1. Community Adversity and Resilience: the distribution of social disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales and the mediating role of social cohesion

2. Community Adversity and Resilience SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE FACTORS Unemployment Long-term Unemployment Low Income Early School Leaving Non-completion Yr12 Schooling Unskilled Workers Low Birth Weight Child Abuse Psychiatric Hospital Admissions Criminal Offence Convictions Child Injuries Imprisonment Threat Severance Electric Supply Mortality Disability/Sickness Allowance

3. Community Adversity and Resilience Unequal in Life (1999)

4. Community Adversity and Resilience Unequal in Life (1999)

5. Community Adversity and Resilience 30% 43% 27%

6. Community Adversity and Resilience SOCIAL COHESION FACTORS – *VICTORIA Participation in organised recreation/sports groups Volunteering Availability of informal help *(277 of the 647 Victorian postcodes met criteria for inclusion – ie, minimum of 10 respondents for each of the three data sets used)

7. Low social cohesion High social cohesion Limited Education and Low Birth Weight are strongly associated (0.45) with The connection is even stronger (0.55) The connection is much weaker (0.12) Community Adversity and Resilience, Tony Vinson, March 2004 (Jesuit Social Services) Ch 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE CYCLE OF DISADVANTAGE Community Adversity and Resilience

8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE CYCLE OF DISADVANTAGE Early School Leaving across local population and Imprisonment are strongly associated (0.47) Low social cohesion Connection remains strong (0.46) Connection is very much weaker (0.11) High social cohesion with Community Adversity and Resilience, Tony Vinson, March 2004 (Jesuit Social Services) Ch 5 Community Adversity and Resilience

9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE CYCLE OF DISADVANTAGE Low social cohesion The connection is even stronger (0.75) The connection is greatly reduced (0.22) High social cohesion with Unemployment rate and rate of Imprisonment are strongly connected (0.65) Community Adversity and Resilience, Tony Vinson, March 2004 (Jesuit Social Services) Ch 5 Community Adversity and Resilience

10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE CYCLE OF DISADVANTAGE Low social cohesion Strength of association remains about the same (0.63) The association is considerably weaker (0.28) High social cohesion with Early School Leaving is strongly associated with rate of Unemployment (0.64) Community Adversity and Resilience, Tony Vinson, March 2004 (Jesuit Social Services) Ch 5 Community Adversity and Resilience

11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE CYCLE OF DISADVANTAGE Low social cohesion The strength of the relationship remains unchanged (0.46) There is a dramatic reduction in degree of association (0.10) High social cohesion with Low Work Skills and rate of Imprisonment are strongly connected (0.47) Community Adversity and Resilience, Tony Vinson, March 2004 (Jesuit Social Services) Ch 5 Community Adversity and Resilience

12. TABLE 5.1 – CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANTECEDENT AND OUTCOME VARIABLES FOR DIFFERENT DEGREES OF SOCIAL COHESION IN VICTORIA Overall Correlation (Vic sub- sample) N=277 Low Social Cohesion N=83 Medium Social Cohesion N=120 High Social Cohesion N=74 Unemployment/Low Birth Wt..46**.46.39.28 Early School Leaving/Low Birth Wt..45**.56.36.16 Year 12 Incomplete/Low Birth Wt..45**.55.38.12 Unemployment/Imprisonment.65**.75.64.22 Unemployment/Early School Leaving.64**.63.65.28 Unemployment/Court Convictions.73**.70.73.50

13. Community Adversity and Resilience TABLE 5.1 – CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANTECEDENT AND OUTCOME VARIABLES FOR DIFFERENT DEGREES OF SOCIAL COHESION IN VICTORIA (cont’d.) Overall Correlation (Vic sub-sample) N=277 Low Social Cohesion N=83 Medium Social Cohesion N=120 High Social Cohesion N=74 Early School Leaving/Imprisonment.47**.46.43.11 Low Family Income/Imprisonment.55**.62.52.18 Year 12 Incomplete/Imprisonment.35**.26.32.03 Low Work Skills/Imprisonment.47**.46.44.10 Unemployment/Child Abuse.68**.56.72.40 Low Family Income/Child Abuse.68**.53.72.45

14. Community Adversity and Resilience FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF TENANTS IN A PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATE: What factors could explain why residents participated in resident association action groups? What type of person was more likely to assume a greater degree of responsibility in such organisations?

15. Community Adversity and Resilience PARTICIPATION WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL DEGREE OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION RESIDENTS POSSESSED WITHIN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD: How long they had lived in the area Whether they intended remaining there The extent of their local social networks The balance between family needs, personal aspirations and competing commitments

16. Community Adversity and Resilience THE PROFILE OF AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT, LIKELY TO BECOME A COMMUNITY LEADER: Female Dependent children (not pre-school age) Australian born High sense of belonging to the area Working part-time or unemployed Already active in other associations

17. CONCLUSION SOCIAL EXCLUSION BREEDS SOCIAL ALIENATION, WITH INCREASES IN: CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT YOUTH SCHOOL DROP OUT MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER SUBSTANCE MISUSE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS PRISON EXPANSION Community Adversity and Resilience

18. CONCLUSION – cont’d SUCH HIGH BUDGET ITEMS ABSORB AN INCREASING PERCENTAGE OF THE STATE’S BUDGET, BUT GENERALLY FAIL TO CREATE A MORE COHESIVE SOCIETY. STATE GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN BUILDING SOCIAL COHESION BY TARGETTING AREAS OF ENTRENCHED SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE.

19. Community Adversity and Resilience: the distribution of social disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales and the mediating role of social cohesion