Social Inclusion Working Group Needs Assessment...FMPPCP Social Inclusion Working Group Needs Assessment 2010 December 2011 Page 3 of 46 Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 5 1.1 Purpose

FMPPCP

Social Inclusion Working Group

Needs Assessment 2010

December 2011

Page 1 of 46

FMPPCP


Needs Assessment 2010-2011

December 2011

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 2 of 46

Acknowledgments

Document compiled and written by: Virginia Richardson – Health Promotion Practitioner, Peninsula Health Community Health Amy Moore – Health Promotion Coordinator, FMPPCP (2009-2011) Nikki Hale – Project officer, Care in your community, Peninsula Health Troy Macris - Health Promotion Coordinator, FMPPCP (2011 - )

The Social Inclusion Working Group members represent the following agencies and organisations:

• Anglicare • Brotherhood of St Laurence • Care in Your Community (CiYC) • Communities That Care (CTC) • Family Life • Frankston City Council • Frankston Mornington Peninsula Primary Care Partnership • Gamblers Help Southern • Leisure Link up • Mornington Peninsula Shire Council • New Hope • Peninsula Health Community Health • Royal District Nursing Service (RDNS)

Special thanks to Crystal McDonald and Janet Reid - authors of “I Need Connection” – City Life Health & Wellbeing Needs Analysis and Service Plan – for sharing their work for this report.

Note The format for this needs assessment has been adapted from Peninsula Health – Community Health, Health Promotion practitioner’s format (Amy Lewis & Virginia Richardson), based on Bradshaw’s “Taxonomy of Social Need” (1972).

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 3 of 46

Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 5

1.1 Purpose of document

1.2 Background

1.3 Context for Social Inclusion Page 6

1.4 National Context

1.5 International Context

1.5.1 The Melbourne Charter

1.5.2 The Ottawa Charter

1.6 Research Informing Social Inclusion Page 7

2.0 FMPPCP Social Inclusion Needs Assessment Page 8

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Definitions of Need Page 9

2.2.1 Normative Needs

2.2.2 Felt Needs

2.2.3 Expressed Needs

2.2.4 Comparative Needs

2.3 Normative Needs Page 10

2.3.1 Service Providers Survey

2.3.2 Service Mapping Page 11

2.4 Felt Needs Page 13

2.4.1 Frankston Focus Group

2.4.2 Rosebud West Neighbour Day

2.4.3 Online Survey Page 14

2.4.4 ConnectYou Photovoice

2.4.5 City Life Research Paper Page 15

2.5 Expressed Needs Page 17

2.5.1 Indicators of Community Strength

2.5.2 Ambulatory area based planning report Page 19

2.6 Comparative Needs Page 22

2.6.1 SEIFA Index

3.0 Conclusion Page 24

3.1 Summary of findings

3.1.1 Key Themes

3.1.2 Recommendations Page 25

3.1.3 Limitations

3.2 What next for the social Inclusion Working Group? Page 26

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 4 of 46

List of Appendices 1. FMPPCP Member Agency List

2. Participation for Health: A framework for action 2009-2013

3. The Melbourne Charter

4. The Ottowa Charter

5. SIWG Survey Summary

6. FMPPCP Service mapping results – (Social Inclusion findings only)

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 5 of 46

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Document

This Needs Assessment initially started as a scoping exercise for the Social Inclusion Working Group (SIWG), as a way of identifying priority issues in our catchment connected to social inclusion. Members of the SIWG came from a range of professional interests, including disability, aged care, mental health, children’s services, allied health, education and new migrants. The purpose of this document therefore is to take a broad look at the needs of these different sectors of the community and attempt to find some common themes – in the sense of barriers and enablers – that the SIWG could begin to take action on. It is intended to provide an evidence base and body of research around social inclusion that can inform and support future work, planning, funding submissions and research for not only the Social Inclusion Working Group but any agency, organisation, community group or individual would like to undertake work in the Frankston Mornington Peninsula region within the context of social inclusion.

1.2 Background

The Frankston Mornington Peninsula Primary Care Partnership (FMPPCP) is a voluntary partnership of 34 member agencies and organisations (Appendix One). The membership encompasses many of the health and community services in the catchment and Integrated Health Promotion is one area of work for the PCP. This work is conducted through the Health Promotion Collaborative which meets bi-monthly to share, discuss and plan for improved and supported health promotion practice and initiatives in the FMP catchment.

The Victorian Department of Health fund the core activity of PCPs, and the Department has outlined 7 priority areas for integrated health promotion focus for 2007-2012 for all funded agencies. Amongst the priority areas is ‘Mental Health and Wellbeing’. Therefore social inclusion as a priority area has been adopted within the context of mental health and wellbeing. The area of social inclusion that member agencies felt they could have the most impact on is through improving social connection, therefore the goal behind this priority is ‘People are connected and have a sense of belonging to the wider community’ Expressions of interest to participate in a Social Inclusion working Group (SIWG) were circulated to all member agencies of the FMPPCP and the first meeting was held in June 2010. Membership of this group is open to all member agencies (and interested non-member agencies) of the FMPPCP. Due to the open membership, participation in this group sometimes fluctuates, therefore it is essential that we develop an agreed assessment of need in order to effectively plan our partnership work.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 6 of 46

1.3 Context for Social Inclusion The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation has produced the Participation for Health: A

framework for action 2009-2013 (Appendix Two). This framework provides a basis and context for action relevant to mental health and wellbeing from a prevention perspective. The framework has assisted the Health Promotion Collaborative to qualify its focus on social inclusion within mental health and wellbeing, as it outlines Social Connection as one of the key social and economic determinants of mental and physical health. It also indicates priority populations, health promotion actions, settings for action, intermediate outcomes and long-term benefits which, along with information collected through this needs assessment, will assist us in determining our action plan.

1.4 National Context In 2009 the Australian Government released the discussion paper ‘A Stronger Fairer Australia’ where the government articulated both the need for a focus upon social inclusion and also the vision, which they felt was a new approach to an entrenched issue. A website was also created www.socialinclusion.gov.au which provides information regarding the vision, agenda, programs and initiatives underway or being planned. To achieve the vision set out in ‘A Stronger Fairer Australia’ means that all Australians will have the resources, opportunities and capability to learn, work, engage in the community and have a voice. There is an acknoweldgement that social inclusion means more than just equal access to employment or education, that it also incorporates social connection, citizenship and belonging.

1.5 International Context Internationally there has been some collaborative action regarding how best to address social inclusion within the context of mental health and wellbeing. The following are some examples of this.

1.5.1 The Melbourne Charter (Appendix Three) Identifies principles and actions that governments, communities, organizations and individuals can take to influence the interconnecting social, economic, cultural, environmental and personal factors that influence mental health and wellbeing.

