Or as Humpty says:"The question is," said Alice, "whether
you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
Discovering the Productive Benefits
of Playgroups- Social Capital
The structure of playgroups in Victoria What is Social Capital? What evidence do we have that playgroups contribute to Social Capital?
Utilising the benefits of playgroups in the early childhood setting
The Presentation Today
Continuum of Playgroups
CommunityPlaygroups(parent-led)
Intensive(agency-led)
Facilitated (agency-led)
Families move between formats according to need
At the interface between community and supported there may be occasional support
At the interface between supported and intensive there may be planned transitions
Increasing level of family and service support
Outcomes
Working for the day when all families with children under school age:have opportunities for social play and learning in their
communities; [ CHILD]have positive social networks that support their
parenting; and [ PARENT ]have opportunities for meaningful participation in
community life. [ COMMUNITY ]
Nurturing children, supporting families, building communities
CCCH Paper: Playgroups in Australia 2012
The commonalities of most definitions of social capital are that they focus on social relations that have
productive benefits.
Social capital is about the value of social networks, bonding similar people and bridging between diverse
people, with norms of reciprocity.
The Social Capital Research site {http://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/definition.html}
Social Capital
Intuitively, then, the basic idea of “social capital” is that one’s family, friends, and associates constitute an important asset, one that can be called upon in a crisis, enjoyed for its own sake, and/or leveraged for material gain. What is true for individuals, moreover, also holds for groups. Those communities endowed with a diverse stock of social networks and civic associations will be in a stronger position to confront poverty and vulnerability (Moser 1996; Narayan 1996), resolve disputes (Schafft 1998; Varshney 1999), and/or take advantage of new opportunities (Isham 1999). Conversely, the absence of social ties can have an equally important impact.
Woolcock and Narayan
Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy Final version submitted to the World Bank Research ObserverTo be published in Vol. 15(2), 2000
Soci
al C
apita
lGroup Characteristics • # memberships
• Contribution of money• Frequency of participation• Participation in decision making• Membership heterogeneity• Source of group funding
Generalised Norms • Helpfulness of people• Trustworthiness of people• Fairness of people
Togetherness • How well people get along• Togetherness of people
Everyday Sociability • Everyday sociability
Neighbourhood Connections • Asking neighbour to help with a sick child• Asking neighbour to for yourself if sick
Volunteerism • Have you volunteered• Expectations of volunteering• Have you helped someone• Criticism of not volunteering• Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Trust • Trust of family, neighbourhood, other tribes, business, government, service providers, justice organisations
Narayan and Cassidy 2001
Continuum of Playgroups
CommunityPlaygroups(parent-led)
Intensive(agency-led)
Facilitated (agency-led)
Families move between formats according to need
At the interface between community and supported there may be occasional support
At the interface between supported and intensive there may be planned transitions
Increasing level of family and service support
Less
soci
al c
apita
l as v
ulne
rabi
lity
incr
ease
sAbsence of benefits of social capital
Soci
al C
apita
l: Co
mm
unity
Pla
ygro
ups Group
Characteristics• # memberships• Contribution of money• Frequency of participation• Participation in decision making• Membership heterogeneity• Source of group funding
Parent run and controlled, parents involved in decision making through committee and general involvement in playgroup activities. A level of heterogeneity exists. Funded by parents involved.
20,000 families a week attending playgroup.
Generalised Norms
• Helpfulness of people• Trustworthiness of people• Fairness of people
Parents support each other, meet outside of playgroup, assist with issues such as PND. Families socialise. Shared responsibility.
Togetherness • How well people get along• Togetherness of people
Playgroup parents operate as a friendship group
Everyday Sociability
• Everyday sociability Parents are involved in their community and confident to participate in their community
Neighbourhood Connections
• Asking neighbour to help with a sick child
• Asking neighbour to for yourself if sick
Supports are obvious with parents collectively parenting children and able to assist each other
Volunteerism • Have you volunteered• Expectations of volunteering• Have you helped someone• Criticism of not volunteering• Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Purely volunteer based . Parents are expected to participate as best they can in the playgroup and encouraged to take on decision making duties
Trust • Trust of family, neighbourhood, other tribes, business, government, service providers, justice organisations
Trust is built within the group. Trust of community
37% of parents learnt about good businesses in their community through playgroup
49% learnt about toy libraries through playgroup 25% learnt about health services 92% rate their playgroup friendly 96% of parents agreed that attending playgroup has provided
them with a sense of friendship, community and/or connectedness
95% said their child’s social skills benefit through interaction with other children
67% said it gives their children opportunity for physical activity58% said children benefit through learning to take turns and
share
What parents say about playgroups
Do vulnerable families who do not attend community playgroups get productive benefits which build social capital?
How do we conceptualise the differences in outcomes for families attending community and supported playgroups?
Are the benefits of playgroups shared evenly?
