1. Introduction

1.1 Social capital and early intervention—strengthening communities
1.2 Methodological approach of the literature study
1.3 Methodological approach of the cost-benefit analysis

1.1 Social capital and early intervention—strengthening communities

Social capital and civil society

Recent debate around the issues facing contemporary society has identified the fragmentation of communities and related challenges to families as a central concern. Cox (1995) defines the core 'problem' as that of the weakening of social capital, with the associated need for policy to address this and to strengthen communities by promoting the growth of social capital. Cox is clear that the term social capital ' …refers to the processes between people which establish networks, norms and social trust and facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit' (1995, p. 15).

Social capital is the sum of relationships and networks that make for a flourishing society, that provide the basis for a general sense of wellbeing and promote integration. Although this concept draws on economic language, it concerns 'the good' in the sense of values attached to the experience of social life rather than to 'goods' in the populist sense sometimes attached to this term. Flourishing local economies may be a consequence of social capital, but they are not synonymous (Gittell & Vidal 1998, p. 19). Falk and Harrison (1998, p. 3) go further and argue that a strong economy is an effect, rather than a cause of strong civil society.

Understood thus, social capital (Cox 1995, pp. 16-19) consists of:

trust—a reciprocal respect for each other shared by members of a society, that includes a positive regard for difference and a sense of mutuality;
cooperation—a willingness to be involved in shared enterprises that does not depend on an immediate and concrete equality of exchange but is based on a give-and-take in which reciprocation is achieved in a more complex way;
time—that the social world (including employment) is organised in such a way that people have the capacity to engage with their fellow citizens;
voluntarism—both the capacity and the willingness to be active in society of people's own volition;
community—the sense that the immediate society within which people live and work is something of which they are part; and
democracy—that the social and political structures (at all levels) are based on the involvement of citizens in ways that incorporate all the above.

Cox draws her use of the notion of social capital from the work of Putnam (1993). He had previously summarised the concept, and the importance that it has for strengthening or weakening communities, as one of the central themes of debate about the nature of modern society (Putnam 1993, pp. 163-67). The issue to be addressed is why and how societies vary in the extent to which they are 'civil' (that is, achieve strength through the elements listed by Cox (above)). Yet Putnam is clear that civil society and strong community should not be associated with 'traditionalism'; and that modernity is not necessarily the enemy of civility (p. 114). Putnam associates civil society with 'enlightened self-interest', not 'altruism', as against 'myopic self- interest'—'self interest that is alive to the interests of others' (p. 88). Mutuality or reciprocity is the basis of a strong community, expressing the value that it is good for a person to address the needs of others because by doing this, their own needs will be met. It is immediately apparent that the elements described by Cox are necessary for this to be accomplished.

Gray extends this question by noting that in the most recent times, the differences of opinion and values in our societies have become so great that the most effective way to understand the relations of a civil society is through notions of 'complex fairness' (1996, p. 47). In these circumstances, the strengthening of communities, even the possibility of 'community', will only be achievable if the virtuous circles of civic trust, norms, networks and reciprocity are facilitated and sustained (Putnam 1993, p. 177). Interestingly, Putnam points to the way in which relatively informal voluntary associations are an important part of the way that this can be achieved. Choral societies, sports clubs and community service organisations are the barometer of strong communities and at the same time central parts of the ways in which that strength is developed. The 'depletion of volunteering' as observed recently in many western societies is an example of this barometer falling, and so can be taken as a negative measure of social capital (Falk & Harrison 1998, p. 18).

Gittell and Vidal (1998) make a distinction between 'bonding capital' and 'building capital'. The former is that which 'brings closer together people who already know each other', while the latter 'brings together people who previously did not know each other' (p. 15). Although a simple conceptual distinction, it may be important when applying the idea of social capital to policy development. That which 'bonds' may not 'build', while 'building' may be seen as of equal importance as a policy objective, and so on. This is especially the case in those communities where there are 'structural holes' (Gittell & Vidal 1998, p. 20), which is a metaphor for people and groups who could benefit from connection with each other but who are limited by social structures from developing those connections.

