Centres ‘Down Under’: Mapping Australia’s neighbourhood centres … · services literature (e.g. Coleman 1995, Connor 1993, Otto & Onyx 2006, Suhood, Marks, Waterford & Song

Australian Journal of Adult Learning Volume 51, Number 2, July 2011

Centres ‘Down Under’: Mapping Australia’s neighbourhood centres and learning

Donna RooneyUniversity of Technology, Sydney

The overarching aim of this paper is to ‘talk up’ learning in the Australian neighbourhood centre sector, realising this aim is premised on a need to understand neighbourhood centres themselves. Hence, the paper tentatively offers a mapping of the sector by first asking: ‘What is a neighbourhood centre?’. Next, the paper provides an introductory scoping of learning in centres in an effort to invite further consideration. Two important conclusions are made. The first is that centres’ capacity for continual re-shaping, while retaining some very particular values, marks them in ways that differ from organisations for which adult education is the primary purpose. The second is that the range of learning possibilities in centres is far-reaching, and makes significant and valuable contributions to individuals and communities, and ultimately to the Australian nation.

204 Donna Rooney

Introduction

Whatdoatake-a-wayshop,café,lawnmowingserviceandawineryallhaveincommon?Thereareseveralanswerstothis,butoneisthattheyallarepartoftheworkofAustralianneighbourhoodcentres1.Asecondisthattheyallinvolveadultslearning,andapossiblethirdisthatthislearningmaynotbecapturedbythemechanismsthatreportonadultcommunityeducationinAustralia.

Whilethereisageneralagreementthatlearningoccursbeyondeducationalinstitutions,traditionallythoseinterestedinmeasuring,accountingforandreportingonadultlearninginAustraliahavelookedtowardsrecognisededucationalinstitutionswhencompilingtheiraccounts.Whilethishasbeenanappropriatestartingpointthathasfacilitatedtheproductionofmanyimportantnationalaccountsoflearning,ithasfailedtoaccountforlearningprovidedinothersettings.ThestartingpointhereisacollectiveoforganisationsacrossAustraliathatisnotnecessarilyconsideredtobepartofAustralia’seducationalframework(Rooney2004,Rule2005).Unlikeschools,collegesoruniversitiesthatareeasilyidentifiedbyeducationalresearchersasbeingeducational,theorganisationscentraltothispaperarenotalwaysvisible,letaloneobvioustothoseinterestedinlearning.Theorganisationscentraltothispaperareneighbourhoodcentres.Thereareover1,000oftheselocatedacrossAustralia.Whileamoredetaileddescriptionisforthcoming,ahelpfulfirstdefinitionisthataneighbourhoodcentreisasmall,community-ownedandmanaged,non-profitorganisationthattypicallysubscribestotheideasofcommunitydevelopment.

Communitydevelopmentisacontestedterm,butgenerallyreferstoa‘bottom-uppractice’(Ife2009:9).Whatthismeansisthatpeopleandcommunitiesareinvolvedindefiningandtakingactionontheissuesthataffectthem(Tett2005:126).Itisa‘politicalactivity’(Kenny2010:2)thatvaluesthewisdomandskillsoflocalpeople,sustainability,diversityandinclusiveness,andtheimportanceof

Centres ‘Down Under’ 205

process(Ife2009:9–28).Itaimstochallengediscriminationandinequalityandworkstowardasociallyjustsociety(Tett2005:126).Communitydevelopmentworkersuse‘tools’likeadvocacy,referral,informationsharing,andemotionalandmaterialsupportaspartoftheircommunitydevelopmentwork.Ofimportancetothispaper,educationisalsoatoolforcommunitydevelopment(McArdle1999,Tett2005&2006).

Despitelearningbeingamongthepracticeswithinneighbourhoodcentres,nationalstudiesseldomfocusontheseorganisationsasbeingsitesoflearning(Ducie1994,Rooney2004).Withtheexceptionofsomecentres(mostlyinVictoria)formallyfundedtoprovideadulteducation,centresbyandlargearenotconsideredlegitimateplayersintheeducationallandscape.Alongwithanestimated500,000othernon-profitorganisations(ProductivityCommission2009:8)forwhomeducationisnottheirprimepurpose,neighbourhoodcentresarethefocusofresearchtextstypicallyfromdisciplinaryareasotherthaneducation.Forexample,theycanfeatureinsocialservicesliterature(e.g.Coleman1995,Connor1993,Otto&Onyx2006,Suhood,Marks,Waterford&Song2006),inorganisationaland/orsectoralreports(ANHLC1997,Bullen&Onyx1999,Ducie1994,LCSA2002&2004),orinbroadercommentaryaboutthirdsectororganisations(Lyons2001).Ingeneral,thesetextsspeaktodifferentaudiencesandseldomcapturetheattentionofeducationalresearchersorauthorities.

Afailuretoacknowledgethelearningpotentialofcentresisaconsiderableoversightgiventhatacommunitydevelopmentfocustypicallymeansthatthosepeopleinvolvedareoftenhighlyrepresentativeofpeopleunder-representedinothereducationalsettings(McIntyre&Kimberley1996,Rooney2004&2007,Suhoodetal.2006).Learninghowtoprovidemoreeffectiveeducationalopportunitiesforsuchpeopleissaidtobeanationalpriority(Rudd&Smith2007,MCEETYA2002).Indeed,researchthatconceptualises

206 Donna Rooney

learninginthesetypesoforganisationspromiseseducationalinstitutionsnewunderstandingsofhowlearningmightbebetterprovidedfordisadvantagedandmarginalisedpeople.Suchpromiseprovidesthewarrantforthisresearch.

