Planning and Community Development Social Inclusion 30 Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, Paper to 2003 Social and Place Based Disadvantage Workshop Proceedings, 13th Inclusion Research Conference, p.1 June 2008, p .7 10 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

2.3 towards a more positive by it) are individuals’ capabilities to meet social conventions, construction of social inclusion participate in social activities, and retain self-respect. how radical is social inclusion? Sen describes inter-related achieved functionings such as Some ‘social inclusion’ policies have been criticised for simply being adequately nourished and being in good health, which rebadging existing programs, leaving the social divisions of constitute a person’s wellbeing. Capabilities, on the other hand, gender, ethnicity and class unchallenged. A strong or utopian may or may not be acted upon, and constitute real freedom or program for social inclusion, on the other hand, starts from real opportunities to have wellbeing. In this analysis, poverty the question of what kind of society would we like to build. exists when there is ‘a failure of basic capabilities to reach Policies and programs are then assessed in terms of how they certain minimally accepted levels’. Freedom—freedom to contribute to this end, and the yardstick of an imagined good choose a valued way of living—is central to Sen’s approach. Also society is explicit and open to debate.35 central is the idea that relative deprivation in terms of income Understood in this way, Levitas argues, social inclusion can become absolute deprivation in terms of capabilities. could be a transformative idea that opens up the debate on As many commentators have observed, Sen’s understanding global futures. She concludes that social policy as traditionally of relative deprivation in terms of capabilities is closely related conceived is too limited a vehicle for delivering social inclusion, to the concept of social exclusion.39 For example, Headey states as it is generally piecemeal, ameliorative, and constrained by that, when measured, low capabilities and low functionings evidence generated within a particular social environment constitute barriers to participation in the social exclusion and by solutions that ‘work’ within these same constraints. In approach. Headey’s application of Sen’s ideas to Australian contrast, if social inclusion becomes the catalyst for envisaging poverty research is described in 4.2 below. a good society, all government policy, and policy beyond the Sen believes that there cannot be a ‘canonical’ list of nation state, has a bearing on its delivery.36 capabilities, preferring to leave the selection and weighting Levitas argues that whilst the EU and the Blair government of capabilities to the particular people and groups involved, have constructed social inclusion primarily in terms of ‘the depending on the purpose of the evaluative exercise. He role of paid work as a vehicle for social integration and the emphasises the constructive role of democracy and the primary means of distributing the social product’, it is possible importance of public participation and discussion in debating to construct social inclusion in more positive terms. She refers the role, reach and significance of particular capabilities. here to a range of issues including addressing discrimination; Nussbaum, on the other hand, has proposed the following questions of rights and recognition; inclusion in decision- ten ‘central human capabilities’: life; bodily health; bodily making processes; and issues of social participation, such integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical as participation in common social activities with family or reason; affiliation; other species (being able to live with concern friends. Together, this broader agenda constitutes what Levitas for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature); terms a ‘more comprehensive approach to the ‘social’ in social play; and political and material control over one’s environment.40 inclusion’.37 Nussbaum argues that this list ‘isolates those human capabilities that can be convincingly argued to be of central importance in the capabilities approach: sen and nussbaum any human life, whatever else the person pursues or chooses.’ Amartya Sen’s insights on capabilities, which have been Accordingly, the list can be viewed as providing basic political expanded by Martha Nussbaum, make a potentially fruitful principles that should be embodied in constitutional guarantees, contribution to such discussions of social participation. For human rights legislation, and public policy. the purposes of this paper, only a brief overview of a complex Critically, Nussbaum argues that the institutional and expanding debate is provided. framework of any society must reflect the universal experiences 41 Sen’s capabilities approach concentrates on the tools and of dependency and interdependency. Public policy has capacities available to people that allow them to shape their own lives.38 More significant than income (although influenced 39 Ibid., p. 5 40 David A. Clark, The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques 35 Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, pp. 4–5 and Recent Advances, Global Poverty Research Group, pp. 5–7 36 Ibid., p. 5 41 Background Paper for the Values and Public Policy: Fairness, 37 Ibid., p. 4 Diversity and Social Change Conference held by the Centre for 38 Mitchell and Shillington, Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion, Public Policy, University of Melbourne, 26th–27th February Laidlaw Foundation, December 2002, pp. 3–5 2009, pp. 2–3 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 11

traditionally compartmentalised dependency into an issue Applying these ideas to an analysis of the child rights that can be dealt with peripherally to other issues of justice and agenda in Canada, Michael Bach argues that social inclusion relationships. Her analysis supports a re-conceptualisation of should be understood in terms of the reorganization of societal caring as a public good, since ‘any real society is a care giving institutions to provide valued recognition to diverse groups.45 and care-receiving society and must therefore discover ways of Policy analysis should reveal the ways in which social, economic coping with these facts of human neediness and dependency and political arrangements systematically undermine social that are compatible with the self-respect of the recipients and solidarity by devaluing certain people and groups. do not exploit the caregivers’. 42 Extending human rights (the institutional level) is a condition for valued recognition, but is not sufficient to implications for policy achieve it. Bach does not deny the importance of fostering The implications of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s ideas for policy capacities and conditions for positive intimate relationships, are neatly summarized by Mitchell, who argues that we need or of strengthening legal rights. However, he argues that social policies to promote people’s capacities to act as citizens with inclusion agendas need to focus more than they have so far done equal freedom to conduct a life they have reason to value. 43 This on the third level of recognition: ‘building a social solidarity that implies a focus on capabilities and achieved outcomes rather can bring value and recognition across differences of gender, 46 than foundation conditions such as income. As a result, welfare language, communication, culture, age, ability etc.’ to work policies which promote a narrow form of inclusion In practical terms, a social inclusion as solidarity agenda to the detriment of other aspects of life such as family life, focuses on building a wider recognition of the realities of life should be viewed with considerable scepticism. for people who are disadvantaged, and making these realities matter to others in society, so that a commitment for public ‘valued recognition’ and ‘solidarity’ policies and practices to address exclusion will follow.47 Values- based approaches to social inclusion are discussed further in The concept of ‘valued recognition’, achieved through ‘acts the following sections: of solidarity’, provides a deeper way of thinking about social inclusion. Again, only a brief discussion is included here, Section 3.2 describes Fincher’s model of the social values of but we recommend further consideration of the synergies redistribution, recognition, and encounter between this concept and Melbourne Citymission’s strategic Section 6 describes an approach to social inclusion developed directions and values. by Anglicare Australia which moves beyond a focus on A key theorist in this field is Honneth, who argues that participation in the form of paid work, and emphasizes a human dignity depends upon intersubjective, mutual recognition broader set of moral values. at interpersonal, institutional and societal levels.44 Recognition involves different patterns of mutual recognition at each level: love at the level of intimate relations; rights at the level of institutional arrangements; and ‘solidarity’ at the level of cultural and social forces. Solidarity involves valuing people’s difference and uniqueness.

42 Martha Nussbaum, ‘The Future of Feminist Liberalism’ in eds. E. Kittay and E. Feder, The Subject of Care, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2003, cited in Values and Public Policy Conference Background Paper, p. 3 43 Ibid., p. 22 44 Axel Honneth’s theories are summarised in Michael Bach, Social 45 Ibid., p.2 Inclusion as Solidarity: Rethinking the Child Rights Agenda, Working Paper Series: Perspectives on Social Inclusion, for the Laidlaw 46 Ibid., p. 10 Foundation, June 2002, p. 9–11 47 Ibid., p. 21 3. Policy frameworks to address social exclusion or promote inclusion

This section provides a brief description of social inclusion or poverty by around 300,000 children each year between now exclusion agendas prior to the Federal Labor Government’s and 2010/11 to meet its target of a 50% reduction, but has only Social Inclusion Agenda. reduced child poverty rates by 70,000 children each year over Framing questions for this section are: the past eight years.