1.5.2 The Ottawa Charter (Appendix Four)

Provides further context for health promotion action. Any health promotion initiative, project or program benefits from identifying how it fits within the overarching concepts and context of health promotion which the Ottawa Charter outlines. Specifically, (in no particular order) the charter recommends:

- Strengthening Community Action - Developing Personal Skills - Building Healthy Public Policy - Creating Supportive Environments - Reorientation of Health Services

Underpinning all areas of action of health promotion are the key contributors to

advocate, enable and mediate.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 7 of 46

1.6 Research Informing Social Inclusion Links between social inclusion, mental health and wellbeing and mortality have informed Vic Health’s Participation for Health: Framework for Action, which has informed this PCP’s understanding of why social inclusion is a priority indicator of health and wellbeing. Social inclusion has been made a priority area in the context of our PCP’s over-arching priority ‘Mental Health and Wellbeing’, as it has been linked to many positive outcomes for people, including improved mental health outcomes. Similarly, poor social networks have been linked to increased mortality from almost every cause of death (Seeman 2000; Berkman & Glass 2000; Eng et. al 2002). Studies have found that people who are socially isolated or disconnected from others have between two and five times the risk of dying from all causes compared to those

who maintain strong ties with family, friends and community (Berkman & Glass 2000). As a determinant of health, social inclusion has long been acknowledged as both a barrier but also a contributor to positive health. It has been found that ‘…Social networks may

have a beneficial effect on mental health regardless of whether or not the individuals are under stress’ (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001) Making increased social inclusion/connection an ideal focus for prevention efforts. The Victorian Population Health Survey (VPHS) 2002 results found that people with few social networks were more likely to report fair to poor health, and to be experiencing some level of psychological distress. Similarly, greater levels of community participation, social support and trust in others in the community have been associated with reduced experience of psychological distress (Berry & Rickwood, 2000) To inform our strategic planning process, Monash University Dept. of Health Social Science (2009) undertook research across the social determinants of health most affecting the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula communities. They made a number of recommendations, including the following which prompted this needs assessment and reinforced member agencies commitment to social inclusion as a priority area; ‘A stronger and more connected community – The PCP catchment covers some of the most disadvantaged areas in Victoria, where poverty, joblessness, early school leaving,

violence and poor mental health appear entrenched. Social exclusion is the result of poverty and disadvantaged areas. Tackling these issues is beyond the scope of any one

agency. The PCP was acknowledged by member agencies as the appropriate organisation to promote collaboration which can lead to improved health and wellbeing across the

region. Therefore, gaining commitment to and developing a coordinated action plan with member agencies to address and promote action for wellbeing and to increase social connectedness across the region is recommended. It is recommended that the PCP develop

a coordinated approach to fund a community development project to address community engagement and increase social connectedness.’

The following needs assessment is a document compiling the key barriers preventing and enablers contributing to social inclusion for the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula communities. It is envisaged that some actions will be carried out through the PCP, however the recommendations can be used as a guiding document for any work that any agency, organisation, community group or individual would like to undertake in the Frankston Mornington Peninsula region within the context of social inclusion.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 8 of 46

2.0 FMPPCP Social Inclusion Needs Assessment

2.1 Introduction

Since social inclusion (sometimes defined by exclusion) can mean different things to individuals, agencies, organisations and government departments and no definition is exact we first need to be clear about what sort of social inclusion we are most concerned with.

Paul Spicker in his online ‘Introduction to Social Policy’ discusses social exclusion as being mainly identified through the following three contexts:

- The first is financial: exclusion is identified with poverty, and its effect on a person’s ability to participate in normal activities.

- The second is exclusion from the labour market: exclusion is strongly identified with long-term unemployment.

- Third, there is exclusion in its social sense, which identifies exclusion partly with alienation from social networks, and partly with the

circumstances of stigmatised groups. http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/needf.htm

For the purposes of the FMPPCP, the needs we most want to assess are centred on the third context of exclusion in the social sense, in particular an individual’s (or community of interest) ability (or lack there of) to connect with others. In some cases this may include services, however more broadly we are interested in people’s connection with activities, hobbies/pastimes, friends/family, volunteering, and participation in community life and decision making. Further to this, Cappo (2002) in his address to the Australian Council of Social Services Congress, stated that: ‘A socially inclusive society is defined as one where all people feel valued, their differences

are respected, and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity. Social exclusion is the process of being shut out from the social, economic, political and cultural systems

which contribute to the integration of a person into the community’ Through learning more about the barriers and enablers for vulnerable groups we, as a partnership of agencies, are best placed to work on actions that create supportive environments for participation. We cannot effectively plan for action without consideration and understanding of needs.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 9 of 46

2.2 Definition of needs The SIWG adopted a needs assessment framework developed by J. Bradshaw (1972), which separates the identification of need into four distinct categories: 2.2.1 Normative needs are needs which are defined by an expert or experts. To conduct

a normative need assessment the SIWG used a survey, and conducted service mapping with service providers, to identify their professional opinions.

2.2.2 Felt needs refer to what the community says they feel or need, particularly those

who are most affected by the problem/issue. To connect with individuals who are most affected by social exclusion, a series of questions were developed and used in group situations in the communities of Frankston and Rosebud West. An online survey was used to capture feedback from younger people in the community.

2.2.3 Expressed needs are needs identified through statistics or demand for services. In

this case we looked at: - Indicators of Community Strength at the Local Government Area

level – a measure of Victorian’s perception of their local area amenity, ability to get help when needed, participation and selected social attitudes.

- Frankston North Communities for Children 2009-2012 Research Report - which provides information specifically for that locality, including demand and use of local services.

- Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care Area Based

Planning Report Care in Your Community 2011 - an excellent source of updated information regarding the local demand on health services including burden of disease and other demographic data.

- Communities That Care data relating to the risk and protective factors prevalent in young peoples lives on the Mornington Peninsula.

- Community Health and Wellbeing Discussion Paper – the above mentioned research conducted in the development of the FMPPCP Strategic Plan by Monash University

2.2.4 Comparative needs look at differences between similar population groups or areas

that have existing determined needs. - SEIFA Index - The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD)

is one of four SEIFA indexes that are calculated using measures of disadvantage collected in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing. Indexes for both Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula have been used to comparatively assess areas of need within the catchment.

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/home/publications-and-research/urban-and-regional-research/demographic-research/socio-economic-indices-for-areas-seifa-maps)

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 10 of 46

2.3 Normative Needs (Those defined by an expert)

2.3.1 Service provider’s survey A simple survey was designed specifically for service providers, asking them to identify the following, based on their professional opinion*:

1. Which population groups do they think are most at risk of social isolation? 2. What are the main enablers that would assist these groups to be more socially

connected? 3. What are the main barriers to these groups being socially connected?

*See (Appendix Five) for a summary of results. The survey was distributed to Social Inclusion Working Group, FMPPCP member agencies and some non member agencies. By the end of the collection period 33 individual service providers (representing 11 agencies/organisations) responded to the survey. Results from the survey were reflective of the interests and opinions of the service providers who completed them; however there were two dominant themes that stood out.

- Transport and Mobility The theme of transport/mobility was consistently ranked as a top priority as both a barrier and an enabler and has implications for most of the population groups that were identified in the survey.

- Mental Illness The theme of mental illness emerged consistently throughout the survey results being under both population groups and barriers. The enablers then provided a number of suggestions for mentally healthy activities e.g. assisting services to be more inclusive, improved self esteem, strategies to participate, opportunities to create friendships, affordable and varied activities for all members of the community, to name a few.

Recognising that barriers and enablers could be specific to certain population groups or reach across whole population, the working group decided to focus their energy on common themes rather than specific populations. The enablers provided some useful parameters for discussion amongst the working group around strategies to address barriers from a prevention perspective. An ‘impact matrix’ (see attachment 1) was used to plot strategies against impact and easy of implementation to help the group decide on a course of action.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 11 of 46

2.3.2 Service Mapping

The information for this section has been collected through the evaluation of the Integrated Health Promotion Strategic Plan 2009-2012 which asked for information from all the member agencies in relation to the following; • What does social inclusion mean to you? • What is your agency currently doing to address Social Inclusion? • Are there any things that you think your agency and the health and community

services sector could be doing collectively to reduce social isolation?

