Applying place-based approaches to strengthen social and community support systems

Applying place-based approaches to strengthen social and community support systems

by

As strategic partners of Spring Impact, we have been pleased to coordinate an international study of place-based approaches to early childhood development this year with support from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. The term ‘place-based’ was new to us, but it soon became clear how this way of thinking and doing underpins much of our work.

Place-based approaches shift the focus of development practice from projects and programs to place, meaning a particular sub-national geographic area such as a county, district, or municipality. The logic underlying these approaches is that wellbeing is closely tied to geography, and that improving the situation for people living there requires adaptive, responsive, and cooperative action by a diverse array of actors. Instead of prescribing a particular set of activities to address a complex social need or problem, place-based approaches compel a wide range of people from different sectors and sections of the community to ask, ‘How can we work together to make this a better place?’

This logic links social impact to locally-driven action. If wellbeing is closely tied to geography, and improving the situation for people living there requires adaptive and responsive action, then no one is better positioned to drive that action than the people most closely connected to that place. While many approaches to social and economic development value local participation and empowerment, place-based approaches frame local leadership, information, and decision-making as absolutely crucial to success.

This resonates strongly with our experience in social development settings. For example:

Stronger Communities for Children

The Stronger Communities for Children (SCfC) initiative strengthens capacity in remote Aboriginal communities to give children the best start in life. Working closely with our partners at Ninti One, and funded by the Australian Government, we have aimed to ensure that local people have a real say in decisions made about service delivery. In 2017, Community Works conducted a literature review on Collective Impact that informed the strategic framework used by Ninti One to design and implement SCfC. Since then, Steve Fisher has worked closely with local communities to plan, monitor, evaluate, and learn from the initiative. Their guide for measuring local change can be viewed here.  Listen to community board members discuss their experiences with SCfC here.

Mental Health Friendly Cities  

Community Works has supported the Mental Health Friendly Cities initiative since its inception as a key partner of citiesRISE, a global platform for transforming mental health policy and practice. The initiative focuses on urban municipalities as drivers of change, places where cross-sectoral cooperation to integrate measures for improving mental health can lead broader systems change. Mental Health Friendly Cities facilitate and leverage leadership by young people to change the narrative around mental health, improve access to support, foster social cohesion and create environments that are conducive to wellbeing. Coordinated action at the local level and sharing of knowledge across cities are crucial factors in identifying proven solutions and accelerating their uptake.

Grant Activity Reviews

In partnership with Ninti One, Community Works has been reviewing a government-funded program for socio-economic development in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. These reviews are ‘place-based’ in the sense that evaluation teams take a holistic, cross-sectoral approach to understanding the impact of the program in specific remote areas, and determining strategies for improvement that build on local strengths and target the needs and aspirations of local people. Part of Community Works’ role in this work has been to prepare briefing reports that equip evaluation teams with rich contextual information about each place they visit, including local history, demographics, health and education data, culture, and topical issues that should be factored into the review process.

In each of the examples above, we work with our partners to take an in-depth, holistic look into particular places and how they function, in order to empower local people to drive programs and services that produce social benefits for the whole population. 

At Community Works, we understand that strong, healthy and empowered communities are basic building blocks for development. In our experience, place-based approaches are especially powerful when working with First Nations and other communities whose identities and belief systems are closely tied to land. From this cultural standpoint, place-based thinking is highly intuitive.

As national and international development agencies and funding bodies become more interested in place-based approaches, we see great potential for improving the alignment of large-scale initiatives with local agendas, value systems and ways of thinking. Investing in a place-based approach means supporting strong relationships between people working together for positive social change. It means strengthening information flows from communities to service providers to governments and back again. It means trusting the people most closely connected to a place to drive local decision-making, because they are the ones best positioned to lead progress toward a shared vision. For national and international agencies, it means playing a supporting role rather than the lead.

For all of these reasons, Community Works sees place-based thinking as both highly compatible with self-determination and highly pragmatic when it comes to achieving better outcomes for disadvantaged populations.  We look forward to contributing to the emerging evidence base on these approaches, and continuing to work with our partners to support best practice.

Click here to read our report ‘Scaling up place-based strategies to strengthen community early childhood systems’

The art of making toolkits

The art of making toolkits

by

In the development sector, toolkits refer to a set of information that is brought together with the aim of providing guidelines for best practice or to orient the implementation of a model or service.

