Community Controlled Health Services: What They Are and How They Work

This chapter provides an overview of the role of community controlled health services and health sector and the role of the nurse.

Researching with the Aboriginal Community, MPH2057- Aboriginal Health Course (Monash University), delivered by the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) & The Burnet Institute at The Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, 29 September 2010

A copy of the slide presentation titled 'Researching with the Aboriginal Community'. It was presented by Bronwyn Fredericks for the Master of Public Health Program (MPH2057- Aboriginal Health Course) at Monash University. The Monash University Aboriginal Health Course (MPH2057) is delivered in partnership by the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) & The Burnet Institute. The 2010 Aboriginal Health Course was run on Level 3 of The Burnet Institute, 89 Commercial Road, Prahan, Melbourne, Victoria, 29 September 2010.

The impact of the GST on the community services sector in Queensland

The impact of the GST has on nonprofit organisations has been largely ignored in the compliance cost literature. Most studies to date, both in Australia and overseas, have focused exclusively on measuring the nature and extent of GST compliance costs of businesses in the for-profit sector (particularly the impact on small businesses). This paper examines the impact of The New Tax System, and in particular, the GST on Queensland community sector organisations. The results are extracted from a QCOSS report entitled “Taxing Goodwill: The Impact of GST on Community Services” released in October 2001.

Nothing new in Indigenous reform agenda

Indigenous leader Pat Dodson – who revealed he has met Prime Minister Tony Abbott only once, and then in passing – said last week that removal of frontline services from Indigenous organisations working towards Closing the Gap in Indigenous health “would seem counter intuitive to any fair-minded Australian”. But that, he said in this Age OpEd, has been the result of the Federal Government’s much-awaited Indigenous Advancement Strategy...

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...

Aboriginal community control and decolonizing health policy : a yarn from Australia

This chapter outlines: a brief history of Australian Aboriginal health and health policy and then moves on to demonstrate how the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) undertakes its work and is an example of 'decolonizing policy in action'. Moreover, it highlights how Aboriginal participation in the development of policy and in the planning, delivery, management and evaluation of health programs enables policies and programs to respond effectively to the needs of Aboriginal people and to change future health outcomes for them. It showcases how Aboriginal decision-making has gone some way to decolonizing policymaking and has addressed the power imbalance - both of which have been critical in the improvement in Aboriginal health outcomes.

Aboriginal public health and education : has it made a difference in practice?

Over the years, public health in relation to Australian Aboriginal people has involved many individuals and groups including health professionals, governments, politicians, special interest groups and corporate organisations. Since colonisation commenced until the1980s, public health relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was not necessarily in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but rather in the interests of the non-Aboriginal population. The attention that was paid focussed more generally around the subject of reproduction and issues of prostitution, exploitation, abuse and venereal diseases (Kidd, 1997). Since the late 1980s there has been a shift in the broader public health agenda (see Baum, 1998) along with public health in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (NHMRC, 2003). This has been coupled with increasing calls to develop appropriate tertiary curriculum and to educate, train, and employ more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal people in public health (Anderson et al., 2004; Genat, 2007; PHERP, 2008a, 2008b). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been engaged in public health in ways in which they are in a position to influence the public health agenda (Anderson 2004; 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; NATSIHC, 2003). There have been numerous projects, programs and strategies that have sought to develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Public Health workforce (AHMAC, 2002; Oldenburg et al., 2005; SCATSIH, 2002). In recent times the Aboriginal community controlled health sector has joined forces with other peak bodies and governments to find solutions and strategies to improve the health outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NACCHO & Oxfam, 2007). This case study chapter will not address these broader activities. Instead it will explore the activities and roles of staff within the Public Health and Research Unit (PHRU) at the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO). It will focus on their experiences with education institutions, their work in public health and their thoughts on gaps and where improvements can be made in public health, research and education. What will be demonstrated is the diversity of education qualifications and experience. What will also be reflected is how people work within public health on a daily basis to enact change for equity in health and contribute to the improvement of future health outcomes of the Victorian Aboriginal community.

