Community collaboration:
The changing context of local
government and community sector
partnerships
The Office for the Community Sector,
Department of Planning and Community Development
The Office for the Community Sector (OCS) was established in 2008 in the
Department of Planning and Community Development to support the Victorian notfor-profit (NFP) community sector to be sustainable into the future.
The OCS has two key responsibilities: driving cross-government activity that reduces
unnecessary burden related to government accountability and compliance
requirements; and supporting the sector to build capacity to continue to be
responsive to the needs of Victorians.
This publication examines collaboration between the NFP community sector and
local government in Victoria. It explores the changing context in which collaboration
has taken place throughout the last few decades before analysing a series of
contemporary case studies in detail.
Page 2 of 27
Introduction
Strong and vibrant communities are underpinned by robust webs of social
connection, a diverse array of local interest groups, and human services that respond
to specific local needs. But what are the key ingredients that make up these kinds of
communities and how are they created and maintained? In the context of increasing
service-delivery pressures in councils with both growing and shrinking populations,
the need to identify how we build vibrant, resilient communities is more urgent than
ever. In Australia federal, state and municipal governments hold interwoven statutory
responsibilities for community development, with a diverse range of community
organisations that operate across national, state and local levels. All of their roles
and responsibilities are important. But arguably, local government and local
community organisations have the keenest sense of the needs and capabilities of
local communities. When municipal and not-for-profit agencies work together at the
local level, impressive results can occur.
The Victorian Government is committed to enhancing the role of community
organisations in local community life, including through supporting local government
engagement with the community sector. In line with this, the Office for the
Community Sector (OCS) formed the Local Government Community Engagement
and Planning Reference Group (the Reference Group) in 2010 to advise the OCS as
to the strategies it could undertake to encourage relationships between government
and not-for-profit groups within local areas. Members of the Reference Group are
listed in Attachment 1.
In discussions about how the OCS could most usefully support local government
collaboration with the community sector, the Reference Group recommended that the
OCS prepare a publication that:
 tracks the changing political and social context in which local government
has engaged with community groups; and
 details good practice case studies of such partnerships.
This booklet represents the outcome.
In order to explore the history of local government and not-for-profit collaboration, the
OCS convened a seminar in November 2010 that brought together people with
extensive experience of such partnerships over the last few decades (see
Attachment 2 for a list of participants). The ‘context’ section which follows is based
upon the reflections of these seminar participants. Material for the partnership case
studies that follow was gathered through interviews with one or more of the people
directly involved in each partnership. At the end of each case study key lessons are
extracted, with common themes emerging as to how successful partnerships are
established and sustained.
Context
The role and mandate of local government
The official role of local government in Victoria is laid out in legislation, specifically
the Constitution Act 1975 and the Local Government Act 1989. The Preamble to the
Local Government Act explains that “local government is a distinct and essential tier
of government consisting of democratically elected Councils having the functions and
powers that the Parliament considers are necessary to ensure the peace, order and
good government of each municipal district.” Councils are “responsible and
accountable to the local community” and their role is to “provide governance and
leadership for the local community through advocacy, decision making and action.”
Page 3 of 27
The Act also obliges Councils to “work in partnership with the Governments of
Victoria and Australia.”
Glenyys Romanes, who was a councillor and mayor at the then City of Brunswick
and later a councillor of the City of Moreland, points out that council is where most
people come into direct contact with government and thus it has a critical role to play
in a healthy democracy. By virtue of being embedded in a particular geographic area,
the strength of local government is that it can develop a more localised response to
issues. Local councils are ideally positioned to coordinate and plan holistically for
specific places.
The importance of engaging with community organisations
Engagement with community organisations has been a focus in many municipalities
in recent years. Whilst partnerships between local government and the community
sector take time (as the case studies below demonstrate), it is now increasingly
recognised that such engagement is critical to meaningful outcomes within a local
community. Local input into community services strengthens communities by
expanding the sense of ownership that local residents feel and increasing social
inclusion.1 Not only does such engagement contribute to more resilient communities,
it also results in more efficient use of resources, better information about local needs
and more successful planning outcomes.
As the Victorian Local Governance Association asserts, “In a well-developed local
community, the council and the community are mutually reinforcing pillars of
representative democracy and good governance.”2 This means that local government
better understands the views of the community and that the community is involved in
decision making, leading to a higher quality of service provision. The Stegley
Foundation also recognised the benefits of partnerships between local government
and the community sector, explaining that they allow better access to community
resources, enhanced social capital and the achievement of goals that could only be
reached collaboratively.3
The changing nature of local government community engagement
Local government was once expected to concern itself with “roads, rates, rubbish”
and little else. But from the 1960s and 1970s a different view emerged of the role of
local government and its place within the local community. Community services such
as maternal and child health, libraries and aged care were increasingly seen as a
municipal responsibility.4 Those who worked in local government recall an increased
interest in community development in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in
metropolitan municipalities. Lynne Wannan (now Director of the OCS) worked at the
City of Sunshine where groundbreaking community services were underpinned by a
large team of staff and significant resources. Trudy Wyse remembers that community
strengthening and council collaboration with residents were a high priority in the City
of Brunswick in the 1980s. On the basis of her experience in the flourishing
community services division of the City of Fitzroy, Jenny Wills argued in 1984 that
“Local Government should be recognised as the appropriate sphere for the planning,
Office for the Community Sector and Community Child Care, Community Based Children’s Services in
Victoria: ‘Doing’ Social Inclusion (forthcoming OCS publication 2011).
2 Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) and Department of Information (DOI), Best Value
Community Consultation Resource Guide (The Red Book) (2001).
3 The Stegley Foundation and VLGA, Building Partnerships between Councils and their Communities
(2000) 8-10.
4 Robert Lowell, Localising Human Services (Australian Scholarly, Melbourne: 2005) 24.
1
Page 4 of 27
co-ordination, and provision of personal health and welfare services”.5 This municipal
commitment to the provision of human services was not universal though. Bill
McArthur has worked in local government in what is now Golden Plains Shire for
several decades and recalls that rural councils were generally involved solely in
maternal and child health in the 1980s.