From the 35 member agencies invited to participate in this evaluation, 22 nominated a representative and agreed to conduct the evaluation. Of those, 14 actually responded. We estimate that 114 individual responses were received. 1. What does social inclusion mean to you?

Social inclusion and the language people use to describe what it means is very rich and diverse. The responses we received to this questions were no exception, so providing a summary is problematic. However some of the overarching statements that some people provided do describe a wider sentiment;

‘Communities where all people feel valued and accepted and embraced for their differences’

‘The consensus was that social inclusion was about ensuring people have the opportunity to fully engage and participate within their community. That they feel safe to do so, have the right to make their own decisions and direct their inclusion in a manner which will improve their overall wellbeing’

The most common responses fell into the following categories; • Removing barriers to participation (social, economic, services, discrimination,

transport, personal circumstance) • Creating opportunities to participate and engage • Increased connections and social networks • Include everyone regardless of race, gender, age, ability, sexuality, religion etc. • Enabling a society / community to provide for all of its members to have a

meaningful connection within/to that community • Community consultation/representation/ownership • Being listened to/having a voice/influence decisions • Sense of belonging • Equity of access • Everyone is entitled to be involved/has a contribution to make • Feeling valued

2. What is your agency currently doing to address Social Inclusion?

There were nearly 70 different answers to this question (See Appendix 6 for the full

list), ranging from programming decisions to social clubs to specific groups and activities. This list provides a rich variety of ideas and experience, and should be used as a reference for planning other social inclusion activities, in terms of identifying what is already happening in our community and where gaps might exist.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 12 of 46

3. Are there any things that you think your agency and the health and community services sector could be doing collectively to reduce social isolation?

There were 42 answers to this question, including broad suggestions of planning across agencies and within target population groups, to more specific strategies such as improving transport systems, creating a social inclusion website, more community kitchens and gardens, and developing a social marketing campaign. The main messages from these results were:

a) Addressing social inclusion requires a multitude of approaches – some broad and some narrow in focus. b) People need to be able to access these opportunities, with an emphasis on providing information and transport. c) It makes sense to “work smarter” in terms of finding out what other organisations are doing, perhaps building on their successes, and trying to reduce unnecessary duplication.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 13 of 46

2.4 Felt Needs

(What the community says they feel or need)

2.4.1 Frankston focus group: Two questions were asked at the monthly meeting of the Brotherhood of St Laurence’s consumer participation group. These were:

- What makes it difficult to connect with your community? - What makes it easy to connect with your community?

Given that most of the people involved in this group were affected by a disability, the discussion focused mainly around accessibility and community attitudes. One woman who uses a wheelchair said that “Disability access makes difference between good and bad time”, going on to say that most events and group activities don’t advertise whether or not they are disability friendly, which means she usually opts to stay home rather than risk going somewhere where she can’t get into the toilets or up a few steps. Sadly, some of the participants had experienced negative reactions and bullying in the community as a result of their disability or physical appearance, however most people agreed that shop and supermarket workers were usually very good at making them feel welcome and safe. Things like the width of shopping aisles, help with getting groceries out of their trolley and being greeted with warmth and friendliness were all very important. 2.4.2 Rosebud West Neighbour Day:

A ‘scrawl wall’ was used at a local community event that attracted 600 people in March 2011 to celebrate the importance of having good neighbours. On the wall were three questions in large writing:

- What sorts of things make it easy to be a part of your neighbourhood? - What makes it hard for you to be a part of the neighbourhood? - What would make your neighbourhood better?

There were 92 different responses to these questions. Overall there were a lot of comments about local services and amenities – toilets, parks, footpaths, public transport, hard waste and litter issues, speed humps and requests for a new aquatic centre. Beyond these issues, other things that people identified as barriers to connection were – loud music, barking dogs, drug dealers, fire works, hoon drivers and lack of family or close friends near by. Of the positive recommendations, most could be grouped into

- people being friendly and nice and, - opportunities and support to get together with neighbours and get to know

people Suggestions of a welcome pack for people new to the area, more days like Neighbour Day, street parties/BBQs and being informed of what’s happening in the area were all offered as ways of improving community connection.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 14 of 46

2.4.3 Online Survey: 65 people responded to an online survey which was distributed during March 2011 to community members via service providers and extended networks. The survey asked the following questions:

- Do you feel like you belong to your community? - What is it that makes you feel like you belong? - What sorts of things make it easy to connect with friends, family, clubs,

associations, activities, appointments, work, education, volunteering, social groups etc…

- What sorts of things make it difficult to connect with friends, family, clubs, associations, activities, appointments, work, education, volunteering, social groups etc.?

- Please describe what you think a 'connected community' would look like? - What is your post code?

- Is there anything else you would like to share around the topic of community connection?

80% of those surveyed said they DID feel connected to their community, citing the following as reasons for this:

- knowing people, such as friends and family, who live close by - feeling that others were nice and friendly towards them - being involved in groups, networks and events, and - having access to recreational and social amenities

In terms of what people felt made connecting with others difficult, people gave a wide range of responses, from bad weather, to feeling un-liked, mean people, and a lack of money/time/confidence/fitness/transport/people skills/child care/internet/skills/motivation.

2.4.4 Connect You Photo Voice: Peninsula Health, in partnership with Frankston Arts Centre, School focussed Youth Services and Communities That Care received funding through the VicHEalth Technology Arts and Social Connection (TASC) Scheme for an initiative called “ConnectYOU”. The project is providing young people an opportunity to express how feelings of belonging impact on their health and well being, culminating in a high profile exhibition of photo images and words at Frankston Arts Centre in December 2011. The project engaged with: - 9 groups (high schools, VCAL, etc) - 640 young people - 6 primary schools - 600 children Preliminary results show the following priority areas (from youth):

- Access - Respect - Trust - Safety - Friendships A summary of results will be compiled early in 2012 and available via the Peninsula Health - Health Promotion Team. Email: [email protected]

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 15 of 46

2.4.5 City Life Research Paper

A project was undertaken by two Community Development students of Chisholm TAFE Frankston, under the auspice of the City Life. The research supported current projects by the Frankston Homeless Support Service (FHSS) and the Monash Health and Wellbeing partnership, both committed to finding solutions to the problems faced by the homeless and disadvantaged people of Frankston. These projects followed research by the Royal District Nursing service (RDNS) whom identified through the research paper “I Require Medical Assistance” (Everard, 2008) that a Homeless persons program (HPP) was needed in Frankston.