The art of making toolkits

During the past six months I have been involved in the process of developing a toolkit while working as part of the team of Community Works. In the development sector, toolkits refer to a set of information that is brought together with the aim of providing guidelines for best practice or to orient the implementation of a model or service. They contain one or more documents that present procedures and methodologies related with a given approach, as well as practical exercises, reflection questions or recommendations to be used as tools by implementers. Toolkits are helpful for organisations that are expanding or scaling up their model, serving as a way of transmitting the information and orienting decision-makers or program managers. Also as a training guide or textbook for field-based workers.

Throughout this process I noticed two ideas and I would like to share them with you. First, the knowhow and experience of Community Works has led its team to develop toolkits as an art. Knowing what needs to be done, Community Works has the capacity to facilitate a consultation process – not as a method that follows rigid steps, but as an artistic endeavor oriented to create a document as a product. This is similar to the case of an architect who goes through a creative process with the aim of designing a building or structure with a functional design.

Second, the toolkit development process has the power to generate an intangible and sometimes unexpected result: the growth and development of the organisations and actors involved. Besides creating documents and materials, the process itself operates as a platform for organisations to reflect and discuss, as well as bring together experiences and ideas. Toolkit development serves as a ‘mirror’ – reflecting gaps, strengths, and points where operational decisions need to be made. Although this might be confronting, it also serves as an invitation for development and growth.

Toolkits as an art

Approaching toolkit development as an art relies on the ability of learning the rules first. Throughout the experience of creating toolkits, Community Works’ members have learnt what works best. Examples are the importance of doing fieldwork and talking to those delivering and receiving the service, asking for the necessary documents and materials and knowing how to ask the right questions. Once it is clear how to combine these elements and how to navigate oceans of information, the possibility for creation intensifies. With experience comes the ability to identify patterns without trying to control the non-linearity and other characteristics that require an artist’s mindset to approach this process.

  • Non-linearity: Developing a toolkit requires constant consultation and discussion between the client and Community Works. Spoken dialogue is a key element of the process, especially at the early stages of the project. This might include Skype discussions, in-person workshops or phone conversations. Additionally, written drafts might go back and forth, exchanging comments and feedback. In some cases, it is necessary to come to previous versions and even re-write some sections. Rather than trying to look for a linear process, I learnt to embrace this non-linearity and sense the richness that this ‘messiness’ brings to the table.
  • Bringing the threads together: Creating a toolkit involves bringing together information from diverse sources as well as ideas from different people. Also, different clients and projects may require different approaches and it is only until the work begins that this becomes evident. There is no model for how to do this, so it requires the intuitive skill of an artist, weaving the threads that might seem ‘loose pieces’ to make a design that effectively delivers a message.
  • Language and writing style: Finding the appropriate ‘toolkit language’ and writing style requires time and sensitivity, as well as consultation with the client organisation.
  • Graphics, images and text: Every element of the toolkit has a reason for being there. It is meant to complement in a creative way the rest of the information in that same page. Finding the right balance is also part of the art.

The non-linearity of the process, the diversity of voices and information, the language, as well as the challenge of finding a balance between graphics, images and text, require more than following a recipe’s steps. Connecting the dots and bringing the different threads together is not the work of an isolated artist, or of Community Works on its own, but a process in which all the actors involved are immersed.

Toolkits as a mirror

Understanding toolkit development as a mirror, allows us to grasp its potential. Toolkits become an opportunity for growth since it is through the process of ‘telling the story’ that strengths, gaps and inconsistencies become evident. Besides allowing organisations to materialize their models, information and procedures to be shared with others, it serves as a platform for internal growth.

Has it happened to you that when ‘telling the story’ to others you might notice new elements you were not aware of before?

Well, something similar happens when developing a toolkit. Although things might seem clear and defined – divergent perspectives or things to be defined often show up. Furthermore, this process might bring together voices of people within an organisation that might have not shared a common space before. This is why toolkits might generate this ‘mirroring effect’, which might generate discomfort to the people and teams involved, including Community Works!

It was surprising to see how this ‘mirroring effect’ transcends the client/consultant divide, and turns into a process in which everyone is involved. In some cases Community Works asks questions or give recommendations that might contribute to the process of the client. However, in some occasions this happens the other way around. The questions and recommendations of the client end up enriching the content of the toolkit.