Radical changes took place to the size, number and structure of local governments in
the 1990s. In 1993 the Victorian Government undertook a massive amalgamation
program, reducing the number of municipalities from 210 to 78. On one level this
allowed for more efficient and effective human service provision, whilst previously
some local governments had been too small to fund or provide much in the way of
community services.6 Amalgamation allowed for economies of scale, according to
Sam Biondo of the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association. But the changes of the
1990s also had an impact on municipal capacity for community engagement. Local
governments struggled to adapt themselves to a drastically different operating
environment. In 1994 the enactment of compulsory, competitive tendering created a
more adversarial funding environment in which local service providers competed for
resources. Such competition made collaborative provision of human services
difficult.7 Trudy Wyse, who worked for the Stegley foundation during the 1990’s,
explains that the Foundation was concerned by the attacks on the integrity and
independence of local government by the then State Government. In response, the
Foundation developed an entire grants program focused on building partnerships
between local government and community organisations designed to restore and
enhance democratic and representative local governance.8
Meredith Sussex, who in the 1980s worked at Sunshine Council and is currently an
administrator at Brimbank City Council, argues that the purchaser provider model has
significant benefits but has resulted in a devaluing of less tangible benefits. Under
this approach governments provide funding but in turn demand measurable
outcomes. It is very difficult, however, to quantify something like community
development.
The last ten years have seen a focus on trust and collaborative relationships at the
local level. The partnership case studies detailed below attest to this. But
practitioners who have worked in local government and/or the community sector over
the past few decades perceive some significant changes to the context in which local
government community engagement operates.
On the most overt of levels, local government itself looks different, as Clare
Hargreaves of the Municipal Association of Victoria explains. There is a smaller
number of councils and they are larger in size. Within each municipality there is a
broader range of roles including officers specialising in community, environmental or
economic matters.
Some practitioners perceive a more strained relationship between officers and
councillors at the municipal level. In the City of Brunswick during the 1980s strong
5
Jenny Wills, Local Government and Community Services: Fitzroy - a Study in Social Planning (Hard
Pressed Publications, Clifton Hill, Melbourne, 1984) ix.
6 Lowell, op cit, 9.
7 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, What Price
Competition? Report on the Competitive Tendering of Welfare Service Delivery (Parliament of the
Commonwealth of Australia: 1998).
8 For further information on the program see Stegley Foundation and VLGA, Building Partnerships.
Page 5 of 27
connections existed between staff and council, according to Trudy Wyse, and she is
not sure that the relationship is as collaborative now. Councillor Ron Brownlees of
the City of Kingston similarly describes a climate of greater conflict between officers
and councillors.
As local government has grown larger, it has also grown more managerial, in Trudy’s
opinion. Councillors Bill McArthur and Ron Brownlees both see the role of a
councillor as being quite difficult now, partially because councils are run like a
business with high levels of transparency and accountability. The Local Government
Act 1989 specifies standards of conduct for councillors and details provision for
dealing with misconduct. In 2008 the Victorian Government implemented new
procedures for dealing with councillors who are considered to have behaved
improperly. These included rewriting the conflict of interest rules to provide clearer
direction and to extend these provisions to council officers and, in some cases,
council contractors.9 This high level of legal responsibility can disenfranchise the
community, in Ron’s view. Bill explains that he believes legal obligations can
endanger community engagement, for example when councillors are wary of being
involved in a perceived conflict of interest. Meredith Sussex concludes that
accountability processes mean that some councillors emphasise the governance
process at the expense of the outcome.
Not only local government but also not-for-profit organisations have changed.
Community organisations are increasingly less likely to be small, local agencies but
often larger, multi-site bodies. Local government, Clare Hargreaves argues, has a
natural interest in the local area that larger not-for-profit organisations don’t
necessarily share. Barry Hahn’s solution for this is to foster different types of
relationships. Some problems are more susceptible to neighbourhood, local
government, subregional or regional solutions as this will bring together organisations
with common interests around a shared challenge. Bruce duVergier, for example,
leads the organisation Community Connections that is involved in a regional alliance
called Community SouthWest Limited. This group of not-for-profit organisations is
working with six municipalities in the southwest of Victoria to implement the human
services component of the councils’ Great South Coast Strategic Plan, aiming to reengineer service delivery models to relate more closely to citizens.
The relationships between municipalities and not-for-profit groups have grown
increasingly complex and demanding. Stella Avramopolous of Kildonan Uniting Care
explains that councils often divide their human services provision into a variety of
themes and expect community organisations to attend multiple meetings. For
councils, striking the balance between engaging and burdening the community sector
is difficult. Bruce duVergier echoes her concern that the range of municipal plans and
associated working groups places a huge demand on not-for-profits with limited
resources. The danger, as Cath Smith of the Victorian Council of Social Services
puts it, is “death by committee”. The end result is a lack of service coordination with
clients forced to visit seven different service providers. Both Stella and Bruce call for
a rationalisation of collaborative efforts and some allocation of resources towards the
time-consuming work required to collaborate.
9
For more information in these provisions, see: Local Government Victoria, Guide to Councillor Conduct
Arrangements (Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development, 2009); Local
Government Victoria, Conflict of Interest in Local Government: A Guide (Victorian Department of
Planning and Community Development, 2009).
Page 6 of 27
Whilst there exists general agreement that the terrain of collaboration is now more
complicated than ever before, opinions vary as to whether engagement is more or
less substantial. Meredith Sussex perceived a genuine commitment to community
strengthening in the 1980s that she believes has weakened over time. She does not
currently detect a strong sense of community engagement and support of civil society
in local government. Bill McArthur, on the other hand, sees community engagement
as having increased within Golden Plains Shire. The redrawing of municipal
boundaries during amalgamation left the district with no obvious centre, torn between
Geelong and Ballarat. But with patient, sometimes difficult, community planning from
the ground up, the sense of local government connection to the local community has
increased dramatically. Clearly local government partnerships with the community
sector can take a range of forms, but they often share some characteristics. The
following case studies provide some specific examples and overarching lessons.
