Discovering the Productive Benefits of Playgroups- Social Capital

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









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.


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


Purely volunteer based . Parents are expected to participate as best they can in the playgroup and encouraged to take on decision making duties


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.


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


Scope of Playgroups in Indicated Communities

Transitional Model

Limited Transitional

Model

Scope of Playgroups in Selective Communities

Intensive

Playgroups

Supported 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


Everyday Sociability • Everyday sociability

Neighbourhood Connections • Asking neighbour to help with a sick child• Asking neighbour to for yourself if sick



Narayan and Cassidy 2001









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.


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

Discovering the Productive Benefits of Playgroups- Social Capital

Documents

Transcript of Discovering the Productive Benefits of Playgroups- Social Capital