However – despite the temporary discomfort the process might bring, the good news is that it offers an opportunity for working out those situations. The urgency of decision-making needed for developing a toolkit, encourages the actors involved to discuss, reflect and decide what will be communicated in the documents. For example, some members of the client organisation might argue how partner organisations should follow the same data collection tools, while others will claim this is something for Project Managers to decide. During the process of making a toolkit this divergence might be identified, and members of the organisation are encouraged to make a decision with the aim of presenting this topic in a clear way.

Participating in a toolkit development process has been an inspiring experience, evidencing the richness that comes when bringing together different teams and groups of people. At the end, the mirror that reflects towards both sides evidences the power of dialogue between two individuals or groups of people. It is from this interaction, questioning and mirroring that gaps and tensions are identified. Although the process might be confronting, it also offers the possibility of growth by opening a space for discussion and negotiation. This also shows how dialogue serves to navigate chaos and messiness to arrive to a more clear, beautiful and functional design.

Key strategic choices in scaling successful projects and programs

Key strategic choices in scaling successful projects and programs

by

DRUMBEAT is the world’s first structured learning program using music, psychology and neurobiology.

Through our relationship with the International Centre for Social Franchising, we have been helping organisations wishing to scale-up their work. One such example is a project with Holyoake, the Australian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Addiction Resolutions. Without going into matters that are the business of Holyoake alone, this article presents some of the insights we have gained through this and other project work and which have relevance to scaling and replication work more broadly.

Holyoake asked us to help their team explore options for developing a model for replicating DRUMBEAT in other countries through a franchise system. DRUMBEAT is the world’s first structured learning program using music, psychology and neurobiology. The acronym stands for Discovering Relationships Using Music, Beliefs, Emotions, Attitudes, and Thoughts. Beneficiaries of the program tend to be people seeking to improve their relationships and it has wide application in schools, mental health services, aged care and prisons.

First of all, some definitions. Social replication refers to the process of establishing a successful social-purpose project in a new location. Scaling-up is a program of work that enables social-purpose projects to be adapted to multiple locations. ICSF uses a replication scale to help organisations think through the best scaling strategy for them.

A discussion that often takes place is around the pros and cons of franchising and licensing as competing strategies. In deciding on which of these options to prioritise, there are commonly four factors to consider:

  • Desired degree of control; if an organisation desires close management of the work of implementers of its projects or services, then a franchise agreement is likely to be more suitable than a licence agreement.
  • Level of ambition; although licence agreements allow for targets to be set, the relationship provided by a franchise agreement is more conducive to striving for financial and especially impact targets.
  • Quality assurance; generally a closer and more hands-on approach to quality assurance is expected within a franchise framework than the focus on distance management that tends to come with licensing.
  • Relationship development; as implied in the previous above, a licensing arrangement places less emphasis on regular interaction between originator and implementer than social franchising does.

If social franchising and licensing emerge as two leading options, these four topics provide a starting point for a discussion on the most suitable option for an organisation to use.

Once a particular option for scaling has been chosen, attention usually turns to the design of a system for scaling. Again, a common area of discussion and debate is around the kinds of individuals, enterprises or organisations that might be recruited to become implementers in their locations. It can be useful to think in term of categories or profiles of implementers that represent different characteristics.

For example, a Category 1 Implementer might be a medium to large organisation based in an urban area with access to good infrastructure and specialised staff. It could be private sector or non-profit, such as a major health provider, with a large number of clients using services on a regular basis and a high enough financial turnover to enable investment in new initiatives.

A Category 2 Implementer could be a small- to medium-sized organisation, well-established as a social enterprise serving clients within a well-defined area. It operates a small number of services in high-demand locally and is seeking to innovate through new ideas, for which a reasonable demand has been identified. Needs to attract funding for new work, but has a reputation for quality and results meaning that existing funders might be open to supporting a scaling strategy.

A Category 3 Implementer could be a small community-based or grassroots organisation, possibly located in a rural or remote area with a lower population density than urban settings. It might have strong community networks and support and be working with vulnerable or marginalised groups such as disengaged youth or lone parents. It could have limited organisational resources and infrastructure, few specialised professionals and individual staff often covering more than one organisational function eg management and training.
The value of this approach to designing a network of implementers is that it brings a practical focus to the subject. The purpose of recruiting different categories of franchisee is to achieve the right balance of financial sustainability and impact that is fundamental to a successful process of scaling up.
Strategies for scaling is a fascinating topic as it goes to the heart of how the social and community sector can best maximise its impact for the people it serves. DRUMBEAT is an excellent example of a proven program with great potential.