Case studies
The following is a series of case studies of good practice partnering. Whilst every
example is different, some common themes emerge as to the principles of building
strong collaborative relationships between local government and the community
sector.
Page 7 of 27
BRIMBANK NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE PARTNERSHIP
With the support of Brimbank City Council, eight neighbourhood houses have
joined forces to investigate and develop a partnership agreement. Expectations,
processes and aims of the Neighbourhood House Partnership Agreement were
carefully negotiated from the outset, with Council funding a facilitator through the
community strengthening officer role to support the collaboration. After just one
year, each neighbourhood house is already enjoying tangible operational benefits
in the form of improved support services and networks. Additionally there is a high
level of trust and openness between the partners.
In late 2008, five Council-managed neighbourhood houses (NH) and four
independent NHs in Melbourne’s western suburbs began talking about how they
could work together to operate more efficiently and share costs. A project worker
from Brimbank City Council visited each NH to learn more about each organisation
before a series of joint meetings and workshops was convened to develop the
Neighbourhood House Partnership Agreement. A three-year Agreement was
finalised on 10 June 2009. After further meetings and workshops a one-year
Partnership Implementation Plan was formulated, recently evaluated in June 2010. A
two-year Implementation Plan has now been created to guide collaboration over
2010-2012.
One of the strengths of the partnership is that it is founded upon a clear vision and
mission “to develop an exemplary, open, equitable and collaborative partnership in
order to build and strengthen Brimbank neighbourhood houses to increase
community opportunities, resilience and connectedness”. According to Joanne
Richardson of Brimbank City Council, the organisations realised that given the
natural affinities between neighbourhood houses, it makes sense to work together to
maximise their finite resources in preventing duplication of effort and addressing
gaps. Already she can see that “the partnership has allowed for a greater output than
what could have been achieved individually”.
Bronwen Merrigan of Duke Street Community House agrees that the Partnership
Agreement has strengthened a fairly informal arrangement, creating greater certainty
about what each partner would contribute. The Agreement has clarified where gaps
existed and how neighbourhood houses can work better together. Importantly, the
partnership meetings are underpinned by a strategic plan and an evaluation process:
there is a stable platform underlying the collaboration.
Strategic partnership goals for the first year have clustered around four categories:
research, planning and development; professional development; marketing and
promotion; and resources and sustainability. Outcomes have included joint planning
for events such as Cultural Diversity Week and joint marketing in the form of a
Brimbank Neighbourhood Houses booklet delivered to every home in the area. Clear
improvements in NH service delivery have made it easier for the partnership to justify
its existence. The partnership has been a successful forum for pooling resources,
skills and expertise, with the NHs now looking to expand their goals in the coming
two years to include joint advocacy around broad social issues and to develop ties
with other networks such as health and education.
Joanne admits that working in partnership is a slow process, requiring sufficient time
to develop and to be maintained. She believes that, “misunderstandings can arise,
but can be resolved through constructive communication systems”. Some partners
Page 8 of 27
may anticipate that Council has limitless resources, so managing expectations is
critical. Although not every member can contribute equal amounts, it is important to
recognise every contribution, in kind as well as financial.
Bronwyn also highlights resource challenges. For her neighbourhood house, it is
difficult to find the resources to continue being a valid and vital partner, and this has
been acknowledged by some additional funding from council. She believes that in
partnerships, all partners need to have the ability to participate equally.
Lessons
 Human and financial resources need to be allocated or partnerships are difficult
to sustain.
 Sometimes one partner bears a heavier burden of facilitation and monitoring,
however all partners contribute within their capacity. It is important to
acknowledge this within the partnership.
 The individual visions of partner organisations need to be acknowledged to
ensure that shared partnership goals don’t conflict.
 It is important to calculate whether a partnership is the best model, weighing up
benefits and outcomes against the reality that “everyone is time poor and
resource poor”.
 Organisational representatives attending partnership meetings need to have the
responsibility to make decisions: “the right people at the table”.
 Partnerships need to demonstrate outcomes or they will collapse.
 Working in partnership may mean that council has to adjust to the pace of
neighbourhood houses, which are run by part-time staff and volunteer
committees of management.
Further information
www.brimbank.vic.gov.au
Joanne Richardson
Coordinator Community Strengthening
Brimbank City Council
joanner@brimbank.vic.gov.au
9249 4122
Bronwen Merrigan
Duke Street Community House
dukest@vicnet.net.au
9311 9973
Page 9 of 27
MILDURA SOCIAL INDICATORS
In order to create a broader knowledge base for its community programs, Mildura
Rural City Council applied an innovative social research model to their
municipality. Development of detailed social data has allowed the Council to
target projects where they are most needed and more confidently evaluate their
effectiveness. Thorough research has been followed up by genuine community
planning, engaging local groups in identifying their priorities for Mildura.
Mallee Family Care (MFC) is a not-for-profit organisation based in Mildura that was
established in the late 1970s to assist children at risk. Over the last thirty years the
organisation has diversified enormously and now comprises 160 staff in 20 locations
working with local, state and federal governments.
Vernon Knight helped to establish MFC and firmly believes that an ambitious,
community-wide vision provides the best outcomes for local children. In order to build
collaboration with local government to resolve broad social issues, Vernon was
elected to Mildura Rural City Council in 2002, creating strong links between the
Council and MFC. When a new CEO was appointed to the Council in 2003 it opened
up the space for new ideas, and Vernon invited Professor Tony Vinson to apply a
model he had developed for Jesuit Social Services to Mildura. Mildura Social
Indicators thus emerged from a conviction that social data should be used to
underpin community planning and evaluate outcomes. Published in 2006 and 2008,
the research measures the well-being of Mildura’s community through a diverse
range of data including family structures, rental stress, immunisation cover,
volunteering, post-schooling qualifications and library borrowing. Accumulation of
specific data enables analysis by postcode, allowing identification of exactly where
resources are most needed.
The aim of creating Mildura Social Indicators was to identify the issues which were
most pressing within the local community so that resources could be directed
towards them, and also to provide a measure for evaluating the success of projects.
