Building community partnerships: an Australian case study of sustainable community-based rural programmes

Abstract

This paper explores the potential of the partnership model to minimise and transform the marginalisation and disadvantage felt by rural communities due to the impacts of globalisation. It evaluates the effectiveness of the partnership model in this endeavour by examining one particular case study. Torrens Valley Youth Programme is a successful example of an innovative Community Partnership model in rural South Australia accomplished with minimal funding. This Case Study presents the evolution of a partnership between a rural community centre and a non government organisation into a sustainable and community-funded development programme responding to the needs of local young people. The programme's financial and social capital sustainability is attributed to Project Management based on community development principles, including honouring the community centre's invitation of partnership, facilitating regular forums to give young people a mechanism for collective action, and building relationships with the local media. This has culminated in the present transition of the community centre to independent management of the programme. These outcomes demonstrate the value of Community Partnerships as a powerful approach within the community development tool kit. Introduction: Setting the scene Information, communication and transportation technologies have advanced to the point where the global economy is now a daily reality. Capital is moved around the global market with decreasing regard for national boundaries and regulations. In 1998 more than $1.5 trillion flowed across international borders each day. This was a 30% increase from global capital exchanges in 1994 (Brecher and Costello 1998). The movement of capital, the increase in size and growth of multinational companies, and the trend towards a global monoculture has become known as 'globalisation'. At the same time, the nation-state appears to be experiencing a decrease in its autonomy, power and relevance within the global arena. Individual governments are losing their ability to prevent or regulate activities by companies within their own territory. Despite an overall increase in global wealth, the number of people living in poverty has increased, as has the gap between rich and poor (van der Gaag 1999:18). This trend is caused by a web of structural and personal causes, not the least of which is globalisation. Brecher and Costello (1998) argue that the globalisation of capital is resulting in workers, communities and countries being forced to lower wages, working conditions, environmental protection, and social expenditure in order to be competitive. The average person has felt the effects of this globalisation through rising unemployment in their community, falling real incomes, mass layoffs, cutbacks in public services, deteriorating employment conditions, reduction of small business, increased destruction of the environment, and loss of democratic control over their governments and societies. These issues have multiple causes, including historical forces....

Rural Economic Development: A Review of the Literature from Industrialized Economies

“…2008a). Having said this, there is a growing literature documenting the re‐engagement of government policies and funding to support bottom‐up rural development and diversification (Packer et al. 2002; Ramsey 2010).…”

“…As change is becoming more common, leadership is perhaps the most important source of human capital that directly impacts resiliency (Loudiyi 2010). Generational shifts in leadership (Johnsen 2004), the future leadership potential of rural youth (Packer et al 2002), and the need to develop additional pools of leadership (Opare 2007), are among the key research topics addressing rural leadership. Perhaps as a result of lower levels of national policy investment, attention to the need for human capital development in rural places is more pronounced in the North American literature.…”

“…A concern about the shift to bottomup approaches is that they are driven by government preferences to off-load responsibilities to rural places with limited capacity and inadequate funding (Markey et al 2008a). Having said this, there is a growing literature documenting the re-engagement of government policies and funding to support bottom-up rural development and diversification (Packer et al 2002;Ramsey 2010). Debate about top-down versus bottom-up approaches is particularly pronounced in Canada given its history of national policy change and constitutional division of responsibilities between different levels of government.…”

Critiquing environmental management in indigenous Australia: two case studies

“…Often new contacts were suggested when I visited traditional owners to seek clan estate access permission or to record offered indigenous knowledge, and involving these people broadened the social reach of the project, my role and communication channels in the community. These unintended and unanticipated community roles and encounters illustrate the importance of the informal and incidental spaces and interactions that are often crucial to the success of community‐based programmes and planning processes (Hollinsworth 1996; Packer et al 2002; Simpson et al 2003). Formal project mechanisms did not adequately capture the rich experiences and interchanges, issues and concerns of community members that enrich the data gathered (refer Carter 2001).…”

On the Edge in Rural Canada: The Changing Capacity and Role of the Voluntary Sector

“…When groups are busy organizing every day for the delivery of services, or chasing dollars to keep those services going, there is often little time left for the succession planning or job shadowing needed to help build and renew collective capacity (Byron, Curtis, & Lockwood, 2001). In addition, there is often little time left at the end of the day for the "heavy lifting" work that goes into building collaborative partnerships within and across communities (Packer, Spence, & Beare, 2002;Ryser & Halseth, 2013a).…”