A How have other jurisdictions both overseas and in Australia social exclusion agenda in the uk: key events 50 implemented social inclusion or exclusion agendas? A How effective have these agendas been? 1997 The Social Exclusion Unit was established by the Blair A What can we learn from this experience about how Labour Government in the UK (covering England only), based policies and interventions to prevent or reduce exclusion in the Cabinet Office, to develop “joined-up policies for joined- should be directed, in terms of their scale and focus? up problems”. A How can these insights inform community The Prime Minister, in agreement with ministers, decided organisations’ analysis of the Social Inclusion Agenda the direction of the unit’s work and specific projects, after and development of their own strategic directions? consultation with officials and interested groups. The unit made recommendations, with policy and program responsibilities 3.1 policy initiatives in the resting with government departments or cross-departmental uk and in south australia units. The SEU initially focused on: rough sleepers; truancy the uk social exclusion agenda and school exclusion; teenage pregnancy; and young people A summary of key events and policies is provided on the not in education, employment or training. next page. SEU moved to the Department of Communities & Local The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published annual Government in 2002. reports monitoring progress in reducing social exclusion in the 2006 The Social Exclusion Unit was disbanded and transferred UK. In 2008, they found that for some key indicators such as to a smaller taskforce in the Cabinet Office. Emphasis shifted the number of children in low-income or workless households, to the most severely excluded. The focus was on preventative earlier improvements had stalled. Overall, from 1997 to 2002/3, work among the most hard-to-reach children and families, 30 of the 56 statistics monitored improved, whereas from 2003 which reflected concern that Social Exclusion Unit programs to the latest available data, only 14 statistics improved.48 had failed to reach some of the poorest, most isolated and A paper to the Brotherhood of St. Laurence Social Inclusion vulnerable families. Down Under symposium in 2008, noted that there has been a slight increase in overall inequality since 1997, but that without tax and benefit reforms the rise in inequality would have been much higher.49 The government would need to reduce child —paper to Brotherhood of St Laurence’s symposium, Social Inclusion Down Under, held on 26th June 2008 at the 48 Guy Palmer, Tom MacInnes and Peter Kenway, Monitoring University of Melbourne poverty and social exclusion 2008, report for the Joseph Rowntree 50 Hayes, Gray and Edwards, Social Inclusion: Origins, concepts and Foundation, December 2008, accessed at www.jrf.org.au key themes Australian Institute of Family Studies paper for the 49 Tony Fitzpatrick Social inclusion: Policy lessons from the UK Social Inclusion Unit, October 2008, pp. 12–13 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 13

A refined policy framework was developed with the following A Sponsor or employ innovative approaches; five elements: A Develop partnerships and relationships with stakeholders and focus on outcomes. A ensuring that the targets that are set and incentives generated for policy-makers are good enough to focus The South Australian Social Inclusion Initiative has three on the most deprived people and places; broad areas that it seeks to change: A making funding more preventative and progressive; A Improve the level of social inclusion in the lives of A extending the joining-up of services to areas that individuals and groups, particularly those who are remained fragmented; socially excluded, disadvantaged and unable to gain A focusing services harder on how they can shape access to participation in productive life (this can aspirations, enhance personal responsibility and widen include people from specific population groups as take-up of programmes; and well as people with particular issues); A creation of shared institutions, activities and spaces that A Encourage systematic change in the way that can bind society together and increase social cohesion. government agencies and non government agencies 2008 The Social Exclusion Taskforce released the report Think address social issues; and Family: Improving the Life Chances of Families at Risk. This report A Bring broader benefits to the community. said “‘Think Family’ extends [the Every Child Matters] model to Priorities for the Social Inclusion Initiative are set include adults’ services, and puts families firmly at the centre through reviewing potential programs and interventions, and of a system that ensures all agencies work together from the broad consultation across the community and relevant front line through to local leaders” ( para 3.2 ) 51 government sectors to gather evidence. The setting of targets south australia’s social inclusion initiative and public reporting on outcomes are a clear focus on the South Australian Initiatives.53 The Social Inclusion Initiative was established in South Australia In an address to the Catholic Social Services National in 2002 and has an independent Social Inclusion Board which Conference in 2008, Monsignor Cappo observed that profiling reports directly to the Head of Government and associated done by the South Australian Social Inclusion Initiative has 52 department. Monsignor David Cappo ( AO ), the Chair of the confirmed that people who are vulnerable in one sphere tend Social Inclusion Board in South Australia, is also the Vice Chair to be vulnerable in others, and that ‘the population of homeless of the Federal Government Social Inclusion Board. people, people with serious mental illness problems and people The South Australian Social Inclusion Initiative sits within with serious drug and alcohol problems significantly overlap’.54 the broader context of the South Australian strategic plan Similar overlaps have been observed between the populations developed in 2004 ‘to drive the State towards becoming a healthy, of young people who leave school before completing Year 12, socially inclusive and economically prosperous society’. An explicit young people who grow up in jobless households, and young policy decision in South Australia was to reframe social exclusion people who have experienced significant trauma or neglect in terms of social inclusion, in order to focus ‘more on the early in life. solution of what can be done to increase social inclusion’. Monsignor Cappo highlighted the importance of educational The Social Inclusion Initiative in South Australia aims to: completion as ‘the single most significant factor in a person A Facilitate joined up implementation of programs across having good life outcomes’, and argued for a policy focus on government departments; educational participation, skills training, work experience, and health. Furthermore, the most marginalised people in our society require ‘assertive, multi-disciplinary responses that 55 51 For information on current UK initiatives to address social place the citizen at the centre of the equation’. exclusion including the Think Family program, refer to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force.aspx and http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/ Historical information on Neighbourhood Renewal is located at http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk 53 Ibid., p. 27 52 Material for this section is sourced from a report for the 54 Monsignor David Cappo AO, Social Inclusion: An Agenda for National Ethnic Disability Alliance ( NEDA ) by Carrie Hayter, all Australians, McCosker Oration to Catholic Social Services Cultural and Linguistic Inclusion?: Literature Review on Social National Conference 2008, pp. 2–3 Inclusion, Cohesion and Culture, February 2009, pp. 27–28 55 Ibid., p. 8 14 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

In a recent South Australian Government report describing The concept of place has been significant in efforts to address the Social Inclusion Initiative, the following results are social exclusion, with the most deprived neighbourhoods identified identified: as sites for an array of social exclusion policies.60 However, despite great enthusiasm for place-based initiatives and a fairly lengthy A A 5% reduction in rough sleeping across the state from history of government interest in these approaches both overseas 2001-2006, compared with a 19% increase nationally and in some Australian states, the evidence for their effectiveness during the same period. In the inner city of Adelaide, is limited. For example, in his review of the evidence surrounding there was a 45% reduction from June 2007 to August 2008. place-based initiatives in disadvantaged communities in the A Systems reform to address serious repeat offending for UK, Taylor concluded that ‘such interventions have not done young people. enough to turn around the disadvantages deprived areas suffer A ‘Whole-system’ reform of mental health services. in terms of weak economies, high levels of worklessness, low A Increased investment in Aboriginal health and education. skills levels, and insufficient enterprise’. 61 Furthermore, A Increased school retention rates for young people at risk.56 according to Taylor there is no universal model for successful The Victorian Government’s social policy framework, A Fairer regeneration of areas affected by economic decline. Victoria, is now being reframed in terms of social inclusion.57 This section takes the binaries mentioned above as starting points for discussion of some of the thorny questions regarding 3.2 questions of scale and focus the scale and focus of interventions to reduce exclusion. in addressing social exclusion Throughout, it will be apparent that there is a dearth of quality It is becoming increasingly clear that addressing social exclusion evidence to enable some of these issues to be resolved. The is complex. This is unsurprising given that people who are unrealistic timeframes set for many projects, and the poor socially excluded often experience multiple institutional and quality of much available evidence, means that it is often difficult structural barriers to participation.58 Off the shelf solutions to assess the effectiveness of particular interventions. generally do not work: a key lesson from overseas experience is that interventions must be developed to respond specifically local or national? 59 to the needs of particular groups or populations. Fincher asks ‘is ‘local’ the appropriate scale at which to analyse The challenge for governments is to identify critical and act upon social disadvantage, inclusion and exclusion?’ 62 intervention points to prevent or address exclusion. There She argues that instead of assuming that it is, we should start is growing debate about the appropriate scale for particular by thinking about what social principles or values we wish interventions to address social exclusion, and about the to use to reduce disadvantage, and then consider the scales interactions between local and broader scale policies and of operation of processes causing the disadvantage we are programs. These concerns are often expressed in terms of trying to redress. For each value there will be different scales at fairly crude binaries, such as people or place, local or national, which policy approaches should operate. Her summary of the and universal or targeted. An example of the way the debates three key values of redistribution, recognition, and encounter, are framed is the question of whether people or place-based and the interventions needed to secure them, provides some interventions are more effective. We will argue that this is a indication of the need for both local and national responses, false dichotomy in that both kinds of intervention are needed, and of the ways these responses might intersect: but that links must be made between interventions at all levels of government. Redistribution The goal here is to confer equal rights to opportunities in places on the poor and the rich, or at least to reduce the disparity between these opportunities to a specified level. 56 Government of South Australia People and Community at the Heart of Systems and Bureaucracy: South Australia’s Social Inclusion Initiative, February 2009 57 Victorian Government, Department of Planning and 60 Dr Zoe Morrison, Place, social inclusion and ‘cultural justice’, Social Community Development, Social Inclusion: a Victorian Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage Workshop Proceedings, Approach, December 2008 13th June 2008, p. 6 58 Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage and 61 Martin Taylor, Transforming disadvantaged places: effective strategies Low Capabilities in Australia, p. 10 for places and people, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Round-up, 59 Alan Hayes, Matthew Gray and Ben Edwards, Social Inclusion: July 2008, p. 9 Origins, concepts and key themes, p. 20 62 Ibid., p. 6 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 15

