6. Conclusion

6.1 Community wellbeing
6.2 Early childhood and families
6.3 Young people
6.4 Seniors and intergenerational programs
6.5 Overall summary of conclusions

Much of the literature relating to the notion of strong communities is framed within the context of the changing nature of society and the associated fragmentation of communities and social ties which results in a range of poor social outcomes (Cox 1995; Morrison et al. 1997; Graycar & Nelson 1999).

Strong communities are defined variously in the literature. A number of authors refer to the development of a 'civil society' in which strength is achieved through the development of social capital. Social capital can be said to include trust; cooperation; time to engage with fellow citizens; voluntarism; a sense of belonging to one's community; and democratic structures that involve citizens (Cox 1995). Others refer to a healthy community, which incorporates the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people (Rosenfeld 1997, cited in Baum et al. 1999). A healthy community may be described as one that:

provides a clean, safe physical environment;
meets the basic needs of residents;
has residents that respect and support each other;
involves the community in local government;
promotes and celebrate its historical and cultural heritage;
provides easily accessible health services;
has a diverse, innovative economy; and
rests on a sustainable ecosystem (Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition 2000).

As discussed in chapter 1, the key elements of stronger communities are knowledge and community skills including volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; and community capacity to use best practice.

The consistent elements in all of the materials cited relating to stronger/healthy communities are the importance of a sense of connectedness between people, and between people and their community in an environment in which all people are able to participate to their full potential.

The economic costs of poor social outcomes such a juvenile delinquency, child abuse/ maltreatment, homelessness and unemployment are cited in a range of literature. For example, the total expenditure on child abuse and neglect in South Australia in 1995-96 is estimated at $354.92 million with an additional $303.33 million attributable to associated issues (child abuse-related deaths, disability, injury and impairment) (South Australian Office for Families and Children and the Australian Institute of Family Studies 1999). Stubbs and Storer (1999) state that each incidence of entry into care per child is $3 660. Juvenile incarceration is costed at anything between $50 000 and $83 000 per person per year (Potas et al. 1989; Graycar & Nelson 1999), which is 12 or 13 times more expensive than probation and community service orders (Potas et al. 1989). Homelessness has been cited as costing $7 400 per person per year, (Dixon 1993) or a total of $574 million (1994 Australian dollars) (Pinkney & Ewing 1997 as quoted in Chamberlain & MacKenzie 1998).

At the same time however, it is argued that a large number of poor social outcomes are preventable. This is highlighted by the claim that if public expenditure to address preventable problems can be reduced by five per cent, the state will save over US$3 for every US$1 invested in prevention or early intervention initiatives (Iowa Kids Count Initiative 1995). Also, that a homelessness prevention strategy that costs $100 million per year would break even at a success rate of only 21 per cent (Pinkney & Ewing 1997, cited in Chamberlain & MacKenzie 1998). Further, it is argued that a neighbourhood improvement program costing $100 million over 13 years could produce a cost benefit ratio of 1:17 if the social problems on the Airds estate in New South Wales (NSW) were reduced to the NSW average, or put another way, a reduction in social problems by a mere 3.7 per cent would ensure the program broke even (Stubbs & Storer, 1996).

It is therefore hardly surprising that increasing emphasis has been placed on prevention and early intervention strategies. These are cited as being successful in terms of both the dollar value of programs as well as building stronger and healthy communities (Greenwood 1999; Bright 1997; Morrison et al. 1997; Tomison & Wise 1999; McCain & Mustard 1999; Krisberg 1992, cited in Krisberg & Austin 1993). In a range of literature, this is presented in terms of increasing 'protective factors' and reducing 'risk factors' which fall into four categories: community; school; family; and peer/individual. Indeed some programs specifically identify community disorganisation and low neighbourhood attachments as key risk factors, with the corresponding protective factor being strengthened communities (Bright 1997).