Apart from detailed data analysis, the other arm of community planning in Mildura
was the establishment by Council of a Community Engagement Governance Team
which brought together key local agencies such as the police, hospital and school.
This group conducted an analysis of the municipality to determine how residents
perceived their well-being. The findings of this analysis informed the Council’s
Community Engagement Framework, with funding directed towards projects that the
local community had identified as a priority.
For Vernon, a key benefit of this community planning partnership was the recognition
that all issues are the shared responsibility of the whole community, which “spawned
a new excitement in Mildura”. Council was a crucial player in facilitating the
relationship between different groups that may not otherwise have come together.
With collaboration came “increased horsepower” which meant that suddenly “things
become fixable”. Building strong relationships between interest groups also broke
down defensiveness. Community sector organisations and Council began to perceive
that this was not an exercise in placing blame but rather one of adopting shared
responsibility.
However the partnership still faced challenges. For example, the normal advocacy
role of not-for-profit agencies means that they sometimes critique local government,
Page 10 of 27
and it takes a strong relationship to withstand this. A cultural shift was required within
some partner organisations that were accustomed to formulating priorities internally,
and therefore struggled to learn to plan collaboratively. One of the challenges faced
in Mildura is simply one of geography: it is located far from the provincial centres
where state government decisions are made. Vernon relies upon excellent managers
who enable him to travel to different parts of the region and the state to “to keep the
conversations going”.
Lessons
 Detailed social research helps to direct resources exactly where they are
needed.
 Innovative partnerships require organisations to expand their scope and
engage in practices not previously regarded as “core business”.
 Continual communication with internal and external stakeholders helps
foster healthy relationships and share new ideas.
Further information
www.communitiescount.com.au
Martin Hawson
General Manager Community and Culture
Mildura Rural City Council
martinh@mildura.vic.gov.au
0418322951
Vernon Knight
Executive Director, Mallee Family Care
Councillor for Community and Economic Development, Mildura Rural City Council
vknight@malleefamilycare.com.au
0418 502 957
Page 11 of 27
EAST GIPPSLAND EARLY YEARS PARTNERSHIP
East Gippsland Shire Council collaborated with UnitingCare Gippsland (formerly
Kilmany Uniting Care) in a joint initiative to improve the wellbeing of East
Gippsland children. What began as an attempt to avoid duplicating community
consultation around similar issues has become an ongoing partnership, with
significant dovetailing of efforts. Outcomes have included the creation of an Early
Years Committee and the formulation of the East Gippsland Municipal Early
Years Plan.
In May 2004 UnitingCare Gippsland (formerly Kilmany Uniting Care) applied to the
federal Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs for funding under the Communities for Children initiative. Over the next four
years they received $3.3 million to support the East Gippsland community to improve
the wellbeing of children from birth to five years of age. Simultaneously, the East
Gippsland Shire Council (EGS) was creating an Early Years Plan. As both initiatives
required extensive community consultation, the EGS and UnitingCare decided to
work in partnership. An Early Years Committee was established, representing
several local agencies providing services for young children. Eleven community
information forums were held in late 2004. These helped the Committee to determine
the priorities for the first round of strategies. The Early Years Committee also helped
to formulate the East Gippsland Municipal Early Years Plan 2009-2013, which was
endorsed by Council in June 2009, with an associated Action Plan endorsed one
year later. According to Anna Cook, Manager Community Programs and
Partnerships at East Gippsland Shire Council, the work of the Committee has had “a
significant impact on early years programs in East Gippsland”.
The benefits to EGS of partnering with other agencies have been enormous. Indeed
collaboration is so valued by the Shire that it is written into the East Gippsland
Strategic Plan, with community sector partnerships sought across a range of council
activities. “But it does require energy”, as Anna admits. From the not-for-profit
perspective, Rachel Bell of UnitingCare feels that the partnership has resulted in a
combined approach which means a range of diverse agencies are attempting to work
“off the same page”. UnitingCare Gippsland is committed to the partnership because
they see long-term benefits in terms of shared lessons and shared resources.
Dependency upon government support can be a limiting factor. The collaboration is
vulnerable to the destabilising effects of shifts in state and federal government
policies, which can be exacerbated by short term funding. Rachel explains that
different levels of government have different reporting requirements attached to
funding. In addition, she sees government funding as based upon outputs rather than
outcomes, whereas the East Gippsland Early Years Partnership is working from an
outcomes-based plan.
Anna feels that it is difficult for the community sector to appreciate the breadth of the
work that the Shire is involved in and the limited resources available to carry this out.
There is a tendency amongst not-for-profit agencies “to think council should do it all”.
From the other side of the partnership, Rachel explained that it can be frustrating for
NFP organisations working with the bureaucratic nature of local government.
Competing priorities and the low rate base of EGS means that limited resources are
available for work with younger years.
Page 12 of 27
Most of the effort expended to establish the Early Years Committee was in “getting a
shared understanding on what we can do and can’t do”, according to Anna. Rachel
similarly explained that partnerships “take so much longer than you anticipate” and
admitted that they can be “slow and hard at times”. Both Anna and Rachel stress that
a successful partnership is built upon lengthy conversations and building personal
relationships.
Lessons
 Sharing information is vital.
 Continual conversations about expectations need to be conducted.
o Partners “need to be realistic and honest”.
 Ongoing program funding would provide greater consistency and continuity.
 Regular reviews provide an opportunity to revisit the meaning and purpose of
a partnership.
 Resources need to be devoted to facilitation.
 Promoting a change of focus from outputs to outcomes is challenging for both
governments and NFP organisations.
Further information
http://www.eastgippslandearlyyears.org.au/
Lee Holmes
East Gippsland Shire Council
5153 9422
leeh@egipps.vic.gov.au
Rachel Bell
UnitingCare Gippsland
5152 9600
Rachel.Bell@ucgipps.org.au
Page 13 of 27
LORNE COMMUNITY BUILDING INITIATIVE PROJECT
Whilst Surf Coast Shire Council and the Lorne community have not always seen
eye-to-eye, a recent project has developed a genuinely collaborative model.