Analysts in this field agree that to promote civil society, build social capital and strengthen communities, it is necessary for governments to develop policies that promote, facilitate or support the various elements that go to make up the necessary community infrastructure (Cox

1995; Gray 1996). In particular, this suggests that government has a key role not only in the formation of policy but also through more tangible assistance to voluntary and non-government effort by those people in communities who seek to respond to the needs around them. Such a role is likely to be congruent with the task of government in promoting economic and fiscal development—indeed as Woolcock (1998) argues, economic growth is likely to be tied to the fate of civil society and the 'returns' to be gained from 'investment' in social capital. The challenge is for government intervention to facilitate and empower community strength rather than to be a 'top down' provider of solutions. The causal chain runs from civil society to economic wellbeing by way of stronger communities (Falk & Harrison 1998, p. 18).

Paldam and Svensden (1999, p .3) have distinguished between positive and egative indicators (or measures) of social capital. The positive indicators are those elements listed above. The negative indicators are those phenomena more usually referred to as social issues or problems, such as crime, endemic high levels of health morbidity, family breakdown and isolation of seniors. As these authors point out, it is perhaps more difficult to measure something such as 'trust' (1999, p. 10) and yet they cite some of this can be achieved by using Putnam's (1993) discussion as a basis. However, this work is preliminary and although it has generated possible economic modelling techniques, it is noted that these require further evaluative evidence before they can be regarded as robust (Paldam & Svensden 1999, p. 31).

Prevention and early intervention strategies

Contemporary evidence concerning the effectiveness of social intervention shows that while the targeting of intensive high-cost interventions to those most in need is efficient in managing the demand for health and human services, balancing this with prevention and early intervention strategies is also necessary (Smith 1999). These two terms refer to elements in the overall range of points at which particular issues may be addressed by policy and program development. They may be distinguished quite simply:

prevention—programs and practices that intervene with individuals, families or communities to stop the occurrence of a problem or issue that could otherwise be expected; and
early intervention—programs and practices that intervene with individuals, families or communities at an early stage in the occurrence of a problem or issue in such a way that there is a high probability that the intervention will resolve the problem or issue and stop it from becoming worse.

Therefore, although there is a difference between the two approaches, it can be seen that they are also closely connected (Chamberlain & Mackenzie 1998, p. 115). In some programs they are separated, while in many they are treated as two parts of the same strategy. There are also instances where the distinction may be further blurred by reference to 'primary' and 'secondary' prevention, in which the latter term is synonymous with early intervention (Cox, 1997 p. 247; Chamberlain & Mackenzie 1998, p. 116). The blurring arises because the problems and issues develop over time in a complex relationship of causes and effects, rather than being a single cause-effect event with a sharply defined start and finish.

Prevention and early intervention strategies have increasingly become regarded as necessary, although not sufficient elements of community development (Sowers et al. 1996, p. 225; Reppucci et al. 1999). This is not to deny that continuing or acute primary health and other community services have a role. The work of Keating and Mustard (1993) for example, clearly demonstrates the community benefits (including those of economic growth) of early intervention programs with very young children and their parents. However, the importance of prevention and early intervention derives from the way in which they are a means to empowering communities to exercise greater independence and self-reliance. Of particular significance in this regard is the connection between social capital (both 'building' and 'bonding') and the strategies of prevention and early intervention. The objectives of these strategies can be summarised in terms of increasing the strength of communities by working with and through the communities themselves. If programs are to be successful, the means and ends of community development need to be congruent in this way (Sowers et al. 1996; Gittell & Vidal 1998).

A distinction is often made, in practice as well as in theory, between 'community-based' and 'community (development)' programs. The former term is applied to those programs that have individuals and families as their main objective and their means of intervention. Both the ends and the means of the latter category are communities as a whole, in which interventions with individuals and families are at the level of the social relationships between them. However, as the evidence summarised in this report demonstrates, this distinction may mask the extent to which community-based programs may have tangible benefits for the development of communities and, vice versa, community development may also bring benefits to individuals and families.

