Research for Action : Networking University and Community for Social Responsibility (Workshop)

This workshop brings together people from a diverse range of disciplines to discuss how academic researchers and community practitioners and activists can work together to explore the use of information and communication technologies, social media, augmented reality, and other forms of network technologies for research and action in pursuit of social responsibility. The aim is to connect people with ideas, ideas with research projects, and harness new media to further inquiry into socially just outcomes in our community.

Queensland's budget austerity and its impact on social welfare : is the cure worse than the disease?

While considerable attention has been paid to the austerity experiments in Europe, much less attention has been paid to austerity case studies from other parts of the world. This paper examines the case of Queensland, Australia, where the government has pursued austerity measures, while making dire warnings that unless public debt was slashed and the public service sector downsized,Queensland risked becoming the Spain of Australia. The comparison is incomprehensible, given the very different economic situation in Queensland compared with Spain. This comparison constructed a sense of crisis that helped to mask standard neoliberal economic reform. While pursuing neoliberal economic policies,the Queensland Government has also been introducing draconian laws that limit civil liberties and political freedoms for ordinary citizens. This mix of authoritarianism and austerity has met considerable resistance, and this dynamic is discussed in the paper, along with the predictable and unequal impact that austerity measures have had on the general population and social services.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Identifying good re-engagement practice : case studies from Brisbane North and West Youth Connections action research

This report summarises the action research undertaken by the Brisbane North and West Youth Connections Consortium during 2010 and facilitated by staff from QUT. The Consortium consists of a lead agency which undertakes both program coordination and direct service delivery (Brisbane Youth Service) and four other agencies across the region who undertake direct service delivery. Funds for Youth Connections are provided by the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This report describes and analyses the participatory action research (PAR) undertaken in 2011, including eight case studies exploring questions seen as important to the re-engagement of young people in education and training.

The Australian welfare state : who benefits now?

This text outlines the links between Australian's conceptions about welfare and the redistributive outcomes of the welfare state, canvassing theoretical explanations about why many Australians develop and maintain misconceptions of the broad disyributive mechanisms of the Ayustralian welfare state and hold negative attitudes towards its social welfare element. The book is an indispensable resource for students undertaking studies in sociology, social policy, public administrion and social work.

Poverty by acronym in Australia : welcome to CIM, VIM, PBIM, CPIM and SEAM

This paper discusses Compulsory Income Management (CIM) in Australia and the implications of technology backed forms of surveillance and increasingly conditional benefit payments. The CIM project raises important questions about requiring people to take greater responsibility for their personal behaviour when they no longer have control over key financial aspects of their lives. Some Indigenous communities have resisted the BasicsCard, because CIM was imposed with little prior consultation or subsequent independent evaluation. The compulsory income management of individuals by a paternalist welfare state contradicts and undermines the purported policy aims that they become less welfare dependent and more positively engaged with the world of paid employment and does little to address the growing condition of poverty in Australia.

Locating Indigenous Australia within community development practice : clients, consumers or change makers?

The philosophical promise of community development to “resource and empower people so that they can collectively control their own destinies” (Kenny 1996:104) is no doubt alluring to Indigenous Australia. Given the historical and contemporary experiences of colonial control and surveillance of Aboriginal bodies, alongside the continuing experiences of socio-economic disadvantage, community development reaffirms the aspirational goal of Indigenous Australians for self-determination. Self-determination as a national policy agenda for Indigenous Australians emerged in the 1970s and saw the establishment of a wide range of Aboriginal community-controlled services (Tsey et al 2012). Sullivan (2010:4) argues that the Aboriginal community controlled service sector during this time has, and continues to be, instrumental to advancing the plight of Indigenous Australians both materially and politically. Yet community development and self-determination remain highly problematic and contested in how they manifest in Indigenous social policy agendas and in practice (Hollinsworth 1996; Martin 2003; McCausland 2005; Moreton-Robinson 2009). Moreton-Robinson (2009:68) argues that a central theme underpinning these tensions is a reading of Indigeneity in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, behaviours, cultures, and communities are pathologised as “dysfunctional” thus enabling assertions that Indigenous people are incapable of managing their own affairs. This discourse distracts us from the “strategies and tactics of patriarchal white sovereignty” that inhibit the “state’s earlier policy of self-determination” (Moreton-Robinson 2009:68). We acknowledge the irony of community development espoused by Ramirez above (1990), that the least resourced are expected to be most resourceful.; however, we wish to interrogate the processes that inhibit Indigenous participation and control of our own affairs rather than further interrogate Aboriginal minds as uneducated, incapable and/or impaired...

Using resilience to reconceptualise child protection workforce capacity

Current approaches to managing and supporting staff and addressing turnover in child protection predominantly rely on deficit-based models that focus on limitations, shortcomings, and psychopathology. This article explores an alternative approach, drawing on models of resilience, which is an emerging field linked to trauma and adversity. To date, the concept of resilience has seen limited application to staff and employment issues. In child protection, staff typically face a range of adverse and traumatic experiences that have flow-on implications, creating difficulties for staff recruitment and retention and reduced service quality. This article commences with discussion of the multifactorial influences of the troubled state of contemporary child protection systems on staffing problems. Links between these and difficulties with the predominant deficit models are then considered. The article concludes with a discussion of the relevance and utility of resilience models in developing alternative approaches to child protection staffing issues.

Shifting the child protection juggernaut to earlier intervention

"For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong (M.L. Mencken, US writer and social commentator). Nowhere is this quote more apt than when applied to finding over-simplified solutions to the complex problem of looking after the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. The easiest formula is, of course, to ‘rescue children from dysfunctional families’, a line taken recently in the monograph by the right wing think tank, Centre for Independent Studies (Sammut & O’Brien 2009). It is reasoning with fatal flaws. This commentary provides a timely reminder of the strong arguments which lie behind the national and international shift to supporting children and families through universal and specialist community-based services, rather than weighting all resources into statutory child protection interventions. A brief outline of the value of developing the resources to support children in their families, and the problems with 'rescuing' children through the child protection system are discussed.

Reconnect action research kit

This kit, designed for youth and family services and practitioners, provides an outline of action research, suggested strategies and tools for undertaking action research, as well as discussion of various challenges.

The Supervisory Relationship

The nature of the relationship that is negotiated, developed and maintained between a clinical supervisor and supervisee is central to effectively engage in clinical work, to promote professional and personal development, and to ensure consistent ethical practice. In this chapter attention is given to the challenges, importance and benefits of the supervisory relationship. The ability to form and sustain relationships in supervision and in clinical practice is more crucial than specific knowledge and therapeutic skills (Dye, 2004). Attention to parallel process, the working alliance, multiple roles, expectations and acculturative issues are addressed. This is an introduction to some of the most salient issues concerning the supervisory relationship and is a review of concepts and processes discussed in greater depth throughout this textbook. The reader is encouraged to utilise the references and suggested readings to deepen their understanding of the supervisory relationship.

Supervising clinical placement

Internship and practicum are the pinnacle of the therapist training experience. During these fieldwork experiences trainees are challenged to apply what they have learned in coursework and research to a real-life workplace situation. Internship is where the rigorous science of the profession and the imperfect art of the practice intersect and trainees begin to develop clinical wisdom. The trainee therapist being prepared for their responsibilities who has a successful relationship with their supervisor can optimise the gains from this integrated experience. In this chapter, an introduction to supervised internship or practicum encounters is provided with the trainee therapist and future supervisor squarely in mind.