LorneCH is a community building process that brings together local community
representatives, including the Shire and the local Country Fire Authority. Whilst a
range of projects have been inspired by this collaboration, perhaps the greatest
achievement of LorneCH has been the creation of a forum where diverse
perspectives on local issues can be discussed.
Lorne is a diverse town where opinions have often split between pro-development
and pro-environment. This diversity of perspective has sometimes placed strain upon
the relationship between the community and the Surf Coast Shire.
The Lorne Community Building Initiative Project (LorneCH) began in 2006. Originally
conceived by the Lorne Community Association in an effort to create “one voice for
Lorne”, the project has ended up establishing a forum where many opinions about
Lorne’s future can be voiced. After community consultation, LorneCH established a
Steering Committee comprising representatives of Surf Coast Shire Council, the local
Country Fire Authority as fund manager and members of various local organisations,
including the hospital, school and community house. LorneCH was underpinned by a
philosophy of community strengthening, aiming to empower the Lorne community to
be able to articulate its own needs and act upon them. The major outcome of
LorneCH has been the sense of partnership and dialogue created amidst a climate
that was previously highly divided. A number of projects have also been initiated by
the Steering Committee including an Affordable Housing Project, the Lorne Aquatic
Project, Lorne Arts and the Wellsprings Project.
Benefits of this collaboration to involved parties have been substantial. For the
community, this is possibly the first time that all sections of the Lorne population have
come together, giving them a greater capacity for lobbying and advocacy. In addition,
project outcomes offer a clear and quantifiable benefit to the community, such as
renovation of the local pool. Surf Coast Shire Council has used the partnership to
build relationships with the Lorne community, enhancing their community
engagement framework. The Country Fire Authority (CFA) has used the project as a
developmental experience for its own organisation. LorneCH has offered CFA
experience as a fund manager, a chance to explore whether greater community
cohesion leads to a stronger fire brigade, and an opportunity to build better
relationships with other key organisations.
In its initial stages, this partnership faced momentous challenges. As a community
strained by social, economic and demographic changes, a diversity of perspectives
existed on what priorities the project should focus on. The major challenge to the
continuation of the project has been managing relationships. For example, so much
division existed within the community over who would manage the funds that the
CFA – as a relatively neutral party – was eventually invited to be Fund Manager.
Forced haste in the early stages of the project meant that the Lorne community was
initially unclear about what LorneCH is and what it could achieve. The community
has slowly come to appreciate that the most valuable outcome of the project is the
one most difficult to measure: LorneCH has established “a portal into the diversity of
Lorne”.
Page 14 of 27
Lessons
 Projects that are process-focused rather than outcome-driven can be highly
challenging but are ultimately most likely to foster sustainable collaborations.
 The best partnerships develop organically, rather than being forced by
external parties, so that partners feel they “own” the process.
 At the initial stages of a project (such as community consultation), it is
important to agree upon common aims and forge genuine support, through
building “clear values and sense of purpose”.
 A mid-term review was also “critical” because this opportunity for evaluation
“refocused” the project.
 A paid facilitator was crucial to the success of this volunteer-driven project, by
providing secretariat support to the Steering Committee, general support to
project teams, and assistance with public relations/advertising/fund-raising as
needed.
Further information
www.lornecbi.org.au
LorneCH Facilitator
0437 127 404
info@lornecbi.org.au
Virginia Enticott
LorneCH Steering Committee Chair
Virginia.enticott@hotmail.com
Page 15 of 27
BRIMBANK SOCIAL JUSTICE COALITION
In response to high levels of social and economic disadvantage and entrenched
structural inequalities, Brimbank City Council initiated the Brimbank Social Justice
Coalition. The Social Justice Coalition is a multi-agency partnership involving
Council, non-governmental groups, peak bodies and residents. Key roles are to
plan, lead and advocate on priority social justice issues in the municipality.
Brimbank is a large middle ring municipality in Melbourne’s west with a population of
approximately 185,000. It is highly diverse with 43% of residents born overseas. The
Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) ranks Brimbank as Melbourne’s second
most disadvantaged municipality with the median gross weekly income consistently
hovering close to the poverty line. Unemployment is high, there are low levels of
educational attainment and higher than average rates of social security transfers. In
response, Brimbank City Council adopted a Social Justice Charter in 2008 signalling
that Council has a unique and privileged role in promoting participation in the life of
the City and providing equality of opportunity. The Social Justice Charter affirms that
every local citizen deserves to enjoy basic human rights whilst recognising that many
residents are disadvantaged by reduced opportunities.
The Social Justice Charter established Council’s commitments to access, equity,
participation and human rights in policy development and service provision. The
Charter Action Plan propels these fundamental principles by identifying goals to:
a) establish the Brimbank Social Justice Coalition;
b) hold an annual Social Justice Summit;
c) prepare an organisation-wide Social Justice Implementation Plan; and
d) develop a human rights culture which promotes the Victorian Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Brimbank Social Justice Coalition was launched in November 2009 as a multiagency partnership between Council, community groups, peak bodies, welfare
agencies and local people. The Coalition is comprised of a general membership
(including individuals) and a Strategic Implementation Group which includes Council
managers and executive officers from twelve local agencies. A major goal of the
Social Justice Coalition is to lead and collaborate on advocacy strategies on behalf of
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the municipality. Social justice priorities for
the next three years include a focus upon:
 access to public transport
 affordable and accessible housing
 industry development, employment and training.
Given the long history of systemic, place-based disadvantage in Brimbank, Social
Planning and Projects Officer David Williamson commented that real change requires
collaboration between a range of committed agencies because the problems are too
complex and entrenched for any one organisation alone. For him, the benefit of the
Social Justice Coalition is that “to make systemic change you need to work together
with groups about complex issues”.
Brimbank’s involvement in the Social Justice Charter and Coalition has been a steep
learning curve. David commented that “it’s not a traditional role for local government”,
and that “the Brimbank Social Justice Coalition may be the only partnership of its
type in Victoria”. He added that: “partnership development needs to especially focus
on relationship building, trust and developing a mutually rewarding vision. It can be
Page 16 of 27
like a leap of faith and it is important to focus on the process as much as the goals
we aspire to achieve”.