Achieving redistribution involves broad-scale infrastructural authorities to promote inclusion are constrained by funding, investment as well as partnerships with locals on initiatives and that there is a danger that the emphasis on the local passes to revive neighbourhoods. Therefore, Fincher suggests that the buck of responsibility, while the necessary attention to Vinson’s data on disadvantage in postcode areas, should redistributive and other policies at the centre is absent. be supplemented by maps and rankings of infrastructural investments on a broader than local scale. people or places?

Recognition This value seeks equal respect for people with a A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation attempted without range of different needs and identities. Social groups identified much success to assess whether person- or place-based policies in social policy as having special needs may be spatially clustered around education, employment and income are more effective 66 (such as recent immigrants who may cluster in areas already at addressing disadvantage in the UK. Most employment settled by others of their background), or not (for example, policies were person-based, although some were area-based, older women or children). usually with a focus on worklessness either as a single issue Achieving recognition requires both infrastructural or as part of a range of priorities. Income policies tended to investment by senior levels of government at greater-than- be focused on people and delivered nationally. Education local scales (to ensure equality of access across space to facilities policies, on the other hand, were a mix of person and place- required by social groups) and local commitment. based policies. Despite the interconnection of people- and place-based Encounter This value moves beyond seeing people as members issues, the authors found that most individual policies were of particular income groups (redistribution) or groups either place or person based.67 Person- and place-based policies (recognition), and emphasizes the importance of cordial and have developed separately within specific domains, despite the supportive social relations between people … ‘places are the reality that ‘poverty and disadvantage are mediated by place, sites of social relations, not merely the sites of the presence and places are affected by the poverty or otherwise of their 63 of people in their similarity or diversity’. inhabitants.’68 The authors comment that it is reasonable to Since encounter can be transnational, internet-based, and assume that policies that dissociate people from places and interest-based, as well as occurring in local places, interventions vice versa may perform poorly.69 at all these levels are needed in order to maximize encounter. Only a few initiatives—the New Deal for Communities

Fincher cautions that place-sensitive policies for reducing program and the Working Neighbourhoods Pilot—sought 70 social disadvantage should not be discursively relegated to the to exploit the logical synergies between people and place. scale of the local, as if national and State policy-making at broader Referring to this research, Smyth speculates that in Australia scales is not about the reduction of social disadvantage in places.64 we would find a similar dearth of initiatives which exploit the 71 She adds that ... ‘perhaps one major lesson from recent British logical synergies between people and place. social exclusion / inclusion thinking is that this is a national Overall, the researchers found that effect sizes of both kinds matter even though it is about places in their specificity.’ of intervention, whether person or place focussed, are generally Organisations which operate at the local level have suggested small, and indeed that policies can have detrimental effects that the language of social inclusion is permissive, in that they on participants. Furthermore, methodological issues which are able to develop appropriate local policies and legitimize them compromised the available evidence meant that the researchers in terms of social inclusion, whatever the intentions of central were unable to draw any conclusions about the relative government.65 For example, Levitas describes how some local effectiveness of person- and place-based interventions. authorities in the UK have developed anti-poverty strategies as part of ‘social inclusion’ agendas, rebalancing central government’s 66 Julia Griggs, Adam Whitworth, Robert Walker, David focus. However, Levitas comments that the powers of local McLennan and Michael Noble, Person- or place-based policies to tackle disadvantage? Not knowing what works, Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2008

63 Professor Ruth Fincher, Issues of scale, Brotherhood of St 67 Ibid., p. 54 Laurence and the Department of Planning and Community 68 Ibid., p. xii Development Social Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage 69 Ibid., p. 1 Workshop Proceedings, 13th June 2008, pp.6-9 70 Ibid., p. xix 64 Ibid., p.9 71 Professor Paul Smyth, Social Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage 65 Ruth Levitas, The idea of social inclusion, p.4 BSL / DPCD Workshop Proceedings June 2008, p. 11 16 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

universal or targeted approaches? interlinked approaches across different scales?

Summarising the lessons from overseas experience about how As Fincher observes, in every social policy endeavour varied social inclusion can be achieved in Australia, Paul Smyth from scales of operation are intertwined and co-dependent.76 For the Brotherhood of St Laurence has argued in favour of a policy example, evidence on the effectiveness of employment policies of ‘progressive universalism’, where all receive help, but those in the UK shows that ‘locally tailored interventions with in greatest need receive the most support. 72 Smyth locates this individually tailored support, sustained over time, are important idea within the social integration model advanced in the UK, factors in success, as long as there are strong connections with whereby tackling social exclusion increasingly became not the wider labour market’.77 about special initiatives outside the mainstream to alleviate Paul Smyth has suggested that in Australia the Federal poverty, but about reform of mainstream services. He argues government’s involvement in the social inclusion agenda that in the face of ‘unequivocal’ evidence that the poor are worse means that a new strategy will be needed to integrate localised off in targeted regimes, ‘a key objective for Australia’s social community action with the bigger scale interventions necessary inclusion agenda ought to be winding back narrow targeting to address the wider sources of localised exclusion.78 He believes and beefing up mainstream services’. that while locally based policy making has had real success in It is unclear how the right balance between meeting strengthening social connectedness and overcoming social and particular and meeting universal needs would be struck. A civic deficits, it cannot substitute for action by government in number of questions arise. Is the evidence on targeting really ‘people’ rather than ‘place’ based policy arenas such as income so unequivocal? What would be the threshold for access to the support, education and employment. highest levels of support? Is there a risk that some populations Although we might agree that coordinated action is needed would be left to flounder within mainstream services that at both local and national scales, it is clear that for Smyth ‘action would fail to meet their needs? by government in people based arenas’ is about addressing It is apparent that the most disadvantaged can suffer when mainstream services and economic development.79 If the resources are directed to whole communities (whether the entire social inclusion discourse in Australia is constructed in this Australian population of pre-school age children, or particular way, there is a risk that the specific needs of groups which are geographic areas) rather than to at-risk groups.73 For example, significantly disadvantaged, may be overlooked. early evidence from the UK Sure Start program suggested that In conclusion, it is unhelpful to construct debates about the it had an adverse effect on the most disadvantaged families scale and focus of interventions to reduce exclusion in binary within particular communities.74 terms. We would agree with Taylor’s observation, for example, Summarizing policy on early childhood development in that debates about the relative effectiveness of people or place Australia, Anglicare Australia argues that Australian policy based policies and programs impose a false divide, since ‘the makers have misinterpreted evidence from overseas … ‘As social equity principles of sustainable development require a result, public funding is being directed to universal early effective, interlinked approaches across social, environmental childhood programs which may have little or no lasting effect, and economic domains at all spatial tiers of governance.’80 rather than to intensive programs where most need exists.’75 This will be an important criterion for evaluating existing and The balance between universal and targeted approaches proposed initiatives to reduce social exclusion in Australia. will become an even more critical issue during the current economic crisis. As resources become more limited, and needs increase, it remains to be seen what principles will guide redistributive agendas.