Strengths Pressures Model of Community Development
INTENSITY
STRENGTHS PRESSURES
Community Wide
Individualised
Strengths Pressures Model
High Pressure
Low Strength
Low pressure
Low Strength
High Strength
High Pressure
High Strength
Low pressure
THE INTERPLAY OF COMMUNITIES:
The Differing Strategies For Empowerment
Low StrengthLow Pressure
High pressureHigh Strength
Low StrengthHigh Pressure
Low Pressure
High Strength
UK Children in Need Owen & Gill., The Missing Side of the Triangle
The Missing
Side of the Triangle:
see handout
The Missing Side of the Triangle A model for analysing the impact of community on parents and children
This model is based on the information and connections covered in The missing side of the triangle, by Gordon Jack and Owen Gill.
The full publication, incorporating research and practice examples, is available from Barnardo’s UK Childcare Publications
STRENGTHS PRESSURES PARENTS CHILDREN PARENTS CHILDREN
1 Practical resources in the community Employment (links to income and social integration) Good local shops (eg good quality/value food) Transport available (access to employment and leisure facilities) Anti-poverty resources (eg credit unions, welfare rights advice) Affordable local childcare (access to employment for parents) Social network development (eg drop-ins, community centres)
Anti-poverty resources (eg breakfast clubs, subsidised holidays) Good quality, accessible play resources. Specific resources for black, other minority ethnic or dual-heritage children, and children with disabilities. Social network development (eg clubs, playgroups) Local schools provide inclusive and supportive environment.
High local levels of unemployment. Inadequate local shops (including rural accessibility) Transport expensive, infrequent, unreliable. No access to financial advice or services Expensive credit facilities Childcare resources inadequate (opening hours, location, cost)
Leisure facilities, outings and holidays not affordable or accessible. Lack of safe, local play areas/facilities Few organised clubs and out-of-school activities. No specific resources for black, other minority ethnic or dual-heritage children, or children with disabilities Local schools provide poor educational and social environment (eg low achievement, bullying)
2 Natural networks in the community Reciprocal ‘helping’ relationships in community Long term residence of families Non-threatening relations with immediate neighbours Balances community – mixed age structure
Established and supportive social networks Good contact with immediate neighbours Positive contact with significant adults from different generations in community Integration between school and community networks
Culture of people “keeping themselves to themselves” High rates of mobility into and out of neighbourhood Lack of links between wider family networks and community networks
Lack of positive contact with rang of people in community Children’s networks disrupted by high mobility of residents Lack of links between school and community networks
3 Child and family safety in the community Established positive community norms around childcare practice and values
Children perceive their immediate area to be safe, rather than threatening (people, safety, crime/drugs, safety, physical safety)
Parents see community as unsafe (people safety, crime/drugs safety, physical safety) Harassment from neighbours (including racial harassment)
Children perceive local environment as threatening (people, crime/drugs, physical danger) Harassment from local adults and children (including racial harassment)
4 Community norms around children and childcare Established positive community norms around childcare practice and values
Children experience stable and established community norms Positive sense of identity and belonging conveyed to all children
Lack of established positive community norms around childcare practice and values
Children do not experience stable and established community norms Negative sense of identity and belonging conveyed to certain children (eg teenagers, poor children, black, other minority ethnic and dual-heritage children, children with disabilities)
5 The individual family and child in the community Personal resources and knowledge to access available facilities Personal resources to develop and maintain supportive networks Perceptions that local facilities are accessible for their family
Developing confidence in using available facilities and opportunities Developing confidence in local networks with other children Perception that facilities are accessible to them (eg black, other minority, ethnic or dual-heritage children and children with disabilities see facilities as accessible)
Lack of personal resources or knowledge to access available facilities Personal demands too high to develop reciprocal supportive relationships Alienates potential sources of support Networks produce demands rather than support Perception that facilities are not accessible for their family Experience of frequent house moves including homeless
Lack of personal resources to access available facilities, networks and opportunities Alienates other children/other children bully or stigmatise her/him Family networks either very limited or difficult Child has had frequent moves (including homeless) Perceptions that facilities are not accessible for her/him
6 Cumulative impact of all of the above Low level of individual environmental stress Feel supported in the community in their parental role of bringing up children Community is perceived as a “good place to bring up children”
Children feel their community is a good place to be living Children feel safe and valued in their community Development of positive identity, self-esteem, and security
High level of individual ‘environmental stress’ (eg poor quality housing, unemployment, lack of childcare) Parents feel unsupported, threatened, or frightened in their community (mental health issues, isolation) Parents’ ambitions are to leave the community.
Children feel threatened, frightened, and unvalued in their community. Anxiety, depression, anti-social behaviour, school failure/exclusion.