Principles of community development that are also encapsulated in community-based prevention and early intervention strategies are:

a 'bottom-up' approach—working from the perspectives of people within a community in the definition of social issues and appropriate program responses;
participation—the active involvement of community members in all aspects of programs (this includes the engagement and motivation of participants, especially when it facilitates the emergence of local leadership);
a 'strengths' perspective'—rather than focusing solely on problems and deficiencies, building on existing strengths in a community as a resource for programs; and
empowerment—promoting community self-reliance and (including working 'with' and 'for' as the appropriate orientation of professionals involved in programs).

These principles are widely regarded as the keynotes of effective community development (Lackey & Gersham 1992; Sowers et al. 1996; Kaplan 1997; Chamberlain & Mackenzie 1998; Gittell & Vidal 1998). They are also highly congruent with the elements of social capital, including trust, cooperation, voluntarism, community and democracy (see discussion on social capital above).

Prevention and early intervention strategies are found in a wide range of community programs. These include programs for early childhood, young people, Indigenous people and seniors. The issues addressed include drug and alcohol dependence, homelessness, crime, mental health (including suicide), physical health, child protection and intergenerational issues. In each instance, the programs in question aim to integrate a response based on a particular issue with a more general sense of community building that can be seen in terms of social capital accumulation. Yet in many instances, the focus of programs and community services more generally on prevention and early intervention, do so in terms of community deficits. In the light of the connections between social capital and effective community building through early intervention strategies, there is a need to consider the positive indicators that may be used as 'measures' of stronger communities.

From the literature that addresses the connections between social capital and prevention and early intervention, there is a range of positive indicators that can be identified (Putnam 1993; Cox 1995; Sowers et al. 1996; Gittell & Vidal 1998; Paldam & Svensden 1999). In turn, these can be divided between social indicators (SI) of building resilience and indicators of stronger communities (SC). The SI measures are those factors through which it is possible to see the social effects of strengthening communities, while the SC measures are the important elements of stronger communities. The literature supports the delineation of six SI factors and five SC indicators. These are:

Social indicators

strengthened local economic capacity
reduced crime (including vandalism)
reduced welfare dependency
better health outcomes
reduced long-term unemployment
increased social capital (as defined above)

Stronger communities indicators

knowledge and skills, including volunteering
networks and partnerships
community leadership
local solutions to local problems
community capacity to use best practice.

These indicators draw explicitly on the dimensions of civil society identified by Putnam (1993) that were further developed by other analysts already cited. It is argued that the strength of communities is revealed in the ways in which the following questions may be answered about a locality:

Is the knowledge and skill in dealing with social issues at the local level shared informally within a community?
Is there a high level of voluntary effort in community life?
Are there networks and partnerships between community members in a variety of aspects of shared community life?
Is there identifiable leadership within the community?
Is the community able to generate local solutions to the problems that it faces at a local level?
Does the community have the capacity to make use of the best models or practices for community building to resolve problems and respond to issues?

The SC indicators can be used to identify the extent to which a particular community has the potential resilience to deal with issues and resolve problems locally. These indicators incorporate the principles of social capital development discussed above, including bottom-up approaches, local solutions, partnerships, networks, active social participation including volunteering, increased self-reliance, sharing best practice, and gaining skills and knowledge (Smith & Herbert 1997). So it may be noted that community strength is associated with social capital development and a strong civil society. It is also important to note that both the theoretical work and the empirical studies of strength in communities emphasise the ways in which these elements are linked.

It is these indicators that form the basis of the Stronger Communities Strategy announced by the Federal Government in 1999 (Newman 1999, p. 4). This statement outlined the strategy as '…the vehicle for promoting self-reliant communities [and] build[ing] leadership and local skills' (p. 5). This strategy incorporates the SC indicators discussed above, focusing on local leadership, extensive skills and knowledge, and strong networks and partnerships. The strategy includes all sectors—government, business, and not-for-profit welfare organisations as well as individuals and community groups.