Attributes of the research participants: • Average age of 46 • 68% lived in Frankston Council • 86% of those with children did not live with them • 43% were on a disability pension • 94% reported their main source of income as a government pension • 57% fell into the status of insecure housing defined by the federal governments

definition of homeless

35 people were involved in the study

The researchers asked this group the following questions:

1. What is Health & Wellbeing? 2. What stops us? (from achieving it) 3. What services could help? (to achieve this)

Barriers to Health & Wellbeing

In defining the barriers participants experienced, four key areas were identified:

Physical Health:

• Finances- effects nutrition and food choices • Unhealthy Habits • Lack of Motivation • Exercise- inability to exercise due to mental and physical illness

Mental Health:

• Stress • Injury • “Medication prescribed for one condition can cause issues in another area” • Motivation • Losing hope – due to lack of control • Family disconnection/breakdown • Inappropriate diagnosis/care

Social Health:

• Isolation- “thinking you’re the only one in that situation.” • Lack of knowledge about services • Inability to articulate • “When you’re paranoid from past experiences”

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 16 of 46

General Barriers affecting all Health and Wellbeing:

• Family disconnection • Shyness/”A phobia of asking for help” • Communication – “can’t explain what’s wrong with you”. • Negative/unhealthy communication • Lack of control over personal situations • Feeling you’re powerless to change situation • Complicated forms

Solutions for Change

Participants provided the following suggestions for the improvement or provision of services to improve Health and Wellbeing: Physical Health:

• Education on healthy food on a budget • Doctor can only do so much, need specialist access • More bulk-billing doctors needed locally – can’t afford transport to existing doctors. • Happy with own (full fee) Doctor but need financial assistance to pay for it. • Need ongoing self care advice • Meals on wheels • Somebody to steer in right direction to get right services • Dietician- (participant has used before and found really helpful but ran out of

money) • Having someone to exercise with, get you up. –Personal trainer/motivator • Having a dog to walk (companionship, responsibility) • Discussed walking group/ daunting in a group. Different ability levels

Mental Health:

• Psychologist /Counsellors-It was stressed by participants that the worker needs to be the right person for the job and needed to understand clients perspective and provide a safe, private, comfortable environment

• Referral service to appropriate care • Education on alternative health options • Education about your condition/s • Drug education /discussion group.

Social Health:

More small groups • 6- 8 people is comfortable • Mix of Sexes • Supply food

Ideas for groups

• Divorce/Separation support group • ‘People with similar problems’ • Walking • Craft • Community Kitchens

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 17 of 46

2.5 Expressed Needs (Identified through statistics or demand for services) The following information sources have been used to capture the expressed need:

- Frankston North Communities for Children 2009-2012 Research

Report - which provides information specifically for that locality, including demand and use of local services.

- Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care Area Based

Planning Report Care in Your Community 2011 - an excellent source of updated information regarding the local demand on health services including burden of disease and other demographic data.

- Communities That Care data relating to the risk and protective factors prevalent in young peoples lives on the Mornington Peninsula.

- Community Health and Wellbeing Discussion Paper – the above mentioned research conducted in the development of the FMPPCP Strategic Plan by Monash University

2.5.1 Indicators of Community Strength at the Local Government Area level

A comprehensive framework of indicators included in Community Indicators Victoria was determined by the Victorian Community Indicators Project commissioned by Vic Health (January 2005 to July 2006). The goal of this seed project was to establish a sustainable state-wide system of local community wellbeing indicators.

The indicators provide a snapshot of how residents rate key aspects of their local area, whether they are able to get help when needed, and how much they participate.

• For Frankston, the community participation indicators show relatively low levels of membership or participation in sports, organised groups, volunteering and particularly low participation in decision making committees. Frankston residents also reported feeling less valued by their community than the average Victorian and have less opportunities to have a say.

• The Mornington Peninsula rated lower than the state average in areas of access to recreational & leisure facilities, multiculturalism, opportunities to have a say and parental participation in schools. They also felt less valued by society than the average Victorian.

For a copy of the full report go to:

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/30641/Indicators_of_Community_Strength_at_LGA_level_2008_FINAL_low-res.pdf

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 18 of 46

The table below contains the Department of Planning and Community Development’s (DPCD) Indicators of community strength at the Local Government Area (LGA) level for 2008, showing results from Frankston and Mornington Peninsula LGAs against the Victorian State Average

Topic

Issue

Mornington

Peninsula %

Frankston

%

State

Average %

Am

enity

(Resid

ents

thin

k t

heir a

rea

has v

ery

good o

r good…

) Access to recreational & leisure facilities

77.5 81.1 82

Good facilities and services 85.4 89.8 85

Opportunities to volunteer 73.6 67 65

Community & support groups 61.6 61.2 60

An active community 64.7 54.9 59

Pleasant environment, nice streets,

well planned, open spaces

85.4 75.3 81

Ability t

o

get

help

when

needed Can get help when needed 94.2 92.1 91

Could raise $2000 in two days in an

emergency

89 82.8 85

Com

munity P

art

icip

ation

Attendance at local community

events

55.6 54.3 53

Participation in organised sport # 45 37 41

Membership of organised groups 66.7 50 61

Membership of organised groups

that have taken local action

45.1 38.5 41

Volunteering 39.9 31.3 33

Parental participation in schools 43 52.6 49

Decision making board or

Committee

20.3 14.6 19

Com

munity

Att

itudes

Safe on street after dark 64.3 57.1 59

Multiculturalism makes life in the

area better

71 74.8 76

Opportunities to have a say 38 38.3 42

Feels valued by society 49.1 44.1 52

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 19 of 46

2.5.2 Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care Area Based Planning Report - Care in Your Community 2011 The Primary Care & Population Health Advisory Committee’s Report, Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care - Area Based Planning, has recently been updated to bring together in one document the most recent demographic and service related information for this area, and to provide a current description of the population needs for the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula region. The report summarises findings of key local data, of which several themes can be related to social inclusion. For instance, the following figure highlights potential barriers to social inclusion, such as the ageing population and prevalence of chronic disease, and risk factors for social exclusion/isolation such as poorer health outcomes for the Aboriginal population and disadvantaged areas where the mental, physical and psycho-social health of people tends to be lower than other areas.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 20 of 46

Potential barriers to social inclusion:

FIGURE 4.12. - Extracted from Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care Area Based Planning Report - Care in Your Community 2011

Local level data of health inequality indicators which have the potential to influence social inclusion/exclusion, marking comparisons to state-wide averages:

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 21 of 46

TABLE 4 - Extracted from Working Towards Integrated Ambulatory Health Care Area Based Planning Report - Care in Your Community 2011

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 22 of 46

2.6 Comparative Needs (Differences between similar population groups or areas that have existing determined needs)

2.6.1 SEIFA Index The Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (IRSD) is one of four SEIFA indexes that are calculated using measures of disadvantage collected in the 2006 Census of Population and Housing. Indexes for both Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula have been used to comparatively assess areas of need within the catchment. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/home/publications-and-research/urban-and-regional-research/demographic-research/socio-economic-indices-for-areas-seifa-maps

SEIFA Indexing and Map for Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 23 of 46

Of the regions small areas, the most disadvantaged postcodes are: Frankston North 832.3 Hastings 902.5 Frankston Central 920.8 Seaford East 946.7 Karingal 947.8 Rosebud (incl. West) 952.1 Rye 982.4 Carrum Downs 983.6 Seaford (West) 979.3 Baxter – Pearcedale 989.5 Source: Australian Bureau Statistics 2006 Census Population and Housing, profile.id

Frankston City and Mornington Peninsula Shire Community Profile Reports 2006

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 24 of 46

3.0 FMPPCP Social Inclusion Needs Assessment Conclusion

3.1 Summary of Findings The purpose of this report was to identify some of the key barriers and enablers that relate to social inclusion in the Frankston Mornington Peninsula region. It was hoped that this information would be used to help guide the future work of the SIWG. The report specifically looked at the area of social inclusion that related to social connectedness, or people’s sense of being connected and belonging to the wider community.

To achieve this, a variety of local research data was compiled and reviewed in the context of a needs assessment framework developed by Bradshaw (1972). This framework focused on four types of needs: normative needs (based on the opinions of service professionals and experts in the field); felt needs (what the community says they need); expressed needs (as identified by statistics or demand for services); and comparative needs (differences between similar population groups or areas with existing determined needs).