Thispaperrepresentsafirstphaseofaresearchprojectthathasanoverarchingaimof‘talkingup’learninginneighbourhoodcentresintoeducationaldiscourses,yetrealisingthisaimispremisedonanunderstandingofthesectoritself.Thisunderstandingcanbeachievedbytheprovisionofamappingofthescopeanduniquenessofthesector.Therefore,drawingempiricaldatafromdocumentarysources,interviewsandfocusgroupsfromacrossAustralia,thispapertentativelypresentssuchamapping.Inotherwords,thedeceptivelysimpletaskofthispaperisfirsttoaddressthequestionof ‘whatisaneighbourhoodcentre?’.Asecondaryaimistoprovideanintroductoryscopingoflearningincentresinanefforttoinvitefurtherconsideration.Whileamorecomprehensiveconceptualisationoflearningisbeyondtheaimofthispaper,thediscussionofferedherelaysthegroundworkforsuchworktobegin.

Thepaperispresentedinfoursections.ItbeginsbycontextualisingboththeresearchprojectandtheAustralianneighbourhoodcentresector.Inthesecondsection,itpresentsapreliminarymappingbyaddressingthequestionofwhatisaneighbourhoodcentre.Withaprovisionalmapestablished,thepaperthenaddsfurtherdetailinthethirdsectionwherethefocusisonlearningincentres.Inparticular,thissectiondrawsattentiontothebroadscopeoflearningandtothecontributioncentresaremakingtothelearninglandscapeintermsofhuman,socialandidentitycapitals.

Takingthecomplexitiesevenfurther,thefourthsectionproblematisesearlierattemptstodefinewhataneighbourhoodcentreis,andconcludesthat,whilecentressharemanysimilarities,asacollectiveoforganisationstheyarefarfromhomogenous.Overall,thepaperactuallymapsandthenunmapsneighbourhoodcentres.Thisstrategy


isusefulsothatontheonehandthevalueoftheseorganisationsmightbeacknowledged,andontheother,thedifferencesarekeptinplay.

Twoimportantobservationsaremadefromthismapping(andunmapping)exercise.Thefirstisthatcentres’capacityforcontinualre-shaping,whileretainingsomeveryparticularvalues,markstheminwaysthatdifferfromorganisationsforwhichadulteducationistheprimarypurpose.Thesecondisthattherangeoflearningpossibilitiesincentresisfar-reaching,andmakessignificantandvaluablecontributionstoindividualsandcommunities,andultimatelytotheAustraliannation.

Background

Research project

Theempiricalmaterialonwhichthispaperdrawscomesfromfieldworkundertakenoverasix-monthperiodin2009.Threemaindatacollectionmethodswereutilised.First,analysiswasundertakenofover200publicdocumentswheretheinterestwasinhowvariouscentresacrossAustraliapresentedthemselves—thatis,thepublicidentitytheyprojectedintheformof‘identitystatements’.BythisImeanthestatementsthatorganisationswriteaboutthemselves(e.g.‘Xcentreis...’).Theseidentitystatementsservethepurposeofinformingotherswhatcentresareandwhattheydo.Theycanbefoundonthewebpagesofcentresaswellasincentres’prospectuses.Second,semi-structuredinterviewswereconductedwith24representativesacrosseachAustralianStateandTerritorywiththeintentionofelicitingrichaccountsintermsofthescopeandbreadthofcentres’work,fundingarrangementsandgenerallywhatgoeson.Over19hoursofinterviewswererecorded,transcribedand,alongwiththeidentitystatements,subjectedtothematicanalysis.Finally,15centresfromacrossAustraliawerevisited,enablingunstructuredobservationsandinformalconversations.Thesevisits,andthe

208 Donna Rooney

conversationsoccurringbecauseofthem,affordedafeelforcentresinaction.

Historical context

WhilethispaperisconcernedwithAustralianorganisations,neighbourhoodcentres,ororganisationsresemblingthem,arefoundglobally.Forinstance,Finland’snetworkofSetlementti, Vancouver’sNeighbourhoodHouses,Israel’sCommunityCenters[sic],Germany’sNachbarschaftshäuser,andBritain’sSettlements,areexamplesoforganisationsresemblingthosefoundinAustralia.Someoftheseinternationalorganisationshavebeeninexistenceforover200years(Parker2009),andhaveinspiredtheestablishmentofsimilarorganisationsinternationally(InternationalFederationofSettlementsandNeighbourhoodCentres2009).

Incontrasttolonghistorieselsewhere,theintroductionofneighbourhoodcentresinAustraliaismorerecent.Whileafewisolatedcentreswereinoperationinthe1960s,thereisageneralagreementthattheyamassedalongsidethewomen’smovementinthe1970s(Golding,Kimberley,Foley&Brown2008,Henry2000,LCSA1994).Thisdevelopmentwasfosteredbytheconsiderablelegislativereformsoftheera’ssociallyprogressivegovernment.Upuntilthispoint,benevolentandcharitableinstitutions(typicallyfaith-based)providedmanysocialservices.TheAustralianAssistanceProgram,introducedaspartofthesereforms,servedtoestablishorganisations(likeneighbourhoodcentres)thatespousedcommunitydevelopmentapproaches.

Communitydevelopment,then,andorganisationslikeneighbourhoodcentresthatespousedit,presentedanalternativetothealtruismoffaith-basedand/orbenevolentserviceprovision.Whatthismeantinpracticeisthattheseorganisationswereownedandmanagedbytheverypeoplewhomtheyweresaidtoserve.Self-determinationwas(andremains)highlyprized,andvisionsof


socialjusticeprovidedthewarrantfortheactivitiestheorganisationsengagedin(ornot).