Despite the success of a range of prevention and early intervention programs, it is consistently argued that the disadvantages experienced by children, families and the community will not be solved by ameliorative programs alone, and that structural causes must also be addressed. Examples of structural causes cited are changes in employment patterns (such as the decline in manufacturing jobs); the economy and technology; increased suburbanisation; globalisation of jobs and changes in family structures (Tomison & Wise 1999; Zigler & Styfco 1996; Greenwood 1999; Bright 1997; Dixon 1993; Krisberg & Austin 1993; Blumstein 1998, cited in Krisberg & Austin 1993; Graycar & Nelson 1999; Morrison et al. 1997).

A number of programs cited include cost-benefit analyses that highlight the economic savings that can be achieved through prevention and early intervention (see Table 5). These findings indicate that there is an economic argument for government intervention through supporting community-based prevention and early intervention programs. Longer-term cost-benefits are more difficult to quantify. However, there is secondary evidence that in each case cited the cumulative gains are potentially substantial. Future continuing reductions in crime from the development of community links, networks, knowledge and skills and life opportunities provide the basis for the increase of strong local economic capacity and associated reductions in long-term unemployment of young people. Table 5 contains a summary of the benefit-cost calculations that could be gleaned from the literature surveyed in this study.

As well as the economic benefits, many programs referred to outcomes that are linked both directly and indirectly to the stronger communities' indicators that appear in the project brief. The indicators are knowledge and community skills including volunteering; networks and partnerships in communities; leadership in communities; local solutions to local problems; and community capacity to use best practice. Examples include the Health Development and Social Capital Project; the Families and Schools Together program (FAST); the Croydon Good Neighbourhood Program; the Work Force Youth Unemployment Prevention Program; the Youth Support Coordinator Initiative; Across Ages/Linking lifetimes, and Neighbourhood 2000/ Downtown 2000.

The indicators that were most frequently identified as direct outcomes of programs were knowledge and community skills, including volunteering; leadership in communities; local solutions for local problems; and networks and partnerships in communities. While not referred to explicitly, it can be extrapolated that many of the programs would have also achieved outcomes in relation to the other stronger communities' indicator, but were not reported on using the same language. For example, the notion of best practice is relatively new in terms of some of the literature that was cited.

The notion of outcomes having potential flow on to other areas was highlighted in the Department of Social Security's (as it then was) report on the Community Research Project (Smith & Herbert 1997). Specifically, it stated that changes could be effected in a range of living standards and that a change in one living standard area was highly likely to produce changes in other living standard areas (p. 63). Although this is evident in relation to some of the programs discussed, it is probable that more of the program outcomes could have had flow-on effects into other areas but that this has not been reported in the literature. This could be either because the research did not specifically examine this issue, or that when reported on in secondary sources, the author/s have not included this information.

A factor identified by Smith and Herbert (1997, pp. 20-1) that was clear in many of the programs discussed here is the propensity of prevention and early programs to create 'first order' and 'second order' outcomes. Put simply, first order outcomes are those in which there is an immediate or short-term specific benefit—a service is provided, a problem resolved, a gain is made in a particular aspect of community life. Second order outcomes are those that create opportunities that may be the basis of a tangible benefit at a later date. These include the long-term implications of skills and knowledge development; of confidence in leadership; or of capacity to draw on best practice in finding local solutions to local problems.

Despite the availability of information on the costs and evaluative findings for some programs, there is clearly a need for recording of more detailed information and for evaluations to be explicitly linked to the early stage of project development and implementation. This is evidenced by the fact that a large number of programs were identified that appeared to relate to the theme of stronger communities, but could not be included due to the absence of any evaluation because the literature did not contain sufficient information. Of the evaluations that were conducted, they varied in time and space. Some were undertaken at the time that the program was implemented, while others were constructed in hindsight after the program had concluded. In addition, others were undertaken some time later for the purposes of an entirely different research objective. Inconsistency in what was evaluated was also evident, with some evaluations relating more to the administration of a program rather than the social objectives. This led to differing data within the literature being elicited and prevented direct comparisons between programs.

