Apollo Bay Community Capacity Project

AAPOLLOPOLLO BBAYAY CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCAPACITYAPACITY PPROJECTROJECT ‘Community capacity building: measuring social capital to improve health in Apollo Bay’ FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2001 Deborah Jennings and Peter McNair Victorian Public Health Training Scheme Charles Gibson and Leanne Madden Performance and Quality Improvement Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region Under the direction of the Apollo Bay Community Consultative Committee AAPOLLOPOLLO BBAYAY CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCAPACITYAPACITY PPROJECTROJECT ‘Community capacity building: measuring social capital to improve health in Apollo Bay’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL REPORT—DECEMBER 2001 Deborah Jennings and Peter McNair Victorian Public Health Training Scheme Charles Gibson and Leanne Madden Performance and Quality Improvement Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region Under the direction of the Apollo Bay Community Consultative Committee Executive Summary Introduction The Apollo Bay Community Capacity Project (ABCCP) resulted from the keen interest of the Barwon-South West Region of the Department of Human Services (DHS) to explore the measurement of social capital and apply the community capacity building model to improve health outcomes in small rural communities. Strengthening community capacity is considered a method of empowering communities to respond to the compounding effects of infrastructure decline, rapid change and increasing social difficulties. Measuring Social Capital and Health The study has drawn on the range of issues being considered by government and academics with regard to community capacity building as a means to improve health outcomes. Increasingly, there is a strong role for government to support regional initiatives for growth and economic viability. Through access to educational opportunities, skills development, technological capacity, diversification of industry and promotion of rural areas as worthy investment choices, rural areas are able to readjust and be opportunist in the face of change. Resourcefulness, innovation and self-determination are recognised features of rural Australia and it is becoming increasingly clear that these strengths need to be encouraged and supported. What is social capital? There has been considerable debate and discourse regarding the definition of ‘social capital’. For the purposes of this project, the conceptual definition of ‘social capital’ utilised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in their recent discussion paper Measuring Social Capital: Current Collections and Future Directions, is used. Hence, social capital refers to the processes between people which establish networks, norms and trust enabling co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit (Cox, 1995). Social capital is the ‘glue’ that holds communities and groups together. Historically, rural areas and rural communities have been characterised by their ‘cohesiveness’, their strong social and environmental networks and their sense of ‘reassuring familiarity’ and ‘safety’. In short, rural life provided a sense of belonging for its members with inter-relationships built on trust. This was the ideal of life in the bush, a highly sought after retreat for many from the pace and anonymity of urban life, a self-selected ‘better quality’ way of life for individuals and their families. Yet, in sharp contrast, rural life can also result in a narcissistic, socially controlling, backward existence for those who can’t afford to, or choose not to, live in the cities. This is sometimes described as the dark side of social capital. This represents polar views of rural life and of social capital. There are many advantages to living in a community built on trust, reciprocity and networks for mutual support. The enhancement of government performance and the effective functioning of democracy, the prevention of crime and violence, the improvement of population health and an increase in productivity and economic growth, are positive outcomes of a community rich in social capital (Cox 1995, Kawachi & Kennedy 1997, Guenther & Falk in press). Unfortunately, there are indications that social capital is eroding in many communities. People no longer feel safe in their neighbourhoods, they spend less time participating in community groups and clubs and there has been a loss of trust in governments and other forms of authority. Changed work practices and communication technologies have resulted in reduced opportunities for social networking and civic engagement. There have also been increasing demands for volunteers to contribute to community infrastructure. The existence of and capacity to build upon social capital represent great strengths present within rural communities. The development of trusting relationships and social networks is important for the sustainability of rural communities (Guenther & Falk, in press). Increasingly there has been an interest from governments, researchers and non-government organizations in strengthening community capacity through increasing its social capital. There is a strong incentive for social capital to be recognised as a protective factor for the health and well being of communities, as well as for economic prosperity and other mutual benefits of trust and social networks. A partnership approach between government and community can result in a recognition of, and subsequent investment in, the social capital of rural communities. Measures of social capital There have been a number of studies that have attempted to quantify and measure social capital. These have focused on measures of social and civic participation, membership of community groups or organizations and evidence of social norms associated with reciprocity and trust. Putnam calculated an index of ‘civic community’ for each region of Italy by combining sources of data providing information on people’s involvement in community life (Kawachi & Kennedy, 1997). Two of Putnam’s indicators for measuring social capital were: levels of civic trust and density of associated membership. He measured these by the extent of associational membership, newspaper readership and electoral turnout. Kawachi and Kennedy (1997) used Putnam’s indicators to measure social capital in a study in the United States by using the weighted responses to two items from the General Service Survey: per capita density of membership in groups (such as church groups, trade unions, sports groups and fraternal organizations) and the proportion of respondents who believed people could be trusted. They found strong correlations between income inequality with both low per capita group membership and low levels of social trust, and correspondingly with mortality rates. Bullen & Onyx (1998) conducted a study in 1995-96, to investigate empirical measurement of social capital in five communities in NSW, which included rural and urban communities. Five Neighbourhood Centres in these communities administered a questionnaire. The outcome of the study was the identification of eight core elements of social capital: · Participation in the local community · Pro-activity in a social context · Feelings of trust and safety · Neighbourhood connections · Family and friends connections · Tolerance of diversity · Value of life · Work connections. In 1997, Baum et al carried out a ‘Health and Participation Survey’ in the Western suburbs of Adelaide. Researchers found that participation in social and civic community life in an urban setting was influenced by individual socio-economic factors, health and other demographic variables. The questionnaire was developed from a series of pre-existing instruments and some measures developed specifically for the project. Health status, social isolation, demographic characteristics, types and levels of social and civic participation were measured using a range of indices including: · Social participation – informal (visits with neighbours, family, friends) · Social participation – in public places (outings to cafes, restaurants, movies, dances, parties) · Social participation – group activities (involved in sport, gym, class, hobby/music/support group) · Civic participation – individual activities (signed a petition, contacted a local MP, contacted local council, letter to the newspaper) · Civic participation – group activities (involved in community action group, trade union, political campaign, environmental action) · Community group participation – mix of social and civic (volunteer group, ethnic group, service club, church group, school-related group) The study identified that those with a low income and level of educational attainment tended to be lower participators in both social and civic activities. It also confirmed the importance of considering both social and civic participation as contributory factors to the development of networks and trust. The study provided empirical data with relation to social capital but also provided valuable descriptive data on the social spread of participation, important from a health, social policy and service planning perspective. Further investigation through follow- up case studies is planned to provide detail on the reasons why people participate or don’t participate in social and civic activities. A Tasmanian research team has carried out a recent study in two rural townships in Victoria (populations: 1383 and 1096 respectively) (Guenther & Falk, in press). A ‘community trust survey’ was mailed to households, interviews were carried out with selected community representatives and focus groups were conducted

Load more