Strengths Pressures Model of Community Development
INTENSITY
STRENGTHS PRESSURES
Community Wide
Individualised
Scope of Playgroups in a Universal CommunityIntensive
Playgroups
Supported/ Facilitated Playgroups
Community Playgroups
Transitional Model
Transitional Model
Intensive
PlaygroupsSupported
Playgroups
Community Playgroups
Scope of Playgroups in Indicated Communities
Transitional Model
Limited Transitional
Model
Scope of Playgroups in Selective Communities
Intensive
Playgroups
Supported Playgroups
Community Playgroups
Transitional Model
Are playgroups useful for vulnerable children? Telethon research
Recent research conducted by the Telethon Institute in Western Australia demonstrated that for disadvantaged families prolonged playgroup attendance is associated with:
Better learning outcomes- particularly for boys Better social-emotional outcomes particularly for girls Mothers have greater and more consistent social support More books in the home Less TV More participation in other activities
and that Prolonged attendance improves outcomes.
Telethon Research:- The study also found that:
Children from disadvantaged families are less likely to access playgroup services but participation is higher than expected.
The evidence suggests that these are the children who have the most to gain from attending with social and learning outcomes significantly improving.
Telethon Research:- The study also found that:
Parents benefit too with the study finding mothers from disadvantaged families who went to playgroup were: more likely to have consistently good support from friends over time more likely to see improvements in the level of support they received from friends
over time less likely to see declines in the level of support they received from friends over
time
The study found that children from disadvantaged families attending playgroup also: Have more books in the home Watch less TV Attend more activities outside the home (e.g. swimming pools, museums, movies,
cultural events)
Soci
al C
apita
lGroup Characteristics • # memberships
• Contribution of money• Frequency of participation• Participation in decision making• Membership heterogeneity• Source of group funding
Generalised Norms • Helpfulness of people• Trustworthiness of people• Fairness of people
Togetherness • How well people get along• Togetherness of people
Everyday Sociability • Everyday sociability
Neighbourhood Connections • Asking neighbour to help with a sick child• Asking neighbour to for yourself if sick
Volunteerism • Have you volunteered• Expectations of volunteering• Have you helped someone• Criticism of not volunteering• Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Trust • Trust of family, neighbourhood, other tribes, business, government, service providers, justice organisations
Narayan and Cassidy 2001
Continuum of Playgroups
CommunityPlaygroups(parent-led)
Intensive(agency-led)
Facilitated (agency-led)
Families move between formats according to need
At the interface between community and supported there may be occasional support
At the interface between supported and intensive there may be planned transitions
Increasing level of family and service support
Less
soci
al c
apita
l as v
ulne
rabi
lity
incr
ease
sAbsence of benefits of social capital
Proportionate Universalism: Michael Marmot
Focusing solely on the most disadvantaged will not reduce health inequalities sufficiently.
To reduce the steepness of the social gradient in health, actions must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage.
Strengths Pressures Model of Community Development
INTENSITY
High Social Capital already exists
Community Wide
Individualised
Social Capital needs to be built
▫ INTENSITY
Smaller proportion of families under significant pressure find it difficult to engage with community based playgroups and require higher levels of facilitation via intensive/ supported playgroups. These groups should be transitioned as their strengths are built
Vast proportion of families can participate in community playgroups and organise these
These families participate well in kindergarten, child care and school
How are you working with your supported playgroups to transition these families?
▫INTENSITY of FACILITATION
Smaller proportion of families under significant pressure find it difficult to engage with community based playgroups and require higher levels of facilitation via intensive/ supported playgroups. These groups should be transitioned as their strengths are built
Vast proportion of families can participate in community playgroups and organise these
Lowest 2-3%
Targeted efforts
reach the middle
30%
Concentration of Disadvantage: Indicated Communities
The majority of families in this community have higher pressures than strengths. These families find it difficult to engage with community playgroups and require more facilitated and intensive engagement strategies to harness & maintain their participation in playgroups. These playgroups are supported or therapeutic in nature.
There are a smaller number of families in this community who can sustain participation in a community playgroup and these should be encouraged.
Likely to get these families participating first in any initiative
How are you working with your supported & intensive playgroups to transition these families?
35% of parents attending playgroup also had their children in childcare
46% of parents learnt about kindergarten , preschool and school through playgroup
27% of parents learnt about child care through their playgroup
97% of parents agreed that attending playgroup assisted their child’s development
How are playgroups useful in the institutional/ formal early childhood setting
Children learn and grow in relationship with their parents: Companionable Learning- Dr Roberts
Parents are children’s first and most enduring educators- Parents are engaged from the start in playgroups and vulnerable parents learn to engage.
Parents have training in committees and decision making prior to getting to child care, Kindergarten and school. They participate.
Children are prepared and comfortable in groups of their peers & the routine of learning environments.
Why playgroups are useful to child outcomes in early childhood.
Playgroups can make up the disparity of disadvantage with prolonged attendance.
Parents can increase their trust in services such as children's services and increase their participation.
The groundwork with literacy , learning and routine is established in playgroup.
Good transition planning and relationships with supported playgroups can maximise a vulnerable families participation in children's services.
For vulnerable children and families
Co-Location Transition Program- active regional planning Regional versus metropolitan- the benefits of a regional community
Active Engagement with the broader service sector- primary health, housing, child and family services.
Models?
Thankyou