76 Ruth Fincher, Issues of scale, p. 9 77 Martin Taylor, Transforming disadvantaged places, p. 5 72 Professor Paul Smyth, ‘Social inclusion down under’, Brotherhood 78 Professor Paul Smyth, Place based policy at the crossroads: A summary Comment, Brotherhood of St Laurence, April 2008, p. 2 report of the social inclusion and place based disadvantage workshop, 73 Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension: Australia’s Social Inclusion August 2008, p. 4 Agenda, State of the Family 2008, p. 73 onwards 79 Professor Paul Smyth, Social Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage 74 Griggs et al, Person- or place-based policies to tackle disadvantage?, xvi–ii BSL / DPCD Workshop Proceedings June 2008, p. 4 75 Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension, pp. 73–4 80 Martin Taylor, Transforming disadvantaged places, p. 1 4. Social disadvantage in Australia

This section describes two significant attempts to describe the The first stage of the research therefore involved surveying extent and nature of social disadvantage in Australia. Framing members of the broader community and clients and staff of questions for this section are: community sector agencies to identify the essentials of life.83 The researchers then developed indicators based on the factors A What do we know about the extent and nature of that restrict people’s ability to acquire the items (deprivation) disadvantage in Australia today? and participate in the activities (exclusion) that are widely A Which approaches to defining and measuring regarded as essential for full membership of society.84 In the disadvantage show most promise? second stage of the research, community members and clients A How might we assess the appropriateness and of community sector agencies were surveyed regarding their effectiveness of the Social Inclusion Agenda? experiences of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. As Paul Smyth has observed, developing new measures of In relation to deprivation, key findings of interest for com- disadvantage which are grounded in the realities of the experience munity organisations working with disadvantaged people are: of social exclusion will be a prerequisite for any shift to policy A There was a high level of consensus among different responses based on social inclusion. The two studies profiled population sub-groups on the identification of essentials. here have been selected in part because they are significant Interestingly, items relating to access to basic services, recent studies, and also because they take different approaches different forms of participation, indicators of security, to the definition and measurement of disadvantage. and those that contribute to one’s sense of status or 4.1 towards new indicators of disadvantage: identity were ranked as more important than items deprivation and social exclusion in australia – representing ‘things’ such as consumer durables.85 social policy research centre A As expected, deprivation was higher (on average, four times The Social Policy Research Centre and community organisations as high across all 26 items) among the client sample than including Anglicare and the Brotherhood of St Laurence recently among the community sample, but the researchers were collaborated in a project that explored the relationships between surprised by the high absolute level of deprivation the concepts of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion in depth. The imperative for undertaking the research was the recognition that previous Australian research into poverty ‘has on deprivation and social exclusion among welfare service clients, failed to connect with the actual living standards experienced Social Policy Research Centre, July 2009 by those in poverty’.81 The researchers aimed to identify new 83 Peter Saunders and Kelly Sutherland with Peter Davidson, indicators of disadvantage that are more closely connected than Anne Hampshire, Susan King and Janet Taylor, Experiencing simple income measurement with the lives and experiences of poverty: the voices of low-income Australians—Towards new indicators of disadvantage project Stage 1: Focus group outcomes, people living in poverty. Melbourne Citymission was involved Social Policy Research Centre, March 2006 in the update to this research published in July 2009.82 84 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p.2 85 Ibid., p.36 Saunders cites the work of Swedish sociologist Erik Allardt who distinguishes between ‘having’, ‘doing’ and ‘being’ 81 Saunders et al, Towards new indicators of disadvantage, p.vii and suggests that the ranking of essentials indicates that 82 Peter Saunders and Melissa Wong, Still doing it tough: an update ‘having’ is viewed as less important than ‘being’ and ‘doing’ 18 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

among members of the client sample. A Economic exclusion (which relates to limited access to A Around half the members of the client sample were economic resources and restricted capacity to generate deprived in relation to: access to $500 savings for use them, and does not include income poverty as an in an emergency; a week’s holiday away; home contents indicator) is much higher among the client sample than insurance; and dental treatment if needed. the community sample. Exclusion rates exceeded 50% A Deprivation is highest among Indigenous Australians, for four of the eight ‘economic exclusion’ indicators and sole parent families, people renting public housing, and are above 70% for three of the indicators. people who are unemployed. A Social exclusion overall is most common among the same A Multiple deprivation is widespread. In the community groups that were shown to be most deprived, particularly sample, more than one quarter experience two or more public renters, unemployed people, and Indigenous forms of deprivation, and one tenth miss out on at least Australians. five essential items simultaneously. A Multiple exclusion is far more widespread than multiple A In the client sample, more than two-thirds experience deprivation. The authors suggest that the incidence of two or more forms of deprivation, close to half are multiple deprivation may be a better basis on which to deprived of five or more items, and nearly one-third assess the severity of disadvantage (for example, when miss out in eight or more areas. targeting assistance where the need is greatest) than the incidence of multiple exclusion. 88 The authors comment that the findings on deprivation provide clear evidence that ‘the benefits of economic progress and rising The authors concluded that poverty, deprivation, and exclusion living standards have not been shared amongst all Australians, are distinct though overlapping concepts that all need to be included with many still experiencing severe deprivation in many dimensions, in any analysis of the extent and nature of social disadvantage.89 even after accessing support from a welfare service’.86 In an analysis of hardship among low-income Australians The report is somewhat less detailed in its analysis and based on Saunders’ data, ACOSS observed that many of those assessment of social exclusion, perhaps reflecting the biases of at greatest risk of hardship (unemployed people, sole parents, its authors who have a long history of research into income poverty young people, and people with disabilities) receive the lowest and deprivation, and the lack of clarity around the conceptualization social security payments. This suggests that the current social and measurement of the newer concept of social exclusion. security system is poorly designed to reduce poverty.90 Saunders et al grouped the indicators used to identify social exclusion within three forms of exclusion derived from the 4.2 a framework for assessing poverty, disadvantage and low capabilities in australia— literature: disengagement, service exclusion, and economic melbourne institute exclusion. While noting that other forms of exclusion are identified The Melbourne Institute is engaged in a significant project to in the literature, they state that these were the only ones which review and implement multi-dimensional approaches to poverty could be examined using the data collected in the study.87 and disadvantage, specifically, applying a modified version of Key findings in relation to social exclusion are: Sen’s capabilities approach to HILDA panel data. The author, A Disengagement (which includes indicators relating to Bruce Headey, comments that a new framework for assessing regular social contact, and participation in community disadvantage is needed both for academic reasons, and on the activities such as arts or sports) is most pronounced in both grounds of political feasibility. The Institute hopes that this client and community samples in four areas: no annual framework will provide a way of differentiating between causes holiday away from home; no participation in community and consequences of disadvantage.91 activities; no hobby or leisure activity for children; and ‘could not go out with friends and pay one’s way’. A Service exclusion (which relates to access to key services such as doctors, dental treatment, banks, and utilities) is widespread in the Australian community, with a large proportion of both samples who need them being 88 Ibid., p. 79 excluded from child care, disability or dental services. 89 Ibid., p. xi 90 ACOSS, Who is missing out? Hardship among low income Australians, December 2008, pp. 1–2 86 Ibid., p.51 91 Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage and 87 Ibid., p.69 Low Capabilities in Australia, p. 16 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 19