Figure 1 displays the analytic framework of this study in graphic format. It shows the connection between programs that have the goal of strengthening communities, the indicators of strong communities and the positive social indicators that may be used to chart and evaluate success.

Figure 1: Analytic framework of strengthening communities' indicators

The purpose of this study is to examine evaluative material to see whether this connection is plausible. In other words, what is the evidence that interventions in the form of programs that seek to develop stronger communities and measurable positive social outcomes are connected in this way? Furthermore, what is the evidence that there is a cost-benefit to be achieved by government supporting such programs?

This is not to say that these indicators can be treated deterministically—that is, a particular position in relation to one indicator will not of itself provide a way of establishing exactly where a community will be in its development in relation to any other indicator. However, in broad terms it may be expected that a similar direction of movement will be seen in relation to all indicators if a community is weakening or becoming stronger (Putnam 1993; Gittell & Vidal, 1998). Therefore, these indicators have been used in this study to report on the relevance of particular projects and approaches as a basis for building resilience and strength in communities.

It should also be noted that the extent to which prevention and early intervention programs explicitly address the development of social capital and the building of stronger communities varies greatly between specific cases.

This is reflected in the presentation and discussion of programs in the following chapters where there are underlying or tangential gains in building social capital and stronger communities alongside the benefits that are intended and explicit.

To explain how projects that incorporate these factors and demonstrate a contribution to strengthening communities have been identified, and how this evidence has been evaluated, the following parts of this introduction discuss the methodologies of the literature study and of the cost-benefit analysis.

1.2 Methodological approach of the literature study

This study focuses on reviewing relevant national and international literature on community- based approaches to responding to family and community problems by:

reporting on the financial implications of prevention and early intervention approaches with reference to the five factors of the FaCS' Stronger Communities Strategy (see SC indicators listed above) and emphasising the short-term and long-term costs and benefits of investing in these approaches; and
where appropriate, extrapolating the benefits of particular local projects to estimate what the costs and benefits would be if that approach, or a similar one, were to be applied nationwide.

The strength of this meta-analysis and extent of the cost-benefit analysis relies on the scope and potency of underlying literature in providing the information required. In the search for materials, a large number of programs were identified that appeared to relate to the theme of stronger communities, but they could not be included because of the absence of any evaluation or because the literature did not contain sufficient detail. The researchers therefore focused on accessing materials that would be accessible within the required timeframe. Where gaps have been identified and the potential for further study is identifiable, this has been addressed at relevant points throughout the study.

The literature review was based on an extensive database (via ERIC, ATSIROM, AUSTROM, BIDS IBIS, SOCIAL SCIENCE ABSTRACTS, SOCIAL WORK ABSTRACTS and SOCIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS) and World Wide Web search (including Internet sites known to the researchers). In an attempt to find other relevant material, contact also was made with people in several government departments and community-based organisations, and with academics working in related areas.

Relevant databases accessed via ATSIROM and AUSTROM included:

FAMILY (Family & Society)
AGIS (Law)
CINCH (Criminology)
AEI (Education)
MAIS (Multiculturalism)
ATSIS (Indigenous Studies)
ATSI/HEALTH (Health)
HERA (Heritage/Culture)
APAIS (Public Affairs).

Key words or phrases used in the search included:

social indicators/outcomes
wellbeing indicators
community capacity
social/economic costs
stronger/healthy communities
cost-benefit analysis
program evaluation
early intervention
prevention
community-based programs
Aboriginal communities.

The period covered in the database search was over the past 10 years. In a small number of searches, no time limit was specified. The study also involved a search for materials in reference lists of some key articles provided by FaCS and articles and materials known to the researchers.

After searching the literature and determining data that was accessible within the project timeframe, the researchers decided to focus on programs in::

Community wellbeing
Early childhood and families
Young people
Seniors and intergenerational programs.