3.1.2 Key Themes

A number of key themes were identified across the four areas of research:

Transport Access

The theme of transport and mobility was both a commonly reported enabler and barrier to people being able to access social activities and support services. This issue will continue to be a high priority, given the expected significant rise of people over 70 in the catchment and the limited transport services in Mornington Peninsula.

Mental Health

Mental illness and mental health problems also featured prominently as key barriers to social connectedness, particularly in relation to social stigma, stress, low social skills, low self-esteem, and lack of support networks.

The Role of Social Values and Everyday Interactions

In addition to these broad themes, the data also highlighted the importance of how values, attitudes and everyday social interactions impact on peoples’ sense of belonging and connectedness. Feeling valued, safe, respected, included, accepted, having good neighbours and friends nearby, as well as being able to have a voice and contribute to group decision making all featured highly as perceived enablers of social connectedness. On the other hand, rudeness, discrimination, being disliked, crime, noise pollution and financial stress were seen as the main barriers to feeling socially connected.

At Risk Groups

The four population groups that were most at risk of social disconnection and isolation were older people, sufferers of mental illness, physically disabled and disengaged young people.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 25 of 46

3.1.2

Recommendations

Based on these findings, the following recommendations may assist the Social Inclusion Working Group and other service providers and community groups to increase social connectedness in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula municipalities:

1. Increased opportunities for people to physically access and participate in social

activities. The Mornington Peninsula is an example of a current initiative that is working to address this issue*.

2. Promoting and creating opportunities for people to participate in social activities and form meaningful relationships such as a mental illness prevention strategy*.

3. Ensuring, where possible, that organisations, groups and networks are friendly, inclusive, empowering and treat people with dignity, fairness and respect. Possible strategies could include: spending more time and resources on promoting and embedding organisational values within programs and service delivery; or the development of a community education campaign to raise awareness about the values and attitudes that underpin healthy relationships and social connectedness. Other ideas, such as welcome packs for new people to the area, street parties and BBQs, and keeping the community informed about local social events and activities could also be useful community building initiatives.

4. Strategies and interventions should particularly target the four identified ‘at risk’ groups, although it is acknowledged that community wide initiatives are also important as prevention strategies.

3.1.3

Limitations

It is acknowledged that due to the richness and complexity of data, and the limits of the SIWG’s capacity to respond to all the issues, it was not possible to address the full scope of issues and needs contained within the research reviewed. Community agencies and groups are therefore encouraged to examine the raw data in more detail and explore additional strategies for how they can support the social inclusion needs of their communities further.

*See following page “What next for the Social Inclusion Working Group?”

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 26 of 46

3.2 What next for the Social Inclusion Working Group?

During the course of conducting this needs assessment the SIWG was able to make a case for the areas of Transport and Mental Health to become the focus of two separate working groups. Both have aimed to build upon promising practice and are looking to examples from other communities, states and countries which we could learn from, including:

3.2.1

‘Trans Access: Community Transport Solutions’ The Trans Access model of community transport involves sharing of resources and volunteers between agencies and organisations. A booking system outlining all available resources at any given time would be managed centrally by Trans Access, to allow services to access volunteer drivers and transport when they are not being used by other agencies/ organisations. This model would enable better use of a limited resource. For more information on how this is currently being operated visit: http://www.bbchs.org.au/transport.htm The Mornington Peninsula Shire has now taken the lead role in this project, under the Banner of “Community Transport Solutions”. For more information contact:

Rita Kontos

Transport Connections Project Coordinator

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Phone: 5950 1112

Email: [email protected]

3.2.2

‘Act – Belong – Commit’ Mentally Healthy Social Marketing Campaign Act-Belong-Commit is a community-based health promotion campaign that encourages people to take action to improve their mental health and wellbeing. This evidence-based campaign was developed primarily from research undertaken by Curtin University into people’s perceptions of mental health and the behaviours they believed protected and promoted good mental health. The campaign is directed by Mentally Healthy WA at Curtin University, and implemented through health services, local governments, women’s health services and not-for-profit groups. As the brand name suggests, people can build positive mental health by keeping physically, mentally and socially active (Act); by keeping involved in family and community activities and participating in community events (Belong); and by taking on challenges or causes that provide meaning and purpose in their lives (Commit). There is substantial evidence that these three domains represent increasing levels of contribution to positive mental health (and in fact, to physical health). Go to http://www.actbelongcommit.org.au or contact FMPPCP Health Promotion Coordinator Troy Macris for more details.

Troy Macris

Integrated Health Promotion Coordinator

Frankston Mornington Peninsula Primary Care Partnership

Phone: 9788 1555

Mobile: 0428 968 177

Email: [email protected]

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 27 of 46

References

‘A Stronger Fairer Australia’ Social Inclusion Australian Government website

http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.au/files/publications/pdf/report_str

onger_fairer_australia.pdf

Berkman LF & Glass T 2000, “Social integration, social networks, social support & health”. In:

Social Epidemiology, eds Berkman LF Kawachi I New York; Oxford University Press

Berry HL, Rickwood DJ 2000, “Measuring social capital at the individual level: personal social

capital, values and psychological distress”. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 2(3);

35-44.

Bradshaw, J. (1972) A taxonomy of social need. In: Mclachlan G. , editor. Problems and progress

in medical care: essays on current research. 7th series. Oxford, Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust;

1972

Cappo D 2002, Social inclusion initiative. Social inclusion, participation and empowerment. Address

to Australian Council of Social Services Congress 28-29 November, 2002, Hobart.

Eng, P. Rimm, E. Fitzmaurice, G. & Kawachi, I. 2002, “Social Ties and Changes in Social Ties in

Relation to Subsequent Total and Cause-specific Mortaliaty and Coronary Disease Incidence in Men”,

American Journal of Epidemiology 155, 700-9.

FMPPCP 2009-2012 Strategic Plan

Kawachi I & Berkman LF 2001, “Social ties and mental health”. Journal of Urban Health 2001;

78(3):458-467

OECD 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Seeman, TE. 2000, “Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older

adults” American Journal of Health Promotion 14(6); 362-70.

Vic Health 2005 Research Summary 2 ‘Social Inclusion: as a determinant of mental health and

wellbeing’ Mental Health & Wellbeing Unit, Vic Health.

FMPPCP



December 2011

Page 28 of 46

Appendix 1

FMPPCP MEMBER AGENCIES:

Anglicare

Baptcare

Brotherhood Community Care,

Brotherhood of St Laurence

Child Frist & Family Solutions

Commonwealth Carer Respite &

Carelink Centre

Extended Families Australia

Focus Individualised Support Services

Family Life Frankston City Council

Frankston Community Support &

Information

Gamblers Help, Southern

Good Shepherd Youth & Family

Services

IMPCAT

Konnections

LifeWorks

Menzies Inc.