Relationshipsbetweentheorganisationsandtheirfunders(thatis,thegovernment)havechangedsincetheseearlydays.Likeelsewhere,neoliberalpolicieswereembracedinAustraliaintheearly1980s,andthiscontinuesthroughtothepresentday.Thishasseen(amongotherthings)thecreationofmarketswheretheyhadpreviouslynotexisted(Marginson1997,NewSouthWalesCouncilofSocialServices1999).Fornon-governmentorganisationslikeneighbourhoodcentres,the1980smarkedatimewheretheywerere-positionedintopurchaser/providerrelationshipswithgovernment,andwereexpectedtoparticipateinmarketprocesses.Moreover,fororganisationswithahistoryofworkingcollaborativelywitheachotherandwithlike-mindedorganisations,thisnewspacepresentedchallenges(NewSouthWalesCouncilofSocialServices1999:51).However,thisspacealsopresentedopportunitiestodevelopnewwaysofbeing(e.g.consortiaofsmallorganisationsproducingjointtenders)andofnegotiatingwhatwasunderstoodasunfavourableconditionsinwaysthatretainedtheirsocialjusticepurpose(Lane1999,Rule2005).

What is a neighbourhood centre?

So,whatisaneighbourhoodcentre?Afirstanswertothisquestionisthatsuchacentreisanentityofsomesort—aplace,building,organisationorassociation.However,manycentresqualifywhatkindofentitytheyare.Forinstancetheyusetermslikesafe,warm,friendlyand/orfun.Many(liketheintervieweebelow)alsopointoutwhatacentreisnot.

Technically,usingtheinternationalclassificationsofnot-for-profitorganisationsastheProductivityCommissionuses,[centresare]alocally-based,multi-activitysocialserviceanddevelopmentorganisation.

210 Donna Rooney

Termslikenot-for-profit,non-government,non-religiousand/ornon-discriminatingarecommonamongtheidentitystatementsofcentres.Theuseofthesetermsflagsthatcentresarepurposefullydifferentiatingtheirorganisationsfromothers(forexample,thosethataregovernment,profit-making,religiousetc.).

Thecommentabovealsodrawsattentiontomulti-activities,andmostcentres’illustratethisviathetypesofprocessestheyuseintheiridentitystatements.Therearemanyprocesses(material,mentalandrelational)mentionedandthesegiveanindicationofwhatcentresdo(orsaytheydo).Whilesomereferenceismadetomental(e.g.evolve,seek,believe)andrelational(e.g.belongto,are,is)processes,themostcommontypeofprocesses(byfar)arematerial.Forexample,centressaythatthey:address,change,connect,create,deliver,develop,improve,initiate,link,lobby,reduce,research,run,serve,stimulate,strengthen,andsupportetc.Theprevalenceofmaterialprocessesinthedescriptions ofcentressuggeststhatcentresaredynamicandactiveorganisations,andthisissupportedwhenlookingattheprogramsandactivitiesonoffer.

Funding and focus

Australia’smodeloffederalisationcomplicatesanationalpictureofneighbourhoodcentresbecausecentresaregenerallyfundedatstatelevel.Centrefundingcanrangefromafewmilliontozerodollars,althoughthemedianisalittleover200,000.Whilecorefundingmaybeprovided(admittedlyinsomestatesbetterthanothers),almostallcentresrelyupononadditionalfundingforspecificpurposesaswellasfromvolunteerinputand/orfromfundraising.Inotherwords,mosthavemultiplesourcesoffunding:anextremeexampleisacentrewithover40differentfundingsources(alongwithasmanyacquittalprocesses).

Whiletheaimoftheresearchwasnottocomparecentresinvariousstatesandterritories,someinter-stateidiosyncrasiesareworth


noting.Ofparticularinterestisthewaythehoststates’prioritiesshapetheworkofcentresandthisisseeninthe‘taglines’offundingprogramsthatprioritise:strong,vibrantcommunities(inWesternAustralia);communitybuilding,communitydevelopmentandpreventativehealth(inTasmania);andvulnerablegroupsandthosemostinneed(inVictoria).Thismeansthat,whileallcentresworkwithinfederalagendas(e.g.SocialInclusion),differencesinstatefociinfluencetheworkofcentresinsubtleways.ApoignantexampleisthesituationinNewSouthWaleswherearecentshiftinfundingprogramshasalsoseenprioritiesshiftfromchildprotectiontobuildingstrongercommunities.

Asearliernoted,anothercommonalityacrossallstatesisanespousedinvestmentintheprinciplesofcommunitydevelopment.Withthatsaid,communitydevelopmentmanifestsindifferentwaysincentres’identitystatements.Someembedcommunitydevelopmentintheirpublicstatementsbydescribinghowpeople‘areencouragedtoparticipateintherunningofthecentreandtobecomeinvolvedinavarietyofprojects[…]orinthemanagementareas’;othersaremoreexplicit,andanexampleofthisisacentrethatstateshowitis‘committedtosocialjusticeprinciples,believingthatpeoplehavetherighttoparticipateindecisionsthatwillaffecttheirlives[…]andtoadvocateforafairerdistributionofresources’.