According to Headey, HILDA panel data allows the which affect income (eg. divorce and repartnering), persistence of poverty and disadvantage to be measured for the changes in health, and changes in employment status. first time, providing a better basis for targeting interventions – Low social functioning (measured in terms of infrequent on those experiencing medium and long term disadvantage as contact with relatives and friends) was most persistent opposed to those experiencing short term disadvantage. amongst people with a disability. Low capabilities are explored as possible causes of negative A Wellbeing: Measures used included financial stress, social and economic functionings and outcomes, with low financial satisfaction, high job insecurity, low job consequences for wellbeing. Headey describes capabilities as satisfaction, low self-rated health, low health satisfaction, stocks, functionings as current flows, and wellbeing indicators high work-family stress, and low life satisfaction. The as psychological outcomes. He argues that the goal of policy selected at risk groups all tended to have lower than intervention should be to improve capabilities and average wellbeing on at least some of these indicators. functionings.92 Overall, the research indicated that low capabilities are Each set of capabilities, functionings and outcomes includes strongly related to low social and economic functionings and measures within four life domains: financial, employment, to low levels of wellbeing. However, Headey comments that health and family / social. For example, within the financial whilst low capabilities are treated as potential causes of low domain, low capabilities include being asset poor; low functionings and low wellbeing outcomes, it is important to functionings include being income poor; and low wellbeing recognize that issues of cause and effect are difficult to sort includes experiencing financial stress.93 out. As a result, the research task is to try to understand the The research also proposes a life cycle approach to ‘dynamic chains’ or ‘damaging sequences / vicious circles’ which capabilities and functionings, recognizing that particular lead to poor outcomes. He believes that this exploratory research capabilities and functionings are more or less important at indicates that there is a reasonable chance that damaging different stages in the life cycle. So, for example, in childhood sequences, and effective interventions, can be identified. the main priority for individuals and for public policy is to There are concerns that the sampling methodology for the develop human capital and some social skills.94 HILDA Panel Survey may exclude significant numbers of those The framework was applied to the first three years of HILDA most likely to be experiencing poverty, and that high levels panel data for the whole population. The researchers then selected of attrition over successive waves of the survey compounds four groups regarded as at risk of poverty and disadvantage, this bias.96 As a result, the dataset may have limited value in and explored their capabilities, and the consequences of these measuring the level of poverty in the community at a particular for functionings and wellbeing.95 The groups were single time, or its persistence. mothers, non-partnered people, people with disabilities, and Despite these limitations, the approach described by Headey people born in non English-speaking countries. appears to offer a promising avenue for examining who falls into Examples of the research findings are: poverty, and what capabilities correlate with duration of poverty A Capabilities: Across the whole population, the groups and with pathways out of poverty over the longer term.97 with the lowest levels of assets are single mothers, non- partnered people, and people with disabilities. 4.3 the current economic climate A Functionings: 21% of the population experienced income Of particular concern at present is the impact of the global poverty (assessed as having a financial year income below economic downturn on the extent of social exclusion and on the 50% poverty line) in at least one year of the three the effectiveness of policy to reduce it. In its recommendations years of HILDA data. However, there is considerable for the Federal Budget 2009–10, ACOSS argues that swift action income mobility at the bottom end of the distribution: is needed to address the expected increases in unemployment only 3% experience poverty for all three years. and in long-term unemployment, and the inadequacy of – Factors which can push people into and back out of poverty include: changes in household composition

96 Michael Horn, Measuring Poverty—Appropriateness of using HILDA 92 Ibid., p. 23 as a point in time indicator of the prevalence of poverty or to monitor 93 Ibid., p. 18 the persistence of poverty, Internal Paper for Melbourne 94 Ibid., p. 61 Citymission, 2005, p. 8 95 Ibid., p. 24 97 Ibid., p. 8 20 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

current social security payment levels.98 People who were Recent data from the University of Newcastle’s Centre of already unemployed before the downturn, and those who Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) and Griffith University’s become newly unemployed and have barriers to work, will be Urban Research Program, suggests that unemployment will pushed to the end of the jobs queue. Past experience suggests increase both in currently disadvantaged areas and in ‘mortgage that long term unemployment can take many years to come belt’ suburbs.100 The Director of CofFEE stated that ‘for some down once economic recovery starts. of Australia’s most disadvantaged suburbs the inevitability of In this context, ACOSS recommends measures to ease increased levels of unemployment will mean further dislocation hardship for those on government allowances and pensions; of these communities from mainstream economic activities restore jobs growth and support the community services leading to deepening levels of concentrated disadvantage’. sector to cushion the social effects of job losses; reduce long It remains to be seen how the Federal Government will term unemployment; and restore the Budget to balance as respond to the challenges ahead, and whether resources will the economy recovers. ACOSS also points out that immediate be directed into education and training to prepare people who additional assistance to the community services sector should are already unemployed, and those destined to join them, for be made permanent as more investment is needed to reduce entry into the workforce. social exclusion in the long term.99

98 ACOSS, Social Inclusion and Economic Security: Recommendations for the Federal Budget, Budget Priority Statement 2009–10, 100 Job Loss Suburbs Exposed’ Press Release from the Centre of January 2009 Full Employment and Equity, University of Newcastle, accessed 99 Ibid., p. 4 at http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/indicators on 18th March 2009 5. The Australian Social Inclusion Agenda

Key framing questions for this section are: A Deal with personal crisis such as ill health, bereavement or the loss of a job A What are the core components of the Federal A Be heard.104 Government’s approach to social inclusion? A How does this approach compare with policies overseas Three aspirational social inclusion principles for Australia and what are its potential strengths and weaknesses? are identified: reducing disadvantage; increasing social, civil A What is the Government’s view of the role of the com- and economic participation; and a greater voice combined with munity sector in addressing social exclusion, and what are greater responsibility. Initial priority areas for action are: the risks and opportunities for community organisations A Addressing the incidence and needs of jobless working with disadvantaged populations and places? families with children A 5.1 focus of policy Delivering effective support to children at greatest risk of long term disadvantage While in opposition the Labor Party indicated that a national social A Addressing the incidence of homelessness inclusion agenda would be at the heart of its social and economic A Focusing on particular locations, neighbourhoods 101 policy in government, describing such an agenda as ‘long overdue’. and communities to ensure programs and The imperative for this action is the continuing disadvantage services are getting to the right places experienced by some Australians despite national economic growth. A Employment for people living with a disability These include people who live in areas which lack services and a or mental illness sense of community, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability, A Closing the gap for Indigenous Australians. and children living in jobless families.102 The focus of the Labor social inclusion agenda is therefore on policies aimed at ‘creating It is apparent that a range of people and place based issues are prosperity with fairness’, with long-term prosperity secured by included in this list. Indeed, it is incoherent, mixing household ‘the full social and economic participation of all Australians’.103 types, population groups, and locational disadvantage. Both in opposition and in government, Labor has defined To achieve its goals, the Government has so far established social inclusion in terms of having the opportunity to: performance targets relating to educational opportunity, reduction of homelessness, and addressing the multifaceted A Secure a job aspects of Indigenous disadvantage.105 A Access services Increasing workforce participation is a key plank of Labor’s A Connect with others in life through family, friends, strategy to address social exclusion. It is apparent that this has work, personal interests and local community been driven in part by economic imperatives due to the ageing workforce and under-utilisation of labour … ‘Labor believes