Original plans to review literature gathered in relation to community health programs were abandoned because the material was more clinically-based rather than linking to the stronger communities' themes identified in the project brief.

The researchers accessed data on Australian-based programs and they located some basic information about a range of programs that had been evaluated and appeared to relate to the stronger communities' theme. However, it was extremely difficult to access further details because of the lack of readily-available information and/or information available within the timeframe. Finding community-based program information was also difficult because of the lack of accessible information and the fact that the intellectual copyright of many programs belongs to government funding bodies. Some material relating to Aboriginal community programs has been included, but again much of this lacked sufficient detail, was written from a theoretical rather than empirical perspective, or is not freely available because of intellectual ownership and copyright. This is an indicator that more attention could be paid to accessible evaluations of programs that strengthen Aboriginal communities.

In addition, much available evaluative research is very heavily based in the United States. This was the experience of the researchers in this project as well as others reviewing similar programs (as noted for example in Bright 1997). As a result, few Australian program examples are provided and key areas have not been examined in this report including relevant Indigenous programs and rural and regional programs. This evidence suggests a need for greater efforts to evaluate and publish findings concerning effective Australian projects (of which there are anecdotal indications of a growing number).

Not only was literature in both Australia and overseas lacking in evaluations which provide for a cost-benefit analysis of prevention and early intervention programs and community building strategies, there also was some inconsistency in what was evaluated. For example, some evaluations related more to the administration of the program rather than the social objectives.

The lack of evaluations appears to be due to a range of factors including insufficient resources for such evaluations to take place. Also, the establishment of many programs did not include evaluative mechanisms, making evaluation of impacts beyond the program difficult. A compounding factor was that much program information was obtained from secondary sources where a program was cited by an author as part of their research on a particular topic. Full details of the program, its funding, costs and outcomes were therefore not always included. The program evaluations also varied in their emphasis and methodology with some evaluations occurring at the time the program was run, some after the program had been completed, and others some time later in relation to another piece of research. This led to differing data within the literature being elicited and prevented direct comparisons between programs. However, some programs for which there is little or no evaluative evidence are included because of the potential that can be seen for future follow-up in further studies in this field (such as LETS, Food-Share and Community Builders discussed in Chapter 2).

Specific short-term and long-term costs and benefits are outlined for some programs. There is also significant material which reinforces the groundswell of support for prevention approaches and notes more generally the effectiveness of prevention and early intervention approaches as having the potential to save costs downstream as well as to contribute to building social capital and stronger communities.

Programs within the literature range from small locally-based unfunded projects to large-scale government-funded and coordinated programs. The extent of program description and evaluation material varied significantly, leading to varying capacity to review the literature in a consistent manner. This has also led to variations in the level of data reviewed and discussed for different community-based approaches.

1.3 Methodological approach of the cost-benefit analysis

Cost-benefit analysis is a technique widely used by economists in applied welfare economics. It is particularly useful in the evaluation of social and economic programs undertaken by government, but is also widely used in the private sector as a component of investment and project planning and evaluation.

A key insight utilised in cost-benefit analysis is that often there is a divergence between social and private costs and benefits. That is, although accounting costs and the accounting projection of forthcoming benefits to an organisation from a particular project in terms of revenue and profits may capture the private costs and benefits to the organisation, they may not capture the overall costs or benefits that accrue to society.

For example, the costs of materials and the labour involved in the production of a particular good or service represents the private costs to the organisation of producing that good or service. However, further costs may be imposed on others as a by-product. Take the case of a production process that results in effluent being discharged into the environment (for example, the air or a river). The effluent may impose further costs on other producers or consumers not directly connected with the initial production process. Typically, these social costs are not reflected in the private cost calculation undertaken by the organisation responsible for the production process.

As well, sometimes the private calculation of benefits (revenues and profits) does not account for all the benefits that accrue to society from a particular activity. For example, take a health clinic which immunises people against particular diseases. Although the private benefit to the patient is that he or she is protected against particular communicable diseases, others not part of the transaction between doctor and patient benefit too, because as a result they will be less likely to be exposed to communicable disease.