Location/place

Centresemphasisethelocalintheiridentitystatements,andthistooisinkeepingwiththetenetsofcommunitydevelopment.Theemphasisismorethanaddinganaddressthough.Mostcentres(regardlessofstateorterritory)explicitlylocatethemselvesusingtermslike community-based,localorganisation,heartofthecommunityandsoon.Theeffectofthissignifiesastrongidentification,orembedding, withinaparticulargeographicalarea,regionand/orcommunity.Centresdonotseethemselvesas

212 Donna Rooney

simplyexisting,ordoing.Rather,theyexist(anddo)somewhereinparticular.Locationmatters!Intervieweesconcur—asonesaid,‘it’saboutplace’.

Notwithstandinganemphasisonplace,itbecomesapparentininterviewsandobservationsthatcentresexceedplace.Centresarenotmerely‘containers’whereactionhappens,rathermuchactionhappensbeyondtheboundariesoftheactualbuildings.Oneexampleisatake-away-foodshopthatacentreestablishedtoaddresssocial,economic,employmentandeducationalissuesofconcerntolocalpeople.Otherexamplesincludeawinery,alawnmowingbusinessandasocialactioncampaignaroundturtles—allofwhichoccurbeyondthebricksandmortarofcentres.

Finally,centresstresstheimportanceofpeople.Whileafewclaimtodirecttheireffortstoeveryone,mostsuggestthattheyworkwitheveryonewithinthespecificlocation,communityorregioninwhichtheyaresituated. Moreover,effortsareoftentargetedtospecificgroupsofpeople(e.g.thoseonlowincomes,peoplereturningtowork,vulnerablepeople,peoplelivingwithadisability,familiesetc.).Itisherethattheimportanceofsafe/friendlyplacesresonates(asexemplifiedbytheintervieweebelow):

[Thevalueofcentresis]inreachinghard-to-reachlearners,youknow,providingpeoplewhowouldneversetfootinanythingremotelyresemblingaschooltosomewherethat’sasafelearningenvironmentforthemtogointoandtrytore-engageinanykindofeducationprocess.

Centres and learning

Thecommentaboveleadsnicelytothefourthsectionofthispaper,wherethefocusisoncentresandlearning.However,thisdiscussionisalsocomplicatedbyfederalisationbecausetherearevariousdefinitionsofadultcommunityeducation(ACE)acrossAustralia(Borthwick,Knight,Bender&Laveder2001,Choy,Haukka&Keyes


2006,McIntyre2001).InsomestatesthereisavisibleACEsector(e.g.NSW,Victoria,SA,Tasmania)comprisingentitiesreceivingpublicfundsspecificallyfortheprovisionofadultcommunityeducationprograms.Someoftheseentitieshavesuccumbedtopublicpolicyimperativestoanextentthattheyresemblevocationaleducationandtraining(VET)providersratherthantheadultcommunityeducationorganisationsthatmostbeganas(Tennant&Morris2009).Inotherstatesadultcommunityeducationisatypeofnon-publically-fundedprovision,yetrecognisedasaworthwhileactivityandsupportedviadistance(e.g.WA).Finally,inotherstates(e.g.Queensland)itisdifficulttodiscussanadultcommunityeducationsector,whichisnottosaythatadultcommunityeducationdoesnotoccur(Schwencke1997).

RelationshipsbetweenneighbourhoodcentresandACEaredependentonthehoststate’sdefinitions.InsomestatescentresandACEaremutuallyexclusive(e.g.NSWandTasmania).Howeverthereareexamplesofcomplementaryrelationshipsbetweensectors.Forinstance,stateeducationauthoritiesmayfundsmallprojectswherecentresworkinpartnershipwith‘real’providers(LCSA2001).Itislittlewonder,then,thattheidentitystatementsfromthesestatesrarelyappeartoforegroundadulteducationorlearning.Withthatsaid,manysuggestthattheyprovidedopportunitiesto‘meetnewfriends,joinagroup,shareaskillorfindingoutabout’.Thesetypesofstatementsimplylearning,butdonotexplicitlyforegroundit.

InotherstatestherelationshipbetweenneighbourhoodcentresandACEisintegrated(e.g.Victoria,WAandSA).Inthesestatesthestatutorybodyresponsibleforadultlearningexplicitlysupportscentrestoprovideadulteducationprograms(includingVET).InVictoria,centresaresupporteddirectlythroughrecurrentandincreasinglycontestablefunding.InWesternAustralia,thepeakorganisationisfundedtosupportthevoluntaryACEdeliveryofcentresbutthecentresthemselvesreceivelittleornofunding.In

214 Donna Rooney

SouthAustralia,centresreceiveaquarterofthestate’sACEbudget,andareabletocontesttheremainder.Inthesestates,andinparticularinVictoria,centresmakefulluseofeducationaldiscourses.Forinstance,centresmadeclearuseofeducationaldiscoursesandinfrastructureintheiridentitystatements,usingtermsliketraining,courses,accreditationandregisteredtrainingorganisations.

Finally,inotherjurisdictions(e.g.QueenslandandNorthernTerritory)relationshipsareelusive.Thisisbecauseoneorbothsectorsaresolooselydefined(seeArnott2003andSchwencke1997).Forinstance,inQueenslandthereisabroadcollectiveoforganisationsthatworkssimilarlytoneighbourhoodcentres,butarecognisableACEsectorismoredifficulttoestablish.IntheNorthernTerritorybothsectorsarelooselydefinedsothatanycommentaryontherelationshipbetweenthemisproblematic.