101 Julia Gillard MP and Senator Penny Wong, An Australian Social Inclusion Agenda, Election 2007 Policy Document by the 104 Ibid., pp.1–2, and Speech by Julia Gillard on Social innovation, social Australian Labor Party, p. 12 and p. 4 impact: A new Australian agenda, Canberra, 28th February 2008 102 Ibid., pp. 1–3 105 Hayes, Gray and Edwards, Social Inclusion: Origins, concepts and key 103 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS National themes, Australian Institute of Family Studies paper prepared for Conference 10th April 2008, p. 3 the Social Inclusion Unit, Commonwealth of Australia 2008, p.9 22 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

that as well as being good for individuals, increasing workforce policy and use networks to create innovative solutions’.111 participation benefits local communities, regions and the Another key mechanism through which the Social Inclusion broader economy.’106 As Julia Gillard recently stated in a speech Agenda will be driven is COAG, since State as well as Federal to ACOSS, ‘our long-term prosperity depends on securing the government action is needed to tackle social exclusion.112 New full social and economic participation of all Australians.’107 National Partnership agreements have been introduced to fund However, the goal of full economic participation was priority reforms. articulated at a time of strong economic growth. Similarly, the Within the ‘Social Inclusion Principles for Australia’ the COAG National Reform Agenda 2006 stated that Australia’s Government has defined its key approaches, including building third wave of productivity improvement depended on improving partnerships, giving a high priority to early intervention and its human capital.108 At a time when low-skilled jobs are prevention, building joined-up services and whole-of- disappearing, it is difficult to see how full participation will be government solutions, and using locational approaches. achieved unless investment in education and training, particularly for currently excluded groups, is substantially increased. 5.3 ‘location’ in the social inclusion agenda The Federal Government does not believe that locational disadvant- 5.2 delivering the social inclusion agenda age should be the sole focus of the social inclusion agenda. For On its Social Inclusion website, the Government describes its example, in the Social Inclusion Agenda Policy Document before Social Inclusion Agenda as launching a ‘new era of governance the 2007 Election, Julia Gillard and Penny Wong argued that to mainstream the task of building social inclusion’. This ‘the social inclusion agenda doesn’t start or end with postcodes’113 requires rethinking how policy and programs across portfolios Nevertheless, addressing locational disadvantage is a significant and levels of government can work together. There is a danger component of the broader social inclusion agenda, and one that this approach fails to take into account the evidence which which is of particular interest to Melbourne Citymission. suggests that people who have multiple needs require a more Professor Paul Smyth has argued that Gillard’s social inclusion complex service system response. framework points the way to a new integration of place based To progress its agenda, the government has established a Social initiatives to do with social connectedness with people based Inclusion Committee of Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister mainstream services, access to which is viewed by the Government and Deputy Prime Minister, to build ‘whole of government’ as central to social inclusion.114 Smyth suggests that ‘the royal road capacity.109 A Social Inclusion Unit in the Department of the to place based reform would look to integrating local community Prime Minister and Cabinet has also been created. development work with three key policy areas vital to promoting Work on homelessness and indigenous Australians is being led an inclusive society: mainstream social services, urban planning, by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and and employment’.115 This would require area mapping of social Indigenous Affairs, while the Department of Education, Employ- infrastructure and real redistributional effort to address gaps ment and Workplace Relations is leading the strategy on employ- and inequalities. ment for people living with a disability or mental illness. The other priorities will be coordinated by the Social Inclusion Unit. 5.4 the role of the community sector in addressing social exclusion In order to involve those outside government, the Social Inclusion Board has been established to provide advice ‘on what Federal Government language about the community sector’s works and what doesn’t; on what the priorities should be; and role in addressing social exclusion is heartening and discouraging on how to connect with the concerns of wider communities.’110 in turns. In a speech to community organisations at the ACOSS Membership of the Board comprises leaders from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors who will ‘build evidence based 111 www.socialinclusion.gov.au 112 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS 2008, p.7 106 Julia Gillard MP and Senator Penny Wong, An Australian 113 Julia Gillard MP and Senator Penny Wong, An Australian Social Social Inclusion Agenda, p. 3 Inclusion Agenda, p. 2 107 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS 2008, p. 3 114 Professor Paul Smyth, Social Inclusion and Place Based 108 Professor Paul Smyth, Social inclusion and place based Disadvantage: The Australian Context, BSL / DPCD Workshop disadvantage: the Australian context, BSL / DPCD Workshop Proceedings, June 2008, p. 10 Proceedings, June 2008, p. 8 115 Professor Paul Smyth, Place based policy at the crossroads: a 109 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS 2008, p. 7 summary report of the social inclusion and place based disadvantage 110 Ibid., p. 7 workshop, BSL / DPCD Workshop Proceedings, August 2008, p. 5 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 23

National Conference in 2008, Julia Gillard emphasized the need To develop the Compact, the Federal government has released for a nationwide effort ‘involving you as leaders in the community, a discussion paper and commissioned ACOSS to consult and canvass giving advice and running key programs’.116 She contrasted initial views with its members and other organisations. ACOSS Labor’s approach with that of the previous government which provided an overview of its initial consultation to the second meeting ‘took steps to silence your voice’, and argued that ‘the continued of the Expert Panel which was established to provide advice. existence of poverty alongside plenty’ was one of the results The consultations indicated cautious support for the development of this failure to listen to the sector’s experience and under- of a National Compact but emphasized the need to undertake standing of the nature of entrenched disadvantage.117 a broader consultation to ensure it is actively embraced.123 In similar vein, at the same conference Ursula Stephens Overall, while the government states that it intends to reiterated the government’s belief in a ‘strong and independent restore advocacy as a key role of the sector, it remains to be not-for-profit sector’. 118 She added that the government ‘is keen seen how open it will be to divergent voices, especially around to hear the view of those organisations who know more than it what social inclusion might mean for particular groups and does about the situation on the ground and about what interventions what resources and levers are needed to make it a reality. It are working and which are not in improving circumstances for is noticeable that only two community sector organisations disadvantaged Australians.’ In particular, she stated that the —St Vincent de Paul’s and the Brotherhood of St. Laurence sector has a role in ‘identifying gaps or policy shortfalls’. —are represented on the Social Inclusion Board. The latter At the same time, there are indications of a tough approach organization has a relatively limited service delivery arm. to community sector organisations. Stephens stated that although A missing element of the government’s approach to social the government is concerned about the health of the sector ‘to inclusion is real change to equip business to partner with be honest, this is a secondary driver’.119 The government’s main community organisations. In the UK, for example, reforms to goal is improved services and outcomes. At the end of the day the regulatory framework have facilitated corporate flexibility, ‘if the results aren’t there, then we will try something else’.120 equipping community organisations and business to partner However, the sector will need to be resourced to achieve with each other to provide employment pathways and create improved services and outcomes. In the absence of this, the social businesses. Despite the rhetoric around the role of business government’s approach is tantamount to a shifting of respon- in partnering with the community sector and government to sibility. Furthermore, the overall tenor of the Federal Govern- deliver social inclusion, Australian Federal Governments, ment’s statements about the role of the community sector suggests including the present one, have not undertaken the necessary that we risk having a curtailed role, reduced to delivering services reforms. In their absence, there is a risk that the community on behalf of government, and to weighing evidence, rather sector, lacking sufficient resources, will be left carrying the can than critiquing the fundamental goals of policy. for the failures of both the state and the market. The proposed National Compact will be a critical mechanism To sum up, some key unresolved questions for community for defining the agenda for the Australian Government’s relationship organisations in relation to the Social Inclusion Agenda are: with not-for-profit organisations. The Compact will aim to agree a A Will government commit to resourcing the sector set of joint goals.121 However, some commentators are doubtful that adequately to achieve its policy goals, especially in a context this and other agreements between government and the community of increased needs due to the economic downturn? sector will empower the sector. For example, shortly after the A To what extent will fundamental priorities and policies 2007 election Joan Staples cautioned that ‘there is a likelihood be shaped by our experience and knowledge? these agreements will be linked to the economic / productivity A How will State-led activities to address locational disad- value of the sector, not its social / democratic value’.122 vantage be integrated with the Social Inclusion Agenda? A Will community organisations be able to translate any flexibility that exists in shaping programs and priorities at 116 The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS 2008, p.8 the local level into an effective platform for advocacy?124 117 Ibid., p.2 118 Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens, Speech to ACOSS Conference 9th April 2008, p.2 2007, cited in Anglicare Australia Creative Tension, p.87 119 Ibid., p.3 123 National Compact Expert Panel Communique, released 120 Ibid., p.5 Monday 10th November 2008, accessed at www.socialinclusion. 121 Ibid., p.4 gov.au/A_National_Compact 122 Staples, Joan, ‘Why we do what we do: the democratic role of the 124 Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, paper to 2003 Social sector in society’, Community Futures Task Group, November Inclusion Research Conference, p.4 6. Assessments of the Australian Social Inclusion Agenda

Many commentators have noted that the Labor Federal 6.1 the brotherhood of st. laurence