Transaction and transformation in the work of civil society organisations

Transaction and transformation in the work of civil society organisations

by

Thinking about the services that organisations in the social sector provide to their clients and the difference it makes for them in the long term.

Recent project work has led me to think about the services that organisations in the social sector provide to their clients and the difference it makes for them in the long term. In our sector, we spend a lot of effort making sure services are maintained on a day-to-day basis and that they comply with certain standards. While this is essential, of course, it is important to keep sight of the long-term objectives of a service or program.

Here is an example. I recently helped run some interviews and focus groups for people with disabilities living in isolated settlements in the north of Australia. The aim was to inform the design of services for this group of people and their carers. One insight that emerged was around the balance between their everyday needs being met and changes to their overall quality of life being achieved. On the one hand, individuals worry a lot about being able to move around in their homes as safely and efficiently as possible. Ramps in key locations, for example, are a part of achieving that. On the other hand, people are also trying to tackle the ongoing problems of, for example, isolation or not being able to spend time with family members or visit places special to them.

Another example comes from support for individuals and groups to start small enterprises. The work we have done with Enterprise Learning Projects and with BeadforLife comes to mind. Both organisations help people in situations of disadvantage build their confidence and skills in business. Again, there are tangible benefits to be achieved from income and skill development. And there are longer-term and more esoteric changes that come from growth in people’s confidence, self-reliance, connectedness and a stronger place in the wider economy.

In these examples, there is a dynamic between transactional work and transformational work. The transactional component is often day-to-day, regular service of some kind. It might be a home visit for a person with a disability or refresher training for small-scale entrepreneurs. The transformational part is what happens in the longer term, especially the difference to people’s quality of life that comes from reduced isolation, for example, or greater confidence and self-esteem. The key is for everyone involved to keep both the transactional and transformational aspects of the work front and centre of their thinking. While we might spend a lot of time working on the everyday, it is critical to never lose sight of the overall ambition of the work.

More of what works

More of what works

by

I have received a few enquiries recently from organisations wishing to talk about how they can replicate projects that have achieved success in one location and offer potential elsewhere. This subject animates many people in the community sector.

Here are some insights from these conversations:

Starting without money

A common question for small community organisations refers to the level of investment they need to make to be able to replicate. The short answer is that it depends on the kind of project they want to scale. A program that is already operating through volunteers and focuses less on meeting the needs of customers than providing some kind of additional community benefit will require investment in identifying new implementers and supporting them. An example might be environmental care programs. On the other hand, a staff-intensive social service such as a food recycling program or a drop-in centre will require an intensity of support and infrastructure to ensure it delivers to its potential in a new location.

Seminar Paricipants

Over 50 organisations participated in a seminar we recently held in Buenos Aires on the subject of social franchising, in conjunction with RACI, the Argentinian Network for International Cooperation

Relationships are good but formal ones are better

It can be easy to embark on a scaling-up plan through identifying like-minded organisations and then coming to an informal understanding about how they will use your experience in their own locality. This is all very well until inevitable questions arise about aspects of the work, especially intellectual property. If one organisation develops a model of practice over many years, provides it to another and finds that the original idea is changed, used in different ways than envisaged or even that the new organisation becomes well-known for its work, tensions can understandably arise. Replication is often more effective if business-like agreements are formalised from the outset and not left to chance.

Levels of control

Associated with intellectual property is the question of control. To what extent should an organisation impose controls on the use of its ideas by another? In wholly-owned or joint ventures, control is exerted through management and ownership. In franchising arrangements, much depends on the scope and nature or what is being scaled. Some organisations find the notion of introducing controls to a social impact project to be uncomfortable. In that case, a better perspective is to think about ways of maintaining quality and positive impact for the ultimate beneficiary individuals, families and communities. These often turn out to require a level of formal control.

The International Centre for Social Franchising (ICSF), represented in Australia by Community Works, uses a spectrum of replication that is a good starting point for discussions with organisations seeking to scale up.

scale

This spectrum is enormously helpful in the early stages of thinking through options for growth and expansion of any organisation, project, program or service.

For more on this subject, the UK Big Lottery Fund has an initiative called Realising Ambition and an associated discussion forum on the subject of ‘what works when replicating’, which can be found here: https://community.biglotteryfund.org.uk/uk-wide/what-works-when-replicating/default.aspx

With Maria Rodrigues, I am working on a paper called ‘More of what works’, which will bring together our current thinking on replication in remote Australia and will be published by Ninti One.