What is a healthy community? How do we build an evidence base at the community level?
Kerry Batchler, Executive Director, Strategic Policy – 9 May 2007
Presentation overview
• Alignment with Government priorities • Definition of a healthy community – the triple bottom line approach • Building an evidence base – at the community level • Communities Statistical Information System (COMSIS) • The way forward – some reflections
What is a healthy community?
• Before identifying and attempting to resolve the impediments to data sharing and spatial mapping, it was necessary to reach broad agreement within the Working Group regarding what the concept of a healthy community encompassed. • Focus, from the outset, was to adopt a triple bottom line approach to measuring health – covering the economic AND the environmental AND the social aspects of life in communities. • Noticeably different to simply focussing on measuring, analysing and reporting on the collective health of communities or on health outcomes as the most appropriate indicator of the „health‟ of a community.
What is a healthy community?
• The focus taken also: – recognised that a range of Queensland government agencies have an interest in and an impact on the „health‟ of communities; – placed emphasis on the community level not the individual; and, therefore – lent itself to description and analysis which is place or location based. • The Working Group also saw the concept of „healthy communities‟ as underpinned by a sense of vitality – a strength based concept.
Aligning with Queensland Government’s Priorities
• Triple bottom-line approach aligns with Queensland Government‟s priorities and strategic direction:
To ensure a better quality of life for all Queenslanders, the Government has identified community outcomes that it is working to achieve for the people of Queensland. These outcomes represent a comprehensive list of the Government’s objectives for the community. They encompass all aspects of community experiences, including economic development, community wellbeing and environmental sustainability. All government services contribute to the achievement of one or more of these outcomes for the community
(Priorities in Progress: Queensland 2005-2006, 2006: 1).
Differing relationships with communities
• Each government agency, however, has a slightly different relationship with Queensland‟s communities as a result of the: – different role they play; – different services provided; and – different impacts sought. • Not surprisingly, different conceptualisations of „communities‟ are apparent in the strategic plans of, and reports from, those agencies.
Review of key literature
• This reality mirrors the broad range of concepts discussed in the key research literature in relation to „healthy‟ communities. These concepts include: – Quality of life; – the well-being of a community; – Sustainable communities; – Strong communities; and – Resilient communities.
• This array of concepts had the potential to confuse, rather than clarify the way ahead for the Working Group
Working definition
• Pragmatic approach adopted:
The overall health of a community is the combined effect of the level of social, environmental and economic well-being of the people and the place in which they live. ‘Health’ = the strength or capacity of a community to provide an environmentally, economically and socially sound place to live.
Working definition
• Definition is NOT State Government policy – but adopted to support the development of a proof-of-concept (POC) of: what an integrated set of indicators, measures and data; with a human services / community services; that could be presented and analysed spatially . . .
. . . might look like; and . . . . what would be needed to make that POC a reality.
Building an evidence base – at the community level
For the past 2 years, the Department of Communities has been progressing a significant internal change agenda to ensure that its planning and resource allocation process is: – evidence based; – benefits those most in need; – addresses the highest risks; and – is consistent with and contributes to achievement of Queensland Government priorities.
Reflection on the learnings gained from the journey taken to inform possible whole-of-government strategy to build an evidence base at the community level
Building an evidence base – key Qs to be answered?
The Department of Communities‟ evidence base for its strategic planning, policy development, program design and service delivery, is being built around finding answers to 3 key questions: What is an outcome? Change in the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities attributable, in whole or in part, to an intervention or series of interventions Who and where are our clients? Valid and reliable indicators of disadvantage, need and risk affecting the wellbeing of individuals, families and communities What are our interventions? Best practice policy and services delivered to identified high need populationslocations
Key building blocks
• Agreed definition of key concepts endorsed in policy – e.g. disadvantage, need, risk, protective factors, demand, service supply and community capacity • Process and system to support ongoing development of understanding of relationship between those key concepts (evidence based management) • Agreed upon quality indicators and measures of those key concepts • Communities Statistical Information System (COMSIS) linking key data using common geography – developed by OESR • Process and system for matching and mapping and human / community services and needs • Partnerships – internal and external
COMSIS - geographically linked reliable and key data
• Extremely powerful tool for, and success factor, in progressing change agenda and improved planning and analysis processes • Purpose built and maintained by OESR for the Department • Platform through which to progress, across the state, a core set of common standards and information for identifying disadvantage, need and risk • Houses data measuring „sentinel indicators‟ of risk and protective factors relevant to the Department‟s target groups and mandate • Data linked using a common geography (Statistical Local Area) that concords to administrative regional boundaries
COMSIS (cont’d)
• Used to provide, in excel workbook format, at-a-glance combined information relevant to key policy areas or departmental programs including: – location; – comparative disadvantage; – relative need; and – risk (proxy - proportion of target population). • By June / July 2007, will include departmental data regarding funded services (locality, type, activity) and departmental assets.
Building an evidence base - The Big Bang?
• Release of Census 2006 data will provide Queensland with, for the first time, the necessary new capacity for dynamic analysis – recent, accurate, small area data on a greatly expanded set of demographic, social (including social capital) and economic information for the whole population built up from unit records. • Human services / community services agencies need to build, test and prove new capability - methods and tools – which can make better use of the Census information for policy, planning and service development and sustain and extend that advantage up to 2012 when the next set of Census data becomes available.
Matching + Mapping Needs and Services
• •
•
•
Agencies need to be able to demonstrate the interaction and impact of multiple need and service factors at the same time. Requires new graphical mechanisms to support using data to focus on key issues. To be relevant to the community the mechanisms must be „placebased‟ but be flexible enough to be „issues based‟. Two new capabilities are being tested in the Department: 1. Matching need to services in one analytical framework; 2. Presenting analysis of need and funded services in map format.
An evidence base for Healthy Communities
• Learnings from the Department of Communities‟ journey provide clear support for: – Whole-of-government investment in information architecture to support improved spatial mapping and analysis of key social, economic and environmental data; – Government investment in collection of reliable data to strategically fill critical gaps in our human services evidence base e.g. community capacity and strength;
An evidence base for Healthy Communities (cont’d)
– Increased accessibility and availability of reliable data at a finer grain geographical level to support mapping and analysis relevant to “communities of interest”; and – Commitment between agencies, such as that showcased by QSIC and its Healthy Communities‟ Working Group, to share information and strategically build Queensland‟s evidence base regarding the economic, environmental and social “health” of communities and what is required, by government, to support improvements in community strength.
Questions?