Overall,lessthanhalfofAustralia’s1,000pluscentresreceivefundingspecificallyfortheprovisionofadultcommunityeducation.Despitenotbeingfundedforthispurpose,almostallprovidearangeoflearningopportunitiesincludingwhatmightbedescribedasadultcommunityeducation.Thisishardlysurprisinggiventhatcommunitydevelopmentandadultcommunityeducationarecloselyallied(Tett2005:126).However,inasense(capital)ACEisnotatypeoflearningthatisofparticularinteresthere—notbecauseitisunworthy,ratherbecauseithasbeenrelativelywelldocumented(McIntyre2001;McIntyre&Kimberley1998).Withthatsaid,eventhisfundedACEdeliverydelivers‘somethingmore’—asanACErepresentativeexplained:

Weareveryluckybecausewhatthecentrescandovalue-addstothepiddlylittlebitofmoneythatwehaveavailablefortheactivities...We’renotpayingfortherealcost,we’repayingforalittlebit,butalltheotherservicesthatthecentresprovidearewhatmakesasuccessofit.It’snotthebitwepayfor.


ThisintervieweedrawsattentiontotheadditionalsupportmechanismsandservicesprovidedbycentresandhowtheseaddvaluetofundedACEprograms.However,asalreadysuggested,specificallyfundedlearning,whilevaluable,isonlythetipoftheiceberg.Inothercentres,indeedeveninthecentresthatalsoprovide‘real’ACE,thereisevenmoreadultlearning(Rooney2007).Butthislearningcomesundertherubricofcommunitydevelopmentand,atleastinsomestates,thereareproblemswithcallingitlearning.

Toillustratethislastpoint,anintervieweerecountstheresponsehereceivedfromagovernmentagencyduringafundingprogramreview.Theintervieweetoldofhowheincludedadulteducationasoneofthecentre’soutputs.Theresponsehereceivedfromthefunderswasthat‘weactuallycan’tfund[that]’.Whatweseehereisthatwhileadulteducationisalegitimateactivityinsomecentres,itisnotforall.Moreover,itisnotalegitimate(readfundable)activityinastatewhereadulteducationandcommunitydevelopmentaresiloed.

Atthispointitisimportanttoreiteratethatnotbeingfundedtoprovideadultlearningdoesnotalsoprecludeitfrombeingprovided.Neighbourhoodcentres,asgeneralistorganisations,arenotlimitedtoprovidingjustoneparticulartypeofservice(includingadulteducation).Theirapproachmeansthatthereisalwaysacapacityfordifferencegiventhatgeography,demographicsandpoliticalcontextinwhichtheyarelocatedwillalsodiffer.Forexample,thelearningneedsofametropolitancommunitywithlargenumbersofculturallyandlinguisticallydifferentpeoplewilllikelydifferfromthoseofaregionaltownwithanagingandhomogeneouspopulation.Withthisinmind,thepaperturnstointroducethescopeandcomplexityoflearningincentres.

Scope and complexities of learning in centres

Learningincentrestakesmanyforms.Someoftheseareeasilyidentifiedaslearningandcaptureattentionwithintheeducational

216 Donna Rooney

purview.Forexamplethereisanarrayofformalaccredited,vocationaleducationprogramsofferedincentres,aswellasmanynon-accredited,pre-vocationalcoursesthataimtosupportlearnerstotakethenextstepintoaccredited,vocationalprograms.ThereareformalEnglishlanguageprogramsaswellasinformalgroupswhereparticipantscanpractisetheirEnglish.Therearealsotrainingprogramsforthesector’smanyvolunteers.

However,thereareotherformsoflearningactivityofferedincentresthatarenotsoeasilycapturedinpublicaccountsoflearning.Forinstance,thereareinformalleisure-learningcourses(e.g.craft,cooking).Thesegroupsmayhaveateacher,ortheroleofteachercanberotatedamongparticipants.Therearemanyprogramsthatfocusonhealth(e.g.gentleexercise,managingdiabetes).Thereareworkshopsandone-offactivitiesthataddresscommonconcerns(e.g.recycling,parentingteenagers)thatmaybeledbyexperts.Thereareleaderlessgroupsthatsupportmemberswhoexperienceacommonhardship(e.g.amputee,divorcee).Therearesocialgroupsforpeoplewhoshareacharacteristic(e.g.oldermen,recentarrivals).Andfinally,therearesocialactiongroupsformedbecauseofaneedtoaddressalocalissueofconcern(e.g.theplacementofanewfreeway,anewbusroute).Thislistisbynomeansexhaustive,butitbeginstodemonstratethediversityandscopeoflearningincentres.Moreover,asimilardiversityandscopeisseenintheoutcomesoftheseactivities.

Outcomes of learning in centres

Theoutcomesforparticipantsoftheseformsoflearningaremanyandvaried.Forsome,likevocationalprograms,theoutcomesmayseemclear(e.g.ajoborsomeprogressalongthepathtoobtainingone).However,theoutcomesoflearningactivitiesmaynotbeasclearasmightfirstbeassumed.Takethecommentsofaparticipantinaquiltinggroupforexample:


Well,Ialwayswantedtodoquilting.Istarteddoingthat—sothewomeninthequilters’group,weallswapbooksandthings.UntilIjoinedIhadn’treadthesortofbooksthatthey’reintothough,soit’spickedupmy—whatIreadnow—andthat’spartofthequiltersgroup.

Firstofall,thecentre’sjustificationforprovidingthisgroupmaybeinorderthatisolatedpeoplemakefriendsratherthanmerelytoincreasewomen’squiltingskills.Whiletheparticipantmayindeedmakesomefriends,shedescribesaquiltinggroupthatdoublesasareadinggroup—whereshehas‘pickedup’herreading.Itisunlikelythataquilters’groupwouldbeconsideredasaliteracyprogram,moreoveritmightbeunlikelythatshewouldjoinaliteracyprogram.Yet,thisbriefexamplebeginstoillustrateallthesepossibilitiesoflearningprovidedbyorganisationsforwhicheducationisnottheprimepurpose.