Mental Illness Fellowship Victoria

Mind Australia

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

My Health Carers

New Hope Foundation

Oz Child

Peninsula GP Network

Peninsula Health:

- CDMS

- Child, Youth & Family

Services

- Chronic Diseased & Aged

Care

- Community Health Managers

- Complex Services

- Falls Prevention

- Integrating Care

- MEPACS

- RAD team/ROSS

- Sub Acute & Ambulatory Care

Services

- Social Work

- Transitioin Care Program

Peninsula Hospice Service

Peninsula Support Services

RDNS – Frankston Centre

SECASA

Seniors Pty Ltd

Southern Cross Care

Southern Peninsula Community Care

The Village Baxter

Villa Maria Southern

Vision Australia

Wesley Do Care, Southern

Women’s Health in the South East

(WHISE)

Woorinyan Employment Service

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 29 of 46

Appendix 2

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 30 of 46

Appendix 3

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 31 of 46

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 32 of 46

Appendix 4

The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Ottawa was the venue for an international conference on health promotion in 1987. The resulting Ottawa Charter proposed action "to achieve health for all" by the year 2000. It included the following strategies:

- Building healthy public policy . This puts health on the agenda for all policymakers, directing them to be aware of the health consequences of their decisions

- Creating supportive environments . (e.g. encouraging a family to support their relative who is trying to lose weight) This recognized the importance of environment for health, and proposed a socio-ecological approach to health

- Strengthening community action . Health promotion requires community empowerment and involvement in setting priorities, planning and implementing strategies to achieve better health

- Developing personal skills . Health promotion supports personal and social development through providing information and enhancing life skills

- Reorienting health services . Health promotion argues for shifting health resources towards a more equal distribution between health care and preventing disease. Essentially, health services should be expanded to include the four strategies above in addition to conventional medical care. Responsibility for health promotion services should be shared among individuals, community groups, health professionals, health services and governments.

Finally, the Charter also identified seven prerequisites for adult health: peace ; shelter ; education ; food ; income ; a stable eco-system , and sustainable resources .

Values in Health Promotion Health promotion is implicitly based on several values: • equity and social justice • a holistic definition of health • covers the full range of health determinants • recognises the influence of environment on health • empowers people and builds individual and collective capacity • seeks to enhance people's social participation • involves intersectorial collaboration.

Source: http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Health_Promotion_e.htm

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 33 of 46

Appendix 5


Service Provider Survey

Summary of Findings

October 2010

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 34 of 46

Introduction

The Social Inclusion Working Group was established by the FMPPCP’s Health Promotion Collaborative to achieve the following goal:

“People are connected and have a sense of belonging to the wider community”

Under this goal, it is the aim of the FMPPCP that by 2012, all member agencies will 1. Have improved knowledge of social inclusion

and/or 2. Have identified social inclusion as a priority in their plans

Methodology

As a starting point towards these aims, the Social Inclusion Working Group developed a simple survey (refer to Appendix 1) for service providers, asking them to identify the following, based on their professional opinion:

1. Which population groups do they think are most at risk of social isolation? 2. What are the main barriers to these groups being socially connected? 3. What are the main enablers that would assist these groups to be more socially

connected?

The survey was distributed to all members of the Social Inclusion Working Group and individuals sought responses from contacts in additional FMPPCP member agencies and some non member agencies. Input was also sought from different departments within larger organizations. The collection process involved collating information mid way through the process so that additional service providers perspectives could be identified and targeted, this resulted in additional responses.

By the end of the collection period 33 individual service providers (representing 11 agencies/organisations) responded to the survey. Although as a working group we have decided this will meet our needs it is acknowledged that the results show only a snapshot of what is happening in the community. Upon reflection we believe the results are consistent with much of the evidence from our catchment, and support the existing collective knowledge of the SIWG members.

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 35 of 46

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Q 1. Which population groups are most at risk of social

isolation?

Population Group

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

7

8

8

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Low income

Office of housing tenants

New fathers

Nursing homes

Pregnant teens

Women experiencing violence

People with language disorder

Middle aged, middle income

GLBTI

Overweight people

Chronically ill

People living alone

New migrants & refugees

Housing insecure

CALD

Sufferers of addiction

Intellectually disabled

SRS residents

Carers

ATSI

Single parents

Youth - disconnected

Physically disabled

Sufferers of mental illness

Older people (65+)

Series1

Based on the number of times each category was mentioned in the survey responses, the results show that older people and those with a mental illness were identified as being most at risk of social isolation. Of course, an individual may fall into multiple population categories, such as over 65, have a mental illness, an addiction, and homeless – so it is not assumed that each population group represents a separate individual. In fact, what this clearly illustrates, is that if an individual does fall under several of the identified populations groups, their risk of social isolation potentially increases, giving an the above mentioned scenario of multiple categories a possible score 24.

It should also be noted that individual service providers responses may be skewed to identify the population group that they have the most contact with, not necessarily responding with the 'bigger picture' in mind. Respondents would not necessarily be aware of all the different population groups who experience social isolation so this is understandable. However, this information should be understood in the context of relevant

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 36 of 46

demographic information and community surveys which may provide a richer source of information and definition of the population group/s most at risk of social isolation.

Q. 2 What are the main barriers to these groups being

socially connected?

Barriers to social inclusion

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Always in crisis

Weather conditions

Poor nutrition

Housing affordability

Lack of childcare

Pregnancy/young parents

Disorganisation

Poor hearing/vision

Exhaustion

Body image

Limited English/communication

Physical infrastructure

Low education

Lack of positive role models

Culturally inapropriate services

Inappropriate services

Homelessness/insecure accom

Low motivation

Lack of local know ledge

Addiction

Lack of services/funding for services

Community ignorance

Violence/abuse

Ill health

Active exclusion

Low employment opp.

No internet/computer or skills

Low self esteem

Low social skills

Lack of family support

Social stigma

Lack of support networks

Mental illness

Financial

Transport/Mobility

Series1

The survey results show the issues of transport/mobility as being the most significant barriers to social inclusion. Transport and mobility were grouped together, as in most cases they implied a similar lack of ability to get from A to B. This barrier might be imposed in

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 37 of 46

different ways however; therefore transport/mobility covers everything from lack of public transport to physical frailty.

Transport/mobility is also closely related to the second highest ranking barrier, “financial”. Again, a broad definition covers this group, and covers limited individual financial capacity through to affordability of services and activities (prohibitive costs) – not including housing.

Whilst it is out of the power of most service providers to directly increase bus frequency or income levels, there are many other areas within the listed barriers where it is possible to make a positive difference. There are also opportunities for increased advocacy in these areas as a partnership.

Increasing opportunities for people to participate and engage within the community could involve working with community groups, sports clubs, education and service providers to increase awareness of what socially isolated people are experiencing, and improve their capacity to be more understanding and inclusive.

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 38 of 46

What are the main enablers that would assist these

groups to be more socially connected?

Enablers to Social Inclusion

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aboriginal community controlled servicesAdvanced medicationBetter/more facilities

Carer respiteFriendship opportunities

Good self esteemGP links to supportImproved childcare

More incomeMotivational counselling

Specialist helpTravel training

Varied housing optionsCo-ordinated treatment

Employment opportunitiesMore home help

PAGsocial training/retraining

VisitorsVolunteer opportunities

Focus on strengthsFree community events/groups/etc

P'ships w ith community groupsApproproate activities

Community inclusion programsCross section of community contact

Help w ith languageLocal access

Self help servicesSupport groups

Welcoming/aware servicesMore funding for services

Supportive familiesImproved community attitudes

Improved servicesMore local, inclusive groups

Travel assistanceAssistance w ith linking people into community

Series1

Combined with the list of barriers, the enablers provide us with 39 clues about how we can assist people to be more socially connected. We are also beginning to see some common themes emerging i.e. The top enabler of ‘linking people into community’ can be supported through almost all the other enablers listed below.

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 39 of 46

It is also important to note that many of these enablers are already happening in the community, both at a service level and through volunteers, however the survey results indicate that there needs to be more support to reach all people in need. So although the need maybe being met there is a perceived need which needs to be addressed. This indicates a need for a better flow of information about existing enablers to people experiencing social isolation and/or expansion of enablers to accommodate more people.