In the Australian context, there is also a need for more accessible evaluations of programs in Aboriginal communities. Those few programs that explicitly reported Aboriginal issues suggest that a social capital perspective has much to offer. The present emphasis on alcohol abuse and juvenile crime reduction in discussions of programs and a lack of widely available evaluations, while perhaps necessary, does perpetuate a deficit and problem focus that can be limiting.

This study has also identified a number of other areas in which further work may be beneficial. Some of these are quite specific, and are detailed in the relevant chapters. Two stand out for particular comment. First, the work of Hawkins, Catalano and their associates at University of Washington, Seattle, is referred to in many sources used here. An extensive review of the primary references to this body of work has not revealed any published evidence of specific cost-benefit figures, although the Communities that Care programs are widely regarded as returning positive cost savings (Toumbourou 1999). Future evaluations may produce more specific figures. Second, there are a large number of small Australian programs, about which the authors of this study have been able to gain only anecdotal evidence. (These include the study by Kippax of youth homelessness programs (see chapter 4), and the Seniors Helping at Risk intergenerational program in Western Australia (see chapter 5)). Further evaluative work to identify these locally focused, community-based and usually locally led programs would create a rich set of data that would further extend our knowledge about effectiveness in this area.

Nonetheless, this meta-analysis of evaluations in prevention and early intervention programs demonstrates that the cost-benefits of strengthening communities can be seen in both economic and social aspects. However, many of the programs cited were developed in response to particular social indicators (such as juvenile crime, poor educational achievement, homelessness) rather than being established with the primary objective of strengthening communities. In addition, most programs were delivered within a context narrower than the broader community, for example, within schools or families. Notwithstanding, explicit links to the broader community was a critical component to the success of many programs. It can therefore be concluded that programs delivered in environments such as schools and families are capable of producing outcomes than contribute to stronger and healthier communities. Further examination of prevention and early intervention as strategies for community building that focus on strengthening communities as a means of developing social capital is warranted. Attention is now turned to a review of the specific conclusions which might be drawn from the various areas covered in this study.

6.1 Community wellbeing

The chapter on community wellbeing showed that there is increasing recognition of the importance of community participation and the role that community groups play in developing healthy communities. In particular, findings indicate that:

the building of trust and reciprocity leads to an increase in social capital, which is an important ingredient of healthy communities; and
there is significant research to support the notion that people with diverse networks of quality relationships are healthier than people who are socially isolated. (In this context, health refers to the physical, mental and social wellbeing of people.)

Keys to building healthier, and therefore stronger, communities are:

structures in place to identify community leaders and other highly motivated community members; and
the inputs of relevant professionals working in the community are mobilised and where these skills are utilised in a multi-disciplinary framework.

The building of social capital through community-based programs is also facilitated where opportunities exist to:

enable skills' development in areas such as organising groups, running meetings, lobbying, writing of grant applications, and so on;
enable the identification of funding sources and the capacity to bid for these funds;
build better links with other community groups and organisations; and
publicise achievements and, in turn, to access information about other communities' achievements.

6.2 Early childhood and families

The literature reviewed in chapter 3 clearly establishes the benefits of community-based early childhood and family prevention and intervention and programs. The benefits arise from both the cost effectiveness of many of the programs as well as in building stronger and healthier families and, in turn stronger and healthier communities. The premise for early childhood prevention and early intervention programs is the recognition that a child's development in the first few years of life sets the foundation for lifelong learning, behaviour and health outcomes.