The analytical issue is that social costs and benefits are usually not included as part of market prices. Social costs and benefits are 'external' to the market's valuation of costs and benefits (indeed, economists refer to these social costs and benefits as 'externalities'). The result is that from society's perspective market prices will result, in either too many or too few of the goods and services which are subject to these external costs and benefits being produced.

In terms of the current study, these externalities are important because a feature of community-based programs is that they often produce social benefits way beyond the direct benefits to the participants in the particular programs. They also often result in cost savings elsewhere in the community which are unrelated to the direct costs of the programs. A notorious problem in accounting for these social benefits (especially) and costs is that although very real, they are very difficult to measure. (How does one measure the undoubted social benefit of 'improved self-esteem'?) To account for this methodological difficulty, in many cases the cost-benefit calculations that are reported throughout this study will be supplemented by discussion of these social costs and benefits. It is important, therefore, to see reported benefit- cost ratios as minima, rather than maxima.

A related issue is that the focus of this study is the evaluation of benefits and costs from the perspective of the state. The underlying questions that are being addressed are, is the state (and, through the state, taxpayers) getting 'value for money' in the programs being reviewed? And where are opportunities for the state to get greatest value for money in its conduct of social policy? This is, of course, only one perspective. The evaluation of programs often has evaluations from other perspectives, unrelated to the perspective and interests of the state, as a component. For example, often benefits are couched in terms of benefits to individuals that have no obvious social benefit implication. (For example, improved self-esteem that results from a program may result in few immediate and tangible benefits to others, but be vitally important to the individual affected and may have longer-term positive consequences for the community. Similarly, improved connections between people involved in a program might be a real benefit to those individuals, but may affect no-one else in an obvious and measurable way.) Nevertheless, these benefits are very real and a further reason why reported benefit-cost ratios must be seen as minima.

Many of the programs for which the evaluations are reported cover either a small group of participants or a portion of a year. The question arises as to whether these programs could be run either with a greater number of participants, say, in different locations or even nationally, or over a longer time, say a year, and the benefit-cost calculations remain unchanged, save for scale effects. The answer is very complex. Evaluation exercises often refer to the problem of 'creaming' (Kenyon 1994). This occurs when the participants who enter a program are either selected or self-select, either consciously or unconsciously, on the basis that they have the greatest aptitude to succeed in the program. Creaming can occur in very subtle and unconscious ways. For example, the choice of a particularly disadvantaged area in order to conduct a trial program may mean the selection of a group of participants with the highest motivation to use the program to escape disadvantage.

Of course, should creaming occur, the success of the program is likely to be far greater than if eligible participants were randomly assigned a place in a particular program. It follows that as a wider pool of potential applicants is drawn upon, to the extent that creaming has occurred earlier in the participant selection process, the success rate (and thus the benefit-cost ratio) of the program is likely to fall.

A related concept in program evaluation is the problem of 'dead-weight loss'. This occurs when the beneficial aspects which might come to pass for some program participants would have happened in the absence of the program anyway (Kenyon 1994). Thus, the cost of the program attributable to those participants is 'wasted' in the sense that the benefits would have happened anyway. The higher the dead-weight loss, the more the benefit-cost ratio for the program is overstated. The dead-weight loss in any interventionist program is notoriously difficult to estimate, as the counterfactual is never observed.

Finally, for the practical reasons indicated above, the reporting of programs in the literature is often unconnected with explicit cost-benefit evaluation of the programs. For the most part, as a result there is very incomplete accounting for benefits (especially) or for costs—although estimates of the latter are often easier to access. Consequently, the researchers have often resorted to estimates, using plausible assumptions of what would be the minimum number of successful outcomes that would be necessary for a program to cover its direct costs and calculated a dollar value for these outcomes. The implication is that where such numbers turn out to be a very small percentage of the numbers likely to be affected by the program, then the probability of a positive (and maybe substantial) benefit-cost ratio is likely.

Return to top