Conclusion

This survey has provided improved direction for the social inclusion working group and increased our ability to identify common themes. Upon reflection the working group has questioned the value of looking at this issue in the context of population groups when we are seeking areas to contribute to improved social connection as a partnership. Recognition that barriers and enablers could cut across a number of population groups, the working group will focus their energy particularly on common themes emerging from the barriers and enablers identified.

The theme of transport/mobility was consistently ranked highly and has previously been a focus for the FMPPCP, the ability of an individual to access education, work, services, activities, groups and friends/family has a large impact upon social inclusion.

Another common theme of mental illness has emerged consistently throughout the survey results being mentioned in population groups and the barriers. The enablers then provide a number of mentally healthy activities e.g. becoming more active in the local community, assisting services to be more inclusive, improved self esteem, opportunities to create friendships, affordable and varied activities for all members of the community to name a few. The enablers provide some parameters for discussion amongst the working group on strategies to address mental illness from a prevention perspective.

Also, it was acknowledged that the enablers listed are often occurring already in the community and sometimes it is a case of perceived rather than actual need. Solutions to improve information flow on existing activities and services to the wider community and service providers is also an area for further consideration by the working group.

Next Steps The social Inclusion Working Group have been analysing the results and have begun to prioritise them using a tool called an “Impact Matrix”. Once the barriers and enablers are placed on the matrix, the group will work to develop strategies that are within their capacity to achieve, and that will have the greatest impact for the community.

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 40 of 46

Appendix 6

Results of the FMPPCP IHP Evaluation survey:

What we want to find out:

What are staff members’ current knowledge and skills towards social

inclusion?

Suggested questions/conversation prompts:

1. What does social inclusion mean to you?

Social inclusion and the language people use to describe what it means is very rich and

diverse. The responses we received to this questions were no exception, so providing a

summary is problematic. However some of the overarching statements that some people

provided do describe a wider sentiment;

‘Communities where all people feel valued and accepted and embraced for their differences’

‘The consensus was that social inclusion was about ensuring people have the opportunity to

fully engage and participate within their community. That they feel safe to do so, have the right

to make their own decisions and direct their inclusion in a manner which will improve their

overall wellbeing’

The most common responses fell into the following categories;

• Removing barriers to participation (social, economic, services, discrimination, transport,

personal circumstance)

• Creating opportunities to participate and engage

• Increased connections and social networks

• Include everyone regardless of race, gender, age, ability, sexuality, religion etc.

• Enabling a society / community to provide for all of its members to have a meaningful

connection within/to that community

• Community consultation/representation/ownership

• Being listened to/having a voice/influence decisions

• Sense of belonging

• Equity of access

• Everyone is entitled to be involved/has a contribution to make

• Feeling valued

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 41 of 46

What we wanted to find out was what are staff member’s current

knowledge and skills towards social inclusion. Seeing as there is no right or wrong

answer to this we approached the question from what social inclusion means to you.

There were very few who didn’t have an answer to this question, indicating that although vast

and various understandings abound, it is not something that people find difficult to put forward

an opinion on.

When considering all the responses what is most interesting is whether people view social

inclusion as primarily an individual, service, community and/or societal issue. There is no

consensus on this, however the majority do seem to view this as a community/societal

responsibility first.

What we want to find out:

What more could be done at a partnership level to improve social

inclusion?

Some member agencies responded directly to this question, their responses are summarised

below:

A challenge highlighted to working at a partnership level to improve social inclusion is the fact

that it is such a broad issue. This is certainly echoed in the answers to the above question of

what social inclusion means to you. For this reason one respondent suggested that ‘…It might

be useful to look at a few projects where collaboration can work well and commence from

that point’ whilst recognising that there are many existing partnership projects to improve social

inclusion.

Other responses suggested;

• Regular networking and sharing of programs with disability providers, community

services, councils etc.

• Greater collaboration on practical projects between like-minded organisations

• To have a greater awareness and understanding of organisations who are involved with

social inclusion and linking them together to adopt a more unified approach

• Improving effective communication and information sharing skills

Finally, another member agency response took a broader perspective, responding to the

broader issues;

‘A whole of community approach is necessary in addressing the issue. The issue of social

inclusion should not be addressed as a program/activity/project (however programs/activities

and projects make valuable and practical contributions in addressing the issue). A supported

environment/a social context within which the human everyday experience and social

participation can flourish should define the community context within which social inclusion will

evolve’

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 42 of 46

Suggested questions/conversation prompts:

1. What is your agency currently doing to address social inclusion?

Listed below are the various programs, activities, principles/practices, projects, strategies,

funding and ways in which member agencies are currently working to improve social inclusion.

It provides a snap shot of the diversity and depth with which individual agencies and

organisations are responding to the issue, whether this is in partnership with other agencies,

organisations, community groups or individually.

• Dads Pizza nights

• Training for all staff around inclusion for Aboriginal people

• Funding of place based activities that target families who are: Inidigenous/kinship,

carers, CALD, experiencing locational disadvantage, in transition such as pregnancy,

birth, infancy, family, health, education, housing or legal, homeless or in temporary

accommodation, fathers, grandparent carers, at risk – children at risk of abuse, neglect,

domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health or disadvantage, young parents

(under 25), families and children with a disability or developmental delay, experiencing

social and economic barriers to participation, children 0-12yrs

• Raise quality approaches and systems to ensure that services are inclusive and that there

is equality of involvement, feedback and outcome

• Developed a Socail Support and Social Inclusion Training Program that helps aged care

programs to support the development of friendships and connections between older

people they are helping

• The Social Inclusion Program runs 23 health promotion programs for over 600 clients in the

Southern and Northern Region of Melbourne

• Piloted a successful IT program that provides elderly people with complex health

conditions with internet skills so they can remain in touch with friends and family

• Developed a teleconference social support program which includes a book club, trivial

pursuit, family carer education (partnership with Carers Vic) and spiritual care program

to housebound people

• Working to develop stronger community transport program to assist disadvantaged

people to access their community, importantly health promotion events and activities

• Working with schools to increase attendance and engagement

• Out post services – taking service to people and community

• Design programs to address particular needs

• Case work – identify interests and where they might like to be included

• Don’t charge for services

• Don’t exclude on ability to pay

• Programs for all parents regardless of income

• Program content is accessible

• Flexibility of program times, venues

• Client focused

• Use of interpreters

• Target high needs neighbourhoods

• We link and refer people to activities, specialist support services, provide volunteer

opportunities within our agency

• Provide information on types of activities available in Frankston City via website,

interviewer and pamphlets

• We consciously work on making our service more accessible for all groups of people in

our community, we have staff training on this

• We try to consider the needs of a range of groups when developing programs and

services

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 43 of 46

• We workshop a lot of issues together. Issues often come from what the field workers are

seeing out in the community and feed back we get from parents and care providers.

We also put out newsletters to our care providers and familes to ask for suggestions and

feedback regularly.

• Multiple projects being delivered both by the Social Planning team and Early Years

teams.

• Reviews of service delivery to ensure they are inclusive.

• Exploring new ways of doing business to ensure broad accessibility

• Social club activties run across the organisation

• Communities That Care have several Local Area Groups where 'Low Community

Attachment' is the priority risk factor, so we are trying to encourage implementation of

programs that address this

• We proactively address it on an individual basis and have many group based services

and activities. Respite activities, movies, social dinners, weekends away, cooking groups,

gardening, photography etc.