OnewaytothinkaboutthecomplexitiesoflearningincentresisprovidedbySchuller(2004).Heillustratesarangeofoutcomesoflearningusingatriangularmodelofinterrelatedhuman,socialandidentitycapitals.Theacquisitionordevelopmentofknowledgeandskillsthatenablepeopleto‘functioneffectivelyineconomicandsociallife’areencapsulatedinthedimensionofhumancapital(p.14).The(above)quilter’scapacitytoread,orpeoplereceivingsomesortofqualification,wouldconstituteanincreaseinhumancapital.Butitistheothertwocapitalsthataremoreinterestinginrelationtocentresandlearning.Identitycapitalrefersto‘thecharacteristicsoftheindividualthatdefinehisorheroutlookandself-image’and‘includesconceptslikeself-esteemandsenseofself’(p.22).Reportsoflearningincentresarerepletewithreferencesofincreasedidentitycapital(LCSA2001),anditislikelythatthequilterhasanewsenseofselfbecauseofherachievementsinreading.Finally,socialcapitalreferstotherelationshipsbetweenpeople(p.17)andthisconstitutesthethirddimensionofSchuller’smodel.Thisthirddimensionisanotherwayofthinkingaboutthecommunitythatiscentraltocommunity

218 Donna Rooney

developmentwork.Again,itislikelythatthequilterdevelopedrelationshipsbetweenherselfandothers.

ThevalueofSchuller’smodelistheacknowledgmentoftheinter-relationshipbetweenitsvariousdimensions(2004:22),ratherthanfocusingonjustone.Themodeldrawsattentiontohowaperson’sidentitycapital(senseofself)willimpactontheircapacitytodevelophumancapital(skills)and/orsocialcapital(relationshipswithothers).Thisisnotnecessarilyanewidea,butinamilieudominatedbyeconomicconcernsandamistrustofothers,itisworthemphasisingtherelationship.

Afinalvignetteofacentrevolunteerservestoillustratethisrelationshipfurther.Thecentrewherethevolunteerworksislocatedinaregionwherethereisalow-securityprison.Theusersofthecentreincludeprisonersandtheirfamilies.Thevolunteerrecallshowhisworkbroughthimincontactwithpeopleheconsidereddifferenttohimself:

Ithoughtthatwasjustsomethingthathappenedtootherpeople—ithappenedinthenews,andthenallofasuddenyouhavecontactwiththesepeople.It’snotjustthepersoninjailthatsuffers—youhavethefamilyandit’snottheirfaulteither.[It]makesyouaskwhytheydidit.There’salwaystwosidestoeverystory[but]youonlyeverget[the]news—thecriminal—thepoliceside.

Itseemsreasonabletosurmisethatthisvolunteerhasdevelopedempathyandmaynowunderstandhimselfinrelationtoothersdifferently(identitycapital).Moreover,withabetterunderstandingofthepeoplewithwhomhelivesandworks(socialcapital),hecanperformhisroleasvolunteerevenbetter(humancapital).Thepointisnotaboutthetruthofthisconjecture,butmoreabouthowthedevelopmentofeachcapitalisreliantonthedevelopmentofanother.


Un mapping

DespitehavingpresentedabriefmappingofAustralianneighbourhoodcentrestoaddressthequestionofwhatisaneighbourhoodcentre,thispartnowmovestoconcludewithatwist.Thetwististhatmostintervieweesfoundthequestionproblematic.Asoneclaimed,‘it’sthebarbecuestopper,becauseyoucan’tanswerit’. Anothersuggested,‘peoplecan’tdefinecommunitydevelopment,theycan’tdefine[a]neighbourhoodcentre[...]thatisaweaknessasasector’.

Thetaskofansweringwhatseemsaneasyquestionismoredifficultthanfirstrealisedbecausethemodus operandiofcentresmeansthattheyarecontinuallyshapedandre-shapedbysocio-politicalcontextsaswellasbytheircommunitydevelopmentwork.Theideaofpeople‘takingactiononissuesaffectingthem’(Tett2005:246)leavesthedooropenforanalmostunlimitedrangeofissues.Fiveexamplesofissueswherepeople‘cametogether’include:

• Aregionaltown,withlittlelocalinfrastructure,whoselocaltake-a-wayfoodstorecloseddown.Thismeantthatnotonlycouldlocalsnolongerpurchasetake-a-wayfood,butalsothattouristsnolongerstoppedover—whichfurtherimpactedonthelocaleconomy.

• Ametropolitansuburbwhereitwasnotedthattherewasahighproportionofpeoplewithamentalillnessandfewlocalservices.

• Asuburbwhereagrowingnumberofyoungpeoplewerecausinganxietybyhangingaroundthelocalshopsduringschoolhours.Thesepeopleweretooyoungfor‘official’youthprograms,andactionbyschoolauthoritieswasseentobeinadequate.

• Anotedincreaseinviolenceperpetratedbymeninahousingdepartmentestatewherethereweremarkedincreasesinunemploymentofmen(mostofwhomwerelow-skilled).

220 Donna Rooney

• Aregionalareawhereincreasedsalinityinthelocalriverresultedinturtlesbeingcoveredwithscales.