It is apparent from the review of the literature in chapter 3 that:

a combined approach which links community-based programs with individual prevention and ameliorative programs targeted to at-risk children provides superior outcomes;
similar conclusions can be drawn for family support programs—community-based programs build resilience and protective factors which address the structural causes of disadvantage in ways which are not addressed by individual programs alone;
by building social networks and empowering communities, self-reliance and protective factors are strengthened (and there is some evidence that dependency on individual programs is thereby reduced); and
because of the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of many social problems affecting children and families (for example, child abuse, maltreatment, and so on), community- based initiatives that are integrated with government programs, and which address combinations of problems, are likely to produce more socially and cost-effective results.

Chapter 3 shows the importance of prevention and intervention programs that are initiated early in the child's life. When programs are directed at families whose children have yet to complete primary school, they are more effective in terms of social outcomes (such as reduced substance abuse, reduced maltreatment, reduced future involvement with the justice system, increased school completion rates, future employment, and so on). In this way, education and schools, alongside the active involvement of parents and other primary care givers, play a crucial role in children's social development. As a consequence, considerably greater cost- benefits may be seen in terms of program expenditure per participant.

6.3 Young people

There is overwhelming evidence that for many community-based programs directed at the early prevention of social disadvantage through unemployment or homelessness and/or anti-social behaviours in young people, economic and social benefits are delivered way in excess of the costs of the programs. Key factors which contribute to effective programs are that:

it is important that programs address the whole-of-community—society-wide social and economic forces which impact upon young people make it difficult for some of them to avoid the risk factors which lead to unemployment or homelessness or to destructive or anti-social behaviours; and
whole-of-person and whole-of-community approaches which coordinate appropriate service delivery are more likely to address these society-wide factors through building resilience and protective barriers.

A dominant theme in the literature was the claim schools are critical in terms of laying the foundation for healthy participation in society. This is emphasised by Potas et al. (1990) who claim that 'instructionally effective' schools are also effective in reducing the potential for individuals to engage in delinquency. In addition, such schools increase the chances of achieving the educational and social skills necessary to enter employment and to avoid marginalisation. Examples discussed in chapter 4 and chapter 5 are High/Scope Perry Preschool Project; Project Head Start; FAST; Success for All; K-Six Early Intervention Partnership; Youth Support Coordinator Initiative; Across Ages/Linking Lifetimes; and the Manhattan and Arizona intergenerational programs.

In terms of the school environments, communication and effectiveness is facilitated:

through a coordinated approach which involves both school staff and professional external agencies;
when the level of community involvement is high, such that there are effective partnerships between the school and members of the local community (including partnerships with business people, churches, sporting and social organisations), and a capacity for working with families;
by a different management structure to the school's management structure assists in achieving these factors;
when there is active parent involvement; and
where Indigenous communities are actively involved in and exercise leadership and control programs for Indigenous young people.

In the area of crime prevention, early intervention is crucial:

in minimising future involvement as an offender in the criminal justice system—the more that young people become involved in the criminal justice system, the more likely it is that they will continue to offend; and
in reducing the costs of crime—both prosecution of crime and incarceration are expensive and far in excess of the cost of effective prevention and early intervention programs.

In addition:

small-size programs (with small case loads) appear to be more effective than larger-scale programs;
programs which include job training appear to reduce recidivism, as well as reduce substance abuse and other destructive behaviour; and
these programs also tend to engender a preference for work over welfare.

6.4 Seniors and intergenerational programs

Seniors are often addressed by social policy as the recipients of services. While this is important, it is not the whole picture. Seniors also embody much accumulated social capital, and they often exercise local leadership and provide a major source of voluntary effort. The conclusions which may be drawn from the evidence discussed in chapter 5 are that:

programs to facilitate seniors contributing voluntary effort in the community are most effective when they receive infrastructure funding and when they are organised and coordinated;
the levels of funding for volunteer activities are low in comparison to the costs of professional services;
the work that can be performed is of a different nature—however, there are benefits arising from the voluntary work of seniors that augments professional effort;
there are the positive gains for seniors themselves from having an active and valued role; and
some programs described here have quantifiable cost-benefits in the short term (first order), while all have predictable longer-term cost-benefits (although these are less easy to quantify) (second order)—however, it is clear that these longer-term benefits are key elements in stronger communities and the development of social capital.