One initial point of learning was that partnerships can succeed or flounder based
upon the quality of inter-personal interactions within the group. Achieving a positive
group dynamic is often enhanced by a skilled facilitator and an open conflict
resolution process, if required. David believes a mutual and reciprocal group process
will provide the successful foundation to achieve tangible short and long-term
advocacy benefits. It’s especially important the partnership model support people
“contributing to the process not taking from the process”, he said. Once the values
and parameters of the partnership process are established, the group can identify
and set about achieving short and long-term goals.
Lessons
Community based agency partnerships involving local government need:
o Teamwork: people are involved because they want to contribute and
can make a link to their agency goals
o Information: both the community and group members receive
transparent and timely information
o Mutual goals: agreement on the group’s mutual vision and goals
o Collaboration: relationships are based on trust and good will, which
can achieve more than a formal memorandum of understanding
o Consistency: people need to have their contributions valued and be
committed for the long haul
o Awareness: always promote the partnership and recognise
contributions both big and small
o To face up to the nitty gritty: factor in the need for conflict resolution,
respect for agency territory and ensure effective level of Council
strategic commitment, staffing and resources.
Further information
David Williamson
Social Planning and Projects Officer
Brimbank City Council
davidwi@brimbank.vic.gov.au
9249 4691
Page 17 of 27
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS WORKING GROUP - SOUTHERN GRAMPIANS &
GLENELG PRIMARY CARE PARTNERSHIP
Under the auspices of the Southern Grampians & Glenelg Primary Care Partnership,
Glenelg Shire Council and Southern Grampian Shire Council have joined with notfor-profit organisations and state government to create the Social Connections
Working Group. The partnership aims to help south-western Victorians become more
socially connected, as part of the wider efforts of the PCP to facilitate best practice
health promotion. Joint planning, expertise sharing and a more effective use of
resources have been some of the successes of the collaboration.
The Southern Grampians & Glenelg Primary Care Partnership (SGG PCP) views the
initiation of partnerships as central to what it does. Placing collaboration squarely in
the centre of their organisational aims has earnt the partnership a reputation for
meaningful engagement with both local government and not-for-profit agencies. As
Janette Lowe – Executive Officer of SGG PCP – explained, “sometimes facilitating a
partnership is as simple as knowing that two organisations are doing the same thing”.
One example of collaboration is the Social Connections Working Group, which aims
to help people in the region become more socially connected. The Working Group is
composed of four not-for-profit agencies (Aspire, Community Connections, Brophy
and Kyema), two local councils (Glenelg and Southern Grampians) and
representatives of state government. Janette sees the aim of the Working Group as
“getting key players around the table to plan and prioritise together” to ensure that
“resources are used in the best possible way”. Through building solid relationships,
the Social Connections Working Group is identifying best practice health promotion
to engage locals in their communities.
Knowledge-sharing has been a key benefit gained from the partnership. Members of
the Working Group have their own areas of specific expertise, but by coming together
they can take a whole-of-population approach. The complexity of social and
community issues favours partnerships, because “complex problems need
collaborative solutions” in Janette’s opinion. The input of multiple partners in a project
guarantees its longevity, for it means that the project will not collapse if one person
leaves. Janette also believes that by pooling energy and effort, partnerships give
their members license to examine social issues in their entirety rather than being
forced by their organisation’s mandate to restrict their scope.
The differences of opinion that exist within a partnership can be both an advantage
and a challenge. Nine months passed before the members of the Social Connections
Working Group were “all on the same page”, which was a process of matching
commitment and capacity. To Janette, genuine collaborative action always takes
time. It requires a shift in mentality from seeing the partnership as extra work to
seeing collaboration as central to everyone’s work practices. She stresses however,
that partnerships cannot be forced: “if there are too many barriers or it is not the right
time you have to accept that”. Another challenge she identified to working in
partnership is that the stakes are high when several organisations are involved.
Negativity can spread rapidly and sour relationships for a long time. For the Social
Connections Working Group, a particular challenge has been geographic spread;
long distances between organisations in this rural region makes collaboration harder,
though fortunately group members are committed to making the effort to meet faceto-face.
Page 18 of 27
Lessons
 Patience is key, for collaborative thinking takes time.
 Open, plain language communication is crucial, alongside the interpersonal
skills necessary to appreciate the positions of others.
 A facilitator who is seen to possess third party neutrality increases the
success rates of collaboration.
Further information
www.sggpcp.com
Janette Lowe
Executive Officer
Southern Grampians & Glenelg Primary Care Partnership
janette.lowe@wdhs.net
5551 8452
Page 19 of 27
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND INCLUSION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
Surf Coast Shire Council and Colac Otway Shire Council came together with
community organisations and state government to formulate a collaborative
strategy to help groups vulnerable to fire emergencies. Commencing immediately
prior to Black Saturday in 2009, the Project was forced to adapt its objectives in
the wake of the natural disaster. Project achievements include the genuine
consultation that emerged under their community engagement framework and the
creation of a joint approach to bushfire preparation between responsible
agencies.
The Surf Coast and Otway regions are highly vulnerable to fire emergencies. Several
years ago concerns emerged for the Surf Coast Shire Council that more planning
needed to be done to cater to the needs of people with disabilities in an emergency
situation. In early 2009 a Steering Committee was established with representatives
from the Country Fire Authority (CFA), Colac Otway Shire Council, Surf Coast Shire
Council, Department of Human Services and Scope (disability services). Managed by
CFA – Barwon Corangamite Region, the partnership received $60,000 from the
Victorian Emergency Management Grants Program (Office of the Emergency
Services Commissioner) and $60,000 of actual and in-kind contributions from CFA
and other stakeholders.
Using a community engagement framework, the Community Safety and Inclusion
Partnership Project (the Project) aimed to bring together key agencies to help the
most vulnerable members of local communities develop safety plans. But just days
after the Project began, the Black Saturday bushfires of 9 February 2009 tore across
the state, overwhelming the emergency services sector and complicating the issues
which the Project was trying to address.