Communitydevelopmentapproachestotheseissuesresultedinthelocalcentresmorphingintoatake-a-wayfoodstore,café,lawn-mowingbusiness,winery,andasocialactioncampaign.Theselocalsolutionsresultedinmodesteconomicgains:forexample,increasingthecapitaloflocalinfrastructure(e.g.throughmaintaininglocaltourism,provisionofgoodsandservices)andsecuringadditionalfundingsourcesforcentres(e.g.sustainability).Moreover,potentialoutcomesacrosstheseexampleswouldalsoincludeincreasedhumancapital.Forinstance,severalprovidedaccreditedtrainingresultinginincreasedqualifications.Severalalsoresultedinpeoplegainingworkexperienceandsomelocalpeoplegainedmeaningfulemployment.Theseareindeedvaluableoutcomesandlikelytobelaudedbyeducationalauthorities.

However,returningtoSchuller’s(2004)model,thereareevenmorepossibleoutcomes,someofwhichincreasesocialcapitalandidentitycapitalaswell.Forinstance,thepeopleinvolvedinplanningdevelopnewunderstandingsoftheircommunitiesandbroadersocietyastheyresearchhowtosetupandmanagewhatostensiblyaresmallbusinesses(e.g.wineries,cafés,lawn-mowingetc.).Allinvolvedmaydevelopnewunderstandingsofdifference,andofissuesfacedbypeoplewithamentalillness,men,and/oryouthetc.Suchactivitieshavethepotentialtodeveloptrustbetweenvarioussegmentsofcommunityandbetweenpeopleandorganisations,likethevolunteerpeopleinvolvedmaylearntoknowdifferencedifferently.These‘spillover’outcomeshavepotentialtocontributetothesocialfabric(capital)ofcommunities.Furthermore,thepeopleinvolvedcandevelopnewunderstandingsaboutthemselvesandinsodoing,experienceincreaseinself-worth.Lonelypeoplemaymakefriends.Othersmaydevelopstrategiesforgettingalongwithpeoplewhomtheyconsiderdifferent.Inotherwords,thisactivitybuildsidentitycapitalaswell.Allthesecapitalgainsmadepossiblebecausefive


smallorganisationswere‘nimbleandflexible’enoughtorespondtolocalneeds(LCSA2002)—notbecausethesefivecentreswere butbecausetheywere able to become!

Some concluding observations

Themapping,andunmapping,workofthispaperprovidesthebasisfortwoconcludingobservations.Thefirstisthatcentres’capacityforcontinualre-shaping,whileretainingsomeveryparticularvalues,markstheminwaysthatdifferfromorganisationsforwhichadulteducationistheprimarypurpose.Thissuggeststhatthecapacitytoprovidebespokeactivities,servicesandresponsestolocalissuesisbetterachievedwhenactivitiesandservicesarenotprescribedfromtheonset.Intheexamplesprovidedhere,localsolutionswerecreatedtoaddresstheidiosyncrasiesofissuesinwaysthatuniversalsolutionscouldnot.Sothatevenwhileaninabilitytodefinecentresandtheirworkisseenbysomeasaweakness,theambiguitycanalsobeunderstoodasastrength.Freedomfromtheconstraintsandboundariesassociatedwithrobustdefinitionsaffordneighbourhoodcentressubstantialfluidityindevelopingappropriateorganisationalidentities.

Asecondobservationisthattherangeoflearningpossibilitiesinneighbourhoodcentresisbroad-ranging,andmakessignificantandvaluablecontributionstoindividualsandcommunities,andultimatelytotheAustraliannation.Underpinningtheseactivitiesareconcernsthatextendbeyondlearningalone.Thisresultsinoutcomesoflearningincentresthatarealsobroad-ranging.Whiletheoutcomesmaywellcontributetoimportanteconomicpriorities,theyalsomakeasignificantcontributiontotheindividual,socialandhumancapitalofparticipants,andcommunities,andultimatelytheAustraliannation.Thesecontributionsandlearninginvitefurtherconsideration.

222 Donna Rooney

References

ANHCA(2009).‘AboutANHCA’,http://www.anhlc.asn.au/ANHCA[viewedNovember2009].

ANHLC.(1997).What is a neighbourhood house,Melbourne:AssociationofNeighbourhoodHousesandLearningCentresInc.

Arnott,A.(2003).‘Learningfromthepast:ImplicationsforeffectiveVETdeliveryofadulteducationservicesintheNorthernTerritory’,Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 43(1):43–72.

Borthwick,J.,Knight,B.,Bender,A.&Loveder,P.(2001).Scope of ACE in Australia: Implications for improved data collection and reporting,vol.1,Leabrook,SouthAustralia:AustralianNationalTrainingAuthority.

Bullen,P.&Onyx,J.(1999).Social capital: Family support and neighbourhood centres in NSW,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

Choy,S.,Haukka,S.&Keyes,E.(2006).Adult and community education: A meta-analysis to explore the capacity of ACE for skilling Australia,Brisbane:AdultLearningAustralia,QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyandLearningNetworkQueensland.

Coleman,J.(1995).‘Learningthroughcollaborationinthecreationofapeople’spark’,The National Bulletin of Good Practice in Adult Community Education, 3 (UTS),17–21.

Connor,C.(1993).‘Houseofmanypeoples’,Community Quarterly,(27):25–27.

Ducie,V.(1994).Opening doors: A report on community neighbourhood houses and learning centres’ influence on personal development, skills development, learning outcomes,Perth:LearningCentreLink.

Golding,B.,Kimberley,H.,Foley,A.&Brown,M.(2008).‘HousesandshedsinAustralia:Anexplorationofthegenesisandgrowthofneighbourhoodhousesandmen’sshedsincommunitysettings’,Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 48(2):237–262.