6.5 Overall summary of conclusions

Although there are some quite significant differences between the four major areas of programs that have been examined in this study, there are also several key issues that may be identified as general findings that span the field.

First, the clear predominance of programs either based in schools, or working through schools as a community resource has already been noted. Not only are schools essential for the development of future generations of citizens (investing in social capital), but also schools are a focal point for most communities. They could more explicitly be seen as a community resource in this respect. Networks develop around focal points, shared interests and opportunities for people to meet.

Second, best practice in prevention and early intervention and best practice in the community building have much in common. Not only are prevention and early intervention best located in community settings, and most effective when they are responsive to local conditions, but community building too may be more effective when it is addressed at an early stage of problems in community being identified.

Third, inheritance of social capital requires that it is actively passed on between generations and nurtured by older members of communities. The intergenerational programs discussed in chapter 5 should not be seen in isolation, but many of them could be viewed from the perspective of the other main areas. Communities consist of all generations, and strong communities show evidence of positive intergenerational relationships.

Fourth, community involvement and participation is a factor in all community- based programs. This includes local leadership, volunteering, civic trust, networks and partnerships between people and between institutions. Where professionals are involved, they are more effective from a community building perspective if they are responsive to local context, work in a multi-disciplinary way and, as much as possible, adopt a facilitative approach. It is also an indicator of strength in communities when the various sectors (government, business, non-government welfare, community groups and individuals) work together towards positive social outcomes.

Fifth, government support for programs is appropriate for two reasons. It is important as seed money, especially in communities where the erosion of civil society can be seen to have had an impact (through rising crime rates, high levels of child abuse, isolation of seniors, and so on). At the same time, there is strong evidence that by adopting an active role in community building, there is great potential for government to make downstream savings on the projected levels of spending on the resolution of social problems. Early intervention programs that encourage community building are cost-effective.

Sixth, although many of the programs reviewed in this study have a family focus, this is not in contradiction with community building. The programs that have been examined all achieve the promotion of stronger communities, and many of them do so through the interventions with families on which they are based. Families are a key element to strong communities because they are a primary building block of the social fabric.

Of the general conclusions that may be drawn, the final two particular points are those that most over-arch the study as a whole. This study posed two principal questions of the Stronger Communities Strategy (see chapter 1):

What is the evidence that prevention and early intervention programs promote the development of stronger communities and create measurable positive social outcomes?
What is the evidence that there is a cost-benefit to be achieved by government supporting such programs?

Substantial evidence to answer these questions has been presented in the preceding chapters and summarised in this conclusion. From this evidence, it may be concluded that:

prevention and early intervention programs do contribute to the promotion of strong communities and to positive social outcomes—furthermore, they do so in a way that enables communities to continue to deal with issues through their own resilience and capacities; and
prevention and early intervention programs contribute to community building and positive social outcomes in a cost-effective way—these cost-benefits are demonstrably cumulative in many instances.

Through a meta-analysis of available evaluative literature, this study has demonstrated the value of prevention and early intervention programs as a key dimension to the promotion of stronger communities that display the characteristics of a civil society in which social capital is nurtured for the benefit of the whole community.