Government has opted for Levitas’ third version of social The Brotherhood has positioned itself as an ‘an agency at the 125 inclusion, the social integration or cohesion approach. forefront of knowledge development and practice of a genuinely Social inclusion is to be achieved through participation in Australian approach to social inclusion’.128 Executive Director the paid workforce. Increasing employment—even in poorly Tony Nicholson is a member of the Social Inclusion Board, paid jobs—becomes the goal. It has been argued that over time and the organization recently co-hosted the workshop Social this can lead to blaming the excluded for their misfortune, as Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage: The Australian Context 126 happened in the UK. with the Victorian Government Department of Planning and Labor’s emphasis on the economic returns of investing Community Development. in social inclusion contrasts with early iterations of social Speaking at the Social Inclusion Down Under symposium at inclusion which sought to elevate social objectives to parity Melbourne University, Tony Nicholson described the Brother- with economic objectives on the grounds of social morality hood’s working definition of social inclusion as follows: rather than economic rationality.127 Furthermore, the focus on ‘mainstreaming’ approaches ‘A social inclusion approach involves the building of personal to disadvantaged groups is of concern, since it reduces the capacities and material resources, in order to fulfil one’s distinction between the most disadvantaged in the population potential for economic and social participation, and thereby 129 and others, and may lead to an inadequate response. For a life of common dignity’. example, if employment services are restructured along the lines This definition is highly focused on the individual and does proposed, those who face multiple barriers—including people not acknowledge that social, economic, and political structures with a disability, and young people who are homeless—may can create barriers to inclusion and reinforce exclusion. receive insufficient support. To achieve ‘an authentic Australian approach’ to social Community organisations are engaging with the Social inclusion, Nicholson proposes a number of key principles Inclusion Agenda in a variety of ways. The sector does not including that economic and social participation will be at the speak with one voice, and many agencies are playing catch up top of the hierarchy of desired outcomes. He explicitly states as they seek to respond to new policy directions and funding that this means that other outcomes such as housing will be opportunities. Two contrasting perspectives on the Social shaped by the participation objective.130 Inclusion Agenda are presented here, for reflection within other community organisations.

128 Joint Media Release with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP—Australian Social Inclusion Board, 21st May 2008, p. 3, accessed at www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2008/media_ release_0256cfm 129 Tony Nicholson, The way ahead to an authentically Australian 125 See for example, Christopher Scanlon, 21/01/08, Canberra Times approach to social inclusion, speaking notes from the Brother hood 126 Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, p. 3 of St. Laurence’s Social Inclusion Down Under symposium held 127 Professor Paul Smyth, Social Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage: at the University of Melbourne on 26th June 2008 The Australian Context, BSL / DPCD Workshop Proceedings, p. 8 130 Ibid., p. 3 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 25

The belief that participation shapes other objectives has In the authors’ view, the concentration on economic already been influential in the development of policy on development as the source of and precondition for social homelessness. Tony Nicholson chaired the expert steering group participation suggests the limits of the UK and Australian appointed by the Prime Minister to oversee the development Governments’ approach to social inclusion. They speculate of the Homelessness Green Paper. The White Paper appears that if a choice had to be made between social and economic to be influenced by the Brotherhood’s view that the best route objectives, economic interests could predominate.135 This out of homelessness is participation in paid work and that observation seems particularly pertinent in the current employment support for homeless people should be provided global economic slowdown, where there is a risk that the through the mainstream service system. most disadvantaged in society will be further marginalized, Nicholson suggests that a number of fundamental, long and that responsibility will be shifted to individuals and the term issues need to be resolved if Australia is to develop community sector. its approach to social inclusion. In his view, these include To counteract the narrow focus of the Social Inclusion improving our understanding of the relationship between Agenda on economic returns, Anglicare Australia argues for a investing in disadvantaged people’s health, education and reassertion of the primary role of ethics in public policy. This housing, and the economic returns this can produce. He adds would involve the development of more rounded perspectives that ‘where the return on investment is a moral one and not an on workforce participation (to include non-market based economic one, we need to be transparent about it. Many have activities) and on housing (to reassert its primacy as shelter adopted the rhetoric of investment without truly understanding rather than investment), for example. They suggest that rather the critical metrics to the investment necessary to bring the than focusing on prosperity as a national goal, we should be disadvantaged into the mainstream economic and social life focusing on ‘prospering’. 136 of the nation.’ 131 Anglicare Australia favours Sen’s approach, which focuses on rectifying capability deprivation and views social participation 6.2 anglicare australia as justifiable in its own terms – an end in itself and a condition 137 Anglicare Australia is more critical of the Federal Government’s for being a member of society. In Creative Tension, the underlying approach to social inclusion than the Brotherhood, authors argue that: as several recent reports indicate.132 ‘The view that morality derives solely from self-interest demonstrates For example, in Creative Tension Anglicare Australia highlights an improverished view of human dignity and potential. We must go the debate over the effectiveness of the Blair Government ‘Third beyond such a narrow, economistic position to one that embraces something 138 Way’, of which the Australian Federal government’s market we might term, cautiously, the self-interest of morality.’ democracy is an acknowledged offspring.133 An advisor to Tony Blair is quoted as saying ‘the Third Way was not the silver bullet that many thought it would be’. Disillusionment with the Third Way in the UK is described as being almost complete.134

131 Ibid., pp. 3–4 132 Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension: Australia’s Social Inclusion Agenda, and Anglicare Australia, Discussion Paper: Social Inclusion, http:// 135 Ibid., pp. 7–9 www.anglicare.asn.au/documents/discussion_paper_social_inclusion.pdf 136 Anglicare Australia, Discussion Paper: Social Inclusion, p. 7 133 Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension, p. 9 137 Ibid., p. 7 134 Ibid., p. 87 138 Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension, p. 89 7. Implications for community organisations

In this section, we consider more directly the implications A How will State-led activities to address locational of the Social Inclusion Agenda for community organisations disadvantage be integrated with the Social Inclusion such as Melbourne Citymission. The aim is to ask critical Agenda? questions to aid the formulation of organisational positions A Will community organisations be able to translate any on the Agenda as well as on the value of social in/exclusion as flexibility that exists in shaping programs and priorities at an approach to disadvantage. the local level into an effective platform for advocacy? 139 As stated in the Introduction, this paper will resource Melbourne Citymission has considered the implications discussion and decision making within community organisations of the Social Inclusion Agenda for our strategic directions, regarding the following: our service delivery, and our research and advocacy. In our 1. Does social in/exclusion provide a useful framework for forthcoming Position Paper we describe our position on the understanding and addressing social disadvantage? Agenda and on the usefulness of social in/exclusion as an 2. What is needed to reduce or prevent social exclusion approach to disadvantage. A few key points are summarised and to promote social inclusion? in 7.1 and 7.2 below. 3. What are the key elements of the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda, and how might these intersect 7.1 implications of using a social in/exclusion approach to disadvantage with the priorities, agendas and values of organisations that work with disadvantaged populations and/or Understanding and addressing disadvantage in terms of social communities? in/exclusion has the following implications: 4. In light of these assessments, what should community A Disadvantage is understood as having multiple organisations prioritize? For example, what are the dimensions, including exclusion from the labour market, implications for the nature, scope, and method of our work? In access to services, and social relationships. While income this context, nature means the type of work we do (eg. is often a cause of social exclusion, it is not the only pre-employment programs with adults with a disability); dimension of concern. scope means how the service or program is conceptualised A Social exclusion is a process which involves restricted access (eg. a wrap-around service may seek to address both to opportunities, and limitations of the capabilities to capitalize housing affordability and income stability); and method on these opportunities. As such, the impacts of exclusion refers to different ways of working (eg. case management). can be compounded over time. Generational effects are Some key unresolved questions for community organisations also important, as children growing up in jobless in relation to the Social Inclusion Agenda are: households, for example, may experience limited opportunities in the education system. A Will government commit to resourcing the sector adequately to achieve its policy goals, especially in a context of increased needs due to the economic downturn? A To what extent will fundamental priorities and policies

be shaped by our experience and knowledge? 139 Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, paper to 2003 Social Inclusion Research Conference, p. 4 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 27