Henry,K.(2000).Like a circle: A story of LCSA. The first 25 years,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

Ife,J.(2009).Human rights from below: Achieving rights through community development,PortMelbourne,Victoria:CambridgeUniversityPress.

InternationalFederationofSettlementsandNeighbourhoodCentres(2009).‘AboutISF’,www.ifsnetwork.org/Membership/CurrentMembers/tabid/463/Default.aspx[viewedDecember2009].


Kenny,S.(2010).Developing communities for the future: Community development in Australia(Fourthed.),SouthMelbourne,Victoria:CengageLearning.

Lane,M.(1999).‘Communitydevelopmentandapostmodernofresistance’,inJ.Fook(ed.),Transforming social work practice: Postmodern critical perspectives,Florence,KY:Routledge:135–149.

LocalCommunityServicesAssociation(LCSA)(1994).We just grew like topsy: A resource manual for understanding and managing multi-purpose Neighbourhood Centres,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

LocalCommunityServicesAssociation(LCSA)(2001).Partnerships in ACE: A report to BACE,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

LocalCommunityServicesAssociation(LCSA)(2002).Odd socks: Why the survival of small community organisations is critical,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

LocalCommunityServicesAssociation(LCSA)(2004).Neighbourhood centres in NSW: 2003 facts and figures,Sydney:LocalCommunityServicesAssociation.

Lyons,M.(2001).Third sector: The contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprises in Australia,Sydney:Allen&Unwin.

Marginson,S.(1997).Markets in education,Sydney:Allen&Unwin.McArdle,J.(1999).Community development in the market economy,

StKilda:VistaPublications.MCEETYA(2002).Ministerial declaration on adult community education,

Melbourne:DepartmentofEducationandTraining.McIntyre,J.(2001).‘ThediscursiveconstructionofACEinnationalpolicy’,

Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 41(1):56–71.McIntyre,J.&Kimberley,H.(1996).Planning pathways: A resource for

providers developing pathways for women from ACE to VET,Sydney:CentreforVocationalEducationandTraining,UniversityofTechnology.

McIntyre,J.&Kimberley,H.(1998).Planning pathways: A resource for providers developing pathways for women from ACE to VET.Perth:WesternAustralianDepartmentofTraining.

NewSouthWalesCouncilofSocialServices(1999).Shifting ground: Competition policy and tendering in the community services,SurryHills:J.Bell&Co.

Otto,A.&Onyx,J.(2006).Developing social capital among older ethnic communities,Workingpaperno.73,Sydney:CentreforAustralianCommunityOrganisationsandManagement(CACOM).

224 Donna Rooney

Parker,M.(2009).‘Thepast,thepassionandthepotential:HowthehistoryoftheSettlementMovementinformsourpursuitofsocialjusticetoday’,inBritishAssociationofSettlementsandSocialActionCentres(ed.),London:BASSAC.

ProductivityCommission(2009).Contribution of the not for profit sector: Productivity issues paper,Canberra:AustralianGovernment.

Rooney,D.(2004).‘Cinderellahasballs?:Othersitesforadultlearning’,Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 44(2):143–157.

Rooney,D.(2007).‘Writingup’neighbourhoodcentresand‘writingin’theprofessionaldoctorate’,Sydney:UniversityofTechnology,Sydney.

Rudd,K.&Smith,S.(2007).The Australian economy needs an educational revolution: New directions paper on the critical link between long-term prosperity, productivity growth and human capital investment,Canberra:AustralianLaborParty.

Rule,J.(2005).‘Tracingdiscoursesofsocialaction:Inner-citySydneyneighbourhoodcentres’,Studies in Continuing Education,27(2):135–153.

Schwencke,H.(1997).Adult and community education: A snapshot,Paddington,Queensland:AdultLearningAustralia(QueenslandBranch).

Schuller,T.(2004).‘Threecapitals:Aframework’,inThe benefits of learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital,London:RoutledgeFalmer:12–33.

Suhood,T.,Marks,C.,Waterford,M.&SONG(2006).Voice of SONG—the way forward: Tackling the issues confronting small community organisations,issuespaper,VoiceofSONG.

Tennant,M.&Morris,R.(2009).‘ThechangingfaceofadulteducationinAustralia’,inP.Jarvis(ed.),The Routledge international handbook of lifelong learning,NewYork:Routledge:470–478.

Tett,L.(2005).‘CommunityDevelopment’,inL.English(ed.),International encyclopedia of adult education,NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan:126–131.

Tett,L.(2006).Community education, lifelong learning and social inclusion(Seconded.),Edinburgh:DunedinAcademicPressLtd.

Endnotes1 TheseorganisationsareknownbydifferentnamesindifferentAustralian

StatesandTerritories.However,theterm‘NeighbourhoodCentres’isusedhere(unlessotherwisestated)intheserviceofclarity.


About the author

Dr Donna Rooney is an early career researcher and lecturer in adult education at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Her doctoral research focused on learning in New South Wales’ neighbourhood centres. Her broader research interests focus on adult learning outside of educational institutions. This includes community-based learning as well as learning in workplaces.

Contact details

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, 2007, Australia. Tel: +61 2 9514 3044 Fax: +61 2 9514 3737 Email: [email protected]

Documents

Centres ‘Down Under’: Mapping Australia’s neighbourhood centres … · services literature (e.g. Coleman 1995, Connor 1993, Otto & Onyx 2006, Suhood, Marks, Waterford & Song