Table 5: Summary of benefit-cost analysis of programs surveyed
Program	Jurisdiction	Target group—issues	Benefit-cost	Chapter
Iowa Blueprint Investment Strategy and Iowa Kids Count Initiative	Iowa, United States (US).	Community—remedial services (health, education and human services); adult dependence (welfare and health care costs); and public protection (juvenile and adult corrections).	If public expenditure to address preventable problems can be reduced by 5%, the savings would be over US$108 million, or US$3 for every US$1 invested in prevention initiatives, and by more than five times the cost (that is, US$5 for each US$1) if other potential gains were factored in (for example, increased tax revenues from a more productive workforce).	Chapters 2 and 3
Department of Housing, NSW, Neighbourhood Improvement Program	Airds Estate, western suburbs of Sydney.	Community in public estates—cost to the community of crime, family and community stress, unemployment, and so on.	Total cost of social problems in Airds is $28.5 million per year, or 17 times annual cost of the program—that is the benefits are $17 for every $1 outlaid on the program. If social problems were reduced to NSW average, cost-benefit ratio would be 1:17 (a saving of $18 million per year). Cost-benefit estimated to be 1:6, that is the value of the benefits are $6 for every $1 outlaid on the program (short-term). Program would break even with reduction in social problems by 3.7%.	Chapter 2
Community Research Project	Australia.	Communities with high unemployment, dependence on income support and undergoing economic decline. To test the potential of particular community-based services to improve living standards of those on low incomes.	Eighty community-based initiatives funded for 12 months at an average cost of $18 208. Qualitative data show that 59% of the projects produced observable benefits in living standard areas; 56% reported achieving substantial living standard gains; while 26% reported success in achieving some living standard gains and 18% had only minimal effects on targeted living standard areas. Full benefit-cost analysis not undertaken.	Chapter 2
South Australia Office for Families and Children and the Australian Institute of Family Studies	South Australia.	Child abuse and neglect.	Total expenditure directly attributable to child maltreatment estimated as $354.92 million. Potential savings through effective prevention program identified. Recommends a minimum expenditure of 1% of cost of child abuse ($3.5 million) for a prevention program. Seen as a modest investment relative to potential gains. Full benefit-cost analysis not undertaken.	Chapter 3
The Early Years Study	Ontario, Canada,	Children—how the lives of young children, including those with special needs or at-risk could be enhanced for educational, career and social success.	Expenditures for early childhood far exceed expenditures for older children and adults ($2 800 per year for children up to six years, and $7 250 per year for children, six to 18). Increased community-based initiatives and investment, both public and private, enhances communities through a range of effective strategies. No formal cost-benefit undertaken.	Chapter 3
High/Scope Perry Preschool Project	Michigan, US.	Children—participation in an active approach to learning, facilitated by trained teachers. Home visits a component of the program to reinforce the school curriculum.	Total benefits six times the cost of a one-year program and three times the cost of a two-year program. Cost-benefit analysis estimated that, when children were 19, there had been a return of US$4 for every US$1 spent. When calculated at 27 years, estimated benefit-cost was US$7 for every US$1 spent on the preschool program.	Chapter 3
Project Head Start	Throughout the US.	Preschool children aged 3 to 5 years from disadvantaged backgrounds.	Estimated as similar to High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, although such estimates are controversial in many cases, they are inferred from High/Scope Perry.	Chapter 3
Families and Schools Together	Nine Victorian Schools.	Collaborative, school-based early intervention program for children and families.	Qualitative and quantitative evaluation built into each program. Various evaluations show extensive favourable results, short-term and longitudinal. Some cost data is available. For example, average cost per family over two-year program was estimated to be from $1 266 to $1 900 and approximately US$1 200. No full cost-benefit undertaken.	Chapter 3
Success for All	Originated in Baltimore, US. Extended elsewhere in US.	For disadvantaged students from kindergarten to grade five.	Program evaluation undertaken including an estimated US$800 cost per student additional to a school's usual allowance. Savings in grades not being repeated and reduced special education placements were calculated to offset program costs.	Chapter 3