7.2 implications of the social inclusion agenda 7.3 useful strategic questions for community organisations A While some specific focus areas have been identified, the Social Inclusion Agenda is seen as the framework for all The following questions are designed to support organisational policy and programs. How it is implemented will therefore reflection on overall strategic directions: have wide ranging effects on community organis ations’ 1. With which population groups and places does the work with disadvantaged populations and communities. organisation currently work? A Early signs are that the Government views employment 2. What is needed to reduce or prevent exclusion and as a key means of promoting inclusion. However, it promote social inclusion for these people and places? remains to be seen whether the most deeply excluded 3. Should activities be redirected away from some areas of people will receive sufficient support in a range of areas current work? to enable them to transition to sustainable employment. 4. Should there be increased investment in particular areas This is particularly unclear at a time of economic crisis. and with particular populations? A There are indications that the Government, whilst 5. What is the right balance between population and place stating that it intends to restore advocacy as a key role based approaches? How does the agency conceptualise for the not-for-profit sector, will expect the sector to deliver these approaches and the relationships between them? according to the outcome measures established under 6. What criteria should be used to inform decisions about the Agenda. Much of the language used by ministers future opportunities? to describe the sector’s role —‘identifying gaps or 7. Are there differences between the organisation’s vision policy shortfalls’ and ‘giving advice and running key and the direction of Government policy? If so, which of programs’—suggests a limited degree of influence over these needs to change? fundamental underlying philosophies and aims. 8. What are the implications of the emphasis on paid A There is a risk that policies developed under the employment in the Federal Social Inclusion Agenda for umbrella of the Agenda will fail to take into account the people with whom we work? Are there structural the need for high levels of resources, and innovative and systemic limits to this route out of exclusion for approaches, for the most disadvantaged Australians. some groups? How will people who remain excluded from the workforce be supported to live meaningful and valued lives? How should these considerations affect the organisation’s response to the Agenda and its work to bring about cultural change? 9. Can the organisation demonstrate that it is making a difference—promoting social inclusion, and preventing or reducing social exclusion? Are sufficient resources directed into the development of organizational capacity to demonstrate outcomes? 10. What is required to resource inclusion for the people with whom the agency works? What opportunities are there within the Agenda policy areas to secure ongoing funding for existing or new programs which provide genuine opportunities to address existing barriers or to prevent deep exclusion? References

international publications australian federal government australian publications and conferences publications and speeches Michael Bach, Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Anglicare Australia, Creative Tension: Australia’s Rethinking the Child Rights Agenda, Homelessness White Paper, December Social Inclusion Agenda, State of the Working Paper Series: Perspectives on 24th 2008 Family 2008 Social Inclusion, for the Laidlaw Alan Hayes, Matthew Gray and Ben Edwards, Anglicare Australia, Discussion Paper: Social Foundation, June 2002 Social Inclusion: Origins, concepts and key Inclusion, http://www.anglicare.asn.au/ Ruth Levitas, The Idea of Social Inclusion, themes Australian Institute of Family documents/discussion_paper_social_ Paper to 2003 Social Inclusion Studies paper prepared for the Social inclusion.pdf Research Conference Inclusion Unit, Department of Prime Tony Fitzpatrick Social inclusion: Policy Julia Griggs, Adam Whitworth, Robert Walker, Minister and Cabinet, Commonwealth lessons from the UK—paper to David McLennan and Michael Noble, of Australia October 2008 Brotherhood of St Laurence’s Person- or place-based policies to tackle Julia Gillard MP and Senator Penny Wong, symposium, Social Inclusion Down disadvantage? Not knowing what works, An Australian Social Inclusion Agenda, Under, held on 26th June 2008 at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2008 Election 2007 Policy Document by the University of Melbourne Marvyn Novick, Prospects for Children: Life Australian Labor Party Government of South Australia People and Chances & Civic Society. Discussion paper Speech by Julia Gillard on Social innovation, Community at the Heart of Systems and for the Children at Risk Symposium, social impact: A new Australian agenda, Bureaucracy: South Australia’s Social Laidlaw Foundation, Toronto, cited in Canberra, 28th February 2008 Inclusion Initiative, February 2009 Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington, The Hon Julia Gillard MP, Speech to ACOSS Carrie Hayter, Report for National Ethnic Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion, National Conference 10th April 2008 Disability Alliance ( NEDA ), Cultural and Working Paper Series: Perspectives on National Compact Expert Panel Communique, Linguistic Inclusion?: Literature Review on Social Inclusion, for the Laidlaw released Monday 10th November 2008, Social Inclusion, Cohesion and Culture, Foundation, December 2002 accessed at www.socialinclusion.gov.au/ February 2009 Martha Nussbaum, ‘The Future of Feminist A_National_Compact Bruce Headey, A Framework for Assessing Liberalism’ in eds. E. Kittay and E. Joint Media Release with the Deputy Poverty, Disadvantage and Low Capabilities Feder, The Subject of Care, Lanham: Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard in Australia, based on the Melbourne Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, MP—Australian Social Inclusion Insitute 40th Anniversary Project, 2005 2003, cited in Values and Public Policy Board, 21st May 2008, p. 3, accessed at Tony Nicholson, The way ahead to an Conference Background Paper, p. 3 www.pm.pov.au/media/Release/2008/ authentically Australian approach to Guy Palmer, Tom MacInnes and Peter media_release_0256cfm social inclusion, speaking notes for Kenway, Monitoring poverty and social the Brotherhood of St Laurence’s exclusion 2008, report for the Joseph symposium, Social Inclusion Down Rowntree Foundation, December 2008, Under, held on 26th June 2008 at accessed at www.jrf.org.uk the University of Melbourne Martin Taylor, Transforming disadvantaged places: effective strategies for places and people, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Round-up, July 2008 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion 29

Peter Saunders and Kelly Sutherland with Professor Ruth Fincher, Issues of scale, melbourne citymission publications & internal documents Peter Davidson, Anne Hampshire, Susan Brotherhood of St Laurence and the King and Janet Taylor, Experiencing poverty: Department of Planning and Michael Horn, Measuring Poverty— the voices of low-income Australians— Community Development Social Appropriateness of using HILDA as a point Towards new indicators of disadvantage Inclusion and Place Based in time indicator of the prevalence of project Stage 1: Focus group outcomes, Social Disadvantage Workshop Proceedings, poverty or to monitor the persistence of Policy Research Centre, March 2006 13th June 2008 poverty, Internal Paper for Melbourne Peter Saunders, Yuvisthi Naidoo, and Dr Zoe Morrison, Place, social inclusion and Citymission, 2005 Megan Griffiths, Towards new indicators ‘cultural justice’: Reflections on the British Strategic Directions 2006–10, Melbourne of disadvantage: deprivation and social experience—a place-based social exclusion Citymission, 2006 exclusion in Australia, Social Policy policy case study, Brotherhood of St Research Centre, November 2007 Laurence and the Department of Peter Saunders and K. Tsumori, Poverty in Planning and Community Development Australia. Beyond the Rhetoric, Policy Social Inclusion and Place Based Monograph No. 57, Centre for Disadvantage Workshop Proceedings, Independent Studies, Sydney 13th June 2008 Peter Saunders and Melissa Wong, Still Professor Paul Smyth, Place based policy at doing it tough: an update on deprivation the crossroads: A summary report of the and social exclusion among welfare service social inclusion and place based clients, Social Policy Research Centre, disadvantage workshop, August 2008 July 2009 Professor Paul Smyth, Social Inclusion and Christopher Scanlon, 21/01/08, Canberra Place Based Disadvantage: The Australian Times Context Brotherhood of St Laurence and Professor Paul Smyth, Corporate Social Department of Planning and Community Responsibility and Social Inclusion: the Development Social Inclusion and Australian Context, Speech to Workshop Place Based Disadvantage Workshop …? Proceedings 13th June 2008 Joan Staples, ‘Why we do what we do: the Victorian Government Department of democratic role of the sector in Planning and Community Development, society’, Community Futures Task Social Inclusion: a Victorian Approach, Group, November 2007, cited in December 2008 Anglicare Australia Creative Tension Brotherhood of St Laurence and Department of Planning and Community Development Social Inclusion and Place Based Disadvantage Workshop June 2008 pub 09-064 34 Melbourne Citymission Foundation Paper: Social In/Exclusion

www.melbournecitymission.org.au