• Developing sporting opportunities that take an inclusive approach to involve members

of the community that have been identified as being at risk of social isolation and

reduced opportunities

• Our focus is on sport and recreation. We create realistic opportunities whereby people

with disabilities including some minority communities are able to participate in some

capacity. We create and develop partnerships with the sporting industry, within

government and the private sector to promote more inclusive sporting programs and

facilities

• ConnectYOU photovoice project

• Community kitchens, community gardens, neighbour day, social inclusion working group

• We try to promote community support services and activities when meeting people in

the Emergency department

• Support to neighbourhood and community renewals

• Aging well strategy

• Community advisory groups

• Mens shed

• Kicking Goals

• Physical Activity Opportunities

• Walking groups

• Appointment of a consumer consultant in the area of dual diagnosis to represent needs

of consumers and carers to service providers

• Home visits available across the range of services for people without access to the site,

phone and IT follow up.

• Disability access to building, support to access volunteer transport, interpreters,

advocacy

• Care coordination into key programs to increase social connections

• I run many physical activity groups and some of them also include morning tea. Clients

really love this social side to the groups

• Our program offers a number of groups that encourage connectedness

• Spreading the word about Accessible Information to ensure everyone can access

information

• Communication boards and community awareness raising of alternative communication

for people with communication difficulties

• Looking to change the way homelessness is identified in acute hospital services

• Planning to actively enagage with people from an ATSI background at the point of entry

into acute based services

• Providing an option to work with people in an environment where they feel comfortable

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 44 of 46

• Acknowledging the fact that not all people are able to keep an appointment and

providing opportunities for them to engage in a less structure way

• Our values and philosophical stance embraces the holistic needs of anyone needing

palliative care regardless of race, age, culture, and intellectual capacity. Death denial

in our society continues to be an inhibitor for people to refer to palliative care or discuss

issues associated with death and dying leaving those diagnosed with a terminal illness at

time socially isolated as are their relatives

• The issue is acknowledged as being a factor which impacts upon a persons’ mental

health therefore is incorporated into agency program response

• The aims and objectives of the agency are essentially, to assist individuals combat and

manage issues of social inclusion/exclusion

• The majority of rehabilitation program’s groups are targeted at integrating clients into

their local community

• Regular community events: generally events that celebrate a particular topic e.g.

harmony day, neighbour day, refugee day etc.

• Support groups: groups for women who have similar interests who want to get together

on a regular basis

• School based programs: Photography on the move (a photography based program for

children with disabilities to encourage engagement within the local community)

Multicultural Girls Group (a group for newly arrived young women of various CALD

backgrounds to come together to learn about each other, respect and value different

and develop a sense of belonging)

• Settlement Grants Program: Encouraging newly arrived refugee women to become

involved within their community

• Volunteering: Providing volunteer opportunities to various groups of women to increase

skills, confidence and a sense of belonging

• Act Belong Commit Campaign: Embedding the mentally healthy message into all

relevant activities

• We offer numerous social inclusion activities and support that are based in the

community and we promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with a disability or

disadvantage

• Multicultural groups, assistance to refugees

2. Are there any things that you think your agency and the health and

community services sector could be doing collectively to reduce

social isolation?

• Collaborative efforts to address barriers to participation

• A community project such as a community garden or community kitchen

• Work together effectively as a family services system

• Joint planning, funding and delivery opportunities

• Develop a strong community transport program (involving a series of organisations such

as Peninsula Health, Local Government and large not for profit agencies) which would

involve sharing volunteers and fleet vehicles

• Social marketing campaign to encourage people who are socially isolated to engage

with their community. Importantly help neighbourhood houses and community groups to

be more supportive/welcoming of older people and people with disabilities as a means

of helping them join a group

• Provide opportunities for people to participate

• Provide info and guidance

• Pool resources

• Provide opportunities to access transport/baby sitting / financial support

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 45 of 46

• Share information of available services/activities

• GP’s to link clients to appropriate organisations/services and invite organisations to

display information in their waiting rooms

• Educate, educate, educate. Knowledge is power!!! Combined activities, celebrate

mental health week

• Greater collaboration on practical projects between like-minded organizations (less talk

more action)

• Sharing of information will gain greater awareness which will benefit the community

• If we all assist in the promotion of community inclusive projects/programs/services then

there is a greater chance that the people we are trying to reach will benefit

• Assigning a central body/spokesperson to be the representative of social inclusion e.g.

having a website specific to social inclusion will improve chances at capturing a greater

audience

• More inclusive practice re client work and groups

• Programs like the Mens shed, Community kitchens etc.

• Transition towns

• Assisting with transport

• Outreach programs

• Reducing waiting lists

• Consolidating through collaborative networks at all levels ie management and grass

roots

• An improved transport system

• Improved networking with other agencies and support services. Brotherhood of St

Laurence for example, does a tremendous amount of work in the community around

promoting social inclusion and more efforts should be made to value-add to these

• Many years ago, people with physical disabilities were shunned. Massive community

education and public policy changed the way people responded to these groups we

could do more for people with mental health issues and associated drug and alcohol

issues

• Social isolation is both a problem for the individual and also for the community as a

whole. We need to support individuals, and educate the community about barriers to

participation

• Just keep running as many groups as possible to allow as many people from the

community to attend as possible

• Targeting some of the more disconnected groups eg Frankston North

• It is bigger then our health/community services--Government needing change--look at

wastage

• Making sure all information is in an accessible format. eg Easy English, pictures

• Transport

• Peer support groups run by a facilitator

• Negotiation with local health businesses (eg. gyms and pools) for discounts for low

income earners. The work that I am involved in is attempting to this already. We used to

run group for women at Mornington CH. One Women’s Self confidence course and the

other was for women who were at the end of violence and came in and did art etc.

• Linking people services and supports available within their local communities,

developing social and personal development activities that enhance life skills,

participation and confidence in community living and developing volunteer and self-

help initiatives which support people and strengthen communities, including community

education to increase awareness regarding the needs of different people

• Advocate for the development of safe public spaces for people to gather

• More events that encourage cross cultural engagement

• Initiatives that link isolated members of our community together

FMPPCP



Feb11

Page 46 of 46

• The main barrier for our clients in being able to participate more in society is lack of

funding. Maybe there could be more partnership to develop projects that meet various

tender or grant guidelines and if successful receive funding to delivery projects that aim

to reduce social isolation

• Continuing to meet and work together

• The reduction of social isolation needs to be addressed in a three way integration

approach;

1. Organisational approach engagement and delivery

2. Community

3. Integration

A staged strategy of promotion, planning, delivering and evaluating models and

approaches should be developed. Within the process capacity building of workforce

and community to become able to recognise social isolation and move towards social

inclusion solution must be pursued.

What we wanted to find out was what more can be done at a partnership

level to improve social inclusion. Through asking the above two questions

and collating the responses we have the following findings; • Some of the initial directions of the Social Inclusion Working Group are supported by the

responses, in particular to the second question

• Further discussion needs to occur regarding the suggestions made

• There could be better sharing of principles/practices/strategies individual agencies are

undertaking to improve social inclusion

• Findings should be fed into the Social Inclusion Needs Assessment and any future

planning undertaken by member agencies and partnerships including but not limited to

the PCP when considering action on social inclusion

Documents

Social Inclusion Working Group Needs Assessment...FMPPCP Social Inclusion Working Group Needs Assessment 2010 December 2011 Page 3 of 46 Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 5 1.1 Purpose