A framework for assessing social policy inclusion proposals

This document outlines a framework that could be used by government agencies in assessing policy interventions aimed at achieving social outcomes from government construction contracts. The framework represents a rational interpretation of the information gathered during the multi-outcomes construction policies project. The multi-outcomes project focused on the costs and benefits of using public construction contracts to promote the achievement of training and employment and public art objectives. The origin of the policy framework in a cost-benefit appraisal of current policy interventions is evidenced by its emphasis on sensitivity to policy commitment and project circumstances (especially project size and scope).The quantitative and qualitative analysis conducted in the multi-outcomes project highlighted, first, that in the absence of strong industry commitment to policy objectives, policy interventions typically result in high levels of avoidance activity, substantial administrative costs and very few benefits. Thus, for policy action on, for example, training or local employment to be successful compliance issues must be adequately addressed. Currently it appears that pre-qualification schemes (similar to the Priority Access Scheme) and schemes that rely on measuring, for example, the training investments of contractors within particular projects do not achieve high levels of compliance and involve significant administrative costs. Thus, an alternative is suggested in the policy framework developed here: a levy on each public construction project – set as a proportion of the total project costs. Although a full evaluation of this policy alternative was beyond the scope of the multi-outcomes construction policies project, it appears to offer the potential to minimize the transaction costs on contractors whilst enabling the creation of a training agency dedicated to improving the supply of skilled construction labour. A recommendation is thus made that this policy alternative be fully researched and evaluated. As noted above, the outcomes of the multi-outcomes research project also highlighted the need for sensitivity to project circumstances in the development and implementation of polices for public construction projects. Ideally a policy framework would have the flexibility to respond to circumstances where contractors share a commitment to the policy objectives and are able to identify measurable social outcomes from the particular government projects they are involved in. This would involve a project-by-project negotiation of goals and performance measures. It is likely to only be practical for large, longer term projects.

Disrupting the new orthodoxy : emergency intervention and Indigenous social policy

This article develops a critical analysis of the ideological framework that informed the Australian Federal government’s 2007 intervention into Northern Territory Indigenous communities (ostensibly to address the problem of child sexual abuse). Continued by recently elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, the NT ‘emergency response’ has aroused considerable public debate and scholarly inquiry. In addressing what amounts to a broad bi-partisan approach to Indigenous issues we highlight the way in which Indigenous communities are problematised and therefore subject to interventionist regimes that override differentiated Indigenous voices and intensify an internalised sense of rage occasioned by disempowering interventionist projects. We further argue that in rushing through the emergency legislation and suspending parts of the Racial Discrimination Act, the Howard and Rudd governments have in various ways perpetuated racialised and neo-colonial forms of intervention that override the rights of Indigenous people. Such policy approaches require critical understanding on the part of professions involved most directly in community practice, particularly when it comes to mounting effective opposition campaigns. The article offers a contribution to this end.

Social policy implications relating to road trauma in a rapidly motorising world : the example of China

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies road trauma as a major public health issue in all countries, though most notably among low-to-middle income countries and particularly those experiencing rapid motorisation, such as China. As China transitions from a nation of bicycle riders and pedestrians to one where car ownership is increasingly desired, there is need to address the accompanying social policy challenges. With this increased motorisation has come an increased road trauma burden, shouldered disproportionately among the population. Vulnerable road users (i.e., pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) are of primary concern because they are most frequently killed in road crashes, representing approximately 70% of all Chinese road-related fatalities. The aim of this paper is to summarise the scale of the road trauma burden, highlight the disparity of this burden across the Chinese population, and discuss the related social policy implications in dealing with the impact of deaths and of otherwise healthy lives diminished by injury and disability. Future research priorities are also discussed and include the need to strive to provide detailed information on the level of inequity of the road trauma burden across the population and identify appropriate social supports and healthcare services required, both preventative and post-crash, so these can be developed and implemented throughout China.

The social inclusion policy agenda in Australia: A case of old wine, new bottles?

The election of an Australian Labor Government in Australia in 2007 saw ‘social inclusion’ emerge as the official and overarching social policy agenda. Being ‘included’ was subsequently defined by the ALP Government as being able to ‘have the resources, opportunities and capabilities needed to learn, work, engage and have a voice’. Various researchers in Australia demonstrated an interest in social inclusion, as it enabled them to construct a multi-dimensional framework for measuring disadvantage. This research program resulted in various forms of statistical modelling based on some agreement about what it means to be included in society. The multi-dimensional approach taken by academic researchers, however, did not necessarily translate to a new model of social policy development or implementation. We argue that, similar to the experience of the UK, Australia’s social inclusion policy agenda was for the most part narrowly and individually defined by politicians and policy makers, particularly in terms of equating being employed with being included. We conclude with discussion about the need to strengthen the social inclusion framework by adopting an understanding of social inequality and social justice that is more relational and less categorical.

Social justice and high-quality human services : visioning the place of a contemporary professional association

The current world situation is plagued by “wicked problems” and a widespread sense of “things are going to get worse”. We confront the almost imponderable consequences of global habitat destruction and climate change, as well as the meltdown of the financial markets with their largely yet to be seen damage to the “real economy”. These things will have considerable negative impacts on the social system and people's lives, particularly the disadvantaged and socially excluded, and require innovative policy and program responses delivered by caring, intelligent, and committed practitioners. These gargantuan issues put into perspective the difficulties that confront social, welfare, and community work today. Yet, in times of trouble, social work and human services tend to do well. For example, although Australian Social Workers and Welfare and Community Workers have experienced phenomenal job growth over the past 5 years, they also have good prospects for future growth and above average salaries in the seventh and sixth deciles, respectively (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). I aim to examine the host of reasons why the pursuit of social justice and high-quality human services is difficult to attain in today's world and then consider how the broadly defined profession of social welfare practitioners may collectively take action to (a) respond in ways that reassert our role in compassionately assisting the downtrodden and (b) reclaim the capacity to be a significant body of professional expertise driving social policy and programs. For too long social work has responded to the wider factors it confronts through a combination of ignoring them, critiquing from a distance, and concentrating on the job at hand and our day-to-day responsibilities. Unfortunately, “holding the line” has proved futile and, little by little, the broad social mandate and role of social welfare has altered until, currently, most social programs entail significant social surveillance of troublesome or dangerous groups, rather than assistance. At times it almost seems like the word “help” has been lost in the political and managerial lexicon, replaced by “manage” and “control”. Our values, beliefs, and ethics are under real threat as guiding principles for social programs.