As Project Officer Birgitte Hutchens said, the “intensity of speculation and concern”
about fire risk in the Otways drove the Project into unforeseen areas. She found that
levels of anxiety in the community were high, particularly amongst older residents,
meaning that their expectations of the Project were often unrealistic. Community
attitudes towards risk and safety were so radically changed by Black Saturday that
Birgitte had to adapt her own expectations of what her work should focus upon, as it
“forced the Project into listening and answering, rather than doing”. But the Project
did have significant outcomes, including community information sessions, the
development of risk profiles, the creation of a resource on Vulnerability/Resilience, a
Stakeholder Analysis and Communications Strategy and the creation of
communication channels between councils and the community.
The Community Safety and Inclusion Partnership Project has fostered a recognition
that adequate bushfire responses require the collaboration of many key agencies.
Within the partnership, each agency brings its own special resources and expertise
to bear on a common issue of concern. Different stakeholders such as the CFA,
police and health services are now aware of what other agencies are doing, and talk
to vulnerable groups about what their needs are. The Project has taken a particularly
local approach that is place-based and recognises the knowledge already existing
within the community, whilst also establishing a cross-regional collaboration with the
Grampians.
Challenges have certainly arisen for this Project, particularly the occurrence of Black
Saturday: which heightened awareness of the Project but also created additional
Page 20 of 27
complications. The large numbers of safety programs that have sprouted in the
aftermath of the fires has created confusion and the Project has been slowed by the
need to wait for high level policy decisions such as the findings of the 2009 Bushfires
Royal Commission. The Project also came under pressure to broaden its scope and
to hasten its delivery before the 2010 fire season. For someone like Birgitte who
believes in community empowerment, it is difficult to strike a balance between giving
communities responsibility for their own fire safety and the duty of emergency
services agencies to protect them. Birgitte admits that “genuine community
engagement is difficult”, but she believes that this is a more sustainable model for
partnerships.
Lessons
 The quality of inter-personal relationships determines the strength of the
collaboration.
 There is a need to understand other organisations and how they operate.
 The differing capacities and expectations of partner agencies need to be
managed.
 Centralised state government policies need to find regional or local
expression.
 A Project Officer is essential to providing communication between team
members and following through on initiatives.
Further information
Sharon Rawlings
Community Development Coordinator
CFA Barwon South West Region
s.rawlings@cfa.vic.gov.au
0418 177 180
Page 21 of 27
WHITTLESEA COMMUNITY FUTURES
In response to a swiftly changing municipality in which community services
struggle to keep up, the City of Whittlesea Council initiated an ambitious
partnership of over forty community organisations. The vision of the partnership
is to create a connected and inclusive community shaping its own future. The
priorities for the partnership are Youth, Positive Ageing, Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Communities (CALD) and Family and Children, whilst
activities include advocacy, joint planning, collective actions and pursuing
resources.
The City of Whittlesea is one of Victoria’s fastest growing municipalities. The rapid
population growth, extension of urban growth boundaries and the transformation of
Whittlesea into a growth corridor of metropolitan significance has stretched its
services and infrastructure to its limits. In response to the growing demands of its
population, the City of Whittlesea Council joined together in a substantial partnership
with over 40 human services agencies, community-based organisations and state
government departments to deliver the Whittlesea Community Futures (WCF) Project
in 2006. Initially funded by the Department of Planning and Community Development
from 2006-2009, in 2010 the City of Whittlesea Council and a couple of partner
agencies continued to fund the partnership. Funding supports a full time role to
facilitate the partnership and perform secretariat support. But Project Officer
Thiyagerajah Abarajitha (Abi) explains that “though the City of Whittlesea is the
founder of the partnership, partners contribute equally to decisions”.
The vision of the WCF partnership is to create a connected inclusive community that
shapes its own future. This is to be achieved through developing innovative service
models, joint planning and pursuing resources for services and facilities that provide
improved support for the Whittlesea community. Since its inception in 2006, WCF
has steadily evolved into a strong partnership of multidisciplinary agencies and
earned a good reputation as a cross-sectoral and united planning and advocacy body
for the Whittlesea community. Carmen Faelis of the Salvation Army Crossroads
explains that the partnership strengthens inter-agency relationships and allows for
community planning that has the end result of reducing duplication. Maarten Post of
Plenty Valley Community Health describes the WCF as offering an opportunity for
looking more broadly than the scope of any one organisation: it provides a “bigger
window onto the issues you’re interested in”.
In 2010, the partnership revisited its organisational structure and scope to include
Youth, Positive Ageing, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities (CALD)
and Family and Children. “Clusters” have been formed for all four priorities which
include agencies working in those domains, led by member agencies from the
partnership. These clusters constitute the working force of the partnership in those
priority areas. The full partnership sets the strategic directions for the clusters and
plays a very strong role in advocacy. The new structure has devolved the power base
to the periphery, as well as giving member agencies a sense of increased
participation and inclusiveness in decision making.
The WCF Partnership has achieved a range of outcomes to date including: the
Cultural Bridges Project (strengthening cultural connections through an envisaged
purpose-built facility); the Shape Your Future – Thomastown/Lalor Project (a
neighbourhood renewal and community regeneration project in two disadvantaged
suburbs); the Bubup Wilam for Early Learning (an Aboriginal kindergarten); the
Page 22 of 27
Creeds Farm Living and Learning Centre (a hub for community activities based upon
principles of life long learning); and the Youth & Community Project (focusing on
youth leadership for the community). The partnership has played a very strong role in
advocacy, so that it is now viewed as the “voice of the human services community of
the City of Whittlesea”. It has continuously engaged state and federal departments
and politicians through structured dialogue and active lobbying on issues affecting
Whittlesea communities, resulting in additional resources being allocated to
Whittlesea. One of the clearest measures of the benefits of this partnership was its
rapid response to the 2009 bushfires, the speed of which was premised on the
mutual cooperation already established.