Community participation in the development of digital radio : the Australian experience

The participation of the community broadcasting sector in the development of digital radio provides a potentially valuable opportunity for non-market, end user-driven experimentation in the development of these new services in Australia. However this development path is constrained by various factors, some of which are specific to the community broadcasting sector and others that are generic to the broader media and communications policy, industrial and technological context. This paper filters recent developments in digital radio policy and implementation through the perspectives of community radio stakeholders, obtained through interviews, to describe and analyse these constraints. The early stage of digital community radio presented here is intended as a baseline for tracking the development of the sector as digital radio broadcasting develops. We also draw upon insights from scholarly debates about citizens media and participatory culture to identify and discuss two sets of opportunities for social benefit that are enabled by the inclusion of community radio in digital radio service development. The first arises from community broadcasting’s involvement in the propagation of the multi-literacies that drive new digital economies, not only through formal and informal multi- and trans-media training, but also in the ‘co-creative’ forms of collaborative and participatory media production that are fostered in the sector. The second arises from the fact that community radio is uniquely placed — indeed charged with the responsibility — to facilitate social participation in the design and operation of media institutions themselves, not just their service outputs.

Brokering evaluations of partnerships in Australian community arts : responding to entrepreneurial tendencies

This article examines motivations and methods for external evaluators in taking on a brokerage relationship between artists, arts managers and governments (national and local) during an appraisal process of community arts events. The argument is situated in our experience evaluating the Creating Queensland programme, a multifaceted community arts programme presented as part of the one of Australia’s largest arts events the Brisbane Festival, in 2009 and 2010. We use this case to identify a number of principles and processes that may assist in establishing an effective evaluation process – defined, for us, as a process in which partners representing different elements of the community arts project can share information in a learning network, or an innovation network, that embraces the idea of continuous improvement. We explain that we, as consultants, are not necessarily the only participants in the evaluation process in a position to broker the decision making about what to research and report on. We argue that empowering each of the delivery partners to act as brokers, using the principles, protocols and processes to negotiate what should be researched, when, how and how it should be shared, is something each delivery partner can do. This can help create a common understanding that can reduce anxieties about using warts-and-all evaluation data to learn, grow and improve in the arts. It can, as a result, be beneficial both for the participating partners and the community arts sector as a whole.

Resistance is feral : digital culture, community arts, and the new cultural gatekeepers

The Community Arts sector in Australia has a history of resistance. It has challenged hegemonic culture through facilitating grassroots creative production, contesting notions of artistic processes, and the role of the artist in society. This paper examines this penchant for resistance through the lens of contemporary digital culture, to establish that the sector is continuing to challenge dominant forms of cultural control. It then proposes that this enthusiasm and activity lacks ethical direction, describing it as feral to encompass the potential of current practices, while highlighting how a level of taming is needed in order to develop ethical approaches.

Community media 2.0 : a report from the 'Co-Creative Communities' forum

Participatory digital culture presents major challenges to all traditional media outlets, but it presents very direct challenges to the community broadcast sector, which was established from the outset as local, community-driven and participatory. These and other issues were the focus of a recent forum at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image in Melbourne (Co-Creative Communities, 8–9 November 2012). The forum was part of a national research project, which has been exploring how Australian community arts and media organisations are responding to participatory digital culture, social media and user-led innovation. Focusing on the organisations who presented at the symposium, the paper examines how community-interest media is making the most of new and social media platforms. It considers examples of participatory digital media that have emerged from the community broadcast sector, but it also considers local, collaborative, community-interest media projects developed by public broadcasters and organisations involved in arts, social justice and development. Drawing on forum transcripts and follow-up research the essay describes some of the key trends shaping how community-interest media organisations and independent producers are working with participatory digital culture, and with what success.