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."
 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
Continuum of Playgroups
Increasing level of family and service
support
Intensive
(agency-led)
Families move
between formats
according to need
Facilitated
(agency-led)
Community
Playgroups
(parent-led)
At the interface between
supported and intensive there
may be planned transitions
At the interface between
community and
supported there may be
occasional support
Outcomes
Nurturing children, supporting families, building
communities
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 ]
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}
 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.
Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy Final
version submitted to the World Bank Research Observer
To be published in Vol. 15(2), 2000
Social Capital
Group 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
•
•
•
•
•
Trust
•
Narayan and Cassidy 2001
Have you volunteered
Expectations of volunteering
Have you helped someone
Criticism of not volunteering
Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Trust of family, neighbourhood, other tribes, business,
government, service providers, justice organisations
Less social capital as vulnerability increases
Absence of benefits of
social capital
Continuum of Playgroups
Increasing level of family and service
support
Intensive
(agency-led)
Families move
between formats
according to need
Facilitated
(agency-led)
Community
Playgroups
(parent-led)
At the interface between
supported and intensive there
may be planned transitions
At the interface between
community and
supported there may be
occasional support
Social Capital: Community Playgroups
•
•
•
•
•
•
# 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.
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.
Togetherness
•
•
How well people get along
Togetherness of people
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
Volunteerism
•
•
•
•
•
Have you volunteered
Expectations of volunteering
Have you helped someone
Criticism of not volunteering
Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Purely volunteer based . Parents are
expected to participate as best they can in
the playgroup and encouraged to take on
decision making duties
Trust
•
Trust of family, neighbourhood,
other tribes, business,
government, service providers,
justice organisations
Group
Characteristics
•
20,000 families a week attending playgroup.
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 activity
 58% said children benefit through learning to take turns and
share
Are the benefits of playgroups shared
evenly?
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?
Individualised
Community Wide
STRENGTHS
 INTENSITY
PRESSURES
High
Pressure
High
Strength
Low
Strength
High
Pressure
Low
pressure
High
Strength
Low
Strength
Low
pressure
THE INTERPLAY OF COMMUNITIES:
The Differing Strategies For Empowerment
Low Strength
Low Pressure
Low Pressure
High Strength
High pressure
High Strength
Low Strength
High Pressure
 UK Children in Need
 Owen & Gill., The Missing Side of the Triangle
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.
STRENGTHS
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 dualheritage children, and children
with disabilities.
Social network development
(eg clubs, playgroups)
Local schools provide inclusive
and supportive environment.
PRESSURES
PARENTS
CHILDREN
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 outof-school activities.
No specific resources for black,
other minority ethnic or dualheritage children, or children
with disabilities
Local schools provide poor
educational and social
environment
(eg low achievement, bullying)
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
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)
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)
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
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.
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
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)
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
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 dualheritage children and children
with disabilities see facilities as
accessible)
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
The full publication, incorporating research and practice examples, is available from Barnardo’s UK Childcare Publications
Individualised
Community Wide
STRENGTHS
 INTENSITY
PRESSURES
Intensive
Playgroups
Transitional
Model
Supported/
Facilitated
Playgroups
Community Playgroups
Transitional
Model
Intensive
Playgroups
Supported
Playgroups
Limited
Transitional
Model
Community Playgroups
Transitional
Model
Intensive
Playgroups
Supported
Playgroups
Transitional Model
Community Playgroups
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.
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.
 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)
Social Capital
Group 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
•
•
•
•
•
Trust
•
Narayan and Cassidy 2001
Have you volunteered
Expectations of volunteering
Have you helped someone
Criticism of not volunteering
Fair contribution to neighbourhood
Trust of family, neighbourhood, other tribes, business,
government, service providers, justice organisations
Less social capital as vulnerability increases
Absence of benefits of
social capital
Continuum of Playgroups
Increasing level of family and service
support
Intensive
(agency-led)
Families move
between formats
according to need
Facilitated
(agency-led)
Community
Playgroups
(parent-led)
At the interface between
supported and intensive there
may be planned transitions
At the interface between
community and
supported there may be
occasional support
 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.
Individualised
Community Wide
High Social Capital already
exists
 INTENSITY
Social Capital needs to be built
▫ INTENSITY
Vast
proportion
of families
can
participate
in
community
playgroups
and
organise
these
These families participate well in
kindergarten, child care and school
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
How are you working with
your supported playgroups
to transition these families?
▫ INTENSITY of FACILITATION
Lowest 2-3%
Vast
proportion
of families
can
participate in
community
playgroups
and organise
these
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
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
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.
How are you working with your
supported & intensive playgroups to
transition these families?
How are playgroups useful in the institutional/
formal early childhood setting
 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
Why playgroups are useful to child outcomes in
early childhood.
 Children learn and grow in relationship with their parents:
Companionable Learning- Dr Roberts
 Parents are children’s first and most enduring educatorsParents 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.
For vulnerable children and families
 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.
 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.