The collaboration has not been without challenges. One of the challenges was to
make the member agencies feel that they are equal and active stakeholders in the
partnership, which was addressed through changes to the governance structure of
the partnership. Maarten feels that the establishment of these cluster groups also
helped address another challenge: that “sometimes inertia can set in” amongst large
groups. With such a large group the different priorities of agencies have to be
balanced, according to Carmen, and it can be difficult to secure equal commitment
from all involved. The City of Whittlesea Council has sustained the WCF partnership
beyond 2011 by a permanent part-time facilitator role and has encouraged the
member agencies to contribute to strengthening it further with a full-time facilitator
role. The partnership has also been able to establish better cooperation among local
agencies and those wanting to extend their service delivery to Whittlesea, through
facilitation of dialogue and the creation of a shared vision.
Lessons
 Any operational model has to be inclusive with clearly defined roles for
agencies and ample opportunities to participate.
 Power & leadership has to be devolved rather than being centralised and
having semi-autonomous, smaller groups can help this happen.
 A facilitator can play a key role in putting pieces together, helping to
identify needs and taking an overarching perspective to help find common
solutions.
 An effective partnership takes a long time and needs to be resourced.
Further information
Thiyagerajah Abarajitha
Whittlesea Community Futures Project Officer
(03) 9217 2524
thiyagerajah.abarajitha@whittlesea.vic.gov.au
http://www.whittleseacommunityfutures.org.au/
Maarten Post, Senior Manager, Population Health & Research
Plenty Valley Community Health Ltd
(03) 9409 8788
maarten.post@pvch.org.au
Carmen Faelis, Senior Manager, Strategic and Community Building
The Salvation Army Crossroads
(03) 9353 1019
carmen.faelis@aus.salvationarmy.org
Page 23 of 27
Conclusion
Local government collaboration with the community sector has never been without
complications. The introductory discussion and case studies in this publication
demonstrate that this is truer now than ever. Whilst local governments used to deliver
a multitude of human services, this is now more often the role of not-for-profit
organisations. But such organisations do not necessarily align with municipal plans or
consult with local government before opening local services. A lack of conversation
between local, state and federal governments can sometimes be an additional
complicating factor. Simultaneously, local governments are grappling with challenges
including more legal responsibilities and a more competitive human services
environment dominated by market values. All of these issues deserve further
exploration, particularly in the context of the rapid growth of many new communities
throughout Victoria and their urgent need for services.
Every community is unique and to some extent faces its own particular challenges.
Nevertheless, some common themes emerge across our case studies and historical
discussion. Whilst there are vast differences between not-for-profit organisations and
local government, they also share some fundamentals, such as a concern to provide
quality community services to Victorians.
Whilst this publication has raised challenges, it has also proposed opportunities and
solutions. At a minimum, the purpose and role of community organisations and local
governments needs to be clarified. Collaboration has to involve mutual effort and
mutual benefit. Beyond this, there is a range of approaches that can be explored.
Local government can seek out neighbourhood level partnerships to deal with micro
issues, and it can look to regional collaborations more suited to larger-scale issues.
Thematic collaborations could be attempted which bring together all levels of
government and relevant not-for-profit organisations with an interest in a particular
area, such as youth services.
Ultimately local government is the natural agency to coordinate place-based
community planning. Given that all communities have their own characteristics, local
government is ideally situated to identify and provide for local needs. But
municipalities can only do this effectively in partnership with all levels of government
and particularly with the community sector. There is no single way for local
government and community organisations to work together. We hope this publication
contributes to ongoing debate about exactly what local government community
engagement means and the many methods by which it can happen.
Page 24 of 27
Key partnership resources
Human Service Partnership Implementation Committee, Partnering in Progress
(Victorian Council of Social Services and the Victorian Department of Human
Services, October 2009).
http://www.vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/HSPIC/Partnering%20in%20Pr
ogress_Final_091029.pdf
John McLeod, The Partnerships Analysis Tool (VicHealth).
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/About%20Us/Attachments/VHP%20part%20
toollow%20res.ashx
Jeanette Pope and Prue Jolly, Working in Partnership: Practical advice for running
effective partnerships (Victorian Department of Planning and Community
Development, April 2008).
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/web14/dvc/dvcmain.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/research+a
nd+publicationspartnerships
Public Services Productivity Panel (UK), Effective Partnership Working (April 2002).
Ros Tennyson, The Partnering Toolbook (The International Business Leaders Forum
(IBLF) and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), 2004).
http://www.thepartneringinitiative.org/docs/tpi/pt/PartneringToolbookEng.pdf
Victorian Council of Social Services, Partnership Practice Guide (2009)
http://www.vcoss.org.au/what-we-do/community-sector/human-services.htm
Page 25 of 27
Attachment 1
Local Government Community Engagement and Planning Reference Group
Name
Organisation
Clare Hargreaves
Municipal Association of Victoria
Maree McPherson
Victorian Local Governance Association
Robin Matthews
Local Government Victoria,
Community Development
Janice Raux
Southern Metropolitan Regional Team, Department of Planning
& Community Development
Cath Smith
Victorian Council of Social Services
Lynne Wannan
Office for the Community Sector, Department of Planning &
Community Development
Department
of
Planning
&
Page 26 of 27
Attachment 2
Participants in Community Collaboration Seminar
Name
Organisation
Meredith Sussex
Brimbank City Council
Ron Brownlees
Kingston City Council
Bill McArthur
Golden Plains Shire Council
Glenyys Romanes
Department of Transport
Trudy Wyse
Melbourne Community Foundation
Bruce DuVergier
Community Connections
Sam Biondo
Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association
Stella Avramopolous
Kildonan
Barry Hahn
City of Moreland
Clare Hargreaves
Municipal Association of Victoria
Robin Matthews
Local Government Victoria, DPCD
Janice Raux
Southern
DPCD
Cath Smith
Victorian Council of Social Services
Carla Pascoe
Office for the Community Sector, DPCD
Leonie Morgan
Office for the Community Sector, DPCD
Lynne Wannan
Office for the Community Sector, DPCD
Caitlin Murray
Office for the Community Sector, DPCD
Metropolitan
Regional
Team,
Page 27 of 27