Provence Group Approach	New Haven, Hamden and West Haven, Connecticut, US.	Disadvantaged mothers from pregnancy to 30 months after birth.	Five-year follow up and a ten-year longitudinal study. Cost estimates of the program include US$20 000 (in 1982 dollars) per family. Welfare and services savings of US$40 000 (1982 dollars) estimated for families in the program compared to a control group. Thus benefit-cost ratio of 2:1—that is the value of the benefits is US$2 for every US$1 outlaid on the program.	Chapter 3
K-Six Early Intervention Partnership	Fresno, California and expanded elsewhere in the US.	High-risk families.	Qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Cost estimate is overall program budget US$1.2 million. Estimated program cost per family—US$375. No formal cost-benefit analysis undertaken.	Chapter 3
Job Corps	US.	Unemployed youth selected from an at-risk population with regards to juvenile delinquency.	For every US$1 invested, there is a return of US$1.45, so cost-benefit ratio is 1:1.45.	Chapter 4
Family Ties Program	New York, U.S	7 to 16 year olds	Evaluation indicates that for every US$1 spent on the program, US$7 savings to the public by averting juvenile placements in detention centres. So The cost-benefit ratio is 1:7.	Chapter 4
The Youth Support Coordinator Initiative	Queensland	Students located in areas with high incidence of youth homelessness and school suspensions and exclusions.	Quantitative and qualitative evaluation points to success of program, but no formal cost-benefit analysis available.	Chapter 4
Peer Group Activities	Tyneside, United Kingdom.	Comprehensive school.	A reduction of 75% in vandalism, but no formal cost-benefit analysis available.	Chapter 4
Dalston Youth Project	Hackney, London	15 to 18 year olds	Estimated value of number of crimes prevented greater than cost of project. No formal cost-benefit analysis available.	Chapter 4
Supporting Grandmothers.	Atlanta, US.	Grandmothers caring for grandchildren—predominantly low-income and ethnic-minority families.	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. Cost-benefit reported as positive (costs less than formal care, plus flow on) but exact figures not available.	Chapter 5
Warm-Line— telephone support	Oakland, California, US.	Grandparents caring for grandchildren	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. Cost-benefit ratio of 1:14 or greater —that is, the value of the benefits are at least US$14 for every US$1 outlaid on the program.	Chapter 5
School-based health and social support	New York, US	Grandparents caring for grandchildren	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. Estimated cost-benefit ratio of 1:2.3, that is the value of the benefits are at least US$2.30 for every US$1 outlaid on the program.	Chapter 5
Grandparenting skills education	Tempe, Arizona, US programs.	Grandparents of children in local school	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. No clear financial cost-benefit calculable.	Chapter 5
Across Ages/ Linking Lifetimes	Philadelphia, Penn . US.	Seniors acting as volunteer mentors to younger people in local community.	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. Limited data on costs and benefits, but formal cost-benefit analysis not performed.	Chapter 5
Senior Corps— Foster Grandparents	US.	Assisting families in need of general support by utilising the volunteer effort of seniors in the community.	Qualitative data (Freedman 1997); quantitative data (NSCC website). Estimated cost-benefit ratio of 1:2.32, that is the value of the benefits are at least US$2.32 for every US$1 outlaid on the program.	Chapter 5
Neighbourhood 2000/ Downtown 2000	New York, Honolulu, US.	Seniors as advisors and a resource for school students in community building projects.	Qualitative data only. Cost-benefits can only be assumed from evidence of other studies in terms of reduced vandalism/crime and future economic potential of positive community life. On this basis, cost-benefit ratio estimated to be at least 1:2.2, that is the value of the benefits are at least US$2.20 for every US$1 outlaid on the program.	Chapter 5
National Senior Service Corps— Senior Companions	US.	Seniors providing general personal care for frail people and people with disabilities in local community.	Qualitative data (Freedman 1997); quantitative data (NSCC web site). Estimated effective voluntary addition to overall social service provision at a cost of 20% of cost of formal services. Thus cost-benefit ratio of 1:5—that is, the value of the benefits are at least US$5 for every US$1 outlaid on the program	Chapter 5
Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement	US	Seniors providing skills and knowledge to community environmental projects.	Qualitative and quantitative data reported. Low unit costs (between US$230 and US$385 per volunteer), but limited cost-benefit information beyond that which can be assumed from community building.	Chapter 5

Return to top